Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutJanuary 10, 2022 Planning & Development Committee Meeting Agenda January 10, 2022 Electronic Meeting – 7:00 pm Chair: Councillor Pickles Due to COVID-19, the City of Pickering continues to hold electronic Council and Committee Meetings. Members of the public may observe the meeting proceedings by viewing the livestream. A recording of the meeting will also be available on the City’s website following the meeting. Page 1. Roll Call 2. Disclosure of Interest 3. Statutory Public Meetings Statutory Public Meetings are held to receive input and feedback on certain types of planning applications. Due to the need to hold electronic meetings during the COVID-19 pandemic, members of the public who wish to address the Planning & Development Committee for any matters listed under Statutory Public Meetings may do so via an audio connection into the electronic meeting. To register as a delegate, visit www.pickering.ca/delegation and complete the on-line delegation form or email clerks@pickering.ca by 12:00 noon on the business day prior to the meeting. Please ensure that you provide the telephone number you wish to be called at so that you can be connected via audio when it is your turn to make a delegation. Please be advised that your name and address will appear in the public record and will be posted on the City’s website as part of the meeting minutes. 3.1 Information Report No. 01-22 1 Zoning By-law Amendment Application A 11/21 Greyrock Consolidated Holdings Corporation Part Lot 21, Concession 1 3.2 Information Report No. 02-22 22 Zoning By-law Amendment Application A 10/21 1023343 Ontario Inc. 4973 Brock Road 4. Delegations Due to COVID-19, members of the public looking to provide a verbal delegation to Members of the Planning & Development Committee for any matters listed under For information related to accessibility requirements please contact: Committee Coordinator 905.420.4611 clerks@pickering.ca Planning & Development Committee Meeting Agenda January 10, 2022 Electronic Meeting – 7:00 pm Chair: Councillor Pickles Planning and Development Reports, may do so via an audio connection into the electronic meeting. To register as a delegate, visit www.pickering.ca/delegation, and complete the on-line delegation form or email clerks@pickering.ca. Persons who wish to speak to an item that is on the agenda must register by 12:00 noon on the last business day before the meeting. All delegations for items not listed on the agenda shall register ten (10) days prior to the meeting date. The list of delegates who have registered to speak will be called upon one by one by the Chair and invited to join the meeting via audio connection. A maximum of 10 minutes shall be allotted for each delegation. Please ensure you provide the phone number that you wish to be contacted on. Please be advised that your name and address will appear in the public record and will be posted on the City’s website as part of the meeting minutes. 4.1 Eileen Higdon Re: Report PLN 01-22 City Initiated Zoning By-law Amendment Proposed Reduction of the Maximum Dwelling Height for Infill and Replacement Dwellings -File: A 12/21 4.2 Paula MacDonald Re: Report PLN 01-22 City Initiated Zoning By-law Amendment Proposed Reduction of the Maximum Dwelling Height for Infill and Replacement Dwellings -File: A 12/21 4.3 Michael Testaguzza, Planner, The Biglieri Group Ltd. Re: Report PLN 04-22 Zoning By-law Amendment Application A 08/20 Steele Valley Developments Ltd., 334979 Ontario Ltd., Pickering Square Inc., and Pickering Square (1986) Inc. (1300, 1360, 1450 and 1550 Kingston Road) 5. Planning & Development Reports 5.1 Director, Corporate Services & City Solicitor, Report LEG 01-22 Marshall Homes (Village) Ltd. – Plan of Subdivision 40M-2177 -Final Assumption of Plan of Subdivision For information related to accessibility requirements please contact: Committee Coordinator 905.420.4611 clerks@pickering.ca 33 Planning & Development Committee Meeting Agenda January 10, 2022 Electronic Meeting – 7:00 pm Chair: Councillor Pickles -Municipal works on Liverpool Road and Wharf Street adjacent to Block 1, Plan 40M-2177 -1295 Wharf Street -File: 40M-2177 Recommendation: 1. That works and services required by the Subdivision Agreement within Liverpool Road and Wharf Street, adjacent to or outside Plan 40M-2177, which are constructed, installed or located on lands dedicated to, or owned by the City, or on lands lying immediately adjacent thereto, including lands that are subject to easements transferred to the City, be accepted and assumed for maintenance; 2. That Marshall Homes (Village) Ltd. be released from the provisions of the Subdivision Agreement and any amendments thereto relating to the works on Liverpool Road and Wharf Street outside of Plan 40M-2177; and, 3. That the appropriate City of Pickering officials be authorized to take the actions necessary to implement the recommendations in this report. 5.2 Director, Corporate Services & City Solicitor, Report LEG 02-22 Serenade Homes Inc. – Plan of Subdivision 40M-2153 -Final Assumption of Plan of Subdivision - Blocks 1 to 4, 40M-2153 and Block 11 and Part of Block 25, 40M-1231 being Parts 1, 2 & 3, 40R-21924 -1775 and 1801 Valley Farm Road -File: 40M-2153 Recommendation: 1. That the portion of Valley Farm Road adjacent to Plan 40M-2557 be assumed for public use; 2. That works and services required by the Subdivision Agreement outside of/adjacent to Blocks 1, 2, 3 and 4, Plan 40M-2153 and Parts 1, 2 and 3, 40R-21924, which are constructed, installed or located on lands dedicated to, or owned by the City, or on lands lying immediately adjacent thereto, including lands that are subject For information related to accessibility requirements please contact: Committee Coordinator 905.420.4611 clerks@pickering.ca 37 Planning & Development Committee Meeting Agenda January 10, 2022 Electronic Meeting – 7:00 pm Chair: Councillor Pickles to easements transferred to the City, be accepted and assumed for maintenance; 3. That Serenade Homes Inc. be released from the provisions of the Subdivision Agreement and any amendments thereto relating to the works outside of/adjacent to Blocks 1, 2, 3 and 4, Plan 40M-2153 and Parts 1, 2 and 3, 40R-21924; 4. That Council enact a by-law to dedicate Block 3, Plan 40M-2153 as a public highway; and, 5. That the appropriate City of Pickering officials be authorized to take the actions necessary to implement the recommendations in this report. 5.3 Director, Corporate Services & City Solicitor, Report LEG 03-22 388270 Ontario Limited – Plan of Subdivision 40M-1552 -Final Assumption of Plan of Subdivision -Lots 1 to 29, Blocks 35, 36, 41, 45 and 47, Plan 40M-1552 -Squires Beach Road/Clements Road -File: 40M-1552 Recommendation: 1. That works and services required by the Subdivision Agreement within Plan 40M-1552, which are constructed, installed or located on lands dedicated to, or owned by the City, or on lands lying immediately adjacent thereto, including lands that are subject to easements transferred to the City, be accepted and assumed for maintenance, except Blocks 30 to 34, 37 to 40, 42 to 44 and 46; 2. That 388270 Ontario Limited be released from the provisions of the Subdivision Agreement and any amendments thereto relating to Plan 40M-1552; and, 3. That the appropriate City of Pickering officials be authorized to take the actions necessary to implement the recommendations in this report. For information related to accessibility requirements please contact: Committee Coordinator 905.420.4611 clerks@pickering.ca 42 Planning & Development mmittee Meeting Agenda January 10, 2022 Electronic Meeting – 7:00 pm Chair: Councillor Pickles 5.4 Director, City Development & CBO, Report PLN 01-22 46 City Initiated Zoning By-law Amendment Proposed Reduction of the Maximum Dwelling Height for Infill and Replacement Dwellings - File: A 12/21 Recommendation: That Zoning By-law Amendment Application A 12/21, initiated by the City of Pickering to reduce the maximum permitted Dwelling Height for Infill and Replacement Dwellings from 10.0 to 9.0 metres in Established Neighbourhood Precinct Overlay Zones, be approved, and that the Draft Zoning By-law Amendments as set out in Appendices l, ll, and lll to Report PLN 01-22 be finalized and forwarded to Council for enactment. 5.5 Director, City Development & CBO, Report PLN 02-22 85 Pickering Housing Strategy Study Recommended Pickering Housing Strategy, Phase 3 Report Recommendation: 1. That Council approve the Phase 3: Recommended Housing Strategy & Action Plan, December 22, 2021, as the Pickering Housing Strategy & Action Plan 2021-2031, December 22, 2021; and, 2. That the appropriate officials of the City of Pickering be authorized to take the necessary actions as indicated in the Pickering Housing Strategy & Action Plan 2021-2031, December 22, 2021. 5.6 Director, City Development & CBO, Report PLN 03-22 175 Comprehensive Zoning By-law Review Phase 2, Status Update and First Draft of the Zoning By-law Recommendation: That Report PLN 03-22 of the Director, City Development & CBO, providing an update on the status of the City of Pickering Comprehensive Zoning By-law Review, be received for information. Co For information related to accessibility requirements please contact: Committee Coordinator 905.420.4611 clerks@pickering.ca 5.7 Director, City Development & CBO, Report PLN 04-22 181 Zoning By-law Amendment Application A 08/20 Steele Valley Developments Ltd., 334979 Ontario Ltd., Pickering Square Inc., and Pickering Square (1986) Inc. (1300, 1360, 1450 and 1550 Kingston Road) Recommendation: That Zoning By-law Amendment A 08/20, submitted by Steele Valley Developments Ltd., 334979 Ontario Ltd., Pickering Square Inc., and Pickering Square (1986) Inc., to increase the maximum permitted building height on lands municipally known as 1300, 1360 and 1550 Kingston Road, be endorsed, subject to the proposed zoning provisions contained in Appendix I to Report PLN 04-22, and that staff be authorized to finalize and forward an implementing Zoning By-law to Council for enactment. Planning & Development Committee Meeting Agenda January 10, 2022 Electronic Meeting – 7:00 pm Chair: Councillor Pickles 6. Other Business 7. Adjournment For information related to accessibility requirements please contact: Committee Coordinator 905.420.4611 clerks@pickering.ca Information Report to Planning & Development Committee Report Number: 01-22 Date: January 10, 2022 From: Catherine Rose, MCIP, RPP Chief Planner Subject: Zoning By-law Amendment Application A 11/21 Greyrock Consolidated Holdings Corporation Part Lot 21, Concession 1 1.Purpose of this Report The purpose of this report is to provide preliminary information regarding an application for Zoning By-law Amendment, submitted by Greyrock Consolidated Holdings Corporation, to facilitate the construction of a high-density residential condominium building. This report contains general information on the applicable Official Plan and other related policies and identifies matters raised to date. This report is intended to assist members of the public and other interested stakeholders to understand the proposal. The Planning & Development Committee will hear public delegations on the application, ask questions of clarification, and identify any planning issues. This report is for information and no decision on this application is being made at this time. Staff will bring forward a recommendation report for consideration by the Planning & Development Committee upon completion of a comprehensive evaluation of the proposal. 2.Property Location and Description The subject property is located north of Bayly Street, at the southwest corner of Sandy Beach Road and future Celebration Drive within the City Centre (see Location Map, Attachment #1). The site has an area of approximately 0.52 of a hectare with approximately 45 metres of frontage along Sandy Beach Road and approximately 49 metres of frontage along future Celebration Drive. The site currently contains a surface parking lot that was formerly owned by Metrolinx to serve the Pickering GO Station. The surrounding land uses are as follows (see Air Photo Map, Attachment #2): North: Across future Celebration Drive is a surface parking lot owned by Metrolinx, which is currently being used for the Pickering GO Station. South: Immediately to the south is Phase 6 of the Universal City mixed-use development, with a building height of 27 storeys. An application for Site Plan Approval is currently under review and final site plan approval is anticipated to be issued in the first quarter of 2022. - 1 - Information Report 01-22 Page 2 East: Across Sandy Beach Road is an industrial building occupied by FedEx and further east are multi-tenant industrial buildings. West: To the west are Phases 1, 2, and 3 of the Universal City mixed-use development, with building heights ranging between 17 and 31 storeys. Site Plan Approval for Phase 1 was granted in December 2020 and construction is now underway. Applications for Site Plan Approval have been submitted for Phases 2 and 3, and final site plan approval is anticipated to be issued in the first quarter of 2022. A conditional building permit has been issued for Phase 2 to permit the construction of footings, foundation and slab on grade, under slab and garage roof slab, above-grade structural walls and floor slabs, including plumbing within and below the parking garage. 3. Applicant’s Proposal The applicant has applied for a Zoning By-law Amendment to facilitate the construction of a 37-storey residential condominium building with a 4-storey podium, consisting of 472 units (see Submitted Conceptual Site Plan, Attachment #3, and Submitted Conceptual Renderings, Attachments #4, #5 and #6). The proposal will form Phase 7 of the Universal City development (see Universal City Master Plan, Attachment #7). The table below summarizes the key details of the proposal: Provision Proposal Gross Floor Area (GFA) 34,508 square metres Net Floor Area (GFA) 29,688 square metres Number of Residential Units 472 residential units Floor Space Index (FSI) 5.75 Tower Floor Plate Size 841.8 square metres Number of Storeys and Building Height 37 storeys 114.4 metres Unit Types 1 Bedroom: 118 units 1 Bedroom plus Den: 190 units 2 Bedroom: 98 units 2 Bedroom plus Den: 45 units 3 Bedroom: 45 units Vehicular Parking Resident – 310 spaces at a ratio of 0.65 parking spaces per unit (all located within a 3-level underground parking garage) Visitor – 71 spaces at a ratio of 0.15 parking spaces per unit (29 surface spaces and 42 spaces within the underground parking garage) Total – 381 spaces - 2 - Information Report 01-22 Page 3 Provision Proposal Bicycle Parking 236 spaces Amenity Area Indoor – 944 square metres Outdoor – 944 square metres Total – 1,888 square metres Privately-Owned Public Space 213 square metres The ground floor consists of a residential lobby; 7 residential units with associated outdoor private amenity space facing future Celebration Drive and Sandy Beach Road; indoor bicycle storage, garbage and loading areas; a pet spa; 2 indoor amenity areas; and an outdoor amenity area within the southern portion of the property. On Levels 2, 3 and 5, the applicant is proposing to include green roofs as a sustainable development feature. Indoor and outdoor amenity spaces are proposed on the 5th floor, including an outdoor swimming pool. A 213 square metre privately-owned public space (POPS) is proposed within the northwestern portion of the site, fronting future Celebration Drive. The POPS will be accessible to residents, visitors and members of the public. Vehicular access to and from the site is proposed through a private driveway from future Celebration Drive. The private driveway provides access to the main pedestrian entrance located on the west side of the building, the surface visitor parking spaces, loading area, and entrance to the underground parking garage. To facilitate the proposal, the applicant is requesting site-specific exceptions to the City Centre Zoning By-law. A list of the requested amendments as outlined in Section 4.4 of this report. The development will be subject to site plan approval. 4. Policy Framework 4.1 Durham Regional Official Plan The subject property is designated Urban Growth Centre in the Regional Official Plan. Urban Growth Centres (UGCs) are focal points for intensive urban development and the main concentrations of institutional, public services, major office, commercial, recreational, residential, entertainment and cultural uses. They also serve as major employment centres and shall accommodate a minimum density target of 200 persons and jobs per gross hectare and a minimum floor space index (FSI) of 3.0. The built form in UGCs should be a mix of predominantly high-rise with some mid-rise development. The proposal generally conforms to the Durham Regional Official Plan. 4.2 Pickering Official Plan The subject lands are designated “Mixed Use Areas – City Centre” within the Pickering Official Plan. This designation permits high-density residential uses, retailing of goods and services, offices and restaurants, hotels, convention centres, community, cultural - 3 - Information Report 01-22 Page 4 and recreational uses, community gardens and farmers’ markets. The designation permits a minimum net residential density of 80 units per hectare and no maximum density; a maximum gross leasable floorspace for the retailing of goods and services of up to and including 300,000 square metres; and, a maximum FSI of over 0.75 and up to and including 5.75. The City Centre Neighbourhood also includes specific policies with respect to enhancements to the public realm; active uses at grade; performance criteria for tall buildings to minimize adverse impacts concerning shadowing, sky view, privacy and transition to established low-density development; and pedestrian network and mobility. The key policies within the City Centre neighbourhood as it relates to the proposal are summarized in Attachment #8 to this report. Future Celebration Drive is identified as a collector road in the City’s Official Plan, which is intended to provide access to individual properties, to local roads, to other collector roads and to Type C arterial roads, and carry greater volumes of traffic than local roads. Future Celebration Drive will have a right-of-way width of 20 metres and will have 2 travel lanes; a minimum 2.1 metre wide sidewalk and a 1.5 metre wide buffered cycling lane on both sides of the street; limited on-street parking; and boulevards for street trees, landscaping, and utilities. The applicant’s proposal will be assessed against the policies and provisions of the City’s Official Plan during the further processing of the application. 4.3 Pickering City Centre Urban Design Guidelines The City Centre Urban Design Guidelines (UDG) provide design direction for intensification, to guide buildings and private development, as well as investments in public infrastructure in the City Centre. Some of the key guiding principles of the UDG include: • make the City Centre highly walkable, with new streets and pathways, a compact block pattern, traffic calming measures, and visually interesting streetscapes; • encourage a mix of land uses to create vitality at all times of the day, by enhancing the range of activities, amenities and uses that will attract and serve all ages for all seasons; and • offer distinct living options, urban in format, and in close proximity to shopping, entertainment, culture, and work. The key urban design objectives with respect to built form, site design, landscaping, building design, and pedestrian connections as it relates to the proposal are summarized in Attachment #9 to this report. 4.4 City Centre Zoning By-law 7553/17 The subject lands are zoned “City Centre Two – CC2” within the City Centre By-law 7553/17, as amended. Uses permitted include a broad range of residential and non-residential uses, such as apartment dwellings, townhouse dwellings, commercial, office, retail, community, recreational and institutional uses. The property is also subject to an “H6” Holding Symbol, which requires the following conditions to be satisfied before the holding symbol is lifted: - 4 - Information Report 01-22 Page 5 • a block development plan, approved by City Council, has been prepared to demonstrate the orderly development of the lands providing details regarding such matters as: street and block pattern; pedestrian, landscape and open space connections; parking strategy; community uses such as parks, community centres and other public uses; conservation and enhancement of natural features; public and private street right-of-way design; and phasing of the proposed development; • a comprehensive transportation study has been conducted to assess the impact on the transportation system and appropriate road infrastructure is in place to support the development of the lands; • cost-sharing agreements for matters such as community uses, public parks, municipal roads and infrastructure, are made between the participating landowners; • an Environmental Impact Study and a detailed engineering design and restoration plan for the rehabilitation of the Krosno Creek valley corridor has been completed to the satisfaction of the City of Pickering and the Toronto and Region Conservation Authority; and • the execution of an Agreement to ensure that the restored and rehabilitated Krosno Creek valley corridor, to include 6.0 metres from the long-term stable top of bank, will be conveyed into public ownership upon completion of the works, to the satisfaction of the City of Pickering. To facilitate the proposed development, the applicant is requesting the following site-specific amendments: • increase the maximum building height from 77 metres (approximately 25 storeys) to 116 metres (37 storeys); • reduce the minimum residential parking ratio from 0.80 spaces per dwelling unit to 0.65 spaces per dwelling; • remove the main wall stepback requirement, whereas the by-law requires a minimum main wall stepback of 3.0 metres between the top 6.0 and 18.0 metres of a point tower for buildings equal to and greater than 73.5 metres (approximately 24 storeys); • slightly reduce the minimum required continuous length of a building along a street line from 60 percent of the street frontage to 55 percent; • remove the minimum balcony depth requirement, whereas the by-law requires a minimum balcony depth of 1.5 metres; • reduce the minimum width requirement for a landscaped area between a surface parking area and an existing residential development from 3.0 metres wide to 0.6 metres wide; • permit stairs and air vents associated with a parking structure to be permitted in the front yard, whereas the by-law does not permit stairs or air vents in the front yard; and • permit air vents constructed in association with an underground parking structure to project beyond 1.2 metres above-established grade, whereas the by-law permits air vents to project to a maximum of 1.2 metres. As part of this zoning by-law amendment application, the applicant is also requesting to remove the “H6” Holding Symbol that applies to the property. - 5 - Information Report 01-22 Page 6 5. Comments Received 5.1 Public Comments Notice of the Electronic Statutory Public Meeting regarding this application was provided through a mailing of all properties within 150 metres of the subject property (in total, notice was mailed to 25 property owners). A Public Meeting Notice Sign was erected at the property on November 18, 2021, along the Sandy Beach Road frontage. Additionally, a copy of the Notice of Electronic Statutory Public Meeting was included in the December 16 and December 31, 2021 News Advertiser. As of the date of this report, no comments have been received from the public. 5.2 Agency Comments 5.2.1 Toronto and Region Conservation Authority (TRCA) • The Zoning By-law Amendment is seeking amendments which do not impact the TRCA’s policies or programs. TRCA staff have no objections to the approval of this Zoning By-law Amendment Application. 5.2.2 Other Agencies As of the date of writing this report, no comments have been received from the Region of Durham Planning Department or Region of Durham Works Department. 5.3 City Department Comments 5.3.1 Fire Services • No objections to this application. 5.3.2 Engineering Services As of the date of writing this report, no comments have been received from Engineering Services. 6. Planning & Design Section Comments The following is a summary of key concerns/issues or matters of importance raised to date. These matters, and others identified through the circulation and detailed review of the proposal, are required to be addressed by the applicant before a final recommendation report to Planning & Development Committee: • ensure conformity with the City of Pickering Official Plan and the City Centre Urban Design Guidelines; • assess the suitability and appropriateness of the site for the proposed increase in height; • review the resident and visitor parking standards proposed and ensure that sufficient parking is provided to support the proposal; - 6 - Information Report 01-22 Page 7 • review the requested site-specific exceptions to ensure the proposed design of the building maintains the general intent and purpose of the City Centre Zoning By-law and the City Centre Urban Design Guidelines; • ensure the architectural treatments of the building are enhanced (e.g., architectural projections, use of high-quality building materials, glazing, transparent windows at street level) given that the site is located at a corner location; • ensure all conditions required to lift the “H6” Holding Symbol are fulfilled to the satisfaction of the City of Pickering and the Toronto and Region Conservation Authority; • ensure the minimum parkland dedication requirements for this proposal are satisfied; • determine whether the applicant is required to be party to the cost-sharing agreement for the H6 Block or receives an acknowledgement from the Trustee that the benefiting landowner has made satisfactory arrangements to pay its proportions of the shared development cost; and • evaluate the location, size and functionality of the proposed private and public amenity space, and review whether the outdoor amenity areas are sufficiently screened to mitigate negative impacts caused by wind. Further issues may be identified following receipt and review of comments from the circulated departments, agencies and public. The City Development Department will conclude its position on the application after it has received and assessed comments from the circulated department, agencies and the public. 7. Information Received Copies of the plans and studies submitted in support of the application are listed below and available for viewing on the City's website at pickering.ca/devapp or the offices of the City of Pickering, City Development Department: • Planning Justification Report & Urban Design Brief, prepared by Weston Consulting, dated October 2021; • Sustainable Development Summary & Matrix, prepared by Weston Consulting, dated October 13, 2021; • Architectural Plans, prepared by Kirkor Architects and Planners, dated October 15, 2021; • Universal City Master Plan, prepared by Kirkor Architects and Planners, dated October 13, 2021; • Transportation Brief, prepared by BA Group, dated October 14, 2021; • Site Grading Plan, prepared by Schaeffers & Associates Inc., dated October 2021; • Site Servicing Plan, prepared by Schaeffers & Associates Inc., dated October 2021; • Site Servicing Letter, prepared by Schaeffers & Associates Inc., dated October 13, 2021; • Noise and Vibration Study, prepared by Howe Gastmeier Chapnik Limited, dated October 13, 2021; • Reliance Letter, prepared by Englobe Corp., dated September 24, 2021; • Environmental Site Assessment Phase I, prepared by Englobe Corp., dated November 2020; • Environmental Site Assessment Phase II, prepared by Englobe Corp., dated February 2021; - 7 - Information Report 01-22 Page 8 • Land Use Compatibility Study Addendum, prepared by Theakston Environmental, Consulting Engineers, dated August 31, 2021; • R-Plan, prepared by R. Avis Survey Inc., dated January 10, 2020; • Survey, prepared by Callon Dietz Incorporated, dated March 30, 2021; and • Preliminary Landscape Plan, prepared by STUDIOtla Landscape Architects, dated October 14, 2021. 8. Procedural Information 8.1 General • written comments regarding this proposal should be directed to the City Development Department; • oral comments may be made at the Electronic Statutory Public Meeting; • all comments received will be noted and used as input to a Recommendation Report prepared by the City Development Department for a subsequent meeting of Council or a Committee of Council; • any member of the public who wishes to reserve the option to appeal Council’s decision must provide comments to the City before Council adopts any by-law for this proposal; and • any member of the public who wishes to be notified of Council’s decision regarding this proposal must request such in writing to the City Clerk. 9. Owner/Applicant Information The owner of this property is Greyrock Consolidated Holdings Corporation, who is represented by Weston Consulting. Attachments: 1. Location Map 2. Air Photo Map 3. Submitted Conceptual Site Plan 4. Submitted Conceptual Rendering – Facing Southwest 5. Submitted Conceptual Rendering – Facing Southeast 6. Submitted Conceptual Rendering – North Podium Face 7. Universal City Master Plan 8. City Centre Neighbourhood Policies Related to the Proposal 9. City Centre Urban Design Guidelines Related to the Proposal - 8 - Information Report 01-22 Page 9 Prepared By: Original Signed By Isabel Lima (Acting) Planner II Original Signed By Nilesh Surti, MCIP, RPP Manager, Development Review & Urban Design Approved/Endorsed By: Original Signed By Catherine Rose, MCIP, RPP Chief Planner IL:ld Date of Report: December 15, 2021 - 9 - Attachment #1 to Information Report 01-22 K r o s n o B o u l e v a r d Drava Street Bayly Street R e y t a n B o u l e v a r d Tatra Dri v e Sa n d y B e a c h R o a d Morden Lan e G l e n a n n a R o a d P oprad A v e n u e Pickering Par k w a y Al l i a n c e R o a d Fordo n A ve n u e Highway 401 MitchelPark City DevelopmentDepartment Location MapFile:Applicant:Property Description: A 11/21 Date: Dec. 07, 2021 Greyrock Consolidated Holdings Corporation Future Celebration Drive Part Lot 21, Concession 1 SubjectLands L:\PLANNING\01-MapFiles\A\2021\A 11-21 - UC7\A11_21_LocationMap.mxd 1:4,000 SCALE: THIS IS NOT A PLAN OF SURVEY. © The Corporation of the City of Pickering Produced (in part) under license from: © Queens Printer, Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources. All rights reserved.; © Her Majesty the Queen in Right of Canada, Departmentof Natural Resources. All rights reserved.; © Teranet Enterprises Inc. and its suppliers. All rights reserved.; © Municipal PropertyAssessment Corporation and its suppliers. All rights reserved. Bayview HeightsPublic School Sa n d y B e a c h R o a d Al l i a n c e R o a d - 10 - Attachment #2 to Information Report 01-22 Tatra Drive Regan Place K r o s n o B o u l e v a r d R e y t a n B o u l e v a r d D r a v a S treet S andy B eac h Ro a d Morden Lan e Bayly Street Al l i a n c e R o a d G l e n a n n a R o a d Pickering Par k w a y Garvolin Avenue Poprad Avenue Fordon Avenue Highway 401 Air Photo MapFile:Applicant: Date: Dec. 07, 2021 L:\PLANNING\01-MapFiles\A\2021\A 11-21 - UC7\A11_21_AirPhoto.mxd 1:5,000 SCALE:THIS IS NOT A PLAN OF SURVEY. © The Corporation of the City of Pickering Produced (in part) under license from: © Queens Printer, Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources. All rights reserved.; © Her Majesty the Queen in Right of Canada, Departmentof Natural Resources. All rights reserved.; © Teranet Enterprises Inc. and its suppliers. All rights reserved.; © Municipal PropertyAssessment Corporation and its suppliers. All rights reserved. City DevelopmentDepartment SubjectLands A 11/21Greyrock Consolidated Holdings CorporationPart Lot 21, Concession 1Property Description: Future Celebration Drive Bayview HeightsPublic School - 11 - Attachment #3 to Information Report 01-22 Submitted Conceptual Site Plan City Development Department Nov. 4, 2021FULL SCALE COPIES OF THIS PLAN ARE AVAILABLE FOR VIEWING AT THE CITY OF PICKERING CITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT. A 11/21 Greyrock Consolidated Holdings CorporationApplicant: Property Description: DATE: File No: Part Lot 21, Concession 1 L:\Planning\01-MapFiles\A\2021 - 12 - Attachment #4 to Information Report 01-22 Submitted Conceptual Rendering - Facing Southwest City Development Department Dec. 1, 2021FULL SCALE COPIES OF THIS PLAN ARE AVAILABLE FOR VIEWING AT THE CITY OF PICKERING CITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT. A 11/21 Greyrock Consolidated Holdings CorporationApplicant: Property Description: DATE: File No: Part Lot 21, Concession 1 L:\Planning\01-MapFiles\A\2021 - 13 - Attachment #5 to Information Report 01-22 Submitted Conceptual Rendering - Facing Southeast City Development Department Dec. 1, 2021FULL SCALE COPIES OF THIS PLAN ARE AVAILABLE FOR VIEWING AT THE CITY OF PICKERING CITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT. A 11/21 Greyrock Consolidated Holdings CorporationApplicant: Property Description: DATE: File No: Part Lot 21, Concession 1 L:\Planning\01-MapFiles\A\2021 - 14 - Attachment #6 to Information Report 01-22 L:\Planning\01-MapFiles\A\2021 Dec. 1, 2021DATE: Applicant: Municipal Address: File No: Submitted Conceptual Rendering - North Podium Face FULL SCALE COPIES OF THIS PLAN ARE AVAILABLE FOR VIEWING AT THE CITY OF PICKERING CITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT. City Development Department A 11/21 Part Lot 21, Concession 1 Greyrock Consolidated Holdings Corporation - 15 - Attachment #7 to Information Report 01-22 Universal City Master Plan City Development Department Dec. 8, 2021FULL SCALE COPIES OF THIS PLAN ARE AVAILABLE FOR VIEWING AT THE CITY OF PICKERING CITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT. A 11/21 Greyrock Consolidated Holdings CorporationApplicant: Property Description: DATE: File No: Part Lot 21, Concession 1 L:\Planning\01-MapFiles\A\2021 N - 16 - Attachment #8 to Information Report 01-22 City Centre Neighbourhood Policies Related to the Proposal •Encourage the highest mix and intensity of uses and activates in the City to be in this neighbourhood. •Encourage the transformation of the City Centre into a more liveable, walkable and human-scaled neighbourhood with inviting public spaces such as parks, squares and streets. •Encourage the development of streetscapes, public spaces and pedestrian routes that are safe and comfortable for all genders and ages, accessible and easy to navigate regardless of physical ability. •Encourage street-facing façades to have adequate entrances and windows facing the street. •Encourage publicly accessible outdoor and indoor spaces where people can gather. •Encourage new development to be designed, located and massed in such a way that it limits any shadowing on the public realm, parks and public spaces in order to achieve adequate sunlight and comfort in the public realm through all four seasons. •Shall strive to locate either a park or square, within a 5 minute walk of all residences and places to work located within the City Centre. •May accept privately constructed squares and publicly accessible open spaces as part of a development as fulfilling in whole or in part, the parkland conveyance requirements if all of the following conditions are met: •the square or publicly accessible open space is designed and maintained to the standards of the City; •the square or publicly accessible open space is visible, open and accessible to the public at all times; and •the owner enters into an agreement with the City to ensure that the previous conditions are met, to the satisfaction of the City. •Require new development in close proximity to established low density residential areas to be gradually transitioned in height. •Promote the highest buildings to locate on sites at key gateways or in proximity to higher order transit stations. •Consider in review of development applications for buildings taller than 5 storeys, the following performance criteria: •that buildings be massed in response to the scale of surrounding buildings, nearby streets, and public open spaces; •that upper levels of buildings be set back or a podium and point tower form be introduced to help create a human scale at street level; •that shadowing impacts on surrounding development, publicly accessible open spaces and sidewalks be mitigated/minimized to the extent feasible; - 17 - •that sufficient spacing be provided between the building face of building towers to provide views, privacy for residents and to minimize any shadowing and wind tunnel impacts on surrounding development, streets and public spaces; •that buildings be oriented to optimize sunlight and amenity for dwellings, private open spaces, adjoining open spaces and sidewalks; •that living areas, windows and private open spaces be located to minimize the potential for overshadowing adjoining residential properties; •that informal or passive surveillance of streets and other public open spaces be maximized by providing windows to overlook street and public spaces and using level changes, floor and balcony spaces elevated above the street level to allow views from residential units into adjacent public spaces whilst controlling views into these units; and •that protection be provided for pedestrians in public and private spaces from wind down drafts. •Select transit junctions and related pedestrian connections as priority areas for design excellence and capital improvements including landscaping, public seating, weather protection and public art. •Require new development adjacent to the transit junction to be designed to frame the junctions with active uses at grade and entrances oriented towards them. •Require the design of a pedestrian network to be a safe and visually interesting environment for pedestrians. •Consider in the review of development applications, the following performance criteria with regard to on-site parking and access drives/aisles: •that parking be situated either in parking areas located at the rear or side of the building or on-street, where the development fronts on a collector or local road; •that the parking format be structured or below grade parking; •in phased development, that surface parking may be permitted if the proponent has demonstrated how parking will be accommodated in structures at full build out; •that where active uses at grade are required, parking structures feature active uses at grade to contribute to an animated street environment; •that parking structures be treated architecturally as building fronts with no blank walls; •that shared parking be encouraged in mixed use areas to minimize land devoted to parking; •that the implementing zoning by-law may permit a reduction of customer parking for ground floor commercial uses through the provision of on-street parking; •that surface parking areas be well landscaped and lit to provide a safe and comfortable pedestrian environment; and •that access driveways to side and rear parking areas be consolidated where practical, and be accessible by a public laneway or drive aisle. - 18 - Attachment #9 to Information Report 01-22 City Centre Urban Design Guidelines Related to the Proposal Site Design •The diverse visual characteristics of the City Centre call for building design that helps define and contribute positively to the surrounding built form and public realm. •The design of sites and buildings shall seek to create and enhance view portals and vistas of parks and signature buildings within the City Centre. •Site grades shall be matched to the street grade and surrounding properties, where possible. •The placement and orientation of buildings should define and augment the public realm (streets and open spaces) and places on properties where routes and people congregate, such as private squares. The coordination of building location along a street edge and the placement of buildings on prominent corners help create an active and attractive streetscape. •Buildings shall be aligned to contribute to a consistent street wall with minimal gaps or courts between buildings, except to allow for pedestrian access to internal lanes, walkways. •Throughout the City Centre, the building face shall be articulated through recessions, projections and change of materials. •Building setbacks may vary between 1.0 metre and 4.0 metres to maintain a visually consistent streets edge. •Within setbacks of buildings with residential at grade, semi-private open space, such as yards or landscaped area, will act as amenity and/or a privacy buffer for at grade residential units, or the residential units may be slightly elevated from the sidewalk in order to assure privacy and security. •For buildings 8 storeys in height or greater, a minimum building separation of 18.0 metres is required, but it may be reduced if there are no primary windows in the wall facing an abutting building. •Tower portions of a building (those over 12 storeys) are subject to a minimum tower separation distance of 24.0 metres, to provide outlook, daylight access and privacy for residents. •The design of pedestrian walkways on-site shall seek direct connectivity to adjacent public spaces, transit stops and amenities. •Weather protection should be incorporated into new development. Such features may include: inset lobbies, architectural projections, canopies, and awnings. Recessed frontages such as arcades and colonnades are generally discouraged. •Pedestrian-scaled lighting shall be encouraged along pedestrian walkways to improve security and visibility. •Landscaping elements such as planters or benches shall be encouraged along pedestrian walkways to define the paths and to create an attractive and pleasant pedestrian realm. •Outdoor waiting areas in front of residential towers should be weather protected to make waiting and access to and from the site more comfortable. This may include awnings, building projections or covered waiting areas. - 19 - • Any surface parking areas, drive-aisle and accesses will be located at the rear and sides of development, and shall generally not exceed 30 percent of the total width of any street frontage of a lot. • Access to parking and automobile drop-off areas will be designed to minimize pedestrian/vehicular conflict. The number of vehicular access points will be kept to a minimum to reduce potential conflict between pedestrians, cyclists and motor vehicles. • Parking lots shall be appropriately lit to provide safety and safe passage. Lighting shall be designed to minimize light pollution. • Adequate short-term bicycle parking should be provided at grade for larger developments. At grade short-term bicycle parking should be located close to building entrances (residential lobbies, retail store entrances and office entrances). • Loading areas shall be located at the side or the rear of buildings, or below grade or within the building where feasible. • Waste and recycling facilities shall be fully enclosed and encouraged to be integrated with the principal building on a site. • Internal routes to loading areas and waste and recycling facilities are encouraged to be designed to avoid crossing primary vehicular circulation routes and walkways. • Transformer vaults, utility meters and other services shall be located within the building and/or internal to the site and away from public view. • Service and utility areas shall be concealed with fencing, screens, and landscaping, and use materials that coordinate or blend with the main structure. Cluster or group utilities to minimize the visual and other impacts on the streetscape and public spaces. • Building exhaust and other service intake or output vents shall be located and concealed to avoid impact on public sidewalks, outdoor spaces and adjacent development. Service intake vents shall generally not project 1.2 metres above finished grade and no closer than 4.0 metres to a street line. • At least 10 percent of each lot shall be landscaped. • A landscape buffer of at least 3.0 metres wide shall be encouraged along surface parking lots situated adjacent to a street, to limit its visual impact on the public realm, to ensure a safe and comfortable pedestrian realm, and to mitigate stormwater runoff from paved areas. • Landscape buffers or landscaping within properties shall include a combination of indigenous deciduous and evergreen trees and shrubs that are hardy, tolerant to de-icing agents; and adaptable to urban conditions. Building Design • The shadow impacts of buildings on public open spaces and private amenity areas shall be minimized. • Structured underground parking is preferred over surface parking, where possible and feasible, to promote compact development and to reduce the urban heat-island effect. Structured above grade parking with high quality architectural and landscape treatment that is visually and physically designed to be part of a larger development, is also acceptable - 20 - • Design buildings with a defined base, middle and top section to emphasize human scale dimensions, reduce appearance of bulk and to create an interesting skyline. • The base component (podium) of a building generally establishes the height of the street wall along a street and establishes human scale at the street level. The building podium should be at least 3 storeys before any building step-backs are introduced. • The middle component of a building generally constitutes the bulk of the building and typically consists of office or residential uses. The floor plate above the podium shall not exceed 850 square metres. • The top of a building is where the building wall meets the roof. The top of towers should be attractively designed using setbacks, articulation and other means to contribute positively to the skyline. The tower tops should screen rooftop mechanical equipment through roof parapets or by incorporating mechanical penthouses and elevator cores into the design of the building top to contribute to an attractive skyline profile. • All buildings should be built with high quality, enduring materials such as brick, stone, and glass. Materials that do not age well, such as stucco, vinyl, and highly reflective glass will be discouraged. • Large expanses of blank walls should be avoided by façade articulation (i.e., recessions or projections), fenestration, cornices, vertical pillars, and prominent entrances that respond to the massing and architectural style of the building. • Development within the City Centre shall be encouraged to incorporate sustainable development practices such as optimizing energy efficiency of buildings, Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design (LEED) certification or alternative equivalent for new private and public buildings, providing vehicle charging stations, and low impact development practices (i.e., the use of grey water systems). • Roof tops are encouraged to include green roof spaces for environmental sustainability, amenity space for residents or urban agriculture. • Bird-friendly glazing should be installed on tall buildings in locations that are within known migratory routes. • Landscape opportunities should be maximized within the City Centre in order to increase the tree canopy, improve air quality and groundwater infiltration. • Buildings with significant heights and massing should be located at key gateways to, and intersections within, the City Centre. Signature buildings at key gateway locations shall include architectural features that signify the importance of the corner. This can be attained by bold and expressive building design through the use of high quality building materials, highly articulated building façades and unique massing details. - 21 - Information Report to Planning & Development Committee Report Number: 02-22 Date: January 10, 2022 From: Catherine Rose, MCIP, RPP Chief Planner Subject: Zoning By-law Amendment Application A 10/21 1023343 Ontario Inc. 4973 Brock Road 1. Purpose of this Report The purpose of this report is to provide preliminary information regarding an application for Zoning By-law Amendment, submitted by 1023343 Ontario Inc., to facilitate an infill residential development. This report contains general information on the applicable Official Plan and other related policies and identifies matters raised to date. This report is intended to assist members of the public and other interested stakeholders to understand the proposal. The Planning & Development Committee will hear public delegations on the application, ask questions of clarification, and identify any planning issues. This report is for information and no decision on this application is being made at this time. Staff will bring forward a recommendation report for consideration by the Planning & Development Committee upon completion of a comprehensive evaluation of the proposal. 2. Property Location and Description The subject lands are located at the northeast corner of Old Brock Road and Wellington Street within the Hamlet of Claremont (see Location Map, Attachment #1). The site has an area of approximately 0.27 of a hectare with approximately 47 metres of frontage along Old Brock Road and 57 metres of frontage along Wellington Street. There is an existing two-storey detached dwelling located at the northwest corner of the property with an attached deck that wraps around the west, south and east walls of the dwelling. A small portion of the deck is located beyond the front property line and encroaches onto the Old Brock Road right-of-way. The surrounding land uses are as follows (see Air Photo Map, Attachment #2): North: Immediately to the north are one and two-storey detached dwellings fronting onto Old Brock Road and Central Street. At the southeast corner of Central Street and Old Brock Road is a two-storey mixed-use building with commercial uses at grade (including a convenience store, LCBO and Beer Store) and residential units on the second floor. - 22 - Information Report 02-22 Page 2 South: To the south, across Wellington Street, are two-storey detached dwellings fronting onto Old Brock Road and Wellington Street. Further south is a commercial property currently occupied by the Claremont Masonic Hall. West & To the west, across Old Brock Road, and immediately to the east are one East: and two-storey detached dwellings. 3. Applicant’s Proposal The applicant has applied for a zoning by-law amendment to rezone a portion of the property from a commercial zone category to a residential zone category to facilitate the future severance of the property to create a total of two residential lots fronting onto Old Brock Road (see Submitted Site Plan, Attachment #3). Details of the proposed lots are as follows: Lot Area Lot Frontage North Lot (Part 1) 1,367.5 square metres 23.6 metres South Lot (Part 2) 1,390 square metres 24.2 metres On the proposed north lot (Part 1), the existing two-storey detached dwelling and the attached deck are proposed to remain. The lot is proposed to be serviced by the existing septic system and a new well. The north lot is proposed to be accessed through an existing driveway fronting Old Brock Road. On the south lot (Part 2), a new detached dwelling is proposed. The lot is proposed to be serviced by a new septic system and a new well. A new driveway is proposed for the south lot fronting Old Brock Road. The applicant is proposing to create the lots through a future land severance application to the Region of Durham. 4. Policy Framework 4.1 Oak Ridges Moraine Conservation Plan The Oak Ridges Moraine Conservation Plan designates the subject property as “Countryside Area – Rural Settlement”. New lots may be created in Countryside Areas for minor infill within Rural Settlements. The Plan states that a lot may be created only if there is enough net developable area on both the severed lot and the retained lot to accommodate proposed uses, buildings and structures and accessory uses without encroachment on key natural heritage features or key hydrologic features. The applicant’s proposal will be assessed against the provisions of the Oak Ridges Moraine Conservation Plan during the further processing of the application. - 23 - Information Report 02-22 Page 3 4.2 Durham Regional Official Plan The Durham Regional Official Plan designates the subject property as “Oak Ridges Moraine Areas – Hamlet”. Minor residential infill, consisting predominantly of single-detached housing, is permitted within Hamlets. In considering Hamlet development, the following principles should serve to guide the preservation, cultural attributes and historic heritage of the community: • simplicity of form; • predominance of residential units; • larger lots that accommodate private services; • almost exclusively single detached dwelling form; • few facilities; and • views and vistas of the countryside. The applicant’s proposal will be assessed against the policies and provisions of the Durham Regional Official Plan during the further processing of this application. 4.3 Pickering Official Plan The Pickering Official Plan designates the subject property as “Rural Settlements – Oak Ridges Moraine Rural Hamlets”. This designation provides opportunities for redevelopment and infilling within the existing hamlet boundary, permitting a variety of uses including residential, employment, commercial, community, cultural and recreational. The Claremont Settlement Map (Schedule IV – 10 to the City’s Official Plan) designates the subject lands as “Hamlet Commercial”. Permissible uses within the Hamlet Commercial designation include retail, office, business, personal services and employment uses, residential uses, home occupations and community, cultural and recreational uses including community gardens and farmers’ markets. The Claremont Settlement policies encourage opportunities to enhance the historic village through general or site-specific zoning that allows for the introduction of arts and craft studios, custom workshops and small-scale commercial enterprises on suitable sites, providing the historic character of the village and the interests of neighbouring residents are respected. In addition, the policies encourage retail, shopping, office and other business uses to locate in the hamlet commercial area surrounding Central Street and Brock Road. For residential infilling, the policies encourage providing a wider variety of housing forms within the Hamlet, particularly to meet the needs of young people and senior citizens. Old Brock Road and Wellington Street are identified as local roads within the Pickering Official Plan, designed to carry local traffic and provide access to individual properties, to other local roads and collector roads. Local roads generally have a right-of-way width of up to 20 metres. The applicant’s proposal will be assessed against the policies and provisions of the Pickering Official Plan during the further processing of this application. - 24 - Information Report 02-22 Page 4 4.4 Zoning By-law The subject property is currently zoned “ORM-C2” – Oak Ridges Moraine – General Commercial Zone and “ORM-R5” – Oak Ridges Moraine – Hamlet Residential Five Zone within Zoning By-law 3037, as amended by By-law 6640/06 (see Zoning Map, Attachment #4). Permitted uses within the ORM-C2 Zone include an accessory dwelling unit, automobile service station, bake shop, business office, clinic, day nursery, dry cleaning and laundry collection station, financial institution, hotel, parking station, personal service shop, place of amusement, professional office, public parking lot, restaurant, retail store and taxicab stand or station. Permitted uses within the ORM-R5 Zone include a detached dwelling and home-based business. The applicant is requesting to rezone the portion of the subject property currently zoned ORM-C2 to ORM-R5 to recognize the existing detached dwelling on the proposed north lot (Part 1), and to permit a detached dwelling use on the proposed south lot (Part 2). In addition, the applicant is requesting the following site-specific exceptions: • reduce the minimum lot area requirement from 1,390 square metres to 1,360 square metres for the proposed north lot (Part 1); and • reduce the minimum front yard setback requirement from 9.0 metres to 1.0 metre to recognize the siting of the existing dwelling on the proposed north lot (Part 1). 5. Comments Received 5.1 Public Comments Notice of the Electronic Statutory Public Meeting regarding this application was provided through a mailing to all properties within 150 metres of the subject lands (in total, notice was mailed to 68 property owners and to the Claremont and District Community Association). A public meeting notice sign was erected at the property on December 3, 2021, located along the Old Brock Road frontage. As of the date of this report, no comments have been received from the public. 5.2 Agency Comments 5.2.1 Enbridge Gas Inc. • Enbridge Gas Inc. has no objections to the proposed development, and reserves the right to amend development conditions. • It is the responsibility of the applicant to verify that the existing gas servicing does not encroach on more than one property when severing the existing land parcel. 5.2.2 Other Agencies As of the date of this report, no comments have been received from the Region of Durham Planning Department or the Region of Durham Health Department. - 25 - Information Report 02-22 Page 5 5.3 City Department Comments 5.3.1 Engineering Services As of the date of this report, no comments have been received from Engineering Services. 5.3.2 Fire Services • The Fire Services Department has no objections to the proposed development. 6. Planning & Design Section Comments The following is a summary of key concerns/issues or matters of importance raised to date. These matters, and others identified through the circulation and detailed review of the proposal, are required to be addressed by the applicant before a final recommendation report to Planning & Development Committee: • ensure conformity with the policies in the Oak Ridges Moraine Conservation Plan, Durham Regional Official Plan and Pickering Official Plan; • ensure the proposed zoning change from commercial to residential is desirable and consistent with the Pickering Official Plan and the Claremont Settlement policies; • ensure both the severed and retained parcels meet the Region of Durham’s minimum lot size policies related to private septic and well services; • establish appropriate zoning restrictions to recognize the existing dwelling with attached deck that is proposed to remain on the north lot (Part 1) and identify if an encroachment agreement exists for the deck encroaching onto the Regional-owned right of way; • ensure the design and siting of the proposed new dwelling on the south lot (Part 2) is compatible with the established character of the Hamlet; and • review the proposed building materials and architectural treatment of the proposed new dwelling on the south lot (Part 2) to ensure the design maintains the character of the Hamlet of Claremont. Further issues may be identified following receipt and review of comments from the circulated departments, agencies and public. The City Development Department will conclude its position on the application after it has received and assessed comments from the circulated departments, agencies, and public. 7. Information Received Copies of the plans and studies submitted in support of the application are listed below and available for viewing on the City’s website at pickering.ca/devapp or at the offices of the City of Pickering, City Development Department: • Environmental Sustainability Report, prepared by D.G Biddle & Associates Limited, dated August 2021; • Functional Servicing and Stormwater Management Report, prepared by D.G Biddle & Associates Limited, dated August 2021; - 26 - Information Report 02-22 Page 6 • Hydrogeological Assessment, prepared by Cambium Inc., dated August 24, 2021; • Noise Impact Study, prepared by D.G Biddle & Associates Limited, dated August 2021; • Phase I ESA, prepared by GeoPro Consulting Limited, dated May 21, 2021; • Phase II ESA, prepared by GeoPro Consulting Limited, dated June 8, 21, 2021; • Planning Justification Report, prepared by D.G Biddle & Associates Limited, dated May 2021; • Preliminary Grading & Servicing Plan prepared by D.G Biddle & Associates Limited, dated August 2021; • Record of Site Condition, dated April 9, 2021; and • Site Plan, prepared by D.G Biddle & Associates Limited, dated March 2021. 8. Procedural Information 8.1 General • written comments regarding this proposal should be directed to the City Development Department; • oral comments may be made at the Electronic Statutory Public Meeting; • all comments received will be noted and used as input to a Recommendation Report prepared by the City Development Department for a subsequent meeting of Council or a Committee of Council; • any member of the public who wishes to reserve the option to appeal Council’s decision must provide comments to the City before Council adopts any by-law for this proposal; and • any member of the public who wishes to be notified of Council’s decision regarding this proposal must request such in writing to the City Clerk. 9. Owner/Applicant Information The owner of this property is 1023343 Ontario Inc., who is represented by D. G. Biddle & Associates Limited. Attachments: 1. Location Map 2. Air Photo Map 3. Submitted Site Plan 4. Zoning Map - 27 - Information Report 02-22 Page 7 Prepared By: Original Signed By Isabel Lima (Acting) Planner II Original Signed By Nilesh Surti, MCIP, RPP Manager, Development Review & Urban Design Approved/Endorsed By: Original Signed By Catherine Rose, MCIP, RPP Chief Planner IL: ld Date of Report: December 21, 2021 - 28 - Attachment #1 to Information Report 02-22 Central Street Do w S t r e e t Wi l l i a m S t r e e t B arc lay St re e t Fr a n k l i n S t r e e t Wellington Street Lo r n S t r e e t V ic toria Stree t Li v i n g s t o n S t r e e t A c o r n Lane Ca n s o D r i v e ClaremontMemorial Park ClaremontPublicSchool City DevelopmentDepartment Location MapFile:Applicant:Municipal Address: A 10/21 Date: Dec. 08, 2021 1023343 Ontario Inc Br o c k R o a d / " O l d B r o c k R o a d " 4973 Brock Road ("Old Brock Road") SubjectLands L:\PLANNING\01-MapFiles\A\2021\A 10-21 - 1023343 Ontario Inc\A10_21_LocationMap.mxd 1:4,000 SCALE: THIS IS NOT A PLAN OF SURVEY. © The Corporation of the City of Pickering Produced (in part) under license from: © Queens Printer, Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources. All rights reserved.; © Her Majesty the Queen in Right of Canada, Departmentof Natural Resources. All rights reserved.; © Teranet Enterprises Inc. and its suppliers. All rights reserved.; © Municipal PropertyAssessment Corporation and its suppliers. All rights reserved. Broc k R o a d - 29 - Attachment #2 to Information Report 02-22 Central Street Do w S t r e e t Henry Street David Street Wi l l i a m S t r e e t Joseph Street B arc lay St re e t Fr a n k l i n S t r e e t Wellington Street Lo r n S t r e e t V ic toria Stree t Li v i n g s t o n S t r e e t A c o r n Lane Wi x s o n S t r e e t Ca n s o D r i v e ClaremontPublicSchool Air Photo MapFile:Applicant:Municipal Address:Date: Dec. 08, 2021 SubjectLands L:\PLANNING\01-MapFiles\A\2021\A 10-21 - 1023343 Ontario Inc\A10_21_AirPhoto.mxd 1:4,000 SCALE:THIS IS NOT A PLAN OF SURVEY. © The Corporation of the City of Pickering Produced (in part) under license from: © Queens Printer, Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources. All rights reserved.; © Her Majesty the Queen in Right of Canada, Departmentof Natural Resources. All rights reserved.; © Teranet Enterprises Inc. and its suppliers. All rights reserved.; © Municipal PropertyAssessment Corporation and its suppliers. All rights reserved. City DevelopmentDepartment A 10/211023343 Ontario Inc4973 Brock Road ("Old Brock Road") Broc k R o a d Br o c k R o a d / " O l d B r o c k R o a d " - 30 - Attachment #3 to Information Report 02-22 Submitted Site Plan City Development Department Dec. 13, 2021FULL SCALE COPIES OF THIS PLAN ARE AVAILABLE FOR VIEWING AT THE CITY OF PICKERING CITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT. A 10/21 1023343 Ontario Inc.Applicant: Municipal Address: DATE: File No: 4973 Brock Road (”Old Brock Road”) L:\Planning\01-MapFiles\A\2021 N - 31 - Attachment #4 to Information Report 02-22 Central Street Do w S t r e e t Henry Street Ba r c l a y S t r e e t Wellington Street Vi c t o r i a S t r e e t Wi x s o n S t r e e t ORM-R5 ORM-C2 ORM-C2 OR M - R 5 OR M - I OR M - C 2 ORM-C2-2 ORM-R5 ORM-C2 ORM-R6 ORM-R5 ORM-R5 ORM-R5 OR M - R 5 ORM-C2 ORM-C2 OR M - C 2 - S ORM-C2-1 ORM-R5 O R M - E P ORM-R5 ORM-R5 ORM-R5 ORM-I OR M - R 6 ORM-C2 ORM-R5 ORM-C2-1 ORM-R6 ORM-I ORM-R6 ORM-C2 ORM-R OR M - R 5 ORM-R5 1:2,000 SCALE: © The Corporation of the City of Pickering Produced (in part) under license from: © Queens Printer, Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources. All rights reserved.;© Her Majesty the Queen in Right of Canada, Department of Natural Resources. All rights reserved.; © Teranet Enterprises Inc. and its suppliers all rights reserved.; © Municipal Property Assessment Corporation and its suppliers all rights reserved.; City DevelopmentDepartment THIS IS NOT A PLAN OF SURVEY. Date: Dec. 08, 2021 ORM-C2 SubjectLands Zoning MapFile:Applicant: This zoning map is a graphical representation of the zoning schedules and is not a plan of survey. The zoning schedules in Zoning By-Law 3037, as amended, are the official schedules. In any situation where the zoning schedules are found to differ from this map, the text of thesigned By-Law, as amended, will takeprecedence in the interpretation of zoning. Municipal Address: A 10/211023343 Ontario Inc4973 Brock Road ("Old Brock Road") Br o c k R o a d / " O l d B r o c k R o a d " - 32 - Report to Planning & Development Committee Report Number: LEG 01-22 Date: January 10, 2022 From: Paul Bigioni Director, Corporate Services & City Solicitor Subject: Marshall Homes (Village) Ltd. – Plan of Subdivision 40M-2177 -Final Assumption of Plan of Subdivision -Municipal works on Liverpool Road and Wharf Street adjacent to Block 1, Plan 40M-2177 -1295 Wharf Street -File: 40M-2177 Recommendation: 1. That works and services required by the Subdivision Agreement within Liverpool Road and Wharf Street, adjacent to or outside Plan 40M-2177, which are constructed, installed or located on lands dedicated to, or owned by the City, or on lands lying immediately adjacent thereto, including lands that are subject to easements transferred to the City, be accepted and assumed for maintenance; 2. That Marshall Homes (Village) Ltd. be released from the provisions of the Subdivision Agreement and any amendments thereto relating to the works on Liverpool Road and Wharf Street outside of Plan 40M-2177; and 3. That the appropriate City of Pickering officials be authorized to take the actions necessary to implement the recommendations in this report. Executive Summary: The City entered into a Subdivision Agreement with the above-noted developer for the development of the lands within Block 1, Plan 40M-2177 which included works in or on Liverpool Road and Wharf Street adjacent to Plan 40M-2177. As all works and services within Liverpool Road and Wharf Street related to this plan have been completed to the satisfaction of City staff, it is appropriate to finalize the assumption of those works. Financial Implications: Not applicable. Discussion: The City entered into a Subdivision Agreement with the above-noted developer for the development of the lands within Plan 40M-2177. As the developer has now completed all of the works and services to the satisfaction of City staff, it is appropriate to: (a) assume the roads and works and services within Liverpool Road and Wharf Street, adjacent to Plan 40M-2177; and (b) release Marshall Homes (Village) Ltd. from the provisions of the Subdivision Agreement with the City and any amendments related thereto, as it relates to the - 33 - LEG 01-22 January 10, 2022 Subject: Final Assumption of Plan of Subdivision 40M-2177 Page 2 municipal works on Liverpool Road and Wharf Street outside of or adjacent to Block 1, Plan 40M- 2177. Attachments: 1. Location Map – 40M-2177 Prepared By: Original Signed By: Chantelle Adair Law Clerk Approved/Endorsed By: Original Signed By: Paul Bigioni Director, Corporate Services & City Solicitor PB:ca Recommended for the consideration of Pickering City Council Original Signed By: Marisa Carpino, M.A. Chief Administrative Officer Recommendation approved: Chief Administrative Officer per: Original Signed Director, City Development & CBO per: Original Signed Director, Community Services per: Original Signed Director, Corporate Services & City Solicitor per: Original Signed Director, Economic Development & Strategic Projects per: Original Signed Director, Engineering Services per: Original Signed - 34 - LEG 01-22 January 10, 2022 Subject: Final Assumption of Plan of Subdivision 40M-2177 Page 3 Director, Finance & Treasurer per: Original Signed Director, Operations per: Original Signed City Clerk per: Original Signed - 35 -   Attachment # 1 to Report LEG 01-22 Wharf Street Li v e r p o o l R o a d 1:1,500 SCALE:© The Corporation of the City of Pickering Produced (in part) under license from: © Queens Printer, Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources. All rights reserved.;© Her Majesty the Queen in Right of Canada, D epartment of Natural Resources. All rights reserved.;© Teranet Enterprises Inc. and its suppliers all rights reserved.; © Municipal Property Assessment Corporation and its suppliers all rights reserved.; City DevelopmentDepartment Location MapFile:Applicant:Property Description: Subdivision Assumption 40M-2177 Marshall Homes (Village) Ltd.Block 1, 40M2177 THIS IS NOT A PLAN OF SUR VEY. Date: Oct. 28, 2021 L \PLANN ING\01-MapFil \Legal\Subdi i ionCompl i \SubCompl ion_40M2177.mxd Block 1, 40M-2177 : es v s et on et - 36 - Report to Planning & Development Committee Report Number: LEG 02-22 Date: January 10, 2022 From: Paul Bigioni Director, Corporate Services & City Solicitor Subject: Serenade Homes Inc. – Plan of Subdivision 40M-2153 -Final Assumption of Plan of Subdivision -Blocks 1 to 4, 40M-2153 and Block 11 and Part of Block 25, 40M-1231 being Parts 1, 2 & 3, 40R-21924 -1775 and 1801 Valley Farm Road -File: 40M-2153 Recommendation: 1. That the portion of Valley Farm Road adjacent to Plan 40M-2557 be assumed for public use; 2. That works and services required by the Subdivision Agreement outside of/adjacent to Blocks 1, 2, 3 and 4, Plan 40M-2153 and Parts 1, 2 and 3, 40R-21924, which are constructed, installed or located on lands dedicated to, or owned by the City, or on lands lying immediately adjacent thereto, including lands that are subject to easements transferred to the City, be accepted and assumed for maintenance; 3. That Serenade Homes Inc. be released from the provisions of the Subdivision Agreement and any amendments thereto relating to the works outside of/adjacent to Blocks 1, 2, 3 and 4, Plan 40M-2153 and Parts 1, 2 and 3, 40R-21924; 4. That Council enact a by-law to dedicate Block 3, Plan 40M-2153 as a public highway; and 5. That the appropriate City of Pickering officials be authorized to take the actions necessary to implement the recommendations in this report. Executive Summary: The City entered into a Subdivision Agreement with the above-noted developer for the development of the lands within Plan 40M-2153. As all works and services outside of/adjacent to these plans have been completed to the satisfaction of City staff, it is appropriate to finalize the assumption of those lands. Financial Implications: Not applicable. Discussion: The City entered into a Subdivision Agreement with the above-noted developer for the development of the lands within Plan 40M-2153. As the developer has now completed all of the works and services to the satisfaction of City staff, it is appropriate to: (a) assume the roads and works and services outside of/adjacent to Plan 40M-2153; and (b) release Serenade Homes Inc. from the provisions of the Subdivision Agreement with the City and any - 37 - LEG 02-22 January 10, 2022 Subject: Final Assumption of Plan of Subdivision 40M-2153 Page 2 amendments related thereto, as it relates to the works outside of/adjacent to Blocks 1, 2, 3 and 4, Plan 40M-2153 and Parts 1, 2 and 3, 40R-21924. Attachments: 1. Location Map – 40M-2153 2. Assumption By-law – Block 3 Prepared By: Original Signed By: Chantelle Adair Law Clerk Approved/Endorsed By: Original Signed By: Paul Bigioni Director, Corporate Services & City Solicitor PB:ca Recommended for the consideration of Pickering City Council Original Signed By: Marisa Carpino, M.A. Chief Administrative Officer Recommendation approved: Chief Administrative Officer per: Original Signed Director, City Development & CBO per: Original Signed Director, Community Services per: Original Signed Director, Corporate Services & City Solicitor per: Original Signed Director, Engineering Services per: Original Signed - 38 - LEG 02-22 January 10, 2022 Subject: Final Assumption of Plan of Subdivision 40M-2153 Page 3 Director, Economic Development & Strategic Projects per: Original SignedDirector, Finance & Treasurer per: Original SignedCity Clerk per: Director, Operations per: Original Signed - 39 -   Attachment # 1 to Report LEG 02-22 L:\PLANNING\01-MapFiles\Legal\SubdivisionCompletion\SubCompletion_40M2153.mxd 40R21924,Part 1 Diefenbaker Court 40R21924,40R21924,Part 3 Part 2The E s p l a n a d e S E Va l l e y F a r m R o a d 40M2153,40M2153,Block 4 Block 1 E 40M2153,Block 2 40M2153,Pickering P a r k w a y Block 3 City DevelopmentDepartment Location MapFile:Subdivision Assumption 40M-2153 Applicant:Property Description:Blocks 1 to 4, 40M-2153 and Parts 1, 2 & 3, 40R-21924 Date: Oct. 08, 2021 t© The Corpora on oi f the City of Pickering Produced (in part) under l cense i romf : © Queens Print ter, On ario Mni istry of tNa ural Resources. All rights reserved.;© Her Majesty the Queen in Right of Canada, Department of Natural Resources. All rights reserved.;© Teranet Enterprises Inc. and its suppliers all rights reserved.; © Municipal Property Assessment Corporation and its suppliers all rights reserved.; SCALE: 1:1,500 THIS IS NOT A PLAN OF SURVEY. - 40 - ________________________________ ________________________________ Attachment # 2 to Report LEG 02-22 The Corporation of the City of Pickering By-law No. /22 Being a by-law to establish Block 3, Plan 40M-2153 as public highway. Whereas The Corporation of the City of Pickering is the owner of certain lands lying within Pickering and wishes to establish it as public highway. Now therefore the Council of The Corporation of the City of Pickering hereby enacts as follows: 1. Block 3, Plan 40M-2153 is hereby established as public highway (Valley Farm Road). By-law passed this day of January, 2022. David Ryan, Mayor Susan Cassel, City Clerk - 41 - Report to Planning & Development Committee Report Number: LEG 03-22 Date: January 10, 2022 From: Paul Bigioni Director, Corporate Services & City Solicitor Subject: 388270 Ontario Limited – Plan of Subdivision 40M-1552 -Final Assumption of Plan of Subdivision -Lots 1 to 29, Blocks 35, 36, 41, 45 and 47, Plan 40M-1552 -Squires Beach Road/Clements Road -File: 40M-1552 Recommendation: 1. That works and services required by the Subdivision Agreement within Plan 40M-1552, which are constructed, installed or located on lands dedicated to, or owned by the City, or on lands lying immediately adjacent thereto, including lands that are subject to easements transferred to the City, be accepted and assumed for maintenance, except Blocks 30 to 34, 37 to 40, 42 to 44 and 46; 2. That 388270 Ontario Limited be released from the provisions of the Subdivision Agreement and any amendments thereto relating to Plan 40M-1552; and 3. That the appropriate City of Pickering officials be authorized to take the actions necessary to implement the recommendations in this report. Executive Summary: The City entered into a Subdivision Agreement with the above-noted developer for the development of the lands within Plan 40M-1552. As all works and services within these plans have been completed to the satisfaction of City staff, it is appropriate to finalize the assumption of those lands, except Blocks 30 to 34, 37 to 40, 42 to 44 and 46. Financial Implications: Not applicable. Discussion: The City entered into a Subdivision Agreement with the above-noted developer for the development of the lands within Plan 40M-1552. As the developer has now completed all of the works and services to the satisfaction of City staff, it is appropriate to: (a) assume the roads and works and services within Plan 40M-1552, except Blocks 30 to 34, 37 to 40, 42 to 44 and 46; and (b) release 388270 Ontario Limited from the provisions of the Subdivision Agreement with the City and any amendments related thereto, as it relates to Plan 40M-1552. - 42 - LEG 03-22 January 10, 2022 Subject: Final Assumption of Plan of Subdivision 40M-1552 Page 2 Attachments: 1. Location Map – 40M-1552 Prepared By: Original Signed By: Chantelle Adair Law Clerk Approved/Endorsed By: Original Signed By: Paul Bigioni Director, Corporate Services & City Solicitor PB:ca Recommended for the consideration of Pickering City Council Original Signed By: Marisa Carpino, M.A. Chief Administrative Officer Recommendation approved: Chief Administrative Officer per: Original Signed Director, City Development & CBO per: Original Signed Director, Community Services per: Original Signed Director, Corporate Services & City Solicitor per: Original Signed Director, Economic Development & Strategic Projects per: Original Signed Director, Engineering Services per: Original Signed Director, Finance & Treasurer per: Original Signed - 43 - LEG 03-22 January 10, 2022 Subject: Final Assumption of Plan of Subdivision 40M-1552 Page 3 Director, Operations per: Original Signed City Clerk per: Original Signed - 44 - Attachment # 1 to Report LEG 03-22   e a E Lot 28 Lo t 4 Lo t 3 Lo t 2 Lo t 1 Lo t 5 Lo t 1 0 Lo t 6 Lo t 7 Lo t 8 Lo t 9 Lot 27 Co p p e r s t o n e D r i v e E Lo t 1 5 Lo t 1 4 Lo t 1 3 Lo t 1 1 Lo t 1 2 Lot 26 E Lot 18 Lo t 1 7 Lo t 1 6 Lot 19 Lot 20 Lot 21 Lo t 2 4 Lo t 2 5 Lot 22 Lot 29 Lot 23 EClements Road E Sq u i r s B e c h R o a d Block 36,40M-1552 Block 35,40M-1552 Block 41,40M-1552 veSilicone Dri Block 45,40M-1552 Block 47,40M-1552 Location MapFile:Subdivision Assumption 40M-1552Applicant: 388270 Ontario LimitedProperty Description:Lots 1 to 29 and Blocks 35, 36, 41,45, 47, 40M-1552 Date: Nov. 05, 2021 © The Corporation of the City of Pickering Produced (in partAll igh of t f Natural Resources. All i ts reserved. SCALE© Terane City DevelopmentDepartment 1:4,000S NOT A PLAN OF SURVEY. ) under license from: © Queens Printer, Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources.Canada, Depar gh ; : s reserved. ci Proper Corpora ts reserved.;© Her Majesty the Queen in Rightt Ent ises Inc. and its suppliers all ight ment olr r© Muni y Assessmen ion and its suppliers all rights reserved.; THIS I; t t terpr r pa L:\PLANNING\01-MapFiles\Legal\SubdivisionCompletion\SubCompletion_40M1552.mxd - 45 - Report to Planning & Development Committee Report Number: PLN 01-22 Date: January 10, 2022 From: Kyle Bentley Director, City Development & CBO Subject: City Initiated Zoning By-law Amendment Proposed Reduction of the Maximum Dwelling Height for Infill and Replacement Dwellings - File: A12/21 Recommendation: 1. That Zoning By-law Amendment Application A 12/21, initiated by the City of Pickering to reduce the maximum permitted Dwelling Height for Infill and Replacement Dwellings from 10.0 to 9.0 metres in Established Neighbourhood Precinct Overlay Zones, be approved, and that the Draft Zoning By-law Amendments as set out in Appendices l, ll, and lll to Report PLN 01-22 be finalized and forwarded to Council for enactment. Executive Summary: On October 25, 2021, Council reconsidered its decision of September 27, 2021, and directed staff to initiate an amendment to Zoning By-laws 7872/21, 7873/21, and 7874/21 to reduce the maximum permitted Dwelling Height provision from 10.0 to 9.0 metres within Established Neighbourhood Precincts, in accordance with the original recommendations of Report PLN 33-21 of the Planning & Development Committee of September 13, 2021. Report PLN 01-22 provides the results of the consultation for the proposed zoning by-law amendments, and recommends approval of the amendments. Financial Implications: No direct costs to the City are anticipated as a result of the recommendations of this report. Discussion: 1. Background/Purpose In September 2017, Council directed staff to undertake an Infill & Replacement Housing in Established Neighbourhoods Study (the Infill Study). The Infill Study recommendations provided direction on the future evolution of the City’s identified Established Neighbourhood Precincts so that neighbourhood precinct character is properly considered through the development and building approval processes for infill and replacement housing. The results of the Infill Study included various proposed changes to the Pickering Official Plan and Zoning By-laws, and a recommendation to adopt Urban Design Guidelines for Infill & Replacement Housing in Established Neighbourhood Precincts, dated August 2020 (see Recommendation Report PLN 18-20). - 46 - Report PLN 01-22 January 10, 2022 Subject: City Initiated Zoning By-law Amendment A 12/21 Page 2 In March 2018, Council endorsed the City Initiated Zoning By-law Amendment A 9/17, which resulted in the passing of By-law 7610/18, establishing 9.0 metres as the maximum height in the “R3” and “R4” zoning categories in By-law 2511. That By-law was not appealed. Following the conclusion of the Infill Study in September 2020, Council authorized staff to initiate the Official Plan and Zoning By-law Amendment processes (OPA 20-006/P and A 11/20) to implement the recommendations of the Infill Study, and Council adopted Urban Design Guidelines for Infill & Replacement Housing in Established Neighbourhood Precincts, dated August 2020 (see Council Resolution #428/20, Attachment #1). Following the planning process for those applications, including consultation with the public and agencies, staff, through Report PLN 33-21 dated September 13, 2021, recommended: • the approval of Official Plan Amendment 40 (OPA 40), which added new policies to the Pickering Official Plan with regard to Infill and Replacement Housing in Established Neighbourhood Precinct areas; • the adoption of Informational Revision 28, which added a layer identifying the boundaries of Established Neighbourhood Precincts to the informational neighbourhood maps contained within Chapter 12 – Urban Neighbourhoods, of the Pickering Official Plan; • the approval of amendments to Zoning By-laws 2511, 2520 and 3036 identifying an “Established Neighbourhood Precinct Overlay Zone” with additional zoning provisions which included new definitions and development standards to limit the scale and massing of Infill and Replacement Dwellings in the identified Established Neighbourhood Precincts, and transitional provisions which address how Planning Act applications will be reviewed and addressed through the transition period between the adoption of the by-law amendments and any potential appeal process; and • the adoption of Revised Urban Design Guidelines for Infill & Replacement Housing in Established Neighbourhood Precincts, August 2021. One of the provisions in the draft Zoning By-law Amendments was the Maximum Dwelling Height of 9.0 metres. While there had been some comments through the process about the 9.0 metre maximum dwelling height, it was not a major topic of discussion. The maximum dwelling height maintained the 9.0 metres height limit established through the above noted City Initiated Zoning By-law Amendment A 9/17. On September 13, 2021, Planning & Development Committee approved the recommendations of Report PLN 33-21. On September 27, 2021, Council considered the Report of the Planning & Development Committee. Following discussion about the Infill & Replacement Housing in Established Neighbourhood Official Plan and Zoning By-law Amendments, and prior to voting on the item, Council moved and approved an amendment to the Zoning By-laws amending 2511, 2520 and 3036, to increase the maximum Dwelling Height within the Established Neighbourhood Precincts from 9.0 to 10.0 metres. The item was carried as amended, thus affecting Zoning By-laws 7872/21, 7873/21, and 7874/21. The By-law adopting Official Plan Amendment 40 was not affected. - 47 - Report PLN 01-22 January 10, 2022 Subject: City Initiated Zoning By-law Amendment A 12/21 Page 3 On October 25, 2021, Council reconsidered its decision of September 27, 2021, and directed staff to initiate an amendment to Zoning By-laws 7872/21, 7873/21, and 7874/21 to reduce the maximum Dwelling Height provision from 10.0 metres to 9.0 metres within Established Neighbourhood Precincts, in accordance with the original recommendations of Report PLN 33-21 of the Planning & Development Committee of September 13, 2021. On November 12, 2021, staff initiated Zoning By-law Amendment A12/21 by mailing a notice of the Statutory Public Meeting to landowners within the Established Neighbourhood Precincts and to landowners within 150 metres of the subject precincts. The notice was also posted on the City’s website. On November 8, 2021, the application was circulated to the City departments and agencies for review and comment. In addition, notice of the Statutory Public Meeting hosted on December 6, 2021, was placed on the Community Page in the November 25, 2021 and December 2, 2021 editions of the News Advertiser. All individuals and organizations listed on the Interested Parties List for the Infill Study and the subsequent amendment applications OPA 20-006/P and A 11/20 were also notified of the public meeting. 2. Consultation/Comments Received 2.1 Comments from the December 6, 2021 Statutory Public Meeting On December 6, 2021, the Statutory Public Meeting with regard to proposed Zoning By-law Amendment A12/21 was held, and 9 individuals provided a delegation at the meeting. Additional comments were received via email and phone call prior to, and following, the December 6, 2021 meeting. Some of the comments received in support of the maximum height reduction from 10.0 to 9.0 metres in Established Neighbourhood Precincts referred to the extensive engagement process through the Infill Study and subsequent Official Plan and Zoning By-law processes, as well as the goal and purpose of the Infill Study which was to manage the compatibility of new construction with existing dwellings in the Established Neighbourhood Precincts. Some of the comments in opposition to the proposed zoning by-law amendments included the following: concern that a 9.0 metre maximum dwelling height will enable a 10 foot high main and second storey, and 9 foot basement, ceiling height; that the City would waste resources due to a potential increase in the number of Minor Variance applications; questioning the determination of 9.0 metres as an appropriate maximum dwelling height; and comparing the proposed maximum dwelling height to maximum height restrictions in other municipalities. A complete summary of the staff responses to the comments and concerns associated with the December 6, 2021 Statutory Public Meeting was prepared and is included in Attachment #2 (Summary of Comments and Staff Responses Related to the December 6, 2021, Statutory Public Meeting) to this report. - 48 - Report PLN 01-22 January 10, 2022 Subject: City Initiated Zoning By-law Amendment A 12/21 Page 4 2.2 Comments from Agencies and City Departments 2.2.1 Region of Durham The Region of Durham has indicated that the proposed zoning by-law amendments are consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement and conforms with A Place to Grow, Growth Plan for the Greater Golden Horseshoe, and the Regional Official Plan. The Region has no concerns with the passing of the zoning by-law amendments. 2.2.2 Other Agencies Durham District School Board and Enbridge Gas Inc. have no objection to the amendments. Canada Post and Central Lake Ontario Conservation Authority indicated that they have no comments. 3. Lands Affected by the Draft Zoning By-law Amendments The recommended Draft Zoning By-law Amendments apply to areas within the City identified as Established Neighbourhood Precinct Overlay Zones. They are shown on the Location Map in Attachment #3 and on the schedules included in the Draft Zoning By-law Amendments in Appendices l, ll, and lll. The boundaries of the Established Neighbourhood Precinct Overlay Zones were determined through the Infill Study and refined through the OPA 20-006/P and A 11/20 Amendment application process, and are based on a combination of age of dwellings, existing lot coverage, areas within neighbourhoods with comparatively larger lots, and the prevalence of new construction. 4. Recommended Zoning By-law Amendment Application A 12/21 The majority of the subject lands within the Established Neighbourhood Precinct Overlay Zones are currently zoned as “Detached Dwelling, Third Density Zone – R3”, “Detached Dwelling, Fourth Density Zone – R4”, or “Multiple Family Dwelling, First Density Zone – RM1 or a site-specific zone for residential dwellings including single detached dwellings, semi-detached dwellings, and single attached dwellings (street townhouse dwellings). Uses permitted in the “R3” and “R4” zones are single detached dwellings. Uses permitted in the “RM1” zone include single detached dwellings, semi-detached dwellings and duplex dwellings. The proposed City Initiated Zoning By-law Amendments to reduce the maximum permitted Dwelling Height for Infill and Replacement Dwellings from 10.0 to 9.0 metres, seeks to assist in managing the height of new infill and replacement housing so that it is compatible with the existing built form within Established Neighbourhood Precinct Overlay Zones. The recommended zoning provision is set out in the Draft Zoning By-law Amendments in Appendices l, ll, and lll. - 49 - Report PLN 01-22 January 10, 2022 Subject: City Initiated Zoning By-law Amendment A 12/21 Page 5 Staff undertook extensive public engagement on the matter of Infill and Replacement Housing in Established Neightbourhoods, which included the Focus Group discussions in 2017, the City Initiated Zoning By-law Amendment A 9/17 in 2017, the Infill and Replacement Housing in Established Neightbourhoods Study (Infill Study) completed by the City’s consultant SGL Planning & Design Inc. between 2018 to 2020, and the recent Planning Act process for the official plan and zoning by-law amendments for Infill Housing (OPA 20-006/P and A 11/20 respectively) between 2020 and 2021. City Initiated Zoning By-law Amendment A 9/17 resulted in the passing of By-law 7610/18 establishing 9.0 metres as the maximum height in the “R3” and “R4” zoning categories in By-law 2511. That By-law was not appealed. Although there were some comments through the official plan and zoning by-law amendments for Infill Housing process (OPA 20-006/P and A 11/20 respectively) about the 9.0 metre maximum dwelling height, it was not a major topic of discussion. Reducing the maximum permitted dwelling height from 10.0 to 9.0 metres in the Established Neighbourhood Precinct Overlay Zones, will correct a situation whereby the permitted height within the Established Neighbourhood Precincts would otherwise, in most cases, be less restrictive than outside of the Precincts. Permitting a maximum dwelling height of 10.0 metres is counter to the intent of the Infill Study, which is to manage built form and height of new construction to be compatible with the character of the Established Neighbourhood Precinct. The proposed zoning by-law conforms with and implements the City’s Official Plan, and is consistent with the Council adopted Urban Design Guidelines for Infill & Replacement Housing in Established Neighbourhood Precincts, August 2021. 5. Planning Analysis Section 4 of Information Report 17-21 dated November 16, 2021, read together with Sections 3 and 4 of this report, provides the detail regarding the planning rationale in support of the Draft Zoning By-law Amendments for By-laws 7872/21, 7873/21, and 7874/21. The recommended amendments seeks to manage the height of new construction of infill and replacement dwellings within identified Established Neighbourhood Precincts. An objective of the City’s Official Plan is to protect and enhance the character of established neighbourhoods, and to have consideration for such matters as building height, yard setback, lot coverage, access to sunlight, parking provisions, and traffic implications in establishing performance standards. The recommended Draft Zoning By-law Amendments conform with the Pickering Official Plan. - 50 - Report PLN 01-22 January 10, 2022 Subject: City Initiated Zoning By-law Amendment A 12/21 Page 6 As such, the recommended Zoning By-law Amendments are consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement, 2020, and A Place to Grow, Growth Plan for the Greater Golden Horseshoe, 2020. In addition, the Zoning By-law Amendments conform to the policies of the Durham Regional Official Plan. As noted in Subsection 2.2.1 above, Durham Region has indicated that, they have no concerns with the passing of the Zoning By-law Amendments. 6. Conclusion Council directed staff to initiate an amendment to Zoning By-laws 7872/21, 7873/21, and 7874/21 to reduce the maximum Dwelling Height provision from 10.0 to 9.0 metres within Established Neighbourhood Precincts, in accordance with the original recommendations of Report PLN 33-21 of the Planning & Development Committee of September 13, 2021. The recommended Draft Zoning By-law Amendments shown in Appendices l, ll, and lll, appropriately reflect the requested change to the provision for maximum Dwelling Height from 10.0 to 9.0 metres in Zoning By-laws 7872/21, 7873/21, and 7874/21. Staff recommend that Zoning By-law Amendment Application A 12/21, initiated by the City of Pickering, to reduce the maximum permitted Dwelling Height for Infill and Replacement Dwellings from 10.0 to 9.0 metres in Established Neighbourhood Precinct Overlay Zones, be approved, and that the Draft Zoning By-law Amendments as set out in Appendices l, ll, and lll to Report PLN 01-22 be finalized and forwarded to Council for enactment. Appendices: Appendix l Draft Zoning By-law Amendment to Zoning By-law 7872/21 Appendix ll Draft Zoning By-law Amendment to Zoning By-law 7873/21 Appendix lll Draft Zoning By-law Amendment to Zoning By-law 7874/21 Attachments: 1. Council Resolution #428/20 2. Summary of Comments and Staff Responses Related to the December 6, 2021, Statutory Public Meeting 3. Location Map - 51 - Report PLN 01-22 January 10, 2022 Subject: City Initiated Zoning By-law Amendment A 12/21 Page 7 Prepared By: Original Signed By Margaret Kish, MCIP, RPP Principal Planner, Policy Original Signed By Déan Jacobs, MCIP, RPP Manager, Policy & Geomatics Approved/Endorsed By: Original Signed By Catherine Rose, MCIP, RPP Chief Planner Original Signed By Kyle Bentley, P. Eng. Director, City Development & CBO MK:DJ:ld Recommended for the consideration of Pickering City Council Original Signed By Marisa Carpino, M.A. Chief Administrative Officer - 52 - Appendix I to Report No. PLN 01-22 Draft Zoning By-law Amendment to Zoning By-law 7872/21 - 53 - The Corporation of the City of Pickering Draft By-law No. XXXX/XX Being a By-law to amend Restricted Area (Zoning) By-law 2511, as amended, to implement the Official Plan of the City of Pickering, Region of Durham (A 12/21) Whereas the Council of The Corporation of the City of Pickering authorized staff to retain consultants to complete an Infill and Replacement Housing in Established Neighbourhoods Study; Whereas on September 14, 2020, staff presented the results of the Infill and Replacement Housing in Established Neighbourhoods Study to the Planning & Development Committee in Report PLN 18-20; Whereas on September 14, 2020, the Planning & Development Committee recommended approval of the recommendations contained in Report PLN 18-20, which included a provision for a maximum dwelling height of 9.0 metres within Established Neighbourhood Precincts; Whereas on September 28, 2020, Council endorsed the recommendations of the Infill and Replacement Housing in Established Neighbourhoods Study, which included a provision for a maximum dwelling height of 9.0 metres within Established Neighbourhood Precincts; Whereas on September 27, 2021, Council considered Report PLN 33-21 of the Planning & Development Committee and revised the recommended maximum dwelling height provision form 9.0 metres to 10.0 metres within Established Neighbourhood Precincts; Whereas on October 25, 2021, Council reconsidered its decision of September 27, 2021 and directed staff to initiate an amendment to the by-laws to reduce the maximum dwelling height provision from 10.0 metres to 9.0 metres within Established Neighbourhood Precincts, in accordance with the original recommendations of Report PLN 33-21 of the Planning & Development Committee of September 13, 2021; and Whereas an amendment to By-law 2511, as amended by By-law 7872/21, is therefore deemed necessary; Now therefore the Council of The Corporation of the City of Pickering hereby enacts as follows: 1. Schedules I, ll and lll Schedules I, ll and lll, attached hereto with notations and references shown thereon are hereby declared to be part of this By-law. - 54 - By-law No. XXXX/XX Page 2 Draft 2. Area Restricted The provisions of this By-law shall apply to those lands in the City of Pickering located within an “Established Neighbourhood Precinct Overlay Zone” on Schedules l, ll and IIl, inclusive, attached hereto. 3. General Provisions No building, structure, land or part thereof shall hereafter be used, occupied, erected, moved or structurally altered except in conformity with the provisions of this By-law. 4. Provisions (“Established Neighbourhood Precinct Overlay” Zone) (1) Zone Requirements (“Established Neighbourhood Precinct Overlay” Zone) Within any Residential Zone, no person shall use any building, structure or land, nor erect any building or structure within the lands designated “Established Neighbourhood Precinct Overlay Zone” on Schedules l, ll and IIl, inclusive, attached hereto, except in accordance with the following provisions: (a) Dwelling Height (maximum): 9.0 metres 5. By-law 2511, as amended by By-law 7872/21 By-law 2511, as amended by By-law 7872/21, is hereby further amended only to the extent necessary to give effect to the provisions of this By-law as it applies to the area set out in Schedules I, ll and lII, to this By-law. Definitions and subject matters not specifically dealt with in this By-law shall be governed by relevant provisions of By-law 2511, as amended by By-law 7872/21. 6. Effective Date This By-law shall come into force in accordance with the provisions of the Planning Act. By-law passed this XX day of XXXX, 20XX. ___________________________________ David Ryan, Mayor ___________________________________ Susan Cassel, City Clerk Draft Draft - 55 - R ou g e mo u n t D ri v e Gr a niteCourt Rodd Avenue Kings t on R o ad Toynevale Road Foster Court H i gh way 401 Co w an Ci rc l e Gillmos s R o a d Ch a nti l l y R o a d Pet t i coa t C re e k Ro s e b a n k R o a d Oa k w o o d D r i v e Mo u n t ai n Ash Drive Ly t t o n C o u r t D y s o n R o a d WhitesRoad S a n d s t o n e M a n o r Mc l e o d C r e s c e n t Bella V ista Dr i v e Da h l i a C r e s c e n t P i n e R i d g e R o a d Moo r el a n d s Cre sc e n t R4 (H)S4-19 R4 S2-16 R4 R3 R4 R4 S4-19 R4 R3 R4 R4R3 S2-16 R4 R3 R4 R3 S4-18 R4 R3 R4 OS-HL R4 R3 R3 R3R3 S2-16 R4 R4 R4 S4-19 R4 S R4 S2-16 R4 S Clerk Mayor Schedule I to By-Law Passed This Day of NXXXX/XX ___ ________ 20XX Established Neighbourhood Precinct Overlay Zone - 56 - Br o a d g r e e n S t r e e t Downland Drive Hi l l c r e s t R o a d Ey e r D r i v e We s t S h o r e B o u l e v a r d Cr e e k v i e w C i r c l e P a r k C r e s c e n t Vicki Drive V i c t or C o u r t B r e e z y D r i v e Oklahoma Drive Ch i p m u n k S t r e e t Bria n C ourt Sunrise Avenue Car m ello C o u r t Tullo Street Surf Avenue Beach p o i n t P r o m e n a d e P etticoat Lane Ma r k s b u r y R o a d Vi c t o r y D r i v e Hi l l v i e w C r e s c e n t Abingdon Court Hampton Court Ma r k s b u r y R o a d Sandc a s t l eCourt Ye r e m i S t r e e t Le a s i d e S t r e e t Mink StreetStonebridge Lane Cl i f f v i ew R o a d Lake Ontario R4 R4 R4 R4 R4 R4 R4 R4 C17-R R4 R4 R4 R4 R4 R4 R3 R4 R4 R4 Schedule II to By-Law Passed This Day of XXXX/XX ___ ________ 20XX Mayor i N Established Neighbourhood Precinct Overlay Zone Clerk - 57 - Krosno Boulevard Ba l a t o n A v e n u e Li v e r p o o l R o a d Zator Avenue B e m A v e n u e Gull Crossing Brow nin g Avenue M o d l i n R o a d Fa i r v i e w A v e n u e Do u g l a s A v e n u e Ch a p l e a u Drive Annland S t r e et Colmar Avenue Trell i s C o u rt Brixton L a n e F r o n t R o a d Gr e n o b l e B o u l e v a r d Foxglove Avenue Shearer Lane Haller Avenue St M a r t i n s D r i v e Naroch Boulevard Monica Cook Place Commerce Street An to n i o Street H e l e n Cr esc e n t Pl e a s a n t S t r e e t Bayview Street M i r i a m R o a d Wharf Street Ilona Park Road King fi sh e r D r i v e He w s o n D r i v e Old O r c h a r d A v e n u e Broadview Street Frenchman's Bay R4 R4 R4 C1 R4-21 R4 R4 R4 R4 R4 R4 R4 R4 R4-11 (H)O3B R4 R4 R4 Schedule III to By-Law Passed This Day of XXXX/XX ___ ________ 20XX Mayor i N Established Neighbourhood Precinct Overlay Zone Clerk - 58 - Appendix II to Report No. PLN 01-22 Draft Zoning By-law Amendment to Zoning By-law 7873/21 - 59 - The Corporation of the City of Pickering Draft By-law No. XXXX/XX Being a By-law to amend Restricted Area (Zoning) By-law 2520, as amended, to implement the Official Plan of the City of Pickering, Region of Durham (A 12/21) Whereas the Council of The Corporation of the City of Pickering authorized staff to retain consultants to complete an Infill and Replacement Housing in Established Neighbourhoods Study; Whereas on September 14, 2020, staff presented the results of the Infill and Replacement Housing in Established Neighbourhoods Study to the Planning & Development Committee in Report PLN 18-20; Whereas on September 14, 2020, the Planning & Development Committee recommended approval of the recommendations contained in Report PLN 18-20, which included a provision for a maximum dwelling height of 9.0 metres within Established Neighbourhood Precincts; Whereas on September 28, 2020, Council endorsed the recommendations of the Infill and Replacement Housing in Established Neighbourhoods Study, which included a provision for a maximum dwelling height of 9.0 metres within Established Neighbourhood Precincts; Whereas on September 27, 2021, Council considered Report PLN 33-21 of the Planning & Development Committee and revised the recommended maximum dwelling height provision form 9.0 metres to 10.0 metres within Established Neighbourhood Precincts; Whereas on October 25, 2021, Council reconsidered its decision of September 27, 2021 and directed staff to initiate an amendment to the by-laws to reduce the maximum dwelling height provision from 10.0 metres to 9.0 metres within Established Neighbourhood Precincts, in accordance with the original recommendations of Report PLN 33-21 of the Planning & Development Committee of September 13, 2021; and Whereas an amendment to By-law 2520, as amended by By-law 7873/21, is therefore deemed necessary; Now therefore the Council of The Corporation of the City of Pickering hereby enacts as follows: 1. Schedules I and ll Schedules I and ll, attached hereto with notations and references shown thereon are hereby declared to be part of this By-law. - 60 - By-law No. XXXX/XX Page 2 Draft 2. Area Restricted The provisions of this By-law shall apply to those lands in the City of Pickering located within an “Established Neighbourhood Precinct Overlay Zone” on Schedules l and II, inclusive, attached hereto. 3. General Provisions No building, structure, land or part thereof shall hereafter be used, occupied, erected, moved or structurally altered except in conformity with the provisions of this By-law. 4. Provisions (“Established Neighbourhood Precinct Overlay” Zone) (1) Zone Requirements (“Established Neighbourhood Precinct Overlay” Zone) Within any Residential Zone, no person shall use any building, structure or land, nor erect any building or structure within the lands designated “Established Neighbourhood Precinct Overlay Zone” on Schedules l and II, inclusive, attached hereto, except in accordance with the following provisions: (a) Dwelling Height (maximum): 9.0 metres 5. By-law 2520, as amended by By-law 7873/21 By-law 2520, as amended by By-law 7873/21, is hereby further amended only to the extent necessary to give effect to the provisions of this By-law as it applies to the area set out in Schedules I, and lI, to this By-law. Definitions and subject matters not specifically dealt with in this By-law shall be governed by relevant provisions of By-law 2520, as amended by By-law 7873/21. 6. Effective Date This By-law shall come into force in accordance with the provisions of the Planning Act. By-law passed this XX day of XXXX, 20XX. ___________________________________ David Ryan, Mayor ___________________________________ Susan Cassel, City Clerk Draft Draft - 61 - Br o a d g r e e n S t r e e t Downland Drive Hi l l c r e s t R o a d Ey e r D r i v e We s t S h o r e B o u l e v a r d Cr e e k v i e w C i r c l e P a r k C r e s c e n t Vicki Drive V i c t or C o u r t B r e e z y D r i v e Oklahoma Drive Ch i p m u n k S t r e e t Bria n C ourt Sunrise Avenue Car m ello C o u r t Tullo Street Surf Avenue Beach p o i n t Prome n a d e P etticoat Lane Ma r k s b u r y R o a d Vi c t o r y D r i v e Hi l l v i e w C r e s c e n t Abingdon Court Hampton Court Ma r k s b u r y R o a d Sandc a s t l eCourt Ye r e m i S t r e e t Le a s i d e S t r e e t Mink StreetStonebridge Lane Cl i f f v i ew R o a d Lake Ontario RM1 S SD S Schedule I to By-Law Passed This Day of XXXX/XX ___ ________ 20XX Mayor i N Established Neighbourhood Precinct Overlay Zone Clerk - 62 - Krosno Boulevard Ba l a t o n A v e n u e Li v e r p o o l R o a d Zator Avenue B e m A v e n u e Gull Crossing Bro w ni n g A v e n u e M o d l i n R o a d Fa i r v i e w A v e n u e Do u g l a s A v e n u e Ch a p l e a uDrive Annland S t r e et Si m p s o n A v e n u e Colmar Avenue Tr e l l is C o u r t Wa t er p oint Street Brixton L a n e F r o n t R o a d Gr e n o b l e B o u l e v a r d Foxglove A v e n u e Shearer Lane Haller Avenue St M a r t i n s D ri v e Naroch Boulevard Monica Cook Place Commerce Street An to n i o Street H e l e n Cr esc e n t Pl e a s a n t S t r e e t Bayview Street M i r i a m R o a d Wharf Street Ilona Park Road King fi sh e r D r i v e He w s o n D r i v e Old O r c h a r d A v e n u e Broadview Street Frenchman's Bay RM1 RM1 RM1 R4 R4 RM2 R4 RM1 RM1 RM1 R4 RM1 A36 R4 RM1 RM1 RM1 Schedule II to By-Law Passed This Day of XXXX/XX ___ ________ 20XX Mayor i N Established Neighbourhood Precinct Overlay Zone Clerk - 63 - Appendix III to Report No. PLN 01-22 Draft Zoning By-law Amendment to Zoning By-law 7874/21 - 64 - The Corporation of the City of Pickering Draft By-law No. XXXX/XX Being a By-law to amend Restricted Area (Zoning) By-law 3036, as amended, to implement the Official Plan of the City of Pickering, Region of Durham (A 12/21) Whereas the Council of The Corporation of the City of Pickering authorized staff to retain consultants to complete an Infill and Replacement Housing in Established Neighbourhoods Study; Whereas on September 14, 2020, staff presented the results of the Infill and Replacement Housing in Established Neighbourhoods Study to the Planning & Development Committee in Report PLN 18-20; Whereas on September 14, 2020, the Planning & Development Committee recommended approval of the recommendations contained in Report PLN 18-20, which included a provision for a maximum dwelling height of 9.0 metres within Established Neighbourhood Precincts; Whereas on September 28, 2020, Council endorsed the recommendations of the Infill and Replacement Housing in Established Neighbourhoods Study, which included a provision for a maximum dwelling height of 9.0 metres within Established Neighbourhood Precincts; Whereas on September 27, 2021, Council considered Report PLN 33-21 of the Planning & Development Committee and revised the recommended maximum dwelling height provision form 9.0 metres to 10.0 metres within Established Neighbourhood Precincts; Whereas on October 25, 2021, Council reconsidered its decision of September 27, 2021 and directed staff to initiate an amendment to the by-laws to reduce the maximum dwelling height provision from 10.0 metres to 9.0 metres within Established Neighbourhood Precincts, in accordance with the original recommendations of Report PLN 33-21 of the Planning & Development Committee of September 13, 2021; and Whereas an amendment to By-law 3036, as amended by By-law 7874/21, is therefore deemed necessary; Now therefore the Council of The Corporation of the City of Pickering hereby enacts as follows: 1. Schedules I, ll, lll, lV and V Schedules I, ll, lll, lV and V attached hereto with notations and references shown thereon are hereby declared to be part of this By-law. - 65 - By-law No. XXXX/XX Page 2 Draft 2. Area Restricted The provisions of this By-law shall apply to those lands in the City of Pickering located within an “Established Neighbourhood Precinct Overlay Zone” on Schedules l, ll, IIl, lV and V inclusive, attached hereto. 3. General Provisions No building, structure, land or part thereof shall hereafter be used, occupied, erected, moved or structurally altered except in conformity with the provisions of this By-law. 4. Provisions (“Established Neighbourhood Precinct Overlay” Zone) (1) Zone Requirements (“Established Neighbourhood Precinct Overlay” Zone) Within any Residential Zone, no person shall use any building, structure or land, nor erect any building or structure within the lands designated “Established Neighbourhood Precinct Overlay Zone” on Schedules l, ll, lll, lV and V, inclusive, attached hereto, except in accordance with the following provisions: (a) Dwelling Height (maximum): 9.0 metres 5. By-law 3036, as amended by By-law 7874/21 By-law 3036, as amended by By-law 7874/21, is hereby further amended only to the extent necessary to give effect to the provisions of this By-law as it applies to the area set out in Schedules I, ll, lll, lV and V, to this By-law. Definitions and subject matters not specifically dealt with in this By-law shall be governed by relevant provisions of By-law 3036, as amended by By-law 7874/21. 6. Effective Date This By-law shall come into force in accordance with the provisions of the Planning Act. By-law passed this XX day of XXXX, 20XX. ___________________________________ David Ryan, Mayor ___________________________________ Susan Cassel, City Clerk Draft Draft - 66 - Oa k b u r n S t r e e t Ashwo o d G a t e Al t o n a R o a d Lawson Street Pi n e G r o v e A v e n u e Valley Gate Littleford Street Hogarth Street Wilcrof tCourt Fo r e s t v i e w D r i v e Fiddlers Cou r t F a w n da l e R o a d G wend olyn Street Wo o d v i e w A v e n u e Rougemount Dri v e Toml inson Court Brookridge G ate D a l e w o od Drive Twyn Rivers Drive S w e etbriar Cou r t Bri mwood C ourt R i v e r v i e w C r e s c e n t Rich a rdson Street Hoover Drive St ov e rCrescent Va l l e y R i d g eCrescent G r a n b y C o u rt R o u g e V al l e y D r iv e Ho w e ll C rescent Wo o d v i e w D r i v e Sheppard Avenue R3 R3 R4 R4 R4 R3 R3 R3 R4 R3 R3 R4 R3 R3 R4R4 R4 R4 R1-2 R3 R3 R4 R4 R4 R3R4 R4 R3 R4 R1-1 R4 R3 R3 R4 R1-3 Clerk Mayor Schedule I to By-Law Passed This Day of NXXXX/XX ___ ________ 20XX Established Neighbourhood Precinct Overlay Zone - 67 - Wh i t e s R o a d Sheppard Avenue Barry Drive Ro s e b a n k R o a d We y b u r n S q u a r e E d m u n d D r i ve Ol d F o r e s t R o a d Dunfair Street Steeple Hill Cattail C o u r t Li g h t f o o t P l a c e Daylig ht C o u r t Rouge Hill Court Pineview Lane Rainy Day Drive Ro s e b a n k R o a d Sun d o w nCrescent Am b erwood C resce nt H i g h b u s h T r a i l Ga r d e n v i e w Sq u a r e R3 R3 R4 R4 R4-18 R4 R3 R4 R4 R4 R4 R4 Clerk Mayor Schedule II to By-Law Passed This Day of NXXXX/XX ___ ________ 20XX Established Neighbourhood Precinct Overlay Zone - 68 - Fa i r p o r t R o a d Highview Road Glenanna R o a d A p p l e v i e w Roa d Bonita Avenue Gol d e n r i d g e R o a d Bowler Dr i v e Ea s t b a n k R o a d Sh a d y b r o o k D r i v e Pe b b l e C o u r t Ridgewoo dCou r t Edgewood Road Kitley A v e n u e Rambleberry Avenue As p e n R o a d H u n ts m il l Dri v e Wal n u t L an e Pa r k s i d e D r i v e New Street De erb ro ok D r iv e Di x i e R o a d Ra w li n gs Dr iv e Fa lc o n c re s t D riv e Sp r u c e H i l l R o a d Strouds Lane Crick e t L a n e Or i on C o u r t Du n b a rton R oad Lo n g b o w D r i v e Ka tesLane Cobblers Court Malde nCrescent Ea g l e v i e w Driv e Be l ind a C o u r t Glen Ede n Co u rt Hedgerow Plac e Ec ho P o int C o u r t He a t h s i d e C r e s c e n t Ada Cour t Kel vin way Lan e Sh a d e M a s t e r D r i v e Voyager Avenue Mo nteagle L a n e Wo ll a s ton C o u r t W i n g a rden CrescentChar t w ell Co urt Welrus Street Una Road Falconw oo d Way Millbank Road Taplin Drive WoodruffC r e s c e n t Rathmo r eCrescent St o r r i n g t o n S t r e e t Si l v e r S p r u c e D r i v e Ly d i a C r e s c e n t Fol eye tCrescent M ea d o w v i e w Avenue Highway 4 0 1 Li s t o w e l l C r e s c e n t St o n e p a t h C i r c l e Mountcastle C rescent Bro ok s h ir e Sq u a r e Gloucester Square R4 R3 S3-8 R4-12 R4 R3 R4 R4 C2-2 R3 R3 R3 C.N.R. R3 R3 R4-19 S2 R3 S2 R4-15 R3 R3 R4 S3 R3 R4 R4-8 R4-19 R3 R4 R4 S1 R3 R3 R3 S3 S3-10 R4 R4 R3 R3 R3 S3-10 R4 R3 R3-DN S3-8 R3 R3 R3 R3 S1 R4 S1 S1 R4 S1 R3 Clerk Mayor Schedule III to By-Law Passed This Day of NXXXX/XX ___ ________ 20XX Established Neighbourhood Precinct Overlay Zone - 69 - Wo o d v i e w A v e n u e Va l l e y v i e w D r i v e Pine Grove Avenue Lawson Street Waterford Gate Hogarth Street Wilcroft Court Va l l e y R i d g e C r e s c e n t Th i c k e t C r e s c e n t Fo r e s t v i e w D r i v e Butternut C ourt No r d a n e D r i v e Sa n d c h e r r y C o u r t Tranquil Court Oa k b u r n S t r e e t Ca s tl e S tr eet Prohill Street West Lane We s t c r e e k D r i v e Sweetbriar Court Wo o d v i e w A v e n u e Lancr e st Street Copley Street Secord Street Sandhurst C rescent Mossbrook S q u ar e Rou g eForest Crescent Ro c k w o o d D r i v e White Pine Crescent Senator Street R4 R4 S4-1 R4 S1-14 S1-15 S1-13 R4 R4 R4 S1-14 A R4 R4 R4 R4 S1-13 R4 R4 R4 S1-13 S1-15 R4 S1-14 Clerk Mayor Schedule IV to By-Law Passed This Day of NXXXX/XX ___ ________ 20XX Established Neighbourhood Precinct Overlay Zone - 70 - Bo w l e r D r i v e Gle nvi e w R o a d B o w l e r D ri v e Me m o r y L a n e Everton Street Fie l d l i g h t B o u l e v a r d Rosef ield R oad Gl e n d a l e D r i v e Mulmur C our t Lo d g e R o a d Poppy Lane Bic r o f t C o u r t D i efe n baker C o u r t Av o nm or e Square Brands Court Ca n b o r o u g h C r e s c e n t The Espla n a d e S The Espla n a d e N Gle n g ro v e R oad Fa y lee C re sce nt Ma l d e n C r e s c e n t A n t on S q u a re Br o n t e S q u a r e R3 R3 R3 R3 R4 R3 R3 R3 R3 Clerk Mayor Schedule V to By-Law Passed This Day of NXXXX/XX ___ ________ 20XX Established Neighbourhood Precinct Overlay Zone - 71 - Attachment #1 to Report #PLN 01-22 Legislative Services Division Clerk’s Office Directive Memorandum October 2, 2020 To: Kyle Bentley Director, City Development & Chief Building Official From: Susan Cassel City Clerk Subject: Direction as per Minutes of the Meeting of City Council held on September 28, 2020 Director, City Development & CBO, Report PLN 18-20 Infill and Replacement Housing in Established Neighbourhoods Study -Planning Recommendations Report (Phase 3 Report) Council Decision Resolution #428/20 1.That the Infill and Replacement Housing in Established Neighbourhoods, Planning Recommendations Report, prepared by SGL Planning & Design Inc., dated August 2020, as contained in Attachment #1 to Report 18 -20, be endorsed; 2.That, in accordance with the recommendations in the Infill and Replacement Housing in Established Neighbourhoods, Planning Recommendations Report, prepared by SGL Planning & Design Inc., dated August 2020, City staff; a)be authorized to initiate the recommended Official Plan and Zoning By-law Amendment processes; b)be authorized to undertake the necessary steps to implement the recommended by-law to restrict the width of driveways in the public right-of- way; and, c)be directed to investigate the implementation of a by-law for the protection of trees on private property and report back to Council in mid 2021. 3.That Council adopt the Urban Design Guidelines for Infill and Replacement Housing in Established Neighbourhood Precincts contained in Appendix B of the Infill and Replacement Housing in Established Neighbourhoods, Planning Recommendations Report, prepared by SGL Planning & Design Inc., dated August 2020. Please take any action deemed necessary. Susan Cassel Copy: Interim Chief Administrative Officer - 72 - Attachment #2 to Report #PLN 01-22 A 12/21 – Infill Dwelling Height Summary of Comments and Staff Responses Related to the December 6, 2021, Statutory Public Meeting December 14, 2021 Page 1 of 11 Item Number Comments/Concerns Staff Response 1.Resident – phone call Commented that they are not opposed to the proposed amendment. Also, suggested that: •there should be additional restrictions to house size such as reducing maximum square footage of new dwellings; •the number of permitted garages be restricted to two; •restrict the amount of paved area in the front yard to allow for trees and landscaping; •limit the width of driveways; and •restrict the size of the house in proportion to the lot. Staff explained the purpose and results of the Infill and Replacement Housing in Established Neighbourhood Study and Planning Act applications (OPA 20-006/P and A 11/20). Comments noted. 2.Resident Commented in support of the proposed amendment. Comment noted. 3.Resident Commented in support of the proposed amendment. Comment noted. 4.Resident Commented that the height should be limited to 8.0 metres which would be in keeping with the existing community structures. The maximum height of 9.0 metres in the Established Neighbourhood Precinct Overlay Zone is based on the results and recommendations of the Council endorsed Infill and Replacement Housing in Established Neighbourhood Study. 5.Resident – phone call Commented that they would like to see more bungalows built, more houses with no stairs. Commented that the City should do something about all the buildings being built with too many stairs. Comments noted. The City’s Housing Strategy Study, which is in its final phase, is considering recommendations regarding the inclusion of accessible and universal design, as part of a residential development application. - 73 - A 12/21 – Infill Dwelling Height December 14, 2021 Summary of Comments and Staff Responses Related to the December 6, 2021, Statutory Public Meeting Page 2 of 11 Item Number Comments/Concerns Staff Response 6. Resident – phone call Commented in support of the 9.0 metres height limit. Comment noted. 7. Resident Commented in support of the 9.0 metres height limit. Commented that it is a very important measure to ensure that new house construction is compatible with existing homes. A lower height limit will help preserve the “charm” that is, at present, attracting new buyers to this area of Pickering. Comment noted. 8. Resident Commented in support of the 9.0 metres height limit. Commented that “monster houses” rising in many Pickering neighborhoods, especially near the lake and on Glendale Boulevard, change the feeling of the neighbourhoods and don't fit in with existing housing. Commented that they also overshadow neighbouring houses, robbing them of natural light and views. Commented that the shadows cast by these houses might even cause mold and mildew to grow on neighboring houses because the sun can no longer touch the sides of the houses. Requested that the City does whatever it can to reduce the size and height of new houses being built on existing lots in Pickering. Comments noted. 9. Resident Commented in support of the 9.0 metres height limit. Commented that the question of height was previously discussed and approved by Council [through the public process for By-law 7610/18 Comments noted. - 74 - A 12/21 – Infill Dwelling Height December 14, 2021 Summary of Comments and Staff Responses Related to the December 6, 2021, Statutory Public Meeting Page 3 of 11 Item Number Comments/Concerns Staff Response (Height By-law)] and that since that time, an extensive consultation took place in which PWSCA [Pickering West Shore Community Association] was involved. An independent consultant concluded that, based on sound and reasonable Planning principles, the 9.0 metre height restriction is reasonable and should apply to established neighbourhoods. 10. Resident – phone call and email submission Commented that the height restriction: • should not create a discrepancy in house value between infill and replacement dwellings built in the last ten years and those to be built in the future; • should enable future new build/infill/replacement; and • dwelling to have 10 foot ceilings on both the main and second floors, along with a 9 foot basement height, and a gable roof. Commented that the City: • may want to restrict the number of stories for residential areas to prevent misuse of the height limit; and • should consider placing a height limit on some older properties, with very long and narrow dimensions with regard to any new builds/infills/replacement dwellings to prevent construction of odd-looking buildings, which can affect other property values in the area. Comments noted. A correlation cannot be conclusively made between the height of a dwelling and housing price. Other influences, such as market forces, interest rates, other government policies (federal and provincial), etc., may be contributing factors. Research previously undertaken by staff, and reported in Report PLN 06-18 in support of By-law 7610/18 (Height By-law), indicated that a height of 9.0 metres is sufficient to accommodate the development of a 2 storey home. Staff can confirm that a 2 storey home with a 10 foot high main floor ceiling and a 10 foot high second storey ceiling, with a gable roof, can be accommodated within a Dwelling Height limit of 9.0 metres. The height of the basement ceiling will also be dependent upon such matters as the height of the water table. Through the Infill and Replacement Housing in Established Neighbouthood Study, limiting the number of storeys was considered, and it was recommended by SGL Planning & Design Inc. (SGL), and endorsed - 75 - A 12/21 – Infill Dwelling Height December 14, 2021 Summary of Comments and Staff Responses Related to the December 6, 2021, Statutory Public Meeting Page 4 of 11 Item Number Comments/Concerns Staff Response by Council, that height be determined based on the measurement of height and not the number of storeys. 11. Resident Commented in support of the 9.0 metres height limit. Commented that the question of height was previously discussed and approved by Council [through the public process for By-law 7610/18 (Height By-law)] and that since that time, an extensive consultation took place in which PWSCA [Pickering West Shore Community Association] was involved. An independent consultant concluded that, based on sound and reasonable Planning principles, the 9.0 metre height restriction is reasonable and should apply to established neighbourhoods. Comments noted. December 6, 2021 Delegations 12. Resident – delegation and email submission Commented in support of the proposed 9.0 metres height limit. Commented on the need for compatibility of new homes within established neighbourhoods and the adverse impact to privacy and sunlight of established neighbourhoods from larger homes. Commented on the average ceiling height in homes and noted that 9.0 metres would provide for those heights sufficiently. Comments noted. - 76 - A 12/21 – Infill Dwelling Height December 14, 2021 Summary of Comments and Staff Responses Related to the December 6, 2021, Statutory Public Meeting Page 5 of 11 Item Number Comments/Concerns Staff Response 13. Resident – delegation and email submission Commented in support of the proposed 9.0 metres height limit. Raised concerns regarding the Council resolution to amend the height from the recommended 9.0 metre height by SGL Planning & Design Inc. Commented on the engagement process [of the Infill Study and the Official Plan and Zoning By-law Amendment processes] and that the resident input was valued and appropriately considered. Comments noted. 14. Resident – President, Fairport Beach Neighbourhood Association Commented in support of the proposed 9.0 metres height limit. Comment noted. 15. Resident Commented in opposition to the proposed height reduction from 10.0 to 9.0 metres. Commented that the proposal to decrease the height limit from 10.0 to 9.0 metres would be considered down zoning and would unnecessarily restrict development where reasonable design would require minor variances. Commented that the 10.0 metre height should remain as to not waste City resources through minor variance applications. Comments noted. The proposed reduction of height from 10.0 to 9.0 metres does not remove the right to build an infill or replacement dwelling on a property, but, rather, it introduces a provision that would result in new construction that is more in keeping with the scale and character of the surrounding area. 16. Resident – delegation and email submission Commented in opposition to the proposed height reduction from 10.0 to 9.0 metres. Commented that it should be noted that there was no single family home Maximum Dwelling Height for Comments noted. Clarification: By-law 7610/18 established a 9.0 metre height limit in areas of Zoning By-law 2511 (and not - 77 - A 12/21 – Infill Dwelling Height December 14, 2021 Summary of Comments and Staff Responses Related to the December 6, 2021, Statutory Public Meeting Page 6 of 11 Item Number Comments/Concerns Staff Response the City of Pickering until 2018 when a By-law amendment was introduced. By-law 7610/18 established a 9.0 metre Maximum Dwelling Height in the R3 and R4 zoning categories in By-laws 2511 and 2520. Questioned how the numeric value stipulated in the 2018 By-law should be 9.0 metres. Commented that research indicates that many other GTA Municipal By-laws contain a 10.0 metre or greater maximum height. For example Ajax, Oshawa, Toronto, Scarborough and Vaughan, to name a few. Commented that there are areas of the City with higher [than 9.0 metres] Maximum Dwelling Heights and that the evolution of single family home designs has created a demand for larger homes with greater ceiling heights. Commented that the bungalows referred to during this process are not a relevant point of comparison. They exist on lots that can support larger two storey homes and that many mature trees in the Established Neighbourhood Precincts cast bigger shadows that a 10.0 metre house. Commented that the increase in the Maximum Dwelling Height from 9.0 metres to 10.0 metres will satisfy current housing designs and will reduce the number of variance applications and site specific zoning amendment applications with respect to Maximum Dwelling Height. Council would make a forward thinking move by implementing the suggestion of Councillor Ashe to amend the Zoning Zoning By-law 2520) in the “R3” and “R4” zoning categories where there was no previously established height limit. By-law 7610/18 applies to lands not already subject to a site specific amendment regulating building height. Information Report 17-21 should only have referred to Zoning By-law 2511 with regards to this matter (see page 2, paragraph 5, of Information Report 17-21). Zoning By-law 2520 was not affected by Amendment A 9/17. In considering the appropriate height limit for By-law 7610/18, staff reviewed: site specific amendments for maximum building height in the “R3” and “R4” Zones of Zoning By-law 2511 that were passed since the year 2000 (which found that many were for 9.0 metres or less); the ability to build a two storey home within the 9.0 metre limit; the ability to provide an appropriate transition in height to adjacent existing homes that were predominantly built prior to the year 2000; and all of the comments expressed through the Open House, Public Meeting and written submissions, as well as comments received from the agency circulation. The purpose of The Infill and Replacement in Established Neighbourhoods Study (the Infill Study) was to develop options and make recommendations for an appropriate policy framework, regulations and/or tools that could be implemented so that the City has a sensitive way to manage new construction in established residential neighbourhoods. In particular, the Phase 1 report of the Infill Study categorized the various key elements of neighbourhood character that can have an impact on compatibility of new development. The Phase 1 report also contained a - 78 - A 12/21 – Infill Dwelling Height December 14, 2021 Summary of Comments and Staff Responses Related to the December 6, 2021, Statutory Public Meeting Page 7 of 11 Item Number Comments/Concerns Staff Response By-laws for all areas of Pickering to 10.0 metres for Maximum Dwelling Height. review of best practices from other Ontario municipalities that have experienced an increase in infill and replacement housing in established neighbourhoods. The Infill Study clearly established that not all neighbourhoods are equal and, as such, in order to appropriately manage new development, careful consideration must be given to the specific character of the neighbourhoods. The established neighbourhood precincts resulting from the Infill Study considered, not only the original, remaining dwellings and their mass and size, but also the new dwellings and their associated mass and size. Further, through the OPA and ZBA processes (OPA 20-006/P and A 11/20), consideration was given to recent Committee of Adjustment decisions made within the past five years, and the overwhelming majority of Minor Variance applications that were reviewed within the Established Neighbourhood Precincts, dealt with matters other than height. Staff undertook a scan of other municipal zoning by-law provisions related to maximum permitted height for single detached and semi-detached dwellings and found that the maximum permitted height generally ranged from 8.0 to 11.0 metres. It is important to remember that for any zoning by-law provision, including height, no “one-size-fits-all” approach should be taken, and that the unique nature of the specific area must be considered. In some cases it may be common to have similarities between municipalities when it comes to zoning by-law provisions. The Infill Study was an in-depth, neighbourhood-specific examination of the physical elements within the - 79 - A 12/21 – Infill Dwelling Height December 14, 2021 Summary of Comments and Staff Responses Related to the December 6, 2021, Statutory Public Meeting Page 8 of 11 Item Number Comments/Concerns Staff Response established neighbourhoods of Pickering. The recommendations of the Infill Study are an appropriate reflection of the Pickering established neighbourhoods and their associated identified precincts. The proposed amendment does not remove a person’s right to appeal a decision of the Committee of Adjustment. The Planning Act establishes the legal mechanism for minor variance applications to the Committee of Adjustment. The various policies and provisions recommended through the Infill and Replacement Housing in Established Neighbourhoods Study and endorsed by Council, then subsequently, approved by Council through OPA 20-006/P and A 11/20, intend to provide stronger direction and standards to both builders and members of the Committee of Adjustment for new construction of infill and replacement housing. Similarly, the proposed maximum permitted height of 9.0 metres in Established Neighbourhood Precincts, the subject of Amendment Application A 12/21, also serves to manage compatibility of new construction with existing dwellings in these Established Neighbourhood Precincts areas. 17. Resident – Fairport Beach Neighbourhood Association member Commented in support of the proposed 9.0 metres height limit. Comment noted. 18. Resident Commented in opposition to the proposed height reduction from 10.0 to 9.0 metres. Comments noted. - 80 - A 12/21 – Infill Dwelling Height December 14, 2021 Summary of Comments and Staff Responses Related to the December 6, 2021, Statutory Public Meeting Page 9 of 11 Item Number Comments/Concerns Staff Response Resident raised three questions to the Committee pertaining to the process undertaken to reconsider the Council decision of the 10.0 metre height, the rationale for a standard height, and how dwelling height could be determined when passing by homes. See staff response in Item 16 above. The City is composed of multiple neighourhoods that vary in terms of land use patterns, history, layout and character. A zoning by-law is a planning tool that can be used to set development parameters unique to a neighbourhood, or group of neighbourhoods. The city structure, and the character of the neighbourhoods and land uses within it, is multi-faceted and dynamic, making a “one size fits all” maximum height by-law inappropriate for all areas within the city. 19. Resident – delegation and email submission Commented in opposition to the proposed height reduction from 10.0 to 9.0 metres. Commented that in looking at other municipalities height restrictions, these are some city comparisons that I’ve found: • Markham height is set at – 9.8 metres according to Infill By-law 99-90, Section 1.2 (i); • Ajax height – 11.0 metres as per By-law No. 95-2003; • Toronto – 10.0 metres, including the neighbouring Scarborough area as per By-law 569-2013 as amended Zoning By-law for the City of Toronto; • Oshawa – 10.5 metres to 11.5 metres – as per Zoning By-law 60-94 subsection 6.3; and • Vaughan – 13 metres as per Zoning By-law No. 1-88 of the City of Vaughan. Commented that the average ceiling height of homes built in the last 10 years are 9 feet ceilings. Comments noted. See information in Item 16 above regarding municipal comparisons. - 81 - A 12/21 – Infill Dwelling Height December 14, 2021 Summary of Comments and Staff Responses Related to the December 6, 2021, Statutory Public Meeting Page 10 of 11 Item Number Comments/Concerns Staff Response Commented that using the terminology of monster homes is insulting to newcomers to the city and the homeowners of these homes. Commented that setting the bar at 9.0 metres and encouraging people to go to the committee of adjustments is wasting resources. Commented that they would like to see a 10.0 metre height not just to the neighborhood precincts within the current by-law, but extended to all of Pickering. 20. Resident Commented in opposition to the proposed height reduction from 10.0 to 9.0 metres. Commented on the need for large multi-generational homes due to the increase in housing prices and different maximum heights creating unequitable neighbourhoods. Commented that large homes would lead to a bigger tax base which would then increase municipal funding, and that adopting the reduction in dwelling height would be counter intuitive. Comments noted. The Infill Study clearly established that not all neighbourhoods are equal and, as such, in order to appropriately manage new development, careful consideration must be given to the specific character of the neighbourhood. A neighbourhood may vary from another neighbourhood, or vary within itself in terms of its housing composition, context and character. Applying the same zoning standards throughout the City, or even throughout an individual neighbourhood, may fail to recognize the unique context and character of an area or precinct. Site Specific Requests 21. 1279 and 1281 Commerce Avenue Martindale Planning Services submitted a letter on behalf of Hyland Homes objecting to the proposed height restriction of 9.0 metres, and requesting that the proposed by-law provide an exemption for the Hyland Homes project at 1279 and 1281 Commerce Avenue by allowing a 10.0 metre height limit (Letter The properties located at 1279 and 1281 Commerce Ave. were included in the Established Neighbourhood Precinct Overlay Zone because they meet the criteria of the Infill Study. The subject application (Zoning By-law Amendment Application A 01/21) is currently - 82 - A 12/21 – Infill Dwelling Height December 14, 2021 Summary of Comments and Staff Responses Related to the December 6, 2021, Statutory Public Meeting Page 11 of 11 Item Number Comments/Concerns Staff Response from Martindale Planning Services dated December 7, 2021) being processed by City staff and has not yet been considered by Council. 22. 1822 Fairport Road Grant Morris Associates Ltd. submitted a letter on behalf of the owner of the property located at 1822 Fairport Road, requesting that the maximum permitted height for the property be established at 12 metres (Letter from Grant Morris Associates Ltd. dated December 6, 2021). The property located at 1822 Fairport Road was included in the Established Neighbourhood Precinct Overlay Zone because it meets the criteria of the Infill Study. It appears from the letter that the owner wishes to subdivide this property, and other adjacent properties in their ownership that front onto Shade Master Drive, at some future, unknown time. The properties that front onto Shade Master Drive are not within the Established Neighbourhood Precinct Overlay Zone, and are not subject to the proposed amendment. A proposal to subdivide the subject property, and any associated site specific provisions, including height, will be reviewed and considered subject to the submission of a future development application. - 83 - Attachment #3 to Report #PLN 01-22 No t i o n R o a d Glena n naRoad S tr o u d s Lane Bayly Street Pic k eringParkway V a lley F ar m Road Dixie Road Sq u i r e s B e a c h R o a d Al t o n a R o a d Sandy Beach Road Finch Avenue Liverpool Road Fa i r p o r t R o a d K in g s t o n R o a d R osebank Road Gra n i t e Court Third Conc es s ion Road Broc k Road Highway 401 Clements Road Sc a r b o r o u g h P i c k e r i n g T o w n l i n e McKa y Road W hites Road Si d e l i n e 3 4 Taunton Road Rosebank West Shore BrockIndustrial Rougemount Woodlands Dunbarton Highbush Amberlea BrockRidge Rouge Park DuffinHeights BayRidges City Centre Liverpool VillageEast City DevelopmentDepartment Location MapFile:Applicant:Municipal Address: A 12/21 Date: Nov. 16, 2021 ¯ City of PickeringEstablished Neighbourhood Precinct Overlay Zones Lake Ontario L:\PLANNING\01-MapFiles\A\2021\A 12-21 - Infill Height reduction\A12_21_LocationMap.mxd 1:45,000 SCALE:THIS IS NOT A PLAN OF SURVEY. © The Corporation of the City of Pickering Produced (in part) under license from: © Queens Printer, Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources. All rights reserved.; © Her Majesty the Queen in Right of Canada, Departmentof Natural Resources. All rights reserved.; © Teranet Enterprises Inc. and its suppliers. All rights reserved.; © Municipal PropertyAssessment Corporation and its suppliers. All rights reserved. Legend Neighbourhood Boundaries Established Neighbourhood Precinct Overlay Zones - 84 - Report to Planning & Development Committee Report Number: PLN 02-22 Date: January 10, 2022 From: Kyle Bentley Director, City Development & CBO Subject: Pickering Housing Strategy Study Recommended Pickering Housing Strategy, Phase 3 Report - File: D-1300-014 Recommendation: 1. That Council approve the Phase 3: Recommended Housing Strategy & Action Plan, December 22, 2021, as the Pickering Housing Strategy & Action Plan 2021-2031, December 22, 2021; and 2. That the appropriate officials of the City of Pickering be authorized to take the necessary actions as indicated in the Pickering Housing Strategy & Action Plan 2021-2031, December 22, 2021. Executive Summary: This report provides an overview of the Housing Strategy Study, presents the Phase 3: Recommended Housing Strategy & Action Plan Report prepared by staff, and seeks Council’s authorization to proceed with the implementation of the Study’s Recommended Action Plan. The Phase 3: Recommended Housing Strategy & Action Plan, dated December 22, 2021 (the Phase 3 Report) is on the City of Pickering website at https://www.pickering.ca/en/city- hall/housing-strategy-study.aspx. A full copy of the Phase 3 Report is provided as Attachment #1. The purpose of the Housing Strategy Study is, among other things, to establish the City’s role and priorities with facilitating opportunities for developing housing, affordable housing, and age-friendly housing in Pickering over the next 10 years, and to provide a mechanism to monitor progress as the City works to implement its plan. The Phase 3 Report completes Phase 3 of the Study. It is based on the work and feedback received in all 3 phases of the Study, and identifies a Recommended Action Plan in Section 5.0, for Council’s consideration. Financial Implications: The recommendations of this report do not present any financial implications to the City of Pickering. - 85 - Report PLN 02-22 January 10, 2022 Subject: Recommended Pickering Housing Strategy, Phase 3 Report Page 2 Discussion: 1. Purpose The purpose of this report is to present the results of the Housing Strategy Study and the Phase 3: Recommended Housing Strategy & Action Plan, December 22, 2021, to the Planning & Development Committee. 2. Background 2.1 Study Initiation On June 15, 2020, following the consideration of Report PLN 05-20, Council directed City Development staff to undertake a comprehensive Housing Strategy Study. A link to Report PLN 05-20 is available on the Housing Strategy Study page of the City’s website (https://www.pickering.ca/en/city-hall/housing-strategy-study.aspx). 2.2 Study Purpose The purpose of the Housing Strategy Study is to: • establish the City’s role and priorities with facilitating opportunities for developing housing, affordable housing, and age-friendly housing in Pickering over the next 10 years (2021-2031); • assist Council with decision making; • provide a framework for staff in implementing its responsibilities, including those that relate to the coordination of actions with other agencies, organizations and governments; • assist in guiding residential growth within the City; • aid in the education and creation of general public awareness of what the City is doing on this issue; and • provide a mechanism to monitor progress as the City works to implement its plan. 2.3 Study Process The Housing Strategy Study consists of 3 phases: • Phase 1: Research and Gap Analysis; • Phase 2: Draft Housing Strategy and Action Plan; and • Phase 3: Recommended Housing Strategy & Action Plan. Report PLN 02-22 presents the Phase 3 deliverable: The Recommended Housing Strategy & Action Plan, December 22, 2021. - 86 - Report PLN 02-22 January 10, 2022 Subject: Recommended Pickering Housing Strategy, Phase 3 Report Page 3 2.4 Study Overview Since the launch of the Study, City staff: • Hosted two electronic public open houses: one on January 21, 2021 and the other on April 29, 2021. • Met with stakeholders on February 25, 2021, including, government, not-for-profit, and other agencies and associations, as well as the development and building industry. • Met with the Pickering Accessibility Advisory Committee on March 17, 2021 and May 19, 2021. • Completed the Phase 1: Research and Gap Analysis Report, March 31, 2021 (the Research Report), which is the consolidation of the research and analysis done to determine the housing gaps within the City. In addition to collecting information and data on the City’s demographic profile, socio-economic characteristics of households and housing stock, and associated trends and forecasts, the Research Report contains information pertaining to the policy and legislative context for the provision of affordable housing. The Research Report was completed at the end of March 2021 and is available on the Housing Strategy Study page of the City website (https://www.pickering.ca/en/city- hall/resources/HSS/HSS_Phase1_ResearchGap_Analysis-ACC.pdf). • Prepared the Draft Action Plan, which is a list of potential actions the City could undertake to address the gaps in housing identified in the Research Report. The Draft Action Plan was completed in April 2021 and is available on the City’s website (https://www.pickering.ca/en/city-hall/resources/HSS/Att1---Draft-Action-Plan- ACC.pdf). • Presented the Draft Action Plan at the April 29, 2021 electronic public open house. • Considered feedback to the Draft Action Plan. • Prepared and circulated the Phase 2: Draft Housing Strategy & Action Plan (Phase 2 Report) for comment in November 2021. The Phase 2 Report is available on the City’s website (https://www.pickering.ca/en/city-hall/resources/HSS/Draft-Housing- Strategy-and-Action-Plan-ACC.pdf). • Considered the feedback to the Phase 2 Report. • Prepared the Phase 3: Recommended Housing Strategy & Action Plan, December 22, 2021 (see Attachment #1), which is the subject of this report (Report PLN 02-22). • Met with Councillor Brenner and Councillor Butt (the Council appointed representatives for the Study), at key milestones throughout the Study. • Reported to Planning & Development Committee and Council on March 1, 2021 and March 22, 2021 (PLN 11-21), and June 7, 2021 and June 28, 2021 (PLN 28-21), respectively, providing updates on the status of the Housing Strategy Study. - 87 - Report PLN 02-22 January 10, 2022 Subject: Recommended Pickering Housing Strategy, Phase 3 Report Page 4 3. Phase 1: Research and Gap Analysis Report The Research and Gap Analysis Report, March 31, 2021, concluded that the City’s current housing stock is not fully addressing the needs of City residents. Key findings of the Research Report indicated that there is an overall need for housing options for low and moderate income earners, more affordable rental and ownership housing in a range of unit sizes, and accessible units. The primary rental market refers to units purposely built for the rental market. In particular, the Research Report identified the need for additional primary rental market units of all sizes, the protection of existing rental units, and the need for additional accessible rental units. In addition, the Research Report identified the need for home ownership housing options for moderate income earners in a range of unit sizes as well as accessible units. The Province of Ontario has completed several significant policy initiatives that have an impact on facilitating the provision and/or protection of affordable housing. They include: the adoption of the Promoting Affordable Housing Act, 2016; the adoption of the More Homes More Choices Act, 2019; the 2019 update to A Place to Grow, Growth Plan for the Greater Golden Horseshoe; the 2020 update to the Provincial Policy Statement; and the adoption of the COVID-19 Economic Recovery Act, 2020. The City has an opportunity to address these policy gaps through the Housing Strategy & Action Plan. More recently, the Province has appointed a new Housing Affordability Task Force which will provide the Ontario government with recommendations on additional measures to address market housing supply and affordability. In addition, the Province will host a provincial-municipal housing summit on January 19, 2022 for Ontario’s Big City mayors and regional chairs. The summit will aim to identify further opportunities for collaboration as the Province and municipalities continue to address the housing affordability crisis. 4. Phase 2: Draft Housing Strategy & Action Plan The Draft Housing Strategy & Action Plan (Phase 2 Report) was prepared following receipt and consideration of comments provided on the Draft Action Plan presented and discussed at the April 29, 2021 electronic public open house. The Phase 2 Report explains the proposed actions the City could undertake to address the gaps in housing identified in the Research Report, and provides information in support of the proposed actions. The Phase 2 Report was circulated to agencies, internal departments, interested parties and stakeholders for review and comment in November 2021. - 88 - Report PLN 02-22 January 10, 2022 Subject: Recommended Pickering Housing Strategy, Phase 3 Report Page 5 4.1 Phase 2 Report Circulation Comments Received 4.1.1 Region of Durham The Region of Durham has submitted comments in support of all of the recommended actions contained in Section 4 and summarized in Section 5 of the Phase 2 Report. In addition, the Region of Durham acknowledges and offers its support in the role it can play in assisting the City of Pickering in connecting interested developers with experts or consultants in the field of management and operation of affordable, rental housing (recommended Action Items 3.2 and 3.4). Further, the Region of Durham offers its assistance in developing key performance indicators and sharing housing data for the purpose of reporting on housing measures in the City of Pickering (recommended Action Item 3.7). 4.1.2 City of Pickering Finance Department The City of Pickering Finance Department provided the following comments: In the fall of this year, Council approved Report FIN 15-21 that included the “5 Year Capital & Operating Plan” (5YCOP). The 5YCOP was developed by Watson & Associates and was based on Council approved inputs consisting of: 2022 Preliminary Draft Capital Budget & Four Year Forecast (FIN 13-21) and the City’s Asset Management Plan (FIN 14-21). Excluding the City Centre project, the draft capital plan and forecast for the five years has an estimated cost of $410.7 million. To fund this plan, the City is relying on Development Charge (DC) funding as a critical source of funds and the DC funding represents 43.58 percent of the revenue source. The City Centre is a key Council initiative with a total estimated cost of $207.7 million with DC funding providing approximately $110.5 million as a revenue source. If you add the City Centre DC funding requirements with the Capital forecast, the City is relying on DC funding to provide $289.5 million as a source of capital funding. At this current time and as outlined above, it is recommended that the City not waive its fees and or Development Charge fees on a short term basis, however, this decision should be reviewed post 2026 (Action Item 2.2). Letters of Credit (LC) should be viewed as financial insurance. The LC protects the City and by default, the existing taxpayers from funding project costs that are the responsibility of the “Developer.” It is recommended that the LC requirement not be waived (waiving LCs has been removed from the Phase 3 Report). The 5YCOP and the Council approved Asset Management Plan highlighted the need to invest in the City’s existing infrastructure through additional special levies. At this current time, the City does not have the financial flexibility to fund a Housing Reserve Fund (Action Item 2.4). However, this decision should be revisited and the City could consider a contribution and/or special levy as a medium term strategy post 2026. There is an administration component associated with the implementation of a Vacant Home Tax. Before proceeding with implementing this new “tax,” the administration component has to be thoroughly investigated to determine if the benefits are greater than the cost (Action Item 2.5). - 89 - Report PLN 02-22 January 10, 2022 Subject: Recommended Pickering Housing Strategy, Phase 3 Report Page 6 4.1.3 North-East Pickering Landowners Group Malone Given Parsons Ltd. (MGP), planning and land economic consultant, submitted comments on behalf of the North-East Pickering Landowners Group (NEPLOG) expressing general support of the goals and objectives identified within the Phase 2 Report. The NEPLOG consists of a number of established and experienced community and home builders who own multiple properties in North-East Pickering, and, through the Region of Durham’s municipal comprehensive review (Envision Durham), has formally requested that its lands be brought into the urban boundary to accommodate residential and employment growth to 2051. The NEPLOG commented that: • There is an important difference between subsidized housing and affordable housing that is available on the free market. The latter may contain a number of building and unit types (stacked townhouses, back-to-back townhouses, etc.) that are considered affordable but not commonly considered in government programming and subsidizing, but which still contribute to providing a range of housing options for various income levels. • The development approvals process for new communities should be streamlined and expedited to bring housing into the market sooner to address supply. • Bringing the North-East Pickering lands into the urban boundary will allow for the City to increase its residential land supply, which will contribute to increasing the overall housing stock within the City over the planning horizon. • The NEPLOG is supportive of collaboration and partnerships, between the development sector and the City, throughout the process of developing each of the draft actions. 4.2 Previous Comments Received A summary of previous engagement opportunities and feedback is contained in the Engagement Summary Report, July 2021, prepared by WSP in Appendix 3 of the Phase 3 Report (see Attachment #1). 5. Phase 3: Recommended Housing Strategy & Action Plan The Phase 3: Recommended Housing Strategy & Action Plan, December 22, 2021 (Phase 3 Report) is contained in Attachment #1. It comprises minor textual changes from the draft presented in the Phase 2 Report. Chapter 5 of the Phase 3 Report contains the Recommended Action Plan, which is a table that summarizes the actions that the City may consider to address the affordable housing gaps that were identified in Phase 1 of the Study. Each action is categorized according to the following themes: policy, financial incentives, and other. A timeframe and estimated cost of implementation has been identified for each draft action, as well as the gap the action, identified in Phase 1 of the Study, is intended to address, and the City department proposed to lead the initiative. - 90 - Report PLN 02-22 January 10, 2022 Subject: Recommended Pickering Housing Strategy, Phase 3 Report Page 7 6. Conclusion Council directed staff to undertake a comprehensive Housing Strategy Study as generally outlined in Report PLN 05-20. The purpose of the Housing Strategy Study is to establish the City’s role and priorities with regard to facilitating opportunities for developing housing, affordable housing and age-friendly housing in Pickering over the next 10 years (2021-2031). The results of Phase 1 of the Study concluded that the City’s current housing stock is not fully addressing the needs of City residents, and that there is an overall need for housing options for low and moderate income earners, more affordable rental and ownership housing in a range of unit sizes, and accessible units. The results of Phase 2 of the Study concluded with the identification of draft actions that the City could undertake to address the gaps in housing. Following a fulsome engagement process throughout the Housing Strategy Study, and incorporation of appropriate modifications to the Phase 2: Draft Housing Strategy & Action Plan, staff recommends: (a) That Council approve the Phase 3: Recommended Housing Strategy & Action Plan, December 22, 2021, as the Pickering Housing Strategy & Action Plan 2021-2031, December 22, 2021; and (b) That the appropriate officials of the City of Pickering be authorized to take the necessary actions as indicated in the Pickering Housing Strategy & Action Plan 2021-2031, December 22, 2021. Attachment: 1. Recommended Housing Strategy & Action Plan, December 22, 2021 - 91 - Report PLN 02-22 January 10, 2022 Subject: Recommended Pickering Housing Strategy, Phase 3 Report Page 8 Prepared By: Original Signed By Margaret Kish, MCIP, RPP Principal Planner, Policy Original Signed By Déan Jacobs, MCIP, RPP Manager, Policy & Geomatics Approved/Endorsed By: Original Signed By Catherine Rose, MCIP, RPP Chief Planner Original Signed By Kyle Bentley, P. Eng. Director, City Development & CBO MK:ld Recommended for the consideration of Pickering City Council Original Signed By Marisa Carpino, M.A. Chief Administrative Officer - 92 - pickering.ca Attachment #1 to Report #PLN 02-22 December 22, 2021 Housing Strategy Study Phase 3: Recommended Housing Strategy & Action Plan - 93 - Housing Strategy Study Phase 3: Recommended Housing Strategy and Action Plan City of Pickering December 22, 2021 1 Contents Executive Summary ......................................................................................................... 3 1.0 Introduction ............................................................................................................ 5 1.1 Study Background .............................................................................................. 5 1.2 Study Purpose and Objectives ........................................................................... 6 1.3 Study Methodology ............................................................................................ 7 1.4 Engagement ....................................................................................................... 8 2.0 Key Housing Gaps ................................................................................................ 9 3.0 What We Heard ................................................................................................... 10 3.1 Phase 1 Engagement ....................................................................................... 11 3.1.1 Phase 1 Public Open House ...................................................................... 11 3.1.2 Phase 1 Stakeholder Meeting .................................................................... 11 3.1.3 Phase 1 Accessibility Advisory Committee ................................................ 11 3.2 Phase 2 Engagement ....................................................................................... 12 3.2.1 Phase 2 Public Open House ...................................................................... 12 3.2.2 Phase 2 Accessibility Advisory Committee ................................................ 12 3.2.2 Phase 2 Report Comments Received ....................................................... 12 4.0 Options to Support Affordable Housing ................................................................ 15 4.1 Policy Directions ............................................................................................... 16 4.1.1 What is “Affordable” Housing? ................................................................... 16 4.1.2 Housing Options ........................................................................................ 18 4.1.3 Land Supply ............................................................................................... 19 4.1.4 Protection of Primary Rental Housing ........................................................ 20 4.1.5 Affordable Housing Targets ....................................................................... 22 4.1.6 Inclusionary Zoning ................................................................................... 23 4.1.7 Additional Dwelling Units ........................................................................... 24 4.1.8 Shared Housing ......................................................................................... 27 4.1.9 Accessible Housing ................................................................................... 31 4.1.10 Remove or Reduce Minimum Parking Requirement .............................. 34 - 94 - Housing Strategy Study Phase 3: Recommended Housing Strategy and Action Plan City of Pickering December 22, 2021 2 4.1.11 Down Zoning .......................................................................................... 35 4.2 Financial Incentives .......................................................................................... 38 4.2.1 Provide Land ............................................................................................. 38 4.2.2 Waive Fees ................................................................................................ 39 4.2.3 Prioritize and Facilitate Approvals ............................................................. 41 4.2.4 Establish a Housing Reserve Fund ........................................................... 42 4.2.5 Vacant Home Tax ...................................................................................... 43 4.3 Other Actions to Support Affordable Housing................................................... 45 4.4 Monitoring Progress ......................................................................................... 47 5.0 Recommended Action Plan ................................................................................. 48 6.0 Next Steps ........................................................................................................... 55 - 95 - Housing Strategy Study Phase 3: Recommended Housing Strategy and Action Plan City of Pickering December 22, 2021 3 Executive Summary The United Nations establishes that adequate housing is universally viewed as one of the most basic human needs and that it should be seen as the right to live somewhere in security, peace and dignity.1 The right to adequate housing was recognized by the United Nations as part of the right to an adequate standard of living in the 1948 Universal Declaration of Human Rights and in the 1966 International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights2. In 2017, the Government of Canada released its first ever National Housing Strategy (NHS) which establishes that every Canadian deserves a safe and affordable home, and that affordable housing is a cornerstone of inclusive communities. This $55 plus billion, 10-year plan aims to strengthen the middle class, cut chronic homelessness in half, fuel the economy, and give more Canadians across the country a place to call home.3 The Ontario Human Rights Commission reported that adequate housing is essential to one’s sense of dignity, safety, inclusion and ability to contribute to the fabric of our neighbourhoods and societies. Without appropriate housing, it is often not possible to get and keep employment, to recover from mental illness or other disabilities, to integrate into the community, to escape physical or emotional violence or to keep custody of children.4 In the Durham Region Housing Plan 2014-2024 (At Home in Durham), the Regional Municipality of Durham acknowledged that affordable, accessible and suitable housing is essential for healthy communities, and strong and vibrant neighbourhoods and that it underpins the quality of life for people in Durham, at every stage of their lives.5 At Home in Durham is an integrated housing plan that lays out the Region’s vision for housing to 2024, including an assessment of current and future housing needs; goals related to the identified needs; and realistic actions to meet the diverse range of these needs. It provides a description of anticipated outcomes and how progress is to be measured as Durham works to implement its plan. 1 The Right to Adequate Housing, United Nations Fact Sheet No. 21 (Rev. 1) 2 The Right to Adequate Housing, United Nations Fact Sheet No. 21 (Rev. 1) 3 Canada’s National Housing Strategy: A Place To Call Home, November 2017 4 Right At Home: Report on the Consultation on Human Rights and Rental Housing in Ontario, May 28, 2008 5 At Home in Durham, Durham Housing Plan 2014-2024 - 96 - Housing Strategy Study Phase 3: Recommended Housing Strategy and Action Plan City of Pickering December 22, 2021 4 In the summer of 2020 the City of Pickering undertook the Housing Strategy Study with the goal of establishing a strategy and action plan that addresses the need for delivering more lifecycle housing options, including affordable and accessible units, to support changing demographic conditions within the City over the next ten years (2021-2031). The Study resulted in the Research and Gap Analysis Report, March 2021 (Research Report), which concluded that the City’s current housing stock is not fully addressing the needs of City residents. Key findings of the Research Report indicated that there is an overall need for more housing options for low and moderate income earners, more affordable rental and ownership housing in a range of unit sizes, and accessible units. The Housing Strategy and Action Plan (2021-2031) provides a framework of policies and incentives to address the gaps, and a mechanism to monitor progress as the City works to implement its plan. “The Housing Strategy and Action Plan provides a framework of policies and incentives to address the housing gaps and mechanisms to monitor progress as the City works to implement its Plan.” - 97 - Housing Strategy Study Phase 3: Recommended Housing Strategy and Action Plan City of Pickering December 22, 2021 5 1.0 Introduction 1.1 Study Background All levels of government generally acknowledge that there is a housing crisis. There is a lack of affordable housing options, both rental and ownership, for many people in the City of Pickering. In the Fall of 2018, the City of Pickering embarked on a process to develop its first ever Age Friendly Community Plan (AFCP). Over 650 people participated in an extensive community consultation program. The resulting AFCP identifies four priority areas and 68 actions that are intended to help ensure that local policies, community programs and services, and municipal infrastructure meet the existing and future needs of older adults in Pickering. Housing was identified as the highest priority of the four priority areas. The City of Pickering is projected to be a driving force for residential and economic growth in Durham Region and the Greater Toronto Area over the next two decades. This, in combination with recent amendments to Provincial policy regarding urban area boundary expansion and intensification targets, the Region’s current municipal comprehensive review which includes a review of the Region’s settlement areas, a land needs assessment, and a review of housing policy planning, also contributed to Council recognizing the need for a Housing Strategy Study. On June 15, 2020, following the consideration of Report PLN 05-20, Council directed City Development staff to undertake a comprehensive housing strategy study. The provision of housing, affordable housing, and age-friendly housing, is influenced by all levels of government, the private and not-for-profit sectors, and a variety of community groups and organizations. The Province of Ontario (the Province) and the Regional Municipality of Durham (Durham Region), play key roles in the development, funding, and administration of affordable housing. - 98 - Housing Strategy Study Phase 3: Recommended Housing Strategy and Action Plan City of Pickering December 22, 2021 6 1.2 Study Purpose and Objectives The purpose of the Housing Strategy Study is to establish the City’s role and priorities with regard to facilitating opportunities for developing housing, affordable housing and age-friendly housing in Pickering over the next 10 years (2021 – 2031); assist Council with decision making; provide a framework for staff in implementing its responsibilities, including those that relate to the coordination of actions with other agencies, organizations and governments; assist in guiding residential growth within the City; aid in the education and creation of general public awareness of what the City is doing on this issue; and provide a mechanism to monitor progress as the City works to implement its plan. The key objective of the Housing Strategy Study is to provide a framework so that the City can ensure that there is a supply of suitable (as it relates to the size of the household), adequate (as it relates to physical condition) and affordable (as it relates to household income) housing for all ages and abilities within its jurisdiction. This will help to ensure that the City meets the housing needs in support of a diverse community and workforce. Housing Strategy Identify Priorities, Policy & Resources Develop a Housing Database Identify Projected Growth Identify & Analyze Housing Needs & GapsExamine Housing Policy Context Identify Partnerships Recommend Housing Action Plan Create Monitoring Program - 99 - Housing Strategy Study Phase 3: Recommended Housing Strategy and Action Plan City of Pickering December 22, 2021 7 1.3 Study Methodology The Housing Strategy Study consists of three phases: Phase 1: Research and Gap Analysis; Phase 2: Draft Housing Strategy and Action Plan; and Phase 3: Recommended Housing Strategy and Action Plan. There were engagement opportunities for the public and stakeholders throughout the Study. Phase 1 •Research & Gap Analysis • Public Open House • Stakeholder Meeting • Advisory Committee • Planning & Development Committee Meeting Phase 2 •Draft Housing Strategy & Action Plan • Public Open House • Advisory Committee • Planning & Development Committee Meeting • Stakeholder Circulation Phase 3 •Recommended Housing Strategy & Action Plan • Planning & Development Committee Meeting - 100 - Housing Strategy Study Phase 3: Recommended Housing Strategy and Action Plan City of Pickering December 22, 2021 8 1.4 Engagement The successful completion of the Study relied on meaningful public and stakeholder engagement and consultation. The engagement process was supported by a communications plan that included media releases, social media messages, and a project page on the City’s website (https://www.pickering.ca/en/city-hall/housing- strategy-study.aspx#) which went live on January 6, 2021. Feedback from the various engagement opportunities was considered in preparing the Housing Strategy and Action Plan, and is summarized in Chapter 3.0 of this report. “The provision of housing, affordable housing, and age-friendly housing, is influenced by all levels of government, the private and not- for-profit sectors, and a variety of community groups and organizations.” - 101 - Housing Strategy Study Phase 3: Recommended Housing Strategy and Action Plan City of Pickering December 22, 2021 9 2.0 Key Housing Gaps The Research and Gap Analysis Report, March 31, 2021, (the Research Report) concluded that the City’s current housing stock is not fully addressing the needs of City residents. Key findings of the Research Report indicated that there is an overall need for more housing options for low and moderate income earners, more affordable rental and ownership housing in a range of unit sizes, and additional accessible units. The primary rental market refers to units purposely built for the rental market. In particular, the Research Report identified the need for additional primary rental market units of all sizes, the protection of existing rental units, and the need for additional accessible rental units. In addition, the Research Report identified the need for home ownership housing options for moderate income earners in a range of unit sizes as well as accessible units. The Province of Ontario has completed several significant policy initiatives that have an impact on facilitating the provision and/or protection of affordable housing. They include: the adoption of the Promoting Affordable Housing Act, 2016; the adoption of the More Homes More Choices Act, 2019; the 2019 update to A Place to Grow, Growth Plan for the Greater Golden Horseshoe; the 2020 update to the Provincial Policy Statement; and the adoption of the COVID-19 Economic Recovery Act, 2020. The City has an opportunity to address these Provincial policy directions through the Housing Strategy and Action Plan. “There is a need for housing options for low and moderate income earners, more affordable rental and ownership housing in a range of unit sizes, and additional accessible units.” - 102 - Housing Strategy Study Phase 3: Recommended Housing Strategy and Action Plan City of Pickering December 22, 2021 10 3.0 What We Heard Engagement opportunities included two electronic public open houses, a Stakeholder Meeting, and presentations to the Pickering Accessibility Advisory Committee. At the January 21, 2021 electronic public open house staff launched the Study, provided an overview of the purpose, objectives and work program of the Study, and listened to feedback from delegates. On April 29, 2021, staff hosted the second electronic public open house, provided an update on the status of the Study, a summary of the gaps in housing in the City identified in the Phase 1: Research and Gap Analysis Report, March 2021, and an overview of Draft Actions that the City may consider in addressing the gaps. On February 25, 2021 staff hosted the Stakeholder Meeting which was facilitated by WSP and held electronically on the GoToMeeting platform. The purpose of the meeting was to engage key stakeholders and provide an opportunity for the City to receive solution-oriented feedback from a range of relevant perspectives and interests in affordable housing within Pickering. On March 17, 2021 and May 19, 2021 staff attended the electronic meetings of the Pickering Accessibility Advisory Committee (ACC) and provided an update on the status of the Study, preliminary findings to date, a review of the work plan and next steps. At the May 19, 2021 AAC meeting, staff also presented an overview of the Draft Action Plan. Most importantly, staff listened to the feedback and answered questions from the Committee. Furthermore, staff provided study updates to Council in March 2021 (PLN 11-21) and June 2021 (PLN 28-21). The Draft Action Plan was contained in the June 7, 2021 Report PLN 28-21. Engagement for Phase 2 of the Study included circulating the Phase 2: Draft Housing Strategy and Action Plan Report (Phase 2 Report) to internal departments, agencies and interested stakeholders for review and comment. The Phase 3: Recommended Housing Strategy & Action Plan, December 22, 2021, (this report) was modified from the Phase 2 Report to include consideration for feedback received from the circulation of the Phase 2 Report . - 103 - Housing Strategy Study Phase 3: Recommended Housing Strategy and Action Plan City of Pickering December 22, 2021 11 3.1 Phase 1 Engagement 3.1.1 Phase 1 Public Open House Electronic Public Open House 1, the first public engagement opportunity for the Study, took place on January 21, 2021 and was advertised on the Community Page of the News Advertiser on January 7 and 14, 2021, as well as on the City’s website. In addition, a news release was issued on January 14, 2021, followed by social media messages. City staff also sent notice of the Electronic Public Open House directly to members of the Accessibility Advisory Committee, Seniors Community Services Council, and the Age Friendly Steering Committee. Three delegates, in addition to Maurice Brenner, City Councillor, Ward 1 and Shaheen Butt, City Councillor, Ward 3, participated in the discussion. As of September 9, 2021 a total of 178 members of the public viewed the Public Open House 1 on the City’s YouTube channel. A complete summary of comments/questions and staff responses associated with the January 21, 2021 Electronic Public Open House 1 were reported to Council in Report PLN 11-21 and is contained in Appendix 1 to this report. 3.1.2 Phase 1 Stakeholder Meeting Representatives from the development industry, consultants, agencies, and other relevant organizations were invited to attend a Stakeholder Meeting on February 25, 2021. Nineteen individuals participated and were provided nine discussion questions in advance of the meeting. The questions were developed based on the findings of the Research Report, and largely focused on exploring the various issues and opportunities that were identified through the Research Report. A summary of comments/questions associated with the February 25, 2021 Stakeholder Meeting is contained in Appendix 2 to this report. 3.1.3 Phase 1 Accessibility Advisory Committee Staff attended the March 17, 2021 electronic meeting of the Pickering Accessibility Advisory Committee and provided an overview of the Study, including the background, purpose, objectives, and work plan. More specifically, the housing continuum was presented and the definition of “affordable” was explained. The roles of Federal, Provincial and Regional governments in housing was also explored. The presentation concluded with confirming preliminary findings to date and the next steps of the Study. Comments from the Committee are detailed in Appendix 3, Housing Strategy Study, Engagement Summary Report, July 2021. - 104 - Housing Strategy Study Phase 3: Recommended Housing Strategy and Action Plan City of Pickering December 22, 2021 12 3.2 Phase 2 Engagement 3.2.1 Phase 2 Public Open House Electronic Public Open House 2 took place on April 29, 2021 and was advertised on the Community Page of the News Advertiser on April 15 and 22, 2021, as well as on the City’s website. City staff also sent notice of the Electronic Public Open House 2 directly to members of the Accessibility Advisory Committee, Seniors Community Services Council, the Age Friendly Steering Committee, and participants at the February 25, 2021 Stakeholder Meeting. As of September 9, 2021 a total of 72 members of the public viewed Public Open House 2 on the City’s YouTube channel. Staff heard from two delegates during the Open House, and received a few emailed comments prior to, and during the Open House. A summary of comments/questions associated with the April 29, 2021 Electronic Public Open House 2 were reported to Council in Report PLN 28-21 and is contained in Appendix 4 to this report. 3.2.2 Phase 2 Accessibility Advisory Committee Staff attended the May 19, 2021 electronic meeting of the Pickering Accessibility Advisory Committee and provided an update on the status of the Study, including a review of the work plan to confirm next steps. Information regarding housing gaps were identified, while tools identified in the Draft Action Plan were reviewed. These tools included planning policy, financial incentives, partnership, education, advocacy and other actions. Comments from the Committee are detailed in Appendix 3, Housing Strategy Study, Engagement Summary Report, July 2021. 3.2.2 Phase 2 Report Comments Received Comments received on the Phase 2 Report are summarized below. 3.2.2.1 Region of Durham The Region of Durham has submitted comments in support of all of the draft actions contained in Section 4 and summarized in Section 5 of the Phase 2 Report. In addition, the Region of Durham acknowledges and offers its support in the role it can play in assisting the City of Pickering in connecting interested developers with experts or consultants in the field of management and operation of affordable, rental housing (Action Items 3.2 and 3.4). Further, the Region of Durham offers its assistance in developing key performance indicators and sharing housing data for the purpose of reporting on housing measures in the City of Pickering (Action Item 3.7). - 105 - Housing Strategy Study Phase 3: Recommended Housing Strategy and Action Plan City of Pickering December 22, 2021 13 3.2.2.2 City of Pickering Finance Department The City of Pickering Finance Department provided the following comments: In the fall of this year, Council approved Report FIN 15-21 that included the “5 Year Capital & Operating Plan” (5YCOP). The 5YCOP was developed by Watson & Associates and was based on Council approved inputs consisting of: 2022 Preliminary Draft Capital Budget & Four Year Forecast (FIN 13-21) and the City’s Asset Management Plan (FIN 14-21). Excluding the City Centre project, the draft capital plan and forecast for the five years has an estimated cost of $410.7 million. To fund this plan, the City is relying on Development Charge (DC) funding as a critical source of funds and the DC funding represents 43.58 per cent of the revenue source. The City Centre is a key Council initiative with a total estimated cost of $207.7 million with DC funding providing approximately $110.5 million as a revenue source. If you add the City Centre DC funding requirements with the Capital forecast, the City is relying on DC funding to provide $289.5 million as a source of capital funding. At this current time and as outlined above, it is recommended that the City not waive its fees and or Development Charge fees on a short term basis, however, this decision should be reviewed post 2026 (Action Item 2.2). Letters of Credit (LC) should be viewed as financial insurance. The LC protects the City and by default, the existing taxpayers from funding project costs that are the responsibility of the “Developer.” It is recommended that the LC requirement not be waived (waiving LCs has been removed from the Phase 3 Report). The 5YCOP and the Council approved Asset Management Plan highlighted the need to invest in the City’s existing infrastructure through additional special levies. At this current time, the City does not have the financial flexibility to fund a Housing Reserve Fund (Action Item 2.4). However, this decision should be revisited and the City could consider a contribution and/or special levy as a medium term strategy post 2026. There is an administration component associated with the implementation of a Vacant Home Tax. Before proceeding with implementing this new “tax,” the administration component has to be thoroughly investigated to determine if the benefits are greater than the cost (Action Item 2.5). 3.2.2.3 North East Pickering Landowners Group Malone Given Parsons Ltd. (MGP), planning and land economic consultant, submitted comments on behalf of the North-East Pickering Landowners Group (NEPLOG) expressing general support of the goals and objectives identified within the Phase 2 Report. The NEPLOG consists of a number of established and experienced community - 106 - Housing Strategy Study Phase 3: Recommended Housing Strategy and Action Plan City of Pickering December 22, 2021 14 and home builders who own multiple properties in North-East Pickering, and, through the Region of Durham’s municipal comprehensive review (Envision Durham), has formally requested that its lands be brought into the urban boundary to accommodate residential and employment growth to 2051. The NEPLOG commented that: • There is an important difference between subsidized housing and affordable housing that is available on the free market. The latter may contain a number of building and unit types (stacked townhouses, back-to-back townhouses, etc.) that are considered affordable but not commonly considered in government programming and subsidizing, but which still contribute to providing a range of housing options for various income levels. • The development approvals process for new communities should be streamlined and expedited to bring housing into the market sooner to address supply. • Bringing the North-East Pickering lands into the urban boundary will allow for the City to increase its residential land supply, which will contribute to increasing the overall housing stock within the City over the planning horizon. • The NEPLOG is supportive of collaboration and partnerships, between the development sector and the City, throughout the process of developing each of the draft actions. “Engagement with key stakeholders provide an opportunity for the City to receive solution-oriented feedback from a range of relevant perspectives and interests in affordable housing within Pickering” - 107 - Housing Strategy Study Phase 3: Recommended Housing Strategy and Action Plan City of Pickering December 22, 2021 15 4.0 Options to Support Affordable Housing Key findings of the Research Report indicated that there is an overall need for more housing options including a mix of types, tenure and affordability levels to meet the needs of the City’s residents. This section outlines Policy Directions (subsection 4.1) and Financial Incentives (subsection 4.2) that the City could consider to facilitate opportunities for developing housing, affordable housing and age-friendly housing in Pickering over the next 10 years. Policy Directions • Define Affordable Housing • Define Housing Options • Land Supply • Protect Primary Rental Housing • Affordable Housing Targets • Inclusionary Zoning • Additional Dwelling Units • Accessible Housing • Reduce Parking Requirement • Down Zoning FinancialIncentives • Provide Land • Waive Fees • Prioritize and Facilitate Approvals • Housing Reserve Fund • Vacant Home Tax Other Actions • Provide Guidance • Partnerships • Monitoring Plan - 108 - Housing Strategy Study Phase 3: Recommended Housing Strategy and Action Plan City of Pickering December 22, 2021 16 4.1 Policy Directions 4.1.1 What is “Affordable” Housing? The City of Pickering Official Plan does not formally define “affordable housing”. It does, however describe it as meaning annual housing costs (rent or mortgage payments) that do not exceed 30 percent of gross household income. CMHC defines affordable housing as generally meaning a housing unit that can be owned or rented by a household with shelter costs (rent or mortgage, utilities, etc.) that are less than 30 percent of its gross income6. The Province, in the Provincial Policy Statement, 2020 (PPS)7 and Durham Region, in its official plan8, provide the following definition for Affordable Housing: “Affordable: means a) in the case of ownership housing, the least expensive of: 1. housing for which the purchase price results in annual accommodation costs which do not exceed 30 percent of gross annual household income for low and moderate income households; or 2. housing for which the purchase price is at least 10 percent below the average purchase price of a resale unit in the regional market area; b) in the case of rental housing, the least expensive of: 1. a unit for which the rent does not exceed 30 percent of gross annual household income for low and moderate income households; or 2. a unit for which the rent is at or below the average market rent of a unit in the regional market area.” Durham Region, in its Housing Policy Planning Discussion Paper prepared as part of its municipal comprehensive review of its Official Plan, Envision Durham, presents, and discusses, other affordability measures that may be considered for rental housing, such as using a higher ratio of 35 per cent of income spent on rent, measuring income at the 50th percentile to reflect the median, or measuring income at the 40th percentile to reflect a lower range of low and moderate incomes. In considering affordable homeownership, 6 National Housing Strategy Glosary of Common Terms (2018), https://eppdscrmssa01.blob.core.windows.net/cmhcprodcontainer/files/pdf/glossary/nhs-glossary- en.pdf?sv=2018-03-28&ss=b&srt=sco&sp=r&se=2021-05-07T03:55:04Z&st=2019-05- 06T19:55:04Z&spr=https,http&sig=bFocHM6noLjK8rlhy11dy%2BkQJUBX%2BCDKzkjLHfhUIU0%3D 7 Provincial Policy Statement, 2020, https://files.ontario.ca/mmah-provincial-policy-statement-2020- accessible-final-en-2020-02-14.pdf 8 Durham Regional Official Plan, Consolidation May 26, 2020, https://www.durham.ca/en/doing- business/resources/Documents/PlanningandDevelopment/Official-Plan/2020-Durham-Regional-Official- Plan-Consolidation---Revised-1.pdf - 109 - Housing Strategy Study Phase 3: Recommended Housing Strategy and Action Plan City of Pickering December 22, 2021 17 Durham Region presents other measures that could be used to calculate affordability including CMHC’s Gross Debt Service ratio, which is 35 per cent of income spent on mortgage, property taxes, and heat, or measuring income at the 50th percentile to reflect the mid-range for low and moderate incomes. In the City’s response to Durham Region’s question about redefining “affordable housing”, Council recommended that the Region maintain its definition of affordable housing to be consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement and other municipalities in the Greater Toronto and Hamilton Area, and for the purpose of monitoring and comparability. Currently, the municipalities of Oshawa and Clarington have embedded definitions of “affordable housing” in their official plans, that are consistent with the definition in the PPS. The Town of Ajax and the Town of Whitby do not currently have a definition of “affordable housing” in their official plans. Whitby is currently undertaking an official plan review and may consider including a definition of “affordable housing” in its official plan. Increasingly the term “attainable housing” is being used. There is no universally accepted definition of “attainable housing”. However, it generally refers to non-subsidized, for-sale housing that is affordable to households with workforce incomes9. This type of housing is meant to fill the gaps between government subsidized housing (community housing) and the free market, to provide for workers who earn enough income to be disqualified from government assistance, but not enough to afford what is available in the market. Proposed Action Add a definition of “affordable housing” to the City’s Official Plan which includes reference to the average purchase price and average market rent in accordance with the definition in the Provincial Policy Statement, 2020. 9 “workforce incomes” generally refers to gainfully employed members of the workforce earning between generally 80 and 120% of median income. In some market areas the upper end of the range may be greater than 120%. - 110 - Housing Strategy Study Phase 3: Recommended Housing Strategy and Action Plan City of Pickering December 22, 2021 18 4.1.2 Housing Options In 2020, the Province updated the Provincial Policy Statement and introduced a definition for the term: “housing options” as follows: “Housing options: means a range of housing types such as, but not limited to single-detached, semi-detached, rowhouses, townhouses, stacked townhouses, multiplexes, additional residential units, tiny homes, multi-residential buildings. The term can also refer to a variety of housing arrangements and forms such as, but not limited to life lease housing, co-ownership housing, co-operative housing, community land trusts, land lease community homes, affordable housing, housing for people with special needs, and housing related to employment, institutional or educational uses.” The policies of the Durham Regional Official Plan (ROP) provide direction for a wide diversity of residential dwellings by type, size and tenure in Urban Areas to satisfy the social and economic needs of present and future residents of the Region (ROP Section 4). Specifically, there are policies that require at least 25% of all new residential units to be affordable to low and moderate income households (4.2.4), and that require a 3-year supply of residential units that are in draft approved and registered plans of subdivision/condominium (4.2.5). There are also policies which support opportunities to increase the supply of housing through intensification, such as second units in single detached dwellings, conversion of industrial/commercial buildings, and infill housing (4.3.2). Through the Region of Durham’s municipal comprehensive review, Envision Durham, the Region is proposing to add a definition, based on the PPS, for the term “housing options”. Completed in the Fall of 2019, the Pickering Age Friendly Community Plan (AFCP) is a five year plan that establishes a vision, and guiding principles to help ensure that local policies, community programs and services, and municipal infrastructure meet the existing and future needs of older adults in Pickering. There are 68 actions identified in the AFCP and each are categorized by a World Health Organization (WHO) theme. Housing is identified as the highest priority of the eight identified themes in the AFCP and Action Item 1.1 identifies the need for delivering more lifecycle housing options, including affordable and accessible units to support changing demographic conditions. In 2016, the majority of dwellings in Pickering were single detached dwellings (60.8%). Since then, the number and proportion of building permits for townhouses and apartment units have grown, and single detached and semi-detached dwellings combined have declined. In 2020, apartment units accounted for the greatest proportion of building permits issued. This is largely due to the approval of a 12-storey - 111 - Housing Strategy Study Phase 3: Recommended Housing Strategy and Action Plan City of Pickering December 22, 2021 19 rental apartment building. Recently approved plans of subdivision and condominium indicated that while single detached homes accounted for a little over half the dwelling units, the remaining units were townhouses. Since 2016, the proportion of townhouses approved through plans of subdivision and condominium has slowly increased, while the proportion of single detached dwellings has fluctuated. Pickering continues to increase its diversity of housing types from a majority of single detached dwellings since 2016, to townhouse and apartment units combined. Over the last five years, the combined total number of townhouses and apartment units in approved building permits and approved plans of subdivision and condominium, has contributed to the larger proportion of newly constructed dwelling units compared to the proportion of single detached dwellings. The City’s Official Plan already contains a number of policies which support a diverse range of housing options. However, the POP does not have a definition for “housing options”. Adding a definition for the term “housing options” that is consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement, to the POP would be helpful to provide clarity. Proposed Action Add a definition of “Housing Options” to the City’s Official Plan. 4.1.3 Land Supply Currently, the POP policy states that a minimum 10 year supply of residentially designated lands must be maintained to meet anticipated long-term housing demands (POP Policy 6.3 (a)) and a minimum 3 year supply of residential land in the form of draft approved plan and/or registered plans, to meet anticipated short-term housing demands (POP Policy 6.3 (b)). The POP should be updated to reflect the recent changes to the PPS in terms of an increase from 10 to 15 year supply of residentially designated lands to meet anticipated long-term housing demands. Proposed Action Amend the City’s Official Plan to reflect the Provincial Policy Statement 2020 requirement for the municipality to maintain the ability to accommodate residential growth for a minimum of 15 years (as opposed to 10 years as currently written). - 112 - Housing Strategy Study Phase 3: Recommended Housing Strategy and Action Plan City of Pickering December 22, 2021 20 In addition, recent amendments to the PPS enable the Region of Durham to update its policy to increase from 3 to 5 years the minimum number of years to accommodate a short-term supply of residential lands. Based on the Proposed Housing Policy Directions Report of Envision Durham, the Region appears to be satisfied with its minimum three year requirement, and has not proposed any associated change to its ROP. The Land Needs Assessment currently being undertaken as part of the Growth Management Study of Envision Durham, will determine the supply and mix of housing that is appropriate to satisfy forecasted market demand for housing in Durham, including the City of Pickering. The City’s policy in this regard will ultimately be determined by the outcome of the Envision Durham exercise. Proposed Action Consider amending the City’s Official Plan to reflect the Provincial Policy Statement 2020 option to increase from 3 to 5 years the minimum number of years to accommodate a short-term supply of residential lands, subject to the outcome of Durham Region’s Envision Durham exercise. 4.1.4 Protection of Primary Rental Housing The Research Report identified the need for additional primary rental market units of all sizes and the importance of protecting existing rental units. The private rental market consists of the primary or purpose-built rental market and the secondary rental market. The primary rental market includes all self-contained rental units where the purpose of the structure is to house tenants. The secondary rental market represents self-contained units, which were not purposely built for the rental market, but are currently being rented out. In Pickering the number of primary rental units has remained consistent since 2007 and the overall vacancy rate has been declining to below 2% for all units and below 1% for three bedroom units. Average market rents for purpose-built rental units in 2015 were not affordable to low and moderate income earners (renter households with incomes within the 1st to 4th income deciles) and only a high income earner would be able to afford the average market rent (all apartment types) in the secondary market in Pickering in 2015 without having to spend more than 30% of their income on rent. Further, a single person who was working full time in 2015 and earning the minimum wage would not be able to - 113 - Housing Strategy Study Phase 3: Recommended Housing Strategy and Action Plan City of Pickering December 22, 2021 21 afford any apartment unit type in Pickering, in either the primary or secondary rental market, without having to spend much more than 30% of their gross income on housing costs. In 2015, 25.2% of all households in Pickering were facing housing affordability issues (i.e., spending more than 30% of household income on housing costs) and of those, almost half were renters. In addition to promoting and incentivizing the provision of additional primary rental units, especially one and two bedroom units, the City should consider ways of protecting its existing primary rental housing stock. The Ontario Municipal Act, 2001 establishes when and how municipalities may prohibit and regulate the demolition and/or conversion of rental housing. Currently the City does not have any official plan policies to protect rental housing from conversion to condominium tenure or from demolition. Although Durham Region official plan policies currently protect purpose-built rental housing by discouraging condominium conversions when vacancy rates are at or below 3 percent, Durham Region, through Envision Durham, is considering adding policies that would permit conversions subject to certain conditions. Through the Envision Durham consultation process, the City has requested clarification of these conditions and has recommended that a Regional Official Plan Amendment continue to be required for requests for rental housing conversions. The ROP does not currently have policies to protect rental housing from demolition. However, it is considering adding policies that encourage area municipalities to protect rental housing from demolition. It is recommended that policies be added to the POP to protect existing rental housing from demolition and conversion in order to help address the deficit of primary rental market units in the City. Proposed Action Add new Official Plan policy to protect existing rental housing stock from conversion to condominium. - 114 - Housing Strategy Study Phase 3: Recommended Housing Strategy and Action Plan City of Pickering December 22, 2021 22 Proposed Action Add new Official Plan policy which prohibits the demolition of existing rental housing units unless the proposed redevelopment meets specified conditions. 4.1.5 Affordable Housing Targets The Phase 1: Research and Gap Anlaysis Report established that: • There is a limited supply of affordable housing, particularly for households with low incomes, and a very limited supply of purpose-built rental housing, especially one and two bedroom units. • Affordable homeownership is severely lacking in the City of Pickering, evidenced by the fact that only the highest income earners are able to afford a resale home of any type within the City. • The aging population suggests a need for more accessible housing options. • W hile the City is experiencing a shift to smaller households, the majority of households have three or more members, suggesting a need for two or more bedroom units. Currently the POP contains policies that encourage and support the supply of affordable housing. In particular, policy 6.4(a) requires that a minimum 25 percent of new residential construction, on a City-wide basis, be of forms that would be affordable to households of low or moderate income. In addition, the POP, Appendix 1, was established to provide potential targets for a number of Livability Indicators, including several under the heading for Housing. Within the Housing section, “affordable production as a total of production” identifies a minimum of 25 percent. However, there is no indication of the equivalent numerical value of that minimum 25 percent, or the numerical value associated with the breakdown according to housing type. In its Proposed Policy Directions Report of Envision Durham, March 2021, the Region is proposing to maintain a minimum affordable housing target of 25 percent to apply to the Region as a whole, and to establish a new affordable housing target for at least 35 percent of new housing within Strategic Growth Areas. As previously noted, the City’s Official Plan already includes the requirement for a minimum of 25 percent of all new construction, across the city, to be affordable. It may be worthwhile for the City to consider a higher affordable housing target of a minimum of 35 percent of new housing within Strategic Growth Areas. This could assist the City in - 115 - Housing Strategy Study Phase 3: Recommended Housing Strategy and Action Plan City of Pickering December 22, 2021 23 reaching its overall target of 25 percent affordable housing City-wide. In order to appropriately address the matter of affordable housing targets, additional detailed information and analysis, that is typically investigated through an “Assessment Report” would be necessary. As discussed in subsection 4.1.6 of this report, Inclusionary Zoning, the Region will be undertaking an Assessment Report for its regional market area. This work, when completed, will assist Pickering in the discussion regarding the numerical values of affordable housing targets, and the merit in targeting specific areas within the City, such as Strategic Growth Areas, for affordable housing targets. In order to implement and monitor affordable housing targets, the City may require the submission of an Affordability Analysis as part of a complete application for residential or mixed-use development. An Affordability Analysis may include information such as the lot area, type and size of the proposal, number of residential units and affordable residential units, period of time that the units will remain affordable, an analysis of how the affordable residential component, types and sizes of units, addresses the current and anticipated affordable housing demand and an analysis of the current average market price and/or the current average market rent for each housing type taking into account the location. The content of an Affordability Analysis, and the associated professional(s) deemed qualified to complete the analysis, will be determined through the policy implementation process. Proposed Action Add new Official Plan policy requiring the submission of a Housing Affordability and Accessibility Analysis as part of a complete application for residential development. 4.1.6 Inclusionary Zoning Introduced by the Province in 2016 through the Promoting Affordable Housing Act, 2016, “iinclusionary zoning” is a land-use planning tool that may be used by municipalities to require affordable housing units to be included in proposed developments. In 2019 the More Homes More Choices Act, 2019 (former Bill 108) limited the use of inclusionary zoning by municipalities to Protected Major Transit Station Areas, or where a development permit system/community planning permit system is in place. - 116 - Housing Strategy Study Phase 3: Recommended Housing Strategy and Action Plan City of Pickering December 22, 2021 24 In order for a municipality to utilize the “inclusionary zoning” provisions enabled through the Planning Act, it must undertake an “assessment report” to inform the development of appropriate official plan policies and zoning by-law provisions. In accordance with Ontario Regulation 232/18, this assessment report must include an analysis of municipal demographics and population, household incomes, housing supply by type (current and planned), housing types and sizes that might be needed to meet anticipated demand for affordable housing, current average market price/rent by housing type across the municipality, and a written opinion on this analysis from a person independent of the municipality and who is qualified to review the analysis. The assessment report must be updated every five years to determine whether the official plan policies require amending. A report detailing the performance of the inclusionary zoning by-law is required to be prepared every 2 years and address prescribed matters. In addition, provincial regulation prohibits the application of Section 37 Density Bonusing on developments where inclusionary zoning is applied. The adoption of by-laws to implement inclusionary zoning cannot be appealed to the Ontario Land Tribunal, except by the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing. Currently, there are no policies in the Pickering Official Plan that enable the use of inclusionary zoning. The Region of Durham has indicated that they will be preparing an assessment report for their jurisdiction. This work, when completed, will enable the local municipalities, including the City of Pickering, to establish official plan policies and zoning by-law provisions related to inclusionary zoning. Proposed Action Consider adding new Official Plan polices to implement “inclusionary zoning” in Major Transit Station Areas, following Durham Region’s completion of the “Assessment Report”. 4.1.7 Additional Dwelling Units Additional Dwelling Units (“ADUs”) are self-contained residential units with a private kitchen, bathroom facilities and sleeping areas within dwellings or within detached structures ancillary to a dwelling. ADUs may be in the form of basement apartments, coach houses, garden suites, granny flats, in-law apartments, or nanny suites. ADUs are sometimes referred to as Secondary Suites, and the Planning Act refers to these units as “additional residential - 117 - Housing Strategy Study Phase 3: Recommended Housing Strategy and Action Plan City of Pickering December 22, 2021 25 units” Since the City’s Comprehensive Zoning By-law Review Study, calls these units “Additional Dwelling Units”, we have used this term for the purpose of the Hosuing Strategy Study. ADUs can provide an affordable rental option to increase the housing supply, as well as allow homeowners to earn additional income; provide more housing options for extended families, elderly parents, or live-in caregivers; help create mixed-income communities; gently intensify within existing communities; and make more efficient use of existing municipal services and public transit. Currently the City’s official plan refers to ADUs as “accessory apartments” or “accessory dwellings”, and establishes policy that enables Council to appropriately zone to permit this type of use. Currently the City’s zoning by-laws permit ADUs within single detached, semi-detached, or townhouse units. In addition, in accordance with By-law 7579/17, all ADUs are required to be registered to officially recognize the property as a legal “two-dwelling unit property”. The registration ensures the two-dwelling unit property meets required safety standards, ensures the ADU can be provided with emergency response and community services, and assists in housing monitoring and real estate transactions. The Two-Dwelling Unit By-law 7579/17 can be found here: https://corporate.pickering.ca/WebLink/DocView.aspx?dbid=1&id=175243&page=1&cr=1 Changes to the Planning Act, introduced through the More Homes, More Choice Act in 2019, permit a total of three residential units on one property. Some of the changes introduced include: • requiring municipalities to permit additional units in detached, semi-detached, and townhouses in primary dwellings and within ancillary buildings or structures; • prohibiting municipalities from applying a development charge for second units above garages or in laneways, or built in new homes (subject to restrictions); and • requiring municipalities to permit an additional unit in the primary dwelling unit and another in any ancillary building, effectively allowing up to three residential units on a single lot. Current City zoning regulations permit an additional dwelling unit within a detached, or semi-detached dwelling provided: (a) a total of three (3) parking spaces are provided on the property where the accessory dwelling unit is located; - 118 - Housing Strategy Study Phase 3: Recommended Housing Strategy and Action Plan City of Pickering December 22, 2021 26 (b) the maximum floor area of an accessory dwelling unit shall be one hundred (100) square metres; and (c) a home-based business is prohibited in either dwelling unit of a dwelling containing an accessory dwelling unit. Some, or all, of the conditions associated with the zoning provision for additional dwelling units in the City’s zoning by-laws may present barriers to creating additional dwelling units within the City, and as a result prevent the creation of additional affordable housing units. In addition, ADUs are currently not permitted in the City’s agricultural zone. There is merit in reviewing the City’s zoning by-laws and Two-Dwelling Unit By-law to ensure that it reflects the More Homes, More Choice Act changes to permit ADUs in a detached, semi-detached or townhouse, as well as in a building or structure ancillary to a detached house, semi-detached or townhouse. There is also merit in considering allowing ADUs in rural areas subject to the capacity of well and septic systems, and considering reducing the City’s parking requirement for ADUs located in areas well served by transit, and to examine other existing zoning requirements that may present barriers to increasing ADUs within the City. Proposed Action Additional Dwelling Units: (a) Review and update the City zoning by-laws and Two-Dwelling Unit By-law to reflect the More Homes, More Choice Act changes to permit Additional Dwelling Units in a detached, semi-detached or townhouse as well as in a building or structure ancillary to a detached house, semi-detached or townhouse. (b) Consider allowing Additional Dwelling Units in rural areas subject to the capacity of well and septic systems. (c) Consider reducing or removing the City’s parking requirement for Additional Dwelling Units located in areas well served by transit. (d) Examine other existing zoning requirements that may present barriers to increasing Additional Dwelling Units within the City. - 119 - Housing Strategy Study Phase 3: Recommended Housing Strategy and Action Plan City of Pickering December 22, 2021 27 4.1.8 Shared Housing Housing has increasingly become more expensive and at the same time the number of single person households is increasing. Shared living is an option to address high housing costs and loneliness, which can be a by-product of living alone. Shared living can take different forms, such as shared ownership, multi-tenant, or multi-generational. 4.1.8.1 Co-ownership Housing New models of shared ownership have emerged in response to housing affordability involving third party lenders. In Canada, there are two forms of shared equity programs. A third party can invest in a share of a property, or they can provide the homeowner with a second mortgage. For shared equity mortgage programs, the second mortgage often requires no payments until the home is sold, refinanced or at the end of a fixed term. If the home price appreciates over time, both parties share in the profit. The federal First-Time Home Buyer Incentive is an example of shared equity housing that will allow the CMHC to lend a homeowner money for a shared stake in the equity of a home. Options for Homes and Trillium Housing are two organizations that have helped create affordable housing in the GTA with shared equity financing models. The Province defines “co-ownership housing” as a shared living arrangement where two or more people own and live in a home together. Co-owners may share living spaces like kitchens and living rooms, or the home may be divided into separate units. The Golden Girls Act was passed in 2019, which prevents municipalities from using local by-laws to prohibit unrelated seniors from cohabitating. A senior, for the purpose of the Golden Girls Act, means an individual who is 55 or older. The Golden Girls Act was inspired by the obstacles faced by a group of four women planning to renovate a shared home that would enable them to age in place. The home was to have private rooms for each of the homeowners, shared common areas, such as living and kitchen, and include building two caregiver suites in the basement. Recently, the Province created the “Co-owning A Home” guide which contains practical information about co-owning a home as well as outlining the various forms of co-ownership. The guide was developed partly in response to the Province’s More Homes, More Choice: Ontario’s Housing Supply Action Plan, in recognition that fresh approaches will give people more options and access to housing that is affordable. - 120 - Housing Strategy Study Phase 3: Recommended Housing Strategy and Action Plan City of Pickering December 22, 2021 28 4.1.8.2 Multi-generational Living Multi-generational homes have members of more than two generations living under the same roof. Historically, multi-generational living was common. Currently, in Ontario, multi-generational living appears to be more common among immigrants. Research shows that prior to the COVID-19 pandemic, 20 percent of Canadians were living in multi-generational housing.10 Further, the pandemic has highlighted a desire for flexible spaces to also accommodate aging family members so that they may be cared for at home as opposed to living in a long-term care facility. There are both benefits and challenges to living with family. Economic, health and support are three key reasons for generations to live together. Some of the challenges include: division of chores or responsibilities can cause issues among family members, meeting privacy needs of various family members, financial constraints of all family members, accommodating living spaces for different age ranges, such as the elderly or very young children. In 2018, a developer in Pickering started offering a multi-generational home with a design that incorporates a bungalow for grandparents or adult children that sits inside a two-storey house and operates independently. The original design was suitable for a lot with a 50 foot frontage. The developer is now working on a design that would fit on a 37 foot lot frontage. Supporting multi-generational living facilitates a form of gentle intensification, while addressing the needs of large and multi-generational families and creating complete communities. Proposed Action Encourage developers to consider designing flexible spaces that can accommodate shared living or mulit-generational living. 4.1.8.3 Multi-tenant Living (Rooming Houses) Singles and/or couples of a variety of age groups are increasingly exploring or choosing housing options where they can share rented accommodation. This is usually due to financial contraints. Shared living for unrelated persons in rental accommodation, or multi-tenant living, is sometimes referred to as “rooming houses”. Rooming houses have traditionally been associated with vulnerable populations such as individuals living with an addiction or a mental health challenge, a physical disability, and/or racialized 10 https://www.thestar.com/life/homes/2020/06/17/multi-generational-housing-is-a-growing-trend-thats- back-with-a-new-twist.html?rf - 121 - Housing Strategy Study Phase 3: Recommended Housing Strategy and Action Plan City of Pickering December 22, 2021 29 individuals. In addition, the term “rooming house” is sometimes confused with “group home”. The distinction between “rooming house” and “group home” is that group homes have supervised care for the occupants and are licensed and approved by the Province. As affordable housing has become more and more scarce, there are a wider variety of individuals opting to share rental accommodation, including young adults newly in the workforce, seniors, and students. Some municipalities regulate shared rental accommodation using municipal by-laws, zoning by-laws and/or licensing programs. This has resulted in serious concern from the Ontario Human Rights Commission. Municipal by-laws, including zoning by-laws, cannot conflict with the Ontario Human Rights Code. The Ontario Human Rights Commission has identified “that zoning by-laws should be deemed invalid if their purpose is to regulate the user, as opposed to the use of the land”11. In addition, the Ontario Human Rights Commission identified a number of concerns regarding regulations that impacted rooming houses (as well as group homes, residential care homes, senior’s community houses, and lodging houses among other shared rental accommodation), namely regulations that: • are not based on a legitimate urban planning rationale and have the effect of people zoning as opposed to zoning the use of land; • result in barriers to the location of affordable housing, lodging houses, emergency shelters, care facilities and retirement homes; and • place onerous zoning restrictions on housing serving people from Ontario Human Rights Code protected groups, which may prevent people from living in the neighbourhoods of their choice. Through the City’s engagement, staff heard first hand from a landlord specializing in shared rental accommodation about the challenges associated with this form of rental housing including an outdated perception and stigma associated with it. He detailed what he sees as systemic obstacles to multi-tenant living such as: • the lack of tenancy rights for a tenant if they are sharing a bathroom or kitchen with the owner, or the owner’s immediate family members; • the lack of tenancy rights for a tenant paying his/her rent to a housemate who is the a tenant signatory under a lease (i.e. a subletter). A tenant not listed as a signatory under a lease has no tenancy protection because there is no landlord/tenant relationship; 11 Ontario Human Rights Commission’s comments on the City of Toronto’s proposed Zoning By-law dated September 25, 2009, http://www.ohrc.on.ca/es/node/2545 - 122 - Housing Strategy Study Phase 3: Recommended Housing Strategy and Action Plan City of Pickering December 22, 2021 30 • the difficulty in meeting the Ontario Buiding Code requirements when converting an existing house to a mulit-tenant shared accommodation; • the reluctance of financial institutions to lend money to owner/operators of rooming houses; and • the reluctance of insurance companies to insure rooming houses. From his perspective as a private landlord and operator of multi-tenant housing, he sees the need for an all-government (municipal, regional, provincial, federal) approach to overcome these structural barriers to shared living. Also through engagement, staff heard that there is interest in an affordable housing arrangement whereby seniors and younger single individuals co-habitate. The arrangement is such that the senior provides accommodation to the singleton for a reduced rent in return for some assistance to the senior, such as lawn mowing, snow removal etc. The Pickering Official Plan policies encourage the provision of a wide variety of housing types and tenure to meet the needs of existing and future populations of the City, which includes shared living accommodation. The City does not have any zoning by-laws that prohibit rooming houses. Through the City’s Comprehensive Zoning By-law Review Study, the following definitions are being proposed for Group Home and Rooming Home: “Group Home: means a dwelling occupied by not more than 10 persons exclusive of staff, who live as a single housekeeping unit because they require a supervised group living arrangement, in a facility licensed, approved and supervised in accordance with the requirements of the Province.” “Rooming Home: means a dwelling containing no less than three (3) but no more than 10 individual rooms rented for accommodation and includes communal but not individual cooking facilities, and where the occupants do not constitute a single housekeeping unit. The use shall not provide respite care or provide accommodation to the traveling public and does not include a group home, long- term care home, retirement home, hotel, or short-term rental.” The City does not have a registration or licensing program related to rooming houses, and does not prohibit people from sharing housing accommodation. As with the construction of all types of housing in the City of Pickering, rooming houses, must meet the requirements of the Ontario Building Code (OBC) with respect to building and fire safety. - 123 - Housing Strategy Study Phase 3: Recommended Housing Strategy and Action Plan City of Pickering December 22, 2021 31 To further support shared living, regardless of tenure, the City could amend its housing policies to openly recognize multi-tenant living. This may also be achieved through the inclusion of the definition of “housing options” as discussed in subsection 4.1.2 of this report. Proposed Action Ensure that the City’s Official Plan policies and zoning regulations do not present barriers to shared living (co-housing, co-living) arrangements in appropriate areas as-of-right. 4.1.9 Accessible Housing Accessible design refers to accommodating individuals with disabilities, whereas universal design is accommodating all people regardless of age, gender, stature, ability/disability, etc. Barrier-free design is part of accessible design and include such things as: wheelchair lifts, curb ramps, handrails, roll-in showers, and wheelchair accessible hallyways. Inclusive design is generally synonymous with universal design but can cater to very specific users and their experience. These terms are very much interrelated and overlap in definition but with some nuances. Through the engagement we heard that every adult has a period disability or impaired mobility in their lifetime. As a result of illness, accident or disease, one can temporarily lose full physical function and can benefit from universally designed spaces. As noted in subsection 4.1.2, Action Item 1.1 of the Pickering AFCP identifies, among other things, the need for delivering more accessible housing units to support changing demographic conditions, specifically a growing seniors population in Pickering that is forecast to be approximately 43% of the total population in Pickering by 2032.12 The POP includes policies that encourages the provision of housing for people with special needs including seniors. The terms “special needs housing” and “seniors housing” are not formally defined in the POP. However, the PPS defines special needs as it relates to housing and it includes “adaptable and accessible housing, and housing for persons with disabilities such as physical, sensory or mental health disabilities, and housing for older persons”. 12 Pickering Age Friedly Community Plan, Final Report, September 12, 2019, https://www.pickering.ca/en/living/resources/Programs/55/City-of-Pickering-Age-Friendly-Community- Plan---FINAL-acc.pdf - 124 - Housing Strategy Study Phase 3: Recommended Housing Strategy and Action Plan City of Pickering December 22, 2021 32 As noted earlier, Appendix 1 of the POP was established to provide potential targets for a number of Livability Indicators, including several under the heading for Housing. There is no numerical value provided for the Livability Indicator of “special needs housing production as a percent of total production”. Through the engagement for the Study, we heard: • that there was concern regarding a need to consider accessibility and affordability as separate issues to mitigate the segregation of communities; • that the City should encourage developers to add accessible/universally designed and constructed units to projects; and • that the Province should require a minimum number, or a minimum percentage, of accessible units for major residential development. In response to the matter of considering accessibility and affordability as separate issues, these are often highlighted as areas of study together because of the scarcity of both. That does not mean that they are always linked. For example, you can have an accessible dwelling that is not affordable and similarly, you can have an affordable dwelling that is not accessible. Given the forecast seniors population as a percentage of the total population in Pickering in the next ten years, it would be worthwhile collecting data, and monitoring the availability and provision of accessible housing. Part of this data collection and monitoring could be enhanced by requiring the submission of an Accessibility Analysis as part of a complete application for residential development, similar to the requirement for the submission of an Affordability Anlaysis as discussed in subsection 4.1.5. The content of an Accessibility Analysis, and the associated professional(s) deemed qualified to complete the analysis, will be determined through the policy implementation process. The results of an Accessibility Anlaysis would provide the City with a basis for the amount of accessible units that should be included in a residential proposal. Proposed Action Add an Official Plan policy requiring the submission of an Affordability and Accessibility Analysis as part of a complete application for residential development, subject to criteria. - 125 - Housing Strategy Study Phase 3: Recommended Housing Strategy and Action Plan City of Pickering December 22, 2021 33 The Pickering Accessibility Advisory Committee expressed the desire to have the Province establish a required minimum number of accessible units within a residential development. This also reflects views expressed through the consultation undertaken and documented in the 2019 Report of The Third Review of The Accessibility for Ontarians With Disabilities Act, 2005 prepared by the Honourable David C. Onley13. Through Onley’s work, some individuals felt that basic accessibility should be required in all newly constructed housing and especially housing built with public funds.This could include provision for future installation of elevators and other accessibility features, as well as easy access to the main floor for visitability. Currently the Ontario Building Code (OBC) requires that at least 15 per cent of suites in multi-unit residential buildings be visitable. There is no similar OBC requirement for single detached, semi-detached or townhouse dwelling units. Should the City decide that there is merit in including a required minimum number of accessible units in residential developments, the City could request that the Province establish these minimum requirements. Proposed Action Consider advocating for the Province to establish a minimum number of accessible units or a percentage of accessible units for major residential development. Through the engagement process, staff heard the suggestion that the City should encourage developers to build accessible units as part of a project, and that these units also be affordable. Proposed Action Encourage developers to plan for and build accessible or universally designed units in projects. 13 Report of The Third Review of The Accessibility for Ontarians With Disabilities Act, 2005, The Honourable David C. Onley; https://files.ontario.ca/seniors-accessibility-third-review-of-aoda-en-2019.pdf - 126 - Housing Strategy Study Phase 3: Recommended Housing Strategy and Action Plan City of Pickering December 22, 2021 34 4.1.10 Remove or Reduce Minimum Parking Requirement There are numerous factors and processes leading to the provision of affordable housing. Through the engagement process staff heard that including the required parking in a development proposal can sometimes make the project impossible. The discussion included the comment that “It’s more affordable to do surface parking even if the land value is higher. You could do underground parking, but it will impact the affordability of housing units.” The Transportation policies in the City’s official plan, encourage a well connected network of corridors (roads, rails, sidewalks, trails and bikeways), designed as desirable places to be, with Kingston Road as the City’s mainstreet. A variety of modes of travel are accommodated, including driving, walking, cycling and using transit. The transportation policies also promote optimization of the City’s transportation infrastructure by, among other things, promoting ways to shift modes away from single occupancy vehicles and supporting improved transit infrastructure and service. In addition, the POP (section 4.13) establishes the opportunity for Council to consider the preparation of a comprehensive parking strategy for the urban area to determine and provide recommendations on current and future parking supply and demand, recognizing the opportunity to reduce parking supply in areas well-served by public transit. Currently the City’s by-laws establish parking standards to help manage the parking supply/demand needs of the community. The City Centre Neighbourhood policies in Chapter 12 of the POP address the potential for a reduction in the number of required car parking spaces where bicycle parking facilities or Transportation Demand Management (TDM) measures are provided and in recognition of the proximity to high frequency transit. TDM is a suite of policies, programs, services and initiatives that aim to reduce travel demand by single-occupant vehicles by influencing how, how much, when, where, and why people travel. One of the many potential outcomes of TDM is the reduced need for parking. The City recently completed its Integrated Transportation Management Plan (ITMP)14 which provides recommendations related to parking management (section 6.3) and TDM (section 6.2). The ITMP does not specifically address parking requirements for affordable housing. The policies within the City’s official plan encourage an increased focus on the pedestrian experience and a diversification of travel modes away from single car trips, which contemplates a possible reduction in the required provision of car parking spaces. 14 City Of Pickering Integrated Transportation Master Plan, August 2021, https://www.pickering.ca/en/city- hall/resources/ENG/ITMP/Pickering-ITMP-Final-Report-2021-08-18.pdf - 127 - Housing Strategy Study Phase 3: Recommended Housing Strategy and Action Plan City of Pickering December 22, 2021 35 It’s possible that a transition period will occur prior to achieving high-frequency public transit, when the demand will exceed the provision for car parking spaces. The City could consider removing or reducing the minimum requirement for parking spaces and allowing developers to propose alternative parking space options for affordable housing and/or supportive housing on a site-specific basis. The City may also consider looking at other innovative approaches for reducing and optimizing parking for housing, especially in areas with high frequency transit as was done in the City Centre. Proposed Action Consider removing or reducing the minimum requirement for parking spaces for affordable housing and/or supportive housing and allowing developers to propose alternative parking space options. 4.1.11 Down Zoning When people talk about more housing density or more intense commercial or industrial development, it usually means "up" in the sense of what the real estate industry calls the highest and best use of land. Then, when density or intensity of land use is being lowered, that's a decrease in how many housing units can be built or how intensely non-residential land can be used. Professionals in the field of planning and development refer to this as “down zoning”. There are some jurisdictions in the United States that have prohibited down zoning residential areas from higher to lower density zone classifications. The goal in prohibiting down zoning is to address the need for affordable housing. Empirical evidence provides that housing affordability is more often achieved in smaller dwelling units, such as apartments and townhouses, as compared to single detached dwellings. Higher density residential zone classifications enable more dwelling units to be built in the same amount of land area as compared to medium- or low-density residential zone classifications. Figure 1 below shows recent data from the Toronto Real Estate Board for Average Resale Home Prices in Pickering for July 2021. Although Figure 1 does not address affordability according to income, it shows that the average resale home price is lower based on dwelling type associated with higher density housing. - 128 - Housing Strategy Study Phase 3: Recommended Housing Strategy and Action Plan City of Pickering December 22, 2021 36 Figure 1: July 2021 Average Resale Home Price – Pickering Source: Toronto Real Estate Board, Market Watch, July 2021 The POP establishes a land use strategy that provides for a compact urban area, and large rural and open space areas. The land use strategy includes land use categories and subcategories. The subcategories are distinguished primarily on the basis of the level of intensity. The category of Mixed Use Areas are areas and corridors of development having the highest concentration of activity in the City and the broadest diversity of community services and facilities. Mixed Use Areas permit a wide variety of uses including, among others, residential. Urban Residential Areas are to be used primarily for housing and related uses, including home occupations and group homes. Further, Urban Residential Areas are differentiated on the basis of net residential density (the number of residential dwellings per net residential hectare). Low, medium and high density areas are distinguished. The Pickering Official Plan lays the foundation for building a good community. It provides a vision for the City and identifies how the vision can be reached. The vision is comprehensive, and strategies and tools provided in the POP are intended to assist the City as it grows. In particular, as noted above, and through careful consideration for a complete and thriving community, the POP establishes categories of land use and subcategories based on intensity of land use. High and medium density residential areas are generally more affordable and therefore warrant protection against “down zoning”. - 129 - Housing Strategy Study Phase 3: Recommended Housing Strategy and Action Plan City of Pickering December 22, 2021 37 To support the creation of more affordable housing units, the City could consider discouraging “down zoning” high and medium density residential designations to lower density residential designations. Proposed Action Consider discouraging “down zoning” high and medium density residential designations to lower density residential designations. - 130 - Housing Strategy Study Phase 3: Recommended Housing Strategy and Action Plan City of Pickering December 22, 2021 38 4.2 Financial Incentives A municipality may direct funds and implement policy initiatives toward a specifically defined project area through the adoption of a Community Improvement Plan (CIP). Section 28 of the Planning Act gives municipalities that have enabling policies in their official plans, the ability to prepare Community Improvement Plans (the City’s official plan contains such policies). Community improvement, as defined in the Planning Act, includes the provision of affordable housing. The financial incentives discussed in this section, may be enabled through a CIP. The Region is currently undertaking an investigation of a Regional CIP that could be used to support the delivery of affordable housing. 4.2.1 Provide Land The cost of land is often a significant contributor to the cost of the development of affordable housing. Some municipalities have established corporate policy that supports the production of affordable housing through a “housing first” policy for surplus municipally-owned property. The principle of the housing first policy is that the first priority in the decision-making process respecting surplus or potentially surplus City- owned real property should be affordable housing development. If the City was to make land available, it would be through an open request for proposals to ensure a fair and transparent process. A housing first policy would provide reduced, or no, land costs for developers of affordable housing. The benefits of doing this are: • efficient use of government-owned surplus land; • relatively low investment for the City with the potential of high returns in terms of affordable housing; • provides the City with a direct influence in facilitating the supply of affordable housing through public land; • contributes to creating new mixed income communities; • creates an opportunity for the net proceeds from the disposal of the surplus lands for affordable housing purposes to be deposited into a municipal reserve fund for affordable housing (i.e. a Housing Reserve Fund); • creates an opportunity to share a City “surplus property list” with interested affordable housing providers; and • creates opportunities for ensuring appropriate affordable housing is available to an employee base that serves the employers within the city. - 131 - Housing Strategy Study Phase 3: Recommended Housing Strategy and Action Plan City of Pickering December 22, 2021 39 Some of the constraints associated with a “housing first” policy include: • potential loss of revenue by selling (or donating) municipal surplus land at a lower rate than the market could provide; • surplus land may not be in ideal or appropriate locations for affordable housing (i.e close to transit and amenities); • other City departments may require the lands; • other neighbourhood needs, such as parkland, may go unmet; and • potential loss of permit fees, development charges, future property tax potential. Proposed Action Consider establishing a corporate policy whereby surplus or underutilized City-owned lands or buildings that are not required for municipal purposes, such as for parkland, are first considered for development of affordable rental housing. 4.2.2 Waive Fees Development costs including application (such as Site Plan Approval, Rezoning, Minor Variance) and building permit fees, development charges, parkland dedication fees, letters of credit, and post development increased property taxes, which all contribute to a project’s financial burden. Reducing, waiving or deferring some or all of these fees can mean the difference between the construction of a project or not. The Region introduced a new residential development charge (DC) service category for “Housing Services”, to support the creation of affordable rental and seniors’ housing. Funds collected through the new DC category will be used to support the development of new, growth-related social and government-assisted affordable housing projects/units. DC revenue may fund capital costs for new housing development for: • Community housing provided by the Durham Regional Local Housing Corporation (DRLHC), or by a non-profit housing provider that receives ongoing subsidy from the Region of Durham; and • Affordable Housing that are rental units, provided by private or non-profit housing providers that receive funding through a federal or provincial government affordable housing program. Eligible projects must be for new construction only, including additions and extensions resulting in additional rental units, and are approved by Regional Council on a case-by- case basis. - 132 - Housing Strategy Study Phase 3: Recommended Housing Strategy and Action Plan City of Pickering December 22, 2021 40 Currently the Region can also provide direct financial assistance to development projects that are within area municipal Community Improvement Plan areas through the Regional Revitalization Program. Tax Increment Financing (TIF) is an incentive mechanism that can be used to encourage property development or redevelopment, usually within designated areas. Tax increment financing is generally used to encourage development in situations where, due to environmental conditions or other economic factors, development would be unlikely to proceed in the absence of financial incentives. Tax increment financing is a method of using future incremental property tax revenues generated by the redevelopment of a property to offset the upfront costs of redevelopment. In other words, as a property or area is redeveloped, the increase in the assessed value of the property raises the amount of taxes payable by that property. The difference between the taxes paid by the property prior to redevelopment and the taxes paid following redevelopment is referred to as the “tax increment”. TIF is established under the Community Improvement Plan provisions of the Planning Act. The City could consider waiving fees or providing a grant equivalent to certain development application fees, development charges, property taxes, and/or parkland dedication requirements, for affordable rental, affordable ownership, and/or supportive housing developments. Proposed Action Consider waiving fees or providing a grant equivalent to certain development application fees, development charges, property taxes, and/or parkland dedication requirements, for affordable rental, affordable ownership, and/or supportive housing developments on a case-by-case basis. Education Development Charges (EDCs) are funds that school boards collect and which can be spent to purchase land for future school sites. The regulations under the Education Act establish that certain properties may be exempt from education development charges. The City may consider advocating that the Province to amend the EDC regulations to enable school boards to reduce, waive or defer their portion of Development Charges for affordable rental housing. - 133 - Housing Strategy Study Phase 3: Recommended Housing Strategy and Action Plan City of Pickering December 22, 2021 41 Proposed Action Consider advocating for the school boards to reduce, waive and/or defer their portion of Development Charges for affordable rental housing. 4.2.3 Prioritize and Facilitate Approvals In “Fixing the Housing Affordability Crisis: Municipal Recommendations for Housing in Ontario”15 (staff reviewed and reported on this document in Report PLN 05-20), the Association of Municipalities of Ontario (AMO) highlights speed as an important factor in bringing new housing supply to the market. The provincial government also addressed timelines for the review of development applications in More Homes, More Choice Act, 2019 by shortening the amount of time a municipality can take to review and approve development applications, plans of subdivision, by-law amendments and holding provisions. The City of Pickering has an established, efficient process to review development applications while maintaining due diligence to safeguard the public interest, ensure local standards are met, and to make sure that communities are designed using sound planning principles. In addition, City staff facilitates coordination and communication between internal departments and business owners and/or project proponents. City staff endeavours to identify gaps in communication and comprehension between the City and the proponent, in order to keep the approval process on track and assist in achieving the most beneficial outcome for all parties. In many cases this has led to improved results and timelines. In addition, the City does fast-track priority projects. Staff notes, however, that timely responses from the development community on comments are critical to the expected timeline. Furthermore, adequate municipal staffing levels are also essential. The benefit of an expedited approvals process is that it can reduce the cost of holding undeveloped land, reduce development risk, and allow construction to begin sooner, thus lowering financing costs to the developer. To facilitate affordable rental, affordable ownership, supportive housing, and purpose- built rental housing, the City could formally establish an initiative to prioritize the review 15 Fixing the Housing Affordability Crisis, Municipal Recommendations for Housing in Ontario, August 14, 2019, https://www.amo.on.ca/sites/default/files/assets/DOCUMENTS/Reports/2019/FixingHousingAffordabilityC risis20190814.pdf#:~:text=Fixing%20the%20Housing%20Affordability%20Crisis%20Municipal%20Recom mendations%20for,the%20municipal%20order%20of%20government%20can%20achieve%20shared - 134 - Housing Strategy Study Phase 3: Recommended Housing Strategy and Action Plan City of Pickering December 22, 2021 42 and approvals process. Projects such as Durham Region led housing developments, not-for-profit sector affordable housing projects and private sector ownership or purpose-built rental projects that qualify for federal and/or provincial funding, could be targeted through this initiative. Proposed Action Prioritize and facilitate approvals for projects which provide affordable rental, affordable ownership, supportive housing, and purpose-built rental housing units. 4.2.4 Establish a Housing Reserve Fund Municipalities can assist in providing funding for various affordable housing developments and initiatives by establishing an affordable housing reserve fund targeted to meet the housing needs of low income individuals or families determined to be in core housing need. Several Ontario municipalities, such as Brampton, Cambridge, Guelph and London have establish housing reserve funds with various objectives to assist in the development and/or maintenance of existing or future affordable housing. The implementation of a Community Benefits Charge16 could direct funds collected through the planning application process to a reserve fund specifically for the development of affordable housing. Alternatively, an annual contribution could be directed to the housing reserve fund through a special levy as part of the annual budget process. The reserve fund could provide grants on a per-unit basis to eligible non-profit organizations or partnerships of non-profit organizations and the private sector to leverage the development of more affordable rental housing options. The reserve fund is intended to supplement or match funding from other levels of government, businesses, private donors, or community groups. To facilitate grants from an affordable housing reserve fund, eligible housing developments would be evaluated based on criteria that fulfills the purpose and objectives of the reserve fund. Selected proposals would be recommended to Council 16 Community Benefits Charges (CBCs) are intended to fund municipal infrastructure for community services, such as land for parks, affordable housing and child care facilities, that are needed to support new residents and businesses associated with new development. CBCs will work with development charges and parkland dedication to ensure that municipalities have the tools and resources they need to build complete communities (i.e. While CBCs will effectively replace Section 37 benefits, development charges and parkland dedication, or cash in lieu of parkland dedication, will continue to remain separate requirements). A municipality may not levy both a development charge and a CBC for the same service. - 135 - Housing Strategy Study Phase 3: Recommended Housing Strategy and Action Plan City of Pickering December 22, 2021 43 for approval subject to the adoption of a funding agreement with the proponent to use the contribution towards municipal fees or charges and for capital costs. Proposed Action Consider establishing a Housing Reserve Fund which can be funded through a special levy and/or a Community Benefit Charge . 4.2.5 Vacant Home Tax In 2017, Bill 127 – Stronger, Healthier Ontario Act (Budget Measures) implemented the 2017 Ontario Budget measures, including the Fair Housing Plan which empowers interested municipalities to introduce a vacant hoe property tax. A vacant home tax is a policy tool to address the housing disparities between the lack of rental housing and readily available unoccupied homes, by encouraging the release of units that are being held vacant into units that are occupied. Residential units that are available and capable of being occupied but the owner has decided to maintain vacant and unavailable for occupation is an indication of housing stock and supply that is important to people in need of housing, and not as a buy-hold speculative commodity which is not currently regulated. In recent years municipalities, especially in large urban centres, have increasingly shown interest in implementing a vacant home tax. Municipalities such as the City of Vancouver implemented the tax in 2017, whereas the City of Toronto will be implementing the tax in 2022, and the City of Ottawa has recently initiated a feasibility study to potentially introduce the tax. A vacant home tax could potentially create more rental homes if the desired effect of the tax incentivizes homeowners to occupy their homes by a permitted occupier or tenant in order to avoid incurring the tax. For example, the City of Vancouver reported a 25% reduction in the number of vacant properties recorded from 2017 to 2019, including a 41% conversion rate of vacant properties to occupied status in 2019.17 A secondary outcome is that the tax could also provide a revenue stream to the City that could fund additional affordable housing initiatives. According to Vancouver’s Empty Home Tax Annual Report, since launching the tax, $61.3 million of revenue has been generated to support local affordable housing initiatives.18 The vacant home tax could apply only to residential units that are not the homeowner’s principal residence, or occupied by a permitted occupier or tenant, and chosen to 17 City of Vancouver; https://vancouver.ca/news-calendar/empty-homes-tax-enters-fourth-year-with-25- per-cent-fewer-vacant-properties-since-launch.aspx 18 Ibid. - 136 - Housing Strategy Study Phase 3: Recommended Housing Strategy and Action Plan City of Pickering December 22, 2021 44 purposely be maintained as vacant and unavailable for occupation. A homeowner may be compelled to convert an unoccupied unit led by the determined tax rate that optimizes a cost high enough for a homeowner to choose to either sell or rent the residential unit, while not creating an undue burden on owners who have to pay the tax, or increase the likelihood of unintended non-compliance with the tax. The City of Vancouver has implemented a 3% tax rate, whereas the City of Toronto is proposing to implement a 1% tax based on the property’s assessment value of the year in which the home is declared vacant. Exemptions to the tax could be applied to non-principal residences, such as properties undergoing redevelopment or major renovation, the owner is undergoing medical care, or the ownership of the property is transferred during the tax year. To facilitate a vacant home tax program the City would undertake a feasibility study, beginning with a determination of the number and percentage of vacant homes within the city, and whether or not there is merit in establishing the administrative structure, system, and programming to collect the tax as well as on-going public communication efforts and costs to ensure compliance. Proposed Action Consider undertaking a feasibility study for Vacant Home Tax. - 137 - Housing Strategy Study Phase 3: Recommended Housing Strategy and Action Plan City of Pickering December 22, 2021 45 4.3 Other Actions to Support Affordable Housing It can sometimes be overwhelming to those not familiar with affordable housing and/or the development process in general, to navigate the various municipal and provincial requirements to provide affordable housing, and in particular affordable primary rental accommodation. For example, the City has a requirement that a “complete application” must be submitted prior to undertaking the development review process. Also, there may be developers willing to develop and construct rental housing, however, not being in the business of operating rental housing, these developers would need a partner, once the project is constructed, to continue in the role of operating the rental housing. The City facilitates coordination and communication between internal departments and business owners and/or project proponents. City staff endeavours to influence the proponent experience with the City to be seamless and efficient for all parties involved. In many cases this has led to improved results and timelines. The City could consider connecting interested developers with experts or consultants in the field of management and operation of affordable, rental housing. Proposed Action Consider connecting interested developers with experts or consultants in the field of management and operation of affordable, rental housing. The City has professional staff who are experts in planning, development and building. As noted in subsection 4.2.3, the City staff facilitates coordination and communication between internal departments and business owners and/or project proponents. Offering guidance to affordable housing project proponents, on the planning and building approvals processes, is an action that the City has already undertaken, albeit to a more general audience. Proposed Action Provide guidance to developers, not-for-profits and other proponents of affordable rental, affordable ownership and/or supportive housing, on the planning and building approvals processes. - 138 - Housing Strategy Study Phase 3: Recommended Housing Strategy and Action Plan City of Pickering December 22, 2021 46 The Region, Province and Federal governments have certain funding opportunities available for providing affordable primary rental accommodation. The various programs, requirements, milestones and deadlines, vary from program to program. All of this information is specialized and can be unknown or confusing to a developer unfamiliar with providing affordable rental housing. The Region, through its Housing Services Division, manages, plans and administers the community housing system, develops affordable housing stock and delivers homelessness prevention programs. In the Region’s role of Service System Manager, the Region works in partnership with co- operative and non-profit community housing providers. The City, through regular and continued communication with the appropriate parties at the Region, can remain abreast of funding opportunities and rental housing providers and operators, in order to be able to share this information with interested developers. Proposed Action Share information with developers about funding and other incentives available to address the City’s housing needs. - 139 - Housing Strategy Study Phase 3: Recommended Housing Strategy and Action Plan City of Pickering December 22, 2021 47 4.4 Monitoring Progress The Research and Gap Analysis Report, March 31, 2021, established a baseline data set related to the status of housing in Pickering. In order to appropriately address affordable housing within the city, housing stock (ownership and rental), type and mix, stock by type across income deciles, density, and the matter of affordable housing targets, active monitoring of these data sets must be undertaken. Part of implementing a housing monitoring plan in the city will be to actively engage with the Region and utilize the results of their Assessment Report, as well as requiring the submission of an Affordability and Accessibility Analysis as part of a complete application for residential or mixed-use development proposals (discussed in subsections 4.1.5 and 4.1.9). The goal of a housing monitoring plan is to identify whether or not the goals and objectives of the Housing Strategy are being met, and if any modifications to the Action Plan are necessary. Proposed Action Establish a Monitoring Plan that will annually update and review the baseline data set established in the Research and Gap Analysis Report, March 31, 2021, to ensure goals and objectives of the Housing Strategy are being met. - 140 - Housing Strategy Study Phase 3: Recommended Housing Strategy and Action Plan City of Pickering December 22, 2021 48 5.0 Recommended Action Plan The Recommended Action Plan is shown in the table below. It contains minor textual changes from the draft presented in the Phase 2: Draft Housing Strategy & Action Plan. Each action is categorized according to the following themes: policy, financial incentives, and other. A timeframe and estimated cost of implementation has been identified for each action and is shown in the table below. In addition, the table identifies the gap from the Phase 1: Research and Gap Aalysis Report, March 31, 2021, that the action addresses and the City department proposed to lead the initiative. The following provides information on each of the gaps identified in the Phase 1 Report: • Gap 1 relates to the need for housing options for: • Low and moderate income earners; • Rental and ownership housing; • Range of unit sizes; and • Accessible units; • Gap 2 relates to the need for: • Primary rental market units of all sizes • Protection of units in the primary rental market; • Accessible units in the primary rental market; • Gap 3 relates to the need for: • Home ownership housing options for moderate income earners; • Range of unit sizes; and • Accessible units; • Gap 4 are policy gaps related to housing in the City’s Official Plan that are the result of new or recent changes to provincial legislation. - 141 - Housing Strategy Study Phase 3: Recommended Housing Strategy and Action Plan City of Pickering December 22, 2021 49 Timeframe Short-term ■□□ 1-5 years Medium-term □■□ 5 -10 years Long-term □□■ 10 or more years Action Gap # Addressed Lead Department Time Frame Cost 1.0 Policy 1.1 Add a definition of “affordable housing” to the City’s Official Plan which includes reference to the average purchase price and average market rent in accordance with the definition in the Provincial Policy Statement, 2020. Gap 4 City Development ■□□ $ 1.2 Add a definition of “Housing Options” to the City’s Official Plan. Gap 4 City Development ■□□ $ 1.3 Amend the City’s Official Plan to reflect the Provincial Policy Statement 2020 requirement for the municipality to maintain the ability to accommodate residential growth for a minimum of 15 years (as opposed to 10 years as currently written). Gap 4 City Development ■□□ $ Cost Estimate Low $ Under $10,000 Medium $$ $10,000 - $25,000 High $$$ Over $25,000 - 142 - Housing Strategy Study Phase 3: Recommended Housing Strategy and Action Plan City of Pickering December 22, 2021 50 Action Gap # Addressed Lead Department Time Frame Cost 1.4 Consider amending the City’s Official Plan to reflect the Provincial Policy Statement 2020 option to increase from 3 to 5 years the minimum number of years to accommodate a short- term supply of residential lands, subject to the outcome of Durham Region’s Envision Durham exercise. Gap 4 City Development ■□□ $ 1.5 Add new official plan policy to protect existing rental housing stock from conversion. Gap 4 City Development ■□□ $ 1.6 Add new Official Plan policy which prohibits the demolition of existing rental housing units unless the proposed redevelopment meets specified conditions. Gap 4 City Development ■□□ $ 1.7 Consider adding new Official Plan polices to implement “inclusionary zoning” in Major Transit Station Areas, following Durham Region’s completion of the “Assessment Report”. Gap 4 City Development ■■□ $ - 143 - Housing Strategy Study Phase 3: Recommended Housing Strategy and Action Plan City of Pickering December 22, 2021 51 Action Gap # Addressed Lead Department Time Frame Cost 1.8 Additional Dwelling Units: (a) Review and update the City zoning by-laws and Two- Dwelling Unit By-law to reflect the More Homes, More Choice Act changes to permit Additional Dwelling Units in a detached, semi-detached or townhouse as well as in a building or structure ancillary to a detached house, semi- detached or townhouse. (b) Consider allowing Additional Dwelling Units in rural areas subject to the capacity of well and septic systems. (c) Consider reducing or removing the City’s parking requirement for Additional Dwelling Units located in areas well served by transit. (d) Examine other existing zoning requirements that may present barriers to increasing Additional Dwelling Units within the City. Gaps 2, 4 City Development, Corporate Services (Municipal Law Enforcement) ■■□ $ 1.9 Ensure that the City’s Official Plan policies and zoning regulations do not present barriers to shared living (co-housing, co-living) arrangements in appropriate areas as-of-right. Gaps 1-3 City Development ■□□ $ - 144 - Housing Strategy Study Phase 3: Recommended Housing Strategy and Action Plan City of Pickering December 22, 2021 52 Action Gap # Addressed Lead Department Time Frame Cost 1.10 Consider removing or reducing the minimum requirement for parking spaces for affordable housing and/or supportive housing and allowing developers to propose alternative parking space options. Gap 4 City Development ■□□ $ 1.11 Consider discouraging “down zoning” high and medium density residential designations to lower density residential designations. Gap 4 City Development ■□□ $ 1.12 Add an Official Plan policy requiring the submission of an Affordability and Accessibility Analysis as part of a complete application for residential development, subject to criteria. Gaps 1-3 City Development ■□□ $ 2.0 Financial Incentives 2.1 Consider establishing a corporate policy whereby surplus or underutilized City-owned lands or buildings that are not required for municipal purposes, such as for parkland, are first considered for development of affordable rental housing. Gaps 1-3 Corporate Services, Finance ■■□ $$ - $$$ 2.2 Consider waiving fees or providing a grant equivalent to certain development application fees, development charges, property taxes, and/or parkland dedication requirements, for affordable rental, affordable ownership, and/or supportive housing developments on a case-by-case basis. Gaps 1-3 Finance Department □■□ $$ - $$$ - 145 - Housing Strategy Study Phase 3: Recommended Housing Strategy and Action Plan City of Pickering December 22, 2021 53 Action Gap # Addressed Lead Department Time Frame Cost 2.3 Prioritize and facilitate approvals for projects which provide affordable rental, affordable ownership, supportive housing, and purpose-built rental housing units. Gaps 1-3 City Development, Engineering, Fire ■□□ $ 2.4 Consider establishing a Housing Reserve Fund which can be funded through a special level and/or Community Benefit Charge. Gaps 1-3 Finance □■■ $ 2.5 Consider undertaking a feasibility study for a Vacant Home Tax. Gaps 1-3 Finance □■□ $ 3.0 Other 3.1 Encourage developers to consider designing flexible spaces that can accommodate shared living or multi-generational living. Gaps 1, 3 City Development ■□□ $ 3.2 Consider connecting interested developers with experts or consultants in the field of management and operation of affordable, rental housing. Gaps 2 Economic Development, City Development ■□□ $ 3.3 Provide guidance to developers, not-for-profits and other proponents of affordable rental, affordable ownership and/or supportive housing, on the planning and building approvals processes. Gaps 1-3 City Development ■□□ $ 3.4 Share information with developers about funding and other incentives available to address the City’s housing needs. Gaps 1-3 City Development ■□□ $ - 146 - Housing Strategy Study Phase 3: Recommended Housing Strategy and Action Plan City of Pickering December 22, 2021 54 Action Gap # Addressed Lead Department Time Frame Cost 3.5 Consider advocating for the Province to establish a minimum number of accessible units or a percentage of accessible units for major residential development. Gaps 1-3 Corporate Communications ■□□ $ 3.6 Consider advocating for the school boards to reduce, waive and/or defer their portion of Development Charges for affordable rental housing. Gaps 1, 2 Corporate Communications ■□□ $ 3.7 Establish a Monitoring Plan that will annually update and review the baseline data set established in the Research and Gap Analysis Report, March 31, 2021, to ensure goals and objectives of the Housing Strategy are being met. Gaps 1-4 City Development ■□□ $ “The Action Plan consists of themed actions – policy, financial incentives, and other.” - 147 - Housing Strategy Study Phase 3: Recommended Housing Strategy and Action Plan City of Pickering December 22, 2021 55 6.0 Next Steps Should Council decide to endorse the Phase 3: Recommended Housing Strategy & Action Plan, December 22, 2021, it is recommended that the appropriate officials of the City of Pickering be authorized to take the necessary actions as indicated in the Phase 3: Recommended Housing Strategy & Action Plan 2021-2031, December 22, 2021. “Cities have the capacity of providing something for everybody, only because, and only when, they are created by everybody.” Jane Jacobs - 148 - pickering.ca Housing Strategy Study Housing Strategy & Action Plan Appendix 1 January 21, 2021 Electronic Open House 1: Comments/Questions and Staff Response - 149 - Housing Strategy Study January 21, 2021 Electronic Public Open House 1 Summary of Comments/Questions and Staff Responses Item Number Comments/Questions Staff Response 1. We would like to own a home. Rent-to-own/lease- to-own options would be great to include as part of the Study. These housing options would be great to have locations near transit, shops, other amenities. The Housing Strategy Study will be looking at how the City can facilitate a variety of options for housing type and tenure, including rent-to-own/lease-to-own options. City staff will be hosting stakeholder meetings with the development and building industry, as well as not-for-profit and government agencies, to hear what they have to say about the provision for this, and other housing options. 2. Why does Pickering not have more senior housing similar to Amica Swan Lake in Markham, Eastern Gate and Northern Gate Retirement Community in Stouffville, or Wilmont Creek Retirement Community in Newcastle? Amica Swan Lake in Markham is a seniors’ living complex (3-4 storey building, wide range of amenities). Eastern Gate & Norther Gate are attached bungalows using a form of life-lease (e.g., right-to-occupy agreement). Wilmont Creek in Newcastle are bungalows, residents do not own them but lease the land on which the bungalows sit. These examples provide a variety of ownership styles and tenures. In addition to City policy, market conditions and fluctuations drive what type of housing can be made available. The City encourages the widest range of typologies. Through the Study, we will identify additional role(s) the City can take in providing a range of housing typologies. Viva Retirement Home provides independent and assisted living opportunities for seniors in Pickering and is located at Kingston Road and Glengrove Road. Amica Pickering is a seniors lifestyle building currently under construction at the northeast corner of Glenanna Road and Pickering Parkway. In addition, City staff is reviewing a seniors residence application from Chartwell proposed to be located at Kingston Road and Valley Farm Road. - 150 - Housing Strategy Study January 21, 2021 Electronic Public Open House 1 Summary of Comments/Questions and Staff Responses Item Number Comments/Questions Staff Response 3. What is Pickering’s plan for senior development including detached bungalows with garages? Pickering’s land value has dramatically increased in the last few years and this has impacted whether this option would be affordable for seniors downsizing. City staff will be hosting stakeholder meetings with the development and building industry, as well as not-for-profit and government agencies, to hear what they have to say about the provision for this, and other, housing options. 4. The current cost of housing in Pickering does not offer affordable options for a variety of residents ranging from Registered Nurses to individuals on Ontario Works (OW) or Ontario Disability Support Program (ODSP). Because of this, some people require shared living quarters with others or they will face potential homelessness. Many tenants in this form of housing are considered vulnerable populations (e.g., essential workers, seniors, co-op students, individuals living with a disability, racialized individuals). Surrounding municipalities have made rooming/lodging house licenses difficult and seem to be discouraging them. This can lead to increased levels of homelessness. I do not want Pickering to discourage this type of housing. Discouraging this type of housing violates guidelines set out by the Ontario Human Rights Commission (Room for everyone: Human rights and rental housing licensing). This Study should look into encouraging rooming/lodging house licenses and basement units as it provides essential affordable housing options. The City of Pickering Official Plan policies encourage the provision of a wide variety of housing types and tenure to meet the needs of existing and future populations of the City, including shared living accommodation. As with the construction of all types of housing, shared accommodation must meet the requirements of the Ontario Building Code (OBC) for building and fire safety. Other concerns that arise with shared accommodation include the amount of parking provided. The City does not prohibit people from sharing housing accommodation, and there is no zoning by-law prohibition on rooming/lodging houses in Pickering. - 151 - Housing Strategy Study January 21, 2021 Electronic Public Open House 1 Summary of Comments/Questions and Staff Responses Item Number Comments/Questions Staff Response 5. When looking at new affordable housing, the City should ensure that “corners do not get cut” during construction that could result in substandard housing. All construction is required to meet the Ontario Building Code (OBC). The City of Pickering Building Services staff review plans and inspect construction to ensure that the OBC requirements are met. There are no reductions in performance standards for affordable housing construction within the OBC. 6. The Province enables municipalities, like Pickering, to mandate affordable housing through Inclusionary Zoning policies and zoning by-laws. I encourage the City to implement this. Inclusionary Zoning is a relatively new “tool” introduced by the Province to enable municipalities to require a certain amount of affordable housing as part of new developments. Through the Housing Strategy Study, the City will be examining how this tool can be implemented, and the merits to its implementation. 7. Will the Study be looking at transitional housing? Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation’s National Housing Strategy Glossary of Terms defines “Transitional Housing” as housing that is intended to offer a supportive living environment for its residents, including offering them the experience, tools, knowledge and opportunities for social and skill development to become more independent. It is considered an intermediate step between emergency shelter and supportive housing, and has limits on how long an individual or family can stay. Stays are typically between 3 months and 3 years. The Study will also be considering Transitional Housing. - 152 - Housing Strategy Study January 21, 2021 Electronic Public Open House 1 Summary of Comments/Questions and Staff Responses Item Number Comments/Questions Staff Response 8. We are part of the aging population of Pickering. We own our home and we would love to get old in it. It seems that property taxes are a big part of the housing cost. They increased 60 percent in the last 15 years and it seems that the trend is growing. At this rate ever increasing taxes are eroding house affordability. When the minimum wage is 15-16 CAD and old age security is around 1,000 how do you see retirees afford the property bill on their home? The concern over increased property taxes and its impact on housing affordability will be reviewed in consultation with the City’s Finance Department, through the subsequent phases of the study. 9. We need to see more broad housing types also with other types of development. Such as mixed-use development. For example a site that contains not only owned units but also affordable housing and rental units alongside commercial/retail space all built together on the same site. So I would like the City to look more at encouraging mixed-use development moving forward in the housing strategy. The City, through the Study, will examine opportunities to strengthen and expand its housing policies and zoning by-law provisions to facilitate more housing types and affordable housing as part of mixed-use developments. 10. There are a lot of working class people who are not able to purchase a home. Is there a plan for any new co-op housing to be built to reduce the number of people on current waiting lists [for subsidized housing]? Currently there are no development applications for co-op housing in Pickering. This Study will examine different types of housing and how the City can help to facilitate affordable housing including co-op housing. 11. What are Pickering’s policies with respect to basement apartments? Currently the City of Pickering’s zoning by-laws refer to basement apartments as Accessory Dwelling Units (ADUs) and permit a total of two residential units on one property, subject to meeting certain conditions. - 153 - Housing Strategy Study January 21, 2021 Electronic Public Open House 1 Summary of Comments/Questions and Staff Responses Item Number Comments/Questions Staff Response These conditions include that the property have a minimum of 3 parking spaces, the ADU occupy no more than 100 square metres, and that a home-based business is prohibited in either dwelling unit of a dwelling containing an accessory dwelling unit. ADUs in the City of Pickering are governed by the Two-Dwelling Unit By-law No. 7579/17 and must be registered in order to ensure that the two-dwelling unit property meets required safety standards and can be located for providing emergency response. Changes to the Planning Act, introduced through the More Homes, More Choice Act in 2019, permit a total of three residential units on one property. Some of the changes introduced include: • requiring municipalities to permit second units in detached, semi-detached, and row houses in primary dwellings and within ancillary buildings or structures; • prohibiting municipalities from applying a development charge for second units above garages or in laneways, or built in new homes (subject to restrictions); and • requiring municipalities to permit two units in either the primary dwelling unit or in any ancillary building, effectively allowing up to three residential units on a single lot. The Housing Strategy Study will review the new provincial requirements and how they impact existing policy and regulations. - 154 - pickering.ca Housing Strategy Study Housing Strategy & Action Plan Appendix 2 February 25, 2021 Stakeholder Meeting: Comments/Questions - 155 - February 25, 2021 Stakeholder Meeting Comments/Questions The following highlights some of the comments and questions discussed at the February 25, 2021 Stakeholder Meeting: • It’s important to clearly define what is “affordable housing”; • The City should consider a robust suite of incentives to encourage the construction of affordable housing, including deferring Development Charges, and/or tax breaks; • An option to consider is encouraging affordable units through smaller and secondary units; • Consider reduced parking requirements for developments that include affordable housing; • Inclusionary Zoning should be targeted to areas of the City that have a strong housing market, it should be financially viable, it should be focused in Major Transit Station Areas (MTSAs), there should be continued consultation with BILD on this matter; • Consideration should be given to “Laneway Housing”; • Consideration should be made for providing tax breaks (there is a potential tax increase associated with converting or renovating basements to a secondary suite) and an easier building/permit process for secondary suites; • Pickering should look at innovative ways for people to renovate their homes to provide accessible housing options; • One of the challenges of affordable housing and purpose-built rental housing is public opposition to these projects. There needs to be a unified front (City and developer) and education to challenge the stigma associated with these forms of housing. Affordable housing requires support and endorsement from Council to educate the community and counter opposition; • Demolishing rental housing stock will exacerbate the problem of affordability. Consider balancing the impacts of redeveloping rental properties with providing additional housing units, including replacing the existing rental units and adding affordable units; • There is support for the provision of a range of housing options, including Emergency Shelters and Transitional Housing; • Consider an Empty Home Tax, where owners of vacant homes are charged a one percent (1%) tax on the assessed value of the home; • There is support for the City to consider regulating short-term rental housing. A distinction should be made between renting a room and renting an entire dwelling unit, since the latter could lead to a decline in the supply of rental housing; - 156 - February 25, 2021 Stakeholder Meeting Comments/Questions • Consider expediting site plan approval to encourage modular and mid-rise developments. As it relates to the cost of parking, surface or underground, depending on the value of the land, it may be more affordable to implement surface parking for mid-rise housing; • The City should consider small, self-contained units to be built in backyards (“granny flats”) where space permits. This can be considered as part of the “missing middle” and is suitable for seniors looking to downsize but not wanting to be in an apartment building; • Affordable housing will only be possible with funding, grants, and incentives from all levels of government; • Encourage integrated and inclusive housing options, especially as it relates to equity-seeking populations. We don’t want to see segregated buildings designated for vulnerable populations, isolated from neighbourhood amenities; • Encourage opportunities for the Region to increase the number of portable housing benefits for individuals with disabilities or on fixed incomes; • Make low-cost renovation dollars available to families who wish to modify their existing home to include a secondary suite for a family member; • Ensure homeowners are not penalized with increased property taxes when they renovate and create secondary suites for a family member with a disability; • Support or approve only the most inclusive and vibrant housing developments, where only up to ten percent of the total units of any new build would be considered for vulnerable people, including those with disabilities, so that disability “ghettos” do not become the norm. - 157 - pickering.ca Housing Strategy Study Housing Strategy & Action Plan Appendix 3 Engagement Summary Report - 158 - City of Pickering Housing Strategy Study Engagement Summary Report July 2021 - 159 - 1 INTRODUCTION The City of Pickering (the “City”) is currently undertaking a Housing Strategy Study (the “Study”). The Study will ultimately provide a framework to ensure the City can support a supply of suitable, adequate and affordable housing for all ages and abilities within its jurisdiction. The Study has a total of nine objectives: 1 Identify housing priorities, policy alternatives, including recommendations for official plan policies and zoning regulations, and allocation of City resources; 2 Develop a baseline database of the City’s demographic profile, socio-economic characteristics of households and housing stock; 3 Develop a protocol for regular updating of the database; 4 Identify expected population and employment growth over the next ten years that will influence future housing needs; 5 Analyze the data and trends to identify the City’s housing needs and gaps; 6 Identify and examine the current policy and legislative context that influences the provision of housing, affordable housing and age friendly housing in the City; 7 Identify and examine the roles, responsibilities, and interrelationships between the City, the Regional Municipality of Durham and other levels of government, and the private and not-for-profit sector; 8 Recommend an action plan that identifies actions that the City may undertake to ensure an appropriate balance of housing types and tenure that meet the needs of a complete, prosperous community; and 9 Recommend a Monitoring Plan that will regularly update and review the baseline data set with the goal of identifying whether or not the goals and objectives of the Housing Strategy are being met, and if any modifications to the action plan are necessary to ensure that the goals and objectives of the Housing Strategy are met. The Study is being completed in three phases. Phase 1: Research and Gap Analysis, included launching the Study, undertaking background research to determine housing gaps within the City, and public engagement. Phase 1 concluded with the Research and Gap Analysis Report. Phase 2: Draft Housing Strategy and Action Plan considered input received through Phase 1 engagement, and the preparation and circulation of the Draft Housing Strategy and Action Plan to stakeholders, agencies and the public. The Study will conclude with Phase 3, where the Recommended Housing Strategy and Action Plan will be - 160 - 2 presented to Planning & Development Committee for consideration for Council adoption. The Study is currently in Phase 2. PURPOSE The purpose of the Engagement Summary Report (“Summary”) is to provide an overview of the initiatives undertaken and a summary of the input received from the public and key stakeholders during Phases 1 and 2 of the Study. The Summary will conclude by highlighting key themes that were identified through engagement. These themes may be considered by the City as it enters Phase 3 of the Study and prepares the Recommended Housing Strategy and Action Plan. OBJECTIVES The engagement objectives for Phases 1 and 2 were to: • Introduce the public, stakeholders and agencies to the Study, including the background, purpose, objectives, work plan and study timeline; • Create an opportunity for communication and education between the public, stakeholders, agencies and City staff about the role of housing within the City and the significance of the Study given the current housing context within Pickering; • Receive input and feedback from a broad audience of interested members of the public, key stakeholders and relevant agencies, as well as City departments and committees, such as the Accessibility Advisory Committee; and • Identify key themes and inputs as they relate to housing needs, challenges and opportunities within the City that may be taken into consideration as the Recommended Housing Strategy and Action Plan is developed. PROJECT TEAM The City’s Project Team for this Study included the following staff members: • Margaret Kish, Principal Planner, Policy, the Study’s Project Manager; • Catherine Rose, Chief Planner; • Déan Jacobs, Manager, Policy & Geomatics; and • Doris Ho, Planner 1. TIMELINE OVERVIEW 2 - 161 - 3 THE LAUNCH OF THE STUDY In June 2020 Council authorized staff to undertake a study for the purpose of developing a housing strategy. In Summer 2020, City staff began the research and data collection that would inform the Research and Gap Analysis Report of Phase 1 of the Study. City staff formally launched the Study’s engagement process in Winter 2021 and held the first Public Open House on January 21, 2021. ESTABLISHMENT OF THE PROJECT TEAM In January 2021, the City retained WSP to facilitate consultation and engagement for the Study. As part of this role, WSP has been responsible for facilitating stakeholder meetings and public open houses, as well as providing engagement summaries during Phases 1 and 2 of the Study. PHASE 1 ENGAGEMENT During Phase 1 of the Study, the following engagement events were held to gather valuable feedback from members of the public, agencies and key stakeholders: 1 Public Open House #1, held on January 21, 2021; 2 Stakeholders Meeting, held on February 25, 2021; and 3 Presentation to the Pickering Accessibility Advisory Committee on March 17, 2021. PHASE 2 ENGAGEMENT During Phase 2 of the Study, the following engagement events were held to gather valuable feedback from members of the public, agencies and key stakeholders: 1 Public Open House #2, held on April 29, 2021; and 2 Presentation to the Pickering Accessibility Advisory Committee on May 19, 2021. Circulation of the Draft Housing Strategy and Action Plan to internal departments, agencies and interested stakeholders is also being undertaken in Phase 2. COMMUNICATIONS AND ENGAGEMENT TACTICS The following section provides an overview of the approach and methodology used and an analysis of feedback received. DEDICATED PROJECT WEBPAGE The City is administering a dedicated project webpage that offers a central location for project resources. The project webpage details the Study background, key objectives, status, reports, engagement activities, and information on how to be involved. Members of the public could also sign-up to receive email notifications and a dedicated email address was also administered to receive correspondence. - 162 - 4 PUBLIC OPEN HOUSE #1 The first electronic Public Open House was held on January 21, 2021, from 7:00PM to 8:30PM. The Public Open House was held on the Cisco Webex platform and live streamed to the City’s YouTube channel. The event was advertised through the project webpage and a Notice of Electronic Public Open House The Public Open House required pre-registration in order for members of the public to be connected to the meeting and actively participate. Alternatively, the Public Open House could be viewed live through the City’s YouTube channel, where no pre-registration was required. A total of 24 members of the public viewed the Public Open House on YouTube. The purpose of Public Open House #1 was to introduce the Study to the public, provide context on why the Study was being undertaken, and to provide an opportunity to gather feedback to inform the Research and Gap Analysis Report. The Public Open House also provided an opportunity for pre- registered participants to interact directly with the City’s project team by asking questions and providing feedback. The Public Open House was facilitated by WSP with members of the City’s project team in attendance. The City’s project manager, Margaret Kish, delivered a PowerPoint presentation providing the Study context and purpose of the Public Open House. Following the presentation, delegations from pre- registered participants were delivered to the City, with follow- up questions being directed to the City’s project team. Delegates at the meeting included the following individuals: • Editha & Rolando de Guzman; • Royce Baker; • John Armstrong; • Councillor Brenner; and • Councillor Butt. The Public Open House concluded with an open discussion, followed by a review of the Study’s next steps delivered by the City’s project manager. Comments were received by the project team subsequent to Public Open House #1 until January 20, 2021. Several comments were received during this period and documented as part of the Study’s record. STAKEHOLDER MEETING A stakeholder meeting was held electronically on February 25, 2021, from 2:30PM to 4:30PM. The meeting was held on the GoToMeeting platform. Participants were also pre-registered for this event, and included representatives from the development industry, consultants, agencies, and relevant organizations. A total of 19 participants attended the meeting. - 163 - 5 The purpose of the Meeting was to engage key stakehol ders and provide an opportunity to receive solution -oriented feedback from a range of relevant perspectives and interests in affordable housing within the City. The format of the Stakeholder Meeting included a total of nine questions that were posed to participants by the project team. The meeting was facilitated by WSP with members of the City’s project team in attendance to engage with attendees and answer questions. The nine questions were developed within the context of the Research and Gap Analysis Report (the Report). The questions largely focused on exploring the various issues and opportunities that were identified through the Report, including: 1 How the City may facilitate affordable housing, purpose- built rental housing and community housing; 2 Challenges to the supply, construction and access of affordable rental housing and affordable home ownership; 3 The protection of rental housing from conversion and/or demolition; 4 Solutions to create emergency shelters or transitional housing; 5 Whether short-term rental housing within the City should be regulated; 6 Incentives and tools to facilitate or support affordable housing; 7 What could be done to encourage more mid-rise (6-8 storey) buildings; and 8 What can be done to encourage more at-grade bungalow dwellings. The Meeting concluded with a review of next steps, provided by Margaret Kish. Follow-up comments from participants of the Meeting were accepted until midnight on March 10th, 2021. Several comments were received and documented by the City’s project team. PICKERING ACCESSIBILITY ADVISORY COMMITTEE DELEGATION #1 On March 17, 2021, Margaret Kish attended an electronic meeting of the Pickering Accessibility Advisory Committee (AAC) as a delegate. The AAC was provided an overview of the Study, including the background, purpose, objectives, and work plan. More specifically, the housing continuum was presented and the definition of “affordable” was explained. The roles of Federal, Provincial and Regional governments in housing was also explored. The delegation was concluded with confirming preliminary findings to date and the next steps of the Study. - 164 - 6 Several comments were offered by the AAC or those in attendance, as follows: • A former member of the AAC, who joined via audio connection, confirmed that comments had been issued to Margaret Kish via email. Concern regarding the inaccessibility of stacked housing was also noted. • A member of the AAC noted that site plans presented to the Committee often have limited consideration for accessibility. It was also noted by this individual that it is important to ensure a mix of housing options is available for the aging population. • There was concern regarding a need to consider accessibility and affordability as separate issues to mitigate the segregation of communities; • Observations were offered that the senior population is relocating outside of Pickering due to the lack of affordable and accessible housing; • It was suggested that the City explore the concept of “prefabricated” housing for members of the community who may require affordable housing; • A need to ensure that specific goals and objectives are established through the Study; • Ensuring that the AAC are circulated as stakeholders throughout the Study; • That other factors be considered through the Study, including proximity to everyday amenities; • That consideration be given to horizon greater than 10 years; • That opportunities be considered to address deficiencies with respect to the Ontario Building Code be explored; • Opportunities to implement and enforce the Accessibility for Ontario with Disabilities Act (AODA) be considered; and • The AAC encouraged the Study’s project team to reach out to the Ajax-Pickering Board of Trade. PUBLIC OPEN HOUSE #2 The second electronic Public Open House was held on April 29, 2021, from 7:00PM to 8:30PM, as part of Phase 2 of the Study. The second Public Open House was held on the Cisco Webex platform and live streamed to the City’s YouTube channel. The event was also advertised through the project webpage and a Notice of Electronic Public Open House. The Public Open House required pre-registration in order for - 165 - 7 members of the public to be connected to the Open House meeting and actively participate. Alternatively, the Public Open House could be viewed live through the City’s YouTube channel, where no pre-registration was required. A total of 12 members of the public viewed the Public Open House on YouTube. The purpose of Public Open House #2 was to present Phase 2 of the Study, being the Draft Action Plan, to the public. The Public Open House offered an opportunity for feedback and input to be received by the project team. The Public Open House also enabled pre-registered participants to interact directly with the City’s project team by asking questions and providing feedback. The Public Open House was facilitated by WSP with members of the City’s project team in attendance. The City’s project manager, Margaret Kish, delivered a PowerPoint presentation which included a review of the Study’s progress and a presentation of the Draft Action Plan. Following the presentation, pre-registered participants delivered delegations to the City, with follow-up questions being directed to the City’s project team. Delegates at the meeting included the following individuals: • Royce Baker; and • Jennifer Jaruczek, representing BILD. Also, in attendance were Michael Blake and Erin Valant from the Region of Durham. The Public Open House included considerable discussion between registered participants and the project team, through which a range of topics, issues and opportunities were explored. This discussion included a follow-up on items proposed by the City through the Draft Action Plan. The Public Open House concluded with an open discussion followed by a review of the Study’s next steps delivered by the City’s project manager. Additional comments were received until May 6, 2021. PICKERING ACCESSIBILITY ADVISORY COMMITTEE DELEGATION #2 On May 19, 2021, Margaret Kish attended an electronic meeting of the Pickering Accessibility Advisory Committee (AAC) as a delegate. The AAC was provided with an update on the status of the Study, including a review of the work plan to confirm next steps. Information regarding housing gaps were identified, while tools identified in the Draft Action Plan were reviewed. These tools included planning policy, financial incentives, partnership, education, advocacy and other actions. - 166 - 8 The AAC was then provided additional information on several follow-up items, as discussed through a question and answer period: • Request to provide the AAC with an update regarding components of the Draft Housing Strategy and Action Plan concerning affordability and accessibility prior to launching the Strategy; • Increasing the City’s standards for accessibility and affordability; • Actions to encourage developers to pursue accessibility and affordability; and • The complexity of housing issues and concerns regarding the various interested and affected parties involved. WHAT WE HEARD Feedback received during Phase 1 and 2 of the Study ranged in topic and focus. Several key themes emerged that may inform the Recommended Housing Strategy and Action Plan , which will be developed in Phase 3 of the Study. The following subsections provide a summary of these key themes. PRELIMINARY KEY THEMES The following key themes were identified following a review of the feedback received through Phase 1 and 2 engagement activities: • Encourage a Range of Housing Options: Participants in Phases 1 and 2 of the Study communicated that a range of housing options are required to advance the City’s affordable housing objectives. Housing options in this context refer to tenure (e.g., rental, ownership, rent-to-own, lease-to- own, co-operative housing, “rooming or lodging house” etc.), housing types (e.g., detached, semi-detached, accessory dwelling units (i.e. basement apartments), mid-rise apartment, high-rise apartment, bungalow and “modular” housing), as well as housing typologies, such as housing that is better suited towards the needs of seniors (e.g., bungalows). The role of basement apartments and accessory dwelling units were also highlighted as a potential opportunity to provide additional affordable housing within the City. • Implement an Updated Policy Framework: Many participants noted a desire for the City to develop and implement an updated policy framework in regard to affordable housing. First, there was recognition that the Region is currently undertaking a review of its official - 167 - 9 plan, and that a modified policy framework, providing direction to local municipalities regarding affordable housing matters, is being considered through that process. Second, it was communicated that the City may need to consider a definition of “affordable” that is responsive to the local context and takes into consideration the City’s specific housing market and affordable housing needs. Lastly, input was received regarding policies that would provide direction to the provision and protection of affordable housing within the City. Policy considerations in this regard included, for example, enabling policies to offer financial incentives, protection from the conversion of purpose- built rental units, and a framework for inclusionary zoning that is predicated on close consultation and collaboration with key stakeholders, including the development industry. • Provide Financial and Other Incentives: Implementing incentives to encourage and facilitate the development of affordable housing emerged as a key theme through Phases 1 and 2. Where financial incentives may be considered, it was noted that the City should explore opportunities to fund these incentives through support from all levels of government. Participants also noted the important role that financial incentives can play in making affordable housing development feasible, especially in the form of grants, loans and/or deferrals of certain charges. The intent of financial incentives should focus on mitigating costs and fees associated with development of affordable housing. For example, this may include the deferral of development charges, or grants that are offered to offset certain fees for applications made under the Planning Act, or fees required for building permits, specifically as it relates to proposals that have an affordable housing component. Non-financial incentives to encourage and facilitate the development of affordable housing could include relief from certain tools administered by the City under the Planning Act, such as minimum parking requirements regulated by a zoning by-law. The planning and development process was also highlighted as a potential opportunity to incentivize affordable housing, whereby an expedited process may be facilitated by the City where affordable housing is proposed. Lastly, participants expressed support for utilizing Community Benefit Charges to fund certain incentives, where feasible or permitted under the Provincial regulations. Support for other tools and instruments, such as a Community Improvement Plan (under Section 28 of the Planning Act), inclusionary - 168 - 10 zoning, and a more permissive regulatory framework for secondary suites, were also observed to be desirable options to advance the City’s affordable housing objectives. • Foster Collaboration and Partnerships: Participants noted that collaboration and partnership is a critical consideration in developing and implementing a Recommended Housing Strategy and Action Plan. Input received through Phases 1 and 2 encouraged the City to work collaboratively with a range of stakeholders, including local organizations, agencies, consultants and the development industry, when exploring and evaluating options to advance the City’s affordable housing objectives. This may include, for example, consultation and collaboration when preparing implementing policies, developing incentive programs, or preparing City-led affordable housing initiatives. Understanding who the key stakeholders are and their role in affordable housing was also observed to be a key consideration for the City with regards to implementing the Recommended Housing Strategy and Action Plan. Importantly, participants were appreciative of the opportunity to be consulted and heard as the City develops the Recommended Housing Strategy and Action Plan. • Public Consultation and Education: Many participants noted that community opposition is often a barrier to the development of affordable housing. This opposition was largely articulated as a stigma towards individuals who may rely on various forms of affordable housing from government assistance or other publicly funded support systems. Here, participants highlighted the critical role the City has in offering enhanced communication, education and awareness about the value of integrating affordable housing within the community and the broader benefits this offers through a socioeconomic lens. Discussions in this context included a potential need to implement a robust public education and awareness campaign as the City seeks to implement the Recommended Housing Strategy and Action Plan over its intended horizon. NEXT STEPS Following the presentation of an update on the Study and the Draft Action Plan to the Planning and Development Committee in June 2021, the City will circulate the Draft Housing Strategy and Action Plan to internal departments, agencies and interested stakeholders for review and comment. Phase 3 will consider feedback from the circulation and culminate in the Recommended Housing Strategy and Action Plan, to be - 169 - 11 presented to Council for consideration for adoption. This is anticipated to occur in late-2021. - 170 - pickering.ca Housing Strategy Study Housing Strategy & Action Plan Appendix 4 April 29, 2021 Electronic Open House 2: Summary of Comments/Questions - 171 - Housing Strategy Study April 29, 2021 Electronic Public Open House 2 Summary of Comments/Questions Item Number Comments/Questions 1. The cost of insuring shared housing (sometimes referred to as “rooming houses”), may impact a home owner. For seniors who may have the space and may welcome the company, the extra costs of these issues could outweigh their desire to assist someone with their housing situation. 2. The City’s 55+ Advisory Committee, has been considering the option of accommodating younger single individuals co-habitating with a senior, thus providing the singleton with affordable housing options in return for some assistance to the senior, such as lawn mowing, snow removal etc. 3. The City should ensure that a Shared Living form of housing is encouraged. Sharing accommodations is the most common way for minimum waged workers to obtain affordable housing. Some municipalities regulate shared living accommodation (“rooming houses”). There needs to be municipal, regional, and provincial initiatives to overcome structural barriers to shared living. 4. How will Pickering resolve issues of multiple cars parked in driveways and on the street that may result from affordable housing such as rental apartments and rooming houses? Does the Planning Committee have a method to deal with a potential lack of upkeep of the area surrounding these units. In Toronto we hear about used drug needles left outside and liquor bottles being left about as well as transients loitering. Has the City developed a plan to deal with these negative issues in the planning process? How will the Planning Department ensure the overall look of Pickering will not be diminished? 5. If low cost housing is a priority, why not include studio apartments or condos that will be more affordable? 6. As a senior I was happy to hear consideration concerning the accessibility of housing. I would like to see more bungalow condos similar to the ones beside the Pickering City Hall. The bungalows there are always in very high demand. Coupled with that, smaller detached bungalows should also be a considered. 7. Pickering seems to focus its energy on creating more high density housing such as condos, apartments and town houses. Why is there no focus on single family homes for young families or bungalows with a garage for seniors. I feel there is too much emphasis on high density and not enough on the younger families and older seniors. - 172 - Housing Strategy Study April 29, 2021 Electronic Public Open House 2 Summary of Comments/Questions Item Number Comments/Questions 8. Pickering Council entertained the request to build a high condo building at the waterfront at the bottom of Liverpool Road. Why is Pickering not focusing its efforts to create as much parkland as possible along the waterfront for all Pickering residents to enjoy? The waterfront trail should incorporate as much greenspace as possible for residents. Ajax was very forward thinking in doing just that. As a result there are miles of waterfront trail to walk and enjoy. 9. Is Pickering interested in designing a seniors shared living house design? Have you studied the Golden Girls of Port Perry? 10. BILD spoke about the importance of partnerships in addressing the declining affordability in housing in the Greater Toronto Area, including the organization’s support for funding and grants from all levels of government. In particular, they expressed that they are encouraged by the wording in the Draft Action Plan and an approach which includes a suite of incentives that seeks to provide affordable housing units. In addition, BILD expressed an interest in ensuring that any future Inclusionary Zoning policies or requirements are applied in such a way to not unintentionally undermine future housing stock or choice, as well as the City’s overall growth objectives. BILD suggested that a working group be established between the City and BILD. 11. BILD stated that it’s fairly common when the industry is proposing new development that they are faced with community opposition and that community education is necessary to combat the stigma of the word “affordable”. BILD expressed that they believe that the success of implementing affordable housing begins early on with Council, and requires their support and endorsement to be the champions for these policy directions, and ends with residents who need to understand the social implications of opposing these types of initiatives. - 173 - pickering.ca The City of Pickering One The Esplanade Pickering, ON L1V 6K7 905.420.4660 or 1.866.683.2760 Your City. Right Now. pickering.ca - 174 - Report to Planning & Development Committee Report Number: PLN 03-22 Date: January 10, 2022 From: Kyle Bentley Director, City Development & CBO Subject: Comprehensive Zoning By-law Review Phase 2, Status Update and First Draft of the Zoning By-law - File: D-1100-101 Recommendation: 1. That Report PLN 03-22 of the Director, City Development & CBO, providing an update on the status of the City of Pickering Comprehensive Zoning By-law Review, be received for information. Executive Summary: The first draft of the new City wide Zoning By-law, along with a sample interactive zoning map, will be available in the first quarter of 2022 for review and comment on the City’s Let’s Talk digital platform. This first draft will be the parent part of the By-law containing definitions, general regulations, establishment of zoning categories and their regulations, and parking regulations. Site specific exceptions and a full interactive map will be available through later drafts of the By-law. To assist in reviewing and commenting on the first draft Zoning By-law, there will be brief explanations of how certain matters are addressed by the By-law and how to determine the zoning of properties. Also through Let’s Talk, staff will provide answers to submitted questions, continue targeted community engagement and consultation, and provide updates on the Zoning Review. The draft Zoning By-law text and zoning schedules will be compliant with the Accessibility for Ontarians with Disabilities Act. Staff is recommending that Council receive for information Report PLN 03-22 providing an update on the status of the City of Pickering Comprehensive Zoning By-law Review. Financial Implications: There are no financial implications applicable to this report. 1. Discussion: 1.1 Guiding principles developed in Phase 1 of the Zoning Review were used to prepare the first draft of the City wide Zoning By-law In early 2021, staff reported to Council on comments received from the public and stakeholders, and on the details of the findings of the discussion papers prepared as part of Phase 1 of the Comprehensive Zoning By-law Review (the Zoning Review). The purpose of the Zoning Review is to consolidate and update Pickering’s existing 6 parent - 175 - Report PLN 03-22 January 10, 2022 Subject: Comprehensive Zoning By-law Review Page 2 Zoning By-laws 2511, 2520, 3036, 3037, 7364/14 and 7553/17. The discussion papers provided an overview of the following: the relevant provisions in each of the existing parent Zoning By-laws; an analysis of how the existing zoning relates to planning policies and legislation at the local, regional, and provincial levels; and a discussion of recent best practices in other Ontario municipalities. Each paper concludes with the identification and assessment of key policy gaps and issues, and proposes a general structure of zoning categories and provisions. 1.2 A draft Zoning By-law for the City is available for review and comment Through the Let’s Talk Pickering platform, the community will be able to view the first draft of the Zoning By-law text and the sample interactive mapping tool, and submit comments. To assist, there will be brief explanations of how certain matters are addressed by the By-law and how to determine the zoning of properties. Also through Let’s Talk, staff will provide answers to submitted questions, continue targeted community engagement and consultation, and provide updates on the Zoning Review. The draft Zoning By-law text and zoning schedules will meet the accessibility requirements of the Accessibility for Ontarians with Disabilities Act. When completed, the new City wide draft By-law will implement Official Plan policy, replace and update definitions and provisions, amalgamate site specific provisions, contain explanatory illustrations and notations, and allow more consistent interpretations of zoning provisions. The new City wide Zoning By-law and interactive mapping will be available on the City’s website and will be updated as new by-law amendments are adopted by City Council. 1.3 The formats of the more recently written Seaton and City Centre Zoning By-laws were used for the preparation of the first draft of the City wide Zoning By-law Zoning by-laws typically contain a number of main sections that apply to all zone categories, including administration, general regulation, definitions, and parking regulation. By-laws also include sections for specific zone categories, including residential, mixed use, employment, community use, utility, and natural heritage. Also included in zoning by-laws is a visual representation of the various zoning categories and how they apply to properties within the municipality. These maps are referred to as zoning schedules. The format of the new consolidated Zoning By-law will contain similar sections and mapping. Currently, there are 6 parent Zoning By-laws that govern the zoning of specific areas of the City. The existing Zoning By-laws include: • Zoning By-law 2511 – Frenchman’s Bay Area; • Zoning By-law 2520 – Bay Ridges Area; • Zoning By-law 3037 – Rural Area; • Zoning By-law 7364/14 – Seaton Urban Area; • Zoning By-law 7553/17 – City Centre; and • Zoning By-law 3036 – covers the remaining urban area. - 176 - Report PLN 03-22 January 10, 2022 Subject: Comprehensive Zoning By-law Review Page 3 The purpose of the Zoning Review is to consolidate, harmonize, and update the administration, general regulations, definitions, parking regulations and zoning categories and their regulations sections from the six parent By-laws and create one zoning document that covers the entire City. The residential, commercial, mixed-use, employment, environmental, open space, rural, and institutional zoning categories and regulations from the existing parent By-laws have been consolidated, renamed, and updated in the draft By-law. The City Centre zoning categories have been carried forward into the draft By-law and appear in a separate section. The Seaton Zoning By-law, along with recent Council adopted amendments, has also been carried forward into the draft By-law in its entirety. The sections of the first draft Zoning By-law are as follows: • Administration; • Establishment of Zones and Schedules; • Definitions; • General Regulations; • Parking, Stacking, and Loading Regulations; • Residential Zone Regulations; • Commercial and Mixed-Use Zone Regulations; • Employment Zone Regulations; • City Centre Zone Regulations; • Environmental Protection and Open Space Zone Regulations; • Rural and Oak Ridges Moraine Zone Regulations; • Institutional and Other (Urban Reserve and Utility Zones) Zone Regulations; • Seaton Urban Area; • Exceptions Zone; and • Zoning Schedules. 1.4 Existing conditions and transition provisions are addressed in the Administration section New structures and uses will be required to conform to the new City wide Zoning By-law once it is adopted by City Council, subject to the resolution of any appeals of the new By-law. However, as the intent of the new Zoning By-law is to consolidate existing zoning categories and provisions, the Administration section contains provisions allowing any existing use or structure, that is in conformity with the previous in-force parent Zoning By-laws, to continue. The Administration section also contains transition provisions that allow minor variance, site plan, and building permit applications that were submitted prior to the passing of the new City wide Zoning By-law (and that comply with all zoning by-laws in force at the time of application submission), to continue to be processed. The intent is to recognize previous planning approvals obtained in accordance with the existing Zoning By-laws, and to allow for the issuance of a building permit without further amendment to the new City wide Zoning By-law. - 177 - Report PLN 03-22 January 10, 2022 Subject: Comprehensive Zoning By-law Review Page 4 1.5 Definitions and general provisions are harmonized across the City Definitions, definition names, and zoning provisions have been consolidated and updated to reflect contemporary planning practice, and market and development trends. A few of the updated and new definitions included in the new draft Zoning By-law include active recreational use, agri-tourism, cannabis cultivation, grade or average grade, group home, and seasonal farm help dwelling. 1.6 The first draft of the new draft Zoning By-law includes updated definitions and provisions addressing matters such as secondary suites, and agricultural related uses Bill 108, the More Homes, More Choices Act, allows secondary suites in detached, semi-detached, and row houses, within primary dwellings and ancillary buildings, or structures such as coach houses and laneway houses. The different names and definitions used in the existing parent By-laws have been harmonized in the draft Zoning By-law to ensure conformity with the Planning Act, consistency throughout the draft By-law, and to encourage a greater range of housing options within the City. Provincial policies and guidelines encouraging expansion to the range of uses permitted in the agricultural areas are reflected in the draft By-law through new and updated definitions and regulations for agricultural uses. 1.7 While existing zoning categories were collapsed into new zoning categories, the intent is to maintain existing zoning permissions A review of each of the existing parent By-laws found that the By-laws did not use the same zones to categorize uses and development standards, presenting a challenge in consolidating the parent By-laws. A detailed analysis was undertaken of the existing zoning categories for each type of use, the minor variances approved, and the numerous site specific by-law amendments adopted over the years, to identify the similarities and differences between zones within the various land uses. The discussion papers discussed how the zones could be collapsed or eliminated, while maintaining the existing zoning permissions. The draft By-law contains streamlined zoning categories that conform with the Official Plan, while providing consistency across the City and continuity for residents and the development proponents. An objective of the Zoning Review was to retain the general intent of the existing parent By-laws, while ensuring that current zoning permissions were maintained. In many zone categories, the zoning permissions were expanded. A concordance table identifying how the existing zone categories are collapsed into new zone categories will be available on the Let’s Talk Pickering project site. - 178 - Report PLN 03-22 January 10, 2022 Subject: Comprehensive Zoning By-law Review Page 5 1.8 Parking provisions have been updated using a consolidation of Seaton and City Centre provisions and best practices The parking and loading provisions of the draft By-law have been updated to incorporate the modern aspects of the City Centre and Seaton By-laws, and best practices. This effectively introduces a zoning approach that better aligns with City, Regional, and Provincial policy for reducing automobile dependence, and increasing transit use. This approach includes aligning parking requirements across land uses, providing parking requirements where missing, applying consistent visitor parking requirements, expanding minimum dimensions for interior garage space, and implementing shared parking City wide. 1.9 The existing Seaton Zoning By-law 7364/14 is consolidated in the draft By-law as its own chapter The Seaton Zoning By-law is its own chapter, with its own definitions and general provisions. It remains mostly unchanged, with the exception of reflecting recent amendments adopted by City Council, and the removal of the administration section, which has been harmonized with the administration section for the overall draft By-law. 1.10 The by-law implementing the Kingston Road Corridor and Specialty Retailing Node and Intensification Study will be reflected in a future draft of the By-law The first draft of the draft By-law does not reflect the Kingston Road Corridor and Specialty Retailing Node and Intensification Study. However, the Council adopted implementing by-law will be reflected in a future draft of the By-law. 1.11 The second draft of the draft By-law will incorporate a review of all existing site-specific zoning by-law amendments A detailed review of the numerous site specific amendments is ongoing. Any existing site specific amendments, which will be permitted as of right (as a result of the new provisions and zoning categories of the draft By-law), will be deleted. For those site specific amendments that will not be permitted as of right, the site specific provisions will be carried forward into the new By-law. 1.12 Mapping is designed to be interactive, user friendly, and accessible An important outcome of the Zoning Review will be that both the new By-law text and mapping will be available through the City’s website for staff and the public to access. Paper copies of the By-law will also be available. The sample mapping that will be available on the Let’s Talk site, along with the first draft of the By-law, will allow the public and stakeholders to try out and comment on interactive mapping. The final By-law will contain mapping that includes an overall index map and coloured zone maps. Overlays will be used to identify other information that may affect what can happen on a property such as Oak Ridges Moraine, Minister’s Zoning Orders, and conservation authority regulated areas. - 179 - Report PLN 03-22 January 10, 2022 Subject: Comprehensive Zoning By-law Review Page 6 The intention is also to make the new Zoning By-law more visually appealing with the addition of graphics and illustrations, which will be included in the second draft of the draft By-law. 2. Next steps The first draft of the By-law will be available through Let’s Talk Pickering on the City’s website for the first quarter of 2022. During this time, staff will engage with the public and other stakeholders through open houses and meetings with specific stakeholders. Comments received during this time will inform the preparation of a second draft By-law. The second draft By-law will also be made available on the Let’s Talk Pickering site for further comment and will contain site specific exceptions and full interactive mapping. Prepared By: Original Signed By Deborah Wylie, MCIP, RPP Manager, Zoning & Administration Approved/Endorsed By: Original Signed By Catherine Rose, MCIP, RPP Chief Planner Original Signed By Kyle Bentley, P. Eng. Director, City Development & CBO DW :ld Recommended for the consideration of Pickering City Council Original Signed By Marisa Carpino, M.A. Chief Administrative Officer - 180 - Report to Planning & Development Committee Report Number: PLN 04-22 Date: January 10, 2022 From: Kyle Bentley Director, City Development & CBO Subject: Zoning By-law Amendment Application A 08/20 Steele Valley Developments Ltd., 334979 Ontario Ltd., Pickering Square Inc., and Pickering Square (1986) Inc. (1300, 1360, 1450 and 1550 Kingston Road) Recommendation: 1. That Zoning By-law Amendment A 08/20, submitted by Steele Valley Developments Ltd., 334979 Ontario Ltd., Pickering Square Inc., and Pickering Square (1986) Inc., to increase the maximum permitted building height on lands municipally known as 1300, 1360 and 1550 Kingston Road, be endorsed, subject to the proposed zoning provisions contained in Appendix I to Report PLN 04-22, and that staff be authorized to finalize and forward an implementing Zoning By-law to Council for enactment. Executive Summary: The subject lands municipally known as 1300 and 1360 Kingston Road are located on the north side of Kingston Road, between Liverpool Road and Glenanna Road. The subject lands municipally known as 1450 and 1550 Kingston Road are respectively located at the northwest and northeast corners of Kingston Road and Valley Farm Road. Steele Valley Developments Ltd., 334979 Ontario Ltd., Pickering Square Inc., and Pickering Square (1986) Inc. have applied for a zoning by-law amendment to increase the maximum building height for 4 buildings, from 15 storeys to 25, 27, and 29 storeys at 1300 and 1360 Kingston Road. The applicants have also proposed to increase the maximum building height from 15 storeys to 23 and 27 storeys for 2 buildings at 1550 Kingston Road. The subject lands currently permit a broad range of uses, including high-density residential as permitted within the City Centre Zoning By-law 7553/17, as amended. Based on comments received from the public and City staff, the applicant has made several changes to their original proposal. The applicant has removed the following requests: • to allow a zero metre setback from Kingston Road; • to be exempt from the requirement to provide a 45-degree angular plane (for the height of a tower) when adjacent to residential uses; • to increase podium heights; and • to increase tower floor plate sizes. - 181 - Report PLN 04-22 January 10, 2022 Subject: Zoning By-law Amendment Application A 08/20 Page 2 The applicant has also removed the request to rezone the lands at 1450 Kingston Road. Any future development of this property will be in accordance with the current zoning provisions within the City Centre Zoning By-law, and will be subject to Site Plan approval. The proposed vehicular driveway on Glenview Road has also been removed. The Region of Durham has further requested that an "H" Holding symbol be placed on 1300, 1360 and 1550 Kingston Road. This Holding provision would require the owner to submit an updated Functional Servicing Report (FSR) prior to development of the subject lands, and to satisfactorily address how sanitary servicing capacity will be provided to enable the full development of each site. Staff support the zoning by-law amendment on the basis that the proposal meets the intent of the Official Plan, the City Centre Zoning By-law, and the City Centre Urban Design Guidelines. Accordingly, staff recommends that Council approve Zoning By-law Amendment Application A 08/20. Financial Implications: No direct costs to the City are anticipated as a result of the proposed development. 1. Background 1.1 Property Description The initial zoning by-law amendment application included 4 individual properties municipally known as 1300, 1360, 1450 and 1550 Kingston Road, located within the City Centre Neighbourhood (see Location Map, Attachment #1). After the Statutory Public Meeting, the applicant withdrew the property at 1450 Kingston Road from the application. 1.1.1. 1300 and 1360 Kingston Road The properties municipally known as 1300 and 1360 Kingston Road are located on the north side of Kingston Road between Liverpool Road and Glenanna Road, and have a combined area of 2.92 hectares. The 2 properties form part of a larger commercial block, containing the Hub Plaza, which also includes 1298 and 1340 Kingston Road. Existing uses on the subject lands include a grocery store, offices, retail stores and restaurant uses. The parcels municipally known as 1298 and 1340 Kingston Road are not included in this application. The surrounding land uses include (see Air Photo Map, Attachment #2): North: A medium-density residential development, consisting of 2-storey townhouses within a condominium development. - 182 - Report PLN 04-22 January 10, 2022 Subject: Zoning By-law Amendment Application A 08/20 Page 3 East: A medium-density residential development, consisting of 4-storey townhouses within a condominium development accessed from Glenanna Road. Further east is a veterinary clinic and a 6-storey retirement residence. South: Immediately south across Kingston Road is the Pickering Town Centre. West: Across Liverpool Road are single-storey commercial buildings, including a restaurant (within the Old Liverpool House), a commercial plaza, and a daycare. These lands are currently subject to an application for a Zoning By- law Amendment for a mixed-use development, containing a mid-rise building and a tower building. North of this property are 2 detached homes, which are currently subject to an application for an Official Plan Amendment and Zoning By-law Amendment for a proposed 13-storey mixed-use building. No decisions have been made on these applications, which are still under review. 1.1.2. 1550 Kingston Road The property municipally known as 1550 Kingston Road is located at the northeast corner of Kingston Road and Valley Farm Road. The site has an area of approximately 2.06 hectares and contains 2 buildings, a single-storey commercial plaza, and a 3-storey building with various commercial uses on the ground floor and offices on the second and third floors. The surrounding land uses include (see Air Photo Map, Attachment #2): North & East: A condominium townhouse development, consisting of 3-storey townhouses, is located to the north and east of the site, accessed from Kingston Road. Further east is the Hydro Corridor. West: Immediately west of the site are 3-storey freehold townhomes fronting Valley Farm Road. Across Valley Farm Road is 1450 Kingston Road, which contains a 1 and 2-storey commercial building, containing various retail and restaurant uses. Further west is an established residential neighbourhood, consisting of detached dwellings fronting Glenview Road. South: Immediately across Kingston Road is a residential condominium development, consisting of 4-storey stacked townhomes. Another residential condominium development, consisting of 96 stacked townhouses, is under construction. At the southeast corner of Kingston Road and Valley Farm Road, the City is presently reviewing a site plan application for a 22-storey seniors residence. 1.2 Applicant’s Proposal The applicant has submitted a Zoning By-law Amendment application, requesting various site-specific exceptions to the City Centre Zoning By-law, to facilitate the future redevelopment of the subject lands for multiple mixed-use buildings and townhouses. - 183 - Report PLN 04-22 January 10, 2022 Subject: Zoning By-law Amendment Application A 08/20 Page 4 The applicant initially proposed the following exceptions to the various zoning performance standards: • increasing maximum building heights; • increasing maximum podium heights; • increasing maximum tower floor plates; • reducing building setbacks along Kingston Road; • requesting exemption from a 45-degree angular plane requirement adjacent to residences, and • removing an “H” – Holding provision. The applicant also requested that Council grant an exemption in accordance with Section 45 (1.4) of the Planning Act to permit the Committee of Adjustment to consider a minor variance application resulting from the review of any future site plan application. As noted in Section 1.1 of this report, the rezoning application included the property at 1450 Kingston Road (see Submitted Conceptual Plan and Revised Concept Plan – 1450 Kingston Road, Attachments #3 and #4). The applicant has since removed this property from the application, and therefore is not requesting any further changes to the current zoning by-law at this time. The proposed vehicular driveway on Glenview Road has also been removed. Any future development of this property will be subject to site plan approval, and is required to be developed in accordance with the current permitted uses and zoning performance standards. The City Centre Zoning By-law 7553/17, as amended, permits a range of commercial, office and residential uses, a maximum Floor Space Index of 5.75 and a maximum building height of 15 storeys. Following the Statutory Public Meeting, the applicant has revised the proposal to address various comments from the City, the Region and the public. The following is a summary of the changes to the three properties included in the application: 1300 Kingston Road First Submission Revised Submission Number of buildings • 2 towers, 2 mid-rise buildings and 2 blocks of townhouses. • 3 towers, 1 mid-rise building and 2 blocks of townhouses. Number of Towers and proposed building heights • 2 mid-rise residential buildings with a height of 12 and 15 storeys. • 1 mid-rise building with a height of 12 storeys, and 1 tower with a height of 29 storeys. • 2 residential towers with a height of 25 storeys each, connected by a 13-storey mixed-use podium. • 2 residential towers, 1 with a height of 27 storeys and 1 with a height of 25 storeys, connected by a 6-storey mixed-use podium. • 2 blocks of townhouses, 3 and a half storeys each. • 2 blocks of townhouses, 3 and a half storeys each (no change). - 184 - Report PLN 04-22 January 10, 2022 Subject: Zoning By-law Amendment Application A 08/20 Page 5 1360 Kingston Road First Submission Revised Submission Number of buildings • 2 towers, 1 mid-rise building and 1 block of townhouses. • 2 towers, 1 mid-rise building and 1 block of townhouses (no change). Number of buildings • 1 mid-rise building with a height of 12 storeys. • 1 mid-rise building with a height of 12 storeys. • 2 towers with a height of 25 storeys each, connected by a 13-storey mixed-use podium. • 2 towers, 1 with a height of 29 storeys and 1 with a height of 25 storeys, connected by a 6-storey mixed-use podium. • 1 block of townhouses, 3 and a half storeys each (no change). • 1 block of townhouses, 3 and a half storeys each (no change). (see Submitted Conceptual Plan and Revised Concept Plan – 1300 and 1360 Kingston Road, Attachments #5 and #6) 1550 Kingston Road First Submission Revised Submission Number of buildings • 4 towers and 4 blocks of stacked townhouses. • 3 towers, 1 mid-rise building and 4 blocks of stacked townhouses. Number of Towers and proposed building heights • 2 towers with a height of 16 storeys, connected by a 5-storey podium. • 2 buildings, 1 mid-rise building with a height of 12 storeys and 1 tower building with a height of 27 storeys with a 4storey podium. • 2 towers with a height of 22 storeys connected by a 12-storey podium. • 2 towers, 1 with a height of 23 storeys and 1 with a height of 14 storeys, connected by a 6-storey podium. • 4 blocks of 3-storey stacked townhouses. • 4 blocks of 3-storey stacked townhouses (no change). Angular plane Requirement • Request to be exempt from providing a 45-degree angular plane to the existing townhouses on Valley Farm Road. • The proposal will provide the 45-degree angular plane measured of existing adjacent residential dwellings. (see Submitted Conceptual Plan and Revised Concept Plan – 1550 Kingston Road, Attachments #7 and #8) - 185 - Report PLN 04-22 January 10, 2022 Subject: Zoning By-law Amendment Application A 08/20 Page 6 All Sites Tower Floor Plate • Increase maximum tower floor plate over 850 square metres for storeys 7-12. • The proposal complies with the maximum tower floor plate (850 square metres) for all storeys above the podium, in accordance with the Zoning By-law. • The tower floor plate will be restricted to an average of 650 square metres for all storeys at and above the 25th floor. Podium Heights • Increase podium heights to 13 storeys. • 6-storey podium height, in compliance with the Zoning By-law. Setback to Kingston Road • A 0-metre setback to Kingston Road above grade. • No longer requesting to reduce the minimum setback to Kingston Road to 0 metres and will comply with the required minimum 1 metre setback to Kington Road. Holding provision • 1300 and 1360 Kingston Road are subject to an “H1” Holding provision requiring the landowners to submit a block development plan demonstrating the orderly development of the lands and providing details such as: Street and block pattern; Parking strategy; Community uses such as parks, Public and private street right-of-way design, and Phasing of the proposed development. • 1550 Kingston Road is not subject to an existing “H” Holding zone. • “H1”Holding Zone to be maintained at 1300 and 1360 Kingston Road. • An “H” Holding Zone to be applied to all 3 subject properties requiring the completion of an updated Functional Servicing Report (FSR), and that the FSR include recommendations on how sanitary servicing capacity will be provided to enable the full development of each site as proposed by the Zoning By-law amendment to the satisfaction of the Region. Variance Relief • Request to allow the applicant relief from the site-specific Zoning By-law, within two years of passing (through a minor variance). • Request to allow the applicant relief from the site-specific Zoning By-law, within two years of passing (through a minor variance). - 186 - Report PLN 04-22 January 10, 2022 Subject: Zoning By-law Amendment Application A 08/20 Page 7 2. Comments Received 2.1 Public Open House, Statutory Public Meeting and Written Comments On October 27, 2020, an Electronic Public Open House meeting was hosted by the City Development Department to inform area residents about the development proposals. A total of 9 individuals provided a delegation at the meeting. Subsequently, the Electronic Statutory Public Meeting was held on February 1, 2021, where 6 individuals provided a delegation. In addition, staff received written comments from over 50 individuals and businesses expressing their concerns with the proposed developments. Subsequent to the Statutory Public Meeting, the applicant amended their rezoning application to increase building heights for select buildings along the Kingston Road frontage. To ensure interested parties were kept appraised of the requested change, a second Electronic Public Open House Meeting was hosted by the City Development Department on November 2, 2021. At this meeting, a total of 3 delegates provided additional comments and concerns. The following is a list of key comments and concerns expressed by members of the public and in written submission: • concerned that businesses and amenities that currently serve the community will be displaced during and after construction; • concerned about the safety of pedestrians due to proposed vehicular entrance on Glenview Road; • concerned about lack of surface parking on all sites that may be needed to support the proposed retail shops within the mixed-use buildings; • concerned about construction management including parking and volume of construction vehicles, vibrations, and drainage; • concerned about the increased shadows, lack of privacy, and wind effects as a result of the proposed buildings; • opposed to the request to be exempt from providing a 45-degree angular plane at 1550 Kingston Road; and • owner at 1340 Kingston Road (lands located in between 1300 and 1360 Kingston Road) expressed concerns regarding: the reduction of proposed height on their lands; requested clarification of location and reasons for proposed public road and public park shown on the submitted concept plan, and expressed intention to participate in block plan development. Detailed responses to the various comments and concerns received and comments from the Planning & Development Committee are included in Attachment #12 to this report. - 187 - Report PLN 04-22 January 10, 2022 Subject: Zoning By-law Amendment Application A 08/20 Page 8 2.2 Agency Comments 2.2.1 Region of Durham • The proposed developments generally conform with the policies of the Regional Official Plan (ROP), subject to the availability of sanitary servicing capacity to enable the full development of each site. • The Region recommends that the proposed “H” Holding Zone be applied to require the completion of an updated Functional Servicing Report (FSR), which would include recommendations on how sanitary servicing capacity will be provided to enable the full development of 1300 and 1360 Kingston Road, and 1550 Kingston Road, to the satisfaction of the Region. • There is limited capacity within the existing sanitary sewer system. Downstream system capacity improvements will likely be required, which may affect the timing for the redevelopment of these lands and neighbouring proposed developments. • An updated FSR is necessary, with recommendations for the best servicing option, and a summary of all servicing options that would include: the approximate size of the drainage area, service population, and the net reserved capacity of the sanitary sewer(s) that connect to the proposed Glenanna Road servicing relocations. This should be compared to the estimated length of sanitary sewer to be constructed and the number of service connections to be replaced or installed. An updated FSR should also include recommendations on how proposed works or existing infrastructure within the municipal right-of-way could affect each servicing option. 2.2.2 Durham Region Transit (DRT) • The property at 1450 Kingston Road may require a road widening along the entire frontage of Kingston Road for the Durham-Scarborough Bus Rapid Transit project. This would be determined through the site plan stage. Since this specific property has been removed from the re-zoning application, staff will take DRT’s comments under advisement for any future development applications the City may receive. 2.2.3 Durham District and Durham Catholic District School Boards • no comments received 2.2.4 Ministry of Transportation (MTO) • The MTO has reviewed the site locations and has no comments to provide, as these sites are outside of MTO permit jurisdiction. No MTO permits or approvals would be required by the proponent for any development at the above addresses. 2.3 Comments from City Departments 2.3.1 Engineering Services Department • Engineering Services has no concerns with the requested zoning amendments. Technical matters can be addressed through the Comprehensive Block Plan Review and Site Plan Approval process. - 188 - Report PLN 04-22 January 10, 2022 Subject: Zoning By-law Amendment Application A 08/20 Page 9 • A Record of Site Condition (RSC) must be filed for each property before the detailed design is approved. • The feasibility and request for the public road and the location, size and configuration of the park block will require further review through a comprehensive block plan review for all four properties at 1298, 1300, 1340 and 1360 Kingston Road. 3. Planning Analysis 3.1 Proposed development conforms to the City’s Official Plan Policies The subject lands are designated as “Mixed Use Areas – City Centre” within the City’s Official Plan. This designation permits high-density residential uses, retailing of goods and services, offices and restaurants, hotels, convention centres, community, cultural and recreational uses, community gardens and farmers’ markets. The designation has a minimum net residential density of 80 units per hectare and no maximum density; a maximum gross leasable floor space for the retailing of goods and services of up to and including 300,000 square metres; and a maximum Floor Space Index (FSI) of over 0.75 and up to and including 5.75. The proposed Zoning By-law amendment contributes to the vision for the City Centre by accommodating spaces for public parks and squares, creating a more walkable environment and including opportunities for the highest mix and intensity of uses. The proposed increase in heights on the subject lands satisfies the Official Plan criteria for buildings taller greater than 5-storeys as follows: • buildings are designed in such a way that shadowing impacts are minimized; • upper levels of buildings are set back from the streetwall through the use of a podium to help create a human scale at street level; • sufficient spacing is provided between the building face of building towers to provide views, privacy for residents, and to minimize any wind tunnel impacts on surrounding development, streets and public spaces; and • buildings are oriented to optimize sunlight and amenity for dwellings, private open spaces, adjoining open spaces and sidewalks. Matters concerning shadowing and privacy impacts are discussed further in Section 3.4 of this report. The proposal conforms to the policies of the City’s Official Plan. 3.2 The requested increase in building height is consistent with the approved City Centre Urban Design Guidelines The applicant is proposing to increase the maximum building height. The City Centre Urban Design Guidelines provide design direction for intensification, to guide buildings and private development. The proposed development maintains the key urban design objectives of the Guidelines by: - 189 - Report PLN 04-22 January 10, 2022 Subject: Zoning By-law Amendment Application A 08/20 Page 10 • locating and massing buildings in such a way that limits any shadowing on the public realm, parks and public spaces to achieve adequate sunlight and comfort in the public realm through all four seasons; • gradually transitioning the building in height away from established low-density residential areas; • proposing tall buildings at the intersection of Kingston and Liverpool Roads, which is designated as a gateway to the City Centre; • designing upper levels of buildings to be set back, with a podium or point tower form to help create a human scale at street level; and • providing sufficient spacing between the building face of building towers to provide views, privacy for residents and to minimize any wind tunnel impacts on surrounding development, streets and public spaces. To ensure the proposal conforms to the City's approved City Centre Urban Design Guidelines, the applicant has agreed to eliminate requests to increase maximum podium heights, increase maximum tower floor plate sizes, reduce building setbacks along Kingston Road, and maintain the required 45-degree angular plane provision. As noted, the applicant is only requesting an increase in the maximum building height for select buildings along Kingston Road. The request to increase building heights meets the urban design objectives within the City Centre Urban Design Guidelines. The applicant has proposed to locate tall buildings away from adjacent residential buildings to ensure a gradual increase in height to prevent increased shadowing and overlook on the established residents. The tower buildings are designed with a distinguishable 6-storey podium base to create a human scale at street level and the tower portion with a slim tower floor plate to reduce shadowing. Furthermore, buildings greater than 25 storeys will have reduced tower floor plate sizes of 650 square metres further reducing the appearance of the increase in building height and any other impacts to the surrounding community. Building separation distances are being maintained, where 25 metres is required between 2 towers. This reduces wind-tunnel effects and provides future residents with more sunlight and views. The applicant’s request to increase building heights along the Kingston Road frontage is in keeping with the urban design objectives of the City Centre Urban Design Guidelines. 3.3 The proposed maximum building heights comply with the 45-degree angular plane requirement A 45-degree angular plane is an invisible line drawn from the rear yards of adjacent dwellings towards the proposed development to limit the height of the buildings, creating a gradual increase in height. The purpose and intent of the angular plane requirements are to minimize any potential adverse impacts to abutting properties concerning shadowing, overlook, privacy and wind. Figure 1 below demonstrates that the proposed 29-storey Tower ‘A’, at 1300 Kingston Road, (at the corner of Liverpool Road and Kingston Road) remains within the required 45-degree angular plane, measured from the north property line. Tower ‘F’ is a 25 storey tower at 1360 Kingston Road. All proposed towers on these lands are within the required angular plane from the established residential development to the north. - 190 - Report PLN 04-22 January 10, 2022 Subject: Zoning By-law Amendment Application A 08/20 Page 11 Figure 1 – 45 degree angle at 1300 and 1360 Kingston Road 45 Degree Angular Plane Tower ‘A’ Tower ‘F’ Building ‘A’ Building ‘J’ Figure 2, below, demonstrates the proposed 27-storey Tower ‘B’ (27 storeys), at 1550 Kingston Road, also remains within the required 45-degree angular plane, measured from the north property line. All proposed towers at this block fit within the required angular plane. Figure 2 – 45 degree angle at 1550 Kingston Road 45 Degree Angular Plane Tower ‘B’ - 191 - Report PLN 04-22 January 10, 2022 Subject: Zoning By-law Amendment Application A 08/20 Page 12 The requirement for the proposed towers to be within the 45-degree angular plane, along with further reduced tower floor plate size of 650 square metres above 25-storeys and with appropriate stepback, provides for a gradual transition in building height, that will minimize impacts concerning shadowing, privacy and overlook. 3.4 The proposed increase in building heights will have minimal shadow impacts on adjacent residential properties In support of the tower locations and building heights, the applicant has submitted a Shadow Study, illustrating the shadow impacts of the proposed tower location on the three sites and the adjacent residential neighbourhoods. The applicant provided a comparative shadow analysis that compares the first submission with the new proposal. At 1300 and 1360 Kingston Road, the analysis demonstrates that the increased shadowing on the residential uses to the north is minimal and that the impact to those residences is during the morning hours before 11:00 a.m. The majority of the increased shadowing will be on Liverpool Road and future mixed-use lands west of the site. At 1550 Kingston Road, the analysis demonstrates that the revised proposal results in a reduction of shadows on 1899 and 1903 Valley Farm Road, due to the compliance with the angular plane requirements and reduction of the tower floor plate. Shadowing is present on the properties to the north and west in the morning hours before 11:00 a.m., and no shadow is cast during the afternoon and evening hours. Staff concur with the findings that the shadow impact has been reduced and that the additional increase in building height is appropriate. 3.5 Future Development will require a full Block Plan to be submitted The subject lands at 1300 and 1360 Kingston Road are currently subject to an “H1” Holding Zone. The lands may not be further developed until the Holding Zone is removed. Prior to its removal, the landowner must submit to the satisfaction of the City of Pickering, a block development plan that demonstrates the orderly development of the lands and provide details such as: • street and block pattern; • pedestrian, landscape and open space connections; • parking strategy; • community uses such as parks, community centres and other public uses; • public and private street right-of-way design; and • phasing of the proposed development. While the applicant has shown a potential public road, public park, pedestrian and vehicular connections, a full block development plan must be submitted by all landowners prior to further development. - 192 - Report PLN 04-22 January 10, 2022 Subject: Zoning By-law Amendment Application A 08/20 Page 13 3.6 A Holding Zone is required to determine future servicing The Region of Durham has requested that an appropriate Holding (H) symbol be imposed on the sites to require the completion of an updated Functional Servicing Report (FSR). The implementing zoning by-law amendment will include an additional Holding Zone for the lands at 1300 and 1360 Kingston Road, and a new Holding Zone will be placed on 1550 Kingston Road. This new Holding provision will ensure that, before any further approval, the applicant provides an updated FSR to ensure sufficient sanitary servicing capacity is available to service future redevelopment of these lands. 3.7 Staff do not support the request to permit Minor Variances within 2-years of By-law passing The applicant has requested to permit applications for minor variances within 2 years of the passing of the new Zoning By-law on the subject properties. Section 45 (1.4) of the Planning Act prohibits Minor Variances on a property that has an applicant-initiated Zoning By-law under 2 years old, unless the Council of the municipality passes a resolution to do so, on a case-by-case basis. Staff are of the opinion that granting this exemption at this time is pre-mature. The applicants have not prepared any future detailed site plans, architectural drawings, landscape plans, and engineering drawings to demonstrate the final development plans conform with the City Centre Zoning By-law and Urban Design Guidelines. Any exemptions are reviewed on a case-by-case basis to ensure that Council has an opportunity to comment on any zoning provisions being reversed through the minor variance process. 3.8 Conclusion Staff supports the Zoning By-law Amendment Application A 08/20, and recommends that a site-specific implementing by-law, containing the standards set out in Appendix I to this report, be finalized and brought before Council for enactment be approved 3.9 Applicant’s Comments The applicant supports the recommendations of this report. Appendix Appendix I Recommended Zoning Provisions for Zoning By-law Amendment Application A 08/20 - 193 - Report PLN 04-22 January 10, 2022 Subject: Zoning By-law Amendment Application A 08/20 Page 14 Attachments: 1. Location Map 2. Air Photo Map 3. Submitted Concept Plan – 1450 Kingston Road 4. Revised Submitted Concept Plan – 1450 Kingston Road 5. Submitted Concept Plan – 1300 and 1360 Kingston Road 6. Revised Submitted Concept Plan – 1300 and 1360 Kingston Road 7. Submitted Concept Plan – 1550 Kingston Road 8. Revised Submitted Concept Plan – 1550 Kingston Road 9. Submitted Colour Rendering – 1300 and 1360 Kingston Road 10. Submitted Colour Rendering – 1550 Kingston Road (North View) 11. Submitted Colour Rendering – 1550 Kingston Road (South View) 12. Responses to comments from the public and Planning & Development Committee Prepared By: Original Signed By Elizabeth Martelluzzi, MCIP, RPP Senior Planner, Development Review & Heritage Original Signed By Nilesh Surti, MCIP, RPP Manager, Development Review & Urban Design Approved/Endorsed By: Original Signed By Catherine Rose, MCIP, RPP Chief Planner Original Signed By Kyle Bentley, P. Eng. Director, City Development & CBO EM:ld Recommended for the consideration of Pickering City Council Original Signed By Marisa Carpino, M.A. Chief Administrative Officer - 194 - Appendix I to Report No. PLN 04-21 Recommended Zoning By-law Provisions for Zoning By-law Amendment Application A 08/20 - 195 - Recommended Zoning By-law Provisions for Zoning By-law Amendment Application A 08/20 That the implementing zoning by-law permit mixed-use condominium developments in accordance with the following provisions: A. Zoning Provisions Maximum Building Height 1. The maximum building height at 1300 and 1360 Kingston Road shall not exceed a building height of 89 metres (29 storeys) for 2 buildings, 83 metres (27 storeys) for 1 building and 77 metres (25 storeys) for 2 buildings along the Kingston Road frontage. 2. The maximum building height at 1550 Kingston Road shall not exceed a building height of 83 metres (27 storeys) for 1 building and 71 metres (23 storeys) for 1 building along the Kingston Road frontage. Tower Floor Plate 3. The maximum Tower Floor Plate for floors located above 77 metres in height (25 storeys) shall not exceed 650 metres. B. Holding Provisions 1. A “H8” Holding Symbol is to be applied to the subject lands at 1300 and 1360 Kingston Road. The “H” symbol shall, upon application by the landowner, be removed by City Council passing a By-law under Section 34 of the Planning Act. The following condition shall first be completed to the satisfaction of the Region of Durham: the completion of an updated Functional Servicing Report (FSR), and that the FSR include recommendations on how sanitary servicing capacity will be provided to enable the full development of each site as proposed by the Zoning By-law amendment. 2. A “H9” Holding Symbol is to be applied to the subject lands at 1550 Kingston Road. The “H” symbol shall, upon application by the landowner, be removed by City Council passing a By-law under Section 34 of the Planning Act. The following condition shall first be completed to the satisfaction of the Region of Durham: the completion of an updated Functional Servicing Report (FSR), and that the FSR include recommendations on how sanitary servicing capacity will be provided to enable the full development of each site as proposed by the Zoning By-law amendment. - 196 - Attachment #1 to Report #PLN 04-22 Valley Farm Road Glenview Road Memory L a n e Everton Street F ieldlight B oulevard G le n a nna Road Kingsto n R o a d Liverpool R oad R o s efield Road Brands Court Diefenbak er Court Pickering Park w a y Highway 401 A n t o n Square GlendalePark EsplanadePark DianaPrincess OfWales Park GlengrovePark RecreationComplex 1:6,750 SCALE: © The Corporation of the City of Pickering Produced (in part) under license from: © Queens Printer, Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources. All rights reserved.;© Her Majesty the Queen in Right of Canada, Department of Natural Resources. All rights reserved.; © Teranet Enterprises Inc. and its suppliers all rights reserved.; © Municipal Property Assessment Corporation and its suppliers all rights reserved.; City DevelopmentDepartment Location MapFile: Applicant: Property Description: A 08/20 THIS IS NOT A PLAN OF SURVEY. Date: Dec. 07, 2021 Steele Valley Developments Ltd., 334979 Ontario Ltd., 1300, 1360, 1450, & 1550 Kingston Rd Subject Property1300 Kingston Road L:\PLANNING\01-MapFiles\A\2020\A 08-20 Steele Valley & Pickering Square\A08_20_LocationMap.mxd Subject Property1360 Kingston Road 1450 Kingston Road Subject Property1550 Kingston Road Pickering Square Inc., and Pickering Square (1986) Inc. (Applicant has removedthis property from theZoning By-law Amendmentapplication) - 197 - Attachment #2 to Report #PLN 04-22 Liverpool Road Kingsto n R o a d G le n a nn a Road Glenview Road Me m o r y L a n e Everton Street Ro s e f i e l d R o a d Field l i g h t B o u l e v a r d Va l l e y F a r m R o a d Lo d g e R o a d P oppy Lane Pickering Park w a y Brands Court Diefenbaker Court Avonmore Sq u a r e The Esplanade S Anton S q u a r e The Esplanade N Glengrove Road Fay lee Cresc ent 1:6,000 SCALE: © The Corporation of the City of Pickering Produced (in part) under license from: © Queens Printer, Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources. All rights reserved.;© Her Majesty the Queen in Right of Canada, Department of Natural Resources. All rights reserved.; © Teranet Enterprises Inc. and its suppliers all rights reserved.; © Municipal Property Assessment Corporation and its suppliers all rights reserved.; City DevelopmentDepartment Air Photo MapFile:Applicant: Property Description: A 08/20Steele Valley Developments Ltd., 334979 Ontario Ltd., 1300, 1360, 1450, & 1550 Kingston Rd THIS IS NOT A PLAN OF SURVEY. Date: Jan. 14, 2021Pickering Square Inc., and Pickering Square (1986) Inc. L:\PLANNING\01-MapFiles\A\2020\A 08-20 Steele Valley & Pickering Square\A08_20_AirPhoto.mxd ¯ E Subject Property1300 Kingston Road E Subject Property1360 Kingston Road E Subject Property1450 Kingston Road Subject Property1550 Kingston Road E - 198 - Attachment #3 to Report #PLN 04-22 L:\Planning\01-MapFiles\A\2020 Jan. 12, 2021DATE: Applicant: File No: Submitted Concept Plan - 1450 Kingston Road FULL SCALE COPIES OF THIS PLAN ARE AVAILABLE FOR VIEWING AT THE CITY OF PICKERING CITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT. City Development Department A 08/20 Steele Valley Developments Ltd., 334979 Ontario Ltd., Pickering Square Inc., and Pickering Square (1986) Inc. N - 199 - Attachment #4 to Report #PLN 04-22 L:\Planning\01-MapFiles\A\2020 Dec. 20, 2021DATE: Applicant: File No: Revised Submitted Concept Plan - 1450 Kingston Road FULL SCALE COPIES OF THIS PLAN ARE AVAILABLE FOR VIEWING AT THE CITY OF PICKERING CITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT. City Development Department A 08/20 Steele Valley Developments Ltd., 334979 Ontario Ltd., Pickering Square Inc., and Pickering Square (1986) Inc. N - 200 - Attachment #5 to Report #PLN 04-22 L:\Planning\01-MapFiles\A\2020 Jan. 12, 2021DATE: Applicant: File No: Submitted Concept Plan - 1300 and 1360 Kingston Road FULL SCALE COPIES OF THIS PLAN ARE AVAILABLE FOR VIEWING AT THE CITY OF PICKERING CITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT. City Development Department A 08/20 Steele Valley Developments Ltd., 334979 Ontario Ltd., Pickering Square Inc., and Pickering Square (1986) Inc. N - 201 - Attachment #6 to Report #PLN 04-22 L:\Planning\01-MapFiles\A\2020 Dec. 07, 2021DATE: Applicant: File No: Revised Submitted Concept Plan - 1300 and 1360 Kingston Road FULL SCALE COPIES OF THIS PLAN ARE AVAILABLE FOR VIEWING AT THE CITY OF PICKERING CITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT. City Development Department A 08/20 Steele Valley Developments Ltd., 334979 Ontario Ltd., Pickering Square Inc., and Pickering Square (1986) Inc. N - 202 - Attachment #7 to Report #PLN 04-22 L:\Planning\01-MapFiles\A\2020 Jan. 12, 2021DATE: Applicant: File No: Submitted Concept Plan - 1550 Kingston Road FULL SCALE COPIES OF THIS PLAN ARE AVAILABLE FOR VIEWING AT THE CITY OF PICKERING CITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT. City Development Department A 08/20 Steele Valley Developments Ltd., 334979 Ontario Ltd., Pickering Square Inc., and Pickering Square (1986) Inc. N - 203 - Attachment #8 to Report #PLN 04-22 L:\Planning\01-MapFiles\A\2020 Dec. 07, 2021DATE: Applicant: File No: Revised Submitted Concept Plan - 1550 Kingston Road FULL SCALE COPIES OF THIS PLAN ARE AVAILABLE FOR VIEWING AT THE CITY OF PICKERING CITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT. City Development Department A 08/20 Steele Valley Developments Ltd., 334979 Ontario Ltd., Pickering Square Inc., and Pickering Square (1986) Inc. N - 204 - Attachment #9 to Report #PLN 04-22 L:\Planning\01-MapFiles\A\2020 Dec. 20, 2021DATE: Applicant: File No: Submitted Colour Rendering - 1300 and 1360 Kingston Road FULL SCALE COPIES OF THIS PLAN ARE AVAILABLE FOR VIEWING AT THE CITY OF PICKERING CITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT. City Development Department A 08/20 Steele Valley Developments Ltd., 334979 Ontario Ltd., Pickering Square Inc., and Pickering Square (1986) Inc. - 205 - Attachment #10 to Report #PLN 04-22 L:\Planning\01-MapFiles\A\2020 Dec. 20, 2021DATE: Applicant: File No: Submitted Colour Rendering - 1550 Kingston Road (North View) FULL SCALE COPIES OF THIS PLAN ARE AVAILABLE FOR VIEWING AT THE CITY OF PICKERING CITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT. City Development Department A 08/20 Steele Valley Developments Ltd., 334979 Ontario Ltd., Pickering Square Inc., and Pickering Square (1986) Inc. - 206 - Attachment #11 to Report #PLN 04-22 L:\Planning\01-MapFiles\A\2020 Dec. 20, 2021DATE: Applicant: File No: Submitted Colour Rendering - 1550 Kingston Road (South View) FULL SCALE COPIES OF THIS PLAN ARE AVAILABLE FOR VIEWING AT THE CITY OF PICKERING CITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT. City Development Department A 08/20 Steele Valley Developments Ltd., 334979 Ontario Ltd., Pickering Square Inc., and Pickering Square (1986) Inc. - 207 - Attachment #12 to Report #PLN 04-22 Responses to comments from the public and Planning & Development Committee Please find responses to public submission and the Planning & Development Committee regarding the redevelopment of 1300, 1360 and 1550 Kingston Road Concern Response Residents and the Planning & Development Committee expressed concerns that businesses and amenities that currently serve the community will be displaced during and after construction. The applicant has advised that they will be matching or exceeding the existing commercial floor space in any new development. Through the Site Plan approval process City Development staff will request that the applicant consider providing a variety of unit sizes to accommodate a wide range of non-residential uses within these buildings in the future. Residents noted concerns about the safety of pedestrians due to proposed vehicular entrance on Glenview Road. Based on feedback from residents and the Planning & Development Committee, the applicant has withdrawn their application to amend the Zoning By-law at 1450 Kingston Road and has also removed the request for a vehicular access at this location (see Revised Submitted Conceptual Plan – 1450 Kingston Road, Attachment #4). Should the property be developed in the future, there are available accesses from Valley Farm Road and Kingston Road. Residents commented that adequate surface parking spaces be provided on all sites to support the proposed retail shops within the mixed-use buildings. The applicant has advised that they will consider providing adequate surface parking spaces when the owners apply for a site plan application. Residents expressed concerns about construction management including parking and volume of construction vehicles, vibrations, and drainage. Before the construction of any buildings, the applicant will be required to apply for Site Plan Approval. As a part of the detailed site plan application submission, the applicant will need to prepare and submit a Construction Management Plan to the satisfaction of the City’s Engineering Services, which addresses a variety of mitigation measures to be implemented during the construction process to minimize any negative noise, dust and traffic impacts. The mitigation measures could include a gravel mud mat and a construction staging area, and sediment fencing. As part of the Site Plan Approval process, the applicant will be required to enter into a Site Plan Agreement with the City. A condition of the Site Plan Agreement will require that the applicants implement the measures outlined in the submitted Construction Management and Erosion/Sediment Control Plan as approved by City staff. - 208 - Concern Response A number of residents indicated concerns about the increased shadows, lack of privacy and wind effects as a result of the proposed increase in buildings. The applicant has revised their application to reduce the previously requested amendments. The proposed towers fit within the required 45-degree angular plane which allows for a gradual transition between the new buildings and existing residents. Furthermore, for towers greater than 25 storeys, the tower floor plate has also been reduced to a maximum floor plate size of 650 square metres further minimizing the visual impact of the tall buildings. See Sections 3.3 and 3.4 of Report PLN 04–22 concerning shadowing and privacy impacts. Residents noted that they are opposed to the request to be exempt the applicant from providing a 45-degree angular plane at 1550 Kingston Road. The applicant has revised their application to adhere to the requirement to provide a 45-degree angular plane at 1550 Kingston Road. The owner at 1340 Kingston Road (adjacent to 1300 & 1360 Kingston Road) expressed concerns regarding: the reduction of proposed height on their lands; clarification of location and reasons for proposed public road and public park shown on the submitted concept plan, and intends to participate in block plan development. Staff advised the owner’s planning consultant that the submitted rezoning application is a privately initiated application and cannot include their lands. The owner of 1340 Kingston Road is required to submit their own rezoning application should they wish to consider increase building heights on their lands. Staff encourage the owner to work with their adjacent land owners of 1300 and 1360 Kingston to prepare and submit a formal comprehensive block plan to determine appropriate public and private roads, location of parks, servicing, stormwater management, on-site parking, phasing, and technical requirements. The Planning & Development Committee requested staff to provide information regarding the planned improvements to Kingston Road as it relates to Durham Region Transit and the potential centre median along this corridor. Once the centre median is complete for the Durham Bus Rapid Transit Lane, properties along Kingston Road will be restricted to a right-in-and-right-out access. Stops are planned at Liverpool Road and Glenanna Road, however the full design has not completed. The Planning & Development Committee requested staff to ensure that sanitary sewers and storm water management systems are sufficient to accommodate the proposed development. The Region of Durham has required that an “H” Holding Zone be applied to the subject properties. The Holding Zone will require the applicant to submit an updated Functional Servicing Report prior to development taking place. This report would also include recommendations on how sanitary servicing capacity will be provided to enable the full development of each site as proposed by the Zoning By-law amendment to the satisfaction of the Region. - 209 - Concern Response The Planning & Development Committee requested that the applicant provide more realistic renderings of the proposed development to the public. The applicant has submitted renderings for the proposal (See Submitted Colour Renderings, Attachments #9, 10 and 11). Detailed architectural drawings will be prepared and submitted as part of a Site plan application. The Planning & Development Committee requested the applicant to consider whether a hotel could be incorporated into the development in light of the fact that the zoning uses were supported and that this amenity was not part of the City Centre project across from City Hall. A hotel is a permitted use on site. The applicant has advised that they may explore more specific uses for the properties during detailed Site Plan Review stage. The Planning & Development Committee requested the applicant to provide creative ways to accommodate appropriate residential housing for seniors in the area. The applicant has advised that they will explore options for seniors housing at the site plan approval stage. The Planning & Development Committee commented whether business owners who are in long term leases on the subject lands would be given preference over new tenants. The applicant has advised that they will work with the existing tenant, where feasible and reasonable, to accommodate them in any future development plans. The Planning & Development Committee requested clarification regarding the number of parking spaces that would be provided above and below grade level. The applicant is not requesting any amendments to the current parking ratios as required within the City Centre Zoning By-law. The applicant acknowledges that the residents would prefer some amount of at grade related parking to be provided for retail uses which can be reviewed at time of the site plan application. The Planning & Development Committee commented the importance of future developments ensuring that the subject lands are accessible and walkable. The City Centre Urban Design Guidelines require mobility and ease of access throughout the site. Further review of accessibility and walkability will be reviewed in greater detailed through the comprehensive block development plan and the site plan review process. - 210 -