Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutSeptember 13, 2021 Planning & Development Committee Meeting Agenda September 13, 2021 Electronic Meeting – 7:00 pm Chair: Councillor Butt Due to COVID-19 and the Premier’s Emergency Orders to limit gatherings and maintain physical distancing, 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. 12-21 1 Zoning By-law Amendment Application A 06/21 Unique AT Holding Corporation 1470 Bayly Street 3.2 Information Report No. 13-21 27 Official Plan Amendment Application OPA 21-001/P Zoning By-law Amendment Application A 05/21 (Regional Official Plan Amendment Application ROPA 021-002) Sunrise International Investments Inc. 3695 Sideline 4 For information related to accessibility requirements please contact: Committee Coordinator 905.420.4611 clerks@pickering.ca Planning & Development Committee Meeting Agenda September 13, 2021 Electronic Meeting – 7:00 pm Chair: Councillor Butt 4. Delegations Due to COVID-19 and the Premier’s Emergency Orders to limit gatherings and maintain physical distancing, members of the public looking to provide a verbal delegation to Members of the Planning & Development Committee for any matters listed under 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 Anthony Caruso Senior Planner, Regional Municipality of Durham Re: Draft Regional Cycling Plan 2021 4.2 TJ Cieciura President, Design Plan Services Inc. Re: Report PLN-35-21 Zoning By-law Amendment Application A 11/19 Amberlea Creek Development Inc. 760 and 770 Kingston Road 4.3 Paul White, President Fairport Beach Neighbourhood Association (Inc.1949) Re: Report PLN-33-21 City Initiated: Official Plan and Zoning By-law Amendment Infill and Replacement Housing in Established Neighbourhoods Recommended Amendment 40 to the Pickering Official Plan Recommended Informational Revision 28 to the Pickering Official Plan Recommended Draft Zoning By-law Amendments Revised Urban Design Guidelines Files: OPA 20-006/P and A 11/20 For information related to accessibility requirements please contact: Committee Coordinator 905.420.4611 clerks@pickering.ca Planning & Development Committee Meeting Agenda September 13, 2021 Electronic Meeting – 7:00 pm Chair: Councillor Butt 5. Planning & Development Reports 5.1 Director, Corporate Services & City Solicitor, Report LEG 13-21 39 Louisville Homes Limited – Plan of Subdivision 40M-2399 - Final Assumption of Plan of Subdivision - Lots 1 to 23 and Blocks 24 to 34, Plan 40M-2399 - File: 40M-2399 Recommendation: 1. That works and services required by the Subdivision Agreement within Plan 40M-2399, 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 subjec t to easements transferred to the City, be accepted and assumed for maintenance; 2. That Louisville Homes Limited be released from the provisions of the Subdivision Agreement and any amendments thereto relating to Plan 40M-2399; 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 14-21 43 2047729 Ontario Inc. – Plan of Subdivision 40M-2328 - Final Assumption of Plan of Subdivision - Municipal works on Altona Road adjacent to Block 1, Plan 40M-2328 - File: 40M-2328 Recommendation: 1. That works and services required by the Subdivision Agreement within Altona Road, adjacent to or outside Plan 40M-2328, 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; For information related to accessibility requirements please contact: Committee Coordinator 905.420.4611 clerks@pickering.ca Planning & Development Committee Meeting Agenda September 13, 2021 Electronic Meeting – 7:00 pm Chair: Councillor Butt 2. That 2047729 Ontario Inc. be released from the provisions of the Subdivision Agreement and any amendments thereto relating to the works on Altona Road outside of Plan 40M-2328; and, 3. That the appropriate City of Pickering officials be authorized to take the actions necessary to implement the recommendations in this report. 5.3 Director, City Development & CBO, Report PLN 33-21 City Initiated: Official Plan and Zoning By-law Amendment Infill and Replacement Housing in Established Neighbourhoods Recommended Amendment 40 to the Pickering Official Plan Recommended Informational Revision 28 to the Pickering Official Plan Recommended Draft Zoning By-law Amendments Revised Urban Design Guidelines Files: OPA 20-006/P and A 11/20 Recommendation: 1. a) That Official Plan Amendment Application OPA 20-006/P, initiated by the City of Pickering, to add new policies to the Pickering Official Plan with regard to Infill and Replacement Housing in Established Neighbourhood Precinct areas, as set out in Appendix I to Report PLN 33-21, be approved; b) That the Draft By-law to adopt Official Plan Amendment 40 to the Pickering Official Plan, to add new policies to the Pickering Official Plan with regard to Infill and Replacement Housing in Established Neighbourhood Precinct areas, as set out in Appendix I to Report PLN 33-21, be finalized and forwarded to Council for enactment; 2. That Council adopt Informational Revision 28 to the Pickering Official Plan, to add 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, as set out in Appendix Il to Report PLN 33- 21; 3. That Zoning By-law Amendment Application A 11/20, initiated by the City of Pickering, to implement Official Plan Amendment 40, be For information related to accessibility requirements please contact: Committee Coordinator 905.420.4611 clerks@pickering.ca 47 Planning & Development Committee Meeting Agenda September 13, 2021 Electronic Meeting – 7:00 pm Chair: Councillor Butt approved, and that the Recommended Draft Zoning By-law Amendments as set out in Appendices lll, lV, and V to Report PLN 33-21 be finalized and forwarded to Council for enactment; and, 4. That Council adopt the Revised Urban Design Guidelines for Infill & Replacement Housing in Established Neighbourhood Precincts, August 2021, as set out in Appendix Vl to Report PLN 33 -21, which replaces the Urban Design Guidelines for Infill & Replacement Housing in Established Neighbourhood Precincts dated August 2020, adopted by Council on September 28, 2020 through Resolution #428/20. 5.4 Director, City Development & CBO, Report PLN 34-21 The Municipal Comprehensive Review of the Durham Regional Official Plan: Proposed Regional Official Plan Amendment 2021-003 Policies and Delineations for Protected Major Transit Station Areas -File: A-2100-020 228 Recommendation: 1. That Council support in principle the Proposed Regional Official Plan Amendment: Policies and Delineations for Protected Major Transit Station Areas (ROPA 2021-003); and, 2. That the appropriate officials of the City of Pickering be authorized to take the necessary actions as indicated in this report. 5.5 Director, City Development & CBO, Report PLN 35-21 Zoning By-law Amendment Application A 11/19 Amberlea Creek Development Inc. 760 and 770 Kingston Road 371 Recommendation: That Zoning By-law Amendment Application A 11/19, submitted by Amberlea Creek Developments Inc., to facilitate a residential condominium development consisting of 88 stacked townhouse units, be approved subject to the zoning provisions contained in Appendix I to Report PLN 35-21, and that staff be authorized to finalize and f orward an implementing Zoning By-law Amendment to Council for enactment. For information related to accessibility requirements please contact: Committee Coordinator 905.420.4611 clerks@pickering.ca Planning & Development Committee Meeting Agenda September 13, 2021 Electronic Meeting – 7:00 pm Chair: Councillor Butt 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: 12-21 Date: September 13, 2021 From: Catherine Rose, MCIP, RPP Chief Planner Subject: Zoning By-law Amendment Application A 06/21 Unique AT Holding Corporation 1470 Bayly Street 1.Purpose of this Report The purpose of this report is to provide preliminary information regarding an application for a Zoning By-law Amendment, submitted by Unique AT Holding Corporation, to facilitate the construction of a high-density, mixed-use 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 decisions 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 lands subject to this rezoning application are located north of Bayly Street, west of Sandy Beach Road on the north side of future Celebration Drive (see Location Map, Attachment #1). The site has an area of approximately 0.64 of a hectare with approximately 131 metres of frontage along the north side of future Celebration Drive. The site currently contains a self-storage facility and associated parking lot, which are proposed to be demolished (see Air Photo Map, Attachment #2). The surrounding land uses include: North & East: Immediately to the north and east is a surface parking lot owned by Metrolinx, which is currently being used for the Pickering GO Station. South: Across future Celebration Drive is 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 are anticipated to be issued in early Fall 2021. A conditional building permit has been issued for Phase 2 to permit the construction of footings, foundation and slab on grade, underslab and garage roof slab, above grade structural walls and floor slabs, including plumbing within, and below the parking garage.- 1 - Information Report No. 12-21 Page 2 West: Immediately to the west is Krosno Creek, and further west are single-storey multi-tenant industrial buildings. 3. Applicant’s Proposal The applicant has applied for a Zoning By-law Amendment to facilitate the construction of a high-density, mixed-use development consisting of 2 residential towers having heights of 46 and 54-storeys connected by a 4-storey podium (see Submitted Conceptual Site Plan, Attachment #3 and Submitted Conceptual Renderings, Attachments #4, #5, #6 and #7). The proposal will form Phases 4 and 5 of the Universal City Master Plan Development, which was endorsed by Council in December 2019 (see Universal City Master Plan, Attachment #8). As part of the Master Plan, the applicant is to design and construct a 1,450 square metre public piazza on the north side of future Celebration Drive. In addition, the applicant is working with the City and Toronto and Region Conservation Authority (TRCA) regarding restoration plans for the rehabilitation of the east side of Krosno Creek and associated valley lands. The table below summarizes the key details of the proposal: Provision Proposal Gross Floor Area (GFA) 85,156 square metres Net Floor Area (NFA) 73,635 square metres Commercial/Retail Gross Floor Area 860 square metres Number of Residential Units 1,064 units Tower Floor Plate Size 847.1 square metres Number of Storeys and Building Heights Phase 4: 46-storey residential tower (144.25 metres) Phase 5: 54-storey residential tower (168.15 metres) Unit Types 1 Bedroom: 334 units 1 Bedroom plus Den: 330 units 2 Bedroom: 183 units 2 Bedroom plus Den: 181 units 3 Bedroom: 36 units Vehicular Parking 890 parking spaces (702 residential, 160 visitor, and 28 retail) • 680 parking spaces within 3-level below grade parking • 179 parking spaces within 2-level above grade parking located within the podium • 31 retail and visitor parking spaces, including 4 accessible spaces, at grade Bicycle Parking 536 parking spaces - 2 - Information Report No. 12-21 Page 3 Provision Amenity Area Proposal Outdoor: 2,128 square metres Indoor: 2,128 square metres The 4-storey podium includes commercial/retail uses on the ground floor fronting the public piazza, two principal entrances along the west and east sides of the building, lobby areas for both towers, shared amenity areas, a pet spa, and garbage facilities. Also included within the podium is a two-level, above grade indoor parking area. Indoor and outdoor amenity spaces are proposed on the fourth and fifth floors, which will overlook the public piazza. Figure 1: North facing view of the podium and public piazza The 1,450 square metre public piazza is a strata parcel located above an underground parking structure. The public piazza will satisfy the minimum parkland dedication requirements for Phases 1 to 6 of the Universal City project. In accordance with the executed Master Development Agreement, Chestnut Hill Developments has agreed to design and construct the piazza, as well as provide a financial contribution towards the construction of the piazza. The applicant is responsible to design and construct the public piazza to the City’s satisfaction. The commercial/retail uses on the ground floor are designed to front onto the piazza in order to create an active street frontage. The concept design for the piazza includes a water feature, play area, public art shade structure, and benches for seating. - 3 - Information Report No. 12-21 Page 4 Vehicular access to and from the site is proposed through a private driveway from the future Celebration Drive. There is an access point at the southeast corner of the site, which is proposed to extend around the sides and rear of the proposed towers and underneath the rear of the podium. There is a second access point at the southwest corner of the site, which is located off the temporary cul-de-sac at future Celebration Drive. The private driveway provides access to the retail and visitor parking spaces at grade, loading areas, garbage rooms, and the below grade and above grade parking levels. To facilitate the proposal, the applicant is requesting site-specific exceptions to the City Centre Zoning By-law. The list of requested amendments is 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 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 subject lands are within a Regional Corridor in the Regional Official Plan. Regional Corridors shall be planned and developed in accordance with the underlying land use designation, as higher-density mixed-use areas, supporting higher-order transit services and pedestrian-oriented design. Regional Corridors are intended to support an overall, long-term density target of at least 60 residential units per gross hectare and an FSI of 2.5, with a wide variety of building forms, generally mid-rise in height, with some higher buildings, as detailed in municipal official plans. The subject lands are accessed from Bayly Street, which is designated as a Type ‘A’ Arterial Road in the Regional Official Plan. Type ‘A’ Arterial Roads are designed to carry large volumes of traffic at moderate to high speeds and connect to freeways and arterial roads. The right-of-way width requirement for Type ‘A’ arterial roads is 36 to 45 metres. Vehicular access to the site will be provided from a future west-east collector road (Celebration Drive). The proposal generally conforms to the Durham Regional Official Plan. 4.2 Pickering Official Plan In July 2014, Council approved Official Plan Amendment 26 (OPA 26), which introduced new designations and policies and changed existing policies to create a framework for the redevelopment and intensification of the City Centre. OPA 26 was approved with modifications by the Ontario Municipal Board (OMB) on March 4, 2015, and has been in full force and effect since then. - 4 - Information Report No. 12-21 Page 5 Subsequent to the approval of the City Centre Zoning By-law, on June 12, 2017, Council approved Official Plan Amendment 29 (OPA 29) to remove the density cap for the City Centre. The removal of the cap will allow developers within the City Centre greater flexibility to provide a variety of residential unit sizes while having consideration for matters such as housing affordability, tenure, and market demand. 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 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. OPA 26 introduced various new policies for the City Centre Neighbourhood 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 and privacy; 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 #9 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 volume of traffic than local roads. 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 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. - 5 - Information Report No. 12-21 Page 6 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 #10 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 City Centre Zoning By-law includes a site-specific exception for the Universal City Master Plan (Phases 1 to 5), requiring FSI be calculated for the entire lot area of 2.5 hectares. As part of the City-initiated Zoning By-law Amendment Application A 06/19, to facilitate the joint venture project between the City of Pickering and OPB Realty Inc., the City introduced a new Net Floor Area definition (NFA) and a revised Floor Space Index definition. Council approved the City-initiated Zoning By-law Amendment in September 2019, but the decision was appealed to the Local Planning Appeal Tribunal (LPAT) by CAPREIT. Both the City and CAPREIT reached a settlement and the appeal was withdrawn allowing the by-law to come into effect. Based on the site-specific exception and the revised NFA and FSI definition, the total FSI for Phases 1 to 5 is 5.75, which complies with the maximum permitted FSI of 5.75 in the zoning by-law. To facilitate the proposed development, the applicant is requesting the following site-specific amendments: • increase the maximum building height from 122 metres (approximately 38 storeys) to 169 metres (54 storeys) for Phase 5, and 145 metres (46 storeys) for Phase 4; • reduce the minimum residential parking ratio from 0.80 spaces per dwelling 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 from the main wall of a point tower and the main wall of a podium abutting a street line; • remove the balcony requirement, whereas the by-law requires a minimum balcony depth of 1.5 metres; • permit surface parking to be located in the front yard, whereas the by-law requires all surface parking to be located in the rear or interior side yards; • 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; • 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; and • remove the Natural Heritage System (NHS) Zone setback for a drive aisle, whereas the by-law requires a minimum setback of 4.0 metres from the NHS Zone boundary. - 6 - Information Report No. 12-21 Page 7 5. Comments Received 5.1 Public comments on the proposal The notice of the Electronic Statutory Public Meeting regarding this application was provided through a mailing of all properties within 150 metres of the entire Universal City (Phases 1 to 5) development site. Given that the subject lands do not currently have frontage along future Celebration Drive, a copy of the Electronic Statutory Public Meeting was included in the August 19 and September 2, 2021 News Advertiser. To date, no comments have been received from the public. 5.2 Agency Comments 5.2.1 Toronto and Region Conservation Authority (TRCA) • TRCA staff do not support the requested permission for a drive aisle within the setback from the NHS Zone boundary. The 4.0 metres between above grade structures and the 6-metre setback from the floodplain was intended for passive uses such as outdoor amenity space and landscaping and was to form part of the required 10-metre above-grade setback. The drive aisle within the setback further minimizes the opportunity to provide a natural buffer and passive amenity space adjacent to the natural heritage system. • The setback to the underground garage at the northwest corner of the site does not appear to be a minimum of 6.0 metres. Dimension the future 6.0 metre conveyance line so that a minimum 6.0 metre setback from the TRCA Regulatory floodplain using the Ultimate Conditions scenario is achieved. Also confirm that the above grade structure is 10 metres from the floodplain. 5.2.2 Region of Durham • At the time of writing this report, no comments have been received. 5.2.3 Durham District School Board • No objections to the proposal. • Students from this development will be accommodated at existing Board facilities. 5.2.4 Durham Catholic District School Board • At the time of writing this report, no comments have been received. 5.3 City Department Comments 5.3.1 Engineering Services Department • At the time of writing this report, no comments have been received. - 7 - Information Report No. 12-21 Page 8 5.3.2 Fire Services Department • The radius for the turning circle at the southwest corner of the site is required to be 12 metres. Currently the radius is proposed to be 10 metres. • The Siamese connection for the towers must be within 45 metres of a fire hydrant. There is a hydrant located at the southwest corner of the site, but it is listed as temporary. • The fire route is designed to go over an air intake grille. The grille must be designed to support the load of a fire apparatus. 5.3.3 Sustainability • The proposed development is consistent with the City’s Sustainable Development Guidelines. The details provided within the Sustainability Development Report and Matrix will be confirmed during the Site Plan Approval application process. 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 prior to a final recommendation report to Planning & Development Committee: • ensure conformity with the City of Pickering Official Plan and the City Centre Urban Design Guidelines; • in consultation with the TRCA, review the request to remove the Natural Heritage System (NHS) Zone setback requirement from a drive aisle to ensure appropriate vegetation buffer is maintained to protect and enhance the Krosno Creek and associated valley lands; • ensure the traffic generated by the proposal can be accommodated by the proposed road network; • review the resident and visitor parking standards proposed and ensure that sufficient parking is provided to support the proposal; • assess the suitability and appropriateness of the site for the proposed increase in height; • 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); and • evaluate the locations, size and functionality of the proposed private and public amenity space, and review whether the outdoor amenity area is 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 departments, agencies, and public. - 8 - Information Report No. 12-21 Page 9 7. Information Received Copies of the plans and studies listed below are available for viewing on the City’s website at pickering.ca/devapp or in person at the office of the City of Pickering, City Development Department: • Planning Justification and Urban Design Report, prepared by Weston Consulting, dated April 2021; • Sustainable Development Report, prepared by Weston Consulting, dated April 12, 2021; • Transportation Study Update, prepared by BA Group, dated April 22, 2021; • Phasing Plan, prepared by BA Group, dated November 3, 2020; • Shadow Study, prepared by Kirkor Architects + Planners, dated March 17, 2021; • Environmental Noise and Vibration Feasibility Study, prepared by HGC Engineering, dated April 25, 2021; • Geotechnical Slope Stability Letter, prepared by Terrapex, dated March 16, 2021; • Phase One Environmental Site Assessment, prepared by Terrapex, dated August 26, 2016; • Phase Two Environmental Site Assessment, prepared by Terrapex, dated December 22, 2016; • Record of Site Condition, prepared by Terrapex, dated April 19, 2021; and • Land Use Compatibility Addendum, prepared by Theakston Environmental Consulting Engineers, dated February 19, 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 Unique AT Holding Corporation and is represented by Weston Consulting. - 9 - Information Report No. 12-21 Page 10 Attachments 1. Location Map 2. Air Photo Map 3. Submitted Conceptual Site Plan 4. Submitted Conceptual Rendering – Facing North 5. Submitted Conceptual Rendering – Facing North East 6. Submitted Conceptual Rendering – Phase 4 Entrance 7. Submitted Conceptual Rendering – Phase 5 Entrance 8. Universal City Master Plan 9. City Centre Neighbourhood Policies Related to the Proposal 10. City Centre Urban Design Guidelines Related to the Proposal 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 TB:IL:ld Date of Report: August 18, 2021 - 10 - Attachment #1 to Information Report 12-21 Tatra Drive Pickering P a r k w a y Drava Street Modlin RoadKrosno Bou leva rd Reyt anBoul evar dMorden L a n e Bayly Street Poprad Avenue Alliance Road Fordon Avenu e Highway 40 1 Mitchel Park Bayview Heights Public School © 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 Development Department Location Map File: Applicant: Municipal Address: A 06/21 Date: May. 28, 2021 ¯EUnique AT Holding Corporation 1470 Bayly Street SubjectLands L:\PLANNING\01-MapFiles\A\2021\A 06-21 Unique AT Holding Corp (UC 4 & 5)\A06_21_LocationMap.mxd 1:4,000 SCALE: THIS IS NOT A PLAN OF SURVEY. Future Celebration Drive Sandy Beach RoadSandy Beach Road- 11 - Attachment #2 to Information Report 12-21 Tatra Drive Krosno Bou leva rd Reytan Bou leva rd Drava Street Modlin RoadSandy Beach RoadMorden L a n eGlenanna Road Bayly Street Pickering P a r k w a y Alliance Road Poprad Avenue Fordon Avenue Highway 40 1 1:4,000 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 Development Department THIS IS NOT A PLAN OF SURVEY. Date: Jul. 20, 2021 L:\PLANNING\01-MapFiles\A\2021\A 06-21 Unique AT Holding Corp (UC 4 & 5)\A06_21_AirPhoto.mxd ¯ESubjectLands File: Applicant: Municipal Address: Air Photo Map Future Celebration Drive A 06/21 Unique AT Holding Corporation 1470 Bayly Street - 12 - Attachment #3 to Information Report 12-21 L:\Planning\01-MapFiles\A\2021 May 3, 2021DATE: Applicant: Municipal Address: File No: Conceptual Site Plan FULL SCALE COPIES OF THIS PLAN ARE AVAILABLE FOR VIEWING AT THE CITY OF PICKERING CITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT. City Development Department A 06/21 1470 Bayly Street Unique AT Holding Corporation N - 13 - Attachment #4 to Information Report 12-21 Conceptual Rendering - Facing North City Development Department May 3, 2021FULL SCALE COPIES OF THIS PLAN ARE AVAILABLE FOR VIEWING AT THE CITY OF PICKERING CITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT. A 06/21 Unique AT Holding CorporationApplicant: Municipal Address: DATE: File No: 1470 Bayly Street L:\Planning\01-MapFiles\A\2021 - 14 - Attachment #5 to Information Report 12-21 City Development Department July 28, 2021FULL SCALE COPIES OF THIS PLAN ARE AVAILABLE FOR VIEWING AT THE CITY OF PICKERING CITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT. A 06/21 Unique AT Holding CorporationApplicant: Municipal Address: DATE: File No: 1470 Bayly Street L:\Planning\01-MapFiles\A\2021 Conceptual Rendering - Facing Northeast - 15 - Attachment #6 to Information Report 12-21 L:\Planning\01-MapFiles\A\2021 July 28, 2021DATE: Applicant: Municipal Address: File No: Conceptual Rendering - Phase 4 Entrance FULL SCALE COPIES OF THIS PLAN ARE AVAILABLE FOR VIEWING AT THE CITY OF PICKERING CITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT. City Development Department A 06/21 1470 Bayly Street Unique AT Holding Corporation - 16 - Attachment #7 to Information Report 12-21 L:\Planning\01-MapFiles\A\2021 July 28, 2021DATE: Applicant: Municipal Address: File No: Conceptual Rendering - Phase 5 Entrance FULL SCALE COPIES OF THIS PLAN ARE AVAILABLE FOR VIEWING AT THE CITY OF PICKERING CITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT. City Development Department A 06/21 1470 Bayly Street Unique AT Holding Corporation - 17 - Attachment #8 to Information Report 12-21 Universal City Master Plan City Development Department July 20, 2021FULL SCALE COPIES OF THIS PLAN ARE AVAILABLE FOR VIEWING AT THE CITY OF PICKERING CITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT. A 06/21 Unique AT Holding CorporationApplicant: Municipal Address: DATE: File No: 1470 Bayly Street L:\Planning\01-MapFiles\A\2021 N - 18 - Attachment #9 to Information Report 12-21 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 conform in the public realm through all four seasons. •Implement street standards that balance the needs of vehicles and pedestrians and support adjacent land uses through their design. •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. •Encourage opportunities for public art contributions and/or the integration of public art with development and infrastructure. •In consultation with the Toronto and Region Conservation Authority, shall require the proponents of new development to prepare a plan to rehabilitate Krosno Creek by enhancing the natural heritage features and incorporating passive recreational uses such as walking paths and seating areas. •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. •Encourage the development of buildings with active frontages at grade in appropriate locations to promote a vibrant and safe street life. •Promote the highest buildings to locate on sites along or in proximity to Highway 401 or in proximity to higher order transit stations. - 19 - •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; •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. •Require the design of new streets and the design and extension of streets to have regard for the following •be connected to existing streets, and have block lengths generally no longer than 150 metres and block depths generally not less than 60 metres to provide for full urban development potential over time; and •be public or publicly accessible and constructed to public street design standards. •Require all new or re-designed streets to include a pedestrian zone generally no less than 2.0 metres on both sides. •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. •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; •that shared parking be encouraged in mixed use areas to minimize land devoted to parking; - 20 - •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. - 21 - Attachment #10 to Information Report 12-21 City Centre Urban Design Guidelines Related to the Proposal Site Design •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. •The installation of awnings or canopies is encouraged to provide weather protection and to animate storefronts. These elements may project over the sidewalk subject to the following criteria: •that safe unobstructed clearance be provided for pedestrians; •retractable awnings are encouraged because they provide greater flexibility and control for business over sun and shadow impacts and during storm events or heavy snow falls; and •that encroachment agreements be entered into with the Region of Durham or the City of Pickering where canopies or awnings extend over the sidewalk or public right-of-way. •Building setbacks may vary between 1.0 metre and 4.0 metres to maintain a visually consistent streets edge. Building setbacks could be increased to create public accessible open spaces such as court yards or plazas along a streetline. •Setback areas with retail or commercial uses at grade should be designed to accommodate patios, seating, and other at grade animating uses over time. Where buildings are setback more than one metre, the area between the buildings and front property line may feature hard and soft landscaping, lighting, signage and seating that enhance the sense of place, amenity and way-finding to the building and within the City Centre. •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 25.0 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. - 22 - •Primary entrances of buildings along the street edge shall be encouraged to face the streets. Entrances at grade should be highly visible, accentuated through design, and of appropriate scale to their function and frequency of use. •Pedestrian walkways between building entrances and the street shall have a minimum width of 1.8 metres, be barrier-free, and provide curb ramps at grade changes with minimum cross gradient. •Distinctive paving material or coloured markings shall be used for pedestrian walkways to ease way finding and identify pedestrian routes. •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 or office 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. •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 acceptable. •Large scale residential developments, such as condominium apartment blocks and office towers, shall be encouraged to include adequate, secure indoor bicycle storage for residents or employees, and charging stations for electric vehicles. •The exterior vehicular ramps and entrances to structured parking below or above grade shall be located at the rear or side of buildings, and avoid locations in close proximity of streets and street corners. •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. •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. Where loading areas are located to the side of a building, it should be screened from public view. •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. - 23 - •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. •Soft landscaping elements such as trees and shrubs, and hard landscaping elements such as rockery and water features should be used to enhance the visual image of a site and to define pedestrian routes and private open spaces on a property. •Pedestrian scaled lighting shall be used to illuminate pedestrian connections and private open spaces. •Accent lighting may be used to accentuate landmark buildings, prominent building façades, landscape features and public art. •Building entrances should be accentuated through exterior lighting to provide a safe pedestrian environment and to assist with wayfinding. Building Design •The shadow impacts of buildings on public open spaces and private amenity areas shall be minimized. •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 base shall have a minimum floor-to-ceiling height of 4.5 metres along active at grade frontage to accommodate a range of uses over time. •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. Continuous blank walls are generally not permitted on tower faces. - 24 - •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. •Variation in façade treatment, building materials and colours shall be sought along the street edge in order to create an appealing and interesting streetscape. •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. •Service meters and connections, vents and building utilities on façades facing public streets shall be minimized by concealment (i.e., landscape screening or sensitively integrating them within the building design). •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. •The roofs of mid-rise and tall buildings and podiums shall be encouraged to have green or vegetated roofs to improve environmental performance of the building and provide amenity space where appropriate. •The design and orientation of buildings shall consider aspects such as passive solar gain, minimizing the adverse shadow impacts on adjacent buildings, streets and open spaces, and minimizing adverse wind impacts on the public realm. Public Realm •Squares should be designed to be open to the public and accessible at all times, without physical barriers or gates. •Squares should be animated by active at grade building frontages with a consistent building setback and a high level of transparency. These animated uses will generate high pedestrian activity and may include restaurants and cafes, preferably with outdoor seating areas. - 25 - •Off-street parking should not be located between the building and the square. Parking areas should be accommodated through on-street parking or in shared rear or side parking lots, which should be appropriately screened with landscaping. •Squares should generally be hard landscaped and are appropriate places for public art, water and ornamental features, and outdoor seating areas, though they are also places for generous soft landscaping elements. •Furniture and pedestrian scale lighting should ensure these spaces are useable and safe at all times of the day. •Shade shall be provided through the tree canopy and architectural features or structures, (i.e., gazebos). - 26 - Information Report to Planning & Development Committee Report Number: 13-21 Date: September 13, 2021 From: Catherine Rose, MCIP, RPP Chief Planner Subject: Official Plan Amendment Application OPA 21-001/P Zoning By-law Amendment Application A 05/21 (Regional Official Plan Amendment Application ROPA 021-002) Sunrise International Investments Inc. 3695 Sideline 4 1.Purpose of this Report The purpose of this report is to provide preliminary information regarding applications for Official Plan Amendment and Zoning By-law Amendment, submitted by Sunrise International Investments Inc., to facilitate the redevelopment of an existing golf club. 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 applications, ask questions of clarification, and identify any planning issues. This report is for information and no decisions on these applications are 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 on the east side of Sideline 4, north of Highway 7, municipally known as 3695 Sideline 4 (see Location Map, Attachment #1). The property has an area of approximately 29.3 hectares with approximately 544 metres of frontage along Sideline 4 and approximately 364 metres of frontage along Highway 7. The site currently contains a 12-hole golf course, a maintenance structure, 3 stormwater management ponds, a surface parking lot and golf cart routes. A tributary of the Carruther’s Creek traverses north-south through the property and a wetland feature is present along the easterly property line (see Air Photo Map, Attachment #2). The surrounding land uses include: North: Immediately to the north is a vacant property zoned Rural Agricultural. Further north is Highway 407 and an associated stormwater management pond. East: Immediately to the east are agricultural lands. The lands municipally known as 3880 Kinsale Road are utilized for outdoor RV parking and storage. Further east is the Hamlet of Kinsale. - 27 - Information Report No. 13-21 Page 2 South: Across Highway 7 is a large residential property containing a vacant detached dwelling, and further south is Barclay Field Stone Estates, which consists of 32 estate lots with detached dwellings. West: Lands to the west are agricultural lands leased for cash cropping. 3.Applicant’s Proposal The applicant has submitted applications to the City for an Official Plan Amendment and a Zoning By-law Amendment to facilitate the redevelopment of the existing golf course. Concurrently, the applicant has submitted an application for a Regional Official Plan Amendment (ROPA) 2021-002. The ROPA has been circulated to the City for comment. The applicant proposes a new year-round golf course facility that will include an outdoor 9-hole golf course with putting green, golf cart routes, and a 6,087 square metre indoor golf dome with a driving range, virtual golf simulators and amenity spaces (see Submitted Conceptual Site Plan, Attachment #3, and Conceptual Site Plan of Golf Dome, Attachment #4). In addition, the applicant is proposing a 1,295 square metre clubhouse with a lounge, banquet hall, and amenity space (see Conceptual Elevation of Clubhouse, Attachment #5). The applicant proposes to renovate and enlarge the existing 201 square metre maintenance structure by adding a 213 square metre addition for maintenance storage. To support the proposed mixture of uses, the applicant is proposing 235 surface parking spaces: 106 parking spaces serving the clubhouse; 74 parking spaces to support the golf dome; and 55 parking spaces located along the paved road towards the south end of the subject property. Vehicular access to the site will be from the existing entrance off Sideline 4. No vehicular access will be provided from Highway 7. The site is privately serviced and underground storage tanks are proposed for fire services. The applicant is proposing stormwater management features to support the proposed development. This includes the 3 existing stormwater management ponds, leaching beds for all proposed and existing structures, and a septic tile bed pretreatment system. The applicant is proposing to protect the natural features on this property (Carruther’s Creek tributary, wetland, woodlands, and Redside Dace habitat) by applying the required minimum vegetation buffer zones. The development will be subject to site plan approval. 4.Policy Framework 4.1 Durham Regional Official Plan The Durham Regional Official Plan designates the subject lands as Prime Agricultural Areas, subject to Exception 9A.3.17. The Exception provides the permissions for the existing golf course and associated uses on the subject site. Section 9A.2.7 of the Regional Official Plan states that, “new and expanding major recreational uses, shall not be permitted in Prime Agricultural Areas”. The definition of major recreational uses includes golf courses, thus requiring an amendment to the Regional Official Plan. The existing golf course was permitted as an exception due to the amount of fill on the property. - 28 - Information Report No. 13-21 Page 3 ROPA 2021-003 proposes to redesignate the site to Major Open Space. The Regional Official Plan (ROP) permits new and expanding major recreational uses within Major Open Space Area by amendment to the ROP or to the local official plan, subject to the following policies: a.a hydrogeological study addressing the protection of water resources; b.a best management practices report addressing design, construction and operational consideration; and c.that new natural self-sustaining vegetation be located in areas to maximize the ecological value of the area. Additional ROP policies for the development of non-agricultural uses in Major Open Space Areas require: a.where possible, minimizing the use of prime agricultural lands, including Canada Land Inventory Classes 1, 2 and 3 soils; b.demonstrating that the use is appropriate for location in the Major Open Space Area; c. encouraging locations on existing parcels of land appropriately sized for the proposed use; d.incorporating an appropriate separation distance from farm operations in accordance with Provincial Minimum Distance Separation formulae; e.being compatible with sensitive land uses in compliance with Provincial Land Use Compatibility guidelines, particularly issues of noise and dust must be addressed; f.being located on an existing opened public road and shall not compromise the design and function of the road; g.being serviced with an individual private waste disposal system and an individual private drilled well which meet Provincial and Regional standards; h.being sensitive to the environment by ensuring there will be no negative impact on key natural heritage of hydrologic features; i.maintain or, where possible, enhancing the amount of natural self-sustaining vegetation on the site and the connectivity between adjacent key natural heritage or hydrologic features; j.being subject to local planning approvals including being zoned in a special category for the use; k.avoiding the use of outdoor lighting that causes light trespass, glare and uplight; l.where applicable, meeting the requirements of the Oak Ridges Moraine Conservation Plan and the Greenbelt Plan; and m.not adversely impacting the ability of surrounding agricultural operations to carry on normal farm practices. 4.2 Pickering Official Plan The subject lands are designated Open Space System – Active Recreational Areas within Pickering’s Official Plan. This designation permits conservation, environmental protection, restoration, education passive recreation and similar uses, subject to the provisions of the Regional Official Plan related to non-agricultural uses. Active recreational and other related uses, including an outdoor golf course, are also permitted uses on lands with this designation. - 29 - Information Report No. 13-21 Page 4 A portion of the subject lands is part of the Natural Heritage System. A valleyland feature transverses the western portion of the site and a wetland is located at the northeast corner of the subject lands along the easterly property line. The Official Plan requires that proponents of a proposed development or site alteration within the minimum area of influence that relates to a key hydrological feature, outside the key hydrological features itself or the related minimum vegetation protection zone, complete an Environmental Study. The proposed development is within 120 metres of the valleyland feature and wetland. Therefore, the applicant has submitted an Environmental Impact Study. 4.3 Zoning By-law 3037 The subject property is zoned A/GC – Agricultural/Golf Course and OS-HL – Open Space – Hazardous Lands within Zoning By-law 3037, as amended by By-law 7076/10. Agricultural uses, including a detached dwelling, or a golf course are permitted on the subject property. The golf course can include any ancillary building or structure operated for the purpose of playing golf, an indoor golf simulator, snack bar, and lounge, operated in conjunction therewith but cannot include full restaurant and banquet uses, or similar large scale food service uses. The applicant is proposing to increase the scale of the golf course to include a restaurant, banquet use and a large indoor golf dome. Therefore, the property will be rezoned to an appropriate zone category. 5.Comments Received 5.1 Public comments on the proposal The notice of the Statutory Public Meeting regarding these applications was provided through a mailing of all properties within 150 metres of the subject lands. Also, 2 development notice signs were posted on the subject lands providing notice of this meeting to members of the public. To date, the City has not received formal comments from the public regarding this application. 5.2 Agency Comments 5.2.1 Region of Durham The Region held a Statutory Public Meeting on June 1, 2021, to present information on the proposed amendment. Comments were received from the landowners to the east, requesting a sufficient landscaped buffer to separate the parking area and road, from the abutting lands. Additionally, on April 13, 2021 and May 11, 2021, the Durham Agricultural Advisory Committee considered the associated ROPA application and voted to oppose to it. No further comments were received. 5.2.2 Toronto and Region Conservation Authority The Toronto and Region Conservation Authority (TRCA) has no objections to the approval of the Official Plan Amendment but requested that approval of the Zoning By-law Amendment be deferred until the comments below have been addressed: - 30 - Information Report No. 13-21 Page 5 • revisions to the Environmental Impact Study to include applicable policies, natural heritage features and associated buffers, and ensuring the proposed road is outside any feature; • additional geotechnical information/analysis required for the eastern portion of the site; • additional details pertaining to the proposed site grading plan are required; and • additional information is required for the proposed leaching beds including, setbacks and water quality. 5.2.3 Ministry of Transportation At the time of writing, no comments have been received. 5.3 City Comments 5.3.1 Engineering Services Department Engineering Services has no objection to the proposed development, but requests the following information be provided: • a revised Functional Servicing Report with the current owner's contact information requested calculations, and revisions to the engineering plans; and • confirmation from the Ministry of Transportation that they have no concerns with the proposed works. 5.3.2 Fire Services Department Fire Services has no objection to the proposed development, but requests the following information be provided or the required revisions are made: • revised site plan to show the fire route(s) and the location of fire hydrants; • confirmation that the storage tanks are a sufficient size and protected from freezing; and • replace the existing bridge on the site to accommodate the heaviest fire apparatus. 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: • evaluate whether the proposal is consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement and conforms to A Place to Grow: A Growth Plan for the Greater Golden Horseshoe; • evaluate whether the Regional Official Plan Amendment application 2021-002, to redesignate the lands from Permanent Agricultural Reserve with an exception for a golf course, to Major Open Space System, is appropriate; • review whether permitting the large scale indoor uses, such as a golf dome, and a clubhouse with a banquet facility, is in keeping with the intent of the Open Space System – Active Recreational Areas land use designation, and appropriate development in the rural area; - 31 - Information Report No. 13-21 Page 6 • review the Environmental Impact Study, in consultation with the TRCA. to ensure the appropriate vegetation buffer zones are provided to protect the tributary and associated valleylands; • evaluate the traffic generated by the proposal to determine if the existing network can accommodate the traffic or if upgrades are necessary; • ensure sufficient parking is provided on-site to support the proposed uses; • ensure trees within the Tree Protection By-law area are protected; and • confirm adequate capacity is available to service the proposed development (stormwater management system, on-site private water, and on-site sanitary services). 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 applications after it has received and assessed comments from the circulated departments, agencies, and the public. 7. Information Received Copies of the plans and studies listed below are available for viewing on the City’s website at pickering.ca/devapp or in person at the office of the City of Pickering, City Development Department: • Planning Justification Report, prepared by Johnston Litavski Ltd., dated February 2021; • Agricultural Assessment Report, prepared by Miller Golf Design Group, dated February 2021; • Arborist Report, prepared by Beacon Environmental Limited, dated February 2021; • Environmental Impact Study, prepared by Beacon Environmental Limited, dated February 2021; • Functional Servicing Report, prepared SCS Consulting Group Ltd., dated February 2021; • Geomorphic Assessment, prepared by Beacon Environmental Limited, dated February 2021; • Phase One Environmental Site Assessment, prepared by Golder Associates Ltd., dated June 2020; • Preliminary Geotechnical Investigation, prepared by Golder Associates Ltd., dated January 28, 2021; • Preliminary Hydrogeological Investigation, prepared by Golder Associates Ltd., dated January 28, 2021; • Structural Engineer Letter, prepared by Jablonsky, Ast and Partners, dated November 12, 2020; and • Transportation Study, prepared by WSP, dated February 9, 2021. 8. Procedural Information 8.1 General • in providing a recommendation on OPA 21-001/P and A 05/21 to Pickering Council, City staff will also be providing a recommendation to the Region of Durham on ROPA 2021-002; - 32 - Information Report No. 13-21 Page 7 • 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 Sunrise International Investments Inc. represented by Johnston Litavski Ltd. Attachments 1. Location Map 2. Air Photo Map 3. Submitted Conceptual Site Plan 4. Conceptual Site Plan of Golf Dome 5. Conceptual Elevation of Clubhouse Prepared By: Original Signed By Felix Chau 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 FC:ld Date of Report: August 26, 2021 - 33 - Attachment #1 to Information Report 13-21 !!!!!!!!!!!!!Sideline 4Highway 7 1:5,000 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 Development Department Location Map File: Applicant: Property Description: OPA 21-001/P & A 05/21 THIS IS NOT A PLAN OF SURVEY. Date: Mar. 05, 2021 ¯ Sunrise International Investments Inc. Pt Lot 4, Con 6, Now Parts 1 & 2, 40R26399, and Kinsale Parts 1-12, 40R29183 (3695 Sideline 4) SubjectLands L:\PLANNING\01-MapFiles\OPA\2021\OPA 21-001, A005-21 - Sunrise International Investments\OPA 21-001P_LocationMap.mxd - 34 - Attachment #2 to Information Report 13-21 Carruthers CreekCarruthersCreekSideline 4Highway 7 1:5,000 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.; Air Photo Map File: Applicant: Property Description: OPA 21-001/P & A 05/21 Sunrise International Investments Inc. Pt Lot 4, Con 6, Now Parts 1 & 2, 40R26399, and THIS IS NOT A PLAN OF SURVEY. Date: Aug. 24, 2021 SubjectLands Parts 1-12, 40R29183 (3695 Sideline 4) L:\PLANNING\01-MapFiles\OPA\2021\OPA 21-001, A005-21 - Sunrise International Investments\OPA 21-001P_AirPhoto.mxd City Development Department - 35 - Attachment #3 to Information Report 13-21 Submitted Conceptual Site Plan City Development Department July 09, 2021FULL SCALE COPIES OF THIS PLAN ARE AVAILABLE FOR VIEWING AT THE CITY OF PICKERING CITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT. OPA 21-001/P, A 05/21 Sunrise International Investments Inc.Applicant: Property Description: DATE: File No: P t Lot 4, Con 6, Now Parts 1 & 2, 40R26399, and Parts 1-12, 40R29183 (3695 Sideline 4) L:\Planning\01-MapFiles\OPA\2021 Proposed Clubhouse Proposed Golf Dome Site Entrance Highway 7Sideline 4Accessory Structures N - 36 - Attachment #4 to Information Report 13-21 Conceptual Site Plan of Golf Dome City Development Department July 09, 2021FULL SCALE COPIES OF THIS PLAN ARE AVAILABLE FOR VIEWING AT THE CITY OF PICKERING CITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT. OPA 21-001/P, A 05/21 Sunrise International Investments Inc.Applicant: Property Description: DATE: File No: P t Lot 4, Con 6, Now Parts 1 & 2, 40R26399, and Parts 1-12, 40R29183 (3695 Sideline 4) L:\Planning\01-MapFiles\OPA\2021 N - 37 - Attachment #5 to Information Report 13-21 Conceptual Elevation of Clubhouse City Development Department July 09, 2021FULL SCALE COPIES OF THIS PLAN ARE AVAILABLE FOR VIEWING AT THE CITY OF PICKERING CITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT. OPA 21-001/P, A 05/21 Sunrise International Investments Inc.Applicant: Property Description: DATE: File No: P t Lot 4, Con 6, Now Parts 1 & 2, 40R26399, and Parts 1-12, 40R29183 (3695 Sideline 4) L:\Planning\01-MapFiles\OPA\2021 - 38 - Report to Planning & Development Committee Report Number: LEG 13-21 Date: September 13, 2021 From: Paul Bigioni Director, Corporate Services & City Solicitor Subject: Louisville Homes Limited – Plan of Subdivision 40M-2399 -Final Assumption of Plan of Subdivision -Lots 1 to 23 and Blocks 24 to 34, Plan 40M-2399 -File: 40M-2399 Recommendation: 1.That works and services required by the Subdivision Agreement within Plan 40M-2399, 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 Louisville Homes Limited be released from the provisions of the Subdivision Agreement and any amendments thereto relating to Plan 40M-2399; and 3.That the appropriate City of Pickering officials be authorized to take the actions necessary to implement the recommendations in this re port. Executive Summary: The City entered into a Subdivision Agreement with the above-noted developer for the development of the lands within Plan 40M-2399. 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. 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-2399. 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-2399; and (b) release Louisville Homes Limited from the provisions of the Subdivision Agreement with the City and any amendments related thereto, as it relates to Lots 1 to 23 and Blocks 24 to 34, Plan 40M-2399. - 39 - LEG 13-21 September 13, 2021 Subject: Final Assumption of Plan of Subdivision 40M-2399 Page 2 Attachments: 1.Location Map – 40M-2399 Prepared By: Approved/Endorsed By: Chantelle Adair Paul Bigioni Law Clerk Director Corporate Services & City Solicitor PB:ca Recommendation approved: Chief Administrative Officer per: Director, City Development & CBO per: Director, Community Services per: Director, Corporate Services & City Solicitor per: Director, Economic Development & Strategic Projects per: (Acting ) Director, Engineering Services per: Director, Finance & Treasurer per: Original Signed By:Original Signed By: Recommended for t he consideration of Pickering City Council Original Signed By: Marisa Carpino, M.A. Chief Administrative Officer Original Signed Original Signed Original Signed Original Signed Original Signed Original Signed Original Signed - 40 - LEG 13-21 September 13, 2021 Subject: Final Assumption of Plan of Subdivision 40M-2399 Page 3 per: (Acting) Director, Operations City Clerk per: Original Signed Original Signed - 41 - Fairport RoadSpruce Hill RoadWingarden Crescent Welrus Street Lot 1Lot 2Lot 3Lot 4Lot 5Lot 6Lot 7Lot 8Lot 9Lot 10Lot 11 Lot 12 Lot 13 Lot 14 Lot 15 Lot 16 Lot 17 Lot 18 Lot 19 Lot 20 Lot 21 Lot 22 Lot 23 1:1,452 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 Development Department Location Map File: Applicant: Property Description: Subdivision Assumption 40M-2399 Louisville Homes Limited Lots 1 to 23, Blocks 24 to 34, 40M-2399 THIS IS NOT A PLAN OF SURVEY. Date: Aug. 11, 2021 Block 24E L:\PLANNING\01-MapFiles\Legal\SubdivisionCompletion\SubCompletion_40M2399.mxd Block 25 E EBlock 30 Winga rden C rescen t DETAIL INSET SCALE 1:400 BLOCKS 26-29 AND 31-3440M-2399SEE INSET E Block 26 E EEBlock 27 Block 28EBlock 29 E Block 31 EBlock 32 E Block 33 EBlock 34 Attachment 1 to Report LEG 13-21 - 42 - Report to Planning & Development Committee Report Number: LEG 14-21 Date: September 13, 2021 From: Paul Bigioni Director, Corporate Services & City Solicitor Subject: 2047729 Ontario Inc. – Plan of Subdivision 40M-2328 -Final Assumption of Plan of Subdivision -Municipal works on Altona Road adjacent to Block 1, Plan 40M-2328 -File: 40M-2328 Recommendation: 1.That works and services required by the Subdivision Agreement within Altona Road, adjacent to or outside Plan 40M-2328, 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 2047729 Ontario Inc. be released from the provisions of the Subdivision Agreement and any amendments thereto relating to the works on Altona Road outside of Plan 40M- 2328; 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-2328 which included works in or on Altona Road adjacent to Plan 40M-2328. As all works and services within Altona Road 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-2328. 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 Altona Road, adjacent to Plan 40M-2328; and (b) release 2047729 Ontario Inc. from the provisions of the Subdivision Agreement with the City and any amendments related thereto, as it relates to the municipal works on Altona Road outside of or adjacent to Block 1, Plan 40M-2328. - 43 - LEG 14-21 September 13, 2021 Subject: Final Assumption of Plan of Subdivision 40M-2328 Page 2 Attachments: 1.Location Map – 40M-2328 Prepared By: Approved/Endorsed By: Chantelle Adair Paul Bigioni Law Clerk Director Corporate Services & City Solicitor PB:ca Recommended for the consideration of Pickering City Council Marisa Carpino, M.A. Chief Administrative Officer Recommendation approved: Chief Administr ative Officer per: Director, City Development & CBO per: Director, Community Services per: Director, Corporate Services & City Solicitor per: Director, Economic Development & Strategic Projects per: (Acting) Director, Engineering Services per: Director, Finance & Treasurer per: Original Signed By:Original Signed By: Original Signed By: Original Signed Original Signed Original Signed Original Signed Original Signed Original Signed Original Signed - 44 - LEG 14-21 September 13, 2021 Subject: Final Assumption of Plan of Subdivision 40M-2328 Page 3 per: (Acting) Director, Operations City Clerk per: Original Signed Original Signed - 45 - D a l e w o o d D r i v e Altona RoadValley Gate Brookridge Gate Kingsto n R o a dFawndale Road1:1,500 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, 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 Development Department Location Map File: Applicant: Property Description: Subdivision Assumption 40M-2328 2047729 Ontario Inc. Block 1, 40M2328 THIS IS NOT A PLAN OF SURVEY. Date: Aug. 11, 2021 L:\PLANNING\01-MapFiles\Legal\SubdivisionCompletion\SubCompletion_40M2328.mxd Block 140M-2328 E Attachment 1 to Report LEG 14-21 - 46 - Report to Planning & Development Committee Report Number: PLN 33-21 Date: September 13, 2021 From: Kyle Bentley Director, City Development & CBO Subject: City Initiated: Official Plan and Zoning By-law Amendment Infill and Replacement Housing in Established Neighbourhoods Recommended Amendment 40 to the Pickering Official Plan Recommended Informational Revision 28 to the Pickering Official Plan Recommended Draft Zoning By-law Amendments Revised Urban Design Guidelines Files: OPA 20-006/P and A 11/20 Recommendation: 1. a) That Official Plan Amendment Application OPA 20-006/P, initiated by the City of Pickering, to add new policies to the Pickering Official Plan with regard to Infill and Replacement Housing in Established Neighbourhood Precinct areas, as set out in Appendix I to Report PLN 33-21, be approved; b)That the Draft By-law to adopt Official Plan Amendment 40 to the Pickering Official Plan, to add new policies to the Pickering Official Plan with regard to Infill and Replacement Housing in Established Neighbourhood Precinct areas, as set out in Appendix I to Report PLN 33-21, be finalized and forwarded to Council for enactment; 2.That Council adopt Informational Revision 28 to the Pickering Official Plan, to add 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, as set out in Appendix Il to Report PLN 33-21; 3.That Zoning By-law Amendment Application A 11/20, initiated by the City of Pickering, to implement Official Plan Amendment 40, be approved, and that the Recommended Draft Zoning By-law Amendments as set out in Appendices lll, lV, and V to Report PLN 33-21 be finalized and forwarded to Council for enactment; and 4.That Council adopt the Revised Urban Design Guidelines for Infill & Replacement Housing in Established Neighbourhood Precincts, August 2021, as set out in Appendix Vl to Report PLN 33-21, which replaces the Urban Design Guidelines for Infill & Replacement Housing in Established Neighbourhood Precincts dated August 2020, adopted by Council on September 28, 2020 through Resolution #428/20. - 47 - Report PLN 33-21 September 13, 2021 Subject: City Initiated: Official Plan and Zoning By-law Amendment Page 2 Executive Summary: On September 28, 2020, Council endorsed the recommendations of the Infill and Replacement Housing in Established Neighbourhoods Study (the Infill Study) and adopted the Urban Design Guidelines for Infill & Replacement Housing in Established Neighbourhood Precincts, August 2020. The recommendations of the Infill Study provided direction for the preparation of appropriate planning implementation tools to facilitate a sensitive transition between existing houses and new construction occurring in certain parts of the City’s established neighbourhoods. The purpose of recommended Amendment 40 is to amend the City of Pickering Official Plan to add new policies that require that new development, within an Established Neighbourhood Precinct, complements and is compatible with the existing character of the neighbourhood, and to establish definitions for “infill dwelling” and “replacement dwelling”. The Amendment applies to lands within Established Neighbourhood Precincts to be identified on the Pickering Official Plan neighbourhood maps for Rosebank, West Shore, Bay Ridges, Rougemount, Woodlands, Dunbarton, Highbush, and Liverpool. These mapping changes are addressed through recommended Informational Revision 28 to the Pickering Official Plan. Durham Region has indicated that Amendment 40 is exempt from Regional approval. Recommended Amendment 40 and Informational Revision 28 are contained in Appendices I and II respectively, to this report. The recommended Zoning By-law Amendments for A 11/20 propose to rezone all of the lands within the Established Neighbourhood Precincts to an “Established Neighbourhood Precinct Overlay Zone” that will assist in managing new built form, so that it is compatible with the existing built form. The recommended amendments will not change the permitted uses, lot frontage or lot area within the zones. In response to comments received through the consultation process, staff have revised the Draft Zoning By-law Amendments to remove the originally proposed regulation for maximum garage width and the minimum side yard setback adjacent to a rear yard for an Infill Dwelling, and to amend the lot coverage regulation. The recommended Zoning By-law Amendments to By-laws 2511, 2520 and 3036 are contained in Appendices III, lV, and V respectively, to this report. The boundaries of, and lands within, the neighbourhood precincts affected by the Official Plan and Zoning By-law Amendments have been refined through further investigation and comments received at, and following, the January 4, 2021 Statutory Public Meeting and the June 24, 2021 Open House, the details of which are explained in Section 3 of this report. In response to comments received, staff are recommending certain changes to the Urban Design Guidelines to ensure that they do not dictate or prescribe architectural style, and are consistent with the recommended Amendment 40, Informational Revision 28, and Draft Zoning By-law Amendments. The recommended Revised Urban Design Guidelines for Infill & Replacement Housing in Established Neighbourhood Precincts, August 2021, are contained in Appendix Vl. Financial Implications: No direct costs to the City are anticipated as a result of the recommendations of this report. - 48 - Report PLN 33-21 September 13, 2021 Subject: City Initiated: Official Plan and Zoning By-law Amendment Page 3 Discussion: 1. Background/Purpose On September 28, 2020, Council endorsed the recommendations of the Infill and Replacement Housing in Established Neighbourhoods Study (the Infill Study) prepared by SGL Planning & Design Inc. (SGL) as per Resolution #428/20. The Infill Study recommendations provided direction on the future evolution of the City’s proposed established neighbourhood precincts (Established Neighbourhood Precincts) so that neighbourhood precinct character is properly considered through the development and building approval processes for infill and replacement housing. Also, at that meeting, Council adopted Urban Design Guidelines for Infill & Replacement Housing in Established Neighbourhood Precincts, August 2020 to support and enhance established neighbourhood precinct characteristics and to assist staff, developers, and the public to evaluate and prepare development or redevelopment applications. The Infill Study was prompted by the construction of an increasing number of houses, either as the result of a demolition and rebuild, or larger lots being severed and new homes built, that were significantly larger than existing adjacent houses. Many of these new homes created impacts in terms of privacy, shadow, and overlook for the neighbouring homes, and altered the streetscape within these parts of established residential areas of the City. A robust engagement process was undertaken throughout the Infill Study with active participation and feedback received from members of the public, the building community, and advisory committees of Council. At the completion of each phase of the Infill Study, a staff report was presented at a public meeting of the Planning & Development Committee and Council: • Phase 1: The Existing Conditions and Preliminary Observations Report was presented in Report PLN 06-19 (dated April 1, 2019); • Phase 2: The Planning Options Report was presented in Report PLN 01-20 (dated January 13, 2020); and • Phase 3, which was also the completion of the Infill Study: The Planning Recommendations Report was presented in Report PLN 18-20 (dated September 14, 2020). In addition, a Public Open House was held during each phase of the Infill Study (Phase 1: held on March 5, 2019, Phase 2: held on October 29, 2019, and Phase 3: held on August 11, 2020). The Public Open Houses were advertised in the local newspaper for two consecutive weeks prior to the meetings, notices were sent to individuals on the interested parties list, and, for electronic Public Open House 3, notices were also delivered to all properties within the proposed Established Neighbourhood Precincts by postal walk. - 49 - Report PLN 33-21 September 13, 2021 Subject: City Initiated: Official Plan and Zoning By-law Amendment Page 4 2. Consultation/Comments Received 2.1 Comments From the January 4, 2021, Statutory Public Meeting On January 4, 2021, the Statutory Public Meeting with regard to proposed Official Plan Amendment 40 and Zoning By-law Amendment A11/20 was held, and 19 individuals provided a delegation at the meeting. Additional comments were received via email and phone call prior to, and following, the January 4, 2021 meeting. The key concerns and comments received relate to: the protection of trees; compatibility of new construction within the existing neighbourhood; proposed Lot Coverage; how compatibility is being considered through recent major development applications; how the precinct boundaries have been determined; and potential impacts to property values. A complete summary of the staff responses to the comments and concerns associated with the January 4, 2021 Statutory Public Meeting was prepared for the June 24, 2021 open house. This Summary of Comments and Staff Responses Related to the January 4, 2021, Statutory Public Meeting is included in Attachment #1 to this report. 2.2 Comments From the June 24, 2021, Electronic Open House On June 24, 2021, staff hosted an Electronic Open House to present proposed revisions to the draft official plan and zoning by-law amendments, based on comments received at, and after, the January 4, 2021 Statutory Public Meeting. The staff presentation also addressed proposed changes to the Urban Design Guidelines for Infill and Replacement Housing in Established Neighbourhood Precincts. The key concerns and comments received relate to neighbourhood character and streetscape, lot coverage, front yard landscaping, urban design guidelines, and tree protection. A complete summary of the staff responses to the comments and concerns associated with the proposed revisions to the draft official plan and zoning by-law amendments presented at the June 24, 2021 Electronic Open House is included in Attachment #2, Summary of Comments and Staff Responses Related to the June 24, 2021, Electronic Open House, to this report. 2.3 Comments From Agency and City Departments Durham Region has indicated that, in accordance with Regional By-law 11-2000, this Official Plan amendment application is exempt from Regional approval. Other agencies and City departments have stated that they have no objection to the proposed amendments, and all other comments were of a minor technical nature and did not necessitate any revisions to the draft official plan and zoning by-law amendments. - 50 - Report PLN 33-21 September 13, 2021 Subject: City Initiated: Official Plan and Zoning By-law Amendment Page 5 3. Lands affected by the recommended Official Plan and Zoning By-law Amendments The recommended Official Plan and Zoning By-law Amendments contain policies and regulations respectively that will apply to areas within the City identified as Established Neighbourhood Precincts. They are shown on the Location Map in Attachment #3 and on the recommended Established Neighbourhood Precinct Maps in Attachment #4. The recommended Established Neighbourhood Precincts and their associated boundaries were determined based on a combination of age of dwellings, existing lot coverage, areas within neighbourhoods with comparatively larger lots, and the prevalence of new construction. The proposed precinct boundaries were first presented to the public in Phase 2 of the Infill Study and have since been refined through this official plan and zoning by-law amendment process, by excluding recently developed plans of subdivision and condominium development, parkland and open space, as well as lands designated medium density residential areas in the Pickering Official Plan. The proposed changes to the Established Neighbourhood Precinct mapping, and associated rationale, are discussed below: • Rosebank Neighbourhood: The boundary of the recommended Established Neighbourhood Precincts shown in Attachment #4 excludes the recently approved development on the southwest corner of the southern branch of Gillmoss Road and west of the Canadian National Railway (CNR) line. The large lots on the north side of the southern branch of Gillmoss Road and west of the CNR line have been included in the recommended Established Neighbourhood Precinct. • Bay Ridges Neighbourhood: The boundary of the recommended Established Neighbourhood Precincts shown in Attachment #4 excludes: • properties that are within areas zoned as parks and open space; • properties that are within areas designated as an “Urban Residential Area, Medium Density Area” in the City’s Official Plan, including the properties south of Browning Avenue, west of Front Road, north of Waterpoint Street, that front onto Bayview Street, Fairview Avenue, Simpson Avenue, and Waterpoint Street; • properties that have recently been redeveloped through plans of subdivision or rezoning applications, including properties fronting onto Luna Court, Monica Cook Place and Gull Crossing (including the associated new development on Liverpool Road); and • the property associated with the common element condominium development at 1290 Old Orchard Avenue. • Rougemount Neighbourhood: The boundary of the recommended Established Neighbourhood Precincts shown in Attachment #4 includes the north side of Twyn Rivers Drive west of Altona Road to east of Woodview Avenue. The properties on the north and east side of Fiddler’s Court have been removed from the recommended Established Neighbourhood Precinct since they have recently been the subject of development and/or building permit approvals. - 51 - Report PLN 33-21 September 13, 2021 Subject: City Initiated: Official Plan and Zoning By-law Amendment Page 6 • Dunbarton: The boundary of the recommended Established Neighbourhood Precinct shown in Attachment #4 excludes: • properties that are within areas zoned as parks and open space; • the cemetery on the north side of Finch Avenue at Fairport Road; • the property at the southeast corner of Finch Avenue and Fairport Road, which is currently zoned to permit a church, day nursery, and private non-residential school; • multiple properties north of Finch Avenue, including properties fronting onto Regal Crescent and Darwin Drive, since they have recently been the subject of development and/or building permit approvals; • multiple properties that have recently been the subject of development and/or building permit approvals, including, but not limited to: • certain properties fronting onto Fairport Road, south of Taplin Drive and North of Strouds Lane; • certain properties fronting onto the east side of Fairport Road; and • certain properties fronting onto Voyager Avenue, Greyabbey Court, Holbrook Court, Falconwood Way, Shademaster Drive, Wingarden Crescent, Goldenridge Road, Rushton Road, Welrus Street, and Dunbarton Road. • Liverpool Neighbourhood: The boundary of the recommended Established Neighbourhood Precincts shown in Attachment #4 excludes properties on the west side of Valley Farm Road, south of Fieldlight Boulevard that are within areas designated as “Urban Residential Area, Medium Density Area” in the City’s Official Plan. These changes are consistent with the established criteria for determining the boundaries of the Established Neighbourhood Precincts. 4. Recommended Amendments 4.1 Recommended Official Plan Amendment 40 Recommended Amendment 40 to the City of Pickering Official Plan is contained in Appendix l to this Report. It introduces new policies in Chapter 3 – Land Use and Chapter 9 – Community Design, and new definitions to Chapter 15 – Implementation, to provide direction on the requirements for development of infill and replacement housing in the recommended Established Neighbourhood Precincts. In response to comments received from agencies, City departments, and the public, staff have made a few changes to Proposed Amendment 40, where appropriate. The changes are minor in nature and do not detract from the original intent or purpose of Amendment 40. The changes include the following: • Change to the definition of “Infill Dwelling” to more accurately reflect that it refers to the development of a dwelling on a lot located “on an existing street” within an Established Neighbourhood Precinct; - 52 - Report PLN 33-21 September 13, 2021 Subject: City Initiated: Official Plan and Zoning By-law Amendment Page 7 • Revise City Policy 3.9 to include reference to building height, massing and scale, overlook and privacy, lot coverage and streetscape, when considering matters related to urban residential areas and development of Infill and Replacement Dwellings; and • Revise City Policy 3.9 to remove the reference to “carports”. 4.2 Recommended Informational Revision 28 Recommended Informational Revision 28 to the City of Pickering Official Plan is contained in Appendix ll to this report. The purpose of Informational Revision 28 is to add a layer identifying the boundaries of Established Neighbouthood Precincts to the following neighbourhood maps contained within Chapter 12 – Urban Neighbourhoods, of the Pickering Official Plan: • Map 11: Neighbourhood 1: Rosebank; • Map 12: Neighbourhood 2: West Shore; • Map 13: Neighbourhood 3: Bay Ridges; • Map 15: Neighbourhood 5: Rougemount; • Map 16: Neighbourhood 6: Woodlands; • Map 17: Neighbourhood 7: Dunbarton; • Map 20: Neighbourhood 10: Highbush; and • Map 22: Neighbourhood 12: Liverpool. Revisions to Proposed Informational Revision 28 relate to the boundary changes associated with the recommended Established Neighbourhood Precinct maps as discussed in Section 3 above, and the change to the definition of “Infill Dwelling” as discussed in Subsection 4.1 above. 4.3 Recommended Zoning By-law Amendment Application A 11/20 The lands recommended to be rezoned by this amendment are subject to parent Zoning By-laws 2511, 2520 and 3036. Attachment #7 shows the current zoning within the recommended Established Neighbourhood Precincts. The majority of the subject lands within the identified Established Neighbourhood Precincts are currently zoned as “Detached Dwelling, Third Density Zone – R3”, “Detached Dwelling, Fourth Density Zone – R4”, or “Multiple Family Dwelling, First Density Zone – RMl” 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 City Initiated Zoning By-law Amendment proposes to rezone all of the lands within the Established Neighbourhood Precincts to an “Established Neighbourhood Precinct Overlay Zone” category (see Recommended Draft Zoning By-law Amendments in Appendices lll, lV, and V) that will assist in managing new built form, so that it is compatible with the existing built form. The recommended amendments will not change the permitted uses within the zones. - 53 - Report PLN 33-21 September 13, 2021 Subject: City Initiated: Official Plan and Zoning By-law Amendment Page 8 In response to comments received from agencies, City departments, and the public, staff have revised the Proposed Draft Zoning By-law Amendments where appropriate. The following summarizes the changes to the Proposed Draft Zoning By-law: • Removing the provisions for: • Garage or Carport (maximum width) to enable greater flexibility as it relates to architectural style; and • Side Yard Setback for Infill Dwelling (minimum). Upon further examination, staff have established that there are various examples of existing conditions within the recommended Established Neighbourhood Precincts where a lot may be flanked on one or both sides by a rear lot. The proposed zoning regulation, in conjunction with the size of the subject lots in these existing situations, would prohibit reasonable development of the property, and therefore the proposed zoning regulation has been removed; • Removing the reduction to maximum Lot Coverage for the West Shore Established Neighbourhood Precinct, so that it remains at the existing maximum of 33%; • Changing the provision for maximum Lot Coverage for the Established Neighbourhood Precincts within Dunbarton, Highbush, Rosebank, Rougemount and Woodlands neighbourhoods from the existing maximum of 33% to the following: a. For lots greater than or equal to 1,000 square metres in area: Maximum 25%; b. For lots less than 1,000 square metres in area: Maximum 33%; • Changing the provision for maximum Lot Coverage for the Liverpool Established Neighbourhood Precinct from a maximum of 33% to 25%; • Removing the definitions of “Infill Dwelling” and “Replacement Dwelling” since they will be defined in the Official Plan. This is noted in the pre-amble to the Recommended Draft Zoning By-law; • Revising the wording for the definitions of “Dwelling Height”, “Lot Coverage” and “Setback” so that they are in plain language; and • Revising the wording for the provisions for Front Entrance (maximum elevation), Front Yard Setback (maximum and minimum), and Transition Provisions so that they are in plain language. A detailed summary of the changes to the Proposed Draft Zoning By-law definitions is contained in Table 1 in Attachment #5. A detailed summary of the changes to the Proposed Draft Zoning By-law provisions is contained in Table 2 in Attachment #6. With respect to the recommended changes to maximum Lot Coverage, these recommended regulations are based on research performed through the Infill Study on existing lot coverages within each Established Neighbourhood Precinct, including original dwellings as well as infill and replacement dwellings. In addition, previous Committee of Adjustment decisions were reviewed and the data demonstrated that few requests were made to increase Lot Coverage beyond the permitted maximum of 33%. With the exception of the Bay Ridges and West Shore Established Neighbourhood Precincts, existing Lot Coverages in the recommended Established Neighbourhood Precincts are predominantly under 30% and in many cases below 20%. In addition, staff reviewed approved Building Permit data for new construction of detached dwellings - 54 - Report PLN 33-21 September 13, 2021 Subject: City Initiated: Official Plan and Zoning By-law Amendment Page 9 over the last 5 years within the recommended Established Neighbourhoods Precincts, which demonstrated a correlation between existing lot coverage and lot area, and that the majority of these new dwellings would comply with the recommended Lot Coverage based on the condition associated with lot area. Existing zoning by-law provisions that deal with matters other than what are identified in the recommended Draft Zoning By-laws in Appendices lll, lV, and V, will continue to apply. There are three Neighbourhood Development Guidelines that apply to areas subject to the recommended Established Neighbourhood Precincts and their associated zoning by-law provisions. They are the Rosebank Neighbourhood Development Guidelines, the Liverpool Road Waterfront Node Development Guidelines, and the Dunbarton Neighbourhood Development Guidelines. The recommended Draft Zoning By-law Amendments do not conflict with these Neighbourhood Development Guidelines. 5. Planning Analysis Section 7 of Information Report 01-21 dated January 4, 2021, read together with Sections 3 and 4 of this report, provides the detail regarding the planning rationale in support of recommended Official Plan Amendment 40, Informational Revision 28, and Draft Zoning By-law Amendments for By-laws 2511, 2520 and 3036. The recommended amendments seek to manage new construction of 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. Recommended Amendment 40 is intended to further strengthen the current policies in the Plan that pertain to neighbourhood character protection and enhancement, and the associated recommended Draft Zoning By-law Amendments are intended to introduce provisions that conform with, and implement, Amendment 40 to the Pickering Official Plan. As such, the recommended Official Plan and 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 recommended Official Plan and Zoning By-law Amendments conform to the policies of the Durham Regional Official Plan. As noted in Subsection 2.3 above, Durham Region has indicated that, in accordance with Regional By-law 11-2000, this Official Plan Amendment application is exempt from Regional approval. - 55 - Report PLN 33-21 September 13, 2021 Subject: City Initiated: Official Plan and Zoning By-law Amendment Page 10 6. Urban Design Guidelines for Infill and Replacement Housing in Established Neighbourhood Precincts On September 28, 2020, Council adopted the Urban Design Guidelines for Infill & Replacement Housing in Established Neighbourhood Precincts, August 2020, (Urban Design Guidelines). The Council-adopted Urban Design Guidelines are based on the recommendations contained in the Planning Recommendations Report of the Infill Study prepared by SGL. In response to comments received from agencies, City departments, and the public, staff are proposing certain changes to the Urban Design Guidelines that are consistent with recommended Amendment 40, Informational Revision 28 and Draft Zoning By-law Amendments to By-laws 2511, 2520, and 3036. The recommended Revised Urban Design Guidelines for Infill & Replacement Housing in Established Neighbourhood Precincts, August 2021, are contained in Appendix Vl. Some of the recommended key changes to the Urban Design Guidelines are as follows: • Definitions for Infill and Replacement Dwelling have been made consistent with Recommended Amendment 40; • Wording throughout the document has been reviewed and updated so that the guidelines do not dictate or prescribe architectural style; • Guideline 3.2.3 regarding the style of double car garages has been removed; • Appendix A: Urban Design Guideline Checklist has been reviewed and updated so that the guidelines do not dictate or prescribe architectural style. In particular, questions 1 (roof style), 6 (architectural style of the main entrance), 7 (front porch/weather protection), 13 (garage roof style), 14 (garage door style), 17 (sustainable design features), 19 (tree planting), and 20 (type of tree species) have been removed; and • Appendix B: Neighbourhood and Established Neighbourhood Precinct Maps have been updated to be consistent with recommended Amendment 40, Informational Revision 28, and the recommended Draft Zoning By-law Amendment. 7. Conclusion Council authorized staff to initiate Official Plan and Zoning By-law Amendments in accordance with Report PLN 18-20, so that new houses in certain parts of the City’s established neighbourhoods are compatible with the character of the neighbourhoods. Recommended Amendment 40, Recommended Informational Revision 28, Recommended Draft By-law Amendments, and Recommended Revised Urban Design Guidelines for Infill & Replacement Housing in Established Neighbourhood Precincts, August 2021, incorporate appropriate modifications to the Draft Amendments proposed in Information Report 01-21 and the Council-adopted Urban Design Guidelines for Infill & Replacement Housing in Established Neighbourhood Precincts (August 2020) that address comments received through the consultation process. - 56 - Report PLN 33-21 September 13, 2021 Subject: City Initiated: Official Plan and Zoning By-law Amendment Page 11 Staff recommendations: (a) That Council approve Recommended Amendment 40 to the Pickering Official Plan by passing the by-law to adopt Amendment 40, as set out in Appendix I to Report PLN 33-21; (b) That Council adopt Recommended Informational Revision 28 to the Pickering Official Plan as set out in Appendix II to Report PLN 33-21; (c) That Recommended Draft Zoning By-law Amendment (2511) as set out in Appendix IIl to Report PLN 33-21 be finalized and forwarded to Council for enactment; (d) That Recommended Draft Zoning By-law Amendment (2520) as set out in Appendix IV to Report PLN 33-21 be finalized and forwarded to Council for enactment; (e) That Recommended Draft Zoning By-law Amendment (3036) as set out in Appendix V to Report PLN 33-21 be finalized and forwarded to Council for enactment; and (f) That Council adopt the Revised Urban Design Guidelines for Infill & Replacement Housing in Established Neighbourhood Precincts, August 2021, as set out in Appendix Vl to Report PLN 33-21, which replace the Urban Design Guidelines for Infill & Replacement Housing in Established Neighbourhood Precincts dated August 2020, adopted by Council on September 28, 2020. Appendices Appendix l Draft By-law to Adopt Amendment 40 to the Pickering Official Plan Appendix ll Recommended Informational Revision 28 to the City of Pickering Official Plan Appendix lll Recommended Draft Zoning By-law Amendment to By-law 2511 Appendix lV Recommended Draft Zoning By-law Amendment to By-law 2520 Appendix V Recommended Draft Zoning By-law Amendment to By-law 3036 Appendix Vl Revised Urban Design Guidelines for Infill & Replacement Housing in Established Neighbourhood Precincts, August 2021 Attachments: 1. Summary of Comments and Staff Responses Related to the January 4, 2021, Statutory Public Meeting 2. Summary of Comments and Staff Responses Related to the June 24, 2021, Electronic Open House 3. Location Map 4. Recommended Established Neighbourhood Precinct Maps 5. Table 1: Summary of Recommended Draft Zoning By-law Definitions 6. Table 2: Summary of Recommended Draft Zoning By-law Provisions 7. Current Zoning and Recommended Established Neighbourhood Precinct Overlay Zone - 57 - Report PLN 33-21 September 13, 2021 Subject: City Initiated: Official Plan and Zoning By-law Amendment Page 12 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 - 58 - Appendix I to Report No. PLN 33-21 Draft By-law to Adopt Amendment 40 to the City of Pickering Official Plan - 59 - The Corporation of the City of Pickering Draft By-law No. XXXX/21 Being a by-law to adopt Amendment 40 to the Official Plan for the City of Pickering (OPA 20-006/P) Whereas pursuant to the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c.p. 13, subsections 17(22) and 21(1), the Council of the Corporation of the City of Pickering may by by-law adopt amendments to the Official Plan for the City of Pickering; Whereas pursuant to Section 17(10) of the Planning Act, the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing has by order authorized Regional Council to pass a by-law to exempt proposed area municipal official plan amendments from its approval; Whereas on February 23, 2000, Regional Council passed By-law 11/2000 which allows the Region to exempt proposed area municipal official plan amendments from its approval; Whereas the Region has advised that Amendment 40 to the City of Pickering Official Plan is exempt from Regional approval; Now therefore the Council of The Corporation of the City of Pickering hereby enacts as follows: 1. That Amendment 40 to the Official Plan for the City of Pickering, attached hereto as Exhibit “A”, is hereby adopted; 2. That the City Clerk is hereby authorized and directed to forward to the Regional Municipality of Durham the documentation required by Procedure: Area Municipal Official Plans and Amendments; 3. This By-law shall come into force and take effect on the day of the final passing hereof. By-law passed this XXXX day of XXXX, 2021. ________________________________ David Ryan, Mayor ________________________________ Susan Cassel, City Clerk Draft Draft - 60 - Exhibit “A” to By-law XXXX/XX Amendment 40 to the City of Pickering Official Plan - 61 - Recommended Amendment 40 to the Pickering Official Plan Purpose: The purpose of Amendment 40 is to amend the City of Pickering Official Plan to add new policies that require that new development that is within an Established Neighbourhood Precinct, complements, and is compatible with the existing character of the neighbourhood, and to establish definitions for “infill dwelling” and “replacement dwelling”. Location: The Amendment applies to lands within Established Neighbourhood Precincts to be identified on the following neighbourhood maps within the Pickering Official Plan: • Map 11: Neighbourhood 1: Rosebank; • Map 12: Neighbourhood 2: West Shore; • Map 13: Neighbourhood 3: Bay Ridges; • Map 15: Neighbourhood 5: Rougemount; • Map 16: Neighbourhood 6: Woodlands; • Map 17: Neighbourhood 7: Dunbarton; • Map 20: Neighbourhood 10: Highbush; and • Map 22: Neighbourhood 12: Liverpool. The Established Neighbourhood Precincts boundaries were determined through the Infill and Replacement Housing in Established Neighbourhoods Study and refined through this official plan amendment process, which included a robust and comprehensive consultation and engagement process. The precinct boundaries are primarily based on the characteristics of: lot size, age of dwellings, the ”footprint” of homes relative to the size of the lot, and areas within established neighbourhoods where an increased frequency of construction of infill and replacement housing was observed. Basis: On September 28, 2020 Council endorsed the recommendations of the Infill and Replacement Housing in Established Neighbourhoods Study (the Infill Study) and adopted the Urban Design Guidelines for Infill and Replacement Housing in Established Neighbourhood Precincts. The recommendations of the Infill Study provide direction for the preparation of appropriate planning implementation tools to facilitate a sensitive transition between existing houses and new construction occurring in certain parts of the City’s established neighbourhoods. The Infill Study was prompted by the construction of an increasing number of houses that were significantly larger than existing adjacent houses creating impacts to privacy, shadow, and overlook for the neighbouring homes and altering the streetscape within parts of established residential areas of the City. This Amendment, in concert with the Informational Revision, an implementing zoning by-law and the urban design guidelines, will guide the planning and design of infill and replacement housing to ensure this type of new development is compatible with the character within identified Established Neighourhood Precincts in the City. - 62 - Recommended Amendment 40 to the Pickering Official Plan Page 2 Actual Amendment: The City of Pickering Official Plan is hereby amended by: (New text is shown as underlined text, deleted text is shown as strikeout text, and retained text is shown as unchanged text.) 1. Revising City Policy 3.9, Urban Residential Areas, in Chapter 3 – Land Use, by adding “, massing and scale” following “height” in subsection (c) (i), adding “overlook and privacy,” following “sunlight,” in (c) (i), adding a new subsection (c) (ii) and renumbering the existing (c) (ii) and (iii) appropriately, deleting “and” at the end of subsection (d); deleting the period “.”and adding “; and” at the end of subsection (e); and adding new subsection (f), as follows: “(c) in establishing performance standards, restrictions and provisions for Urban Residential Areas, shall have particular regard to the following: (i) protecting and enhancing the character of established neighbourhoods, considering such matters as building height, massing and scale, yard setback, lot coverage, access to sunlight, overlook and privacy, parking provisions and traffic implications; (ii) acknowledge that certain areas within the City may be more susceptible to the construction of Infill and Replacement Dwellings and may identify these areas as Established Neighbourhood Precincts on the Neighbourhood Maps in Chapter 12 – Urban Neighbourhoods, and establish zoning provisions to appropriately address matters such as building height, massing and scale, privacy, overlook and shadowing as they relate to the impact of the construction of Infill and Replacement Dwellings on the character of the streetscape and the existing neighbourhood; (iii) …; (iv) …; (d) …; and (e) ….; and (f) when considering applications for the development of Infill or Replacement Dwellings within an Established Neighbourhood Precinct, as identified on Maps 11, 12, 13, 15, 16, 17, 20 and 22 of this Plan, shall require that such development complements and is compatible with the character of the Established Neighbourhood Precinct with respect to: (i) minimizing the impacts associated with building height, massing and scale, privacy, overlook and shadowing on neighbouring properties, and promoting development of a compatible scale as observed from neighbouring properties and the street; - 63 - Recommended Amendment 40 to the Pickering Official Plan Page 3 (ii) reinforcing the established pattern of existing side yard setbacks and separation distances between dwellings as observed from the street; (iii) reinforcing the established pattern of existing lot widths and lot coverage in the Established Neighbourhood Precinct; (iv) reinforcing the established pattern of front yard setbacks on the street; (v) promoting garages to be located flush with or behind the front main walls of dwellings, such that they do not dominate the façade of the dwelling; (vi) maximizing the front yard landscaping to the greatest extent possible; (vii) encouraging the preservation of existing mature trees to the greatest extent possible; and (viii) being consistent with the intent of the Urban Design Guidelines for Infill & Replacement Housing in Established Neighbourhood Precincts, which will prevail in the event of a conflict with any Development Guideline within the Compendium Document.” 2. Revising City Policy 9.2, Community Design Objectives, in Chapter 9 – Community Design, by renumbering subsection (e) into (e) (i), adding “and” at the end of subsection (e) (i), and adding a new subsection (e) (ii) as follows: “(e) encourage: (i) developments that are designed to fit their contexts by considering the mix of uses, and the massing, height, scale, architectural style and details of existing, adjacent buildings; and (ii) the development of compatible Infill and Replacement Dwellings within Established Neighbourhood Precincts as identified on Maps 11, 12, 13, 15, 16, 17, 20 and 22 of this Plan, to ensure that new development minimizes impacts related to building height, massing and scale, privacy, overlook, shadowing and loss of open space, particularly with respect to the matters identified in Policy 3.9 (f).” 3. Adding a definition for the term “Infill Dwelling” in alphabetic order to Section 15.15, Glossary, in Chapter 15 – Implementation, as follows: “Infill Dwelling(s), in relation to City Policies 3.9 and 9.2, means the development of one or more dwellings such as single detached, semi-detached or street townhouse dwellings through a consolidation of lots or the severance of a larger lot located on an existing street within an Established Neighbourhood Precinct as identified on Maps 11, 12, 13, 15, 16, 17, 20 and 22 of this Plan. Infill Dwelling does not include the development of stacked townhouses, stacked back-to-back townhouses, apartment buildings, or other forms of multi-unit housing resulting in a higher level of density.” - 64 - Recommended Amendment 40 to the Pickering Official Plan Page 4 4. Adding a definition for the term “Replacement Dwelling” in alphabetic order to Section 15.15, Glossary, in Chapter 15 – Implementation, as follows: “Replacement Dwelling means the rebuild of a dwelling either through a substantial alteration, or demolition and replacement, and that is located within an Established Neighbourhood Precinct as identified on Maps 11, 12, 13, 15, 16, 17, 20 and 22 of this Plan.” Implementation: The provisions set forth in the City of Pickering Official Plan, as amended, regarding the implementation of the Plan shall apply in regard to this Amendment. Interpretation: The provisions set forth in the City of Pickering Official Plan, as amended, regarding the interpretation of the Plan shall apply in regard to this Amendment, except as revised by this amendment. OPA 20-006/P A 11/20 City Initiated: Infill and Replacement Housing Study - 65 - Appendix II to Report No. PLN 33-21 Recommended Informational Revision 28 to the City of Pickering Official Plan - 66 - Recommended Informational Revision 28 to the Pickering Official Plan Purpose: The purpose of this Recommended Informational Revision is to add a layer identifying the boundaries of Established Neighbourhood Precincts to the informational neighbourhood maps contained within Chapter 12 – Urban Neighbourhoods, within the Pickering Official Plan. In particular the following neighbourhood maps are proposed to be revised: • Map 11: Neighbourhood 1: Rosebank; • Map 12: Neighbourhood 2: West Shore; • Map 13: Neighbourhood 3: Bay Ridges; • Map 15: Neighbourhood 5: Rougemount; • Map 16: Neighbourhood 6: Woodlands; • Map 17: Neighbourhood 7: Dunbarton; • Map 20: Neighbourhood 10: Highbush; and • Map 22: Neighbourhood 12: Liverpool. Location: The Informational Revision applies to lands within Established Neighbourhood Precincts to be identified on the following neighbourhood maps within the Pickering Official Plan: • Map 11: Neighbourhood 1: Rosebank; • Map 12: Neighbourhood 2: West Shore; • Map 13: Neighbourhood 3: Bay Ridges; • Map 15: Neighbourhood 5: Rougemount; • Map 16: Neighbourhood 6: Woodlands; • Map 17: Neighbourhood 7: Dunbarton; • Map 20: Neighbourhood 10: Highbush; and • Map 22: Neighbourhood 12: Liverpool. The location and boundaries of Established Neighbourhood Precincts were determined through the Infill and Replacement in Established Neighbourhoods Study and refined through this official plan amendment process, which included a robust and comprehensive consultation and engagement process. The precinct boundaries are primarily based on the characteristics of: lot size, age of dwellings, the “footprint” of homes relative to the size of the lot, and areas within established neighbourhoods where an increased frequency of construction of infill and replacement housing was observed. Basis: In reviewing the informational text contained in the Official Plan, various technical revisions have been determined to be necessary and appropriate to assist users with understanding the changes to the Official Plan text implemented through the associated Official Plan Amendment. Proposed Revision: The City of Pickering Official Plan is hereby revised by: 1. Adding Established Neighbourhood Precincts and their associated boundaries to the following Neighbourhood Maps in Chapter 12 – Urban Neighbourhoods, as illustrated on Schedule “A”, attached to this Informational Revision: - 67 - Recommended Informational Revision 28 to the Pickering Official Plan Page 2 (a) Map 11: Neighbourhood 1: Rosebank; (b) Map 12: Neighbourhood 2: West Shore; (c) Map 13: Neighbourhood 3: Bay Ridges; (d) Map 15: Neighbourhood 5: Rougemount; (e) Map 16: Neighbourhood 6: Woodlands; (f) Map 17: Neighbourhood 7: Dunbarton; (g) Map 20: Neighbourhood 10: Highbush; and (h) Map 22: Neighbourhood 12: Liverpool. 2. On page 178, under Chapter 12 – Urban Neighbourhoods, General Information, adding the following as a last bullet point: • “indicate the boundaries of Established Neighbourhood Precincts” 3. Adding the following informational sidebar adjacent to Section 3.9 (f): Infill Dwelling(s), in relation to City Policy 3.9, means the development of one or more dwellings such as single detached, semi-detached or street townhouse dwellings through a consolidation of lots or the severance of a larger lot located on an existing street within an Established Neighbourhood Precinct as identified on Maps 11, 12, 13, 15, 16, 17, 20 and 22 of this Plan. Infill Dwelling does not include the development of stacked townhouses, stacked back-to-back townhouses, apartment buildings, or other forms of multi-unit housing resulting in a higher level of density. Infill Dwelling(s) is defined in Section 15.15, Glossary, in Chapter 15 – Implementation. 4. Adding the following informational sidebar adjacent to Section 3.9 (f): Replacement Dwelling, in relation to City Policy 3.9, means the rebuild of a dwelling either through a substantial alteration, or demolition and replacement, and that is located within an Established Neighbourhood Precinct as identified on Maps 11, 12, 13, 15, 16, 17, 20 and 22 of this Plan.” Replacement Dwelling is defined in Section 15.15, Glossary, in Chapter 15 – Implementation. - 68 - Recommended Informational Revision 28 to the Pickering Official Plan Page 3 5. Adding the following informational sidebar adjacent to Section 9.2 (e): Infill Dwelling(s), in relation to City Policy 9.2, means the development of one or more dwellings such as single detached, semi-detached or street townhouse dwellings through a consolidation of lots or the severance of a larger lot located on an existing street within an Established Neighbourhood Precinct as identified on Maps 11, 12, 13, 15, 16, 17, 20 and 22 of this Plan. Infill Dwelling does not include the development of stacked townhouses, stacked back-to-back townhouses, apartment buildings, or other forms of multi-unit housing resulting in a higher level of density. Infill Dwelling(s) is defined in Section 15.15, Glossary, in Chapter 15 – Implementation. 6. Adding the following informational sidebar adjacent to Section 9.2 (e): Replacement Dwelling, in relation to City Policy 9.2, means the rebuild of a dwelling either through a substantial alteration, or demolition and replacement, and that is located within an Established Neighbourhood Precinct as identified on Maps 11, 12, 13, 15, 16, 17, 20 and 22 of this Plan.” Replacement Dwelling is defined in Section 15.15, Glossary, in Chapter 15 – Implementation. Cross Reference: OPA 20-006/P City Initiated - 69 - Schedule "A"Rosebank RoadAltona RoadRougemount DriveKingston R o a d Whites RoadGranite Court Bayly StreetHighway 4 0 1 City of TorontoRo ugemount D r i v eDunn CrescentRodd A v e n u e Toynevale Road Petticoat CreekCowan CircleGillmoss RoadChantilly RoadRosebank RoadOakwood DriveStaghorn RoadMountainAsh DriveLekaniCourt WhitesRoadLytton CourtDyson RoadMcleod CrescentBellaVistaDriveDahlia CrescentPi n e R i d g e R o a d Moorelands CrescentMap 11: Neighbourhood 1: Rosebank City of Pickering City Development Department © September, 2020 This Map Forms Part of Edition ? of the Pickering Official Plan and Must BeRead in Conjunction with the Other Schedules and the Text. Note: Land Use Designations Appear on Schedule I & Schedule XIV Legend Neighbourhood Boundary Regional Storm Flood Line Detailed Review Area Kingston Mixed Corridor Intensification Area (Refer to Chapter 11A) Lands for which Council has adopted Development Guidelines (Refer to Compendium Document) Established Neighbourhood Precincts New Road Connections (Proposed) Community Centre Fire Station Library Senior's Centre Cemetery Place Of Worship Elementary Public School Elementary Separate School Park - 70 - Dixie Road Toynevale Road Whites RoadKingston R o a d Fairport RoadWest Shore BoulevardBayly Stre e t Sheppard Avenue Rosebank RoadGranite Court Highwa y 4 0 1 Whites RoadCreekview CirclePark CrescentWest Shore BoulevardTimmins G a r d e n s Breezy DriveVicki Drive Sanok D r i veHillcrestRoadBatory Avenue Downl a n d D r i v eEyerDrive Bro a dgreen Street Oklahoma Drive Vistula Drive AtwoodCrescen t Lynx Avenue Breda Avenue Sunrise Avenue Surf Avenue Beachp oi nt Pr o m e n a deVictory DriveHillviewCrescen tHampton C o u r t Cecyl i aCourtMarksbury RoadSandcastleCourt Moretta Avenue Leaside StreetGranite C o urt Yeremi StreetMink StreetOliva StreetSandst one M a n o r S to nebridgeLaneCliffview Road Marinet Cres c ent Essa CrescentBaylyStreet Map 12: Neighbourhood 2: West Shore City of Pickering City Development Department © September, 2020 This Map Forms Part of Edition ? of the Pickering Official Plan and Must BeRead in Conjunction with the Other Schedules and the Text. Note: Land Use Designations Appear on Schedule I & Schedule XIV Legend Neighbourhood Boundary Regional Storm Flood Line Detailed Review Area Kingston Mixed Corridor Intensification Area (Refer to Chapter 11A) Established Neighbourhood Precincts Pedestrian/Bicycle Connection (Proposed) Community Centre Fire Station Library Senior's Centre Place Of Worship Elementary Public School Elementary Separate School Secondary Public School Swimming Pool Park Historical Village - 71 - Liverpool RoadDi x ie RoadKingston RoadSandy Beach RoadBayly Street Highway 40 1 Montgomery Park RoadSandy Beach RoadLiverpool RoadG ullCrossingBrow ni ng A v e n u e Modlin RoadColmar AvenueIlona P a r k R o a d Balaton AvenueFairview AvenueDouglas AvenueBegley StreetAnnland Street Tanz erC ourtAlyssum Street Dra va Street Krosno BoulevardParkham CrescentReytan BoulevardGarvolin Avenue Fron t Road F oxglove A venue Tatra Drive St Martins DriveBem AvenueNaroch BoulevardZator AvenueGrenoble BoulevardLublin AvenueHaller Avenue Bayly S t r e e t Radom Street Commerce Street Poprad Avenue ChapleauDriveHelenCresc e n t Pleasant StreetBayview Street Wharf Street Alliance Road Old Orchard Avenue Cortez AvenueKingfi sher D r ive Fordon Avenue Broadview Street Miriam RoadAntonio StreetMap 13: Neighbourhood 3: Bay Ridges City of Pickering City Development Department © September, 2020 This Map Forms Part of Edition ? of the Pickering Official Plan and Must BeRead in Conjunction with the Other Schedules and the Text. Note: Land Use Designations Appear on Schedule I & Schedule XIV Legend Neighbourhood Boundary Regional Storm Flood Line Detailed Review Area Kingston Mixed Corridor Intensification Area (Refer to Chapter 11A) Lands for which Council has adopted Development Guidelines (Refer to Compendium Document) Established Neighbourhood Precincts Pedestrian/Bicycle Connection (Existing) Pedestrian/Bicycle Connection (Proposed) New Road Connections (Proposed) Arena Community Centre Fire Station Senior's Centre Cemetery Place Of Worship Elementary Public School GO Station Park Historical Village - 72 - Toynevale RoadAltona RoadRougemount DriveKingston Road Sheppard Avenue Cit y o f T o r o n t o R o u g e N a t i o n a l U r b a n P a r k Rougemount DriveAshwoodGateValley Gate Littlefo rd St r e et Altona RoadFiddlers CourtFawndal eRoadGwendo lyn S t r eet Brookridge Gate D a l e w o o d D r i v e Twyn Rivers Drive B rimwood C o u r t Kings t on R o a d Rouge Hill Cour t Riverview CrescentRic hardson Street Hoover Drive Stover Crescent Sheppard Avenue R ou ge Valley DriveHowellCrescentWoodview Drive Map 15: Neighbourhood 5: Rougemount City of Pickering City Development Department © September, 2020 This Map Forms Part of Edition ? of the Pickering Official Plan and Must BeRead in Conjunction with the Other Schedules and the Text. Note: Land Use Designations Appear on Schedule I & Schedule XIV Legend Neighbourhood Boundary Regional Storm Flood Line Detailed Review Area Kingston Mixed Corridor Intensification Area (Refer to Chapter 11A) Established Neighbourhood Precincts Community Centre Library Senior's Centre Cemetery Place Of Worship Elementary Public School Elementary Separate School Park - 73 - Highway 4 0 1 Toynevale Road Sheppard Avenue Kingsto n R o a d Whites RoadRosebank RoadGranite CourtRougemount DriveBayly StreetWhites RoadKingsto n R o a d Sheppard Avenue Barry Drive Rosebank RoadEdmundDriveOld Forest RoadDunfair Street Steeple Hill Cattail C o ur tLightfoot Place Delta Boulev a r d Da y lightCourtRainy Day DriveSundown Cresc ent Highb ush T ra i l Map 16: Neighbourhood 6: Woodlands City of Pickering City Development Department © September, 2020 This Map Forms Part of Edition ? of the Pickering Official Plan and Must BeRead in Conjunction with the Other Schedules and the Text. Note: Land Use Designations Appear on Schedule I & Schedule XIV Legend Neighbourhood Boundary Regional Storm Flood Line Detailed Review Area Kingston Mixed Corridor Intensification Area (Refer to Chapter 11A) Lands for which Council has adopted Development Guidelines (Refer to Compendium Document) Established Neighbourhood Precincts New Road Connections (Proposed) Community Centre Fire Station Library Senior's Centre Place Of Worship Elementary Public School Elementary Separate School Secondary Public School Swimming Pool Park Proposed Park - 74 - Highw ay 4 0 1 Kingston RoadGlenanna RoadDixie RoadFinch Avenue Whites RoadFairport RoadStrouds Lane Bayly Street Sheppard Avenue Glendale DriveSpruce H i l l RoadFairport RoadFinch Avenue AppleviewRoadBonita Avenue GoldenridgeRoadSp a r t anCourtStrouds Lane Darwin Drive Spruce Hill RoadDunbarton R o ad Sheppard AvenueWingarden CrescentRushton Road Kingsto n R o a d Voyager Avenue Welrus S t reet Falconwood WayMerrittonR oa d Taplin Drive RegalCrescent Map 17: Neighbourhood 7: Dunbarton City of Pickering City Development Department © September, 2020 This Map Forms Part of Edition ? of the Pickering Official Plan and Must BeRead in Conjunction with the Other Schedules and the Text. Note: Land Use Designations Appear on Schedule I & Schedule XIV Legend Neighbourhood Boundary Regional Storm Flood Line Detailed Review Area Kingston Mixed Corridor Intensification Area (Refer to Chapter 11A) Lands for which Council has adopted Development Guidelines (Refer to Compendium Document) Established Neighbourhood Precincts Pedestrian/Bicycle Connection (Proposed) New Road Connections (Proposed) Community Centre Fire Station Senior's Centre Cemetery Place Of Worship Elementary Public School Elementary Separate School Secondary Public School Secondary Separate School Swimming Pool Park Historical Village - 75 - Strouds La n eAltona RoadCity of TorontoValleyview DrivePine Grove Avenue Lawson Street S tallion ChaseSparrowCircleWaterford Gate HogarthSt r eet Altona RoadWilcr o f t Court Westcreek DriveValley Ridge CrescentThicket Crescent Forestview DriveSandhur st C res c ent Tranquil Court Calvi n g t o n Dri veStr ouds L ane Treetop W a yOakburnStreet Castle StreetH u m mingbirdCourtProhill Street West Lane Chickad ee CourtS weetbriar C o u r t Woodview AvenueLa n crest S t r e e t Copley Street Secord Street Mel dronDrive Granb y CourtRougeForest C r es cent Sandcherry CourtRockwood DriveWhitePine Crescent Senator S t r eetMap 20: Neighbourhood 10: Highbush City of Pickering City Development Department © September, 2020 This Map Forms Part of Edition ? of the Pickering Official Plan and Must BeRead in Conjunction with the Other Schedules and the Text. Note: Land Use Designations Appear on Schedule I & Schedule XIV Legend Neighbourhood Boundary Regional Storm Flood Line Detailed Review Area Lands for which Council has adopted Development Guidelines (Refer to Compendium Document) Established Neighbourhood Precincts New Road Connections (Proposed) Elementary Public School Park - 76 - Highway 40 1 Pickering Park w a yDixie RoadSandy Beach RoadValley Farm RoadSheppard Avenue Gl e n a n n a R o a d Liverpool RoadRossland Road W Kingston R o a d Strouds Lane Fairport RoadFinch Avenue Brock RoadWhites RoadBayly Street Third Concession Road Glendale DriveSpruce Hill RoadCherrywood Transformer Station ValleyFarmRoadKingston R o a d Parkdale Street Linwood St reetAlan b uryCrescentMemoryLaneGlenanna R o a d Bowler DriveLiverpool RoadMaple Gate RoadFieldlig ht Boulevard Maple Ridge Drive Ridgew o o dCourtDu n cannonDrive Kitley A v e nue Rosefield RoadFinch Avenue Hunts mill DriveGlendale DriveLynn H e i ghts D r i ve Walnut LaneDixie RoadRawlingsDriveFairport RoadBushmill Street Rigby Drive L odge RoadPoppyL aneAb b e y RoadLongbow DriveEagleviewDrive Gos s a mer D r i v e Fieldston e Circl eC anborough CrescentMalden C r e s c e n t HoneywoodCre scent RowntreeCre scent P ine G le nDriveStorringtonStr e e tPrimroseCourt Wildros e CrescentRedbir d C rescentBayla w n D rive Listowell Crescent Mountcastle C r escentBr onte SquareBrookshire SquareA bbeyRoad Map 22: Neighbourhood 12: Liverpool City of Pickering City Development Department © September, 2020 This Map Forms Part of Edition ? of the Pickering Official Plan and Must BeRead in Conjunction with the Other Schedules and the Text. Note: Land Use Designations Appear on Schedule I & Schedule XIV Legend Neighbourhood Boundary Regional Storm Flood Line Detailed Review Area Kingston Mixed Corridor Intensification Area (Refer to Chapter 11A) Brock Mixed Node Intensification Area (Refer to Chapter 11A) Lands for which Council has adopted Development Guidelines (Refer to Compendium Document) Established Neighbourhood Precincts Pedestrian/Bicycle Connection (Existing) Pedestrian/Bicycle Connection (Proposed) New Road Connections (Proposed) New Road Connections (Proposed) Arena City Hall Community Centre Fire Station Library Recreation Complex Senior's Centre Cemetery Place Of Worship Elementary Public School Elementary Separate School Secondary Public School Secondary Separate School Swimming Pool GO Station Park Historical Village Proposed Park - 77 - Appendix III to Report No. PLN 33-21 Recommended Draft Zoning By-law Amendment (2511) for Zoning By-law Amendment Application A 11/20 - 78 - The Corporation of the City of Pickering Draft By-law No. XXXX/XX Being a By-law to amend Restricted Area (Zoning) By-law2511, as amended, to implement the Official Plan of the City of Pickering, Region of Durham (A 11/20) Whereas the Corporation of the City of Pickering conducted the Infill and Replacement Housing in Established Neighbourhoods Study to provide direction for the preparation of appropriate planning implementation tools to facilitate a sensitive transition between existing houses and new construction occurring in certain parts of the City’s established neighbourhoods; Whereas a robust and comprehensive consultation and engagement process was undertaken throughout the Infill and Replacement Housing in Established Neighbourhoods Study; Whereas on September 28, 2020, Council endorsed the recommendations of the Infill and Replacement Housing in Established Neighbourhoods Study and adopted Urban Design Guidelines for Infill and Replacement Housing in Established Neighbourhood Precincts; Whereas the Council of the Corporation of the City of Pickering, in accordance with the recommendations of the Infill and Replacement Housing in Established Neighbourhoods Study, adopted an Official Plan amendment adding policies that require new development within an Established Neighbourhood Precinct to complement, and be compatible with the existing character of the neighbourhood, and that enables the implementation of zoning provisions to address matters relating to the impact of the construction of infill and replacement dwellings on the character of the existing neighbourhood; Whereas the Council of the Corporation of the City of Pickering, in accordance with the recommendations of the Infill and Replacement Housing in Established Neighbourhoods Study, initiated a zoning by-law amendment that introduces an “Established Neighbourhood Precinct Overlay Zone” and associated development standards and definitions to regulate Infill and Replacement Dwellings, as defined in the Official Plan, in specific Established Neighbourhood Precincts; Whereas it is appropriate to amend By-law 2511, as amended, to implement the recommendations of the Infill and Replacement Housing in Established Neighbourhoods Study; 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. - 79 - 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, II and lll, 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. Definitions In this By-law, (1) “Dwelling Depth” means the horizontal distance measured from the minimum Front Yard Setback to the rear wall of a dwelling, excluding any Obstruction of Yards. (2) “Dwelling Height” means the vertical distance between the average grade as measured along the front wall of the dwelling, and in the case of a flat roof, the highest point of the roof surface or parapet wall, or in the case of a mansard roof the deck line, or in the case of a gabled, hip or gambrel roof, the mean height between eaves and ridge. Ornamental fixtures such as a cupola or antenna shall not be included in calculating the height of a dwelling. Any other roof structure, such as to house the mechanical equipment of the dwelling or a penthouse, shall be included in calculating the height of the dwelling. (3) “Front Entrance” means the principal entrance oriented towards the front lot line, providing access to the interior of a dwelling from the exterior and does not include an access provided through an attached private garage. In the case of a corner lot, the principal entrance providing access to the interior of a dwelling from the exterior may be oriented towards the side lot line that is adjacent to the street, or abutting on a reserve on the opposite side of which is a street. (4) “Lot Coverage” means the total horizontal area on the lot of all above grade roofed structures and buildings, measured at the level of the first floor and expressed as a percentage of the lot area, including covered platforms such as covered decks and covered porches, but excluding eaves, belt courses, chimney breasts, sills or cornice projections to a maximum of 0.6 of a metre, and balconies. (5) “Setback” means the shortest horizontal distance between a building and a lot line. - 80 - By-law No. XXXX/XX Page 3 Draft 5. 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, II and Ill, inclusive, attached hereto, except in accordance with the following provisions: (a) Dwelling Depth (maximum): The maximum Dwelling Depth, measured from the minimum front yard setback to the rear wall of a dwelling, shall be as follows: (i) For lots with depths up to and including 40 metres: 17 metres (ii) For lots with depths greater than 40 metres: 20 metres (b) Dwelling Height (maximum): 9.0 metres (c) Driveway Width (maximum): The maximum width of a driveway shall be 6.0 metres. However, for lots where the entrance of a garage or carport is wider than 6.0 metres, the maximum driveway width shall be no greater than the width of the entrance of a garage or carport. (d) Front Entrance (maximum elevation): The maximum elevation of the Front Entrance shall be 1.2 metres above the average grade, which is measured along the front wall of the dwelling, to the top of the platform (covered or uncovered) immediately outside of the Front Entrance. (e) Front Yard Setback (maximum): The maximum front yard setback shall not be more than 1.0 metre beyond the average of the existing front yard setback of the dwellings on the immediately abutting lots located along the same side of the street and within the same block. The maximum Front Yard Setback applies to only 80% of the Dwelling Width including any attached garage. For the purpose of this regulation, “Dwelling Width” means the width of the front wall or main wall of the dwelling. - 81 - By-law No. XXXX/XX Page 4 Draft (f) Front Yard Setback (minimum): Despite any other provision in this by-law, for lots within any Established Neighbourhood Precinct Overlay Zone, the minimum front yard setback shall be equal to the shortest existing front yard setback of the dwellings on the immediately abutting lots located along the same side of the street and within the same block. For corner lots, the minimum front yard setback shall be equal to the shortest existing front yard setback of the dwellings on the nearest two lots located along the same side of the street and within the same block. (g) Interior Garage Size (minimum): Each parking space within a private garage shall have a minimum width of 3.0 metres and a minimum depth of 6.0 metres. However, the width may include one interior step and the depth may include two interior steps. (h) Lot Coverage: Despite any other provision in this By-law, for lots within any Established Neighbourhood Precinct Overlay Zone, the following maximum lot coverage provisions shall apply within the applicable Neighbourhood Precinct, as shown on Schedules I, II and lll of this By-law: (i) Dunbarton Established Neighbourhood Precinct: a. For lots greater than or equal to 1,000 square metres in area: Maximum 25%; b. For lots less than 1,000 square metres in area: Maximum 33%; (ii) Highbush Established Neighbourhood Precinct: a. For lots greater than or equal to 1,000 square metres in area: Maximum 25%; b. For lots less than 1,000 square metres in area: Maximum 33%; (iii) Liverpool Established Neighbourhood Precinct: Maximum 25%; (iv) Rosebank Established Neighbourhood Precinct: a. For lots greater than or equal to 1,000 square metres in area: Maximum 25%; b. For lots less than 1,000 square metres in area: Maximum 33%; - 82 - By-law No. XXXX/XX Page 5 Draft (v) Rougemount Established Neighbourhood Precinct: a. For lots greater than or equal to 1,000 square metres in area: Maximum 25%; b. For lots less than 1,000 square metres in area: Maximum 33%; (vi) Woodlands Established Neighbourhood Precinct: a. For lots greater than or equal to 1,000 square metres in area: Maximum 25%; b. For lots less than 1,000 square metres in area: Maximum 33%; (2) Transition Provisions (a) Existing Building Permits: Nothing in this By-law prevents the erection of a building or structure in accordance with a building permit application submitted prior to the date of passing of this By-law, provided the building permit is in accordance with all prior zoning by-laws that affected the lot before this By-law came into effect. (b) Existing Planning Applications: Nothing in this By-law prevents the erection of a building or structure in accordance with any minor variance that has been submitted and deemed complete by the City, or approved or conditionally approved by the relevant approval authority before the passing of this By-law, provided the application complies with all prior zoning by-laws that affected the lot before this By-law came into effect. (c) Lapse of Transition Provisions: (i) Once a permit or approval referred to under Sections (2) (a) or (2) (b) has been granted, all provisions of this By-law shall apply to the subject property. (ii) The provisions of Section (2) shall be deemed repealed five years from the effective date of this By-law. This provision shall not require an amendment to this By-law to take effect. 6. By-law 2511 By-law 2511, as amended, is hereby further amended only to the extent necessary to give effect to the provisions of this By-law as it applies to the areas set out in Schedules I, II and lll, inclusive, attached hereto. Definitions and subject matters not specifically dealt with in this By-law shall be governed by relevant provisions of By-law 2511, as amended. - 83 - By-law No. XXXX/XX Page 6 Draft 7. 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. Draft ___________________________________ David Ryan, Mayor ___________________________________ Susan Cassel, City Clerk Draft - 84 - Rougemount Drive Gr a niteCourtRodd Avenue Kingston R o ad Toynevale Road Foster Court H ighway 4 0 1 Co wan Circle Gillmos s RoadChantilly RoadPetticoat CreekRosebank RoadOakwood DriveMountainAshDriveLytton CourtDysonRoadWhitesRoadSandstoneM a n o r Mcleod CrescentBella V i s taDriveDahlia CrescentP i n e R i d g e R o a d Moorelands CrescentR4 (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 - 85 - Broadgreen StreetDownland Drive Hillcrest RoadEyer DriveWest Shore BoulevardCreekview CirclePark CrescentVicki Drive Vic t or CourtBreezy DriveOklahoma Drive Chipmunk StreetBrianC ourt Sunrise Avenue Car m ello Court Tullo Street Surf Avenue Beach p oi nt Pr o m e n a d e Petticoat Lane Marksbury RoadVictory DriveHillviewCrescen t Abingdon Court Hampton Court Marksbury RoadSandcastleCourt Yeremi StreetLeaside StreetMink StreetStonebridge Lane Cliffview Road R4 R4 R4 RM1 S R4 R4 SD R4 R4 S R4 C17-R R4 R4 R4 R4 R4 R4 R3 R4 R4 R4 Clerk Mayor Schedule II to By-Law Passed This Day of NXXXX/XX ___ ________ 20XX Established Neighbourhood Precinct Overlay Zone - 86 - Krosno Boulevard Balaton AvenueZator Avenue Bem AvenueGull Crossing Brow nin g Avenue Modlin RoadFairview AvenueDouglas AvenueChapleauDriveAnnland S t r e et Colmar Avenue Tr e l l i s C o u r t Brixton L a n e Fron t RoadGrenoble BoulevardFoxglove Avenue Shearer Lane Haller Avenue St Martins D r i v e Naroch BoulevardMonica Cook Place Commerce Street Antonio Street HelenC res c e nt Pleasant StreetBayview Street Miriam RoadWharf Street Ilona Park Road KingfisherDr i veHewson DriveOld O r c h a r d A v e n u e Broadview Street R4 R4 R4 RM1 C1 R4-21 RM1 RM1 R4 R4 R4 R4 R4 RM2 R4 R4 RM1 R4 RM1 R4 RM1 R4 R4 RM1 A36 R4 R4 R4-11 (H)O3B R4 R4 RM1 RM1 R4 RM1 Clerk Mayor Schedule III to By-Law Passed This Day of NXXXX/XX ___ ________ 20XX Established Neighbourhood Precinct Overlay Zone - 87 - Appendix IV to Report No. PLN 33-21 Recommended Draft Zoning By-law Amendment (2520) for Zoning By-law Amendment Application A 11/20 - 88 - 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 11/20) Whereas the Corporation of the City of Pickering conducted the Infill and Replacement Housing in Established Neighbourhoods Study to provide direction for the preparation of appropriate planning implementation tools to facilitate a sensitive transition between existing houses and new construction occurring in certain parts of the City’s established neighbourhoods; Whereas a robust and comprehensive consultation and engagement process was undertaken throughout the Infill and Replacement Housing in Established Neighbourhoods Study; Whereas on September 28, 2020, Council endorsed the recommendations of the Infill and Replacement Housing in Established Neighbourhoods Study and adopted Urban Design Guidelines for Infill and Replacement Housing in Established Neighbourhood Precincts; Whereas the Council of the Corporation of the City of Pickering, in accordance with the recommendations of the Infill and Replacement Housing in Established Neighbourhoods Study, adopted an Official Plan amendment adding policies that require new development within an Established Neighbourhood Precinct to complement, and be compatible with the existing character of the neighbourhood, and that enables the implementation of zoning provisions to address matters relating to the impact of the construction of infill and replacement dwellings on the character of the existing neighbourhood; Whereas the Council of the Corporation of the City of Pickering, in accordance with the recommendations of the Infill and Replacement Housing in Established Neighbourhoods Study, initiated a zoning by-law amendment that introduces an “Established Neighbourhood Precinct Overlay Zone” and associated development standards and definitions to regulate Infill and Replacement Dwellings, as defined in the Official Plan, in specific Established Neighbourhood Precincts; Whereas it is appropriate to amend By-law 2520, as amended, to implement the recommendations of the Infill and Replacement Housing in Established Neighbourhoods Study; 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. - 89 - 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. Definitions In this By-law, (1) “Dwelling Depth” means the horizontal distance measured from the minimum Front Yard Setback to the rear wall of a dwelling, excluding any Obstruction of Yards. (2) “Dwelling Height” means the vertical distance between the average grade as measured along the front wall of the dwelling, and in the case of a flat roof, the highest point of the roof surface or parapet wall, or in the case of a mansard roof the deck line, or in the case of a gabled, hip or gambrel roof, the mean height between eaves and ridge. Ornamental fixtures such as a cupola or antenna shall not be included in calculating the height of a dwelling. Any other roof structure, such as to house the mechanical equipment of the dwelling or a penthouse, shall be included in calculating the height of the dwelling. (3) “Front Entrance” means the principal entrance oriented towards the front lot line, providing access to the interior of a dwelling from the exterior and does not include an access provided through an attached private garage. In the case of a corner lot, the principal entrance providing access to the interior of a dwelling from the exterior may be oriented towards the side lot line that is adjacent to the street, or abutting on a reserve on the opposite side of which is a street. (4) “Lot Coverage” means the total horizontal area on the lot of all above grade roofed structures and buildings, measured at the level of the first floor and expressed as a percentage of the lot area, including covered platforms such as covered decks and covered porches, but excluding eaves, belt courses, chimney breasts, sills or cornice projections to a maximum of 0.6 of a metre, and balconies. (5) “Setback” means the shortest horizontal distance between a building and a lot line. - 90 - By-law No. XXXX/XX Page 3 Draft 5. 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 Depth (maximum): The maximum Dwelling Depth, measured from the minimum front yard setback to the rear wall of a dwelling, shall be as follows: (i) For lots with depths up to and including 40 metres: 17 metres (ii) For lots with depths greater than 40 metres: 20 metres (b) Dwelling Height (maximum): 9.0 metres (c) Driveway Width (maximum): The maximum width of a driveway shall be 6.0 metres. However, for lots where the entrance of a garage or carport is wider than 6.0 metres, the maximum driveway width shall be no greater than the width of the entrance of a garage or carport. (d) Front Entrance (maximum elevation): The maximum elevation of the Front Entrance shall be 1.2 metres above the average grade, which is measured along the front wall of the dwelling, to the top of the platform (covered or uncovered) immediately outside of the Front Entrance. (e) Front Yard Setback (maximum): The maximum front yard setback shall not be more than 1.0 metre beyond the average of the existing front yard setback of the dwellings on the immediately abutting lots located along the same side of the street and within the same block. The maximum Front Yard Setback applies to only 80% of the Dwelling Width including any attached garage. For the purpose of this regulation, “Dwelling Width” means the width of the front wall or main wall of the dwelling. - 91 - By-law No. XXXX/XX Page 4 Draft (f) Front Yard Setback (minimum): Despite any other provision in this by-law, for lots within any Established Neighbourhood Precinct Overlay Zone, the minimum front yard setback shall be equal to the shortest existing front yard setback of the dwellings on the immediately abutting lots located along the same side of the street and within the same block. For corner lots, the minimum front yard setback shall be equal to the shortest existing front yard setback of the dwellings on the nearest two lots located along the same side of the street and within the same block. (g) Interior Garage Size (minimum): Each parking space within a private garage shall have a minimum width of 3.0 metres and a minimum depth of 6.0 metres. However, the width may include one interior step and the depth may include two interior steps. (h) Lot Coverage: Despite any other provision in this By-law, for lots within any Established Neighbourhood Precinct Overlay Zone, the following maximum lot coverage provisions shall apply within the applicable Neighbourhood Precinct, as shown on Schedules I and II of this By law: (i) Dunbarton Established Neighbourhood Precinct: a. For lots greater than or equal to 1,000 square metres in area: Maximum 25%; b. For lots less than 1,000 square metres in area: Maximum 33%; (ii) Highbush Established Neighbourhood Precinct: a. For lots greater than or equal to 1,000 square metres in area: Maximum 25%; b. For lots less than 1,000 square metres in area: Maximum 33%; (iii) Liverpool Established Neighbourhood Precinct: Maximum 25%; (iv) Rosebank Established Neighbourhood Precinct: a. For lots greater than or equal to 1,000 square metres in area: Maximum 25%; b. For lots less than 1,000 square metres in area: Maximum 33%; - 92 - By-law No. XXXX/XX Page 5 Draft (v) Rougemount Established Neighbourhood Precinct: a. For lots greater than or equal to 1,000 square metres in area: Maximum 25%; b. For lots less than 1,000 square metres in area: Maximum 33%; (vi) Woodlands Established Neighbourhood Precinct: a. For lots greater than or equal to 1,000 square metres in area: Maximum 25%; b. For lots less than 1,000 square metres in area: Maximum 33%; (2) Transition Provisions (a) Existing Building Permits: Nothing in this By-law prevents the erection of a building or structure in accordance with a building permit application submitted prior to the date of passing of this By-law, provided the building permit is in accordance with all prior zoning by-laws that affected the lot before this By-law came into effect. (b) Existing Planning Applications: Nothing in this By-law prevents the erection of a building or structure in accordance with any minor variance that has been submitted and deemed complete by the City, or approved or conditionally approved by the relevant approval authority before the passing of this By-law, provided the application complies with all prior zoning by-laws that affected the lot before this By-law came into effect. (c) Lapse of Transition Provisions: (i) Once a permit or approval referred to under Sections (2) (a) or (2) (b) has been granted, all provisions of this By-law shall apply to the subject property. (ii) The provisions of Section (2) shall be deemed repealed five years from the effective date of this By-law. This provision shall not require an amendment to this By-law to take effect. 6. By-law 2520 By-law 2520, as amended, is hereby further amended only to the extent necessary to give effect to the provisions of this By-law as it applies to the areas set out in Schedules I and II, inclusive, attached hereto. Definitions and subject matters not specifically dealt with in this By-law shall be governed by relevant provisions of By-law 2520, as amended. - 93 - By-law No. XXXX/XX Page 6 Draft 7. 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. Draft ___________________________________ David Ryan, Mayor ___________________________________ Susan Cassel, City Clerk Draft - 94 - Broadgreen StreetDownland Drive Hillcrest RoadEyer DriveWest Shore BoulevardCreekview CirclePark CrescentVicki Drive Vic t or CourtBreezy DriveOklahoma Drive Chipmunk StreetBrianC ourt Sunrise Avenue Car m ello Court Tullo Street Surf Avenue Beach p oi nt Pr o m e n a d e Petticoat Lane Marksbury RoadVictory DriveHillviewCrescen t Abingdon Court Hampton Court Marksbury RoadSandcastleCourt Yeremi StreetLeaside StreetMink StreetStonebridge Lane Cliffview Road R4 R4 R4 RM1 S R4 R4 SD R4 R4 S R4 C17-R R4 R4 R4 R4 R4 R4 R3 R4 R4 R4 Clerk Mayor Schedule I to By-Law Passed This Day of NXXXX/XX ___ ________ 20XX Established Neighbourhood Precinct Overlay Zone - 95 - Krosno Boulevard Balaton AvenueZator Avenue Bem AvenueGull Crossing Brow nin g Avenue Modlin RoadFairview AvenueDouglas AvenueChapleauDriveAnnland S t r e et Colmar Avenue Tr e l l i s C o u r t Brixton L a n e Fron t RoadGrenoble BoulevardFoxglove Avenue Shearer Lane Haller Avenue St Martins D r i v e Naroch BoulevardMonica Cook Place Commerce Street Antonio Street HelenC res c e nt Pleasant StreetBayview Street Miriam RoadWharf Street Ilona Park Road KingfisherDr i veHewson DriveOld O r c h a r d A v e n u e Broadview Street R4 R4 R4 RM1 C1 R4-21 RM1 RM1 R4 R4 R4 R4 R4 RM2 R4 R4 RM1 R4 RM1 R4 RM1 R4 R4 RM1 A36 R4 R4 R4-11 (H)O3B R4 R4 RM1 RM1 R4 RM1 Clerk Mayor Schedule II to By-Law Passed This Day of NXXXX/XX ___ ________ 20XX Established Neighbourhood Precinct Overlay Zone - 96 - Appendix V to Report No. PLN 33-21 Recommended Draft Zoning By-law Amendment (3036) for Zoning By-law Amendment Application A 11/20 - 97 - 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 11/20) Whereas the Corporation of the City of Pickering conducted the Infill and Replacement Housing in Established Neighbourhoods Study to provide direction for the preparation of appropriate planning implementation tools to facilitate a sensitive transition between existing houses and new construction occurring in certain parts of the City’s established neighbourhoods; Whereas a robust and comprehensive consultation and engagement process was undertaken throughout the Infill and Replacement Housing in Established Neighbourhoods Study; Whereas on September 28, 2020, Council endorsed the recommendations of the Infill and Replacement Housing in Established Neighbourhoods Study and adopted Urban Design Guidelines for Infill and Replacement Housing in Established Neighbourhood Precincts; Whereas the Council of the Corporation of the City of Pickering, in accordance with the recommendations of the Infill and Replacement Housing in Established Neighbourhoods Study, adopted an Official Plan amendment adding policies that require new development within an Established Neighbourhood Precinct to complement, and be compatible with the existing character of the neighbourhood, and that enables the implementation of zoning provisions to address matters relating to the impact of the construction of infill and replacement dwellings on the character of the existing neighbourhood; Whereas the Council of the Corporation of the City of Pickering, in accordance with the recommendations of the Infill and Replacement Housing in Established Neighbourhoods Study, initiated a zoning by-law amendment that introduces an “Established Neighbourhood Precinct Overlay Zone” and associated development standards and definitions to regulate Infill and Replacement Dwellings, as defined in the Official Plan, in specific Established Neighbourhood Precincts; Whereas it is appropriate to amend By-law 3036, as amended, to implement the recommendations of the Infill and Replacement Housing in Established Neighbourhoods Study; 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. - 98 - 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 I, ll, lll, 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. Definitions In this By-law, (1) “Dwelling Depth” means the horizontal distance measured from the minimum Front Yard Setback to the rear wall of a dwelling, excluding any Obstruction of Yards. (2) “Dwelling Height” means the vertical distance between the average grade as measured along the front wall of the dwelling, and in the case of a flat roof, the highest point of the roof surface or parapet wall, or in the case of a mansard roof the deck line, or in the case of a gabled, hip or gambrel roof, the mean height between eaves and ridge. Ornamental fixtures such as a cupola or antenna shall not be included in calculating the height of a dwelling. Any other roof structure, such as to house the mechanical equipment of the dwelling or a penthouse, shall be included in calculating the height of the dwelling. (3) “Front Entrance” means the principal entrance oriented towards the front lot line, providing access to the interior of a dwelling from the exterior and does not include an access provided through an attached private garage. In the case of a corner lot, the principal entrance providing access to the interior of a dwelling from the exterior may be oriented towards the side lot line that is adjacent to the street, or abutting on a reserve on the opposite side of which is a street. (4) “Lot Coverage” means the total horizontal area on the lot of all above grade roofed structures and buildings, measured at the level of the first floor and expressed as a percentage of the lot area, including covered platforms such as covered decks and covered porches, but excluding eaves, belt courses, chimney breasts, sills or cornice projections to a maximum of 0.6 of a metre, and balconies. (5) “Setback” means the shortest horizontal distance between a building and a lot line. - 99 - By-law No. XXXX/XX Page 3 Draft 5. 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 I, ll, lll, lV and V, inclusive, attached hereto, except in accordance with the following provisions: (a) Dwelling Depth (maximum): The maximum Dwelling Depth, measured from the minimum front yard setback to the rear wall of a dwelling, shall be as follows: (i) For lots with depths up to and including 40 metres: 17 metres (ii) For lots with depths greater than 40 metres: 20 metres (b) Dwelling Height (maximum): 9.0 metres (c) Driveway Width (maximum): The maximum width of a driveway shall be 6.0 metres. However, for lots where the entrance of a garage or carport is wider than 6.0 metres, the maximum driveway width shall be no greater than the width of the entrance of a garage or carport. (d) Front Entrance (maximum elevation): The maximum elevation of the Front Entrance shall be 1.2 metres above the average grade, which is measured along the front wall of the dwelling, to the top of the platform (covered or uncovered) immediately outside of the Front Entrance. (e) Front Yard Setback (maximum): The maximum front yard setback shall not be more than 1.0 metre beyond the average of the existing front yard setback of the dwellings on the immediately abutting lots located along the same side of the street and within the same block. The maximum Front Yard Setback applies to only 80% of the Dwelling Width including any attached garage. For the purpose of this regulation, “Dwelling Width” means the width of the front wall or main wall of the dwelling. - 100 - By-law No. XXXX/XX Page 4 Draft (f) Front Yard Setback (minimum): Despite any other provision in this by-law, for lots within any Established Neighbourhood Precinct Overlay Zone, the minimum front yard setback shall be equal to the shortest existing front yard setback of the dwellings on the immediately abutting lots located along the same side of the street and within the same block. For corner lots, the minimum front yard setback shall be equal to the shortest existing front yard setback of the dwellings on the nearest two lots located along the same side of the street and within the same block. (g) Interior Garage Size (minimum): Each parking space within a private garage shall have a minimum width of 3.0 metres and a minimum depth of 6.0 metres. However, the width may include one interior step and the depth may include two interior steps. (h) Lot Coverage: Despite any other provision in this By-law, for lots within any Established Neighbourhood Precinct Overlay Zone, the following maximum lot coverage provisions shall apply within the applicable Neighbourhood Precinct, as shown on Schedules I, ll, lll, lV and V of this By-law: (i) Dunbarton Established Neighbourhood Precinct: a. For lots greater than or equal to 1,000 square metres in area: Maximum 25%; b. For lots less than 1,000 square metres in area: Maximum 33%; (ii) Highbush Established Neighbourhood Precinct: a. For lots greater than or equal to 1,000 square metres in area: Maximum 25%; b. For lots less than 1,000 square metres in area: Maximum 33%; (iii) Liverpool Established Neighbourhood Precinct: Maximum 25%; (iv) Rosebank Established Neighbourhood Precinct: a. For lots greater than or equal to 1,000 square metres in area: Maximum 25%; b. For lots less than 1,000 square metres in area: Maximum 33%; - 101 - By-law No. XXXX/XX Page 5 Draft (v) Rougemount Established Neighbourhood Precinct: a. For lots greater than or equal to 1,000 square metres in area: Maximum 25%; b. For lots less than 1,000 square metres in area: Maximum 33%; (vi) Woodlands Established Neighbourhood Precinct: a. For lots greater than or equal to 1,000 square metres in area: Maximum 25%; b. For lots less than 1,000 square metres in area: Maximum 33%; (2) Transition Provisions (a) Existing Building Permits: Nothing in this By-law prevents the erection of a building or structure in accordance with a building permit application submitted prior to the date of passing of this By-law, provided the building permit is in accordance with all prior zoning by-laws that affected the lot before this By-law came into effect. (b) Existing Planning Applications: Nothing in this By-law prevents the erection of a building or structure in accordance with any minor variance that has been submitted and deemed complete by the City, or approved or conditionally approved by the relevant approval authority before the passing of this By-law, provided the application complies with all prior zoning by-laws that affected the lot before this By-law came into effect. (c) Lapse of Transition Provisions: (i) Once a permit or approval referred to under Sections (2) (a) or (2) (b) has been granted, all provisions of this By-law shall apply to the subject property. (ii) The provisions of Section (2) shall be deemed repealed five years from the effective date of this By-law. This provision shall not require an amendment to this By-law to take effect. 6. By-law 3036 By-law 3036, as amended, is hereby further amended only to the extent necessary to give effect to the provisions of this By-law as it applies to the areas set out in Schedules I, ll, lll, lV and V, inclusive, attached hereto. Definitions and subject matters not specifically dealt with in this By-law shall be governed by relevant provisions of By-law 3036, as amended. - 102 - By-law No. XXXX/XX Page 6 Draft 7. 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. Draft ___________________________________ David Ryan, Mayor ___________________________________ Susan Cassel, City Clerk Draft - 103 - Oakburn StreetAshwood GateAltona RoadLawson StreetPine Grove AvenueValley Gate Littleford Street Hogarth Street WilcroftCourt Forestview DriveFiddlers CourtFawndale Road G wendolyn StreetWoodview AvenueRougemount Driv e Tomlinson Court Brookridge G ate D a le w o odDrive Twyn Rivers DriveSweetbriar Court Bri mwood C ourt RiverviewCr e s c ent Rich a rdson Street Hoover DriveStoverCrescentValley RidgeCrescent Gran by CourtR o u g e V all e y Dr iv eHowellCrescentWoodview DriveSheppard Avenue R3 R3 R4 R4 R4 R3 R3 R3 R4 R3 R3 R4 R3 R3 R4R4 R4 R4 R1-2 R3R3 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 - 104 - Whites RoadSheppard Avenue Barry Drive Rosebank RoadWeyburn SquareEdmund DriveOld Forest RoadDunfair Street Steeple Hill Cattail C o u rtLightfoot PlaceDaylig ht CourtRouge Hill Court Pineview Lane Rainy Day DriveRosebank RoadSundownCrescent Amberwood C rescentHighb ush T ra i l GardenviewSquareR3 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 - 105 - Fairport RoadHighview Road Glenanna R o a d AppleviewRoadBonita Avenue Goldenrid ge RoadBowlerDr iveEastbank RoadShadybrook DrivePebble CourtRidgewoo d CourtEdgewood Road Kitley A v e n ueRambleberry AvenueAspen RoadHuntsmillDriveWalnut LaneParksideDri ve New Street Deerbrook DriveDixie RoadRawlings DriveFalconcrestDriv eSpruce Hill RoadStrouds Lane Crick et LaneOrionCour t Du n b a rtonR oadLongbow DriveKat e s Lane Cobblers Court MaldenCrescentEagleviewDrive BelindaCo u r t Glen EdenCourtHedgerow Plac e Echo PointCourtHeathside CrescentAdaCourt KelvinwayLaneShade Master DriveVoyager Avenue Monteagle L a n e Wollaston C o u r t Wi n g a rden Crescent Chartwell Co urt Welrus Street Una Road Falconwood Way Millbank Road Taplin Drive Woodruff Cres cen t RathmoreCrescent Storrington StreetSilver Spruce DriveLydia CrescentFoleyetCrescent MeadowviewAvenue Highway 40 1Listowell CrescentStonepath CircleMountcastle C r e scent Broo k s h i r e SquareGloucester 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 - 106 - Woodview AvenueValleyview DrivePine Grove Avenue Lawson Street Waterford Gate Hogarth Street Wilcroft CourtValley Ridge CrescentThicket CrescentForestview DriveButternut C o u r tNordane DriveSandcherry CourtTranquil Court Oakburn StreetCastle StreetProhill Street West Lane Westcreek DriveSweetbriar Court Woodview AvenueLancrestS treet Copley Street Secord Street Sandhurst C r e scent Mossbro ok SquareRougeForest Crescent Rockwood DriveWhite 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 - 107 - Bowler DriveGlenview Road Bo wle r DriveMemory LaneEverton Street Fieldlight BoulevardRosefield RoadGlendale DriveMulmur C ourt Lodge RoadPoppy Lane Bicroft CourtD iefe n baker C o u r tAvonmoreSquare Brands CourtCanborough CrescentThe Esplan a d e S The Esplan a d e NGlengrove RoadFaylee CrescentMalden CrescentAnton SquareBronte SquareR3 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 - 108 - Appendix Vl to Report No. PLN 33-21 Recommended Revised Urban Design Guidelines for Infill & Replacement Housing in Established Neighbourhood Precincts, August 2021 - 109 - Urban Design Guidelines forInfill & Replacement Housing in Established Neighbourhood Precincts Prepared by August 2021 Revised by Council Date TBD - 110 - Prepared by SGL: August 2020Adopted by Council: September 28, 2020Revised: August 2021 Revisions Adopted by Council: TBD - 111 - Table of Contents 1 Introduction 5 1.1 Why Were these Urban Design Guidelines Developed? 5 1.2 Where do these Guidelines Apply? 6 1.3 Vision 10 1.4 Objectives & Principles 11 1.5 How to use the document 12 2 Built Form 14 2.1 Dwelling Height and Roof Pitch 15 2.2 Height of Front Entrance 16 2.3 Dwelling Length, Width and Depth 18 3 Streetscape 20 3.1 Side Yard Setback and Separation Distance Between Dwellings 21 3.2 Garage or Carport Placement 22 3.3 Driveway Width 23 4 Neighbourhood Composition 25 4.1 Front Yard Landscaping 25 4.2 Street Trees 26 Appendix A: Urban Design Guideline Checklist A1 - A2 Appendix B: Focus Neighbourhoods and Established Neighbourhood Precincts Map B1 - B9 - 112 - The City’s distinctive landscape, history, location and settlement pattern are valuable assets. Properly nurtured, these assets can set Pickering apart from other municipalities. The City’s unique identity must be fostered and promoted. City of Pickering, Official Plan - 113 - 1Introduction 1.1 Why Were These Urban Design Guidelines Developed? Throughout several of the City of Pickering’s established neighbourhoods, houses are being replaced with larger houses, existing houses are being renovated and new houses are being built. Faced with these development pressures, the City undertook the Infill and Replacement Housing in Established Neighbourhoods Study (IRHEN Study) to address a few key objectives: 1. To identify the City’s established neighbourhoods, or parts thereof, within the South Pickering Urban Area that may be susceptible to pressure for the development of infill and replacement housing; 2. To identify and evaluate the unique qualities and characteristics of the City’s established neighbourhoods, or parts thereof, and the key issues regarding infill and replacement housing that are of concern to residents; 3. To identify and/or develop tools the City can use, including Design Guidelines, that will allow neighbourhoods, or parts thereof, to evolve while respecting the character of the area; and 4. To provide an opportunity for full and meaningful engagement and consultation with residents, agencies and the development industry through the study process. These Urban Design Guidelines (Guidelines) were developed as part of the recommendations from the IRHEN Study prepared by SGL Planning and Design Inc. The IRHEN Study developed options, including making recommendations for an appropriate policy framework, regulations and/ or tools that may be implemented so that the City has a sensitive way to manage new construction in established residential neighbourhoods. UrbanDesignGuidelines Help to refine the sense of character of a place through Design Principles; Provide detailed design direction to help implement a municipality’s vision of a particular area or neighbourhood; Help implement policies in the official plan and provisions in the zoning by-law; and Are used by staff, developers and the public for evaluation and preparation of development or re-development applications. Urban Design Guidelines City of PickeringEstablishedNeighbourhoodPrecincts 5- 114 - The Urban Design Guidelines have been developed to support and enhance the following neighbourhood characteristics: Dwelling Height and Roof Pitch Height of the front entrance Dwelling length, width and depth Side yard setback and separation distance between dwellings Garage or carport placement Driveway width Front yard landscaping Street trees 6 1.2 Where do these Guidelines Apply? Within the South Pickering Urban Area there are fifteen neighbourhoods. Of these fifteen neighbourhoods, the IRHEN Study identified eight Focus Neighbourhoods (Figure 1) where most of the infill and replacement housing has been constructed over the last few years. These guidelines apply to the Established Neighbourhood Precincts within the eight Focus Neighbourhoods as delineated within the IRHEN Study (Figure 2). The detailed delineated boudaries of the Established Neighbourhood Precincts are found in Appendix B. - 115 - FOCUS NEIGHBOURHOODS Brock RoadWhites RoadAltona RoadHighway 4 0 1 Third Concession Road Finch Avenue Bay Ridges1. Dunbarton2. Highbush3. Liverpool4. Rosebank5. Rougemount6. West Shore7. Woodlands8. 1 23 4 5 6 7 8 Lake Ontario 7 Urban Design Guidelines City of PickeringEstablishedNeighbourhoods Figure 1: City of Pickering Focus Neighbourhoods - 116 - Established Neighbourhood Precincts These Established Neighbourhood Precincts are areas within a Focus Neighbourhood that have been delineated based on a combination of age of dwellings, existing lot coverage, and where there have been many observed changes related to infill and replacement housing. Lake Ontario Focus Neighbourhoods Established Neighbourhood Precincts Brock RoadWhites RoadAltona RoadHighway 4 0 1 Third Concession Road Finch Avenue 8 Figure 2: Map of Established Neighbourhood Precincts wthin Focus Neighbourhoods - 117 - These Guidelines Use the Following Definitions: Infill Dwelling Infill Dwelling(s), means the development of one or more dwellings such as single detached, semi- detached or street townhouse dwellings through a consolidation of lots or the severance of a larger lot located on an existing street within an Established Neighbourhood Precinct. Infill Dwelling does not include the development of stacked townhouses, stacked back-to-back townhouses, apartment buildings, or other forms of multi-unit housing resulting in a higher level of density. Replacement Dwelling Replacement Dwelling means the rebuild of a dwelling either through a substantial alteration, or demolition and replacement, and that is located within an Established Neighbourhood Precinct. Note: Existing housing stock will not be affected by these guidelines unless subject to a development application. Urban Design Guidelines City of PickeringEstablishedNeighbourhoodPrecincts 9- 118 - 1.3 Vision The vision for the City of Pickering’s Established Recognizing that change is occurring within Neighbourhood Precincts within the eight Focus the Established Neighbourhood Precincts, the Neighbourhoods is to support and enhance the Guidelines provide a way to manage new and infill character elements that collectively create a sense development to support the existing character of place, identity and enjoyment.rather than freezing neighbourhoods in time. 10 Figure 3: Images of infill and replacement housing that respects existing character through design elements ranging from height, garage placement, setback, landscaping, roof slope, and tree protection. - 119 - 1.4 Objectives & Principles Objectives The objectives of the Urban Design Guidelines are informed by the City’s Official Plan Community Design goals and policies and the Official Plan’s Detailed Design Considerations, and support the intent of the IRHEN Study. The Guidelines have been developed to address design goals that include human scale, pedestrian comfort, permeability, context, legibility and natural heritage, as well as detailed design consideration for community image, development and subdivision design. Principles These Urban Design Guidelines intend to provide guidance and serve as an example of key principles and policies supported by the City of Pickering’s Official Plan. These Guidelines are based on the following design principles: Enhance and integrate new built form that 1 is compatible with the characteristics of the Established Neighbourhood Precinct. Encourage architectural diversity that 2 complements the character of the Established Neighbourhood Precinct. 3 Encourage pedestrian friendly neighbourhoods that foster a healthy and inclusive community. Enhance the character, identity and sense 4 of place of the Established Neighbourhood Precinct. Incorporate low impact design opportunities to 5 mitigate the potential increase in stormwater runoff related to an increase in impervious surface and to enhance the ecosystem health. 6 Encourage the greening of streetscapes and private property. Urban Design Guidelines City of PickeringEstablishedNeighbourhoodPrecincts 11- 120 - 1.5 How to Use the Document Urban Design Guidelines are used to coordinate the various components of built form, streetscape and neighbourhood composition to create an attractive, appealing and functional urban environment. These Guidelines are one of the useful tools identified from the IRHEN Study to help ensure both a high quality public and private realm within the Established Neighbourhood Precincts. Urban Design Guidelines establish baseline standards to guide the development of Infill and Replacement Dwellings, providing for greater design rationale and detail. These Guidelines should be included in the Compendium Document to the Official Plan and are to be used in conjunction with the Official Plan, existing Development Guidelines, zoning by-laws and other planning tools. The Compendium Document of the City’s Official Plan includes Development Guidelines for certain neighbourhoods, or parts of certain neighbourhoods. There are three Development Guidelines that apply in the context of the Established Neighbourhood Precincts that must be read in conjunction with these Guidelines: • Dunbarton Neighbourhood: Dunbarton Neighbourhood Development Guidelines; • Bay Ridges Neighbourhood: Liverpool Road Waterfront Node Development Guidelines; and • Rosebank Neighbourhood: Rosebank Neighbourhood Development Guidelines. Each of these Development Guidelines provides a differing level of detail. The Dunbarton Neighbourhood Development Guidelines contains area specific guidelines within the neighbourhood, addressing matters such as permitted dwelling type, minimum lot frontage, minimum front and side yard setbacks, maximum building height, and various guidelines for the public realm including the provision of sidewalks and cycle paths, and connectivity to natural areas. The Liverpool Road Waterfront Node Development Guidelines address strategies for open space, development standards to implement an effective transportation network, preserving views and vistas, providing for adequate parking areas, and promoting appropriate built form in keeping with the Great Lakes Nautical Village ‘vision’ for the neighbourhood. The Rosebank Neighbourhood Development Guidelines establish guidelines for certain precincts within the neighbourhood, that address limited matters including permitted dwelling types, minimum lot size, and lot frontage. To aid in the application of these Guidelines a checklist is provided at the end of the document (Appendix A) that summarizes the key intentions of the guidelines. Urban Design Guidelines should be read in conjunction with the Development Guidelines, and in the case of a conflict the Urban Design Guidelines take precendence. 12 - 121 - We shape our buildings; thereafter they shape us. Winston Churchill - 122 - 14 2Built Form Built Form examines the design elements of building type and architectural form that contribute to the massing and appearance of buildings. The compatibility issues currently existing within the City of Pickering’s Established Neighbourhood Precincts (Figure 4) as they relate to the elements of Built Form result from new housing typically being taller and larger than the original homes on the street. New homes can have a higher elevation of the first floor, greater lot coverage, reduced separation distances between neighbouring dwellings and reduced landscaped open area in the front yards. The overall scale, massing and placement of the new homes can create an obvious contrast when located beside more modestly sized original homes. This contrast can sometimes lead to impacts such as shadowing, overlook, and privacy. This section provides guidelines to help address compatibility issues through these Built Form design elements: • Dwelling height and roof pitch; • Height of front entrance; and • Dwelling length, width and depth.Figure 4: Examples of existing Built Form seen in Pickering’s Established Neighbourhood Precincts. - 123 - 2.1 Dwelling Height & Roof Pitch Dwelling height can be defined as the overall height of a dwelling, typically measured from the average established grade of the ground. The point of a dwelling to which height is measured varies depending on the type and pitch of roof that exists on a dwelling (Figure 5). Measured atHighest Point Measured atMidpoint Measured atMidpoint Measured atDeckline The following guidelines help to ensure a compatible building height and roof style along a street. 1. The height and roof pitch of a new home or addition should be compatible with the general scale and massing of surrounding houses (Figure 6); and 2. For a proposed new dwelling that is significantly taller than an existing adjacent house, the roof of the proposed new dwelling should be sloped away from the existing adjacent house. Flat Roof Gambrel Roof Gabled or Hip Roof Mansard Roof Figure 5: Examples of how building height is measured by the City of Pickering. Figure 6: Appropriate height transitions between buildings. Urban Design Guidelines City of PickeringEstablishedNeighbourhoodPrecincts 15- 124 - Figure 7: Examples showing preferred, maximum, and prohibited front entrance heights. 2.2 Height of Front Entrance The location of front entrances of dwellings along a street is a contributor to the character, comfort and safety of a neighbourhood. The height of the entrance ensures the front door of the dwelling is directly visible and easily accessible from the street. Figure 7 shows the preferred number of front steps for a front entrance. More than 6 steps (1.2 metres)6 steps (1.2 metres)3 Steps (0.6 metres) The following guidelines have been developed to promote compatibility of dwelling scale as perceived from the street. 1. The height of the front entrance of a dwelling should be located at a height that is compatible with the height of front entrances of neighbouring dwellings, and provide for no more than approximately six (6) steps to access the front door (Figure 8); 2. The main entrance to the dwelling should be directly visible from the street; 3. The design and detailing of the main entrance is encouraged to be consistent with the architectural style of the dwelling (Figure 9); Figure 9: Main entrance architecture is in keeping with the style of the dwelling. Figure 8: Front entrance with 6 steps or less. 16 - 125 - Figure 10: Front entrance should have weather protection. Figure 11: Front entrance design that reduces the visual dominance of the garage. Figure 12: Additional steps may be permitted due to grade changes. 4. Weather protection at the main entrance should be provided through the use of covered porches, porticos, canopies, verandas or recesses (Figure 10); 5. Natural light at the entry is encouraged though the use of sidelights, transoms and door glazing. 6. Enhancements to emphasize the main entry area is encouraged and may include pilasters and masonry surrounds; 7. Stairs accessing the main entrance to the dwelling should be designed as an integral component of the dwelling’s façade; 8. Access routes should be provided for people with disabilities whenever possible; 9. The front entrance design and architectural elements should reduce the visual dominance of the garage and the front driveway (Figure 11); and 10. Subject to site grading conditions, additional sets of steps, separated by a pathway, may be permitted in order to promote a more comfortable pedestrian experience (Figure 12). Urban Design Guidelines City of PickeringEstablishedNeighbourhoodPrecincts 17- 126 - 2.3 Dwelling Length, Width & Depth Dwelling Length is the distance measured between the front and rear main walls of a dwelling, and Dwelling Width is the distance measured between both side main walls of a dwelling (Figure 13). Dwelling Depth is the measurement of the distance between the minimum Front Yard Setback and the rear of the dwelling, which is a measure of how deep a dwelling protrudes into a lot, irrespective of the actual length of that same dwelling (Figure 14). The following guidelines help guide appropriate Dwelling Depths, Lengths and Widths that are compatible with other dwellings on the same street (Figure 13 & 14): 1. For new dwellings or dwelling additions, Dwelling Length and Width should be in keeping with the rhythm of the street. 2. Dwelling Depth should be generally in keeping with the existing dwellings along a street to avoid privacy and overshadow issues. Figure 13: Example of Dwelling Length, and Width. Figure 14: Example of similar Front and Rear Yard Setbacks, and Dwelling Depths. Front Yard Setback Property Line Dwelling Depth Property L i n e Right of W a y Rear yard Setback Dwelling Width Dwelling Length Front Yard Setback SidewalkStreetCurb18 - 127 - You can’t really say what is beautiful about a place, but the image of the place will remain vividly with you. Tadao Ando - 128 - 3Streetscape Streetscape examines the relationship of buildings to the street and other buildings, as well as the other defining landscape characteristics of properties within the private realm. The following summarizes the compatibility issues that are currently associated with the key elements of Streetscape in Pickering’s Established Neighbourhood Precincts related to: • Side yard setback and separation distance between dwellings; • Garage or carport placement; • Driveway width; and • Front Yard Landscaping (see Section 4.1 for more details). It is common for larger replacement dwellings to be built much closer to the side property line than the original homes while still complying with the required zone standards. This affects the established consistency of larger separation distances between dwellings. The result changes the pattern of development and creates a sense of crowdedness along the street. The garages and/or carports of original houses are typically sized for one vehicle and are sometimes set back from the front façade and therefore do not dominate the front of the dwelling. New Infill and Replacement Dwellings typically have wider garages that are integral to the house to accommodate two or more vehicles. New Infill and Replacement Dwellings often have wider driveways than those of the original dwellings within an established neighbourhood, which reduce the amount of landscaping on the property and alter the open space character of a lot and streetscape. 20 - 129 - 3.1 Side Yard Setback & Separation Distance Between Dwellings Side Yard Setback refers to the distance between the side property line and the nearest exterior side wall of the dwelling on that property. Separation Distance Between Dwellings refers to the distance between the side wall of one dwelling to the nearest side wall of the adjacent dwelling (Figure 15). The Separation Distance Between Dwellings, whether large or small, has an impact on the perceived sense of open space in a neighbourhood. Typically, in Established Neighbourhood Precincts in Pickering, there is a larger separation distance between the original dwellings in that neighbourhood when compared to newer subdivisions in other parts of the city. A larger Separation Distance Between Dwellings has the effect of reducing the perceived massing of a dwelling and increasing the opportunity for providing landscaped open space. The following guidelines for Side Yard Setback and Separation Distance Between Dwellings have been developed to reinforce the open space patterns within Established Neighbourhood Precincts. 1. Adequate Separation Distance Between Dwellings should be maintained to reinforce open space patterns between dwellings on the same block (Figure 16); and 2. Where needed, greater Side Yard Setbacks should be used to mitigate shadowing associated with greater building mass. Figure 15: Examples of Separation Distance Between Dwellings and Side Yard Setback. Figure 16: Google map aerial of Cliffview Road and Park Crescent showing the Replacement Dwellings (yellow) differs in Side Yard Setback and Separation Distance Between Dwellings as compared to original dwellings (red). Property Line Separation Distance Between Dwellings Side Yard Setback Urban Design Guidelines City of PickeringEstablishedNeighbourhoodPrecincts 21- 130 - Figure 17: Examples of garage and carport placement in relation to the main front wall of the dwelling. Figure 19: Examples of multiple projecting garages. Figure 18: Garages recessed behind the front entrance minimize the appearance of garage doors. Flush Garage Recessed Garage 3.2 Garage or Carport Placement The location and placement of a garage or carport has an impact on the streetscape and overall character of a neighbourhood. In Pickering, Established Neighbourhood Precincts have an eclectic character with respect to garage and carport placement. The following garage or carport placement guidelines have been developed to minimize the impact of projecting garages. 1. Garage and parking configurations should minimize the appearance of garage doors from the street (Figure 17); 2. To minimize the massing impacts of projecting garages they should have sloped roofs; 3. Projecting garages are generally discouraged in Established Neighbourhood Precincts where there are a minimum or few pre- existing projecting garages on both sides of the street (Figures 17, 18 and 19); and 4. In Established Neighbourhood Precincts where projecting garages are not part of the neighbourhood character, all new Infill and Replacement Dwellings are encouraged to have the garages either flush with, or recessed behind, the front main wall of a dwelling (Figure 17). 22 - 131 - Figure 20: The driveway width is no wider than the garage. 3.3 Driveway Width The width of a driveway can have a significant impact on the streetscape of a neighbourhood. New Infill and Replacement Dwellings with wider driveways to accommodate a greater number of vehicles, when compared to prevalent driveway widths, have the effect of reducing the amount of landscaping on a property, removing mature trees, limiting the space for street trees and impacting the character of the street. Driveway widths also have an impact on infiltration into the soil. The following guidelines have been developed to minimize driveway width and help minimize the impact to the streetscape, to support the character of the Established Neighbourhood Precincts. 1. Driveways are to be no wider than the width of the permitted garage (Figure 20); 2. To maximize water infiltration, consideration should be given to the use of permeable pavers and other technologies (Figure 21); and 3. To ensure that there is sufficient space for on-street parking and for planting street trees between driveways within the public right of way, tapering driveway widths to 6 metres is encouraged where appropriate. Figure 21: Example of a permeable paver system appropriate for driveways and pathways. Urban Design Guidelines City of PickeringEstablishedNeighbourhoodPrecincts 23- 132 - Cities have the capability of providing something for everybody, only because, and only when, they are created by everybody. Jane Jacobs - 133 - Figure 23: Sustainable and resilient front yard landscaping. 4Neighbourhood Composition Neighbourhood Composition generally includes elements in the public realm that contribute to neighbourhood character. In the case of the City’s established neighbourhoods, private landscaping in front yards including mature trees, and street trees, contribute to the overall character of the neighbourhoods. In order to help maintain and enhance the character of the public realm, landscaping, preservation of existing trees, and tree planting is encouraged. 4.1 Front Yard Landscaping Front yards provide an opportunity to add to the neighbourhood composition by creating a great streetscape. As well, landscaping and trees play an important role in lowering summer temperatures and providing areas for rainwater to filter into the ground. The following guidelines have been developed to help ensure that front yard landscaping enhances the character of the streetscape: 1. Existing mature trees should be preserved whenever possible (Figure 22). 2. Native tree species should be chosen that are hardy for the location and that are drought and salt tolerant, and disease resistant (Figure 22). 3. Avoid landscaping that completely screens the view of the house from the sidewalk/ street. 4. Use ground cover or other low-growing plants to maintain visibility of the house. 5. Use drought-resistant native plant species to avoid having to continuously water. (Figure 23) 6. Limit paving in the front yard to walkways and small areas at the front door. Figure 22: Preserve mature trees wherever possible. Urban Design Guidelines City of PickeringEstablishedNeighbourhoodPrecincts 25- 134 - 4.2 Street Trees Planting street trees as part of an infill or replacement project goes a long way to add to the character of the neighbourhood. The following guidelines have been prepared to ensure that street trees are provided as part of the infill or replacement dwelling: 1. Trees on all streets should be a diverse mixture of species to limit the ability for diseases to spread. If a uniform look is desired it can be achieved by focusing on matching the form of trees rather than using the same species (Figure 24). 2. Selection of trees should take into consideration mature tree size, proximity to power lines and setback to existing trees or structures. 3. Wherever possible large canopy shade trees should be planted adjacent to sidewalks to reduce the heat island effect and enhance pedestrian comfort and safety. 4. Adequate space should be provided for trunk expansion. 5. Native tree species should be chosen that are hardy for the location and that are drought and salt tolerant, and disease resistant (Figure 25). 6. Street trees should be spaced at 10 to 12 metres apart or seek to reflect the existing placement pattern of street trees (Figure 26). Figure 24: A mixture of tree species with the same form along a street add to the character and resiliency. Figure 26: Street Trees should be planted 10 to 12 metres apart. Figure 25: Several varieties of Maple Trees are native and provide fall colour. 26 - 135 - YES NO Comments 1. Is the proposed dwelling height and roof pitch similar/compatible with the surrounding dwellings? (see Section 2.1: Guideline 1) 2. If the proposed new dwelling is significantly taller than an existing adjacent house, does the roof of the proposed new dwelling slope away from the existing adjacent house? (see Section 2.1: Guideline 2) 3. Is the maxiumum elevation of the Front Entrance 1.2 metres, or less, above grade? (see Section 2.2: Guideline 1) 4. Is the main entrance visible from the street? (see Section 2.2: Guideline 2) 5. Are the stairs to the main entrance designed as an integral component of the front façade? (see Section 2.2: Guideline 7) 6. Does the design of the front entrance reduce the visual dominance of the garage and driveway? (see Section 2.2: Guideline 9) 7. Does the proposed dwelling have a similar Dwelling Depth to the adjacent dwellings along the street? (see Section 2.3: Guideline 2) 8. Does the proposed dwelling have a similar Side Yard Setback to the adjacent dwellings along the street? (see Figure 15) Appendix A Urban Design Guideline Checklist City of Pickering Established Neighbourhood Precincts Urban Design Checklist Please note, if you mark “no” below please provide your rational in the adjacent “Comments” section either supporting, or not supporting the proposal. 27 City of PickeringEstablishedNeighbourhoodPrecincts Urban Design Guidelines A 1- 136 - A 2 YES NO Comments 9. Has shadow on adjacent dwellings been mitigated with greater Side Yard Setbacks? (see Section 3.1: Guideline 2) 10. Is the garage flush or recessed from the main front wall? (see Section 3.2: Guideline 5) 11. Is the proposed driveway width the same as the permitted garage width? (see Section 3.3: Guideline 1) 12. Does the plan preserve existing trees? (see Section 4.1: Guideline 1) Appendix AUrban Design Checklist Cont’d City of PickeringEstablishedNeighbourhoodPrecincts Urban Design Guidelines - 137 - City of PickeringEstablishedNeighbourhoodPrecincts Urban Design Guidelines Appendix B Focus Neighbourhoods and Established NeighbourhoodPrecincts Map B 1 Focus Neighbourhoods Established Neighbourhood Precincts Brock RoadWhites RoadAltona RoadHighway 4 0 1 Third Concession Road Finch Avenue 1 23 4 5 6 7 8 FOCUS NEIGHBOURHOODS 1.Bay Ridges Dunbarton2. Highbush3. Liverpool4. Rosebank5. Rougemount6. West Shore7. Woodlands8. - 138 - Liverpool RoadBayly Stree t Sandy Beach RoadHighway 40 1 Bay Ridges Established Neighbourhood Precincts Focus Neighbourhoods Liverpool Road Waterfront Node Lot Coverage 0 - 10% 10 - 20% 20 - 30% 30 - 40% 40 - 50% 50 - 100% Bay Ridges Appendix BFocus Neighbourhoods City of PickeringEstablishedNeighbourhoodPrecincts Urban Design Guidelines B 2 - 139 - Finch Avenue Strouds Lane Fairport RoadSheppard Avenue Kingst o n R o a d Highwa y 4 0 1Spruce Hill RoadDunbarton Established Neighbourhood Precincts Focus Neighbourhoods Kingston Road Corridor Study Area Lot Coverage 0 - 10% 10 - 20% 20 - 30% 30 - 40% 40 - 50% 50 - 100% Dunbarton City of PickeringEstablishedNeighbourhoodPrecincts Urban Design Guidelines B 3- 140 - Altona RoadStroud s L a n e Highbush Established Neighbourhood Precincts Focus Neighbourhoods Lot Coverage 0 - 10% 10 - 20% 20 - 30% 30 - 40% 40 - 50% 50 - 100% B 4 Highbush Appendix BFocus Neighbourhoods City of PickeringEstablishedNeighbourhoodPrecincts Urban Design Guidelines - 141 - Valley Farm Road K ingsto n R oa d Glen a nna R o a dFairport RoadDixie RoadFinch Avenue Liverpool RoadGlendale DriveLiverpool Established Neighbourhood Precincts Focus Neighbourhoods Kingston Road Corridor Study Area Lot Coverage 0 - 10% 10 - 20% 20 - 30% 30 - 40% 40 - 50% 50 - 100% B 5 Liverpool City of PickeringEstablishedNeighbourhoodPrecincts Urban Design Guidelines - 142 - Rosebank RoadToynevale Road RougemountDriveHighway 4 0 1 Rosebank Established Neighbourhood Precincts Focus Neighbourhoods Lot Coverage 0 - 10% 10 - 20% 20 - 30% 30 - 40% 40 - 50% 50 - 100% B 6 Rosebank Appendix BFocus Neighbourhoods City of PickeringEstablishedNeighbourhoodPrecincts Urban Design Guidelines - 143 - Sheppard Avenue Altona RoadRougemount DriveTwyn Rivers Drive Kingsto n Road High w a y 4 0 1 Rougemount Established Neighbourhood Precincts Focus Neighbourhoods Kingston Road Corridor Study Area Lot Coverage 0 - 10% 10 - 20% 20 - 30% 30 - 40% 40 - 50% 50 - 100% B 7 Rougemount City of PickeringEstablishedNeighbourhoodPrecincts Urban Design Guidelines - 144 - Whites RoadWest Shore BoulevardHi g h way 4 0 1GraniteCourt B a y ly S t ree t West Shore Established Neighbourhood Precincts Focus Neighbourhoods Lot Coverage 0 - 10% 10 - 20% 20 - 30% 30 - 40% 40 - 50% 50 - 100% B 8 West Shore Appendix BFocus Neighbourhoods City of PickeringEstablishedNeighbourhoodPrecincts Urban Design Guidelines - 145 - B 9 Woodlands Whites Road Kingst o n R o a d Sheppard Avenue H ig h way 40 1 Rosebank RoadWoodlands Established Neighbourhood Precincts Focus Neighbourhoods Kingston Road Corridor Study Area Lot Coverage 0 - 10% 10 - 20% 20 - 30% 30 - 40% 40 - 50% 50 - 100% City of PickeringEstablishedNeighbourhoodPrecincts Urban Design Guidelines - 146 - OPA 20-006/P and A 11/20: Infill Housing January 4, 2021 Statutory Public Meeting Summary of Comments and Staff Responses Page 1 of 35 Item Number Key Comments/Concerns Staff Response Prepared for June 24, 2021 Open House 1.Provincial Policy Statement and A Place to Grow Commented that the proposal does not align with Provincial Policy outlined in A Place to Grow, Growth Plan for the Greater Golden Horseshoe. Specifically that: 1.the subject communities are currently incomplete and in transition and that development should be allowed to continue in accordance with existing by-laws (complete communities). 2.the restrictions being proposed will hurt the economy by discouraging small scale development and in particular decrease property tax revenues and development fees (thriving economy). 3.the proposed By-Law and Official Plan amendments are not socially equitable since they apply to a property relative to its surrounding areas rather than a set standard (social equity). Cities are constantly evolving and transforming. By the very nature of land use policies, permissions and restrictions, there will be inequities from one area to another. The planning tools granted to municipalities, such as official plan and zoning by-law documents, enable growth to be managed in scale and guided to appropriate locations. City staff have reviewed the proposal against the Provincial Policy Statement, 2020 (PPS) and A Place to Grow, Growth Plan for the Greater Golden Horseshoe, 2019 (A Place to Grow) (see PLN 01-21, subsections 7.1 and 7.2). Among other policies, the PPS establishes that healthy, livable and safe communities are sustained by promoting efficient development and land use patterns over the long-term (PPS 1.1.1 a), accommodating an appropriate range and mix of residential and other uses to meet long-term needs (PPS 1.1.1 b) and promoting cost-effective development patterns and standards to minimize land consumption and servicing costs (PPS 1.1.1 e). In addition, the PPS requires that planning authorities take into account existing building stock or areas when identifying appropriate locations to accommodate the supply and range of housing options through intensification and redevelopment (PPS 1.1.3.3). The PPS also promotes appropriate development standards that facilitate redevelopment while avoiding or mitigating risks to public health and safety (PPS 1.1.3.4) and directing the development of new housing towards locations where appropriate levels of infrastructure and public service facilities are or will be available to support current and projected needs (PPS 1.4.3 c). Attachment #1 to Report #PLN 33-21 - 147 - OPA 20-006/P and A 11/20: Infill Housing January 4, 2021 Statutory Public Meeting Summary of Comments and Staff Responses Page 2 of 35 Item Number Key Comments/Concerns Staff Response Prepared for June 24, 2021 Open House A Place to Grow builds on the PPS and establishes a unique land use planning framework for the Greater Golden Horseshoe (GGH) that supports the achievement of complete communities, a thriving economy, a clean and healthy environment, and social equity. In particular, forecasted growth to the horizon of A Place to Grow is to be allocated based on, among other things, directing the vast majority of growth to settlement areas that have a delineated built boundary (policy 2.2.1.2 a) i)) and that intensification will be encouraged throughout the delineated built-up area (policy 2.2.2.3 c)) while considering the range and mix of housing options and densities of the existing housing stock (policy 2.2.6.2 c)). The proposed amendments enable small scale development/redevelopment and growth of the property tax base by acknowledging and recognizing current market demands and allowing for an increase in size and massing of new construction while respecting the size and massing of existing homes. The proposed amendments seek to manage new construction of dwellings within existing residential areas that occur through gentle intensification of established neighbourhood precincts. As such, the proposed Official Plan and Zoning By-law Amendments are consistent with the PPS and A Place to Grow. 2. Official Plan Policies Commented that proposed Official Plan Amendment (Sections 1 (f) (ii), (iv) and (vii)) refer to reinforcing the side and front yard setbacks that currently exist between houses. However, due to new development that has occurred in these areas, this will only create further inconsistencies in the streetscape. The City’s Official Plan policies lay the foundation for building an evolving, healthy, unique and connected community. Proposed policies in Item 1 (revised policy 3.9 (f)) enable the flexibility for new construction of houses to meet the current market demands for size while respecting their compatibility with existing houses and the neighbourhood streetscape specifically through - 148 - OPA 20-006/P and A 11/20: Infill Housing January 4, 2021 Statutory Public Meeting Summary of Comments and Staff Responses Page 3 of 35 Item Number Key Comments/Concerns Staff Response Prepared for June 24, 2021 Open House consideration for matters such as side yard setbacks and separation distances between houses, front yard setbacks, and the preservation of existing trees (proposed policies 3.9 (f) (ii), (iv), and (vii)). 3. Neighbourhood Character Commented in support of the City's initiative to preserve the unique character of Pickering's early neighbourhoods. Commented in favour of the recommendations of the Infill Study. Commented that the 'character' of neighbourhoods is changing with the times as it should. Commented that they like their neighbourhood and the fact that all the houses are different is a delightful benefit and would prefer to not aim for uniformity. Commented that it appears that the proposal intends to ensure that the style of homes in specific neighbourhoods remains static and freezes development. Commented that how homes were used 40 to 60 years ago differs from how homes are used today and that the Study should not focus too much on the past. Commented that they would like to see an approach that respects the history, environmental needs, and some of the characteristics of what exists. The Infill and Replacement Housing in Established Neighbourhoods Study (the Study) was initiated as a result of concerns expressed by residents that new homes being built in their neighbourhoods were not compatible with the existing character of their neighbourhoods. In addition, there was no public consultation prior to the construction of the new homes since these homes were meeting all the existing zoning requirements. In some cases, there was a significant difference in certain characteristics of the newly built houses and the existing houses. These significant differences related to such things as height, lot coverage and setbacks, and impacted the compatibility between adjacent houses and the general character of the streetscape. Through a robust and extensive study of the key elements of neighbourhood character (based on the three themes of Built Form, Streetscape and Neighbourhood Composition), the Study concluded with recommendations that are meant to enable the flexibility for new construction to meet the market demands for house size, while continuing to allow for flexibility in terms of architectural style and simultaneously addressing the compatibility of scale and massing to adjacent houses and the character of the streetscape. The Council endorsed recommendations of the Study, and the proposed implementing official plan policies and zoning by-law amendments, do not limit new construction to what exists in the neighbourhood, but rather, enables new - 149 - OPA 20-006/P and A 11/20: Infill Housing January 4, 2021 Statutory Public Meeting Summary of Comments and Staff Responses Page 4 of 35 Item Number Key Comments/Concerns Staff Response Prepared for June 24, 2021 Open House Commented that the character of neighbourhoods evolve over time based on societal needs and the wishes of people to better suit current lifestyles. Commented that the proposal recommends subjective criteria related to building size, design features and style that is relative to what already exists on neighbouring properties. construction to be larger than original dwellings, while being more compatible in terms of scale and massing with adjacent dwellings and the streetscape. 4. Streetscape Commented that the proposal: • would "freeze in time" this precinct and halt the building of dream homes; • is trying to preserve a 100 year old notion of Pickering as cottage country; • does not recognize that the neighbourhoods have already transitioned in character; • wants to protect bungalows and single storey homes Commented that the proposal will assist in avoiding massive homes on postage sized lots and maintaining pleasant streetscapes in existing neighbourhoods. The proposed amendments enable the flexibility for new construction to meet the market demands for house size, while continuing to allow for flexibility in terms of style and simultaneously addressing the compatibility of scale and massing to adjacent houses and the character of the streetscape. The amendments do not limit new construction to what exists in the neighbourhood, but rather, enables new construction to be larger than original dwellings, while at the same time as being compatible with adjacent dwellings and the streetscape. Questioned why existing housing that is being replaced is being used as the standard and scale for new development. Neighbourhoods are transitioning from small 1940-1950 dwellings to new larger The proposed provisions for minimum and maximum Front Yard Setback allows for the flexibility of 1 metre based on consideration of the neighbouring condition whether it’s a recent build or an original dwelling. - 150 - OPA 20-006/P and A 11/20: Infill Housing January 4, 2021 Statutory Public Meeting Summary of Comments and Staff Responses Page 5 of 35 Item Number Key Comments/Concerns Staff Response Prepared for June 24, 2021 Open House family housing, which is a natural evolution that occurs when older buildings have reached their life expectancy. 5. Established Neighbourhood Precinct Boundaries Commented that there needs to be clarity on how streets were included, or excluded, from the precinct maps. Commented that precincts seem to have been arbitrarily selected. Questioned how the boundaries of the precincts changed from Phase 1 of the Study to Phase 3. Commented that there are few remaining homes that would be eligible for infill or replacement homes. Requested that the area along West Shore Blvd. south from Sunrise Avenue be removed from the West Shore Established Neighbourhood Precinct. Commented that Dunn Crescent should not be excluded from the Rosebank Established Neighbourhood Precinct, and that removing certain streets from the Established Neighbourhood Precincts is defeating the purpose of Infill Study initiated two years ago. Requested that all of the West Shore Neighbourhood south of Bayly Street be included in the precinct. The proposed Established Neighbourhood Precincts and their associated boundaries were determined based on a combination of age of dwellings, existing lot coverage, areas within neighbourhoods with comparatively larger lots, and the prevalence of new construction. Proposed precinct boundaries were first presented to the public in Phase 2 of the Infill Study and have since been refined through this implementation process (OPA 20-006, A 11/20). Specifically: Village East Neighbourhood: The area along Guild Road and Royal Road in the Village East Neighbourhood shown as a proposed Established Neighbourhood Precinct in the SGL Report, is designated as an Urban Residential Area, Medium Density Area in the City’s Official Plan. The provisions for infill and replacement housing are not intended to apply to areas of the City that are designated Medium Density, which have, or are intended to have, minimum and maximum net residential densities of over 30 and up to and including 80 dwellings per net hectare. As such, the originally proposed Established Neighbourhood Precinct in the Village East Neighbourhood has been removed. Rosebank Neighbourhood: The area south of Gillmoss Road and to the northeast of Dunn Crescent, is a recently approved plan of subdivision, does not fulfill the requirements of the criteria, and therefore has been removed from the proposed precinct. - 151 - OPA 20-006/P and A 11/20: Infill Housing January 4, 2021 Statutory Public Meeting Summary of Comments and Staff Responses Page 6 of 35 Item Number Key Comments/Concerns Staff Response Prepared for June 24, 2021 Open House Rougemount Neighbourhood: Properties on the north side of Twyn Rivers Drive from east of Woodview Avenue to the west side of Altona Road have been added to the proposed precinct because they meet the established criteria. Properties fronting onto Fiddler’s Court, as well as 1415 Altona Road have been removed from the proposed precinct in accordance with the established criteria. Bay Ridges Neighbourhood: The area south of Browning Avenue, west of Front Road, north of Waterpoint Street, and east of Frenchman’s Bay is designated as an Urban Residential Area, Medium Density Area in the City’s Official Plan. The provisions for infill and replacement housing are not intended to apply to areas of the City that are designated Medium Density and therefore this area has been removed from the proposed precinct. Monica Cook Place, Luna Court, Gull Crossing, a series of properties on the east side of Liverpool Road that back onto Gull Crossing, the City park on the north side of Commerce Street, as well as the common element condominium on the north side of Old Orchard Avenue (1290 Old Orchard Avenue), have been removed from the proposed precinct since they do not fulfill the requirements of the criteria. Dunbarton Neighbourhood: Several properties, including the following, have been removed from the proposed precinct since they do not meet the requirements of the criteria (e.g. new subdivision development, recent Council approval, stable area): • Properties north of Finch Avenue in the Dunbarton Neighbourhood (Darwin Drive, Regal Circle, Erin Gate Blvd.); • Properties on the east side of Fairport Road south of Finch Avenue to north of Bonita Avenue; and - 152 - OPA 20-006/P and A 11/20: Infill Housing January 4, 2021 Statutory Public Meeting Summary of Comments and Staff Responses Page 7 of 35 Item Number Key Comments/Concerns Staff Response Prepared for June 24, 2021 Open House • Certain properties along Fairport Road, Shademaster Drive, Voyager Ave, Bonita Ave, Grayabbey Crt, Helm Street, Wingarden Crescent, Goldenridge Road, Rushton Road, Welrus Street. In addition, lands associated with 1950 and 1952 Fairport Road were the subject of recent development applications (File numbers SP-2019-03, CP-2019-04, and A 13/19) that resulted in a rezoning, draft approved plan of subdivision and draft approved plan of condominium. As such, these lands do not meet the criteria and have been removed from the proposed precinct. Liverpool Neighbourhood: Properties fronting onto Valley Farm Road south of Feildlight Blvd. are designated as Urban Residential Area, Medium Density Area in the City’s Official Plan. The provisions for infill and replacement housing are not intended to apply to areas of the City that are designated Medium Density and therefore these properties have been removed from the precinct. Neighbourhood Boundaries: Minor corrections were made to the mapping to accurately reflect the existing Neighbourhood boundaries. 6. Lot Coverage Commented that Lot Coverage should be reconsidered. Commented that original homes in the area were built in the 1950s, are too small for today’s families, and that more room is needed in homes for people working from home, kids attending school longer and living at home longer, multi-generations living in homes because of the increased cost of owning homes, and having to care The proposed Lot Coverage is a reduction from the current maximum of 33% to between 25% and 30% for the Established Neighbourhood Precincts as shown below: (i) Dunbarton Neighbourhood Precinct: Maximum 25%. (ii) Highbush Neighbourhood Precinct: Maximum 25%. (iii) Liverpool Neighbourhood Precincts: Maximum 30%. (iv) Rosebank Neighbourhood Precincts: Maximum 30%. (v) Rougemount Neighbourhood Precincts: Maximum 30% (vi) West Shore Neighbourhood Precinct: Maximum 30%. (vii) Woodlands Neighbourhood Precinct: Maximum 25%. - 153 - OPA 20-006/P and A 11/20: Infill Housing January 4, 2021 Statutory Public Meeting Summary of Comments and Staff Responses Page 8 of 35 Item Number Key Comments/Concerns Staff Response Prepared for June 24, 2021 Open House for elderly parents. Lot Coverage of 33% should be maintained. Commented that, although it may be a worthy goal to have large multi- generational families under one roof, one of the lessons from COVID is that many people have become sick and died due to this model. There should be an awareness that the COVID inspired claims on greater lot coverage and air rights, may not be as well thought out as they were impassioned. Commented that proposed Lot Coverage of 25%-30% does not make sense in today’s world. Lot Coverage of 40 to 45% seems a more reasonable balance in providing flexibility while keeping appropriate levels of green space. Commented that reducing the proposed Lot Coverage will reduce the value of the property. Commented that the proposed amendments are too restrictive and will not allow for current and common alterations to a home. For example: a reduced lot coverage will not permit a double driveway resulting in an unappealing property for resale. Questioned the rational for reducing lot coverage when it appears that there are few remaining undeveloped properties The maximum Lot Coverage for the Bay Ridges Established Neighbourhood Precint is proposed to remain at 33%. The proposed Lot Coverage regulations are based on research performed through the Infill Study on existing lot coverages within each Established Neighbourhood Precinct, including original dwellings as well as infill and replacement dwellings. In addition, previous Committee of Adjustment decisions were reviewed and the data demonstrated that few requests were made to increase Lot Coverage beyond the permitted maximum of 33%. With the exception of the proposed Bay Ridges Established Neighbourhood Precinct, existing Lot Coverages in the proposed Established Neighbourhood Precincts are predominantly under 30% and in many cases below 20%. In addition, staff reviewed approved Building Permit data for new construction of detached dwellings over the last five years within the proposed Established Neighbourhoods, which showed that many of these new dwellings would comply with the proposed Lot Coverage. The proposed definition of Lot Coverage is as follows: “Lot Coverage” means the total horizontal area of that part of the lot covered by all roofed structures and buildings above grade, including covered platforms (such as covered decks and covered porches) but excluding eaves, belt courses, chimney breasts, sills or cornices projections to a maximum of 0.6 metres and balconies. The proposal does not alter the existing method of calculating lot coverage. The proposed definition of - 154 - OPA 20-006/P and A 11/20: Infill Housing January 4, 2021 Statutory Public Meeting Summary of Comments and Staff Responses Page 9 of 35 Item Number Key Comments/Concerns Staff Response Prepared for June 24, 2021 Open House which will now be surrounded by lots with higher lot coverages. Commented that the introduction of limited building depth, increased Side Yard Setbacks adjacent to a rear yard for Infill Dwellings in the identified precincts, would result in a lot coverage lower than the proposed reduced lot coverage. Commented that existing lot coverage and setbacks equitably addresses the potential size of house in relation to the size of each residential property. Commented that a Lot Coverage of 40% should be considered for the Woodlands Established Neighbourhood Precinct. Lot Coverage clarifies exclusions to the calculation such as eaves, belt courses, chimney breasts, sills or cornices projections to a maximum of 0.6 metres and balconies. 7. Size of Dwelling Commented that new larger homes provide the space and amenities needed for today's families including home offices for parents working remotely from home and accommodations for senior family members. Commented that the way the world works and lives has changed due to COVID. As an example, due to the shift to working from home, there is a need for space for home offices. Commented that it’s unrealistic to expect to run a corporation, school, and retirement and end of life care facility from a home and to increase the size of a dwelling to accommodate all these functions. There is no proposed by-law regulation that specifically regulates the maximum size or square footage of a dwelling. Also, there are currently no provisions within the City’s zoning by-laws that regulate the maximum gross floor area, or square footage, of a detached, semi-detached, or townhouse dwelling. Some of the comments received through the Infill Study engagement suggested that the size of dwellings should be restricted to a maximum size. For example, a suggestion was made that a replacement dwelling should be no larger than an additional 1,000 square feet of the existing dwelling on a property. The genesis of the Infill Study related to the size and mass of infill and replacement dwellings. Phases 1 and 2 of the Infill Study focused on gaining an understanding the key - 155 - OPA 20-006/P and A 11/20: Infill Housing January 4, 2021 Statutory Public Meeting Summary of Comments and Staff Responses Page 10 of 35 Item Number Key Comments/Concerns Staff Response Prepared for June 24, 2021 Open House Commented that introducing restrictions on home sizes would be detrimental to the sale price and equity of the houses. elements that contribute to the character of neighbourhoods and exploring options to address and mitigate the impacts associated with development perceived to be incompatible. With respect to larger dwellings, impacts associated with shadow, privacy, and overlook onto neighbouring properties, were identified. While a dwelling may be perceived to be “large” on a smaller lot, that same dwelling located on a larger lot may be perceived as “fitting in” with the scale and massing of other dwellings in the neighbourhood. Taking this into consideration, the Infill Study explored options to address the size, and the perception of the size of a dwelling on a lot, based on the elements that contribute to defining the mass of the dwelling. These elements include: • dwelling height; • dwelling depth; • height of the front entrance; • garage width; and • yard setbacks and separation distance between dwellings. Although the proposal does not specifically limit the gross floor area of a dwelling, the proposal seeks to regulate the: • dwelling height; • dwelling depth; • height of the front entrance; and • front yard setback. To address the overall scale and massing of an infill or replacement dwelling. All of these regulations taken together can have an impact on a proposed new infill or replacement dwelling. - 156 - OPA 20-006/P and A 11/20: Infill Housing January 4, 2021 Statutory Public Meeting Summary of Comments and Staff Responses Page 11 of 35 Item Number Key Comments/Concerns Staff Response Prepared for June 24, 2021 Open House 8. Dwelling Depth Commented that they may not be able to build their dream home based on the proposed provisions for setbacks and dwelling depth. Commented that prescribing building depths on ranges of lot depth discriminates according to the depth of the lot. For example, the property owner with the deepest lot is more adversely affected with respect to building footprint than the property owner of the shallowest property in the range. The proposed maximum Dwelling Depth aims to strike a balance between recognizing existing dwelling depths while also allowing for flexibility for the construction of new infill and replacement dwellings based on the overall depth of a lot. The Infill Study (Phase 2 Report) noted that replacement dwellings and infill dwellings are typically larger in mass than original homes within the established neighbourhoods, and this increase in mass can translate to dwellings that are wider and longer. Further, it stated that: “New, wider and longer dwellings located adjacent to original dwellings in established neighbourhoods can lead to compatibility issues related to the overall scale of dwellings, including privacy, overlook and shadowing issues.” The Infill Study identified that although, on a broad scale, the City’s zoning by-laws do not regulate the width or length of dwellings, there are some area-specific zones where dwelling length is regulated. The Infill Study found that the dwelling length of original bungalows range, on average, from approximately 7 to 10 metres. These homes are relatively smaller in dwelling length compared to many other homes in established neighbourhoods, both original and new, which range on average between approximately 12 and 19 metres in length. There are also many homes that exceed 20 metres in dwelling length. The Phase 2 Report concluded that regulating the maximum depth of a dwelling would control the maximum distance that the rear wall of a dwelling could be located in relation to the front yard setback, and that this will help to ensure that the siting and placement of new dwellings is compatible with existing dwellings and mitigate - 157 - OPA 20-006/P and A 11/20: Infill Housing January 4, 2021 Statutory Public Meeting Summary of Comments and Staff Responses Page 12 of 35 Item Number Key Comments/Concerns Staff Response Prepared for June 24, 2021 Open House compatibility issues related to shadowing, overlook and privacy. The Infill Study recommended a new performance standard for maximum Dwelling Depth based on the overall depth of a lot. The proposed maximum Dwelling Depths are based on observations, within the proposed Established Neighbourhood Precincts. Within these areas, it has been observed that new dwellings typically have rear walls that extend further into the rear yard of properties than original dwellings, with ranging depths. Recognizing that original dwellings tend to have a shorter dwelling depth than newer dwellings, it is expected that there will continue to be variations in the depth of dwellings within a block. However, by limiting the Dwelling Depth, the goal is that the rear walls of new dwellings (or additions to existing dwellings) do not project too far beyond those of the adjacent dwellings, in order to mitigate potential impacts related to shadowing, privacy and overlook on adjacent rear yards. The proposed amendment includes a definition for Dwelling Depth as follows: “Dwelling Depth” means the horizontal distance measured from the minimum front yard setback to the rear wall of a dwelling, excluding any Obstruction of Yards. “Obstruction of Yards” is defined in parent zoning by-laws (2511, 2520 and 3036) as follows: “Obstruction of Yards” No person shall obstruct in any manner whatsoever any front yard, side yard or rear yard required to be provided by this By-law, but this provision shall not apply to: - 158 - OPA 20-006/P and A 11/20: Infill Housing January 4, 2021 Statutory Public Meeting Summary of Comments and Staff Responses Page 13 of 35 Item Number Key Comments/Concerns Staff Response Prepared for June 24, 2021 Open House (a) main eaves, belt courses, chimney breasts, sills or cornices not projecting more than 0.5 of a metre into required yard; (b) uncovered steps or platforms not exceeding 1.0 metre in height above grade and not projecting more than 1.5 metres into any required front yard, not 1.0 metre into any required side yard; (c) awnings, clothes poles, recreational equipment, garden trellises, or similar accessories; (d) fire escapes projecting not more than l.5 metres into the side yard or rear yard; (e) fences in a side or rear yard; (f) hedges or ornamental fences of open construction not exceeding 1.0 metres in height in a front yard; and (g) accessory uses permitted by this By-law. The proposed provision for Dwelling Depth is as follows: Dwelling Depth (maximum): The maximum Dwelling Depth, measured from the minimum front yard setback to the rear wall of a dwelling, shall be as follows: (i) For lots with depths up to 40 metres: 17 metres (ii) For lots with depths greater than 40 metres: 20 metres The Infill Study (Phase 2 Report) noted that these maximum Dwelling Depths are consistent with observed characteristics within established neighbourhoods, and are not anticipated to generate any compliance issues with original dwellings within neighbourhoods. - 159 - OPA 20-006/P and A 11/20: Infill Housing January 4, 2021 Statutory Public Meeting Summary of Comments and Staff Responses Page 14 of 35 Item Number Key Comments/Concerns Staff Response Prepared for June 24, 2021 Open House 9. Side Yard Setback Adjacent to a Rear Yard for Infill Dwelling Commented that Side Yard Setbacks from 1.5 to 4.5 should be reconsidered. Concerned that the restrictions being proposed with respect to Side Yard Setback for Infill Dwelling to existing infill and replacement lots will significantly impact the buildable area of these existing lots that were created based on the existing zoning by-law side yard setback of 1.5 metres. Commented that the proposed Side Yard Setbacks for Infill Dwelling should be taken into account when approving the width of any new lot, and not applied to existing lots that were created based on the current allowable side yard setbacks and minimum lot widths. An amendment to the draft by-law should be included to increase the minimum lot widths by 3.0 metres for newly created lots where the side yard abuts an existing rear yard and exclude the application of the 4.5 metres side yard setback for existing lots. The proposed zoning regulation for Side Yard Setback adjacent to a rear yard for Infill Dwelling has been removed. The Draft Zoning By-law proposed a minimum Side Yard Setback for an Infill Dwelling. The regulation stipulated that where the side lot line of a newly created lot for any Infill Dwelling abuts the rear lot line of an existing lot of record, the minimum side yard setback to the side lot line abutting the rear lot line of an existing lot of record shall be 4.5 metres. Upon further examination, staff have established that there are various examples of existing conditions within the Established Neighbourhood Precincts where a lot may be flanked on one or both sides by a rear lot. The proposed zoning regulation, in conjunction with the size of the subject lots in these existing situations, would prohibit reasonable development of the property, and therefore the proposed zoning regulation has been removed. 10. Side Yard Setback Commented that regulations should prevent the roof of a new house from overlapping an existing house (as it appears in the photo below). Concerned that Side Yard Setback is not specifically defined in the proposed by-law. Side Yard Setback refers to the distance between the side property line and the nearest exterior side wall of the dwelling on that property. “Separation distance between dwellings” refers to the distance between the side wall of one dwelling to the nearest side wall of the adjacent dwelling. - 160 - OPA 20-006/P and A 11/20: Infill Housing January 4, 2021 Statutory Public Meeting Summary of Comments and Staff Responses Page 15 of 35 Item Number Key Comments/Concerns Staff Response Prepared for June 24, 2021 Open House The separation distance between dwellings, whether large or small, has an impact on the perceived sense of open space in a neighbourhood. Typically, in the proposed Established Neighbourhood Precincts, there is a larger separation distance between the original dwellings as compared to newer subdivisions in other parts of the City. This larger separation distance between dwellings has the effect of reducing the perceived massing of a dwelling and increasing the opportunity for providing landscaped open space. The separation distance between dwellings is closely related to other elements of neighbourhood character, including Lot Coverage and Side Yard Setback. The Infill Study concluded that adding a policy in the City’s Official Plan that speaks to infill and replacement dwellings reinforcing the established pattern of existing side yard setbacks and separation distances between dwellings would appropriately address potential compatibility issues. The Infill Study did not recommend any changes to the City’s by-laws on this matter. The proposed official plan amendment addresses reinforcing the established pattern of existing side yard setbacks and separation distances between dwellings asobserved from the street, and reinforcing the established front yard setbacks on the street (proposed official plan policy 3.9 (f) (ii) and (iv)). The proposed zoning by-law amendment does not propose any changes to the existing requirements for Side Yard Setbacks. 11. Lot Frontage and Lot Area Concerned that the lot frontage, and lot area is being reduced. The proposal does not alter the existing zoning by-law provisions for Lot Frontage or Lot Area. - 161 - OPA 20-006/P and A 11/20: Infill Housing January 4, 2021 Statutory Public Meeting Summary of Comments and Staff Responses Page 16 of 35 Item Number Key Comments/Concerns Staff Response Prepared for June 24, 2021 Open House The Planning Options Report, December 2019 (the Phase 2 Report), stated that typically, Lot Frontages on lots within established neighbourhoods are fairly consistent. The introduction of infill and replacement housing into an established neighbourhood generally results in no change to the Lot Frontage and the Lot Area. However, it is possible that a severance or subdivision of land could result in smaller lots than what exist in the immediate neighbourhood. This situation may alter the rhythm and pattern of built form within an established neighbourhood, and can impact the look and feel of a neighbourhood which may result in compatibility issues. Following a review of the City’s official plan, zoning by-laws, and development guidelines, the Study determined that although the existing by-laws are sufficient with respect to Lot Frontages, it is appropriate to add policy to the City’s official plan to direct that the creation of new lots associated with infill housing should reinforce the established pattern of existing lot widths and lot coverage in the Established Neighbourhood Precincts. 12. Front Yard Setback Concerned that Front Yard Setback is not specifically defined in the proposed bylaw and that Front Yard Setback is based on the adjacent properties and not a set standard. The Draft Zoning By-law proposes new maximum and minimum Front Yard Setbacks, as well as a definition for “Setback”, as follows: Item 5.1 (e) Front Yard Setback (maximum): The maximum front yard setback shall not exceed the average of the existing front yard setback of the dwellings on the immediately abutting lots located along the same side of the street and within the same block by more than 1.0 metre. The maximum Front Yard Setback applies to only 80% of the Dwelling Width including any attached garage. - 162 - OPA 20-006/P and A 11/20: Infill Housing January 4, 2021 Statutory Public Meeting Summary of Comments and Staff Responses Page 17 of 35 Item Number Key Comments/Concerns Staff Response Prepared for June 24, 2021 Open House Item 5.1 (f) Front Yard Setback (minimum): Despite any other provision in this by-law, for lots within any Established Neighbourhood Precinct Overlay Zone, the minimum front yard setback shall be equal to the smallest existing front yard setback of the dwellings on the immediately abutting lots located along the same side of the street and within the same block. For corner lots, the minimum front yard setback shall be equal to the smallest existing front yard setback of the dwellings on the nearest two lots located along the same side of the street and within the same block. Item 4.8 “Setback” means the shortest distance between a building and a lot line. In calculating the setback the horizontal distance from the respective lot line shall be used. The intent of the new performance standards for minimum and maximum front yard setbacks is to reinforce the open space characteristics of the neighbourhood, while at the same time allowing for flexibility of a range of 1 metre. This assists In avoiding a monotonous “wall” of front facades along the street which can add to the diversity of the streetscape. Parent By-laws (2511, 2520, 3036) define “yards” (side, front rear) and not “setbacks”. Current practice is to use the term “setback” and therefore a definition is provided in the proposed zoning by-law. 13. Dwelling Height Comments were received both in support and opposition to the proposed Dwelling Height of 9 metres. The Infill Study determined that there is a range of dwelling heights within the Established Neighbourhoods, and that the newer builds are generally taller than the original homes owing to a combination of factors including: taller ceiling heights on all floors including the basement, as well - 163 - OPA 20-006/P and A 11/20: Infill Housing January 4, 2021 Statutory Public Meeting Summary of Comments and Staff Responses Page 18 of 35 Item Number Key Comments/Concerns Staff Response Prepared for June 24, 2021 Open House A comment in opposition suggested that a 9 metre height limit would result in limiting the ability to create ceiling heights of between 9 and 12 feet. The comment suggested that eight feet is no longer the standard ceiling height and that 9-12 foot ceilings are very common in new houses. A comment suggested that the 9 metre height limit is not required along Spruce Hill Rd, since the new builds along that street are large custom homes with trees, landscaping and appropriate space between homes. as steeper roof pitches. The Infill Study also determined that the majority of new builds in the Established Neighbourhoods had similar roof styles to that of the original homes: gable roofs. The difference being that the newer homes had steeper roof pitches. Research previously undertaken by staff, and reported in PLN 06-18 in support of By-law 7610/18 (Height By-law), indicated that a height of 9 metres is sufficient to accommodate the development of a two-storey home. Staff have confirmed that a two storey home with a 12 foot high main floor ceiling can be accommodated within a Dwelling Height limit of 9 metres. The proposed definition of Dwelling Height is as follows: Item 4.2 “Dwelling Height” means the vertical distance between the average grade as measured along the front wall of the dwelling, and in the case of a flat roof, the highest point of the roof surface or parapet wall, or in the case of a mansard roof the deck line, or in the case of a gabled, hip or gambrel roof, the mean height between eaves and ridge. A cupola, antenna, or other roof structure which is used only as an ornament shall be disregarded in calculating the height of such dwelling. 14. Garage Width Commented that based on a minimum Side Yard Setback requirement of 1.5 metres, residential lots less than 15 m (50 feet) wide could only have a single car garage. This could potentially lead to parking issues. The proposed zoning regulation for Garage Width and the proposed definition of Dwelling Width have been removed. The Draft Zoning By-law proposed a regulation to limit the width of a garage or carport to be no greater than 50% of the Dwelling Width. In addition, the Draft Zoning By-law proposed a definition for Dwelling Width to assist in determining the measurement for Garage Width. - 164 - OPA 20-006/P and A 11/20: Infill Housing January 4, 2021 Statutory Public Meeting Summary of Comments and Staff Responses Page 19 of 35 Item Number Key Comments/Concerns Staff Response Prepared for June 24, 2021 Open House In order to allow for greater flexibility of design, the provision for maximum Garage Width has been removed from the Revised Draft By-law. As a result of the removal of maximum Garage Width provision, there is no need to include a definition of Dwelling Width in the Revised Draft By-law and therefore, it is also removed. 15. Driveway Width Commented that the proposed by-law is so restrictive it will not allow for current and common alterations to a home. An example being, that many properties will not be able to install a double driveway. This could leaving properties unappealing for resale. A 6.0 metre wide driveway is sufficient to accommodate two cars parked side-by-side. The proposed maximum Driveway Width is 6.0 metres. However, for lots where the entrance of a garage or carport is wider that 6.0 metres, the maximum driveway width is proposed to be no greater that the width of the entrance of a garage or carport. 16. Transition Provisions Commented that: • there should be more liberal transition rules; • the bylaw could be delayed for a year; • any applicant that has building permits already submitted should be grandfathered; and • any applicant who has started a planning process should be grandfathered The proposed zoning by-law amendment contains Transition Provisions which address how Planning Act applications will be reviewed and addressed through the transition period between the adoption of the proposed by-law amendment and any potential appeal process. In particular: • subject to conditions, a Building Permit applied for prior to the adoption of this by-law amendment is not subject to this by-law amendment; • the requirements of this by-law amendment do not apply to a lot where a minor variance was authorized by the Committee of Adjustment of the City or the Ontario Land Tribunal on or before the effective date of this by-law amendment and a building permit has not yet been issued; - 165 - OPA 20-006/P and A 11/20: Infill Housing January 4, 2021 Statutory Public Meeting Summary of Comments and Staff Responses Page 20 of 35 Item Number Key Comments/Concerns Staff Response Prepared for June 24, 2021 Open House • subject to conditions, the requirements of this by-law amendment do not apply to a lot where an application for a minor variance has been filed on or before the effective date of this by-law amendment; and • the requirements of this by-law amendment do not apply to a lot where the Ontario Land Tribunal, on or before the passing of this by-law amendment, granted approval in principle for a zoning by-law amendment or minor variance, but has decided that the final Order shall come into force, or be issued, at a future fixed date and a building permit has not yet been issued. 17. Urban Design Guidelines: General Commented that the document proposes to control and restrict design choices. Commented in opposition to the proposed urban design guidelines and especially embedding them in the Official Plan. Commented that the definition of Infill Housing in the Urban Design Guidelines is not consistent with the definition of Infill in the Draft By-law. Urban Design Guidelines are created to provide guidance. The very nature of urban design guidelines is to “guide”, not “control” or “restrict” design choices. Zoning By-laws are the Planning tool used to “control and restrict” built form. In particular, the following principles established in the Urban Design Guidelines for Infill and Replacement Housing in Established Neighbourhood Precincts specifically address this (on page 11): Principle number 2 states: “Encourage architectural diversity that complements the character of the Neighbourhood Precinct.” And Principle number 4 states: “Enhance the character, identity and sense of place of the Neighbourhood Precinct.” Urban Design Guidelines: • Help to refine the sense of character of a place through Design Principles; - 166 - OPA 20-006/P and A 11/20: Infill Housing January 4, 2021 Statutory Public Meeting Summary of Comments and Staff Responses Page 21 of 35 Item Number Key Comments/Concerns Staff Response Prepared for June 24, 2021 Open House • Provide detailed design direction to help implement a municipality’s vision of a particular area or neighbourhood; • Help implement policies in the official plan and provisions in the zoning by-law; and • Are used by staff, developers and the public for evaluation and preparation of development or re- development applications. The Urban Design Guidelines are not embedded in the official plan. Urban design guidelines are used to implement official plan policy. It is therefore appropriate to include policies in the official plan to enable the implementation of the Urban Design Guidelines. The UDGs have been reviewed and updated for consistency with the proposed revisions to the amendments. The definition of Infill Dwelling has been updated in the UDGs and the Revised Draft By-law. 18. Urban Design Guidelines: Garage Placement Commented that they are glad for the provisions regarding the location of garages. Often they hide the front door area and anyone doing something illegal at the front would not be observable (as in houses along Maple Ridge). Garages that hide front doors should also not be permitted in new construction. Commented that the Urban Design Guidelines do not allow for freestanding garages, which can sometimes be designed with the garage doors oriented away from the street. The Infill Study identified that the location and placement of a garage can lead to massing and streetscape compatibility issues. A garage that protrudes ahead of the front main wall of a dwelling, as compared to a garage that is located flush with or behind the front main wall, may appear larger and therefore out of scale with neighbouring properties. To address this matter, the Infill Study recommended Urban Design Guidelines that encourage minimizing the appearance and massing of garages. The UDGs do not eliminate the potential for freestanding garages. The UGDs regarding garage and carport placement were created to “minimize the impact of projecting garages” (see page 22 of the UDGs). - 167 - OPA 20-006/P and A 11/20: Infill Housing January 4, 2021 Statutory Public Meeting Summary of Comments and Staff Responses Page 22 of 35 Item Number Key Comments/Concerns Staff Response Prepared for June 24, 2021 Open House Commented that within the Urban Design Guidelines, the proposal for a double garage to be separated into two individual doors is arbitrary and that this design feature should be decided by the homeowner. Commented that a separated garage is not a standard feature in the older homes within this community and that this guideline should be removed from the Urban Design Guidelines. The UDG regarding the style of double car garages has been removed. 19. Urban Design Guidelines: Checklist Commented that the Urban Design Guidelines Checklist requires property owners applying for a residential building permit to justify their particular preferences such as roof style (flat or pitched roof) and garage style (two door vs one double- door) which may sometimes may be the result of function over form and not just an aesthetic preference. Question 1 of the Checklist (related to roof slope) has been removed. Question 14 of the checklist (related to garage door style) has been removed. Commented that the Urban Design Guideline Checklist is subjective and has no set standard of empirical values for measurement. Questioned how the guidelines will be applied to redevelopment submissions. Questioned the specific questions in the Checklist and how they are to be interpreted. Commented that the Urban Design Guidelines are applying the site plan approval process to detached dwellings and that the Urban Design Guideline The purpose and intent of the UDG Checklist is to summarize the key intentions of the guidelines, and to act as a quick review for planning staff, Committee of Adjustment Members, and designers when reviewing Minor Variance applications. The UDG Checklist cannot be read in isolation and must be read in conjunction with the UDGs and the relevant guidelines are to be applied to each situation. The UDGs have been reviewed and updated for consistency with the proposed revisions to the amendments. In addition, staff is proposing to revise the UDG Checklist questions to remove questions 1, 6, 7, 13, 14, 17, 19, and 20. - 168 - OPA 20-006/P and A 11/20: Infill Housing January 4, 2021 Statutory Public Meeting Summary of Comments and Staff Responses Page 23 of 35 Item Number Key Comments/Concerns Staff Response Prepared for June 24, 2021 Open House Checklist creates a new layer of municipal approval that will create delays and increase costs in obtaining approvals for redevelopment. Currently the City’s Site Plan Control By-law (By-law No. 7632/18) exempts residential development of one or two dwelling units per lot, except for within certain areas of the Oak Ridges Moraine. None of the areas subject to the proposed Established Neighbourhood Precincts are within the Oak Ridges Moraine. The Infill Study explored the possibility of using site plan control to manage change related to infill and replacement housing. The Infill Study explained that site plan control is a useful tool that can control certain facets of development while also being a time-intensive review process. Implementing site plan control for infill and replacement housing would likely lead to additional staff time and resources to process applications, longer timelines associated with development applications, and additional costs for applicants related to application fees and the creation of additional plans and other supporting materials. The Infill Study determined that other recommended tools, such as the Urban Design Guidelines in combination with Official Plan Policies and Zoning By-law provisions, could appropriately address matters of neighbourhood character and compatibility without the need to implement site plan control for infill and replacement housing. Through the use of UDGs and the other recommended tools, the City will be able to efficiently and appropriately manage compatibility issues currently associated with some infill and replacement housing. 20. Proposed Tree Protection By-law: Petition A petition was circulated among residents by residents. The petition indicated the City’s intent to amend it official plan policies and zoning by-laws to implement the results of the Infill and Replacement The City issued the following statement on February 2, 2021 to clarify the concern: Official Statement – Neighbourhood Petition Posted on Tuesday February 02, 2021 - 169 - OPA 20-006/P and A 11/20: Infill Housing January 4, 2021 Statutory Public Meeting Summary of Comments and Staff Responses Page 24 of 35 Item Number Key Comments/Concerns Staff Response Prepared for June 24, 2021 Open House Housing in Established Neighbourhoods Study as endorsed by Council. Further, the petition stated support for the application amendments as well as requested the City to include: • A private tree by-law, which would protect all trees over a specified diameter on private property; and • a by-law to regulate driveway widths within the front yard, and within the public right-of-way. Commented that there is confusion among residents who are in support of this proposal that the proposed private tree protection by-law is part of the changes included in in the proposed Official Plan Amendment (OPA 20-006/P) and proposed Zoning By-law Amendment (A 11/20). Requested that this be clarified in a written notice to all residents. “The City of Pickering has received concerns about a recent neighbourhood petition, linking a recommended investigation of a Private Tree Protection By-law with a City-initiated Official Plan and Zoning By-law Amendment. We would like to clarify that the Planning Act process for the Official Plan and Zoning By-law Amendments related to Infill and Replacement Housing in Established Neighbourhoods is separate and distinct from staff’s investigation into the details and implications of a Private Tree Protection By-law. Further, the recommendation to consider the implementation of a Private Tree Protection By-law is not a Planning Act matter and is being addressed separately and concurrently with this process. View details in the Information Report to Planning & Development Committee (Report Number 01-21).” 21. Tree Protection Commented in favour of protecting the trees in these neighbourhoods, and in all of Pickering through the use of a "Private Tree Protection By-law". Commented that there appears to be no consequences (such as significant fines) when trees are removed, no enforcement if there are by-laws against removal of trees, and no process to enable appropriate removal of trees. Commented that plants and trees in the urban areas of the city need to share nutrition and information circulated by Staff will consider these comments through the ongoing process to investigate the details and implications of a Private Tree Protection By-law, in accordance with Council direction of September 28, 2020. - 170 - OPA 20-006/P and A 11/20: Infill Housing January 4, 2021 Statutory Public Meeting Summary of Comments and Staff Responses Page 25 of 35 Item Number Key Comments/Concerns Staff Response Prepared for June 24, 2021 Open House underground connections found in copses and forests. Commented that highly individualized environments are unhealthy. Commented that certain insects (such as Emerald Ash Borer beetles) have done significant damage to ash trees, forcing the need to cut them down. Commented that otherwise tree canopies should be maintained. Commented that the Federal Government has recently budgeted significant funds to plant trees as part of their focus on reaching carbon neutral, since trees absorb carbon. Commented that the City of Pickering has a responsibility to protect the trees in the city and that healthy mature trees 20cm and greater in diameter should be protected during construction. Referred to the City of Vancouver “Protection of Trees Bylaw 9958” and the City of Toronto “Tree Protection Policy and Specifications for Construction near Trees” dated July 2016. Commented that immediate restrictions for tree protection should be implemented until the process is complete because trees in the West Shore and the Fairport Beach neighbourhoods are being cut down frequently. Commented that a tree preservation by-law be “implemented” rather than “considered”. - 171 - OPA 20-006/P and A 11/20: Infill Housing January 4, 2021 Statutory Public Meeting Summary of Comments and Staff Responses Page 26 of 35 Item Number Key Comments/Concerns Staff Response Prepared for June 24, 2021 Open House 22. Property Values Commented that proposed changes will lead to a reduction in property values and that the effects of the proposal will negatively impact development potential in the identified precincts, which, in turn will impact property owners planning to sell to finance their retirement or otherwise positively benefit from their real estate investment. A petition which read “Oppose Pickering Proposal that will Decrease Property Values” was submitted and signed by 373 individuals. A correlation cannot be conclusively made between the initiation of establishing the proposed amendments related to infill and replacement housing and housing prices in proposed Established Neighbourhood Precincts. Other influences, such as market forces, interest rates, other government policies (federal and provincial), etc., may be contributing factors. 23. Property Tax Loss to the City Commented that the proposed amendments will affect the tax revenues of the City. Questioned where the City will get revenues when no more large family houses that pay property taxes are built, and the value of the smaller houses have been reduced along with their tax contribution. Commented that the proposed reduction of the permitted Lot Coverage from 33% to 25% on a lot size of 50x150 feet, will result in a house size that is approximately 1200 square feet less, leading to a loss of tax revenue of between $5000-$6000. Commented in opposition to proposed amendments since they will hinder the growth of the city A correlation cannot be conclusively made between the initiation of establishing the proposed amendments related to infill and replacement housing and housing prices in proposed Established Neighbourhood Precincts. Other influences, such as market forces, interest rates, other government policies (federal and provincial), etc., may be contributing factors. - 172 - OPA 20-006/P and A 11/20: Infill Housing January 4, 2021 Statutory Public Meeting Summary of Comments and Staff Responses Page 27 of 35 Item Number Key Comments/Concerns Staff Response Prepared for June 24, 2021 Open House 24. Planning Process Commented in opposition to what appears to be different rules for individual property owners and developers, and that these amendments favour developers. Reference was made to recent development proposals that have approved Lot Coverage of 50%. Developers and individual property owners are required to comply with the same official plan policies, zoning by-law provisions and urban design guidelines. Anyone, developer or individual, may submit an application to amend official plan policies or zoning provisions. Each application will be considered through the Planning Act process based on its own merits and which includes public consultation. There is no separate process for individuals or developers. 25. Right to Appeal Commented that the amendments to the Official Plan will indirectly remove the right to submit a minor variance application to the Committee of Adjustment. The proposed amendments are to the City’s Official Plan and Zoning By-laws 2511, 2520 and 3036. In order to preserve the right to appeal these amendments to the Ontario Land Tribunal, a person or public body must make an oral submission at a public meeting or make written submissions to the City of Pickering before the proposed official plan and zoning by-law amendments are passed. In addition, if you wish to be notified of the decision regarding these amendments, you must make a written request to the City Clerk. Questioned whether the proposed amendments intend to restrict an individual’s right to appeal a decision of the Committee of Adjustment. Commented that if builders continue to apply to the Committee of Adjustment for minor variances and if the Committee continues to approve these variances then the work of the consultant (Infill Study recommendations prepared by SGL) will be defeated. The proposed amendments do not remove a person’s right to appeal a decision of the Committee of Adjustment, directly or indirectly. Concern noted. The Planning Act establishes the legal mechanism for minor variance applications to the Committee of Adjustment. However, the various policies and provisions being proposed through this official plan and zoning by-law amendment process, 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. - 173 - OPA 20-006/P and A 11/20: Infill Housing January 4, 2021 Statutory Public Meeting Summary of Comments and Staff Responses Page 28 of 35 Item Number Key Comments/Concerns Staff Response Prepared for June 24, 2021 Open House 26. Engagement Commented that electronic meetings for presentation and discussion of a proposal is inappropriate and that some residents may have technological roadblocks to attend electronic meetings. Commented that residents should be able to attend and speak at an in-person meeting. Concerned that the amendment is being proposed during the pandemic and does not allow all citizens the ability to voice their concerns. Commented that delegations had difficulty connecting to the meeting. Commented that changes to zoning bylaws should only be made when full consent of impacted residents has been received. Due to the current COVID-19 pandemic and the Premier’s Emergency Order to prohibit public events and limit gatherings, the City of Pickering has adopted electronic public meetings to continue with the business of the City during the pandemic. The Notice of the January 4, 2021 Electronic Planning & Development Committee Meeting provided detailed information on how to register as a delegate with the Clerk for the meeting. In addition, contact information for staff was provided in the Notice should anyone decide that they would prefer to email or speak directly with staff on the matter. The Clerk’s office has confirmed that, with the exception of two individuals, all parties that registered to be a delegate on this item, and wished to speak, were in fact connected by phone to the meeting. One of the delegates (Lisa-Lynn Robinson) advised Councillor Brenner prior to the start of the meeting that she was unable to connect and that she would submit written comments to Planning. Another registered delegate (Fred Traer) had registered in error for this item and advised staff of this when he was connected. The City also has a webpage devoted to this application with staff contact information as well as other relevant information. The Planning Act provides for a robust public engagement process so that Council can make informed decisions on behalf of its constituents. 27. Notice Commented that they were not aware that this application was being considered and that Notice was not received. Commented that the timing of the January 4, 2021 Planning and Development Committee Meeting and the meeting Notice of the January 4, 2021 Statutory Public Meeting, was placed on the Community Page in the December 10, 2020 and December 17, 2020 editions of the News Advertiser. Notice was also mailed to all land owners within the proposed Established Neighbourhood Precincts and to all land owners within 150 metres of the affected - 174 - OPA 20-006/P and A 11/20: Infill Housing January 4, 2021 Statutory Public Meeting Summary of Comments and Staff Responses Page 29 of 35 Item Number Key Comments/Concerns Staff Response Prepared for June 24, 2021 Open House Notice of December 16, 2020, during a provincial COVID lockdown and over the Christmas holidays, is unacceptable. lands and was posted on the City’s website. In addition, all individuals and organizations listed on the Interested Parties List for the Infill Study were notified of this public meeting. 28. Shadowing, Overlook and Privacy Commented that overlook and privacy are not conditions that can be managed or controlled equitably. Commented that the Ontario Building Code (OBC) limits the amount of openings (i.e. windows) in the side walls of houses and other buildings based on a mathematical calculation for reasons of possible flame spread one building to another in the event of a fire. This OBC code requirement, indirectly contributes to minimizing the possibility of overlook when one house extends deeper than the adjacent houses. Houses will have more overlook possibility into neighbouring properties when the back walls of house are in line vs staggered. It is precisely because the conditions of privacy, overlook and shadowing are variable from property to property that the Council endorsed recommendations of the Infill Study included, official plan and zoning by-law amendments as well as urban design guidelines. It is the combination of these various tools that will help to manage the impacts of new built form on existing built form. The Urban Design Guidelines do not advocate for “lining up the back walls of houses”. Principles 1 and 2 on page 11 of the UDGs are as follows: 1. Enhance and integrate new built form that is compatible with the characteristics of the Established Neighbourhood Precinct. 2. Encourage architectural diversity that complements the character of the Established Neighbourhood Precinct. The UDGs specifically address the matter of Dwelling Depth in guideline 2.3.2 as follows: 2.3.2 Dwelling Depth should be generally in keeping with the existing dwellings along a street to avoid privacy and overshadow issues. The intent of the proposed Urban Design Guidelines is to provide guidance. It is the combination of the proposed official plan policies, zoning by-law amendments and these Urban Design Guidelines that will help to manage the impacts of new built form on existing built form. - 175 - OPA 20-006/P and A 11/20: Infill Housing January 4, 2021 Statutory Public Meeting Summary of Comments and Staff Responses Page 30 of 35 Item Number Key Comments/Concerns Staff Response Prepared for June 24, 2021 Open House 29. “Missing Middle” / Intensification Commented that revising existing neighbourhood standards to allow for greater density does not preserve the character of the neighbourhood nor would it be in the best interest of the residents in that neighbourhood. Commented that it appears that the direction of the City of Pickering is to fill in every square inch of land in established neighbourhoods. Questioned whether or not the proposal will preclude opportunities for intensification in these areas. Are there opportunities for developing “missing middle” housing in these areas? The proposed amendments are not altering the current provisions for allowable density, permitted use, minimum Lot Frontage, and minimum Lot Area. The proposed amendments are not altering the current provision for allowable density. The term “missing middle” generally refers to multi-unit residential housing between 4 and 8 storeys in height, which is more dense than single and semi-detached dwellings, and less dense than high-rise apartment buildings. “Infill Dwelling”, in the context of these amendments, means the development of one or more dwellings such as single detached, semi-detached or street townhouse dwellings, through a consolidation of lots or the severance of a larger lot located on an existing street within an “Established Neighbourhood Precinct Overlay Zone”. Infill Dwelling does not include the development of stacked townhouses, stacked back-to-back townhouses, apartment buildings, or other forms of multi-unit housing resulting in a higher level of density. In this respect, this study addresses compatibility between infill (to the extent described above) and replacement housing in the context of Pickering’s established neighbourhoods. While in some cases there may certainly be opportunities to promote denser forms of housing (the “missing middle”) within and on the fringes of established residential neighbourhoods, these types of development - 176 - OPA 20-006/P and A 11/20: Infill Housing January 4, 2021 Statutory Public Meeting Summary of Comments and Staff Responses Page 31 of 35 Item Number Key Comments/Concerns Staff Response Prepared for June 24, 2021 Open House would be considered in the context of a comprehensive development application, typically involving separate zoning by-law and/or official plan amendments. Such applications would be the subject of a thorough level of review through the City’s established development review processes including a decision of Council. In 2015 the City embarked on the South Pickering Intensification Study (SPIS) with a community engagement program regarding where and to what extent growth should occur in South Pickering. Phase 1 of the SPIS established that the primary areas for intensification are the City Centre and the Mixed Use Nodes and Corridors within the City. Phase 2 of the SPIS consisted of the recently completed Kingston Road Corridor and Specialty Retailing Node Intensification Study. In December 2019, Council endorsed the Kingston Road Corridor and Specialty Retailing Node Intensification Plan which confirms and guides how intensification should proceed along the Kingston Road corridor and within the Specialty Retailing Node (located to the south and east of Kingston Road and Brock Road, and north of Highway 401). It is intended that the “missing middle” will be predominantly accommodated, in addition to other forms of residential and mixed use development, in these areas. 30. Construction Debris and Dust Commented that new construction of houses is dusty, the sidewalk is not cleared, and this prevents one from walking on it. Now more than ever, due to COVID, we all need to get outside for a walk and fresh air. The City addresses matters related to debris and dust from construction, as well as general construction practices on building sites for infill and replacement housing, including concerns with property standards and maintenance, in the City’s brochure on Expectations for Construction Site Maintenance. This brochure is made available to all builders within the City. - 177 - OPA 20-006/P and A 11/20: Infill Housing January 4, 2021 Statutory Public Meeting Summary of Comments and Staff Responses Page 32 of 35 Item Number Key Comments/Concerns Staff Response Prepared for June 24, 2021 Open House 31. General Commented that the city is evolving into something very beautiful and that the existing restrictions are fine the way they are. Commented that they support the proposed amendments. Commented that the words such as ‘Monster Home’ are misleading, emotional and inflammatory. Commented that it is sad that young professionals must compete against developers who will tear down a bungalow or cottage and build a monstrous house for 2 million dollars on the lot. Commented that there should be some more regulations and that they should be fair and should be applied to all of Pickering. Pickering residents should not have restrictions placed on them that are being dictated by one or two associations that are against the building of homes in their own neighbourhood. Commented that redevelopment should be permitted to in accordance with the existing zoning by-law and as supported by the marketplace. Commented that they would like to acknowledge the excellent work put into developing this study by the Consultant. Commented that while the study is not perfect, and is in need of adjustments, it is a step forward. Comments noted and considered. - 178 - OPA 20-006/P and A 11/20: Infill Housing January 4, 2021 Statutory Public Meeting Summary of Comments and Staff Responses Page 33 of 35 Item Number Key Comments/Concerns Staff Response Prepared for June 24, 2021 Open House Commented that the amendments proposed for the City’s official plan and zoning by-laws does nothing for the quality of life for the citizens of Pickering. Commented that nothing but congestion and crime lay ahead for this city. Commented that the Pickering West Shore Community Association (P.W.S.C.A.) has 504 members active on their Facebook web site on a regular basis and who reside in the West Shore community. The P.W.S.C.A. fully supports the Infill Study with its recommendations for Pickering West Shore established Neighborhood Precincts. Questioned how much this study cost and who at the city was responsible for initiating this. Commented that as a resident of the Rosebank neighborhood, I'd like to register my strong support for the proposed amendments. We have been in the neighbourhood close to 10 years now, having bought in the area in part due to the 'look' of it. Commented that over the last few years, the approvals for monster homes and homes with less spacing are changing the neighbourhood, and not in a good way. It may be appropriate to provide exemptions to build affordable housing but that's not been the case. As such, the amendment is On June 25, 2018 Council authorized SGL Planning & Design Inc. (SGL) to undertake the Infill and Replacement Housing in Established Neighbourhoods Study in accordance with Report PLN 22-18 (Resolution #459/18), which stems from two previous resolutions of Council which addressed a community engagement process and pre-budget approval (Resolutions #236/16 and #345/17). The cost of the Study was just under $148,000. - 179 - OPA 20-006/P and A 11/20: Infill Housing January 4, 2021 Statutory Public Meeting Summary of Comments and Staff Responses Page 34 of 35 Item Number Key Comments/Concerns Staff Response Prepared for June 24, 2021 Open House a positive development and I look forward to city council continuing to balance the needs of our communities. Commented that the recommendations of the Infill Study by SGL were not restrictive enough or ideal. 32. Nautical Village Commented that the Nautical Village study be completed so that any proposed development within the boundary of the Nautical Village be in keeping with the Nautical Village character. Questioned why the Nautical Village was not included in the Study. Commented that the Nautical Village study should be included in the final report before it is presented to Council. Commented that Information Report 01-21 does not reference the Nautical Village. Commented that a survey had been conducted within the Infill Study and requested a complete copy of the survey. Per Council’s direction staff is preparing a separate public engagement process. Public consultation for Phase 2 of the City’s Infill and Replacement Housing Study took place by means of an online survey as well as through a Public Open House held on October 29, 2019. Feedback from members of the public was received through different formats and platforms including an online survey. Approximately 154 participants took part in the survey, which consisted of a series of multiple choice questions. The survey also provided participants with the opportunity to provide comments on the majority of the questions. Approximately 100 people attended the Public Open House which was held on October 29, 2019 at the Chestnut Hill Developments Recreation Complex. The feedback received from both the online survey and the October 29, 2019 Public Open House are summarized within section 4 of the Planning Options Report, December 2019 (Phase 2 Report). A detailed summary of comments received from the online survey is contained within Appendix B of this report, and a detailed summary of comments received from the Public Open House is contained within Appendix C. The Planning Options Report, December 2019 (Phase 2 Report) is available on the City’s website. - 180 - OPA 20-006/P and A 11/20: Infill Housing January 4, 2021 Statutory Public Meeting Summary of Comments and Staff Responses Page 35 of 35 Item Number Key Comments/Concerns Staff Response Prepared for June 24, 2021 Open House 33. 1868 Fairport Road Severance Andrew Simanovskis, 1868 Fairport Road, joined the electronic meeting via audio connection to discuss a land severance application he had submitted to the City. Chair Brenner requested that Staff follow up with Mr. Simanovskis after the meeting as the subject matter of the delegation was not directly related to Information Report 01-21. Comment is noted and the planner on the file has been notified. 34. 1924-1932 Valley Farm Road Commented that the property at 1924- 1932 Valley Farm Road is not located within the proposed Established Neighbourhood Precinct, but is located directly east of the proposed boundary. The property owner agrees that these properties should not be within the proposed Established Neighbourhood Precinct. Comment noted. 35. Site Specific: Rosebank Neighbourhood Centreville Homes states that the proposed policies should not be applicable to the redevelopment of the property at 313 Toynevale Road. These properties were included because they meet the criteria of the study. The subject application is currently being processed by City staff and has not yet been considered by Council. - 181 - OPA 20-006/P and A 11/20: Infill Housing June 24, 2021 Electronic Open House Summary of Comments and Staff Responses Page 1 of 19 Item Number Key Comments/Concerns Staff Responses Prepared for Report PLN 33-21 1.Neighbourhood Character and Streetscape Commented that if it is the intention that these amendments will 'preserve' the character of the original neighbourhoods, it's too late. Also, questioned why the original small, single storey dwellings be the 'character' of these neighbourhoods when over half of the dwellings have been replaced with larger new homes. Questioned why these new homes are not being used to define the 'character' of these neighbourhoods. Commented that these precincts are in transition and the redevelopment needs to complete its cycle. Commented that the proposed amendments will not eliminate the existing large homes. Commented that imposing arbitrary restrictions on replacement and infill houses beyond the current zoning by-laws and processes will freeze development and the existing streetscape. Redevelopment should be permitted to continue to completion in compliance with the existing zoning by-law and as supported by the marketplace. Commented that the identified neighbourhoods have transitioned beyond the original now uncommon small bungalows or cottages. These smaller dwellings should not be the drivers of what a neighbouring property owner can build within the Zoning By-laws. Questioned why existing housing that is being replaced in these precincts being established as the standard and scale for new development when these houses that are being replaced have reached their useful life and no longer meet the needs of Pickering families. The recommended amendments do not “freeze development”, nor are they defined by the “original, small, single storey dwellings”. The recommended amendments enable the flexibility for new construction to meet the market demands for house size, while continuing to allow for flexibility in terms of style and simultaneously addressing the compatibility of scale and massing to adjacent houses and the character of the streetscape. The amendments do not limit new construction to what originally existed in the neighbourhood, but rather, enables new construction to be larger than original dwellings, while at the same time being compatible with adjacent dwellings and the streetscape. Attachment #2 to Report #PLN 33-21 - 182 - OPA 20-006/P and A 11/20: Infill Housing June 24, 2021 Electronic Open House Summary of Comments and Staff Responses Page 2 of 19 Item Number Key Comments/Concerns Staff Responses Prepared for Report PLN 33-21 Commented that the City should look at setting dates to expand the precinct boundaries. Commented that it was suggested to City Staff that they explore the introduction of criteria that would trigger the automatic extension of Neighbourhood Precinct boundaries. It was suggested that these criteria could simplify the process in the future by avoiding a lengthy public process. To specifically avoid a future public process is shocking to us and is extremely problematic. Under no circumstances should this be condoned. Exploring options to include criteria to expand, or alter, boundaries to Established Neighbourhood Precincts in the future is not being considered as part of this process due to the complex and uncertain nature of future considerations. Redevelopment in Established Neighbourhoods, and their associated recommended Precincts, will be monitored for future consideration of boundary amendments. 2. Definitions of Infill and Replacement Dwelling Questioned why the definitions of Infill Dwelling and Replacement Dwelling been removed from the latest Draft Zoning By-law Amendment. The terms Infill Dwelling and Replacement Dwelling are defined in Recommended Official Plan Amendment 40. Since these terms are not directly referred to in any of the provisions in the Draft Zoning By-law Amendment, it is not necessary to define the terms in the by-law itself. These terms are referenced in the preamble to the Draft Zoning By-law Amendment, directing the reader to the definitions in the Official Plan. 3. Definition of ‘side yard setback’ Questioned why ‘side yard setback’ is not defined in the bylaw amendment or included in part 5 ‘Provisions’. Parent By-laws (2511, 2520, 3036) define “yards” (side, front and rear) and not “setbacks”. Current practice is to use the term “setback” and therefore a definition is provided in the Draft Zoning By-law Amendment. There is no recommended change to the side yard requirements as established in the parent zoning by- laws and therefore there is no provision for side yard setback included in the Draft Zoning By-law Amendment. 4. Lot Coverage Commented that the existing lot coverage not be reduced. Based on comments received, a review of recently approved Building Permits, and lot sizes within the Established Neighbourhood Precincts, staff have - 183 - OPA 20-006/P and A 11/20: Infill Housing June 24, 2021 Electronic Open House Summary of Comments and Staff Responses Page 3 of 19 Item Number Key Comments/Concerns Staff Responses Prepared for Report PLN 33-21 Commented that lot coverage be increased to reflect established precedent within the community. Questioned what difference the reduction in lot coverages will make and why lot coverage reductions are being proposed in light of recent applications for coverage increases, many of which have been approved in 2021. Commented that lot coverage reductions will not contribute to streetscapes or the protection of established communities or any of the Objectives or Principles described on page 11 of the SGL report [Urban Design Guidelines for Infill & Replacement Housing in Established Neighbourhood Precincts, August 2020]. For example, lot coverage will not affect the allowable maximum width of the dwelling. The effect of a 3% lot coverage reduction will not be visible from the street. The effect will be 150 square feet less in building footprint [for a 50 foot by 100 foot lot]. Perhaps 150 square feet that could be used for a home office or other personal living space. Commented that reducing existing lot coverage is out of date with respect to societal changes, including, but not limited to, the impact of the [COVID-19] pandemic creating the need and the desire for larger homes to accommodate home offices and fitness areas, in home childcare, home schooling, in home care for elderly relatives, family members of empty nesters moving home for various reasons. Commented that lot coverage and maximum building footprint be determined by the subtraction of prescribed setbacks from property widths and depths. Questioned why the allowable Lot Coverage is being reduced when a review of the Committee of revised the proposed zoning by-law provision related to Lot Coverage to, in some cases, include a condition associated with Lot Area. The recommended Lot Coverage is a reduction from the current maximum of 33% to 25%, for lots with a Lot Area greater than or equal to 1,000 square metres, within the Established Neighbourhood Precincts, except in the case of the Liverpool Established Neighbourhood Precinct in which case the reduction to 25% applies to the whole precinct, as shown below: (i)Dunbarton Neighbourhood Precinct: a.For lots greater than or equal to 1,000 square metres in area: Maximum 25%; b.For lots less than 1000 square metres in area: Maximum 33%; (ii)Highbush Neighbourhood Precinct: a.For lots greater than or equal to 1,000 square metres in area: Maximum 25%; b.For lots less than 1,000 square metres in area: Maximum 33%; (iii)Liverpool Neighbourhood Precincts: Maximum 25%; (iv)Rosebank Neighbourhood Precincts: a.For lots greater than or equal to 1,000 square metres in area: Maximum 25%; b.For lots less than 1,000 square metres in area: Maximum 33%; (v)Rougemount Neighbourhood Precincts: a.For lots greater than or equal to 1,000 square metres in area: Maximum 25%; b.For lots less than 1,000 square metres in area: Maximum 33%; (vi)Woodlands Neighbourhood Precinct: - 184 - OPA 20-006/P and A 11/20: Infill Housing June 24, 2021 Electronic Open House Summary of Comments and Staff Responses Page 4 of 19 Item Number Key Comments/Concerns Staff Responses Prepared for Report PLN 33-21 Adjustment applications shows that lot coverages in excess of 40% are regularly being granted. This is now the character of these neighbourhoods. Commented that the proposed reductions in Lot Coverage will result in more applications to the Committee of Adjustment. Commented that a proposed maximum Lot Coverage of 30% for the West Shore Neighbourhood Precinct is acceptable. a. For lots greater than or equal to 1,000 square metres in area: Maximum 25%; b. For lots less than 1,000 square metres in area: Maximum 33%; The maximum Lot Coverage for the Bay Ridges and West Shore Established Neighbourhood Precincts is recommended to remain at 33%. The recommended Lot Coverage regulations are based on research performed through the Infill Study on existing lot coverages within each Established Neighbourhood Precinct, including original dwellings as well as infill and replacement dwellings. In addition, previous Committee of Adjustment decisions were reviewed and the data demonstrated that few requests were made to increase Lot Coverage beyond the permitted maximum of 33%. With the exception of the recommended Bay Ridges and West Shore Established Neighbourhood Precincts, existing Lot Coverages in the recommended Established Neighbourhood Precincts are predominantly under 30% and in many cases below 20%. In addition, staff reviewed approved Building Permit data for new construction of detached dwellings over the last five years within the recommended Established Neighbourhoods, which demonstrates that the majority of these new dwellings would comply with the recommended Lot Coverage. 5. Lot Coverage – Calculation Commented that covered front porches be excluded from the calculation of Lot Coverage, and be included as a permitted encroachment within the front yard within the proposed implementing Zoning By-law Amendments. The recommended definition of Lot Coverage is as follows: “Lot Coverage” means the total horizontal area on the lot of all above grade roofed structures and buildings, measured at the level of the first floor and expressed as a percentage of the lot area, including covered - 185 - OPA 20-006/P and A 11/20: Infill Housing June 24, 2021 Electronic Open House Summary of Comments and Staff Responses Page 5 of 19 Item Number Key Comments/Concerns Staff Responses Prepared for Report PLN 33-21 platforms such as covered decks and covered porches, but excluding eaves, belt courses, chimney breasts, sills or cornice projections to a maximum of 0.6 of a metre, and balconies. The proposal does not alter the existing method of calculating lot coverage. The recommended definition of Lot Coverage clarifies exclusions to the calculation such as eaves, belt courses, chimney breasts, sills or cornices projections to a maximum of 0.6 metres and balconies. Excluding covered porches from the calculation of Lot Coverage could potentially be considered through the City’s Comprehensive Zoning By-law Review. 6. Lot Frontage Commented that Lot Frontage should not change. Lot Frontage is not being altered by these amendments. 7. Dwelling Depth Commented that the maximum Dwelling Depth should be removed from the proposal. Commented that it is not necessary to impose another layer of impact to lot coverage by adding a maximum Dwelling Depth. Imposing maximum dwelling depths may further reduce lot coverage to less than the proposed maximum lot coverage percentages. Commented that application of a maximum Dwelling Depth could restrict the buildable area of a lot to below the maximum Lot Coverage being proposed. The recommended maximum Dwelling Depth aims to strike a balance between recognizing existing dwelling depths while also allowing for flexibility for the construction of new infill and replacement dwellings based on the overall depth of a lot. The Infill Study (Phase 2 Report) noted that replacement dwellings and infill dwellings are typically larger in mass than original homes within the established neighbourhoods, and this increase in mass can translate to dwellings that are wider and longer. Further, it stated that: “New, wider and longer dwellings located adjacent to original dwellings in established neighbourhoods can lead to compatibility issues related to the overall scale of dwellings, including privacy, overlook and shadowing issues.” The Infill Study identified that although, on a broad scale, the City’s zoning by-laws do not regulate the - 186 - OPA 20-006/P and A 11/20: Infill Housing June 24, 2021 Electronic Open House Summary of Comments and Staff Responses Page 6 of 19 Item Number Key Comments/Concerns Staff Responses Prepared for Report PLN 33-21 width or length of dwellings, there are some area- specific zones where dwelling length is regulated. The Infill Study found that the dwelling length of original bungalows range, on average, from approximately 7 to 10 metres. These homes are relatively smaller in dwelling length compared to many other homes in established neighbourhoods, both original and new, which range on average between approximately 12 and 19 metres in length. There are also many homes that exceed 20 metres in dwelling length. The Phase 2 Report concluded that regulating the maximum depth of a dwelling would control the maximum distance that the rear wall of a dwelling could be located in relation to the front yard setback, and that this will help to ensure that the siting and placement of new dwellings is compatible with existing dwellings and mitigate compatibility issues related to shadowing, overlook and privacy. The Infill Study recommended a new performance standard for maximum Dwelling Depth based on the overall depth of a lot. The proposed maximum Dwelling Depths are based on observations, within the proposed Established Neighbourhood Precincts. Within these areas, it has been observed that new dwellings typically have rear walls that extend further into the rear yard of properties than original dwellings, with ranging depths. Recognizing that original dwellings tend to have a shorter dwelling depth than newer dwellings, it is expected that there will continue to be variations in the depth of dwellings within a block. However, by limiting the Dwelling Depth, the goal is that the rear walls of new dwellings (or additions to existing dwellings) do not project too far beyond those - 187 - OPA 20-006/P and A 11/20: Infill Housing June 24, 2021 Electronic Open House Summary of Comments and Staff Responses Page 7 of 19 Item Number Key Comments/Concerns Staff Responses Prepared for Report PLN 33-21 of the adjacent dwellings, in order to mitigate potential impacts related to shadowing, privacy and overlook on adjacent rear yards. The recommended amendment includes a definition for Dwelling Depth as follows: “Dwelling Depth” means the horizontal distance measured from the minimum front yard setback to the rear wall of a dwelling, excluding any Obstruction of Yards. “Obstruction of Yards” is defined in parent zoning by-laws (2511, 2520 and 3036) as follows: “Obstruction of Yards” No person shall obstruct in any manner whatsoever any front yard, side yard or rear yard required to be provided by this By-law, but this provision shall not apply to: (a) main eaves, belt courses, chimney breasts, sills or cornices not projecting more than 0.5 of a metre into required yard; (b) uncovered steps or platforms not exceeding 1.0 metre in height above grade and not projecting more than 1.5 metres into any required front yard, not 1.0 metre into any required side yard; (c) awnings, clothes poles, recreational equipment, garden trellises, or similar accessories; (d) fire escapes projecting not more than 1.5 metres into the side yard or rear yard; (e) fences in a side or rear yard; (f) hedges or ornamental fences of open construction not exceeding 1.0 metres in height in a front yard; and (g) accessory uses permitted by this By-law. - 188 - OPA 20-006/P and A 11/20: Infill Housing June 24, 2021 Electronic Open House Summary of Comments and Staff Responses Page 8 of 19 Item Number Key Comments/Concerns Staff Responses Prepared for Report PLN 33-21 The recommended provision for Dwelling Depth is as follows: Dwelling Depth (maximum): The maximum Dwelling Depth, measured from the minimum front yard setback to the rear wall of a dwelling, shall be as follows: (i) For lots with depths up to and including 40 metres: 17 metres (ii) For lots with depths greater than 40 metres: 20 metres The Infill Study (Phase 2 Report) noted that these maximum Dwelling Depths are consistent with observed characteristics within established neighbourhoods, and are not anticipated to generate any compliance issues with original dwellings within neighbourhoods. 8. Dwelling Depth – Definition Commented that the proposed definition of ‘Building Depth’ be amended, to be measured from the actual main front wall of the inhabited portion of a building or structure, rather than from the minimum front yard setback. This approach will not penalize design which elects to employ a greater front yard for additional landscaping or building articulation. The amendments do not include a definition for Building Depth, but rather for Dwelling Depth. The recommended amendment includes the following definition for Dwelling Depth: “Dwelling Depth” means the horizontal distance measured from the minimum front yard setback to the rear wall of a dwelling, excluding any Obstruction of Yards. The recommended maximum Dwelling Depth aims to strike a balance between recognizing existing dwelling depths while also allowing for flexibility for the construction of new infill and replacement dwellings based on the overall depth of a lot. See Staff Response above (for Item Number 7: Dwelling Depth) for a full explanation. - 189 - OPA 20-006/P and A 11/20: Infill Housing June 24, 2021 Electronic Open House Summary of Comments and Staff Responses Page 9 of 19 Item Number Key Comments/Concerns Staff Responses Prepared for Report PLN 33-21 9. Dwelling Height Commented that they support the regulation of Dwelling Height. Commented that the definition of Dwelling Height should include details regarding percentage of a roof that is sloped, and diagrams, as is done in the City of Toronto. Comment noted. 10. Side Yard Setback Adjacent to a Rear Yard for Infill Dwelling Commented that the 4.5 metre setback should, and must, be added back into the planning policy. The 4.5 metre setback originally agreed upon is not unreasonable considering the characteristic of the longstanding existing neighbourhoods. Commented in support of the removal of the provision requiring a 4.5 metre side yard for those lands where a side yard abuts an existing rear yard. The proposed zoning regulation for Side Yard Setback adjacent to a rear yard for Infill Dwelling has been removed. The Draft Zoning By-law proposed a minimum Side Yard Setback for an Infill Dwelling. The regulation stipulated that where the side lot line of a newly created lot for any Infill Dwelling abuts the rear lot line of an existing lot of record, the minimum side yard setback to the side lot line abutting the rear lot line of an existing lot of record shall be 4.5 metres. Upon further examination, staff have established that there are various examples of existing conditions within the Established Neighbourhood Precincts where a lot may be flanked on one or both sides by a rear lot. The proposed zoning regulation, in conjunction with the size of the subject lots in these existing situations, would prohibit reasonable development of the property, and therefore the proposed zoning regulation has been removed. 11. Front Yard Setback (minimum and maximum) Commented that the Front Yard Setback should not change. Commented that requirements that rely on a comparison to the existing condition on a neighbouring property must be removed from the proposal and that this creates inequity between The intent of the new performance standards for minimum and maximum front yard setbacks is to reinforce the open space characteristics of the neighbourhood, while at the same time allowing for flexibility of a range of 1.0 metre. This assists in avoiding a monotonous “wall” of front facades along the street, which can add to the diversity of the - 190 - OPA 20-006/P and A 11/20: Infill Housing June 24, 2021 Electronic Open House Summary of Comments and Staff Responses Page 10 of 19 Item Number Key Comments/Concerns Staff Responses Prepared for Report PLN 33-21 property owners even within the same Established Neighbourhood Precinct. Commented that by-laws pertaining to private residential properties must contain only criteria that is quantifiable and measurable for building permit applicants. Commented that all setbacks be measured from the existing street, understanding that the setback is not the same in each subdivision. streetscape. City staff have considered and reviewed the logistics of using the recommended criteria, and are satisfied that it is quantifiable and measurable. Parent By-laws (2511, 2520, 3036) define “yards” (side, front and rear) and not “setbacks”. Current practice is to use the term “setback” and therefore a definition of “setback” is provided in the proposed zoning by-law. 12. Elevation of Front Entrance Commented that the zoning by-law provision related to front elevation steps be removed from document. The genesis of the Infill Study related to the size and mass of infill and replacement dwellings. Phases 1 and 2 of the Infill Study focused on gaining an understanding the key elements that contribute to the character of neighbourhoods and exploring options to address and mitigate the impacts associated with development perceived to be incompatible. With respect to larger dwellings, impacts associated with shadow, privacy, and overlook onto neighbouring properties, were identified. While a dwelling may be perceived to be “large” on a smaller lot, that same dwelling located on a larger lot may be perceived as “fitting in” with the scale and massing of other dwellings in the neighbourhood. Taking this into consideration, the Infill Study explored options to address the size, and the perception of the size of a dwelling on a lot, based on the elements that contribute to defining the mass of the dwelling. These elements include, among other things, the height of the front entrance. The Infill Study (Phase 2 Report) elaborates on the height of the front entrance to a dwelling and how it contributes to the overall height of a dwelling, and how that height is perceived from the street. - 191 - OPA 20-006/P and A 11/20: Infill Housing June 24, 2021 Electronic Open House Summary of Comments and Staff Responses Page 11 of 19 Item Number Key Comments/Concerns Staff Responses Prepared for Report PLN 33-21 The height of the front entrance varies with infill and replacement housing and can be related to the height of the basement above grade, which in turn may be related to the level of the water table in some neighbourhoods. The stairs to the main level of the house may be located on the interior or exterior of the house. In some cases, when the stairs to the main entrance are provided entirely on the exterior of a dwelling, the elevation of the entrance may seem significantly higher when compared to other dwellings. In other cases where there is an elevated first floor, the stairs to the front entrance are located both outside and inside the dwelling. In these cases, the front entrance is lower than that of the previous example. The height of the front entrance contributes to the perception of the overall height of a dwelling as viewed from the street. Thus, the Infill Study recommended that a zoning by-law regulation and urban design guidelines that address this element of neighbourhood character be implemented. 13. Driveway Width Commented that it’s a problem to have a 6.0 metre standard driveway width, or as wide as a two-door garage, especially if the front and back yards are landscaped with heavy paving stones. Commented that they welcome the restrictions to driveway width. Commented that the regulation for Driveway Width should not be eliminated. City Engineering Services Design Criteria require a minimum driveway width of 3.5 metres for a single driveway and 6.0 metres for a shared driveway. The recommended Draft Zoning By-law contains the following provision for Driveway Width: Driveway Width (maximum): The maximum width of a driveway shall be 6.0 metres. However, for lots where the entrance of a garage or carport is wider than 6.0 metres, the maximum driveway width shall be no greater than the width of the entrance of a garage or carport. - 192 - OPA 20-006/P and A 11/20: Infill Housing June 24, 2021 Electronic Open House Summary of Comments and Staff Responses Page 12 of 19 Item Number Key Comments/Concerns Staff Responses Prepared for Report PLN 33-21 14. Transition Provisions Commented that the Transition Provisions do not address Zoning By-law and Official Plan Amendment applications Zoning By-law and Official Plan amendment applications are not associated with Infill or Replacement Dwellings, but with applications for multiple dwellings, and therefore do not require transitional provisions in the draft zoning by-law. 15. Front Yard Landscaping Commented that when the new homes are occupied, landscapers are brought in to widen driveways another half the width of the house past the garages, and in one case noting that a homeowner has paved the complete front yard right to the curb. One concern is that there are now 3 cars parked, where there should only be two. Another concern is that these paving stones are then covered with a mixture that seals all the cracks so that no water can permeate them, which causes water to run off without a chance to soak into the ground and nourish trees and vegetation. Commented that the front, side, and rear garden should not to be paved over. Commented that Proposed Amendment 40 Item 1. (f) (vi) and (vii) is “wishy-washy” wording and that it doesn’t stop developers from coming in without permission to remove trees and that there should be enforcement for paving over more than the 6.0 metre driveway. The Infill Study (Phase 2 Report) elaborates on driveway widths and their impact on front yard landscaping. In order to promote a greater amount of landscaping in the front yard and reduce the impacts of water run-off from pavement, the recommended amendments include a zoning by-law provision for maximum Driveway Width as well as urban design guidelines that address the matters of driveway width and water infiltration into the soil. The zoning by-law provision is as follows: “Driveway Width (maximum): The maximum width of a driveway shall be 6.0 metres. However, for lots where the entrance of a garage or carport is wider than 6.0 metres, the maximum driveway width shall be no greater than the width of the entrance of a garage or carport.” Urban design guidelines related to Driveway Width and Front Yard Landscaping can be found in subsections 3.3 and 4.1 of the Urban Design Guidelines for Infill & Replacement Housing in Established Neighbourhood Precincts. 16. Urban Design Guidelines and Checklist Commented that the Design Guidelines and Checklists are not necessary and must not be imposed. Commented that City staff confirmed that the Urban Design Guidelines are ‘guidelines’ and not ‘regulations’ and yet the language of the proposed The recommended Urban Design Guidelines for Infill & Replacement Housing in Established Neighbourhood Precincts, August 2021, does not “regulate” or “require” standards to be met. - 193 - OPA 20-006/P and A 11/20: Infill Housing June 24, 2021 Electronic Open House Summary of Comments and Staff Responses Page 13 of 19 Item Number Key Comments/Concerns Staff Responses Prepared for Report PLN 33-21 by-law amendment includes the phrases “policies that require new development…'' and “…standards and definitions to regulate…". Questioned whether the by-law language be corrected to remove the words ‘require’ and ‘regulate’. Questioned why the Urban Design Guidelines and checklist continue to be included when City staff confirmed that they do not need to be followed in order to secure a building permit. Commented about concern that the proposed design guidelines will lean towards uniformity rather than the diversity which is the character of the identified neighbourhoods. Commented that the ‘Urban Design Guideline Checklist’ is arbitrary, subjective and has no set standard of empirical values for measurement. Questioned who will evaluate a redevelopment submission for compliance to these guidelines. Urban Design Guidelines are created to provide guidance. The very nature of urban design guidelines is to “guide”, not “control” or “restrict” design choices. Zoning By-laws are the Planning tool used to “control and restrict” built form. Official Plan policies enable the enactment of zoning by-laws and may include language such as “require” and “regulate”. The phrases “…policies that require new development…'' and “…standards and definitions to regulate…" are used in recommended Official Plan policy Item 1 (f) and Draft Zoning By-law pre-amble (fifth paragraph) respectively. In both cases it is entirely appropriate to use this type of language given the type of planning document being used. There is value in using the recommended Revised Urban Design Guidelines, notwithstanding they are not an evaluation tool for a Building Permit application. The purpose and intent of the Urban Design Guidelines Checklist was, and is, to summarize the key intentions of the guidelines, and to act as a quick review for planning staff, Committee of Adjustment Members, and designers when reviewing or preparing Minor Variance applications. The Urban Design Guidelines Checklist cannot be read in isolation, and must be read in conjunction with all of the Urban Design Guidelines, and the relevant guidelines are to be applied to each situation. In addition, staff is proposing to revise the Urban Design Guideline Checklist questions to remove questions 1 (roof style), 6 (architectural style of the main entrance), 7 (front porch/weather protection), 13 (garage roof style), 14 (garage door style), - 194 - OPA 20-006/P and A 11/20: Infill Housing June 24, 2021 Electronic Open House Summary of Comments and Staff Responses Page 14 of 19 Item Number Key Comments/Concerns Staff Responses Prepared for Report PLN 33-21 17 (sustainable design features), 19 (tree planting), and 20 (type of tree species). The Urban Design Guidelines establish guidelines to encourage the construction of new houses that support and enhance the character of the identified neighbourhood precincts rather than freezing neighbourhoods in time. The Urban Design Guidelines address the compatibility of scale and massing of new construction compared to adjacent houses and the character of the streetscape. 17. Tree Protection Commented that the City should protect its mature trees. Commented that they welcome the introduction of a tree by-law. Commented that there needs to be a by-law to regulate damage and destruction to trees. Commented that a tree preservation bylaw should be adopted as soon as possible and at the same time as the other by-laws. Commented that a tree by-law should apply all across the City of Pickering. Commented that they have seen heavy skids of masonry stacked around the base of a tree, heavy pruning/delimbing occurring and removal of mature trees. Commented that the Federal Government has recently budgeted significant funds to plant trees as part of their focus on reaching carbon neutral, since trees absorb carbon. Staff will consider these comments through the ongoing process to investigate the details and implications of a Private Tree Protection By-law, in accordance with Council direction of September 28, 2020. - 195 - OPA 20-006/P and A 11/20: Infill Housing June 24, 2021 Electronic Open House Summary of Comments and Staff Responses Page 15 of 19 Item Number Key Comments/Concerns Staff Responses Prepared for Report PLN 33-21 Commented that they have previously sent copies of the by-laws from the Cities of Toronto and Vancouver, and that with minor modifications Pickering could use these as a template for a Pickering by-law. Commented that the Fairport Beach Neighbourhood Association had started requesting a by-law be put in place back in October 2018, and that its time to get beyond a potential by-law. 18. Property Values Commented that councilors should be risk averse to any proposal that has any potential to negatively impact property values. Commented that imposing standards on a property relative to its adjacent properties and surrounding areas rather than a set standard creates inconsistencies and inequitably impacts property owners where adjacent properties have not been redeveloped. Commented that the result is that property values in areas where redevelopment has not occurred will be adversely affected. A correlation cannot be conclusively made between the initiation of establishing the recommended amendments related to infill and replacement housing and housing prices in recommended Established Neighbourhood Precincts. Other influences, such as market forces, interest rates, other government policies (federal and provincial), etc., may also be contributing factors. Front Yard Setback, maximum and minimum, is the only recommended zoning provision that references the adjacent condition. This provision allows for a one metre flexibility. The purpose of the recommended Front Yard Setback provision is to address compatibility issues related to the massing of new dwellings with respect to potential shadowing, privacy and overlook relative to adjacent houses, as well as compatibility of the new construction within the overall character of the streetscape. 19. Right to Appeal Commented that the process or right of appeal for property owners must be maintained and must not be circumvented. The inclusion of the Design Guidelines, Checklist or any other criteria should not result in the removal of any property owner’s right to appeal. The recommended amendments, and the recommended Urban Design Guidelines (and Checklist), do not remove a person’s right to appeal a decision to the Ontario Land Tribunal. The recommended amendments are to the City’s Official Plan and Zoning By-laws 2511, 2520 and 3036. In order to preserve the right to appeal these - 196 - OPA 20-006/P and A 11/20: Infill Housing June 24, 2021 Electronic Open House Summary of Comments and Staff Responses Page 16 of 19 Item Number Key Comments/Concerns Staff Responses Prepared for Report PLN 33-21 amendments to the Ontario Land Tribunal, a person or public body must make an oral submission at a public meeting or make written submissions to the City of Pickering before the recommended official plan and zoning by-law amendments are passed. 20. Engagement and Notice Questioned how would other than previous delegates be aware of this Open House [June 24, 2021 Electronic Public Open House]. Commented that it is disappointing that the [June 24, 2021 Electronic] Open House was online and not conducted at a time when more residents and ratepayers could attend in person and interact without formally registering as an online delegate. Commented that virtual meetings are unacceptable. Commented that every virtual meeting in this process has had technical difficulties. Call quality is inconsistent, delegations cannot be heard. The process can be intimidating to constituents who are not comfortable or adept with technology. The process discriminates against those constituents who do not have access to a computer or wi-fi at home and can't access services of the public library due to current public health restrictions. Notice of the June 24, 2021 Electronic Open House was placed on the Community Page in the June 10, 2021 and June 17, 2021 editions of the News Advertiser, and was posted on the City’s website. Also, all individuals and organizations listed on the Interested Parties List for the Infill Study and this initiative (OPA 20-006/P and A 11/20), were notified of the June 24, 2021 open house. Due to the current COVID-19 pandemic and the Premier’s Emergency Order to prohibit public events and limit gatherings, the City of Pickering has adopted electronic public meetings to continue with the business of the City during the pandemic. The Notice of the June 24, 2021 Electronic Open House provided detailed information on how to register as a delegate with City staff for the meeting. In addition, contact information for staff was provided in the Notice should anyone decide that they would prefer to email or speak directly with staff on the matter. The City also has a webpage devoted to this application with staff contact information as well as other relevant information. There were eight delegates pre-registered to speak at the June 24, 2021 Electronic Open House. Prior to the meeting, one delegate decided not to speak, and another was unavailable to connect during the meeting. When contacted by staff, both of these - 197 - OPA 20-006/P and A 11/20: Infill Housing June 24, 2021 Electronic Open House Summary of Comments and Staff Responses Page 17 of 19 Item Number Key Comments/Concerns Staff Responses Prepared for Report PLN 33-21 delegates decided not to submit any comments. The final delegate who had technical difficulty connecting to the meeting, submitted written comments to the City for consideration. 21. Shadowing, Overlook and Privacy Commented that shadowing, overlook, privacy and access to sunlight or views are not quantifiable. These are variables which are affected by other variables, including, but not limited to orientation, time of year, landscaping and tree planting. To imply that property owners can be guaranteed protection from shadowing and overlook is misleading. It is accurate to state that conditions of privacy, overlook and shadowing are variable from property to property. The various recommended tools in no way can, or will, guarantee protection from shadowing and overlook. The combination of the recommended official plan and zoning by-law amendments, and Urban Design Guidelines will help to manage these impacts of new built form on existing built form. 22. Cost of Study Commented that the City has spent over $300,000.00 on consulting fees to SGL for the initial report and subsequent revisions, and that doesn't mean it can't be shelved. Questioned whether or not implementing the proposed amendments may be an attempt to have a tangible product to justify the almost $340,000 of public funds paid to SGL Consulting and that there is always the option in any project to maintain the status quo. The cost of the Infill Study was just under $148,000. On June 25, 20181 Council authorized SGL Planning & Design Inc. (SGL) to undertake the Infill and Replacement Housing in Established Neighbourhoods Study in accordance with Report PLN 22-18 (Resolution #459/18), which stems from two previous resolutions of Council which addressed a community engagement process and pre-budget approval (Resolutions #236/16 and #345/17). 23. Enforcement Commented on multiple complaints against a specific infill builder in the West Shore Neighbourhood and suggested that fines be applied to infractions. Questioned whether or not the City requires any type of performance bond for infill builders. The City requires a performance deposit and a grading deposit prior to the issuance of a building permit. The performance deposit relates to the Ontario Building Code and the grading deposit relates to engineering works (which covers damage to municipal property such as curb or roadway). 24. Neighbourhood Character/South Pickering Intensification Study Commented that through the City’s South Pickering Intensification Study consultation, many people indicated that they would need help to age in place because they did not believe they could afford moving to new places more appropriate to their health and Comment noted. - 198 - OPA 20-006/P and A 11/20: Infill Housing June 24, 2021 Electronic Open House Summary of Comments and Staff Responses Page 18 of 19 Item Number Key Comments/Concerns Staff Responses Prepared for Report PLN 33-21 family size. Questioned what would be appropriate in the future when the current residents are no longer there. 25. General Commented in support the draft document as is written. Commented that the Committee of Adjustment must take site drainage, as it exists at the time of the meeting, into consideration, and that no water flow should be allowed to go over neighbouring properties. Commented that the Fairport Beach Neighbourhood Association does not represent all residents of Fairport Beach. Commented that some builders may be intimidated by these proposed changes and will leave the City as a result. Comments noted. Questioned why By-law 2511 hasn't been revised significantly since the 1960's, except for the recent revision for building height in the R3/R4 areas of 9.0 metres. Commented that the City must be more proactive in reviewing and upgrading all aspects of municipal responsibility especially as it relates to infill housing. Commented that builders know what they can take advantage of, with respect to pushing boundaries that aren't addressed by legislation and that many of these builders have come from Toronto because they see what can be done here without restrictions. The City has initiated a review of the six existing zoning by-laws. The purpose of this review is to: • create one consolidated zoning by-law; • update zoning to reflect Official Plan policies and associated development guidelines; • complete necessary research to ensure the new by-law is consistent with current legislation, policy and trends; and • post the by-law text and mapping on the City’s website. The review is currently in Phase 2 of three phases. 26. Site Specific: Rosebank Neighbourhood Centreville Homes commented that the proposed policies should not be applicable to the redevelopment of their property at 313 Toynevale Road. The property subject to the Centreville Homes application was included because it meets the criteria of the study. The subject application is currently being processed by City staff and has not yet been considered by Council. - 199 - OPA 20-006/P and A 11/20: Infill Housing June 24, 2021 Electronic Open House Summary of Comments and Staff Responses Page 19 of 19 Item Number Key Comments/Concerns Staff Responses Prepared for Report PLN 33-21 27. Site Specific: Bay Ridges Neighbourhood (Annland Street) Questioned how the amendments will impact the homeowner’s Committee of Adjustment application specifically as it relates to their proposed maximum Dwelling Height. The question relates to a site specific Committee of Adjustment Application. Transition Provisions are included in the Recommended Draft Zoning By-law to address Committee of Adjustment applications, among other development applications. - 200 - Attachment #3 to Report #PLN 33-21 Liverpool RoadHighway 40 1 K ingstonR oadP i c k e r in g ParkwayAltona RoadDixieRoadBayly Street BrockRoadFairport RoadRosebankRoadRosebank West Shore Brock Industrial Rougemount Woodlands Dunbarton Highbush Amberlea Brock Ridge Rouge Park Duffin Heights Bay Ridges City Centre Liverpool Village East © 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 Development Department Location Map Applicant: Date: Aug. 20, 2021 Lake Ontario L:\PLANNING\01-MapFiles\OPA\2020\OPA 20-006, A11-20 City Initiated Infill\OPA 20-006P_LocationMap.mxd 1:45,000 SCALE: THIS IS NOT A PLAN OF SURVEY. Legend Neighbourhood Boundaries Established Neighbourhood Precincts File: Property Description: OPA 20-006/P & A 11/20 City of Pickering Established Neighbourhood Precincts - 201 - Attachment #4 to Report #PLN 33-21 WhitesRoadHillcrest RoadRougemountDriveCreekview CircleOklahoma DriveHoover Drive Rodd AvenueAltona RoadToynevale Road Littleford Street Pettico a tCreek Kin g ston Roa d Highwa y 4 0 1 DownlandDriveEyer DriveBroadgreen StreetCowan CircleFawndale RoadAtwoodC rescent Rosebank RoadOakwood DriveSteeple Hill MountainAsh DriveLightfoot PlaceD a l e w o o d D r i v e Dyson RoadRiverviewCr e s cent Granite C o u r tRouge Valley DriveOldForest RoadMcleod CrescentBella V i s t aDriveDahlia CrescentCliffviewRoadHig hbush T ra i l P i n e R i d g e R o a d StonebridgeLaneMoorelands CrescentBayly StreetEstablished Neighbourhood Precincts Sheet 1 of 8 - Rosebank Neighbourhood Legend Established Neighbourhood Precincts - 202 - Whites RoadFairport RoadK i ng s ton R o a d Longbow DriveCreekviewCircleParkCrescentWest Shore BoulevardWalnut LaneSheppard Avenue RambleberryAvenueGoldenridgeRoadBreezy Drive Vicki Drive Rougemount Drive Fairview AvenueEastbank RoadStrouds Lane Shadybrook DriveRodd Av enue Toynevale Road SanokDriveHillcrest RoadPettic o at C r e e k BatoryAvenueDownlandDrive Edgewood Road Eyer DriveFoxwood TrailBroadgreen StreetCowan CircleAutumnCrescentRawlingsDriveOklahoma Drive Vistula Drive AtwoodC rescent Spruce Hill RoadRosebank RoadLaurierCrescentWeyburn SquareDunbarton R oadEdmund DriveDixieRoadCobblers Court Wingarden CrescentBa y ly S t r e e t Sunrise Avenue Beach p oi nt Pr o m enadeOldForest RoadOakwood DriveVictory DriveHi l lv iew C r e s c e n t Steeple Hill LightfootPlaceMarksbury RoadDysonRoadGranite C o u r t StorringtonStreetBronte SquareMcleod CrescentAppleview RoadBellaVista DriveDahlia CrescentBraeburnCrescentSilver Maple DriveSundown CrescentWhite Cedar DriveFoleyetCrescentBeckworthSquareAmberwoodCr escentHig hbush T ra i l MeadowviewAvenue Listowell CrescentStonebridge Lane Cliffview Road Marinet Cre scent Essa CrescentMoorelandsCrescentHeathsideCrescentH ig h way 4 0 1 S u l t a n aSq u a r e Established Neighbourhood Precincts Sheet 2 of 8 - West Shore Neighbourhood Legend Established Neighbourhood Precincts - 203 - Liverpool RoadGull Crossing Modlin RoadColmar AvenueBalaton AvenueFairview AvenueDouglas AvenueAnnland S t r e e tDi x i eRoadKrosnoBoulevardParkham CrescentReytanBoulevardGarvolin Avenue Sandy Beach RoadFron t Road Tatra Drive Bem AvenueNaroch BoulevardZator AvenueGrenoble BoulevardLublin AvenueRadom Street Commerce Street Poprad Avenue Bayly StreetKingston R oadChapleauDriveWharf Street Pickering P a rk w a y Alliance RoadMiriam RoadAntonio StreetMontgomery Park Road Highway 40 1 Established Neighbourhood Precincts Sheet 3 of 8 - Bay Ridges Neighbourhood Legend Established Neighbourhood Precincts - 204 - Rougemount DrivePine Grove AvenueValleyviewDriveLawson Street Waterford GateOakburn StreetHoover DriveToynevale Road Littlefo rd S t r e e t Altona RoadHighway 4 0 1 Strouds LaneValley Ridge CrescentAutumnCrescentFawndale RoadThicket CrescentCalvingtonD r iv e Treetop Way Old Forest RoadOakwood DriveMountain Ash DriveWoodview AvenueDa l e w o o d D r i v e Twyn Rivers Drive Kingston Roa dRockwood DriveRiverviewCr e s c ent Sheppard Avenue R o u g e V alle y D r i v e Howell Crescent Mcleod CrescentDahlia CrescentWhitePineCrescent Silver Maple DriveWoodview DriveWhite Cedar DriveP i n e R i d g e R o a dSenatorStreet High bush T ra i l Established Neighbourhood Precincts Sheet 4 of 8 - Rougemount Neighbourhood Legend Established Neighbourhood Precincts - 205 - Whites RoadRougemountDriveToynevale Road Kingst o n R o a d Creekview CircleS t rouds Lane Park CrescentCowan CircleSheppard Avenue Hillcrest RoadHighwa y 4 0 1 Vicki DriveEastbank RoadShadybrook DriveOklahoma Drive Broadg reenSt r eet Spruce Hill RoadSanokDriveDownlandDrive Edgewood Road Eyer DriveWingarden CrescentFoxwood Tra il Autumn Crescent Atwood Crescent Rosebank RoadLaurierCrescentWeyburn SquareEdmund Drive C a l v i ngtonDr iveCobblers Court Treetop Way Old Forest RoadOakwood DriveVictory DriveHillviewCresce ntSteeple Hill MountainAsh DriveLightfoot PlaceMarksbury RoadGran ite C o urt Mcleod CrescentCliffview RoadDahlia CrescentS ultanaS q u a r eBraeburn CrescentSilver Maple DriveSundown CrescentWhite Cedar DriveBeckworth SquareAmber wood CrescentMeadowviewAvenueStonebridge Lane Marinet CrescentHighbush T ra i l Moorelands CrescentBayly StreetGardenviewSquareEstablished Neighbourhood Precincts Sheet 5 of 8 - Woodlands Neighbourhood Legend Established Neighbourhood Precincts - 206 - Whites RoadFairport RoadBowlerDriveGlenanna Road Maple Ridge Drive Kingston Road Finch Avenue Appleview RoadRambleberry AvenueGoldenridge RoadEastbank RoadShadybrook DrivePebble CourtEdgewood Road Duncannon Drive Erin Gate BoulevardAspen RoadDarwin Drive Huntsmill DriveLynn Heights DriveWalnut Lane GloucesterSquare Parkside Drive New Street Dixie RoadRawlings DriveSpruce Hill RoadStro u ds L a n e D u nbartonR oadGablehurst Crescent Longbow DriveCobblers Court Wingarden CrescentEagleview DriveB ayly S t r e e t Sheppard Avenue Heathside CrescentSilver Spruce DriveLydia CrescentWeyburnSquareArcadia SquareFoleyet CrescentMeadowviewAvenueSilverthorn SquareListowell Crescent Redbi r d Cresc e n t Stonepath CircleBenton CrescentCedarcroft CrescentMountcastle Cresc e n t Highway 40 1 Broo k s h i r eSquareEstablished Neighbourhood Precincts Sheet 6 of 8 - Dunbarton Neighbourhood Legend Established Neighbourhood Precincts - 207 - ValleyviewDrivePine Grove Avenue Lawson Street Sparrow Circle Waterford Gate SummerparkCrescentSheppard Avenue Littleford Street S troud s LaneAltona RoadWestcreek DriveValley Ridge CrescentAutumnCrescentThicket CrescentHoover DriveS a n d hurst C res c e nt C a l v i ngtonDri veTreetop WayOakburn StreetShadow Place Finch Avenue Twyn Rivers Drive Woodview AvenueNatureH aven C r e s c ent WoodsmereCre s cent HowellC rescent Hi ghbus hTrail Rouge Forest Crescent Rougemount Drive Sandcher ry CourtRockwood DriveWhite Pine Crescent Woodview DriveSenator StreetMossbrookSquareEstablished Neighbourhood Precincts Sheet 7 of 8 - Highbush Neighbourhood Legend Established Neighbourhood Precincts - 208 - Kr osnoBoulevardWhites RoadFairport RoadLiverpoolRoadKingston Road Finch Avenue S u ltanaS quareParkdale Street Appleview RoadGlenview Road Linwood Street Grenoble BoulevardAlanbury CrescentRambleberryAvenueHighway 40 1 Goldenridge Road Maj or Oaks Road G lena n n a RoadBowlerDrive Eastbank RoadShadybrook DrivePebble CourtWeyb u rn SquareDuberryDriveMaple Gate RoadDe llbrook A v e n ue Stra t h m o r eCres c e n t FieldlightB oulevard Maple Ridge Drive Edgewood R o adWildwood Crescent Du n cannonDrive Rosefield RoadAspen RoadReytan BoulevardDarwin Drive Erin GateBoulevardHuntsmillDriveG arvo l in Avenue Lynn Heights Drive Sandy Beach RoadWalnut LaneValleyFarm RoadParkside Drive Tatra Drive Ne wStreetDixie RoadHol lyhedgeDrive RawlingsDriveNaroch BoulevardModlin RoadSomergroveCre s c ent MiddletonStreetSpruce Hill RoadStrouds Lane Bushmill Street Dunbarton R oadPeppe rwoo dGate DouglasAvenueLodge RoadGablehurst Crescent Radom Street A b b e y R o a d Longbow DriveBlue Ri d g e Cres c en tGlendale DriveCobblers Court Wingarden CrescentDenvaleDrivePoprad Avenue Sherman Crescent EagleviewDriveG oss a mer D r i ve Bayly Stree t Meriadoc DriveSheppard Avenue Heathside CrescentCraighurs t Court Alliance RoadVistula Drive FieldstoneCircleThird Concession Road CanboroughCrescentMaldenCrescent Pickering P a r k w a y The Esplanade N B ridle P a t h Cir c le Storrington StreetSilver SpruceDriveLydia CrescentPrimrose Court WildroseCrescentMeadowlaneCrescentGuild RoadPebblestone Crescent FoleyetCrescentMarinet C res ce ntAntonio StreetGlengroveRoadMeadowviewAvenue SilverthornSquareRed b i r d Cres c e n t Baylawn Drive Maury Cr escent ListowellCrescentFaylee Cre scent StonepathCircleBento n Cresc e n t CedarcroftCrescentAnton SquareMountcastleCrescent Bronte SquareG loucester SquareErin GateBoulevard AbbeyRoadEstablished Neighbourhood Precincts Sheet 8 of 8 - Liverpool Neighbourhood Legend Established Neighbourhood Precincts - 209 - Table 1: Summary of Draft Zoning By-law Definitions Zoning By-laws 2511, 2520, 3036 R3/R4 Proposed Draft By-law Amendment Recommended Draft By-law Amendment Adding new definitions for: •Dwelling Depth None “Dwelling Depth” means the horizontal distance measured from the minimum front yard setback to the rear wall of a dwelling, excluding any Obstruction of Yards. No change from the Proposed Draft By-law Amendment •Dwelling Height "Building Height" shall mean the vertical distance between the established grade, and in the case of a flat roof, the highest point of the roof surface or parapet wall, or in the case of a mansard roof the deck line, or in the case of a gabled, hip or gambrel roof, the mean height level between eaves and ridge. A penthouse, tower, cupola, steeple or other roof structure which is used only as an ornament upon or to house the mechanical equipment of any building shall be disregarded in calculating the height of such building. “Dwelling Height” means the vertical distance between the average grade as measured along the front wall of the dwelling, and in the case of a flat roof, the highest point of the roof surface or parapet wall, or in the case of a mansard roof the deck line, or in the case of a gabled, hip or gambrel roof, the mean height between eaves and ridge. A cupola, antenna, or other roof structure which is used only as an ornament shall be disregarded in calculating the height of such dwelling. “Dwelling Height” means the vertical distance between the average grade as measured along the front wall of the dwelling, and in the case of a flat roof, the highest point of the roof surface or parapet wall, or in the case of a mansard roof the deck line, or in the case of a gabled, hip or gambrel roof, the mean height between eaves and ridge. Ornamental fixtures such as a cupola, antenna or other roof structure shall not be included in calculating the height of a dwelling. Any other roof structure, such as to house the mechanical equipment of the dwelling or a penthouse, shall be included in calculating the height of the dwelling. •Dwelling Width None “Dwelling Width” means the width of the front wall or main wall of the dwelling. The definition for “Dwelling Width” has been removed from the Definitions section and placed in the Provisions section under “Front Yard Setback (maximum)” since it relates to this Provision only. The wording of the definition has not changed. Attachment #5 to Report #PLN 33-21 - 210 - Zoning By-laws 2511, 2520, 3036 R3/R4 Proposed Draft By-law Amendment Recommended Draft By-law Amendment •Front Entrance None “Front Entrance” means the principal entrance oriented towards the front lot line providing access to the interior of a dwelling from the exterior and does not include an access provided through an attached private garage. In the case of a corner lot, the principal entrance providing access to the interior of a dwelling from the exterior may be oriented towards the side lot line that is adjacent to the street, or abutting on a reserve on the opposite side of which is a street. No change from the Proposed Draft By-law Amendment •Infill Dwelling None “Infill Dwelling” means the development of one or more dwellings such as single detached, semi-detached or street townhouse dwellings through a consolidation of lots or the severance of a larger lot located within an “Established Neighbourhood Precinct Overlay Zone”. Infill Dwelling does not include the development of stacked townhouses, stacked back-to-back townhouses, apartment buildings, or other forms of multi-unit housing resulting in a higher level of density. Removed The definition is removed from the Recommended Draft By-law since it will be defined in the Official Plan. This is noted in the pre-amble to the Draft Zoning By-law. - 211 - Zoning By-laws 2511, 2520, 3036 R3/R4 Proposed Draft By-law Amendment Recommended Draft By-law Amendment •Lot Coverage "Lot Coverage" shall mean the combined areas of all the buildings on the lot measured at the level of the first floor and expressed as a percentage of the lot area. “Lot Coverage” means the total horizontal area of that part of the lot covered by all roofed structures and buildings above grade, including covered platforms (such as covered decks and covered porches) but excluding eaves, belt courses, chimney breasts, sills or cornices projections to a maximum of 0.6 metres and balconies. “Lot Coverage” means the total horizontal area on the lot of all above grade roofed structures and buildings, measured at the level of the first floor and expressed as a percentage of the lot area, including covered platforms (such as covered decks and covered porches) but excluding eaves, belt courses, chimney breasts, sills or cornices projections to a maximum of 0.6 of a metre, and balconies. •Replacement Dwelling None “Replacement Dwelling” means the rebuild of a dwelling either through a substantial alteration, or demolition and replacement, and that is located within an “Established Neighbourhood Precinct Overlay Zone”, as identified in the applicable zoning by-law. Removed The definition is removed from the Recommended Draft By-law since it will be defined in the Official Plan. This is noted in the pre-amble to the Draft Zoning By-law. •Setback None “Setback” means the shortest distance between a building and a lot line. In calculating the setback the horizontal distance from the respective lot line shall be used. “Setback” means the shortest horizontal distance between a building and a lot line. - 212 - Table 2: Summary of Draft Zoning By-law Provisions Zoning By-law 2511 R3/R4 Zoning By-law 2520 R4 Zoning By-law 3036 R3/R4 Proposed Draft By-law Amendment Recommended Draft By-law Amendment Adding new provisions for: •Dwelling Depth (maximum) None None None Dwelling Depth (maximum): The maximum Dwelling Depth, measured from the minimum front yard setback to the rear wall of a dwelling, shall be as follows: (i)For lots with depths up to 40 metres: 17 metres (ii)For lots with depths greater than 40 metres: 20 metres Dwelling Depth (maximum): The maximum Dwelling Depth, measured from the minimum front yard setback to the rear wall of a dwelling, shall be as follows: (i)For lots with depths up to and including 40 metres: 17 metres (ii)For lots with depths greater than 40 metres: 20 metres •Dwelling Height (maximum) Building Height: 9.0 metres Building Height: 10.5 metres Building Height: 18.0 metres 9.0 metres No change from the Proposed Draft By-law Amendment •Driveway Width (maximum) None None None 6.0 metres. However, for lots where the entrance of a garage or carport is wider than 6.0 metres, the maximum driveway width shall be no greater than the width of the entrance of a garage or carport. No change from the Proposed Draft By-law Amendment •Front Entrance (maximum elevation) None None None The maximum elevation of the Front Entrance shall be 1.2 metres above grade. The maximum elevation of the Front Entrance shall be 1.2 metres above the average grade, which is measured along the front wall of the dwelling, to the top of the platform (covered or uncovered) immediately outside of the Front Entrance. Attachment #6 to Report #PLN 33-21 - 213 - Zoning By-law 2511 R3/R4 Zoning By-law 2520 R4 Zoning By-law 3036 R3/R4 Proposed Draft By-law Amendment Recommended Draft By-law Amendment • Front Yard Setback (maximum) None None None Maximum The maximum front yard setback shall not exceed the average of the existing front yard setback of the dwellings on the immediately abutting lots located along the same side of the street and within the same block by more than 1.0 metre. The maximum Front Yard Setback applies to only 80% of the Dwelling Width including any attached garage. Maximum The maximum front yard setback shall not be more than 1.0 metre beyond the average of the existing front yard setback of the dwellings on the immediately abutting lots located along the same side of the street and within the same block. The maximum Front Yard Setback applies to only 80% of the Dwelling Width including any attached garage. For the purpose of this regulation, “Dwelling Width” means the width of the front wall or main wall of the dwelling. • Front Yard Setback (minimum) 7.5 metres 7.5 metres 7.5 metres Minimum Despite any other provision in this by-law, for lots within any Established Neighbourhood Precinct Overlay Zone, the minimum front yard setback shall be equal to the smallest existing front yard setback of the dwellings on the immediately abutting lots located along the same side of the street and within the same block. For corner lots, the minimum front yard setback shall be equal to the smallest existing front yard setback of the dwellings on the nearest two lots located along the same side of the street and within the same block. Minimum Despite any other provision in this By-law, for lots within any Established Neighbourhood Precinct Overlay Zone, the minimum front yard setback shall be equal to the shortest existing front yard setback of the dwellings on the immediately abutting lots located along the same side of the street and within the same block. For corner lots, the minimum front yard setback shall be equal to the shortest existing front yard setback of the dwellings on the nearest two lots located along the same side of the street and within the same block. • Garage or Carport (maximum width) None None None The maximum width of an attached garage or carport shall be no greater than 50% of the dwelling width. Removed - 214 - Zoning By-law 2511 R3/R4 Zoning By-law 2520 R4 Zoning By-law 3036 R3/R4 Proposed Draft By-law Amendment Recommended Draft By-law Amendment • Interior Garage Size (minimum) None None None Each parking space within a private garage shall have a minimum width of 3.0 metres and a minimum depth of 6.0 metres. However, the width may include one interior step and the depth may include two interior steps. No change from the Proposed Draft By-law Amendment • Lot Coverage (maximum) 33% 33% 33% Despite any other provision in this by-law, for lots within any Established Neighbourhood Precinct Overlay Zone, the following maximum lot coverage provisions shall apply within the applicable Neighbourhood Precinct, as shown on Schedules I, II and lll of this By-law: (i) Dunbarton Neighbourhood Precinct: Maximum 25% (ii) Highbush Neighbourhood Precinct: Maximum 25% (iii) Liverpool Neighbourhood Precincts: Maximum 30% (iv) Rosebank Neighbourhood Precincts: Maximum 30% (v) Rougemount Neighbourhood Precincts: Maximum 30% (vi) West Shore Neighbourhood Precinct: Maximum 30% (vii) Woodlands Neighbourhood Precinct: Maximum 25% Despite any other provision in this by-law, for lots within any Established Neighbourhood Precinct Overlay Zone, the following maximum lot coverage provisions shall apply within the applicable Established Neighbourhood Precinct, as shown on Schedules I, II and lll of this By-law: (i) Dunbarton Established Neighbourhood Precinct: a. For lots greater than or equal to 1,000 square metres in area: Maximum 25%; b. For lot s less than 1,000 square metres in area: Maximum 33%; (ii) Highbush Established Neighbourhood Precinct: a. For lots greater than or equal to 1,000 square metres in area: Maximum 25%; b. For lots less than 1,000 square metres in area: Maximum 33%; (iii) Liverpool Established Neighbourhood Precinct: Maximum 25%; (iv) Rosebank Established Neighbourhood Precinct: a. For lots greater than or equal to 1,000 square metres in area: Maximum 25%; b. For lots less than 1,000 square metres in area: Maximum 33%; (v) Rougemount Established Neighbourhood Precinct: - 215 - Zoning By-law 2511 R3/R4 Zoning By-law 2520 R4 Zoning By-law 3036 R3/R4 Proposed Draft By-law Amendment Recommended Draft By-law Amendment a. For lots greater than or equal to 1,000 square metres in area: Maximum 25%; b. For lots less than 1,000 square metres in area: Maximum 33%; (vi) Woodlands Established Neighbourhood Precinct: a. For lots greater than or equal to 1,000 square metres in area: Maximum 25%; b. For lots less than 1,000 square metres in area: Maximum 33% • Side Yard Setback for Infill Dwelling (minimum) None None None Where the side lot line of a newly created lot for any Infill Dwelling abuts the rear lot line of an existing lot of record, the minimum side yard setback to the side lot line abutting the rear lot line of an existing lot of record shall be 4.5 metres. Removed Adding: Transition Provisions Not applicable Not applicable Not applicable Transition Provisions (a) Building Permit Applications: (i) Nothing in this By-law shall prevent the erection of a building or structure for which an application for a building permit was filed on or before the effective date of this By-law, provided that the building permit application satisfies the following requirements: a. The building permit application complies with the provisions of Zoning By-law 2511, as amended, as it read on the effective date of this By-law; Transition Provisions (a) Existing Building Permits Nothing in this By-law prevents the erection of a building or structure in accordance with a building permit application submitted prior to the date of passing of this By-law, provided the building permit is in accordance with all prior zoning by-laws that affected the lot before this By-law came into effect. (b) Existing Planning Applications Nothing in this By-law prevents the erection of a building or structure in accordance with any minor variance that has been - 216 - Zoning By-law 2511 R3/R4 Zoning By-law 2520 R4 Zoning By-law 3036 R3/R4 Proposed Draft By-law Amendment Recommended Draft By-law Amendment b. All information is provided to allow for a zoning review to be undertaken; and c. All required planning approvals have been obtained. (b) Planning Act Approvals: (i) The requirements of this By-law do not apply on a lot where a minor variance to Zoning By-law 2511, as amended, was authorized by the Committee of Adjustment of the City or the Local Planning Appeal Tribunal on or after January 1, 2018 and on or before the effective date of this By-law and a building permit has not yet been issued. (c) Planning Applications in Process: (i) The requirements of this By-law do not apply to prevent the erection or use of a building or structure for which an application for a minor variance has been filed on or before the effective date of this By-law, provided: a. The minor variance application is deemed complete in accordance with the City of Pickering Official Plan, 1997; b. The minor variance application was in compliance with Zoning By-law 2511, as amended, except for the aspects of Zoning By-law 2511, as amended, that are subject to the minor variance application; submitted and deemed complete by the City, or approved or conditionally approved by the relevant approval authority before the passing of this By-law, provided the application complies with all prior zoning by-laws that affected the lot before this By-law came into effect. (c) Lapse of Transition Provisions: (i) Once a permit or approval referred to under Sections (2) (a) or (2) (b) has been granted, all provisions of this By-law shall apply to the subject property. (ii) The provisions of Section (2) shall be deemed repealed five years from the effective date of this By-law. This provision shall not require an amendment to this By-law to take effect. - 217 - Zoning By-law 2511 R3/R4 Zoning By-law 2520 R4 Zoning By-law 3036 R3/R4 Proposed Draft By-law Amendment Recommended Draft By-law Amendment c. The minor variance approval is subject to Section 45 of the Planning Act and receives final approval in the context of Zoning By-law 2511, as amended; and d. Any building permit issued after final approval of the minor variance complies with the provisions of Zoning By-law 2511, as amended, as it read on the date the application was deemed complete and in accordance with the final approved minor variance. (ii) The requirements of this By-law do not apply to a lot where the Local Planning Appeal Tribunal has, on or after January 1, 2018 and on or before the passing of this By-law, granted approval in principle for a zoning by-law amendment or minor variance to Zoning By-law 2511, but has decided that the final Order shall come into force or be issued at a future fixed date or upon the performance of terms imposed by the Local Planning Appeal Tribunal and a building permit has not yet been issued, or the applicable easement or agreement has not yet been registered on title, as the case may be. (d) Lapse of Transition Provisions: (i) Once a permit or approval referred to under Sections 2 (a), (b), or (c) has - 218 - Zoning By-law 2511 R3/R4 Zoning By-law 2520 R4 Zoning By-law 3036 R3/R4 Proposed Draft By-law Amendment Recommended Draft By-law Amendment been granted, all provisions of this By-law shall apply to the subject lands. (ii)The provisions of Section 2 shall be repealed five years from the effective date of this By-law. This provision shall not require an amendment to this By-law to take effect. - 219 - Attachment #7 to Report #PLN 33-21 WhitesRoadHillcrest RoadRougemountDriveCreekview CircleOklahoma DriveHoover Drive Rodd AvenueAltona RoadToynevale Road Littleford Street Pettico a tCreek Kin g ston Roa d Highwa y 4 0 1 DownlandDriveEyer DriveBroadgreen StreetC owan CircleFawndale RoadAtwoodC rescent Rosebank RoadOakwood DriveSteeple Hill MountainAsh DriveLightfoot PlaceD a l e w o o d D r i v e Dyson RoadRiverviewCr e s cent Granite C o u r tRouge Valley DriveOldForest RoadMcleod CrescentBella V i s t aDriveDahlia CrescentCliffviewRoadHig hbush T ra i l P i n e R i d g e R o a d StonebridgeLaneMoore lands CrescentBayly StreetSD-B SD-B R4-6 G R4 (H)S4-19 R4 R4(DN) S S2-16 S4-9 G R4 R4 SD-B SD-B R3 S R(RH) R4-10 G R3 R4 R4 R4 SD-B G R3 SD-B S R3 OS-HL R4 R4R3 R4 S2-16 O2 R4 CP SD-B SD-B S4-14 R4-6 R3 R3 R4 R3 S4-18 G R4 R3 S R4 OS NP R4 S R3 OS-HL R3 R4 O2 R4 S R3 R3 R4 S R4 R3 R4 OS-HL R4-6 S4-9 R3 S2-16 R4-13 S S SD-B G SR4 R4-10 R4 R4 R4 R4 R4-6 S O2 R4-13 R4 SD-B R4 S R4-10 R4 S S2-16 R4 R4 S R3 O1 Established Neighbourhood Precincts Sheet 1 of 8 - Rosebank Neighbourhood Legend Established Neighbourhood Precinct Overlay Zone - 220 - Whites RoadFairport RoadK i ng s ton R o a d Longbow DriveParkCrescentWest Shore BoulevardWalnut LaneSheppard Avenue RambleberryAvenueGoldenridgeRoadBreezy Drive Vicki Drive Rougemount Drive Fairview AvenueEastbank RoadStrouds Lane Shadybrook DriveRodd Av enue Toynevale Road SanokD rive Hillcrest Road Pettic o at C r e e k Batory AvenueEdgewood Road Eyer DriveFoxwood TrailCowan CircleAutumnCrescentRawlingsDriveOklahoma Drive Vistula DriveAtwoodCrescentSpruce Hill RoadRosebank RoadLaurierCrescentWeyburn SquareDunbarton R oadEdmund DriveDixieRoadCobblers Court Wingarden CrescentBa y ly S t r e e t Sunrise Avenue Beach p oi nt P romenad eOldForest RoadOakwood DriveVictoryDriveHi l lv iew Cre s c e n t Steeple Hill Cre e k v ie w CircleLightfootPlaceMarksbury RoadDysonRoadGranite C o u r t StorringtonStreetBronte SquareMcleod CrescentAppleview RoadBellaVista DriveDahlia CrescentBraeburnCrescentSilver Maple DriveSundown CrescentWhite Cedar DriveFoleyetCrescentBeckworthSquareAmberwoodCr escentHig hbush T ra i l MeadowviewAvenue Listowell CrescentStonebridgeLaneCliffview Road MarinetCrescent Essa C r escent MoorelandsCrescentHeathsideCrescentH ig h way 4 0 1 S u l t a n aSq u a r e R4 R4 R1 R4 R4 R4 O1 R4G M1-1(S)RM1 RM1 S SD OS-HL RM1 S2 R4 O2 S I(C)-DN(I) RM1 RM1 C1 S SD O1 S (H)R4-22 R4 S R4 RM1 S-SD-SA R4 M15 SD RM1 (H)LAC-11 S3 O2 SD R4 CP S1 R4 S1 R4 (H)O3B S R3 R4 R4 RM1 R3 G C17-RS3 RM1-4 G R4 S R3 R4 R4 R4 RM1 RM1 S1 C2/GS3 RM1 R3 SD RM2 O2 R4 RM1 M1 R4 S3 R4-HL OS R4 S S3 RM1 R4 (H)O3B (H)O3B M15 RM1 O2 R1 O1 RM1 M1-1 S4 R4RM1 S O3A S2 S1 RM1 RM1 R4 O1 R4 C1-1 O1 R3 R4(DN) S3 M1-1(S) O2 R4 O1 R3 SD R4 R4 R4 RM1 RM1 S-SD-SA O2 RM1 RM1 O1 M1-1 G RM1 SD R4 S4 SD R4-22 Established Neighbourhood Precincts Sheet 2 of 8 - West Shore Neighbourhood Legend Established Neighbourhood Precinct Overlay Zone - 221 - Liverpool RoadModlin RoadColmar Avenue Balaton AvenueFairview AvenueDouglas AvenueAnnland S t r e e tDi x i eRoadKrosno BoulevardParkham CrescentReytanBoulevardGarvolin Avenue Sandy Beach RoadFron t Road Tatra Drive Bem AvenueNaroch BoulevardZator A v e n u e Lublin AvenueRadomStree t Commerce Street PopradA venueBayly StreetKingston R oadChapleauDriveWharf S treet Pickering P a rk w a y Alliance RoadMiriam Roa dAntonio StreetMontgomery Park Road Highway 40 1 OS-HL-5 R4 NP RM2 RM1 O3B O3B R4 R4 RM1 SA-8 R4 M1 M1 R4 S1 RM1 RM1 M2 C3 (H)S-SD-1 C1 CA-1 S2-17 CO O2 RM1 R4-21 RM1 S4-7 RM1 O3B RM1 S RM1 C2-1 R4 RM1 RM1 RM1 RM1 O2 RM1 RH-MU-2 R4 O2 I(C)(DN)-R(S R(NH) MD-H6 R4 R4 O2 R4 RM1 R4 RM1 R4 RM1 RM1 R4 RM2 RM1 RM1 R4 M2 CA(G) RH-MU-2 O3B S-SD-1 SA O2-2 RM1/S R4 R4 RM1 MD-H12 PU M1 (H)O3B R4 R4 RM1 MR-1 R4 RM1 (H)OS-P RM1 R4 S RM1 R4 C2 S2-17 M2 S4-17 R4 O3B (H)O3B-2 LCA-10 RM1 CO-DS R4 RM1 R4 RM1 R4 RM2 RM1 O3B-1 R4 MD-S-SD O2 RM1 RM1 M2 RM1OS-HL RM1 RM2 A36 O2 OS R4 R4 M3 O2 SA MC R4 RM1 (H)O3B RM-1 RM1 R4-11OS-HL RM1 R4 R4 RM1 G R4 O3B R4 S-SD-1 MD-H13 C3 (H)O3B O1 R4 R4 M1S R4 G O1 RM2 MU-16 R4 RM1 RM1 RM1 RM1 R4 S RM1 MU-13 R4 R4 RM1 M4 (H)SA-22 SD R4 C8 R4 RM1O2 O2 RM1 R4 O1 O2 RM1 R4 RM1 SA-LW M1MU-14 RM1 M2S RM2 C3 RM1 Established Neighbourhood Precincts Sheet 3 of 8 - Bay Ridges Neighbourhood Legend Established Neighbourhood Precinct Overlay Zone - 222 - Rougemount DrivePine Grove AvenueValleyviewDriveLawson Street Waterford GateOakburn StreetHoover DriveToynevale Road Littleford Street Altona RoadHighway 4 0 1 Strouds LaneValley Ridge CrescentAutumnCrescentFawndale RoadThicket CrescentCalvingtonD r iv e Treetop Way Old Forest RoadOakwood DriveMountain Ash DriveWoodview AvenueDa l e w o o d D r i v e Twyn Rivers Drive Kingston Roa dRockwood DriveRivervi ew C r esce nt Sheppard Avenue R o u g e V alle y D r i v e Howell Crescent Mcleod CrescentDahlia CrescentWhitePineCrescent Silver Maple DriveWoodview DriveWhite Cedar DriveP i n e R i d g e R o a dSenatorStreet High bush T ra i l G S2 OS-HL G S1 S2 R3 R3 OS-HL-1 R3 S2 S1 S2-3 R3 R3 S3 R4 CO/(H)RM1 R3 S1 S1 CO/RM1(C15) S1 S1 R4 S2 R4 R3 R3 C.N.R. R3 ES RM3 M1-8 S2 R4 R3 S1 R4-14 MU-9 S3 R5-5 R3 M1-8(SC-14) OS-HL-1 MD-H4 S2-10 G G S2 NP S2 R1 R4 MU-12 S1 S3 R3 R3 C.N.R. G M1-8 S2 G C.N.R. R3 R3 S2 M1-8 R4R4 OS-HL-(MU) S2 S2 S2 S3 G SC-32 R4 S1 S3-9 S3 R4 S2-1R1-2 NP S1 M1-8(SC-29) S3 R3 G M1-8 S3 S1 OS-HL S3 S2-3 R3R3 R4 S2 S1 R4 R4 CO/RM1 S3 S2-10 S1 OS-HL S1 I(C)-DN(2) S3 R4 SC-9 M1-8(SC-15) G OS-HL-1 S2 LCA-5 S3 S2 S1 S2 R3 S2 S3 OS-HL R4-7 S3 MD-H15 S1 S1 S2 R3 RH2-1 R4 G S3 S1 R3 A R4 OS-HL R3 S1 R4 R1-1 S2 MU-17 S3 M1-8(SC-16) (H)MU-11 G S1 S3 S2-10 C.N.R. R4 R3 R3 CO/(II)RM1 R3 R3 S2 S2 S1 R4R3 S2 R1-3 MD-H14 Established Neighbourhood Precincts Sheet 4 of 8 - Rougemount Neighbourhood Legend Established Neighbourhood Precinct Overlay Zone - 223 - Whites RoadRougemountDriveToynevale Road Kingst o n R o a d Creekview CircleS t rouds Lane Park CrescentCowan CircleSheppard Avenue Hillcrest RoadHighwa y 4 0 1 Vicki DriveEastbank RoadShadybrook DriveOklahoma Drive Broadg reenSt r eet Spruce Hill RoadSanokDriveDownlandDrive Edgewood Road Eyer DriveWingarden CrescentFoxwood Tra il Autumn Crescent Atwood Crescent Rosebank RoadLaurierCrescentWeyburn SquareEdmund Drive C a l v i ngtonDr iveCobblers Court Treetop Way Old Forest RoadOakwood DriveVictory DriveHillviewCresce ntSteeple Hill MountainAsh DriveL ightfoot Place Marksbury RoadGran ite C o urt Mcleod CrescentCliffview RoadDahlia CrescentS ultanaS q u a r eBraeburn CrescentSilver Maple DriveSundown CrescentWhite Cedar DriveBeckworth SquareAmber wood CrescentMeadowviewAvenueStonebridge Lane Marinet CrescentHighbush T ra i l Moorelands CrescentBayly StreetGardenviewSquareG G CA-1 MU-18 RMM4 C.N.R. MU-5 S1S1 S2 (H)MU-26 LCA-7 SA-10 S3 SC-5 MU-15 S2 R3 S2 S1 M1-8(I(C)-DN SC-28 R3 S3 C.N.R. R3 C3 S2 RH11-4 SC-22(GS3) SA-3 R4 S3 R3 S2 (H)OS-HL/SPC C1 MU-20 C.N.R. CA3-1 S2 C14/GS1 G R4 MU-10 R4 S2 I(C) S2 R4 C13 SC-2 RMM-5 R4-18 R4 R4 MU-4 S3 R4 S2 G OS-HLR3 SC-2 R4 S2 SPC-3 S3 MU-31 G S2 S1 S1 R4 SC-11NP S3 R3 S2 G SC-6 MU-1 R4 R4 S3 R4 R3 R3 S3 (H)SA-10 Established Neighbourhood Precincts Sheet 5 of 8 - Woodlands Neighbourhood Legend Established Neighbourhood Precinct Overlay Zone - 224 - Whites RoadBowlerDriveGlenanna Road Maple Ridge Drive Kingston Road Finch Avenue Appleview RoadRambleberry AvenueGoldenridgeRoadEastbank RoadShadybrook DrivePebble CourtEdgewood Road Duncannon Drive Erin Gate BoulevardAspen RoadDarwin Drive Huntsmill DriveLynn Heights DriveWalnut LaneFairport RoadGloucesterSquare Parkside Drive New Street Dixie RoadRawlings DriveSpruce Hill RoadStro u ds L a n e Dunbarton Road Gablehurst Crescent Longbow DriveCobblers Court Eagleview DriveB ayly S t r e e t Sheppard Avenue Heathside CrescentSilver Spruce DriveLydia CrescentWeyburnSquareArcadia SquareFoleyet CrescentMeadowviewAvenueSilverthorn SquareListowell Crescent Redbi r d Cresc e n t Stonepath CircleBenton CrescentCedarcroft CrescentMountcastle Cresc e n t Highway 40 1 Broo k s h i r eSquareS1 OS-HL OS-HL S3-7 S2 S3-7 S3-13 R4 S3-17 SWM/S3 SC-35 OS-HL-3 S3-7 R3 S3-7 S3-8 R4-12 R4-9 R4 R3 R4 S2 OS-HL R4-9 R4 SC-12 C2-2 R3 S2 S2 R3 I(C)-DN R3 S2 C.N.R. R3 S3-7 R3 R3 R4-19 O2 S2 S2 R3 R4-23 S2 R4-9 S3-7 R4-15 C2 S2-15 RH-MU-6 S2 S2-11 R3 OS-HL S3-16 S3-7 OS-HL R3 S2 R4 S3-7 S3 R3 S3-7 R4 S2 S2 R4-8 S3-7 S2 S2 S4-3 R4-19 R3 (H)S3-7 R4 OS-HL S2-14 R4(DN) R4 S4 S4-5 R4 S1 R3 OS-HL S1-5 S4-5 R3 SC-26 R4 R3 NP OS-HL S3 C.N.R. S3-7 S3-10 S3-7 S4-9 R3 R4R4 R3 R3 S3-7 R3 OS-HL S3-10 S3-7 R4 I(C)-DN R3 R3-DN S3-8 S1S3 S4 R3 S2 S4-5R3 OS-HL R3S3-7 R3 S3-7 S1 S3-7 A S2 A S2-14 R4 S3-7 S2 OS-HL S2 S1 S1 OS-HL OS-HL S1 S3-7 R4-9 C2-DB R4 S3-7 NP R4 S1-5 R4-9 R4-9 (H)SC-36 S2 S4-3 S1 OS-HL OS-HL-4 S3-7 S2-15 S2-DB S3-7 S3-7 R3 S3-7 R3 Established Neighbourhood Precincts Sheet 6 of 8 - Dunbarton Neighbourhood Legend Established Neighbourhood Precinct Overlay Zone - 225 - Valleyview DrivePine Grove Avenue Lawson Street Sparrow Circle Waterford Gate SummerparkCrescentSheppard Avenue Littleford Street Stro u ds L a n eAltona RoadWestcreek DriveValley Ridge Crescent AutumnCrescentThicket CrescentHoover DriveS a ndhurstCres centOakburn StreetShadow Place Finch Avenue Twyn Rivers Drive Woodview AvenueNatureH aven C r e s c ent WoodsmereCre s cent HowellC rescent Hi ghbus hTrailRouge Forest Crescent Rougemount Drive White Pine Crescent Woodview DriveSenator StreetMossbrookSquareS4 R4 G S2 S4 OS-HL S3 A S2 S2 R4 S4 S1 OS-HL OS-HL-1 NP S4 RM2-1 S2 RMM SD-A A OS-SWM S3 R4 OS-HL-1 S4-7 S3 SD-7 OS-HL S3 S4 S2-2 OS-HL R3-5 S1-10 S3 S4-1 RM2-1 S4 S3 S4 S4 ES S3 R4 S2 O2 RMM S3 SD-A C.N.R. S4 S2 G S3 S1 S3 S3 S1-14 G OS-HL S1-15 S1-13 S-SD-A-2 S4 S-1 S2 S-SD-A-1 S2 S2 S4 S4 S2 SD-7 R4 R3-5-ES S2 S4 S3 O2 OS-HL RMM-2 R4 SD-A S3 C.N.R. S1-14 S2 OS-HL-1 R3 R4 S4 OS-HL-1 C.N.R. SA-8 S1 SD-7 MD-Q OS-A R3-4 S4 S1 S3 S3 R3-4 S4 R4 SA-8 RMM A O2 SD-A R4-20 SD-A OS-HL S3 G OS-HL S3 S3 RM1-1 R3-5-ES S3 S3 SA-8 S2 MD-Q SD-A R4 S1 G S2 S2 S1 S3 SD-A OS-HL S3 RMM-2 R3-4 NP SD-7 R4 OS-HL OS-HL S2 NP R4 SD-7 NP A R4 S4 S1-13 SD-A G S3 SA-6 S1-15 S3 S3 S5 S3-5 S2 R3-5 R3 A S3 S3 SA-8 RMM-2 S1 S3-12R3-4 R4 SD-A S3 S3 R4 S3 R4 SD-7 S3-7 RM-MU S3 R3-5 S3 OS-HL OS-HL SA-8 S2 A S3 LCA-6 SA-8 S3 S4 SD-2 S3 R4 S1 S3 S3 SD-7 RM2-1 S1-5 S3 SD-A RM2-2 S1-13 S1 S3 S-5 S3 S-SD-A-2 RMM-2 SA-8 S4 S3 S3-1 S1 SD-A-1 S1 S4 S1-15 O2 A S3 SD-A S3 C.N.R. S3 OS-HL-2 S3 S2-10 OS-HL RM2-1 S4-4 RM1-5 R4 S4-1 R3-5-ES S1-14 S1 SD-A NP OS-HL OS-HL Established Neighbourhood Precincts Sheet 7 of 8 - Highbush Neighbourhood Legend Established Neighbourhood Precinct Overlay Zone - 226 - Kr osnoBoulevardWhites RoadFairport RoadLiverpool RoadKingston RoadFinch Avenue S u ltanaS quareAppleview RoadGrenoble BoulevardHighway 40 1 Goldenridge Road Maj or Oaks Road GlenannaR o a d Eastbank RoadShadybrook DrivePebble CourtWeyb u rn SquareDuberryDrive De llbrook A v e n ue Stra t h m o r eCres c e n t Edgewood R o adWildwood Crescent DuncannonDriveAspen RoadReytan BoulevardDarwin Drive Erin GateBoulevardG arvo l in Avenue Sandy Beach RoadValleyFarm RoadParkside Drive Tatra Drive Ne wStreetDixie RoadHol lyhedgeDrive Naroch BoulevardModlin RoadSomergroveCre s c ent MiddletonStreetSpruce Hill RoadStrouds Lane Dunbarton R oadPeppe rwoo dGate DouglasAvenueRadom Street A b b e y R o a d Blue Ri d g e Cres c en tGlendale DriveCobblers Court Wingarden CrescentDenvaleDrivePoprad Avenue Gossa m er Driv e Bayly Stree t Meriadoc DriveSheppard AvenueCraighurstCourt Alliance RoadVistula Drive Third Concession Road Malden CrescentPickering P a r k w a y The Esplanade N Guild RoadMarinet C res ce ntAntonio StreetGlengroveRoadMeadowviewAvenue Ma uryCrescent StonepathCircleAvonmoreSquareErin GateBoulevard AbbeyRoadS3 R3 SPC-11 SD S1 SA SA-11 S1 S2 R3-1 OS-HL SD S3 S4 ES G S2 S3 S2 S-SD SD A SA S4 S2 S3 NP S2 R3 R3 S3 O2 S2 S1 A S2 S3 S1 SA R4S S3 S1 SA S4 SD S3 S4 SD-A S4 OS-HL SA S-SD SD-A S4 SA SD SD S3 SD R3-2 S1 S3 S2 S2 S2 SD LCA-2 S4 S3 S2 SD S3-3 S3 S2 SD S2 S2 SD-A G M16 SA O2 S2 SD S3 SD-SA S3 R4-2 S3 NP NP R3 S4 S1 S3 S-SD S4 S2 OS-HL S4 S4 S-SD M16 S4 S2 S1 G SA S2 S1 SD S4 S3 ES S3 MD-H3 S2 S2 S2 S4 A SD O1 R3 S3 SA S SA S4 SD-A S1 S2 S3 SD-SA A A36 R3 S3 A MU-21 SD S2-4 R3 SD OS-HL-2 S1 MU-(IN) S S4 OS-HL A S2 SD S2S2 A M12 S4 S2 SA S2 SD S-SD R4-3 M16 SA-AB I(R) G S2 S1 S S2 SD SD NP SD-A S1 SD S2 ES S3 S4 S4 S-SD S1 R3-3 SD S4 S2 S2 A R3 G SD-SA SD S3 S1 S4 S4 S4 S4 OS-HL CC 1 S2 S4 S3 S-SD A SA S1 SD-SA SD SA S3 R3-2 R3-3 SD S1 S4 SD A S1 S1S2 MU-20 S G S-SD S1 S1 M16 A S4 S-SD S2 S2 S2 G O2 S1 MU-6 O2 S2 S4 S3 A G SD S2 SD SA-A S S1 S1 S4 S1 G S2 S1 S2 A S2 C3(S) A S2 SD G SA S1 NP S3 G S OC R3 S2 S2 S3 A S2 R3 S2 S4 S2 S2 S4 SA S4 R4 S S2 S3 S1 NP MD-H3 OS-HL S2 S1 S3 S2 SD-SA S-SD MU-27 SD S4 S3 R3 OS-HL S2 S5-1 S3 SD S1 OS-HL-2 S3 S-SD S2 S2 SD S-SD R3 S2 A S4-2 S1 S2 R3-2 SA S S2 S3 SD-A O2 G S2 G S2 S1 S-SD S3 SD I(C)-ES S-SD S4 SD AS1 S S4 S4 S-SD S4 SA S2 OS-HL S3 S4 S2 OS-HL S2 S3 S4 CP S2 S3 G SA S2 SD SD S2 S3 R3 S4 SA OS-HL-1 S1 A S2 S1 O2 NPS M1 S2 S1 S2-DN MD-H7 S4 S1 R3 S4 I(R) SD S3 S3 MU-22 SD S2 S2 S3 S3 SD-SA S2 R4-2 S4 G S-SD S2 S1 SA I(R) S4 R3 S2 A S1-19 SD SA S2 SA R3 SD S1 S3-10 S S4 S3 SD S4 S4 S-SD S-SD A SS2 S3 O2 S2 SD-SA S4 C4 SA NP S4 S1 S2 SD SD S4 S2 SA S4 S2 S1 S2 SD S-SD S2 M1-SC30 SA S2 S2 S2 S3-4 S2-8 SS2 S G R3-2 S2 S2 A R4-4 S4 S1 R3 S2 S2 S3-2 S1 S2 S1 SD-A SA SD SD S2 SD S4 S2 M12 S1 S1 S1 S2 S1 S1 C6 S-SD CO M16 SD-A S2 SA S4 SA S2 SD SD S4 S2 S3 S S2 S4 S2 S3 I(R) S3 OS-HL S2 S3 S1 S4 SA S1 SD SD S4 SA-11 OS-HL NP S1 SA S2 S-SD SA R3-2 S3-7 S2 SA S3 S S1 S1 S3 S6 S4 S2 S2 S3 S1 S3 S3 S OS-HL-1 S4 RL2 S1 SA-A G A S1 S1 S4 S2 S1 C1 CC 1 S2 R3-2 S1 S4 SD-A G SD-A S2 A G S-SD CC 1 S1 SSD S2 S-SD S4 S2 SD S-SD S4 S OS-HL S2 G R3 CP SD S2 CC Res 1 S3 S3 S2 SD-SA S2 S4 S S2 S2 S1S2 SD-SA S3 SA RM1-4 SA SA R3-2 S4 G SD S3 SA R3 S4 S2 S2 SD O2 O2 S2 SA-11 RM1-4 S2 S3 S2 S4 M16 SA-23 S2 S2 S2 SD-SA G S2 A S2-9 S4 S1 S2 R4-3 S1 S S3 S3 S-SD Established Neighbourhood Precincts Sheet 8 of 8 - Liverpool Neighbourhood Legend Established Neighbourhood Precinct Overlay Zone - 227 - Report to Planning & Development Committee Report Number: PLN 34-21 Date: September 13, 2021 From: Kyle Bentley Director, City Development & CBO Subject: The Municipal Comprehensive Review of the Durham Regional Official Plan: Proposed Regional Official Plan Amendment 2021-003 Policies and Delineations for Protected Major Transit Station Areas -File: A-2100-020 Recommendation: 1.That Council support in principle the Proposed Regional Official Plan Amendment: Policies and Delineations for Protected Major Transit Station Areas (ROPA 2021-003); and 2.That the appropriate officials of the City of Pickering be authorized to take the necessary actions as indicated in this report. Executive Summary: On July 30, 2021, the Regional Municipality of Durham gave notice of its intent to amend the Regional Official Plan to include policies and delineations for Protected Major Transit Station Areas (PMTSAs). The notice was accompanied by an early release of a report from the Commissioner of Planning and Economic Development, for the September 7, 2021 Statutory Public Meeting, on the Proposed Regional Official Plan Amendment –ROPA 2021-003. The report had 4 Attachments: Regional staff responses to submissions received through the Major Transit Station Areas Proposed Policy Directions consultation; the proposed Technical Amendment; an Annotated Consolidation of the proposed amendment; and the proposed Boundary Delineation of the Protected Major Transit Stations Areas. The early release report is provided as Attachment #1 to this report. The Proposed Regional Official Plan Amendment (ROPA) stems from the Region’s Major Transit Station Areas (MTSA) Proposed Policy Directions, released in December 2020, as part of Envision Durham, the Region’s Municipal Comprehensive Review of the Durham Official Plan. The City provided comments on the MTSA Policy Directions through Report PLN 10-21. Regional staff requested that area municipalities submit comments on the proposed ROPA on or before August 31, 2021. The Region held a statutory open house on August 24, 2021 and will host a Statutory Public meeting on September 7, 2021. Staff advised the Region that the Pickering Council resolution regarding the ROPA will not be available until after September 27, 2021. However, staff have provided the Region with the Pickering staff comments, which deal with minor technical matters. - 228 - Report PLN 34-21 September 13, 2021 Subject: The Municipal Comprehensive Review of the Durham Regional Official Plan – Proposed Regional Official Plan Amendment 2021-003 Page 2 Staff is generally in support of the proposed ROPA, and recommends that Council support the proposed ROPA in principle. Financial Implications: The recommendations of this report do not present any financial implications to the City of Pickering. 1.Purpose of this Report The purpose of this report is to provide an overview of, and comments on, the proposed policies and delineations for Protected Major Transit Station Areas (PTMSAs), contained in the proposed Regional Official Plan Amendment 2021-003 (ROPA 2021-003), and to obtain Council’s recommendation in that regard. 2.Background During 2019, the Region of Durham, as part of the second phase of Envision Durham – the Municipal Comprehensive Review process, released a series of discussion papers, addressing the following major areas: agriculture and rural systems; climate change and sustainability; growth management; the environment; transportation; and housing. The City provided comments on each of these discussion papers through 2019 and 2020. The City commented on the Growth Management Discussion Paper, which included a discussion on the methodology for delineating Major Transit Station Areas (MTSAs) and draft boundary delineations for each of the proposed Major Transit Station Areas in Durham (Report PLN 32-19). The corresponding Council Resolution #205/19 included Council’s recommendation supporting the methodology for delineating MTSAs and the resulting draft boundary delineation for Pickering’s MTSA. In fall 2020, the Region ushered in stage 3 of the Municipal Comprehensive Review process by releasing the proposed Policy Directions. The Major Transit Station Areas Policy Directions (MTSA Report), released on December 1, 2020, was the first in a series of proposed policy directions. The MTSA Report provided an overview of the proposed MTSAs in Durham, including the proposed MTSA in Pickering, and addressed trends, development guidelines, best practices, and presented proposed policy directions on MTSAs for review and comment. The City provided comments on the MTSA Report through Report PLN 10-21. 3.Proposed Regional Official Plan Amendment and Protected Major Transit Station Area Delineations On July 30, 2021, the Regional Municipality of Durham gave notice of its intent to amend the Regional Official Plan by introducing a proposed policy framework and delineations for Protected Major Transit Station Areas (PMTSAs) to support transit-oriented development. The proposed PMTSAs will apply to locations in the vicinity of certain Commuter Stations and Transportation Hubs along the Lakeshore East GO Rail Line, and the proposed GO East Extension, including a proposed PMTSA in Pickering which is centered around the Pickering GO station. - 229 - Report PLN 34-21 September 13, 2021 Subject: The Municipal Comprehensive Review of the Durham Regional Official Plan – Proposed Regional Official Plan Amendment 2021-003 Page 3 The Region held an Open House in relation to ROPA 2021-003 on August 24, 2021, and will host a Statutory Public meeting on September 7, 2021. The proposed ROPA is being advanced in accordance with a Regional Council directive to Regional staff to accelerate the development of policies and delineations for MTSAs in order to develop a strategic approach that coordinates proactive land use and fiscal planning with infrastructure planning and placemaking in support of the easterly extension of GO train services. The notice of the Proposed Regional Official Plan Amendment – ROPA 2021-003 was accompanied by an early release of a report from the Commissioner of Planning and Economic Development, for the September 7, 2021 Statutory Public Meeting, and also included the following: •A summary of the submissions the Region received through the Major Transit Station Areas Proposed Policy Directions consultation process, and Regional staff response; •The Technical Amendment, which provides the detailed policy section by section amendment; •An Annotated Consolidation of the proposed ROPA, which allows the proposed amendment to be read in context with the existing Regional Official Plan; and •The proposed delineations for the seven PMTSAs in Durham. For more information in the above regard, please see Attachment #1 to this report. The Provincial Growth Plan defines MTSAs as the area including, and around, any existing or planned high order transit station within a settlement area, or the area including, and around, a major bus depot in an urban core. MTSAs are generally defined as the area within a 500 to 800 metre radius of a transit station, representing a 10 minute walk. “Protected” Major Transit Station Areas (PMTSAs) are MTSAs that have been delineated by upper-tier municipalities in consultation with lower-tiered municipalities and deemed “protected” by approval by the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing. PMTSAs are required to be identified if a municipality intends on implementing inclusionary zoning within an MTSA area. Once approved by the Minister, the amendment to the upper-tier municipality’s official plan designating and delineating PMTSAs is not appealable. The Growth Plan for the Greater Golden Horseshoe – A Place to Grow, requires that PMTSAs shall be planned to accommodate a minimum density target of 150 people and jobs per gross hectare. As part of Envision Durham and the topic area of Growth Management, the introduction of proposed policies for PMTSAs are required to address the significant future growth opportunities in these areas. - 230 - Report PLN 34-21 September 13, 2021 Subject: The Municipal Comprehensive Review of the Durham Regional Official Plan – Proposed Regional Official Plan Amendment 2021-003 Page 4 The proposed amendment for PMTSAs establishes a vision, goals, and objectives for the subject designated area. The proposed policies address matters such as: •permitted land uses; •housing types and affordable housing; •built form and development objectives in support of transit-oriented development; •placemaking; •sustainable transportation; •active pedestrian-oriented public realm; •proposed development above a rail corridor; •guidance to area municipalities for implementation through their official plans and zoning by-laws; and •monitoring of development within PMTSAs. The proposed delineated PMTSAs apply to key transit areas located in Pickering, Ajax, Whitby, Thornton’s Corners, Central Oshawa, Courtice, and Bowmanville. A proposed new Schedule C – Map ‘C5’ to the Regional Official Plan, contained in Attachment #1 to this report, reflects the delineated boundaries of each PMTSA. The City, through Reports PLN 32-19 and PLN 10-21, confirmed supporting the proposed boundary delineation for the Pickering PMTSA. Detailed land use designations, policies and regulations for PMTSAs will be prescribed by the respective area municipalities through their planning documents. 4.Staff Comments City Development staff has undertaken a detailed review of the proposed PMTSA policies and delineations, including Regional staff responses to City Development’s submission to the MTSA Policy Directions. City staff are generally supportive of the proposed policies and delineations pertaining to PMTSAs, and recommend that Council support in principle the Proposed Regional Official Plan Amendment: Policies and Delineations for Protected Major Transit Station Areas (ROPA 2021-003). City staff has found the Regional responses to Pickering’s previous submissions generally acceptable. Regional staff requested area municipalities to submit comments on the proposed ROPA on or before August 31, 2021. Since the Council resolution in relation to the proposed ROPA will not be available until after September 27, 2021, City staff have prepared preliminary comments, which are minor and technical in nature, and submitted them to the Region in advance of this report. Attachment: 1.Early Release Public Meeting Report of the Commissioner of Planning and Economic Development, dated September 7, 2021, Envision Durham: Proposed Regional Official Plan Amendment – Policies and Delineations for Protected Major Transit Station Areas (OPA 2021-003)- 231 - Report PLN 34-21 September 13, 2021 Subject: The Municipal Comprehensive Review of the Durham Regional Official Plan – Proposed Regional Official Plan Amendment 2021-003 Page 5 Prepared By: Original Signed By Doris Ho, MCIP, RPP Planner II 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 DH:ld Recommended for the consideration of Pickering City Council Original Signed By Marisa Carpino, M.A. Chief Administrative Officer - 232 - Attachment #1 to Report #PLN 34-21 If this information is required in an accessible format, please contact 1-800-372-1102 ext. 2564 EARLY RELEASE OF REPORT The Regional Municipality of Durham Report To: Planning and Economic Development Committee From: Commissioner of Planning and Economic Development Report: #2021-P-** Date: September 7, 2021 Subject: Public Meeting Report Envision Durham: Proposed Regional Official Plan Amendment – Policies and Delineations for Protected Major Transit Station Areas, File: OPA 2021-003. Recommendation: That the Planning and Economic Development Committee recommends to Regional Council: A)That Commissioner’s Report #2021-P-** be received for information; and B)That all submissions received be referred to the Planning Division for consideration. Report: 1.Purpose 1.1 Envision Durham is Durham’s municipal comprehensive review of the Regional Official Plan, addressing a variety of strategic land use planning and development matters. Envision Durham also represents the Region’s provincially mandated exercise to ensure that the ROP conforms with Provincial Plans or does not conflict with them; has regard to matters of Provincial interest; and is consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement. - 233 - Report #2021-P-** Page 2 of 7 1.2 This report provides information on a proposed amendment to the Durham Regional Official Plan (ROP) to introduce a policy framework and delineations for Protected Major Transit Station Areas (PMTSAs) to support transit-oriented development. The proposed PMTSAs that are the subject of the proposed amendment are currently limited to locations in the vicinity of certain Commuter Stations and Transportation Hubs along the Lakeshore East GO Rail Line, and the proposed GO East Extension. 1.3 A “Notice of Public Open House” and “Notice of Public Meeting” regarding the application was advertised in the “Ajax-Pickering News Advertiser”, the “Whitby This Week”, the “Oshawa This Week” and the “Clarington This Week” newspapers on July 29, 2021. 1.4 A summary of the submissions received through the Major Transit Station Areas Proposed Policy Directions consultation, and staff response, are provided as Attachment #1. 2. Previous Reports and Decisions 2.1 The following previous reports relate to planning for PMTSAs in Durham: a. Envision Durham – Growth Management – Urban System Discussion Paper, File D12-01, Report #2019-P-31; b. Advancing Rapid Transit Implementation and Transit Oriented Development in Durham Region, Report #2019-COW-26; and c. Major Transit Station Areas – Proposed Policy Directions, Report #2020-P- 27. 3. Proposed Amendment and PMTSA Delineations 3.1 Major Transit Station Areas are defined in the Provincial Growth Plan as “The area including and around any existing or planned higher order transit station or stop within a settlement area; or the area including and around a major bus depot in an urban core. Major transit station areas generally are defined as the area within an approximate 500 to 800 metre radius of a transit station, representing about a 10 minute walk.” “Protected” Major Transit Station Areas are MTSAs that have been delineated by a municipality and subsequently approved by the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing, as “protected”. There is no legislative requirement for municipalities to identify PMTSAs. However, if a municipality wants to implement inclusionary zoning within an MTSA area, then it must “protect” them through - 234 - Report #2021-P-** Page 3 of 7 Ministerial approval. Once the amendment is approved by the Minister, it is not appealable. 3.2 Attachment #2 provides the proposed amendment to the Durham Regional Official Plan to implement the policy framework and delineations for Protected Major Transit Station Areas. For convenience, Attachment #3 is an annotated consolidation of the proposed amendment. 3.3 The proposed amendment is being undertaken to satisfy the requirements of the Growth Plan for the Greater Golden Horseshoe, and in accordance with subsection 16(16) of the Planning Act. The amendment is subject to Ministerial approval by the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing. Additional policies related to PMTSAs may be incorporated through the overall Envision Durham municipal comprehensive review through the new Regional Official Plan, in order to integrate PMTSAs into the new Regional Official Plan. 3.4 The proposed policies for PMTSAs would: a. Establish a vision, goals and objectives for areas so designated; b. Implement provincial policy as appropriate; c. Delineate their geographic extent; d. Identify housing types and built form that support intensification and Transit Oriented Development; e. Recognize best practices for Transit-Oriented Development (TOD); f. Enable a variety of transit-oriented land uses; g. Prioritize active transportation; h. Encourage optimization of parking; i. Promote an inviting and pedestrian oriented public realm, to enhance connectivity, generate employment and guide residential growth; and j. Provide clear policy guidance to local area municipalities for inclusion within their respective official plan updates. 3.5 The proposed amendment includes delineations for PMTSAs at the following locations (Attachment #4): a. Pickering; b. Ajax; c. Whitby; d. Thornton’s Corners; e. Central Oshawa; - 235 - Report #2021-P-** Page 4 of 7 f. Courtice 1; and g. Bowmanville. 3.6 Detailed land use designations will be prescribed by the respective area municipalities through their planning documents. 3.7 Previously, the existing Oshawa GO Station has been proposed as a Major Transit Station Area. Due to the industrial nature of the lands surrounding the existing Oshawa station, and the limited ability for intensification at this time, this area is not being put forward as a PMTSA through the proposed amendment. 4. Consultation 4.1 Over the course of 2019, area municipal staff were engaged in workshops to delineate the PMTSA boundaries that were presented in the Urban System: Growth Management Discussion Paper for Envision Durham. 4.2 In 2020/2021, area municipal staff were involved in the review of the intensification analysis undertaken by Urban Strategies that demonstrated the potential densities for each of the PMTSAs. Once released, the Housing Intensification Technical Report will be available on the Envision Durham project website. 4.3 In December 2020, the Region released the Proposed Policy Directions for Major Transit Station Areas with a 90-day review period. Agency and public submissions received, and a requisite response are provided in Attachment #1 to this report, as referenced earlier. 4.4 In June 2021, the Province was provided with the proposed amendment for PMTSAs for their review in advance of the statutory public open house and public meeting. As of the early release of this report, comments have yet to be received, but are anticipated well in advance of the finalization of the amendment. 4.5 The ROP Amendment has been circulated to a variety of agencies, including the Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing, Metrolinx, the area municipalities, conservation authorities, school boards and utility companies. 1 The Municipality of Clarington has requested that the Courtice Protected Major Transit Station Area boundary include an area outside the urban area boundary east of Courtice Road. The broader Land Needs Assessment for the Growth Management Study being undertaken through Envision Durham will determine the need and location for any urban boundary expansions. - 236 - Report #2021-P-** Page 5 of 7 5. Public Consultation 5.1 Anyone who attends the public meeting may present an oral submission and/or provide a written submission to the Planning and Economic Development Committee on the proposed amendment. Also, any person may make written submissions at any time before Regional Council makes a decision on whether to adopt the proposed amendment. 5.2 If a person or public body does not make oral submissions at a public meeting or does not make written submissions before the proposed official plan amendment is adopted, the person or public body: a. Is not entitled to appeal the decision of the Region of Durham to the Ontario Land Tribunal (formerly the Local Planning Appeal Tribunal , and formerly the Ontario Municipal Board); and b. May not be added as a party to the hearing of an appeal before the LPAT, as appropriate, unless in the opinion of the Tribunal, there are reasonable grounds to add the person or public body as a party. 5.3 Following Council's consideration and adoption of the Regional Official Plan Amendment, it will be submitted to the Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing for approval under Section 16(16) of the Planning Act. 5.4 Anyone who wants to be notified of Regional Council’s decision on the proposed ROP Amendment must submit a written request to: Brian Bridgeman, MCIP, RPP Commissioner of Planning and Economic Development Planning and Economic Development Department Regional Municipality of Durham Durham Regional Headquarters 600 Rossland Road East Whitby, ON, L1N 6A3 planning@durham.ca 6. Future Regional Council Decision 6.1 The Planning and Economic Development Committee will consider the proposed Regional Official Plan Amendment at a future meeting and will make a recommendation to Regional Council. - 237 - Report #2021-P-** Page 6 of 7 6.2 All persons who make oral submissions, or have requested notification in writing, will be given notice of the future meeting of the Planning and Economic Development Committee and Regional Council at which the proposed amendment will be considered. 7. Relationship to Strategic Plan 7.1 This report aligns with/addresses the following strategic goals and priorities in the Durham Region Strategic Plan: a. Under the goal of Community Vitality, 2.1, Revitalize existing neighbourhoods and build complete communities that are walkable, well-connected, and have a mix of attainable housing; and b. Under the goal of Economic Prosperity, 3.3, Enhance communication and transportation networks to better connect people and move goods more effectively. 8. Attachments Attachment #1: MTSA Proposed Policy Directions Submissions Attachment #2: Proposed Regional Official Plan Amendment (Technical Amendment) Attachment #3: Proposed Regional Official Plan Amendment (Annotated Consolidation) Attachment #4: Protected Major Transit Station Area Delineations (7 individual maps) Respectfully submitted, Original signed by Brian Bridgeman, MCIP, RPP Commissioner of Planning and Economic Development - 238 - Report #2021-P-** Page 7 of 7 Recommended for Presentation to Committee Elaine C. Baxter-Trahair Chief Administrative Officer - 239 - Major Transit Station Areas Proposed Policy Directions Submissions Compendium 1 Attachment #1 to Report #2021-P-** Major Transit Station Areas Proposed Policy Directions Submissions Compendium Agency Comments Submission Number and Name Description of Submission Regional staff response Toronto Region Conservation Authority (TRCA) 001-001 • TRCA generally supports the proposed policy directions to help establish the vision, goals and objectives for MTSAs in Durham Region. Through effective implementation they will help support more intensive, mixed- use development around higher-order transit and promote connections to multi- modal forms of active transportation. This will help optimize infrastructure investments while conserving greenspace and reducing auto-related environmental and human health impacts, each of which align with TRCA’s Living City vision. • Comment noted. TRCA 001-002 • The document does not explicitly mention that natural hazards (e.g. flooding and erosion) are unsuitable and should not be planned for significant intensification. The Region’s previous approach (in June 2019) to delineate MTSAs identified areas that were “unsuitable and unplanned for significant intensification”, such as “stable neighbourhoods intended to remain as low density” and that, “this approach also excluded areas not intended to be redeveloped.” As per Appendix C, TRCA • Section 8 of the current Regional Official Plan includes a goal to protect key natural heritage or hydrologic features and functions located within or outside of Urban Areas from the impacts of urbanization. • The policies proposed for PMTSAs in this Regional Official Plan Amendment direct area municipalities to identify specific land use designations within the delineated boundaries of MTSAs, and this would include areas for environmental protection. - 240 - Major Transit Station Areas Proposed Policy Directions Submissions Compendium 2 Submission Number and Name Description of Submission Regional staff response previously commented that it is critical that MTSA boundaries be subject to meeting criteria for addressing natural hazard management, natural heritage and water resource protection. We note that, in response to this comment (p. 10 - Appendix C), the Region indicated that, “through the delineation process non-developable areas were avoided, where appropriate (such as natural areas, highways, utilities, rail corridors, etc.) to form the outer boundaries of the MTSA.” It remains unclear as to whether the Region’s MTSA delineation process also considered natural hazards. • In delineating the Region’s MTSAs and establishing a suite of related policies through the MCR process, we encourage the Region to explicitly specify, where appropriate, that natural hazards are unsuitable and should not be planned for intensification. TRCA 001-003 • 8.1 Purpose: TRCA recommends that the regulatory requirements of CAs, pursuant to the CA Act and Living City Policies, be considered when establishing the land use and policy framework to guide the development of identified lands within MTSAs throughout the Region in future ROP amendments. • Comment noted. Development in PMTSAs, similar to other areas across Durham would be subject to the regulatory requirements of conservation authorities. - 241 - Major Transit Station Areas Proposed Policy Directions Submissions Compendium 3 Submission Number and Name Description of Submission Regional staff response TRCA 001-004 • 8.3 – Land Use Policies: In addition to outlining permitted land uses , we suggest that this section be expanded to also describe areas where new growth and development is not to be directed (e.g. in natural features and hazards). • See response to TRCA 001-002. • 8.3.4 – Mobility and Active Transportation: TRCA supports proposed policy that would establish MTSAs as areas where trail systems are to be planned and developed to facilitate direct connections and create regional opportunities. These policies align well with TRCA’s Trail Strategy, which was developed in partnership with community groups and municipalities to provide for a publicly accessible regional trail network connecting our growing communities to nature, to culture, and to each other, contributing to active living and enhancing our conservation legacy. Trail alignments forming part of this regional system traverse sections of the draft MTSA boundaries within Pickering (Radom Street, Martins Drive) and Ajax (adjacent to Duffins Creek Branch). We would welcome the opportunity to work with the Region and its local municipalities to create connections with TRCA’s trail systems, and recommend that the updated ROP policies facilitate • Comment noted. Through Envision Durham and the development of the new Regional Official Plan, consideration can be given to an overarching statement about collaboration with trail partners with regards to the Region’s active transportation network. - 242 - Major Transit Station Areas Proposed Policy Directions Submissions Compendium 4 Submission Number and Name Description of Submission Regional staff response collaboration among trail partners for its mobility and active transportation network. TRCA 001-005 • Appendix A Best Practices Review: Connections and Accessibility – Sustainable Transportation: A strong emphasis has been placed upon prominent connections to public transit and provision of pedestrian and cycling access around MTSAs. TRCA recommends incorporating sustainable design measures to help obtain the Region’s objective of improving multi-modal transit access and connectivity. • Proposed Policy 8.2.18 l) encourages the development of sustainable transportation policies by the area municipalities for PMTSAs. TRCA 001-006 • Figure 1 – Context Map of MTSAs, The Context Map of MTSAs shows a new “Commuter Rail Future” within TRCA’s jurisdiction of Durham Region. Please note that any transit infrastructure expansion or improvements adjacent to erosion hazards and/or flood plains should not result in increased flood or erosion risk to the public or private property upstream and downstream of any watercourses. • Comment noted. Future transit infrastructure improvements may be undertaken by Metrolinx, the Region, the area municipality or private developers. Flood and erosion risk hazards will be considered through future design processes. TRCA 001-007 • For any station improvements, TRCA requires that the improvements be located outside of any flood and/or erosion hazard limits and associated buffers to reduce the risk to life and property. Further, given that many stations currently do not incorporate stormwater management (SWM) facilities to reduce runoff or pollutants from discharging • Comment noted. Future station improvements may be undertaken by Metrolinx, the Region, or the area municipality. Stormwater management will be considered through future design processes. - 243 - Major Transit Station Areas Proposed Policy Directions Submissions Compendium 5 Submission Number and Name Description of Submission Regional staff response to watercourses, TRCA asks that any station improvements be accompanied with SWM plans to meet SWM Criteria targets set by TRCA staff. Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing (MMAH) 002-001 • Commend the Region on its efforts to plan for and protect major transit station areas and for working closely with its lower-tier municipalities and public agencies to achieve this goal. • Comment noted. MMAH 002-002 • The Region should identify major transit station areas as “protected major transit station areas” and ensure the provisions of subsection 16(16) of the Planning Act are addressed, including appropriate policy direction to lower tier municipalities. • Comment noted. References to MTSAs have been updated to PMTSAs throughout proposed amendment. MMAH 002-003 • While the Planning Act shelters the introduction of certain policies that establish protected major transit station areas from appeal, it may not shelter all proposed policies. Please review subsection 17(36.1.4) of the Planning Act. The Region may wish to consider a phased implementation approach where additional policies are incorporated into the ROP through its MCR. • Comment noted. Additional policies related to PMTSAs may come forward through a latter stage of Envision Durham through the new draft Regional Official Plan that ensures alignment with the overall policy framework. MMAH 002-004 • Commend the Region for supporting the implementation of IZ and working with its • Comment noted. It is the Region’s intent to identify four PMTSAs along the GO East - 244 - Major Transit Station Areas Proposed Policy Directions Submissions Compendium 6 Submission Number and Name Description of Submission Regional staff response lower-tier municipalities. The identification of a major transit station area as “protected” enables municipalities to implement inclusionary zoning policies within these areas in accordance with subsection 16(5)a) of the Planning Act. • It’s important to note that the Region can identify any existing or planned higher order transit stop or station as a protected major transit station area. The Region is not limited to only those stations on priority transit corridors identified in A Place to Grow (i.e. the existing GO Stations). As such, the four future stations along the Bowmanville expansion line could be eligible for the consideration of inclusionary zoning, should they be identified as protected major transit station areas in the Regional Official Plan. Extension through this proposed amendment. MMAH 002-005 • In section 8.3.7, the Region identifies an opportunity to develop an inclusionary zoning approach for MTSAs in Durham. The Region is offering to prepare the required assessment report and enabling policies for implementation by lower-tier municipalities. We are interested in learning more about this co-ordinated approach to the • The Region has engaged N. Barry Lyon Consultants to undertake the comprehensive housing assessment report to support consideration of Inclusionary Zoning. Once drafted, the Region would welcome further consultation with the province. - 245 - Major Transit Station Areas Proposed Policy Directions Submissions Compendium 7 Submission Number and Name Description of Submission Regional staff response implementation of inclusionary zoning in the Region. MMAH 002-006 • It is our understanding the Region is proposing to request an alternate density target for the Oshawa GO/VIA Station, citing significant development constraints. As part of this future request, the Region should demonstrate how the Oshawa GO/VIA Station meets the provisions set out in policy 2.2.4.4 of APTG. This information should be provided to the province as part of any future official plan amendment consultation process. • Further to the work undertaken for the Proposed Policy Directions Report, the proposed amendment does not include the existing Oshawa GO Station as a PMTSA. MMAH 002-007 • Recognize that several proposed station area boundaries overlap with designated employment areas and provincially significant employment zones. The province is interested in learning more about the current status of employment area conversion requests in the Region, how they are being considered in the context of major transit station area delineations, and the timing of future implementation. • The proposed amendment delineates the boundaries of the Protected Major Transit Station Areas. Employment conversions that would occur as a result of these delineations are being considered through the Region’s land needs assessment process that will be considered by Committee/Council in the fall of 2021. In keeping with the amendment, detailed land use designations and policies for PMTSAs will be subsequently developed by the area municipalities through their respective planning documents. MMAH 002-008 • It is noted that the proposed Courtice major transit station area boundary extends • The Courtice Protected Major Transit Station Area delineation presented in the - 246 - Major Transit Station Areas Proposed Policy Directions Submissions Compendium 8 Submission Number and Name Description of Submission Regional staff response beyond the settlement area boundary. Including this land as part of the delineated station area boundary would be contrary to the policies of APTG, which provides that major transit station areas are within a settlement area. MTSA Proposed Policy Directions Report reflected a desire by Clarington Council to extend the settlement area boundary. This proposed amendment does not identify the area that would extend beyond the existing settlement area boundary. If the Region’s land needs assessment identifies a need for a settlement area boundary expansion, this request will be considered at this time. MMAH 002-009 • In accordance with the Planning Act and APTG, only the Region can delineate the boundaries of major transit station areas. No further refinement of the boundary by lower tier municipalities should be considered. The Region can propose further refinements to the boundaries of its major transit station areas at the time of its MCR, if required. • Comment noted. Although this approach was seen as desirable by municipalities and in other public submissions, the proposed policy direction that contemplated flexibility for refining major transit station area boundaries by local area municipalities is not part of the proposed amendment based on this comment. . MMAH 002-010 • The Region should consider including Metrolinx-owned properties that are within proximity to the proposed station area boundaries, where it is appropriate to do so. • Comment noted. To the extent possible, in keeping with the Region’s delineation methodology, properties owned by Metrolinx have been included in the proposed delineations. MMAH 002-011 • The Region should ensure it promotes and prioritizes regional transit connections within station areas and plans its future road network accordingly. • Comment noted. - 247 - Major Transit Station Areas Proposed Policy Directions Submissions Compendium 9 Submission Number and Name Description of Submission Regional staff response MMAH 002-012 • The Region should include policies that recognize matters of accessibility for persons with disabilities within protected major transit station areas. • Policy 8A.2.12 in the proposed amendment includes reference to matters of accessibility. MMAH 002-013 • It is important to emphasize that Metrolinx does not own the rail corridor between Oshawa and Bowmanville. As such, rail service beyond Oshawa on the Lakeshore East corridor depends on the successful outcome of negotiations with freight rail partners. Metrolinx is currently engaged in negotiations with CP to determine the best course forward. • Comment noted. It is staff’s understanding that the progress of negotiations between Metrolinx and CP has been positive. The Region appreciates the work being done to advance the commitment to the GO East Extension to date. MMAH 002-014 • The Region and lower-tier municipalities should refer to MTO’s Transit-Supportive Guidelines when developing policies that support public transit by providing guidance on built form, complete streets, transit access and integration, and parking standards. These guidelines may also be helpful with respect to micro-transit and first/last mile considerations. • Comment noted. - 248 - Major Transit Station Areas Proposed Policy Directions Submissions Compendium 10 Submission Number and Name Description of Submission Regional staff response Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation (CMHC), Asset Manager, Bryton, Fox Street, Oshawa 003-01 • Future municipal by-laws should not regulate rail setbacks as these matters will be addressed through future development applications and approved by the appropriate Authority (CN/ CP Rail). • To ensure consistency in planning of development near railways, municipalities have prescribed minimum setback requirements to minimize noise, vibrations and safety issues for sensitive land uses. These standards offer guidance to regulators looking to minimize land use incompatibility caused by development near railway properties. CMHC/ Bryton Fox Street, Oshawa 003-02 • Secondary Plan or Block Plans should not be required for MTSAs. The Secondary or Block Planning process can be cumbersome with the unwanted result of increased timelines and costs that impact development feasibility. With the Region and City’s overarching objective to create a transit-oriented community in a City where higher-density forms of housing are underrepresented, Bryton will be in a position to achieve this following the completion of the Region’s Official Plan. To support the efficient growth of this MTSA, we request the Region remove the requirement for a Secondary Plan/ Block Plan process • Protected Major Transit Station Areas offer unique opportunities for mixed use communities in Durham. • Secondary Plans would provide detailed policies and designations to ensure that the principles of transit-oriented development and pedestrian oriented design are provided while being responsive to the local context. Secondary Plans also provide an opportunity to establish a positive fit and compatibility between existing communities and PMTSAs. CMHC/ Bryton • The Region should commit to undertaking the Stellar Drive Environmental Assessment and construction processes. • The most recent proposed configuration for the connection from the CN rail corridor south of Highway 401 northerly to the CP - 249 - Major Transit Station Areas Proposed Policy Directions Submissions Compendium 11 Submission Number and Name Description of Submission Regional staff response Fox Street, Oshawa 003-03 • Preliminary concept plans for the subject site include the provision of a right-of-way from Stellar Drive connecting to the Fox Street/ Laval Street intersection. We will work with the Region to ensure that appropriate lands are reserved for the future road extension. Rail corridor provides completely separate rail lines for GO trains and CP freight trains. The proposed configuration includes construction of a new bridge parallel to and immediately east of the existing CP Rail bridge, as well as a grade-separated crossing of the GO and CP lines north of the bridges. This additional rail infrastructure creates an additional barrier to implementation of the planned Stellar Drive- Laval Drive connection, which will further increase the costs and complexity of construction. • Metrolinx has agreed to protect a 30 m wide corridor for the future road connection across the rail corridor, so there would be no structures in the way of future construction of a Stellar-Laval underpass under the rail lines. The location of this corridor will be confirmed through the on- going design work for the rail lines, and may require adjustment to the alignment of the corridor for the Laval Drive extension that was identified through previous Site Plan review work on the CMHC lands in 2016. • The Stellar Drive-Laval Drive connection was added to the Regional Official Plan in 2018, but it is not yet included in the Region’s current DC or Capital Program. The Region does not have current plans to - 250 - Major Transit Station Areas Proposed Policy Directions Submissions Compendium 12 Submission Number and Name Description of Submission Regional staff response initiate an Environmental Assessment (EA) study for this road, as there is currently insufficient information available to support proceeding with an EA. However, Metrolinx will be including a limited study of the Stellar-Laval connection as part of their overall transportation study for the TPAP addendum. The Region expects that additional study of this connection will be necessary as part of the planning and development of the Thornton’s Corners PMTSA. As these studies progress, more information will become available on the Metrolinx rail corridor, transit-oriented communities and related development, which will allow the Region (in cooperation with the City of Oshawa and Metrolinx) to determine if and when additional study is necessary and appropriate. - 251 - Major Transit Station Areas Proposed Policy Directions Submissions Compendium 13 Submission Number and Name Description of Submission Regional staff response CMHC/ Bryton Fox Street, Oshawa 003-04 • Through the evaluation of the proposed Regional MTSA policies, we are of the opinion that these policy directions provide the framework for an exceptional mixed-use community on the subject property and within the Thornton’s Corner MTSA as a whole. This policy direction would provide more affordable and market-based multi-unit housing in a transit-supportive form of development being planned near the frequent transit service, and prioritizes a form of intensification of the subject lands, which would also support the direction of Provincial Policies. • Comment noted. - 252 - Major Transit Station Areas Proposed Policy Directions Submissions Compendium 14 Municipal Comments Submission Number and Name Description of Submission Regional staff response City of Oshawa 001-01 • Staff support M.T.S.A.s having specific transportation-related policies to guide and support their development as transit oriented development places. However, where an M.T.S.A. is located in a predominately industrial area and a Provincially Significant Employment Zone (e.g. the existing Oshawa GO Station), staff recommend that site specific policies be developed to allow a flexible approach to the development of M.T.S.A.s that still maintains the intent of the existing land use designations. This is in recognition of potential challenges associated with applications that may be submitted seeking to convert employment lands for non-employment uses. • Upon review of comments received through the Proposed Policy Directions for MTSAS, the proposed amendment does not identify the existing Oshawa GO Station as a Protected Major Transit Station Area. More employment intensive uses would still be permissible without the need to identify this area as a PMTSA. City of Oshawa 001-02 • Staff support balancing population and employment growth and achieving healthy and complete communities within M.T.S.A.s. Having policies in place that pertain to the land use, urban design and built form, the public realm, and mobility is important in developing healthy and complete transit- oriented communities. • Comment noted. City of Oshawa 001-03 • Staff note that these policies should be contingent upon Metrolinx’s completion of its Environmental Assessment for the Oshawa- to-Bowmanville GO Rail Extension and the • The Protected Major Transit Station Area Regional Official Plan Amendment is subject to approval by the Province. The Amendment provides broad policy direction - 253 - Major Transit Station Areas Proposed Policy Directions Submissions Compendium 15 Submission Number and Name Description of Submission Regional staff response proposed new stations being built. Policies need to be in place to address what happens if the stations are not constructed (similar to Policy 2.1.8.6 in the Oshawa Official Plan). for transit-oriented development within PMTSAs and could enable opportunities for third party funding for station infrastructure if required. City of Oshawa 001-04 • Staff note that while a reduction in parking requirements may address certain site development issues and assist in achieving urban design objectives, it may also increase demand on the City’s parking enforcement resources (i.e. increase in parking complaints). The reduced minimum parking standards should be encouraged but not mandatory. Staff also note that historically it has been up to municipalities to implement parking requirements based on their respective needs through municipal zoning. The Region has not commented in the past on parking matters. Parking issues can be localized in nature and it may be difficult for the Region to develop policy language equally across the municipalities. It should also be noted that the Parking Study currently being advanced for the City remains unfinished. • Protected Major Transit Station Areas offer tremendous opportunities for intensification and place-making. Within these strategic growth areas, Regional staff support reduced parking requirements for new development, in to support existing and planned higher order transit service. Reduced parking standards in proximity of rapid transit stations supports heightened transit use and active transportation, reduces GHG emissions and helps to reduce development costs to support housing affordability. City of Oshawa 001-05 • Staff do not support the requirement for the completion of secondary plans for M.T.S.A.s given the relatively small size of the M.T.S.A.s. However, it should be noted that Oshawa City Council approved a Mobility • Protected Major Transit Station Areas offer unique opportunities to develop mixed use communities in Durham served by higher order transit. - 254 - Major Transit Station Areas Proposed Policy Directions Submissions Compendium 16 Submission Number and Name Description of Submission Regional staff response Hub Transportation and Land Use Planning Study (Project Number 40-0057) for the future Central Oshawa GO Station in the 2021 budget, which staff will advance contingent upon Metrolinx’s completion of its Environmental Assessment of the Oshawa- to-Bowmanville GO Rail Extension along the Canadian Pacific Rail mainline. • Secondary Plans would provide detailed policies and designations to ensure that the principles of transit-oriented development and pedestrian oriented design are provided while being responsive to the local context. Secondary Plans also provide an opportunity to establish a positive fit and compatibility between existing communities and PMTSAs. • While it is recognized that the City plans to undertake future work for the Central Oshawa (Ritson) Station, future opportunities for the Thornton’s Corners GO Station should also be guided by a Part II/Secondary Planning process, or equivalent. City of Oshawa 001-06 • The third land use policy under Section 8.3.1 of the M.T.S.A. Policy Directions Report will allow places of worship within mixed use buildings and not in freestanding buildings in M.T.S.A.s. Staff are seeking clarification from the Region if they will be asking the Province to amend the D.R.O.P. to permit places of worship in Employment Areas in this regard. • The Proposed Policy Directions for Envision Durham address Places of Worship in Employment Areas, and broader permissions therein. Any changes in this regard will come forward as part of the new Regional Official Plan. • This comment will be considered through the broader Envision Durham exercise. City of Oshawa 001-07 • Under Section 8.3.1 of the M.T.S.A. Policy Directions Report, automobile-oriented • The proposed policy related to limiting automobile-oriented uses is intended to apply to the establishment of new uses and to enable higher density, transit oriented - 255 - Major Transit Station Areas Proposed Policy Directions Submissions Compendium 17 Submission Number and Name Description of Submission Regional staff response uses, including drive-through establishments, service stations, land extensive vehicle oriented uses, car washes, warehousing, public self- storage facilities, similar uses and lower density and land extensive uses are not permitted. Staff would like to highlight that there are existing automobile-oriented uses in the proposed M.T.S.A.s. Clarity is needed in terms of whether it is the intention of the Region to make these legal nonconforming uses or whether this land use policy will only prevent new auto-oriented land uses in M.T.S.A.s. The Region is encouraged to explore transitional policies which are flexible enough to allow drive- through establishments until such time as the M.T.S.A. develops. mixed-use development. Allowing existing uses to continue as legal non-conforming uses would be permissible under the PMTSA policies. • Transitional policies that would allow for new drive-throughs in PMTSAs in the interim are not being contemplated. City of Oshawa 001-08 • The first rail corridor policy under Section 8.3.5 of the M.T.S.A. Policy Directions Report will allow by-laws to be passed to permit development, in accordance with the policies for the M.T.S.A., involving decking over a Rail Corridor, provided that all appropriate technical studies have been undertaken and only in accordance with the policies for the MTSA, to the satisfaction of the applicable railway authority. Staff are seeking clarity as to whether the reference • For clarity, reference to a “by-law” in Section 8.3.5 of the Policy Directions relates to a ‘zoning by-law’ to be implemented by the respective area municipality. - 256 - Major Transit Station Areas Proposed Policy Directions Submissions Compendium 18 Submission Number and Name Description of Submission Regional staff response to a “by-law” relates to a zoning by-law or if it is in relation to a different type of by-law. City of Oshawa 001-09 • It will be a challenge for the City of Oshawa to achieve a minimum gross density target of 150 residents and jobs combined per hectare (as prescribed in the Growth Plan). • The existing Oshawa GO Station is surrounded primarily by employment lands, which the City needs in order to achieve its current 2031 employment targets. Furthermore, the Oshawa GO Station M.T.S.A is already mostly developed and is physically constrained by infrastructure such as rail corridors and the Highway 401 corridor. Staff support having an alternative reduced density target that is reflective of jobs only for the existing Oshawa GO Station M.T.S.A. due to the lack of opportunity for transit oriented development (particularly residential development) and the nature of the existing built environment in the vicinity of this station. • The proposed amendment does not identify the existing Oshawa GO Station as a PMTSA in recognition of its existing land use context. City of Oshawa 001-010 • Staff support shifting and expanding the proposed delineation of the Thornton’s Corners M.T.S.A. eastwards to reflect Metrolinx’s preferred alignment as contained in the document entitled “Bowmanville Rail Service Extension: Initial Business Case Update” dated February, 2020. • The most recent proposed configuration for the connection from the CN rail corridor south of Highway 401 northerly to the CP Rail corridor provides completely separate rail lines for GO trains and CP freight trains. The proposed configuration includes construction of a new bridge parallel to and immediately east of the existing CP Rail - 257 - Major Transit Station Areas Proposed Policy Directions Submissions Compendium 19 Submission Number and Name Description of Submission Regional staff response • Per Report DS-20-149 dated December 4, 2020 regarding City comments on employment conversion requests, staff requested the Region to consider the potential conversion of lands within the draft delineation of the Thornton’s Corners M.T.S.A. from employment lands to mixed- use development. • The Region should consider through the land needs assessment process the potential for the proposed M.T.S.A. surrounding the planned future Thornton’s Corners GO Station to accommodate opportunities for appropriate residential development. • Establishing M.T.S.A. specific employment targets should be considered. Alternatively, any employment lands that are converted in the proposed Thornton’s Corners M.T.S.A. should be replaced elsewhere in the City in order that the City’s employment targets can be achieved. • Staff note that to make this M.T.S.A. more viable, the Region needs to advance an Environmental Assessment for the easterly extension of Stellar Drive from Thornton Road South to the westerly terminus of Laval Drive (shown as a Future Type “C” Arterial Road in the D.R.O.P.). Through the City’s previous comments on the Region’s bridge, as well as a grade-separated crossing of the GO and CP lines north of the bridges. This additional rail infrastructure creates an additional barrier to implementation of the planned Stellar Drive- Laval Drive connection, which will increase the costs and complexity of construction. • Metrolinx has agreed to protect a 30 m wide corridor for the future road connection across the rail corridor, so there would be no structures in the way of future construction of a Stellar-Laval underpass under the rail lines. The location of this corridor will be confirmed through the on-going design work for the rail lines, and may require adjustment to the alignment of the corridor for the Laval Drive extension that was identified through previous Site Plan review work on the CMHC lands in 2016.The Stellar Drive-Laval Drive connection was added to the Regional Official Plan in 2018, but it is not yet included in the Region’s current DC or Capital Program. The Region does not have current plans to initiate an Environmental Assessment (EA) study for this road, as there is currently insufficient information available to support proceeding with an EA. However, Metrolinx will be including a limited study of the Stellar-Laval connection as part of their overall transportation study - 258 - Major Transit Station Areas Proposed Policy Directions Submissions Compendium 20 Submission Number and Name Description of Submission Regional staff response Integrated Transportation Master Plan, staff noted that the City considers this future road connection to be a Regional Road, and should be constructed at the Region’s cost. • To facilitate the development of the M.T.S.A., the environmental assessment for this road section should be advanced in a timely fashion so as to be appropriately coordinated with Metrolinx’s advancement of the development of the Thornton’s Corners GO Station. for the TPAP addendum. The Region expects that additional study of this connection will be necessary as part of the planning and development of the Thornton’s Corners PMTSA. As these studies progress, more information will become available on the Metrolinx rail corridor, transit-oriented communities and related development, which will allow the Region (in cooperation with the City of Oshawa and Metrolinx) to determine if and when additional study is necessary and appropriate. City of Oshawa 001-011 • Staff recommend amending the boundaries of the Central Oshawa GO Station M.T.S.A. to include the self-storage facility on the east side of Storngo Boulevard, given that the size and location of this site makes it ideal for more intensive development in the long term. • The proposed amendment includes this change to the Central Oshawa GO Station PMTSA delineation. City of Pickering 002-001 • A master planning exercise was fairly recently completed for the Pickering City Centre (Urban Growth Centre), through the adoption of Amendment 26 to the Pickering Official Plan, a City Centre Zoning By-law, and Urban Design Guidelines, which addresses most of the lands within the Pickering MTSA. • Staff acknowledge that the City will be updating the Official Plan in the context of the new Growth Plan and Regional Official • Comment noted. This change has been included in the proposed amendment. - 259 - Major Transit Station Areas Proposed Policy Directions Submissions Compendium 21 Submission Number and Name Description of Submission Regional staff response Plan. Staff request the Region to revise the policy direction to allow completion of Secondary Plans, block plans or equivalent. City of Pickering 002-002 • Although the notion of maximum parking requirements is supported, it may still be challenging to implement it, since many of the services offered in the Pickering MTSA are offered at a Citywide and Regional scale, and predominantly accessed by private vehicle. • Protected Major Transit Station Areas offer tremendous opportunities for intensification in Durham, as key strategic growth areas. Regional staff support reduced parking standards for these areas. It is recognized that this shift will impact how area municipalities will deliver parking services and enforcement in future as the Region and area municipalities transition to intensified development in our Centres, Corridors and MTSAs. City of Pickering 002-004 • It is recommended that, for greater clarity, the Region include free standing “offices” in addition to permitting them as part of a mixed use development in MTSAs. • The proposed amendment has been revised to include office and major office as a permitted land use. City of Pickering 002-005 • Related to permitted uses and infrastructure as a permitted use, it is recommended that the Region confirm that “infrastructure” includes district energy systems. • The Envision Durham Proposed Policy Directions include the following definition for “infrastructure” to be included in the new ROP. Infrastructure: meaning physical structures (facilities and corridors) that form the foundation for development. Infrastructure includes sewage and water systems, septage treatment systems, stormwater management systems, waste management systems, electricity generation facilities, electricity transmission and - 260 - Major Transit Station Areas Proposed Policy Directions Submissions Compendium 22 Submission Number and Name Description of Submission Regional staff response distribution systems, communications/ telecommunications, transit and transportation corridors and facilities, oil and gas pipelines and associated facilities. • District energy systems would be included as a distribution system in this definition. City of Pickering 002-006 • The prohibition of drive-through establishments may be too restrictive. There are various banks and restaurants with drive-through facilities that are operating compatibly within the Pickering’s MTSA. It is recommended that the Region forego the prohibition of drive-through establishments within MTSAs and allow the ancillary use to be addressed by area municipalities through area municipal policy or site-specific zoning by-law provisions. • The proposed policy related to limiting automobile-oriented uses is intended to apply to the establishment of new uses. Area municipalities may approach existing uses as legal non-conforming in their planning documents. City of Pickering 002-007 • Despite prohibiting warehousing, self- storage, and similar uses, it is requested that the Region clarify that self-serve parcel storage lockers/kiosks for ground-based parcel deliveries that are part of last mile delivery networks, be permitted as an accessory use to the main development. • The prohibition of warehousing, self-storage and similar uses was intended for singular uses. Supportive infrastructure integrated into a mixed-use building would be permitted. City of Pickering 002-008 • Please clarify whether the reference to “streets” in the urban design and built form policy directions is only in reference to public streets, or both public and private streets. On large redevelopment sites, some buildings will front private streets or aisles. • Comment noted. The use of the term streets was not intended to describe ownership. - 261 - Major Transit Station Areas Proposed Policy Directions Submissions Compendium 23 Submission Number and Name Description of Submission Regional staff response City of Pickering 002-009 • In view of the fact that urban design guidelines are non-mandatory, it is recommended that the Region consider revising the policy direction in Section 8.3.2.8 of the MTSA Report to require developments to meet the intent and principles of municipal urban design guidelines. • The proposed amendment includes direction to the area municipalities to develop Urban Design Guidelines to guide the desired land use, density, built form and the pedestrian oriented public realm for each PMTSA. City of Pickering 002-010 • In relation to the public realm and open space policy direction, it is recommended that the Region consider including the provision for public art in the public realm. • Comment noted. The proposed amendment includes a reference to public art in PMTSAs. City of Pickering 002-011 • It is recommended that the Region consider a policy direction encouraging station areas and public spaces to be designed according to Crime Prevention Through Environmental Design (CPTED) principles where those principles are complementary to the urban design principles and guidelines. • The consideration of CPTED principles into the Regional Official Plan will be addressed through the broader Envision Durham exercise. City of Pickering 002-012 • It is recommended that the Region consider a policy direction ensuring public spaces and pedestrian networks/connections are designed to be accessible and barrier-free. • Comment noted. The proposed amendment includes a policy that recognizes matters of accessibility for persons with disabilities. . City of Pickering 002-013 • Since there is no guarantee that the design of pedestrian areas could ensure comfort for all users under all circumstances, it is recommended that the Region consider revising the policy direction to maximize wind and thermal comfort conditions to the extent feasible. • Comment noted. The proposed amendment includes reference to convenient, direct, sheltered pedestrian access to stations. The inclusions of specific reference to wind/thermal have not been carried forward to the proposed amendment. - 262 - Major Transit Station Areas Proposed Policy Directions Submissions Compendium 24 Submission Number and Name Description of Submission Regional staff response City of Pickering 002-014 • Inclusionary zoning could be helpful tool to facilitate affordable housing within MTSAs. Staff strongly support the preparation of a housing assessment report by the Region. • Comment noted. Work is underway on the preparation of a housing assessment report to support the local implementation of Inclusionary Zoning, which will be reported on separately. City of Pickering 002-015 • It is recommended that the Region elaborate if targets and timelines for the proposed monitoring metrics will be established and reported on, and how the data will be used to ensure the vision, goals, and objectives of MTSAs are achieved. • The proposed amendment includes an enabling policy that will signal interest in monitoring growth in PMTSAs. The details regarding timelines and specific targets will be developed as part of further work following approval of the ROP related to other growth monitoring objectives. Town of Ajax 003-001 • Staff are supportive of the proposed delineation of the Ajax MTSA as the boundaries recognize surrounding barriers and existing employment uses to the east. Future land use studies will need to be completed as part of the Town’s next Official Plan Review to create a comprehensive vision for the MTSA, applying specific land use policies and urban design framework. • Comment noted. The proposed amendment recognizes the need/requirement for future planning studies, such as a secondary plan for PMTSAs. Town of Ajax 003-002 • Staff reviewed the MTSA Policy Directions Report released by the Region and are generally supportive of the overall policy framework as many policies resemble the policy framework currently utilized in the Ajax GO Transit Station Mixed Use Area designation. The policy framework also represents good planning with a variety of policies that support Transit Oriented • Comment noted. - 263 - Major Transit Station Areas Proposed Policy Directions Submissions Compendium 25 Submission Number and Name Description of Submission Regional staff response Development, active transportation and way finding, and promote good urban design. Town of Ajax 003-003 • Staff support the policy encouraging local municipalities to establish minimum job requirements within MTSAs as the Town currently requires a minimum of 50 jobs per hectare within the first phase of a development prior to permitting high density residential land uses. This is an important policy to encourage a mix of residents and jobs within MTSAs. • Comment noted. Town of Ajax 003-004 • Staff support the land use permissions that allow higher density residential uses including apartments, stacked townhouses and live-work units. However, the Town’s Official Plan also permits back-to-back townhouses within the high density residential designation; which can achieve higher densities and create positive pedestrian spaces through the utilization of underground parking. It is requested that back-to-back townhouses be permitted. Alternatively, a general clause such as ‘other forms of high density residential uses’ could be applied to allow alternative forms of housing. This would enable local municipalities to evaluate the appropriateness of locating other types of high density residential uses within MTSAs through the secondary/block planning stage, • Comment noted. The proposed PMTSAs are intended to meet the minimum requirement of 150 people and jobs per hectare, which can be satisfied through a variety of built forms. Detailed work through the area municipal exercises, can allow a mix of residential units including higher density ground related housing to satisfy this policy objective. - 264 - Major Transit Station Areas Proposed Policy Directions Submissions Compendium 26 Submission Number and Name Description of Submission Regional staff response provided that they comply with density requirements. This can also ensure that MTSAs develop with a slightly more diverse range of housing options. Town of Ajax 003-005 • Currently, it is unclear if recreational uses, such as ‘commercial fitness centres’ would be considered a ‘commercial’ use or ‘public recreation’ use. It is recommended that ‘recreational uses’ be added to policy 8.3.1.5 to permit a wider array of recreation uses. • Commercial fitness centres would be permitted as defined in the relevant area municipal official plan and/or zoning by-law, either as freestanding commercial facilities, or as part of a mixed-use building. Town of Ajax 003-006 • Proposed policy 8.3.2.1 reads “areas within, adjacent, and in close proximity to Commuter Stations and Transportation Hubs, will be reserved for the highest development densities that showcase building heights to create focal points within the MTSAs.” While staff agree that these locations are best positioned to support the highest densities, how those densities are achieved should be left to the local municipality and the required secondary planning. Prescribing that local municipalities create focal points that showcase building heights does not allow municipalities to consider local conditions and pre-determines a design outcome that may not align with the municipalities’ vision. It is recommended that the wording ‘to showcase building heights’ be removed. • Agree. The reference to showcasing building heights has not been included in the proposed amendment to respond to local conditions. - 265 - Major Transit Station Areas Proposed Policy Directions Submissions Compendium 27 Submission Number and Name Description of Submission Regional staff response Town of Ajax 003-007 • Proposed policy 8.3.4.5 identifies that “a highly permeable road network with shorter blocks and frequent controlled crossings will be provided to optimize opportunities for safe and flexible pedestrian travel options.” Staff support this policy as it is important to support pedestrian movement within MTSAs. Two Regional roads, Westney Road South and Bayly Street West, run through the Ajax MTSA. Staff want to ensure that this policy is also applied to Regional roads. Therefore, it is requested that a sentence, or similar wording, be added to the end that reads “This policy shall also apply to Regional roads.” • Comment noted. The Envision Durham Proposed Policy Directions included policy directions related to the design of arterial roads in Strategic Growth Areas (that include PMTSAs), through a complete streets approach, to help control traffic speeds while promoting safe, attractive environments for active transportation. This suggestion has not been incorporated into the proposed amendment. Town of Ajax 003-008 • The MTSA Policy Directions report proposes that the Region undertake the required assessment report needed to support inclusionary zoning on behalf of local municipalities, and develop the implementing policy framework for inclusion in local Official Plans. Staff agree with this approach as the required assessment report can be costly, and may offer limited cost benefits in the short and medium term if completed at the local level by each municipality. Completing the assessment report at a Regional level will realize efficiencies when completing the report, and • Comment noted. - 266 - Major Transit Station Areas Proposed Policy Directions Submissions Compendium 28 Submission Number and Name Description of Submission Regional staff response can encourage dialogue and partnerships to manage the affordable units, benefiting both the Region and local municipalities. Town of Ajax 003-009 • Staff support the creation of a Regional CIP. A Regional CIP should also consider support for major office development in MTSAs to support job creation in these areas. Staff are agreeable to working with the Region in the development of the Regional CIP and provide insight into the positive outcomes and challenges experienced by the Town when implementing its two CIP’s. • The Regional CIP project is proceeding separately and staff would welcome opportunity to work together at the appropriate time. Municipality of Clarington 004-001 • At a high level, staff support the draft policy directions. The comments contained herein add clarity and serve to improve the implementation of those directions as they relate to the MOC. • Comment noted. Municipality of Clarington 004-002 • The Municipality requests that the Region commit in policy to support the decisions of local Council’s based on good planning. • Regional and/or Local Council decisions related to development within current and future Secondary Plans within MTSAs should not be weakened by other tools like CIPs. In addition, the municipality requests that the implementing ROPA be clear in terms of respecting the role of the local Council as being the final decision maker in terms of zoning and site plan control. • Comments noted. • The Region is examining the implementation of a Regional Community Improvement Plan through a separate, but ongoing project. - 267 - Major Transit Station Areas Proposed Policy Directions Submissions Compendium 29 Submission Number and Name Description of Submission Regional staff response Municipality of Clarington 004-003 • The delineation of MTSA’s should be conceptual, similar to the current policies for Regional Centres. The detailed delineation and boundary should be left to local Official Plans, Secondary Plans and/or Master Block Plans. This approach will respect the local council/municipality in guiding development through local planning tools, will reduce unnecessary ROPA’s for minor changes, and will add certainty as developers will continue to deal with municipalities as the one window for development applications. Section 8.3 #7 should be reworded accordingly. • The Growth Plan broadly supports intensification and the creation of compact and complete communities. However, it prioritizes Strategic Growth Areas (SGAs) as focused areas for mixed-use development at high densities. • Major Transit Station Areas are identified as an SGA, similar to Urban Growth Centres and Regional Centres. To effectively monitor growth and performance, the Growth Plan requires SGAs to be assigned a minimum density target and their detailed boundaries to be delineated in the upper tier official plan. • MMAH staff have confirmed that the PMTSA boundaries are required to be delineated in the Regional Official Plan to conform to the Growth Plan. Municipality of Clarington 004-004 • Staff have heard concerns from business owners south of Baseline Road related to the protection of their businesses. The policy directions should be updated to protect the rights of existing industrial businesses, including the permissions to expand on their current uses in the future, within the MTSAs and may be outlined in a Secondary Plan/Master Block Plan. • The proposed amendment includes policy that directs area municipalities to detail land use designations within the boundary. The Municipality of Clarington may continue to designate this area for employment uses in its official plan and Secondary Plan/Master Block Plan. - 268 - Major Transit Station Areas Proposed Policy Directions Submissions Compendium 30 Submission Number and Name Description of Submission Regional staff response Municipality of Clarington 004-005 • The current definition of “Affordable Housing” in the Regional Official Plan is out of date. Staff requests that the Region commit to creating opportunities for Affordable Housing within MTSAs by: o Including policies for Inclusionary Zoning to establish specific targets, o Including policies that state the Regions definition of Affordable Housing is a foundation and o Including policies that clarify that High density does not equal affordable. • Clarington Staff also support the idea of the Region preparing the required assessment report and enabling policies for implementation by the local area municipalities. • The Envision Durham Proposed Policy Directions indicate the Region’s approach for affordable housing • Following the outcome of the comprehensive housing assessment, staff will be presenting a report pertaining to Inclusionary Zoning under separate cover. Municipality of Clarington 004-005 • Clarington Staff support the idea of a Regional Community Improvement Plan to establish incentives or otherwise utilize the powers under the Planning Act, to support the principles and policies of Regional and Local Plans, including measures to support affordable housing, high-density mixed-use development, sustainability, and energy efficiency. • Comment noted. Municipality of Clarington • There is no discussion of Sustainability within Section 8 “Proposed Policy • Comment noted. Envision Durham and the new Regional Official Plan will consider - 269 - Major Transit Station Areas Proposed Policy Directions Submissions Compendium 31 Submission Number and Name Description of Submission Regional staff response 004-006 Directions”. The policies should incorporate the key Sustainability principles guiding the policies and should be the Driving force of the design of our MTSAs. These policies should relate to building design, trails, open spaces, etc. sustainability principles as an overarching goal. Municipality of Clarington 004-007 • How are the proposed policies implementing the Economic Development Plan of the Region? If a key component of the Plan is to make Durham Region an Energy Capital, the Regions plan should include policies that advance this focus within and surrounding the MTSAs. For example, the MTSA in Courtice should advance the energy cluster based on plans of OPG and the ongoing work within the Courtice Energy Park. • Comment noted. The Envision Durham Proposed Policy Directions released in March 2021 include key policy directions related to a “Prosperous Economy” in Durham. Municipality of Clarington 004-008 Getting people to the GO station via local transit needs to be addressed more thoroughly, with stronger policy language than “provide opportunities.” Are there other GO stations (in or out of Durham Region) that have essentially no local transit service? Are there any studies that suggest a high order transit station without local transit service is viable? • Comment noted. It is contemplated that each of the proposed GO stations would provide local transit service connections. . Municipality of Clarington 004-009 Policies should include the submission of Urban Design and Sustainability Guidelines, specific to each MTSA. • The proposed amendment includes direction to the area municipalities to develop Urban Design Guidelines for each Protected Major - 270 - Major Transit Station Areas Proposed Policy Directions Submissions Compendium 32 Submission Number and Name Description of Submission Regional staff response Transit Station Area. The Envision Durham Proposed Policy Directions released in March 2021 included a policy direction that would require developments to be accompanied by the submission of supporting information that addresses green infrastructure, net-zero ready development and proposed building practices; and demonstrate how the proposed development would help support the Region’s Climate Resilient Development and Sustainability objectives, as a requirement for a complete application. Municipality of Clarington 004-009 The current policies do not set out parameters for definitions of mid and high-rise development including storeys. Staff support that local plans set these parameters • Comment noted. It is expected that the area municipal planning documents would set out these parameters. Municipality of Clarington 004-010 Section 8.3.1, point 4 refers to “retail stores” and “small-scale retail uses”. What is the difference? • The proposed amendment describes permitted land uses in Protected Major Transit Station Areas to include commercial uses including retail, both convenience retail and small-scale retail uses. The reference to retail “stores” has not been carried forward. Municipality of Clarington 004-010 Staff agree with Region taking a hard line on all vehicle oriented uses so as to change the habits and expectations of land users. • Comment noted. - 271 - Major Transit Station Areas Proposed Policy Directions Submissions Compendium 33 Submission Number and Name Description of Submission Regional staff response Municipality of Clarington 004-011 The Region should continue to be a commenting agency for zoning and site plan development applications. (Section 8.3.6) • Comment noted. No change to process is proposed by the amendment. Municipality of Clarington 004-012 Regional policies should emphasize that the character of existing neighbourhoods is equally as important as achieving density and heights. The document should be updated to include policies in this regard • Comment noted. PMTSAs offer unique opportunities for mixed use communities in Durham. While this is a change in approach at the Region, it is in line with the goals and objectives of the Growth Plan related to strategic growth areas. Municipality of Clarington 004-013 The northern edge of the MTSA delineation should be revised to remove curving upwards along the northern edge of the MTSA, to not introduce conflicts with the Southeast Courtice Secondary Plan. • Comment noted. The proposed amendment has incorporated this change to the delineation of the Courtice PMTSA. Town of Whitby 005-001 Town of Whitby generally supports the proposed policy but requires further details to better assess the implications for implementation at the local level. • Comment noted. Town of Whitby 005-002 Enable local decisions based on local context: MTSA policies should be enabling, not prescriptive, allowing the local circumstances to be taken into consideration to permit appropriate development and intensification unique to each MTSA. • Comment noted. Section 16(16) of the Planning Act indicates that if an official plan contains policies for protected major transit station areas, it must also contain policies that identify the number of residents and jobs collectively per hectare that are planned to be accommodated within the area, and require official plans of the relevant lower tier municipality to identify the authorized uses of land in the area and of buildings or structures on lands in the area. Section 2.2.4.6 of the Growth Plan indicates - 272 - Major Transit Station Areas Proposed Policy Directions Submissions Compendium 34 Submission Number and Name Description of Submission Regional staff response that within MTSAs, land uses and built form that would adversely affect the achievement of the minimum density targets in this Plan will be prohibited. Additional policies are provided in 2.2.4.8 and 2.2.4.9. Town of Whitby 005-003 MTSA policies should acknowledge that some employment uses may need to be maintained with MTSAs, to mitigate potential job displacement and erosion if Employment Area Lands are either converted or impacted by the introduction of sensitive uses. MTSAs require transitional policies. • Comment noted. Area municipalities have the flexibility to provide more detailed land use designations within the delineated PMTSA boundary while maintaining employment uses in these areas, subject to the overall density target of 150 pj/ha. Town of Whitby 005-004 Any requirement by the Region for Secondary Plans or Block Plans for MTSAs should be discretionary and not mandatory to reflect local contexts. • Protected Major Transit Station Areas offer unique opportunities for mixed use communities in Durham. • Secondary Plans would provide detailed policies and designations to ensure that the principles of transit-oriented development and pedestrian oriented design are provided while being responsive to the local context. Secondary Plans also provide an opportunity to establish a positive fit and compatibility between existing communities and PMTSAs. Town of Whitby 005-005 MTSAs should support the development of complete communities. The Region should recognize that each MTSA is unique, and the appropriate range of land uses should be specific to each individual MTSA. MTSAs should not be • Comment noted. The theme of complete communities permeates the current ROP. • Affordable housing in areas outside of PMTSAs is being addressed through Envision Durham, the Region’s municipal comprehensive review. - 273 - Major Transit Station Areas Proposed Policy Directions Submissions Compendium 35 Submission Number and Name Description of Submission Regional staff response the only locations in which affordable housing are located to support this goal. Town of Whitby 005-006 The draft list of permitted land uses within MTSA’s should be enabling, not prescriptive, allowing the local area circumstances to be taken into consideration to permit appropriate development and intensification unique to each MTSA. • Comment noted. The suite of permitted land uses is not intended to be exhaustive, nor it is intended to imply that each PMTSA must include each of the land uses identified. Area municipalities have the ability to shape their respective PMTSA(s) through subsequent, more detailed (secondary) planning exercises. Town of Whitby 005-007 Emerging technologies for parking including structured parking should be considered to support MTSAs and environmental sustainability. • Comment noted. Town of Whitby 005-008 Further details are required prior to providing comments, including the role of area municipalities in the preparation of required assessment reports for inclusionary zoning. • Comment noted. The Region has engaged N. Barry Lyon Consultants to undertake a comprehensive housing assessment to support consideration of Inclusionary Zoning and Regional staff look forward to sharing progress on this project in the near future. Town of Whitby 005-009 If the MTSA ROPA advances separately, per Regional Council direction, then there should be continued opportunity for further consideration and potential refinement, through other future components of the Envision Durham exercise. • Agree. There will be an opportunity to achieve further alignment with the PMTSA policy framework and delineations when the new ROP is being prepared. Town of Whitby 005-010 The Region’s proposed boundary for the Whitby GO Station MTSA is supported. • Comment noted. Town of Whitby 005-011 MTSA ROPA should be considered concomitantly with Employment Land conversion requests, and other proposed policy directions for growth • The proposed amendment delineates the boundaries of the PMTSAs. The conversion of lands within MTSAs current within - 274 - Major Transit Station Areas Proposed Policy Directions Submissions Compendium 36 Submission Number and Name Description of Submission Regional staff response management to ensure a more comprehensive understanding of the impact of including/excluding certain land with the Oshawa GO MTSA designated Employment Areas has been addressed through the Envision Durham Growth Management Study - Employment Strategy Technical Report, which indicates that the Region will be able to provide the required amount of Employment Area land to achieve the provincial forecast to 2051, while still providing for conversion of lands within PMTSAs. Detailed land use designations within PMTSAs will be defined by the area municipalities within their respective planning documents. Town of Whitby 005-012 If the Thornton’s Corners GO Station MTSA permits Mixed Uses, including High Density Residential development then intervening lands between the MTSA and Durham College, it may be difficult to develop for Prestige Industrial uses due to compatibility constraints. • Comment noted. The location of the proposed Thornton’s Corners GO Station has shifted easterly and would no longer be in the Town of Whitby. The previously proposed employment area conversions contemplated west of the CP Rail Spur are no longer part of the PMTSA boundary. Town of Whitby 005-013 Further analysis and discussion with the Region is required to understand if the Thornton’s Corner MTSA delineation should be extended to include additional lands north of Stellar Drive and West of Corbett Creek, to the Durham College property. • Comment noted. The location of the Thornton’s Corners GO Station has shifted easterly. Inclusion of the lands west of the CP Rail Spur in Oshawa/Whitby are no longer being contemplated. Town of Whitby 005-14 MTSA ROPA should be considered concomitantly with Employment Land conversion requests, and other proposed policy directions for growth management to provide a more comprehensive understanding of the potential impacts on jobs and • The proposed amendment delineates the boundaries of the Protected Major Transit Station Areas. The conversion of lands within MTSAs current within designated Employment Areas has been addressed through the Envision Durham Growth - 275 - Major Transit Station Areas Proposed Policy Directions Submissions Compendium 37 Submission Number and Name Description of Submission Regional staff response intensification targets from including or excluding certain lands from the Thornton’s Corner MTSA. Management Study - Employment Strategy Technical Report, which indicates that the Region will be able to provide the required amount of Employment Area land to achieve the provincial forecast to 2051, while still providing for conversion of lands within PMTSAs. Detailed land use designations within PMTSAs will be defined by the area municipalities within their respective planning documents. Town of Whitby 005-015 The location of the Thornton’s Corner MTSA boundary should be contingent upon finalization of the Environmental Assessment for the Oshawa-to- Bowmanville GO Rail Extension, including a decision on the precise location of the new GO Station by the Province. • Comment noted. The amendment to enact a policy framework and delineations for PMTSAs is subject to approval by the Province. It is expected that approval of the amendment, including the Thornton’s Corners GO Station would be coincident with commitment for the GO East Extension. - 276 - Major Transit Station Areas Proposed Policy Directions Submissions Compendium 38 Submission Number and Name Description of Submission Regional staff response Town of Whitby 005- 016 The Town of Whitby has undertaken detailed planning following extensive public consultation for the entire Whitby MTSA area and does not support any MTSA provisions that may create an entitlement for additional height or density beyond that currently identified. • Comment noted. The proposed amendment prescribes 150 people and jobs per hectare for PMTSAs across the entire PMTSA. Height and density requirements would be set by the requisite municipality. • Section 16(16) of the Planning Act indicates that if an official plan contains policies for protected major transit station areas, it must also contain policies that identify the number of residents and jobs collectively per hectare that are planned to be accommodated within the area, and require official plans of the relevant lower tier municipality to identify the authorized uses of land in the area and of buildings or structures on lands in the area. - 277 - Major Transit Station Areas Proposed Policy Directions Submissions Compendium 39 Public Comments Submission Number and Name Description of Submission Regional staff response Marvin Green, River Oaks Group, 21st Company Inc 001-001 • Feb 22, 2021: Request that the Employment Area Conversion request for 1650 Champlain Avenue in Whitby be withdrawn. Both Menkes and Marvin Green, as the future and current owners of the subject site, request that the proposed MTSA draft boundary not be extended further west from what was shown in the Report. (NOTE: IN December 2020, Bryce Jordan of GHD submitted comments on behalf of GHD requesting the site being included in the MTSA. These comments have not be included as they are superceded by Mr. Green’s February correspondence) • Comment noted. The location of the Thornton’s Corners GO Station has shifted easterly and no longer includes lands west of the CP Rail spur. Marvin Green, River Oaks Group, 21st Company Inc 001-002 • Feb 24, 2021: Menkes Business Parks Limited has executed an Agreement to Purchase 1650 Champlain Avenue. • Request that the Region confirm that the Employment Land Conversion Request will be withdrawn and no longer considered by the Region; and confirm that the Region intends to keep the boundary of Thornton’s Corners MTSA east of Corbett Creek. • Comment noted. The location of the Thornton’s Corners GO Station has shifted easterly and the delineation no longer includes lands west of the CP Rail spur. Brandon Simon • Feb 24, 2021: Executed an Agreement to Purchase 1650 Champlain/ dLAB lands with intention of developing it for industrial • Comment noted. The location of the Thornton’s Corners GO Station has shifted - 278 - Major Transit Station Areas Proposed Policy Directions Submissions Compendium 40 Submission Number and Name Description of Submission Regional staff response Menkes Business Parks Limited 001-003 uses. Currently in the due diligence period of the Purchase Agreement. • No interest in pursing an Employment Land Conversion and support the Proposed MTSA Draft Boundary for the Thornton’s Corner MTSA delineated in the Directions Report. easterly and the delineation no longer includes lands west of the CP Rail spur. Brandon Simon Menkes Business Parks Limited 001-004 • Feb 24, 2021: Want to understand whether there are any planning obstacles to their proposed industrial development. • Comment noted. The location of the Thornton’s Corners GO Station has shifted easterly and the delineation no longer includes lands west of the CP Rail spur. It is our understanding that Menkes has had an early preconsultation meeting with Whitby staff to discuss uses on their property. Doug McLaughlin 002-001 • Dec 3, 2020: There is a deficiency in the MTSA policies concerning environmental sustainability. It is important that the MTSA policies align with the Durham Region Strategic Plan 2020-2024 Goal #1 • Comment noted. The current Regional Official Plan includes policies regarding protection of the environment. Envision Durham, the Region’s municipal comprehensive review of the Regional Official Plan is proposing a suite of policy directions that will address sustainability, and are not specific to the PMTSAs. For more information, please visit www.durham.ca/envisiondurham to view the Proposed Policy Directions Report. Erwin Waldinsperger 003-001 • Dec 5, 2020: objects to the Option 2 rail alignment using the CP Rail Bellville spur bridge due to environmental, economic, • Comment noted. Durham is supportive of the GO East Extension connecting with the CP Rail corridor to provide for the - 279 - Major Transit Station Areas Proposed Policy Directions Submissions Compendium 41 Submission Number and Name Description of Submission Regional staff response social and physical reasons, including the impact on the operation of the GM Assembly Plant in light of the ratified uniform/ GM 3-4 year agreement opportunity to developed mixed use communities in proximity to planned GO Stations. Erwin Waldinsperger 003-002 • Dec 5, 2020: suggested that an overhead pedestrian crossing over Hwy 401 at the westside of Thornton Road S. connecting the lands in the vicinity of Leisure Lanes to the existing Oshawa GO station. • Comment noted. Opportunities to strengthen and protect for pedestrian connectivity will be a consideration. Erwin Waldinsperger 003-003 • Jan 14, 2021: Increase train service along the CP corridor through Oshawa from Thornton Road S. will impact 17-18 neighbourhoods vs 7 neighbourhoods along the CN/VIA corridor. Option 4 Route alignment is a viable option with enhanced environmental features and lessen restrictions. • The Metrolinx Initial Business Case (Feb 2020) evaluated the case for implementing rail service to Bowmanville on the Lakeshore East corridor through various alignments and service patterns. The options presented were based on Metrolinx’s initial view of achievable alignments and service patterns on a shared rail corridor, and the infrastructure requirements to enable the service extension – Option 2 was identified as the preferred alignment to advance as part of the Business Case process. Erwin Waldinsperger 003-004 • Jan 14, 2021: CP Freight Service schedule needs to be considered as a priority service in the vicinity of the CP GM spur • As part of the Metrolinx Initial Business Case (Feb 2020), a high-level assessment of the infrastructure required on the CP corridor to enable a future state where GO service and CP freight operations can exist in tandem on the subdivision has been used. Consideration of not impacting CP’s freight operations or future capacity - 280 - Major Transit Station Areas Proposed Policy Directions Submissions Compendium 42 Submission Number and Name Description of Submission Regional staff response expansion capabilities on the subdivision and its track to General Motor were also factored. Erwin Waldinsperger 003-005 • Jan 14, 2021: CP Freight Service schedule needs to be considered as a priority service in the vicinity of the CP GM spur • Comment noted. Metrolinx plans to twin the CP Rail Spur to connect the GO East Lakeshore Corridor to the GO East Extension. Erwin Waldinsperger 003-006 • Jan 14, 2021: past ongoing maintenance practices of railways and poor stormwater management to the north have impacted floral and faunal activities beyond the operated corridors. • Comment noted. This comment has been shared with Metrolinx. Peter Garrett on behalf of Don Lovisa, Durham College 004-001 • Dec 9, 2020: request that the Region consider modifying the Thornton’s Corners MTSA boundary to include the Whitby campus. The industrial zoned areas between the Durham College campus and the proposed MTSA disconnects the campus. • Comment noted. The location of the Thornton’s Corners GO Station has shifted easterly and the delineation no longer includes lands west of the CP Rail spur. Once the station is established, Durham Region Transit can work with Durham College to ensure connections between the Thornton’s Corners GO Station and the campus are provided. Lindsay Dale- Harris Bousfields Inc. on behalf of Bara Group 005-001 • 1201 and 1207 Brock Street South and 1200 and 1202 Green Street (the subject site). The Whitby GO MTSA boundary arbitrarily excludes the subject site; artificially limits the population and employment potential within 500-800 metres of the Whitby GO station; and thus do not conform to the Growth Plan for the Greater Golden Horseshoe. • Comment noted. The proposed northern MTSA delineation for the Whitby GO Station is the Hwy 401 corridor. The Downtown Whitby Secondary Plan includes the area along Brock Street South. - 281 - Major Transit Station Areas Proposed Policy Directions Submissions Compendium 43 Submission Number and Name Description of Submission Regional staff response Lindsay Dale- Harris Bousfields Inc. on behalf of Bara Group 005-002 • The subject site falls within a 500-800 metre radius from the centre of the rail platform. South of the Hwy 401 the proposed MTSA boundary extends well outside the 800 metre walking distance. • Comment noted. Major Transit Station Areas are defined in the Provincial Growth Plan as “The area including and around any existing or planned higher order transit station or stop within a settlement area; or the area including and around a major bus depot in an urban core. Major transit station areas generally are defined as the area within an approximate 500 to 800 metre radius of a transit station, representing about a 10 minute walk.” Lindsay Dale- Harris Bousfields Inc. on behalf of Bara Group 005-003 • The elimination of the MTSA north of the Hwy 401 excludes lands which have already been identified for intensification by the Town of Whitby: the MTSA boundary should be aligned with these areas. • Comment noted. Areas identified for intensification in the Downtown Whitby Secondary Plan area can continue and are not hindered whether or not they are included in the PMTSA boundary. Lindsay Dale- Harris Bousfields Inc. on behalf of Bara Group 005-004 • The subject site was identified as an area for intensification in OPA 105, distinguishing it from the adjacent low density area and from the Downtown Whitby Secondary Plan area. The subject site should be re-developed for transit- supportive intensification. • Comment noted. Intensification within the built-up area is supported. Lindsay Dale- Harris Bousfields Inc. 005-005 • Employment Areas were identified, and a determination was made as to whether there is redevelopment potential. As the subject site is designated Mixed Use, this consideration does not apply. • Comment noted. - 282 - Major Transit Station Areas Proposed Policy Directions Submissions Compendium 44 Submission Number and Name Description of Submission Regional staff response Lindsay Dale- Harris Bousfields Inc. on behalf of Bara Group 005-006 • The Intensification Corridor along Brock Street South was correctly included in the June 2019 report. There is no need to extend the MTSA boundary – retain the Brock Street South Intensification Corridor. • Comment noted. The Brock Street South Intensification Corridor continues to be recognized in the Town of Whitby’s planning documents. Lindsay Dale- Harris Bousfields Inc. on behalf of Bara Group 005-007 • As per the 2041 Metrolinx Regional Transportation Plan, the subject site would be located within the Secondary Mobility Hub Zone of the Whitby GO Station, hence there is no reason for it to be excluded. • Comment noted. The proposed northern MTSA delineation for the Whitby GO Station is the Hwy 401 corridor. The Downtown Whitby Secondary Plan includes the area along Brock Street South. Michael Longarini 006-001 • Supportive of the policy direction regarding MTSA Report#2020-P27. Would like the Region to emphasize more mid sized residential buildings and affordable home and rental options. • Comment noted. Michael Longarini 006-002 • MTSAs should have a policy regarding ‘first-km, last-km’ access to sites and development along the major roadways that lead to the MTSA • Comment noted. Michael Longarini 006-003 • Higher density of development should be approved inside and outside of settlement zones that are along Highway 2, in anticipation of future public transit use efficiency • Comment noted. CP REIT Ontario Properties Ltd., • Growth Plan (2019) policy 2.2.4.3 states “Major transit station areas on priority transit corridors or subway lines will be planned for a minimum density target • Comment noted. In order to plan Protected Major Transit Station Areas to be compact, mixed use communities, the Region and area municipalities will include a required - 283 - Major Transit Station Areas Proposed Policy Directions Submissions Compendium 45 Submission Number and Name Description of Submission Regional staff response 2375 Hwy 2, Bowmanville & 1792 Liverpool Road, Pickering 007-001 [emphasis added] of: … c) 150 residents and jobs combined per hectare for those that are served by the GO Transit rail network” while Policy 5.2.3.1 states “Upper- tier municipalities, in consultation with lower-tier municipalities, will, through a municipal comprehensive review, provide policy direction to implement this Plan, including: … b) identifying minimum density targets [emphasis added] for strategic growth areas, including any urban growth centres or major transit station areas, in accordance with this Plan”. In our submission, the “required” language in General Policy Directions 8.3.2 and 8.3.3 should be revised to reflect that minimum densities are a target under the Growth Plan and not a requirement. minimum density in order to achieve the objectives of the Growth Plan. CP REIT Ontario Properties Ltd., 007-002 • Growth Plan (2019) Policy 5.2.5.5 states “Except as provided in policy 2.2.7.3, the minimum intensification and density targets in this Plan will be measured across all lands within the relevant area, including any lands that are subject to more than one target”. Accordingly, in our submission, in order to provide clarity, the General Policy Direction 8.3.2 language “will be measured within all of the lands in each MTSA” should be revised to “will be measured across all of the lands in each MTSA”; • Comment noted. - 284 - Major Transit Station Areas Proposed Policy Directions Submissions Compendium 46 Submission Number and Name Description of Submission Regional staff response CP REIT Ontario Properties Ltd., 007-03 • General Policy Direction 8.3.4 states “The Region will encourage area municipalities to establish minimum job requirements in MTSA’s within their respective Official Plans”. We request clarification as to what is intended by “minimum job requirements” that are encouraged to be established. • The area municipalities will be required, through subsequent work, to identify a minimum jobs target for their respective Protected Major Transit Station Area to ensure a balance of jobs and population. CP REIT Ontario Properties Ltd., 007-004 • In order to provide clarity that MTSAs will consist of a diverse range of employment uses and not only higher intensity employment uses, we suggest that the wording be updated in the policy directions related to employment uses in MTSAs, to identify that existing lower intensity employment uses are permitted. • Comment noted. The policies proposed through the amendment are not intended to preclude existing uses from continuing. CP REIT Ontario Properties Ltd., 007-005 • Land Use Policy Direction 8.3.1 states “MTSAs will support a broad mix of compatible uses at high densities, so that vibrant, active places are created and emerge as focal points within their respective communities. MTSAs will be planned on the basis of providing active places and streetscapes, allowing a wide range and mix of high-density transit- oriented uses, based on pedestrian oriented built form.” In our submission, in order to provide for existing uses over the short and medium terms prior to redevelopment, “over the long term” should be added before “on the basis of providing”; • Comment noted. This introductory language from the policy directions report has not been translated to policy in the proposed amendment. - 285 - Major Transit Station Areas Proposed Policy Directions Submissions Compendium 47 Submission Number and Name Description of Submission Regional staff response CP REIT Ontario Properties Ltd., 007-006 • Land Use Policy Direction 8.3.1 states “The following land uses will be permitted within MTSAs: … 4. Commercial uses including retail, both convenience retail and small- scale retail uses, restaurants, personal and professional service shops, and day care uses”. As noted above, the vision for the Bowmanville GO Station MTSA includes mixed-use development that retains the retail and commercial uses, such as the existing Loblaws supermarket. Retail uses that are not small-scale or convenience retail provide retail anchors that support a complete community. In our submission, clarity should be provided to ensure that retail uses including the supermarket, which is not a convenience retail or small-scale retail use, continue to be permitted; • Comment noted. The policies proposed through the amendment are not intended to preclude existing uses from continuing. CP REIT Ontario Properties Ltd., 007-007 • For Urban Design and Built Form Policy Direction 8.3.2.1 that states “Areas within, adjacent, and in close proximity to Commuter Stations and Transportation Hubs, will be reserved for the highest development densities that showcase building heights to create focal points within MTSAs”, we submit that “planned” should replace “reserved” before “for the highest development densities” and that “over the long term” be added after “within MTSAs”; • The proposed amendment includes policy language that directs the area municipalities to concentrate the highest densities within Protected Major Transit Station Areas on the Commuter Station or Transportation Hub property, and in close proximity to the Station property to create focal points. The term “reserved” is no longer used. - 286 - Major Transit Station Areas Proposed Policy Directions Submissions Compendium 48 Submission Number and Name Description of Submission Regional staff response CP REIT Ontario Properties Ltd., 007-008 • For Urban Design and Built Form Policy Direction 8.3.2.3 that states “Buildings will frame streets, with frequent pedestrian entrances”, in our submission “generally” should be added after “Buildings will” and “where appropriate” should be added after “pedestrian entrances” in order to incorporate flexibility to accommodate site specific context and operational needs; • Comment noted. CP REIT Ontario Properties Ltd., 007-009 • For Urban Design and Built Form Policy Direction 8.3.2.6 that states “Vehicular parking will be located below grade or located in a manner to minimize the visual impact on streets, parks, open spaces, pedestrian walkways and other land uses. With the exception of bus parking, surface parking will be minimized”, we suggest that “new” be added before “surface parking” in order to provide clarity for accommodating existing uses prior to redevelopment; • Comment noted. The policies proposed through the amendment are not intended to preclude existing uses (such as existing surface parking lots) from continuing. CP REIT Ontario Properties Ltd., 007-010 • Mobility and Active Transportation Policy Direction 8.3.4.5 states that “A highly permeable road network with shorter blocks and frequent controlled crossings will be provided to optimize opportunities for safe and flexible pedestrian travel options”. In our submission, “Through redevelopment,” should be added before “A highly permeable road network” and “where appropriate,” should be added before “to • Comment noted. - 287 - Major Transit Station Areas Proposed Policy Directions Submissions Compendium 49 Submission Number and Name Description of Submission Regional staff response optimize opportunities” to provide clarity that the provision of a permeable road network is not required to accommodate minor additions to existing buildings and small-scale infill development prior to redevelopment. CP REIT Ontario Properties Ltd., 007-011 • For Implementation Policy Direction 8.3.6.3 that states “Area municipal official plans will include land use designations, minimum density requirements, built form and urban design policies, and implementation policies, consistent with this plan for implementation through zoning by-laws and/or conditions of development approval”, in our submission and as outlined above, the reference to “minimum density requirements” should be changed to “minimum density targets” to reflect the Growth Plan (2019) as outlined in the comments above. • The proposed amendment uses the language “minimum density targets” as per the Growth Plan. Johnson Litavski, on behalf of Alpa Pre- Engineering Panel Systems Inc 008-001 • The Region’s emerging policies would conflict with and prejudice existing employment uses within the Courtice MTSA. The proposed land use Policy 8.3.1 in the Directions Report states that a broad mix of urban uses at higher density will be encouraged and specifically prohibits employment-related uses, including warehousing and similar lower density, land extensive uses. • The proposed amendment includes policy that directs area municipalities to detail land use designations within the boundary. The Municipality of Clarington can continue to designate this area for employment uses in their official plan and Secondary Plan/Master Block Plan. - 288 - Major Transit Station Areas Proposed Policy Directions Submissions Compendium 50 Submission Number and Name Description of Submission Regional staff response • The emerging land use policy direction does not provide protection for existing employment uses to continue unhindered until such time that redevelopment occurs; • More specifically, the emerging land use policy direction does not speak of properly separating new/proposed sensitive land uses from existing industry, nor of other methods of ensuring land use compatibility as the Courtice MTSA develops; • Municipality of Clarington Staff in their February 1, 2021 Staff Report (PDS-009- 21), states their support for existing employment uses within the Courtice MTSA, and that they should be protected and allowed to continue pending the redevelopment of surrounding area lands. Bousfields on behalf of Brookfield Residential/ MacMeg Companies 009-001 • Ask that the Region provide more information with respect to the delineation of the MTSA. Defining the walkshed by the circles around a station are not necessarily suitable for all MTSAs. In Courtice, as an example Highway 401 is a significant barrier to pedestrian and active transportation movements. • The Major Transit Station Area delineation process is detailed in the Urban System Discussion Paper for Envision Durham released in June 2019 (see www.durham.ca/envisiondurham). The 500 m and 800 m circles were one step in the process to develop the draft delineations. Bousfields on behalf of Brookfield Residential/ • Request that additional information be provided with respect to the mechanisms to refine the MTSA boundaries, as discussed in 8.3 Item 7. Specifically, if MTSAs are delineated in the • The Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing in their comments have advised that this minor refinement process cannot occur and that the delineation that is approved in the Regional Official Plan - 289 - Major Transit Station Areas Proposed Policy Directions Submissions Compendium 51 Submission Number and Name Description of Submission Regional staff response MacMeg Companies 009-002 Region's Official Plan that will be approved by the Province, how will the refinements be made? The Region's policies should provide that MTSA boundary changes identified through a Secondary Plan or a local municipal Official Plan amendment would not require a Regional Official Plan Amendment. cannot be modified without amendment to the Regional Official Plan. This policy was not included in the proposed amendment. Bousfields on behalf of Brookfield Residential/ MacMeg Companies 009-003 • With respect to the responsibilities of the upper and lower-tier municipalities, we support policy 8.3.6, item 3 (page 19) which states that land use, density, built form, urban design policies and implementation policies will be included in area municipal official plans. However, there are statements in other sections of the Report that indicate that there is an intention to address some of these matters in the Region’s Official Plan. • Comment noted. The policies of the Growth Plan direct the upper tier municipality to be more specific related to strategic growth areas. Also, Protected Major Transit Station Areas offer a unique opportunity in the Region to plan for mixed use communities. Bousfields on behalf of Brookfield Residential/ MacMeg Companies 009-004 • Further, we would submit that the mix of uses included in each MTSA should be determined by the local municipality, particularly the inclusion of non-residential uses. • Not all station areas can support the same mix of uses (as an example, some may be more appropriate for new office development than others), acknowledging that Appendix B states that the Courtice • Comment noted. While the proposed amendment includes permitted and prohibited land uses for Protected Major Transit Station Areas, the area municipality will be responsible for designating land uses within the delineated boundary. - 290 - Major Transit Station Areas Proposed Policy Directions Submissions Compendium 52 Submission Number and Name Description of Submission Regional staff response MTSA would support an array of uses including major office development. Bousfields on behalf of Brookfield Residential/ MacMeg Companies 009-005 • Supportive of the target of 150 residents and jobs per hectare, although we respectfully request that the Region confirm that the density target is intended as an average density to be achieved across the lands in each MTSA. • In this regard, some of the policies should be revised (e.g. 8.3.1 Item 1) to provide that if the density is achieved on average across the entire MTSA there would be flexibility in the permitted built form and density types. • Use of consistent terms or definitions to describe different forms of density might help to clarify this. • The proposed amendment includes a policy that requires a minimum of 150 people and jobs per hectare across the entire Protected Major Transit Station Area. It is expected that the area municipality would need to define more specific targets by land use category to demonstrate the 150 people and jobs per hectare can be achieved. Bousfields on behalf of Brookfield Residential/ MacMeg Companies 009-006 • The Report refers to the potential use of regional community improvement plans (section 8.3.6): are there more details on this approach? • The Regional CIP project was initiated in late 2020 and consultation on any proposals will be later in 2021. Bousfields on behalf of Brookfield Residential/ MacMeg Companies • Can the Region provide clarification with respect to their role in the approval of development referred to in 8.3.6 Item 1. Would the Region’s role be an agency that is circulated on the applications submitted • The Region would still continue to act as a circulation agency, with particular input from our TOD Office. - 291 - Major Transit Station Areas Proposed Policy Directions Submissions Compendium 53 Submission Number and Name Description of Submission Regional staff response 009-007 to the local municipalities or is another approach contemplated? Bousfields on behalf of Brookfield Residential/ MacMeg Companies 009-008 • 8.3.6 Item 1 refers to Master Development Agreements. We would assume that this requirement would be deemed satisfied if there are cost sharing agreements and/or an area secondary plan in place. • Comment noted. If the conditions for development are satisfied, it can be through a variety of mechanisms. Bousfields on behalf of Brookfield Residential/ MacMeg Companies 009-009 • Regarding 8.3.7: Will the Region be requesting an Order for inclusionary zoning for four new MTSAs? • The Region is undertaking a comprehensive housing assessment to explore the implementation of inclusionary zoning for all of the Protected Major Transit Station Areas. Bousfields on behalf of Brookfield Residential/ MacMeg Companies 009-010 • The Region’s policies should balance the upper and lower-tier responsibilities in the detail of the policies. With different local contexts, character and markets, the local municipalities should be responsible for the detailed planning including determining the appropriate land use types, permitted built forms, housing types urban design guidance and implementation. The local municipality would be best positioned to establish the detailed vision for each MTSA in their own Official Plans. The Region’s Official Plan should provide the general • Comment noted. Protected Major Transit Station Areas offer unique opportunities for mixed use communities in Durham. While this is a change in approach at the Region, it is in line with the goals and objectives of the Growth Plan related to strategic growth areas. - 292 - Major Transit Station Areas Proposed Policy Directions Submissions Compendium 54 Submission Number and Name Description of Submission Regional staff response policy structure for MTSA without being prescriptive. • Further, the Regional Official Plan policies should provide that local municipalities can modify development standards that are included in the Regional Official Plan in their own local Official Plans without triggering a Regional Official Plan Amendment. The Biglieri Group on behalf of Courtice- Baseline Inc. 010-001 • Are in full support of the Subject Site’s inclusion within the proposed Courtice MTSA. The Site’s proximity to the future Courtice GO Train Station, being within the 500 metre walkshed buffer from the GO Platform, make it an ideal location for higher density, mixed-use development. • Support the need to develop an appropriate mix of higher density, transit-oriented land uses to help foster transit demand and supporting transit-oriented development within and around the proposed MTSAs. The Subject Site’s location can support higher density development for a broad range of uses. • Comment noted. • Detailed land uses will be identified by the Municipality of Clarington through subsequent work. The Biglieri Group on behalf of Courtice- Baseline Inc. 010-002 • Section 8.3.1 states “MTSAs will support a broad mix of compatible uses at high densities”. A mix of land uses will encourage the development of complete communities within the MTSA. Mid-rise and high-rise apartments are identified as • Comment noted. Special needs housing could be included as a mix of compatible uses, subject to subsequent work being undertaken by the Municipality of Clarington. - 293 - Major Transit Station Areas Proposed Policy Directions Submissions Compendium 55 Submission Number and Name Description of Submission Regional staff response permitted higher-density land uses. We request that Special Needs housing such as long term care facilities, retirement homes, and seniors housing be included. The Biglieri Group on behalf of Courtice- Baseline Inc. 010-003 • Section 8.3.1 also identifies additional permitted land uses including commercial uses. We request that hotels be added as permitted commercial uses to ensure that a comprehensive range of land use is maintained. • Comment noted. Hotels have been listed as a land use to the proposed Regional Official Plan Amendment. The Biglieri Group on behalf of Courtice- Baseline Inc. 010-004 • The Proposed Policy Directions Report notes that automobile-oriented uses are not permitted within the MTSA. We generally support this policy to encourage transit- oriented development that favours active transportation and public transit usage. In consideration of the location of the Subject Site in relation to the Highway 401 and Courtice Road interchange, we request that there be allowance for site-specific policies be included in the Courtice Employment Lands Secondary Plan that may permit certain automobile-oriented uses and that specific uses be identified in the implementing zoning by-law. • Comment noted. Protected Major Transit Station Areas offer unique opportunities for mixed use communities in Durham. While this is a change in approach at the Region, it is in line with the goals and objectives of the Growth Plan related to strategic growth areas. The Biglieri Group on behalf of Courtice- Baseline Inc. • Sections 8.3.2 and 8.3.3 outline policies relating to Urban Design and Built Form, and Public Realm & Open Space, respectively. These broad policies are supported to ensure a high-quality public • It is our understanding that the Municipality of Clarington would be including urban design guidelines as part of their ongoing Secondary Planning exercise. - 294 - Major Transit Station Areas Proposed Policy Directions Submissions Compendium 56 Submission Number and Name Description of Submission Regional staff response 010-005 realm and pedestrian-oriented community. We understand that detailed Urban Design Guidelines will be prepared as part of the Courtice Employment Lands Secondary Plan. MHBC Planning on behalf of Home Depot (Pickering & Bowmanville) 011-001 • Not opposed to the notion of increasing growth and intensification, and the promotion of mixed use redevelopment within the proposed MTSAs, (including the noted Home Depot sites) as part of the long-term vision for the Region. However, please be advised that Home Depot’s priority is to preserve their existing development permissions on their sites, including the ability to expand their existing stores and operations. As such, it is requested that future Draft OPA policies reflect these existing permissions, and do not preclude the potential future expansion of existing Home Depot stores. • Comment noted. The policies proposed through the amendment are not intended to preclude existing uses from continuing. MHBC Planning on behalf of Home Depot (Pickering & Bowmanville) 011-002 • There should be a mechanism in the future Draft OPA policies that allow for partial redevelopment of Home Depot’s sites on an interim basis, without the need for the full redevelopment infrastructure being put in place that is associated with the Region’s long-term vision. • For example, if it has been determined that the current Home Depot sites are “over- parked”, these lands may be better utilized • Comment noted. Context specific policies are expected to be addressed at the area municipal level. - 295 - Major Transit Station Areas Proposed Policy Directions Submissions Compendium 57 Submission Number and Name Description of Submission Regional staff response for “out-parcel or pad developments” within the parking areas. This type of intensification redevelopment has been undertaken at various Home Depot sites throughout the GTA. MHBC Planning on behalf of Home Depot (Pickering & Bowmanville) 011-003 • It is requested that Draft OPA policies are implemented which would require new developments in proximity to Home Depot sites to undertake the necessary compatibility and mitigation studies, in order to address items such as air quality, odour, dust, noise, etc. with respect to Home Depot’s operations. • Comment noted. Matters related to land use compatibility would represent a requirement for the evaluation of new residential development adjacent to a Home Depot facility, that would be evaluated through the development review process. The Region, as a commenting authority, would review and comment on any required studies as they are filed. GHD on behalf of Tribute Communities (Courtice) 012-001 • Generally supportive of the policy document and will continue to provide specific comments on the detailed wording of the proposed policies when they are released. Agree with the subject property being included in the MTSA. • Comment noted. GHD on behalf of Tribute Communities (Courtice) 012-002 • The document needs to be consistent in its language - e.g. high density vs higher density, low density vs lower density • Comment noted. The proposed amendment has been reviewed with this comment in mind. GHD on behalf of Tribute • As a Regional policy document the land use framework should be general and leave flexibility for specific land use policy • Comment noted. Protected Major Transit Station Areas offer unique opportunities for mixed use communities in Durham. While this is a change in approach at the Region, - 296 - Major Transit Station Areas Proposed Policy Directions Submissions Compendium 58 Submission Number and Name Description of Submission Regional staff response Communities (Courtice) 012-003 variation at the area municipal level in order to fit local circumstances. it is in line with the goals and objectives of the Growth Plan related to strategic growth areas. GHD on behalf of Tribute Communities (Courtice) 012-004 • Related to the Vision, the principle that the highest densities be concentrated at or adjacent to the station property with a reduction in density further away is endorsed. The specifics of these density numbers and housing types should be determined in the area municipal Official Plans. • Comment noted. GHD on behalf of Tribute Communities (Courtice) 012-005 • Agree that the overall density of 150 people and jobs per hectare is an appropriate policy for the DROP as it comes directly from Provincial policies. We understand and emphasize that this is a minimum density and an overall average target which would be implemented through a graduation of densities. • Comment noted. The minimum density target of 150 people and jobs per hectare is anticipated for the entire Protected Major Transit Station Area. It is expected that area municipalities would identify minimum targets for people and/or units by land use designation. GHD on behalf of Tribute Communities (Courtice) 012-006 • Do not agree with the establishment of minimum job quotas. These types of policies have never worked in past attempts. At most, targets and land use designations can be put in place, but not quotas. • Comment noted. Minimum job requirements are required to be included by area municipalities in their planning documents. Requiring a threshold of minimum jobs helps to encourage a mix of residents and jobs within MTSAs. GHD on behalf of Tribute Communities (Courtice) • If the Regional policy is going to be specific enough to list housing built forms, it should include townhouses as well. Again, the area municipal Official Plan will have to allocate specific built forms and densities • Comment noted. The proposed amendment would allow for a mix of housing forms, including ground-related housing. The achievement of the minimum - 297 - Major Transit Station Areas Proposed Policy Directions Submissions Compendium 59 Submission Number and Name Description of Submission Regional staff response 012-007 such that the overall, minimum Regional density target is met. density target of 150 people and jobs per hectare would apply across the PMTSA. GHD on behalf of Tribute Communities (Courtice) 012-007 • Do not see a reason for the Region to have a more prescriptive role in the implementation of development in MTSA’s than in any other part of the Region. The implementation tools available to the Region as set out in the Durham Regional Official Plan and Provincial legislation should be sufficient for development throughout the Region, including MTSA’s. There is no need to include separate implementation policies for MTSAs in the ROP. • Comment noted. Protected Major Transit Station Areas offer unique opportunities for mixed use communities in Durham. While this is a change in approach at the Region, it is in line with the goals and objectives of the Growth Plan related to strategic growth areas. Weston Consulting on behalf of Kaitlin Corp., Bowmanville Ave 013-001 • Request that the lands along Bowmanville Avenue, that include a commercial plaza be included in the MTSA boundary to allow for future redevelopment opportunities. • The Bowmanville MTSA delineation was developed in consultation with the Municipality of Clarington following the rigorous process set out in the Envision Durham Urban System Discussion Paper. The inclusion, or not, of the plaza in the MTSA delineation does not preclude future development opportunities. Weston Consulting on behalf of Kaitlin Corp, Stevens Road, Bowmanville 014-001 • Request that the lands that lie northeast of the proposed Bowmanville MTSA boundary be included in the MTSA to allow for higher density uses to be contemplated on the site. While outside of the 800 m radius, the subject lands are near the MTSA/GO Station and are logical and appropriate to support higher density land use • Comment noted. • The proposed PMTSA boundary was considered thoughtfully through a delineation exercise that involved the Municipality of Clarington and conforms to the Growth Plan. The northern boundary is not proposed to be modified. - 298 - Major Transit Station Areas Proposed Policy Directions Submissions Compendium 60 Submission Number and Name Description of Submission Regional staff response permissions. Higher forms of density, including townhouses, apartment typology and seniors’ residence, present attractive options for redevelopment. MGP, on behalf of the NE Pickering Landowners Group 015-001 • The provincial A Place to Grow Plan 2020 requires that Durham Region delineate the boundaries of MTSAs in a transit supportive manner that maximizes the size of the area and the number of potential transit users that are within walking distance of the station. Unlike other policy areas in this plan, it is not required, nor expected, that all development will be achieved in these areas by the time horizon of the plan (2051.) It is therefore required that the Region estimate the potential for growth in these areas to be achieved by 2051 as a key input into its Land Needs Assessment. • The Region must determine the realistic residential growth potential to 2051 that could occur in these areas in the context of a market-based demand analysis for housing in the Region. • Seek clarification on the method the Region will use to make this determination, and at what point this will be determined through the rest of the Municipal Comprehensive Review process. • The Envision Durham Growth Management Study and accompanying Land Needs Assessment, including the Housing Intensification Study, will determine the growth anticipated in Strategic Growth Areas by 2051. This work will be released in the fall of 2021. - 299 - Attachment #2 Proposed Amendment Regional Official Plan Amendment 2021-003 Amendment #___ to the Durham Regional Official Plan Purpose and Effect: The purpose of this Amendment is to establish a policy framework and delineations for Protected Major Transit Station Areas and the establishment of minimum density targets in the Durham Regional Official Plan. This Amendment also provides a Regional policy framework to guide further implementation of Protected Major Transit Station Areas. Location: Lands generally surrounding existing and future higher order transit corridor stations and stops, and in particular, lands delineated around existing and future GO Stations as shown on Exhibits 1 and 2. Basis: Planning Act R.S.O 1990 The Planning Act sets out Provincial interests and directions on many issues, including: the adequate provision and efficient use of transportation, the appropriate location of growth and development, and the promotion of development that is designed to support public transit and be oriented to pedestrians. Section 16(16) of The Act further sets out enabling policies for Upper-tier municipalities to: • protect and delineate the boundaries of existing and planned higher order transit • stations or stops • Set the minimum number of people and jobs per hectare for the planning areas • Require the official plan of the applicable lower tier municipalities to include • policies that authorize the use of land for building and structures that support • minimum densities This Amendment for Protected Major Transit Station Areas meets the requirements of Section 16(16) of the Planning Act to ensure certainty with respect to municipal objectives around leveraging transit investment by enabling transit supportive uses and - 300 - Attachment 2-2 densities. Section 17(36.1.4) of The Act outlines the Major Transit Station Area policies which are sheltered from appeal • The identification of Major Transit Station Areas through Section 16(16) and any • changes to those polices. • The Region or lower-tier municipality’s Official Plan policies pertaining to Protected Major Transit Station Areas. Policies that identify the maximum densities and minimum or maximum heights of buildings or structures in Major Transit Station Areas. Through the Region establishing Protected Major Transit Station Areas through Section 16(16), area municipalities will complete secondary planning exercises to establish policies pertaining to Major Transit Station Areas and policies which identify maximum densities and minimum or maximum heights of buildings or structures in Major Transit Station Areas. A Place to Grow, 2019: Growth Plan for the Greater Golden Horseshoe and Amendment #1 2020 The Growth Plan 2019, Section 2.2.4 - Transit Corridors and Station Areas provides the Provincial policy framework for Protected Major Transit Station Areas on priority transit corridors and outlines criteria to be met to delineate the boundaries of Major Transit Station Areas and establish minimum or alternative density targets. This amendment is also being undertaken as part of the Region’s municipal comprehensive review under section 26 of the Planning Act. The amendment to include Protected Major Transit Station Areas meets the requirements of Section 2.2.4 of the Growth Plan as well as achieves overall Growth Plan objectives related to planning a complete community that supports the intensification of existing built-up areas, more compact greenfield development, and better alignment between land use and transit planning. The proposed amendment will delineate seven Protected Major Transit Station Areas on the GO East Rail line. The amendment also establishes a policy framework to facilitate implementation planning by directing the applicable area municipalities to undertake comprehensive land use planning to meet minimum requirements. Through Envision Durham and the associated Growth Management Study, the Region - 301 - Attachment 2-3 undertook work in consultation with the City of Pickering, Town of Ajax, Town of Whitby, City of Oshawa and Municipality of Clarington to delineate the PMTSA boundaries, and set a minimum density of 150 people and jobs per hectare to support local planning contexts and Provincial policy requirements. This Amendment conforms to the Durham Regional Official Plan, the Growth Plan for the Greater Golden Horseshoe and is consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement. Amendment: The Official Plan of The Regional Municipality of Durham is hereby amended as follows: 1) Adding Policy language to certain sections and renumbering some sections of the Durham Regional Official Plan as per Table 1 attached hereto; and 2) Introduction of Schedule ‘C5” to the Durham Regional Official Plan, as illustrated on Exhibits 1 and 2. - 302 - Attachment 2-4 Table 1: Item Old Section Number New Section Number Details of Policy Amendment 1. 8.1.9 • Add a new policy to read as follows: “To plan for transit-oriented development within walking distance of existing and planned rapid transit stations as focal points for active transportation and a compatible mix of higher density uses.” 2. Sub-heading (after policy 8.1.8) • Add the phrase “PROTECTED MAJOR TRANSIT STATION AREAS” after “CENTRES, CORRIDORS,” The sub-heading will therefore read as follows: “CENTRES, CORRIDORS, PROTECTED MAJOR TRANSIT STATION AREAS AND WATERFRONT PLACES” 3. 8.1.9 8.1.10 • Add a comma after the phrase “Urban Growth Centres” • Delete the word “and” between “Urban Growth Centres” and “Regional Centres” • Add the phrase “and Protected Major Transit Station Areas” after “Regional Centres” • Add the phrase “and intensification” after the phrase “urban development” The policy will therefore read as follows: “To recognize Urban Growth Centres, Regional Centres and Protected Major Transit Station Areas in Urban Areas as focal points of urban development and intensification in the Region.” 4. 8.1.10 8.1.11 5. 8.1.11 8.1.12 • Add the word “Centres” and a comma after the word “Regional” • Delete the word “and” between “Regional” and “Local Centres” • Add the phrase “and Protected Major - 303 - Attachment 2-5 Item Old Section Number New Section Number Details of Policy Amendment Transit Station Areas” after “Local Centres” The policy will therefore read as follows: “To develop Urban Growth Centres, Regional Centres, Local Centres and Protected Major Transit Station Areas that are characterized by distinctive forms of art and architecture.” 6. 8.1.12 8.1.13 7. 8.1.13 8.1.14 8. 8.1.14 8.1.15 • Add a comma after the phrase “Regional Centres” • Add the phrase “Protected Major Transit Station Areas” after “Regional Centres” The policy will therefore read as follows: “To link Urban Growth Centres, Regional Centres, Protected Major Transit Station Areas and Waterfront Places with supportive Corridors focused on active transportation and transit routes.” 9. 8.1.16 • Add a new policy to read as follows and renumber subsequent sections accordingly: “To build upon significant place-making opportunities within Protected Major Transit Station Areas, as focal points for high density, mixed-use, transit-oriented development and a pedestrian-oriented public realm.” 10. 8.1.15 8.1.17 11. 8.1.16 8.1.18 12. 8.1.17 8.1.19 13. 8.1.18 8.1.20 14. 8.1.19 8.1.21 15. 8.2.1 b) • Add a comma after “Centres” • Delete the word “and” between “Centres” and “Corridors” • Add the phrase “and Protected Major Transit Station Areas” after “Corridors” The subsection will therefore read as follows: - 304 - Attachment 2-6 Item Old Section Number New Section Number Details of Policy Amendment “a mixture of uses in appropriate locations, with particular consideration given to Centres, Corridors and Protected Major Transit Station Areas;” 16. 8.3.6 • Add comma after “Corridors” • Add the phrase “and Protected Major Transit Station Areas” after “Corridors” The policy will therefore read as follows: “Commercial uses shall be concentrated in locations that are supportive of the function of Regional and Local Centres and Corridors, and Protected Major Transit Station Areas, in accordance with the policies of this Plan.” 17. 8.3.10 d) • Delete the phrase “forms and patterns” after the phrase “policies to promote” and replace with “transit-oriented development” The subsection will therefore read as follows: “policies to promote transit-oriented development” 18. 8.3.10 e) • Add a new subsection to read as follows: “policies, designations and delineations for Protected Major Transit Station Areas.” 19. Sub-Section Header 8A • Add a comma after the word “Corridors” • Add phrase “Protected Major Transit Station Areas” after “Corridors” The header will therefore read as follows: “Centres, Corridors, Protected Major Transit Station Areas and Waterfront Places” 20. Sub- heading (after 8A.1.3) • Add a new sub-heading to read as follows: “PROTECTED MAJOR TRANSIT STATION AREAS” - 305 - Attachment 2-7 Item Old Section Number New Section Number Details of Policy Amendment 21. 8A.1.4 • Add a new policy to read as follows, and renumber subsequent sections accordingly: “Protected Major Transit Station Areas shall be developed as transit-oriented communities that support and foster innovation and entrepreneurship, and integrate mixed-use development throughout, anchored by a Commuter Station or Transportation Hub.” 22. 8A.1.4 8A.1.5 23. 8A.1.5 8A.1.6 24. Sub- heading (after 8A.2.7) • Add sub-heading to read as follows: “PROTECTED MAJOR TRANSIT STATION AREAS” 25. 8A.2.8 • Add new policy to read as follows and renumber subsequent sections accordingly: “Schedule ‘A’ identifies existing and future GO Stations along the Lakeshore East GO Rail line and the GO East Extension. Schedule ‘C5’ designates and delineates Protected Major Transit Station Areas at the following GO Station locations: a) Pickering; b) Ajax; c) Whitby; d) Thornton’s Corners; e) Central Oshawa; f) Courtice; and g) Bowmanville.” 26. 8A.2.9 • Add new policy to read as follows: “Protected Major Transit Station Areas will be planned as focal points within their respective communities, providing active places and - 306 - Attachment 2-8 Item Old Section Number New Section Number Details of Policy Amendment streetscapes, with a wide range and mix of high- density transit-oriented uses, based on pedestrian oriented built form.” 27. 8A.2.10 • Add new policy to read as follows: “Notwithstanding the land use designations in the vicinity of the existing and future GO Stations identified on Schedule ‘A’, the following land uses will be permitted within the delineated Protected Major Transit Station Areas: a) Higher density residential uses including mid-rise and high-rise apartments, stacked townhouses, and live-work units; b) Offices and major office; c) Hotels and convention centres; d) Compatible employment uses, institutional uses, educational facilities and post- secondary institutions; e) Places of worship within mixed-use buildings rather than in freestanding buildings; f) Commercial uses including retail, both convenience retail and small-scale retail uses, restaurants, personal and professional service shops, and day care uses; g) Cultural, arts and entertainment uses; h) Recreational uses, amenities, and public art; i) Mixed use buildings that integrate community and commercial uses with upper-storey apartment and/or office uses to ensure amenities are provided in close proximity population and employment growth within MTSAs; j) Home occupations; k) Public uses including infrastructure, libraries, recreation/community centres, parks, urban squares, trails and conservation uses.” 28. 8A.2.11 • Add new policy to read as follows: - 307 - Attachment 2-9 Item Old Section Number New Section Number Details of Policy Amendment “The following land uses will be prohibited in Protected Major Transit Station Areas: a) Automobile-oriented uses such as drive- through establishments, gasoline stations, service stations, and car washes; and b) Land extensive uses such as automobile dealerships with outdoor vehicle storage and display areas, warehouses and storage facilities.” 29. 8A.2.12 • Add new policy to read as follows: “Development within Protected Major Transit Station Areas will offer convenient, direct, sheltered pedestrian access from high-density development sites to neighbouring Commuter Stations or Transportation Hubs, recognizing matters of accessibility for persons with disabilities, pedestrians, cyclists, and connections to a variety of transportation modes.” 30. 8A.2.13 • Add new policy to read as follows: “Protected Major Transit Station Areas shall be planned to accommodate a minimum density target of 150 people and jobs per gross hectare in accordance with the Growth Plan for the Greater Golden Horseshoe. In cases where a Protected Major Transit Station Area and an Urban Growth Centre or Regional Centre overlap, the higher density requirements shall apply.” 31. 8A.2.14 • Add new policy to read as follows: “The Region, in consultation with the area municipalities and Metrolinx may designate additional Protected Major Transit Station Areas coincident with planning for existing and future rapid transit facilities or stations.” 32. 8A.2.15 • Add new policy to read as follows: “Local road and private access spacing and access permissions to Regional arterial roads - 308 - Attachment 2-10 Item Old Section Number New Section Number Details of Policy Amendment within Protected Major Transit Station Areas will be addressed on a case-by-case basis to the satisfaction of the Region.” 33. 8A.2.16 • Add new policy to read as follows: “The Province of Ontario has authorized the use of Inclusionary Zoning within Protected Major Transit Station Areas, to require the provision of affordable housing units within new developments. To support the application of Inclusionary Zoning: a) A Regional Assessment Report shall be completed which includes an analysis of demographics, income, housing supply, housing need and demand, current average market prices and rents and an analysis of potential impacts on the housing market; and b) Area municipalities are encouraged to consider the application of Inclusionary Zoning in their respective Protected Major Transit Station Area through subsequent secondary planning and zoning bylaw amendment processes.” 34. 8A.2.17 • Add new policy to read as follows: “Area municipal official plans shall include detailed policies, for each Protected Major Transit Station Area, which will: a) Delineate Protected Major Transit Station Area boundaries and provide detailed land use designations within the boundary; b) Establish minimum density, population, employment and housing targets; c) Establish minimum job requirements for Protected Major Transit Station Areas; d) Enable alternative development standards - 309 - Attachment 2-11 Item Old Section Number New Section Number Details of Policy Amendment to support transit-oriented development, including but not limited parking requirements which support the use of transit; e) Support the creation of focal points by concentrating the highest densities in close proximity to Commuter Stations or Transportation Hubs; f) Include policies or approaches to ensure that the heights and densities of buildings are appropriately scaled to ensure compatibility with neighbouring lower density residential areas; g) Include policies to ensure that required transportation, servicing and other infrastructure is in place prior to, or coincident with new development; h) Support the efficient use of land, including requirements for structured parking, and shared parking as part of new development; i) Incorporate Urban Design Guidelines to guide the desired density, built form, building placement, access requirements and approaches for a pedestrian oriented public realm, that: i. Provide appropriate transitions in building heights to surrounding areas and public spaces; ii. Direct that all development will be designed to be compact in form and pedestrian-oriented; iii. Require buildings to frame streets, with frequent pedestrian entrances; iv. Restrict vehicular access to private property from adjacent local roadways; v. Support the use of rear lanes to serve development loading, servicing and vehicular parking access requirements rather than - 310 - Attachment 2-12 Item Old Section Number New Section Number Details of Policy Amendment strictly along local public streets, where appropriate; vi. Require vehicular parking to be located below grade or located in a manner to minimize the visual impact on streets, parks, open spaces, pedestrian walkways and other land uses. With the exception of bus parking, surface parking will be minimized; vii. Incorporate the use of design elements to assist with orientation, including wayfinding and the use of gateways and entrance feature; and viii. Require that connections to the Commuter Stations or Transportation Hubs include pedestrian weather protection and station way-finding; j) Include policies that encourage place- making through policy approaches that: i. Ensure a well-defined public realm that provides active gathering spaces, pedestrian destinations and connections; ii. Support the establishment of integrated trails, parks and open space systems for various levels of use year-round; iii. Provide active streetscapes with sidewalks or multi-use paths on both sides of all roads, and related for pedestrian amenities; iv. Encourage streets and boulevards to be designed to allow for patios, sitting areas, while ensuring adequate space for pedestrians and streetscape plantings for shade and beautification; v. Encourage sustainable - 311 - Attachment 2-13 Item Old Section Number New Section Number Details of Policy Amendment technologies, permeable pavers, low impact development techniques, and designs which support the use of renewable energy in the design of new development, the public realm and streetscapes. k) Include sustainable transportation policies that: i. Ensure that road designs support transit use, pedestrian travel, and cycling while accommodating automobile travel; ii. Support active transportation through safe, well-designed and direct connections between and amongst component uses and transit stations; iii. Include adequate and secure long-term and short-term bicycle parking and end- of-trip facilities; and iv. Include below grade pedestrian connections, including knock-out panels where deemed appropriate, to facilitate a continuous pedestrian network between development sites.” 35. 8A.2.18 • Add new policy to read as follows: “The Region and the respective area municipality may require the coordination of development applications through measures such as Master Development Agreements or other similar approaches, to ensure an orderly, coordinated and phased approach to the provision of transportation, servicing and other infrastructure requirements are provided prior to or coincident with development.” 36. 8A.2.19 • Add new policy to read as follows: “The Region and area municipalities may require cost-sharing agreements, front-ending agreements or other measures as appropriate to - 312 - Attachment 2-14 Item Old Section Number New Section Number Details of Policy Amendment ensure the timely delivery of infrastructure and the equitable distribution of development and infrastructure costs.” 37. 8A.2.20 • Add new policy to read as follows: “In the event that development within a Protected Major Transit Station Area is proposed above a rail corridor, all appropriate technical studies must be undertaken to the satisfaction of the applicable railway authority, to ensure the following: a) existing and future capacity and safety of train operations in the rail corridor will not be compromised; b) flexibility for future expansion to rail operations and modifications and improvements to the track and signal system will not be reduced; and c) all environmental, safety and mitigation concerns associated with such development, including noise, vibration, air quality, parking, snow and ice accumulation, servicing, pedestrian access and vehicle access, and the capacity of the transportation system serving such development have been satisfactorily addressed to the satisfaction of the rail authority, the Region and the applicable area municipality.” 38. 8A.2.8 8A.2.21 39. 8A.2.9 8A.2.22 • Add a comma after “Regional Centres” • Ass phrase “Protected Major Transit Station Areas” after the phrase “ Regional Centres” The policy will therefore read as follows: “Regional Corridors shall be planned and developed in accordance with Policy 8A.1.5 and - 313 - Attachment 2-15 Item Old Section Number New Section Number Details of Policy Amendment the relevant Policies of the underlying land-use designation, as higher density mixed-use areas, supporting higher order transit services and pedestrian oriented development. The Regional Corridors shall provide efficient transportation links to the Urban Growth Centres and Regional Centres, Protected Major Transit Station Areas, as well as other centres in adjacent municipalities. Portions of Regional Corridors with an underlying Living Area designation, which are identified as appropriate for higher density mixed-use development in area municipal official plans, shall support an overall, long-term density target of at least 60 residential units per gross hectare and a floor space index of 2.5. The built form should be a wide variety of building forms, generally mid-rise in height, with some higher buildings, as detailed in area municipal official plans.” 40. 8A.2.10 8A.2.23 41. 8A.2.11 8A.2.24 42. 8A.2.12 8A.2.25 43. 8A.2.13 8A.2.26 44. 8A.2.14 8A.2.27 45. 8A.2.14 f) 8A.2.27 f) • Delete subsection “f) transit nodes” and renumber subsequent sections accordingly 46. 8A.2.14 g) 8A.2.27 f) • Add a comma after “Local Corridors” • Add the phrase “Protected Major Transit Station Areas,” after “Local Corridors” The policy will therefore read as follows: “policies to ensure and guide higher density development in Urban Growth Centres, Regional and Local Centres, Regional and Local Corridors, Protected Major Transit Station Areas, and Waterfront Places, while protecting the integrity of historic downtowns, where applicable;” 47. 8A.2.14 h) 8A.2.14 g) 48. 8A.2.14 i) 8A.2.14 h) • Add a comma after “Corridors” • Add the phrase “Protected Major Transit Station Areas,” after “Local Corridors” - 314 - Attachment 2-16 Item Old Section Number New Section Number Details of Policy Amendment The policy will therefore read as follows: “policies for the phasing of development in Centres, Corridors, Protected Major Transit Station Areas, and Waterfront Places, to ensure the implementation of the higher density form and function targets of this Plan; and 49. 8A.2.14 j) 8A.2.14 i) 50. 8A.2.15 8A.2.28 51. 8A.2.16 8A.2.29 • Add a comma after “Regional Centres” • Add the phrase “Protected Major Transit Station Areas,” after “Regional Centre” • Add a comma after “Regional Corridors” The policy will therefore read as follows: “In the preparation of area municipal zoning by- laws, Councils of the area municipalities shall develop permissive zoning within Urban Growth Centres, Regional Centres, Protected Major Transit Station Areas, and along Regional Corridors, as an incentive to implement higher density, mixed-use development in these areas consistent with the intent of this Plan.” 52. 11.3.19 • Delete the phrase “Policy 8A.2.2” • Add the phrase “Policies 8A.2.8 through 8A.2.20” after the phrase “context in accordance with” • Add the phrase “that are also identified as Protected Major Transit Station Areas,” after “Commuter Stations” • Delete the second paragraph in its entirety The policy will therefore read as follows: In support of existing and future transit services, development adjacent to a Transportation Hub, Commuter Station, Rapid Transit Spine and the High Frequency Transit Network designated on Schedule 'C' – Map 'C3', Transit Priority Network, - 315 - Attachment 2-17 Item Old Section Number New Section Number Details of Policy Amendment shall provide for: a) complementary higher density and mixed uses at an appropriate scale and context in accordance with Policies 8A.2.8 through 8A.2.20 for Transportation Hubs and Commuter Stations that are also identified as Protected Major Transit Station Areas, and Policy 8A.2.9, where a Rapid Transit Spine or the High Frequency Transit Network is within Regional Corridors; b) buildings oriented towards the street, to reduce walking distances to transit facilities; c) facilities which support non-auto modes including: drop off facilities, bus bays, bus loops, bus shelters, walkways, trails and other pedestrian and cycling facilities; and d) limited surface parking and the potential redevelopment of existing surface parking.” 53. 14.10.4 • Add a new policy as follows and renumber subsequent section accordingly: “The effect of new policies, implementing by-laws and projects within Protected Major Transit Station Areas will be monitored in consultation with the area municipalities, based on the following: a) the amount, type and pace of development; b) the mix and density of land uses in the area; c) the re-use and demolition of existing buildings, including heritage buildings; - 316 - Attachment 2-18 Item Old Section Number New Section Number Details of Policy Amendment d) the amount and type of employment; e) the overall population; f) the unit count and mix of housing types; g) the population to job ratio; and h) parking spaces, loading facilities, transit improvements and active transportation infrastructure.” 54. 14.10.4 14.10.5 55. 15 A • Add Transit-Oriented Development (TOD) to Section 15A (Definitions) Definition reads as follows: “Transit-Oriented Development (TOD): is the clustering of high-density, compact development in proximity to transit infrastructure. The design of TOD places includes a mix of residential, community use, retail and other pedestrian amenities that support transit ridership, along with good quality active transportation connections.” Schedules: • Exhibit 1: Map 'C5a' – Protected Major Transit Station Area delineations • Exhibit 2: Map ‘C5b’ – Protected Major Transit Station Area delineations Implementation: The provisions set forth in the Durham Regional Official Plan regarding the implementation of the Plan shall apply in regard to this Amendment. - 317 - da an e eeHighway 401 Val leyFarmRoaT h e E s p la n a d e N Glenann K ingsto nR oad a RThe E s pl a n a d e S o a d Pickering P a r k w a y Westney Road S Highway 4 0 1 Liverpool Road Bayly Street St Martins Drive Kr osnoBoule vard n RoadRadom S treet ue ilModnevsAalguoDAnnes Street Highw a y 4 0 1 Henry Street Brock Street S Victoria Street E t reet W Street E yShoresbtiW hWa t e r S t r e e Gordon Street t OFFICI REG AL PLAN OF THE IONAL MUNICIPALITY OF DURHAM SCHEDULE 'C' - MAP 'C5a' PROTECTED MAJOR TRANSIT STATION AREASLEGEND PROTECTED MAJOR TRANSIT STATION AREA URBAN AREA MUNICIPAL BOUNDARY Pickering PickeringGO Station 1 Ajax GOStation 31 Ajax 2 401 23 Whitby Whitby GOStation 28 26 4Exhibit #1 Oshawa EXISTING COMMUTER RAIL FUTURE 22 FREEWAY TRANSIT RAPID TRANSIT SPINE ExistingGOOshawaStation HIGH FREQUENCY TRANSIT NETWORK TRANSPORTATION HUB NOTES: 1) THIS MAP FORMS PART OF THE OFFICIAL PLAN OF THE REGIONAL MUNICIPALITY OF DURHAM AND MUST BE READ IN CONJUNCTION WITH THE TEXT. Lake Ontario COMMUTER STATION 2) THIS MAP IS AN EXCEPT FROM SCHEDULE 'C' - MAP C3 - TRANSIT PRIORITY NETWORK 3) OFFICE CONSOLIDATION - MAY 26, 2020. Pickeri Ajng ax dRoaechnyBSdFairall Street nueAvilyFTatra Drive Bayly Street W Bayside GaayGrenwWhitby Cons umers Drive teVictoria Street W WaWatson S tson - 318 - oRStreet ng Street W ng Street E Ki Waverly Street S iK Centre Street S Olive Avenue Celina Street bb Street Gi Central Park Boulevard S John Street E W Eulalie Avenue E l m St reet t eAlbert Street erFa trbank s Si ve DriLaval de Avenue illsHi Thornton Road S D eanA ven u e rst Avenue Fi Drew Street Fo M i l l S tree t x Stree t StevensonRoadS Ch a m p l ai n A v e n u e Highway 401 ghway 401 HiC d S Bloor Street W S treet E BlBloor Street W Si mc o e S tre Conant Street S Courtice Road ll Boulevard s Road S t evens Ro a d llTruKing Street W Regional Highway 2 Green Road t eerBRustwood S td o rs avw eellDrive luClaringt o n B oA s p e n S p rin g sD riv e Waverley Road de A venue M c b r i Bo w West Side D mHighway 401 a nHighway 418 ville A ve n u e rive OFFIC REG IAL PLAN OF THE Exhibit #255 34 14IONAL MUNICIPALITY 2 OF DURHAM Thornton' CentralSCHEDULE 'C' - MAP 'C5b' Corners s Oshawa BowmanvillePROTECTED MAJOR TRANSIT STATION AREASLEGEND 22PROTECTED MAJOR TRANSIT STATION AREA ClaringtonURBAN AREA MUNICIPAL BOUNDARY Oshawa EXISTING FUTURE COMMUTER RAIL FREEWAY TRANSIT Courtice RAPID TRANSIT SPINE HIGH FREQUENCY TRANSIT NETWORK TRANSPORTATION HUB NOTES: 1) THIS MAP FORMS PART OF THE OFFICIAL PLAN OF THE REGIONAL MUNICIPALITY OF DURHAM AND MUST BE Lake Ontario READ IN CONJUNCTION WITH THE TEXT. 2) THIS MAP IS AN EXCEPT FROM SCHEDULE 'C' - MAP C3 - TRANSIT PRIORITY NETWORKCOMMUTER STATION 3) OFFICE CONSOLIDATION - MAY 26, 2020. Thornton's Corners Cen ra John S rtubel Oshawat oatsnRitreet Gibb Street oor et Courtice Bowmanville Brook hi nc e W illiam BoulevardPri Baseline Road - 319 - 1 Attachment #3 Annotated Consolidation of ROPA 2021-003 Protected Major Transit Station Areas - 320 - 2 Section 8 Urban System 8.1 Goals 8.1.1 To establish an Urban System of distinct Urban Areas that are adaptable and able to evolve into healthy and complete sustainable communities that balance growth in population, with growth in employment. 8.1.2 To create distinct Urban Areas that relate to each other within the Region. 8.1.3 To provide diverse Urban Areas to meet the various needs of present and future residents of the Region. 8.1.4 To develop people-oriented Urban Areas that create a sense of community, promote social interaction and are aesthetically pleasing. 8.1.5 To provide compact, efficient and accessible Urban Areas comprised of mixed uses. 8.1.6 To protect key natural heritage or hydrologic features and functions located within or outside of Urban Areas from the impacts of urbanization. 8.1.7 To integrate nature into the urban fabric of the Region. 8.1.8 To provide convenient access to fresh locally grown produce and other healthy food from sources such as farm markets, community gardens and grocery stores. 8.1.9 To plan for transit-oriented development within walking distance of existing and planned rapid transit stations as focal points for active transportation and a compatible mix of higher density uses. CENTRES, CORRIDORS, PROTECTED MAJOR TRANSIT STATION AREAS AND WATERFRONT PLACES 8.1.9 8.1.10 To recognize Urban Growth Centres, and Regional Centres and Protected Major Transit Station Areas in Urban Areas as focal points of urban development and intensification in the Region. 8.1.10 8.1.11 To create people-oriented places that are accessible by public transit and an extensive pedestrian network, including civic squares, parks and walkways. - 321 - 3 8.1.11 8.1.12 To develop Urban Growth Centres, Regional Centres, and Local Centres and Protected Major Transit Station Areas that are characterized by distinctive forms of art and architecture. 8.1.12 8.1.13 To develop Waterfront Places as focal points along the Lake Ontario waterfront. 8.1.13 8.1.14 To restore the historic integration of the shopping function with the other traditional functions, such as housing, employment, recreation, social activities and cultural facilities. 8.1.14 8.1.15 To link Urban Growth Centres, Regional Centres, Protected Major Transit Station Areas and Waterfront Places with supportive Corridors focused on active transportation and transit routes. 8.1.16 To build upon significant place-making opportunities within Protected Major Transit Station Areas, as focal points for high density, mixed-use, transit-oriented development and a pedestrian-oriented public realm. LIVING AREAS 8.1.15 8.1.17 To establish suitable areas for the provision of a full range of housing which will be developed in a cost-effective and efficient manner. 8.1.16 8.1.18 To create and maintain an attractive living environment that is safe, energy efficient and in harmony with nature. EMPLOYMENT AREAS 8.1.17 8.1.19 To establish Employment Areas that provide for the development of industries and businesses that require separation from sensitive land uses, and to efficiently guide their development to obtain the greatest benefit for the Region. 8.1.18 8.1.20 To increase industrial and high skilled job opportunities for the residents of the Region. - 322 - 4 8.1.19 8.1.21 To attract industries and businesses that will maximize and diversify the economic and employment opportunities in the Region. 8.2 General Policies 8.2.1 Urban Areas shall be planned and developed with regard for the principles of adaptability over time, sustainable development, harmony with nature and diversity and integration of structures and functions. In addition, the planning and development of Urban Areas shall be based on the following principles: a) a more compact urban form which promotes transit-supportive Urban Areas and accommodates the population and employment forecasts in Policy 7.3.3; b) a mixture of uses in appropriate locations, with particular consideration given to Centres, and Corridors and Protected Major Transit Station Areas; c) intensification, with particular regard to Policies 4.3.2, 7.3.9 and 8B.2.4 d); d) good urban design principles; e) increased public transit usage; f) linkages for pedestrians and cyclists which link communities internally and externally and to the public transit system; g) a grid system of arterial roads, and collector roads, where necessary, to provide for a transit-supportive road pattern while recognizing environmental constraints; and h) a Greenlands System that complements and enhances the Urban System. 8.2.2 Urban Areas shall be developed on the basis of full municipal services unless otherwise specified in this Plan. 8.3 Policies 8.3.1 Urban Area boundaries are designated on Schedule 'A'. Components of the Urban System are designated on Schedule 'A' and primarily consist of Urban Growth Centres and Regional Centres and Corridors, Living Areas and Employment Areas which shall be integrated and supportive of each other. The boundaries of the Urban Areas and the components of the Urban System shall be determined in accordance with Section 15. - 323 - 5 8.3.2 The development of the Seaton community and the preservation of the Duffins Rouge Agricultural Preserve shall be in conformity with the provisions of the Central Pickering Development Plan as identified in Policy 13.2.1, Specific Policy Area A (Pickering). 8.3.3 Regional Council shall initiate a streetscape improvement program in Urban Areas along Regional roads. 8.3.4 Notwithstanding Policy 8.2.2, Schedule 'A' designates areas within Urban Areas to be developed on: a) private drilled wells and private sewage disposal systems; b) private drilled wells and municipal sanitary sewerage facilities; and c) municipal water systems and private sewage disposal systems. If deemed desirable by Regional Council and the Council of the respective area municipality, such Areas may be developed in accordance with the intent of this Plan on full municipal services and the provisions of Policy 6.3.4. Development on private services shall be subject to the relevant provisions of Policies 9B.2.10, 9B.2.11 and 9B.2.12. Prior to any development on partial or full private services, Regional Council shall investigate the feasibility of providing full municipal services through: i) additional capacity resulting from water supply or sanitary sewage plant expansions; or ii) servicing alternatives, such as communal systems. 8.3.5 Where urban development is designated in areas presently characterized by agricultural activities, Regional Council and the Council of the area municipality shall secure an orderly withdrawal of agricultural activities. In addition, an area municipal Council may place such areas in an agricultural or holding zone in the respective area municipal zoning by-laws. 8.3.6 Commercial uses shall be concentrated in locations that are supportive of the function of Regional and Local Centres and Corridors, and Protected Major Transit Station Areas, in accordance with the policies of this Plan. 8.3.7 Existing shopping centres shall be encouraged to redevelop with a full array of compatible uses, particularly residential uses, in accordance with any other relevant provisions of this Plan. 8.3.8 For the purposes of this Plan, Regional Interest in commercial planning shall be based upon the following: - 324 - 6 a) Any commercial proposal of 56,000 m² or larger, on an individual or cumulative basis; or b) Any commercial proposal that would have the potential to negatively impact the planned function of a Regional Centre. 8.3.9 Regional Council shall require the preparation of a retail impact study for any retail commercial development proposal that is of Regional interest, in accordance with Policy 8.3.8. AREA MUNICIPAL OFFICIAL PLANS 8.3.10 In the preparation of area municipal official plans, Councils of the area municipalities shall ensure the inclusion of: a) policies and designations to implement the intent of this Plan and the provisions of this Section, and particularly Policy 8.2.1; b) a variety of mixed uses and intensification; c) urban design guidelines and solutions; and d) policies to promote transit-oriented development forms and patterns; e) policies, designations and delineations for Protected Major Transit Station Areas. - 325 - 7 Sub-Section 8A Centres, Corridors, Protected Major Transit Station Areas and Waterfront Places 8A.1 General Policies CENTRES 8A.1.1 Centres shall be developed as the main concentration of commercial, residential, cultural and government functions in a well designed and intensive land use form, within Urban Areas. 8A.1.2 Centres shall be developed in accordance with the principles contained in Policy 8.2.1 and the following: a) as the focal point of culture, art, entertainment and assembly through the provision of public squares, in addition to cultural facilities, parks and other public facilities; b) on the basis of mixed uses and a grid system of roads and walkways; c) urban design that favours pedestrian traffic and public transit with direct street pedestrian access to buildings, provision of potential transit, and parking areas sited at the rear or within buildings, wherever possible; d) with prime consideration for the spatial distribution of structures, architectural treatment, and the preservation and enhancement of cultural heritage resources; and e) with a balance of employment and residential growth and a variety of compact, higher density housing types to service all housing needs, including affordable housing and assisted housing. 8A.1.3 Generally the size of each Centre is based upon its function as described in Policy 8A.2.2, the population of the area it serves, and the accessibility to Centres of equal or larger scale. The expansion of any Centre shall not be permitted if it is likely to cause an undue economic decline in another centre. No single Centre shall include a concentration of the retail functions of a size that would preclude the development of another designated Centre of equal scale. PROTECTED MAJOR TRANSIT STATION AREAS 8A.1.4 Protected Major Transit Station Areas shall be developed as transit- oriented communities that support and foster innovation and - 326 - 8 entrepreneurship, and integrate mixed-use development throughout, anchored by a Commuter Station or Transportation Hub. CORRIDORS 8A.1.4 8A.1.5 Corridors form the key connections between Centres and are considered the main arteries of the Region's urban structure. They provide for the movement of people and goods between the Centres to support their vitality. 8A.1.5 8A.1.6 Corridors shall be developed in accordance with the principles contained in Policy 8.2.1 and the following: a) promoting public transit ridership through well designed development, having a mix of uses at higher densities; b) sensitive urban design that orients development to the corridor, complemented by the consolidation of access points; c) maintaining and enhancing historical main streets by integrating new forms of development with existing development; and d) preserving and enhancing cultural heritage resources. 8A.2 Policies CENTRES 8A.2.1 Urban Growth Centres and Regional Centres are designated on Schedule 'A'. The detailed boundaries of Urban Growth Centres and the Regional Centres shall be designated in area municipal official plans. Local centres, consisting of Urban Centres, Community Centres and Neighbourhood Centres, may be designated in area municipal official plans, within the Living Areas in accordance with the provisions of this Plan. 8A.2.2 Centres shall be classified in a hierarchy of form and function as follows: a) Urban Growth Centres: i) downtown Oshawa and downtown Pickering are recognized as Urban Growth Centres in accordance with the Growth Plan for the Greater Golden Horseshoe, and shall function as the dominant Centres within the Region; ii) shall be planned as focal areas for institutional, region-wide public services, major office, commercial (which may include major retail), recreational, cultural, entertainment and residential - 327 - 9 uses, serving as major employment centres supporting higher order transit services; iii) shall be planned to accommodate a minimum density target of 200 persons and jobs combined per gross hectare and a floor space index of 3.0. The built form for the Urban Growth Centres should be a mix of predominantly high-rise development, with some mid-rise, as determined by area municipalities. b) Regional Centres: i) shall be planned and developed in accordance with Policy 8A.1.2 as the main concentrations of urban activities, but generally at a smaller scale than Urban Growth Centres, providing a fully integrated array of institutional, commercial, major retail, residential, recreational, cultural, entertainment and major office uses. Generally, Regional Centres shall function as places of symbolic and physical interest for the residents, and shall provide identity to the area municipalities within which they are located; ii) shall support an overall, long-term density target of at least 75 residential units per gross hectare and a floor space index of 2.5, within the Lake Ontario Shoreline Urban Areas. The built form should be an appropriate mix of high-rise and mid-rise development, as determined by area municipalities; and iii) shall support an overall, long-term density target of at least 15 residential units per gross hectare in Beaverton, Cannington, Sunderland, Uxbridge and Port Perry. c) Local Centres designated in area municipal official plans shall be planned and developed in accordance with the following: i) Urban Centres shall be planned and developed similar to, but generally smaller in scale than, the Regional Centres in order to serve large segments of Urban Areas through the provision of uses which complement those offered within the Regional Centres. Urban Centres shall support an overall, long-term density target of at least 30 residential units per gross hectare and a floor space index of 2.0. The built form should be a wide variety, generally mid-rise in height, with some lower and higher buildings, as determined by area municipalities; ii) Community Centres shall be planned and developed similar to, but generally smaller in scale than, the Urban Centres and shall serve small segments of Urban Areas through the provision of uses which complement those offered within the Urban Centres; and - 328 - 10 iii) Neighbourhood Centres shall be planned and developed similar to, but generally smaller in scale than, the Community Centres and shall serve the day-to-day needs of the residents of the surrounding neighbourhood. 8A.2.3 Urban Growth Centres and Regional Centres shall be the primary and priority locations for public investment, including public buildings and community facilities and services. 8A.2.4 Area municipal official plans shall include detailed policies, or a Secondary Plan, for the development of any new Regional Centre, addressing: a) guidelines for the integration of local transit services with the road network; b) urban design guidelines to promote transit supportive land uses; c) design standards to promote pedestrian-oriented development and transit friendly facilities; and d) intensification and mixed-use objectives of this Plan. 8A.2.5 Prior to the consideration of an amendment to this Plan for the purpose of designating a new Regional Centre, Regional Council shall select and retain, at the expense of the proponent, a qualified consultant to prepare a retail impact study to ensure that the proposal does not unduly affect the planned function and viability of any designated Regional Centre on Schedule 'A', or any Local Centre designated within area municipal official plans. 8A.2.6 Prior to the consideration of the expansion of an existing Regional Centre, as detailed in an area municipal official plan, it shall be determined if there is a Regional Interest in accordance with Policy 8.3.8. Where there is a Regional Interest, a retail impact study shall be required to justify such expansion, and ensure that the proposal does not unduly affect the planned function and viability of any other Centre. 8A.2.7 Prior to the designation of a new Local Centre in an area municipal official plan or the expansion of an existing Local Centre, the Council of the area municipality shall determine if there is a Regional Interest in accordance with Policy 8.3.9. Where there is a Regional Interest, a retail impact study shall be required to justify such designation or expansion and ensure that the proposal does not unduly affect the planned function and viability of any other Centre. PROTECTED MAJOR TRANSIT STATION AREAS 8A.2.8 Schedule ‘A’ identifies existing and future GO Stations along the Lakeshore East GO Rail line and the GO East Extension. Schedule ‘C5’ - 329 - 11 designates and delineates Protected Major Transit Station Areas at the following GO Station locations: a) Pickering; b) Ajax; c) Whitby; d) Thornton’s Corners; e) Central Oshawa; f) Courtice; and g) Bowmanville. 8A.2.9 Protected Major Transit Station Areas will be planned as focal points within their respective communities, providing active places and streetscapes, with a wide range and mix of high-density transit-oriented uses, based on pedestrian oriented built form. 8A.2.10 Notwithstanding the land use designations in the vicinity of existing and future GO Stations identified on Schedule ‘A’, the following land uses will be permitted within the delineated Protected Major Transit Station Areas: a) Higher density residential uses including mid-rise and high-rise apartments, stacked townhouses, and live-work units; b) Offices and major office; c) Hotels and convention centres; d) Compatible employment uses, institutional uses, educational facilities and post-secondary institutions; e) Places of worship within mixed-use buildings rather than in freestanding buildings; f) Commercial uses including retail, both convenience retail and small-scale retail uses, restaurants, personal and professional service shops, and day care uses; g) Cultural, arts and entertainment uses; h) Recreational uses, amenities, and public art; - 330 - 12 i) Mixed use buildings that integrate community and commercial uses with upper-storey apartment and/or office uses to ensure amenities are provided in close proximity population and employment growth within MTSAs; j) Home occupations; k) Public uses including infrastructure, libraries, recreation/community centres, parks, urban squares, trails and conservation uses. 8A.2.11 The following land uses will be prohibited in Protected Major Transit Station Areas: a) Automobile-oriented uses such as drive-through establishments, gasoline stations, service stations, and car washes; and b) Land extensive uses such as automobile dealerships with outdoor vehicle storage and display areas, warehouses and storage facilities. 8A.2.12 Development within Protected Major Transit Station Areas will offer convenient, direct, sheltered pedestrian access from high-density development sites to neighbouring Commuter Stations or Transportation Hubs, recognizing matters of accessibility for persons with disabilities, pedestrians, cyclists, and connections to a variety of transportation modes. 8A.2.13 Protected Major Transit Station Areas shall be planned to accommodate a minimum density target of 150 people and jobs per gross hectare in accordance with the Growth Plan for the Greater Golden Horseshoe. In cases where a Protected Major Transit Station Area and an Urban Growth Centre or Regional Centre overlap, the higher density requirements shall apply. 8A.2.14 The Region, in consultation with the area municipalities and Metrolinx may designate additional Protected Major Transit Station Areas coincident with planning for existing and future rapid transit facilities or stations. 8A.2.15 Local road and private access spacing and access permissions to Regional arterial roads within Protected Major Transit Station Areas will be addressed on a case-by-case basis to the satisfaction of the Region. 8A.2.16 The Province of Ontario has authorized the use of Inclusionary Zoning within Protected Major Transit Station Areas, to require the provision of affordable housing units within new developments. To support the application of Inclusionary Zoning: - 331 - 13 a) A Regional Assessment Report shall be completed which includes an analysis of demographics, income, housing supply, housing need and demand, current average market prices and rents and an analysis of potential impacts on the housing market; and b) Area municipalities are encouraged to consider the application of Inclusionary Zoning in their respective Protected Major Transit Station Area through subsequent secondary planning and zoning bylaw amendment processes. 8A.2.17 Area municipal official plans shall include detailed policies, for each Protected Major Transit Station Area, which will: a) Delineate Protected Major Transit Station Area boundaries and provide detailed land use designations within the boundary; b) Establish minimum density, population, employment and housing targets; c) Establish minimum job requirements for Protected Major Transit Station Areas; d) Enable alternative development standards to support transit- oriented development, including but not limited parking requirements which support the use of transit; e) Support the creation of focal points by concentrating the highest densities in close proximity to Commuter Stations or Transportation Hubs; f) Include policies or approaches to ensure that the heights and densities of buildings are appropriately scaled to ensure compatibility with neighbouring lower density residential areas; g) Include policies to ensure that required transportation, servicing and other infrastructure is in place prior to, or coincident with new development; h) Support the efficient use of land, including requirements for structured parking, and shared parking as part of new development; i) Incorporate Urban Design Guidelines to guide the desired density, built form, building placement, access requirements and approaches for a pedestrian-oriented public realm, that: i. Provide appropriate transitions in building heights to surrounding areas and public spaces; - 332 - 14 ii. Direct that all development will be designed to be compact in form and pedestrian-oriented; iii. Require buildings to frame streets, with frequent pedestrian entrances; iv. Restrict vehicular access to private property from adjacent local roadways; v. Support the use of rear lanes to serve development loading, servicing and vehicular parking access requirements rather than strictly along local public streets, where appropriate; vi. Require vehicular parking to be located below grade or located in a manner to minimize the visual impact on streets, parks, open spaces, pedestrian walkways and other land uses. With the exception of bus parking, surface parking will be minimized; vii. Incorporate the use of design elements to assist with orientation, including wayfinding and the use of gateways and entrance feature; and viii. Require that connections to the Commuter Stations or Transportation Hubs include pedestrian weather protection and station way-finding; j) Include policies that encourage place-making through policy approaches that: i. Ensure a well-defined public realm that provides active gathering spaces, pedestrian destinations and connections; ii. Support the establishment of integrated trails, parks and open space systems for various levels of use year-round; iii. Provide active streetscapes with sidewalks or multi-use paths on both sides of all roads, and related for pedestrian amenities; iv. Encourage streets and boulevards to be designed to allow for patios, sitting areas, while ensuring adequate space for pedestrians and streetscape plantings for shade and beautification; v. Encourage sustainable technologies, permeable pavers, low impact development techniques, and designs which support - 333 - 15 the use of renewable energy in the design of new development, the public realm and streetscapes. k) Include sustainable transportation policies that: i. Ensure that road designs support transit use, pedestrian travel, and cycling while accommodating automobile travel; ii. Support active transportation through safe, well-designed and direct connections between and amongst component uses and transit stations; iii. Include adequate and secure long-term and short-term bicycle parking and end-of-trip facilities; and iv. Include below grade pedestrian connections, including knock- out panels where deemed appropriate, to facilitate a continuous pedestrian network between development sites. 8A.2.18 The Region and the respective area municipality may require the coordination of development applications through measures such as Master Development Agreements or other similar approaches, to ensure an orderly, coordinated and phased approach to the provision of transportation, servicing and other infrastructure requirements are provided prior to or coincident with development. 8A.2.19 The Region and area municipalities may require cost-sharing agreements, front-ending agreements or other measures as appropriate to ensure the timely delivery of infrastructure and the equitable distribution of development and infrastructure costs. 8A.2.20 In the event that development within a Protected Major Transit Station Area is proposed above a rail corridor, all appropriate technical studies must be undertaken to the satisfaction of the applicable railway authority, to ensure the following: a) existing and future capacity and safety of train operations in the rail corridor will not be compromised; b) flexibility for future expansion to rail operations and modifications and improvements to the track and signal system will not be reduced; and c) all environmental, safety and mitigation concerns associated with such development, including noise, vibration, air quality, parking, snow and ice accumulation, servicing, pedestrian access and vehicle access, and the capacity of the transportation system serving such development have been satisfactorily addressed to - 334 - 16 the satisfaction of the rail authority, the Region and the applicable area municipality. CORRIDORS 8A.2.8 8A.2.21 Regional Corridors are designated as an overlay of the underlying land-use designation on Schedule 'A', Regional Structure. Local Corridors may be designated in area municipal official plans, in accordance with the provisions of this Plan. 8A.2.9 8A.2.22 Regional Corridors shall be planned and developed in accordance with Policy 8A.1.5 and the relevant Policies of the underlying land-use designation, as higher density mixed-use areas, supporting higher order transit services and pedestrian oriented development. The Regional Corridors shall provide efficient transportation links to the Urban Growth Centres and Regional Centres, Protected Major Transit Station Areas, as well as other centres in adjacent municipalities. Portions of Regional Corridors with an underlying Living Area designation, which are identified as appropriate for higher density mixed-use development in area municipal official plans, shall support an overall, long-term density target of at least 60 residential units per gross hectare and a floor space index of 2.5. The built form should be a wide variety of building forms, generally mid-rise in height, with some higher buildings, as detailed in area municipal official plans. 8A.2.10 8A.2.23 Local Corridors shall be planned and developed in accordance with Policy 8A.1.5 as mixed-use areas, with appropriate densities to support frequent transit service. The Local Corridors shall provide efficient transportation links to the Urban Growth Centres and Regional Centres and/or Local Centres within Urban Areas. Portions of Local Corridors with an underlying Living Area designation, which are identified as appropriate for mixed-use development shall support an overall, long-term density target of at least 30 residential units per gross hectare and a floor space index of 2.0. The built form should be a wide variety of building forms with mid-rise predominating, as detailed in area municipal official plans. WATERFRONT PLACES 8A.2.11 8A.2.24 Schedule 'A' designates Waterfront Places along the Lake Ontario waterfront at the following locations: a) Frenchman's Bay; b) Whitby Harbour; - 335 - 17 c) Oshawa Harbour; d) Port Darlington; and e) Port of Newcastle. 8A.2.12 8A.2.25 Waterfront Places shall be developed as focal points along the Lake Ontario waterfront having a mix of uses, integrated with the Greenlands System. Uses may include residential, commercial, marina, recreational, tourist, and cultural and community facilities. The scale of development shall be based on and reflect the characteristics of each Waterfront Place. Where appropriate Waterfront Places shall be planned to support an overall, long-term density target of at least 60 residential units per gross hectare and a floor space index of 2.0. The built form should vary, and be developed in a manner that is sensitive to the interface with the natural environment, as detailed in area municipal official plans. 8A.2.13 8A.2.26 The area municipalities, in consultation with the Region and other agencies having jurisdiction shall prepare plans to detail the boundaries and land uses of Waterfront Places in their respective official plans. These plans should: a) consider environmental constraints and opportunities; b) maximize access to Waterfront Places by a variety of transportation modes, such as roads, public transit, water, and trails; c) emphasize the unique landscape features and heritage resources of each Waterfront Place to strengthen community identity; d) consider opportunities to develop east-west natural corridors to link Waterfront Places and natural areas along the waterfront, and to develop north-south corridors along creek valley systems; e) consider opportunities to increase public access to lands because of their ecological, cultural or recreational value through acquisition or other means; and f) assess how new growth will affect the natural environment and where possible enhance the function of Coastal Wetlands and other natural heritage features. AREA MUNICIPAL OFFICIAL PLANS 8A.2.14 8A.2.27 In the preparation of area municipal official plans, the area municipalities shall include the following: - 336 - 18 a) policies and designations to implement the intent of this Plan and provisions of this Section, particularly Policies 7.3.9, 8A.1.2, 8A.1.5 and 8A.2.12, 8A.2.16, 8A.2.17, 8A.2.18; b) boundaries, as well as land use designations, of all Centres, Protected Major Transit Station Areas, and Waterfront Places; c) a network of walkways, civic squares and parks; d) requirements for the preparation of traffic access studies; e) policies to ensure the development of higher densities; f) transit nodes; g) f) policies to ensure and guide higher density development in Urban Growth Centres, Regional and Local Centres, Regional and Local Corridors, Protected Major Transit Station Areas, and Waterfront Places, while protecting the integrity of historic downtowns, where applicable; h) g) policies to ensure that generally, new development along Corridors shall either front or flank the roadway. Reverse lotting along Corridors should only be permitted where other design solutions are not feasible. The approach for designating the extent or detailed delineation of corridors shall be determined by the area municipality; i) h) policies for the phasing of development in Centres, Corridors, Protected Major Transit Station Areas, and Waterfront Places, to ensure the implementation of the higher density form and function targets of this Plan; and j) i) policies to encourage higher density uses permitted in accordance with Section 8C, along Regional Corridors with an underlying Employment Areas designation. 8A.2.15 8A.2.28 Notwithstanding any provisions of this Plan to the contrary, area municipalities may recognize special purpose commercial areas and may include specific provisions in area municipal official plans and zoning by-laws to distinguish the function of these areas. AREA MUNICIPAL ZONING BY-LAWS - 337 - 19 8A.2.16 8A.2.29 In the preparation of area municipal zoning by-laws, Councils of the area municipalities shall develop permissive zoning within Urban Growth Centres, Regional Centres, Protected Major Transit Station Areas and along Regional Corridors, as an incentive to implement higher density, mixed-use development in these areas consistent with the intent of this Plan. - 338 - 20 Transportation System 11.1 Goals 11.1.1 To provide a Transportation System that is integrated, safe, efficient and reliable for all users and modes. 11.1.2 To offer a variety of mobility choices for all Durham residents. 11.1.3 To develop a Transportation System that supports the retention of existing businesses and attraction of new investment and economic activity. 11.1.4 To support sustainable transportation initiatives that respect natural, social and cultural environments. 11.2 General Policies 11.2.1 Regional Council supports the planning, design and operation of a fully integrated Regional Transportation System, composed of Road, Transit Priority and Strategic Goods Movement networks. 11.2.2 The development of the Region shall be based on the historic grid system of roads to support the desirable urban form, to facilitate the movement of goods and people, and the development of an effective system of public transit. 11.2.3 Freeway, highway and arterial road corridors shall be protected from uses which may jeopardize the implementation of such corridors. 11.2.4 Priority shall be given to the optimization of existing transportation infrastructure before adding new infrastructure. 11.2.5 New technologies and practices are supported that improve urban travel conditions and help protect the environment, such as Intelligent Transportation Systems, Transportation Demand Management and Employee Trip Reduction programs. 11.2.6 A Transportation Master Plan (TMP) which identifies policies, programs and infrastructure improvements required to address Durham's transportation needs, shall be adopted and maintained. - 339 - 21 11.3 Policies ROAD NETWORK AND DESIGN 11.3.1 This Plan provides for the protection and development of an integrated hierarchy of roads comprised of freeways, arterial, collector and local roads. Schedule 'C' – Maps 'C1' and 'C2', Road Network, designate freeways, Type A, Type B and Type C arterial roads within the Region, without regard to present or future jurisdiction. Area municipal official plans shall designate the grid network of collector roads. This Plan does not imply that Regional Council will assume the authority of roads shown on Schedule 'C' – Maps 'C1' and 'C2' which are not under the jurisdiction of the Region. 11.3.2 The alignments of freeways and arterial roads designated on Schedule 'C' – Maps 'C1' and 'C2', Road Network are approximate. The design and construction of these roads shall take place after more detailed planning and engineering studies have been carried out. These studies shall identify community and environmental impacts, and shall identify measures to be undertaken to mitigate any such impacts. Any change to the alignment of the designated freeways and arterial roads that is in keeping with the goals and intent of this Plan shall not require an amendment to this Plan. 11.3.3 Subject to site-specific conditions and accepted planning, urban design and traffic engineering principles, Type A, Type B and Type C arterial roads shall be designed in accordance with Schedule 'E' – Table 'E7', Arterial Road Criteria. 11.3.4 In the consideration of development applications abutting arterial roads identified on Schedule 'C' – Maps 'C1' and 'C2', Road Network, Regional Council shall require that lands be dedicated for road widenings. The dedication of land shall take into account the following: a) the extent of the right-of-way that may be required in accordance with Policy 11.3.3; b) road widenings being taken equally on either side of the centre line of existing roads. However, unequal widenings may be required where factors, such as topography, grade separation, channelization or existing development, make the taking of equal widenings impractical; c) the need to provide acceleration and deceleration lanes, left-turn storage lanes, medians, traffic signals or other traffic control devices, roundabouts, sight triangles at intersections, including intersections of an arterial road and a railway line, railway grade separations and freeway interchanges. The extent of the widening shall be based on the specific characteristics of the intersection and shall be determined in accordance with accepted traffic engineering design criteria; and d) the need to provide bicycle lanes and/or bus lanes. - 340 - 22 11.3.5 The design of arterial roads shall consider adequate channelization at intersections to facilitate transit and commercial vehicle turning movements, the provision of bus bays and lanes, and other transit-oriented improvements. 11.3.6 Regional Council shall prepare an implementation plan for all components of the Transportation System, which shall be reviewed annually, to define priorities and assess financial implications. 11.3.7 The Region recognizes the importance of the Provincial freeway system, including Highways 401, 404, 407, 412, 418 and 115, in fostering continued economic development and reducing the Transportation System capacity deficiencies at the western limit of the Region. To improve the Provincial freeway and highway network, Regional Council supports the accelerated implementation of: a) the extension of Highway 407 to Highway 35/115, including the Highway 418 freeway connection to Highway 401 and planned transitway on Highways 407, 412 and 418; b) the expansion of Highway 401, including the construction of new or improved interchanges; c) the extension of Highway 404 and the related widening of Highways 12 and 48; and d) improvements to Highways 7, 7A, 7/12, 35 and 35/115; and e) modifications to the alignment of the Highway 7/12 intersection at Thickson Road, subject to further study by the Town of Whitby and Ministry of Transportation, that may be updated without amendment to this plan. Although, Provincial Highways are shown on Schedule 'C' – Maps 'C1' and 'C2', Road Network, these highways are under the jurisdiction of the Ministry of Transportation, which has sole responsibility for such matters as standards, design criteria and widening requirements. 11.3.8 The Region of Durham encourages the Ministry of Transportation to construct the Highway 407 interchanges at Westney Road, Salem Road and Thornton Road, Highway 412 interchange at Rossland Road, and complete the Highway 401/Lake Ridge Road interchange, which were approved in the Highway 407 East Environmental Assessment study but deferred from initial construction. 11.3.9 The Region of Durham shall formally request and encourage the implementation of environmental design standards for Highways 407, 412 and 418, including the provision of treed and landscaped buffer strips within the right-of-way along each side of the highway and within the interchanges. - 341 - 23 11.3.10 Regional Council recognizes the importance of providing a north/south arterial road connection between Highway 401 and Highway 407 in the City of Toronto and the City of Markham to supplement the grid network of freeways throughout the Greater Toronto and Hamilton Area. Furthermore, Council shall oppose any decision, development proposal or other action which seriously compromises the ability to protect and implement such a facility. 11.3.11 Regional Council encourages the Provincial Government to take a leadership role in facilitating inter-regional transportation improvements, such as the Markham By-pass – Morningside Avenue Extension and the widening of Steeles Avenue, and partner in their implementation. 11.3.12 Regional Council, encourages the Ministry of Transportation, to investigate the ultimate role of Highway 35/115 between Highway 401 and Highway 407, including its possible development as a Provincial freeway facility. 11.3.13 Regional Council recognizes the need to improve east-west transportation linkages at the west Durham boundary and will continue to explore opportunities with the affected jurisdictions to enhance inter-Regional connections between the Region and the municipalities to the west. Although policies regarding the Rouge National Urban Park preclude additional inter- Regional arterial road connections south of Steeles Avenue. Regional Council will protect for the existing connections. Additionally, Regional Council will protect for the realigned Whitevale Road in Pickering to 14th Avenue in the Region of York and shall work with the affected municipalities to ensure that the proposed road connection is implemented. 11.3.14 To protect the integrity of hamlets and historic downtowns from excessive through traffic, a by-pass may provide a feasible solution. Prior to designating new by-passes of arterial roads within this Plan, a By-pass Study will be undertaken in consultation with affected stakeholders to examine: a) the need for the by-pass; b) alternatives to the by-pass; c) the transportation, land use, environmental, socio-economic and cultural heritage impacts associated with each alternative, including the status quo; d) a vision, and design considerations for the preferred alternative; e) a detailed cost-benefit analysis for the preferred alternative; and f) an implementation plan. 11.3.15 The Region recognizes the need to improve east-west transportation linkages south of Highway 401. The Region also recognizes the importance of Waterfront Areas as “people places”, and providing public access to the waterfront and open spaces. As such, the potential for an east-west connection between South Blair Street and Thickson Road, south of Victoria - 342 - 24 Street in the Town of Whitby, will be considered in conjunction with any proposal to redevelop the existing uses in the Employment Area north of Ronald C. Deeth Park. TRANSPORTATION DEMAND MANAGEMENT 11.3.16 This Plan supports the development of a comprehensive Transportation Demand Management (TDM) program as part of an effort to reduce single occupant vehicle dependency, by promoting alternative modes of transportation such as transit, carpooling, cycling and walking, and alternative work arrangements such as staggered work hours and telecommuting to reduce peak period travel. 11.3.17 Employers are encouraged to promote programs to reduce automobile usage as a means of addressing energy consumption and air pollution. Such trip reduction programs may include: a) the provision of transit passes; b) ridesharing and van pooling programs to increase vehicle occupancies; c) the provision of incentives in parking lots and supporting parking management strategies to encourage the use of high occupancy vehicles, such as designated carpool spaces; d) consideration for alternative work hours and telecommuting; and e) the provision of facilities to encourage the use of bicycles. TRANSIT PRIORITY NETWORK 11.3.18 This Plan supports the planning, design and operation of an integrated and coordinated Transit Priority Network, as designated on Schedule 'C' – Map 'C3', Transit Priority Network. The Transit Priority Network, which provides inter-regional and inter-municipal service, is comprised of the following elements: a) "Rapid Transit Spine" that is planned to provide dedicated transit lanes in most arterial road sections, and intersect with local transit services; b) "High Frequency Transit Network" that consists of buses in planned High Occupancy Vehicle (HOV) lanes, or buses or in mixed traffic, with transit signal priority at major intersections and other measures to ensure fast and reliable transit service. Planned HOV lanes may be converted to dedicated bus lanes as growth in ridership warrants; c) "Other Transit Connection" that facilitate longer-distance trips, providing direct links to Transportation Hubs and Commuter Stations from smaller urban and rural areas; - 343 - 25 d) "Commuter Rail" service that carries passengers at high rates of speed over longer distances and link to Transportation Hubs and Commuter Stations, providing transfer points to other transit services and transportation modes; e) "Protect for Future Commuter Rail" corridors that identify future connections on existing rail corridors beyond 2031; f) "Transportation Hubs" that are major travel destinations and facilitate transfers between different modes of travel or between transit services; and g) "Freeway Transit" services that facilitate long-distance inter-regional and inter-municipal transit trips within the Highway 407, 412 and 418 right-of-way. The designation of Freeway Transit supports the implementation of frequent bus service, with dedicated commuter parking lots and transit terminals at interchanges, which is planned to evolve to a dedicated transitway facility beside the freeway in the long- term. 11.3.19 In support of existing and future transit services, development adjacent to a Transportation Hub, Commuter Station, Rapid Transit Spine and the High Frequency Transit Network designated on Schedule 'C' – Map 'C3', Transit Priority Network, shall provide for: a) complementary higher density and mixed uses at an appropriate scale and context in accordance with Policy 8A.2.2 Policies 8A.2.8 through 8A.2.20 for Transportation Hubs and Commuter Stations that are also identified as Protected Major Transit Station Areas, and Policy 8A.2.9, where a Rapid Transit Spine or the High Frequency Transit Network is within Regional Corridors; b) buildings oriented towards the street, to reduce walking distances to transit facilities; c) facilities which support non-auto modes including: drop off facilities, bus bays, bus loops, bus shelters, walkways, trails and other pedestrian and cycling facilities; and d) limited surface parking and the potential redevelopment of existing surface parking. For the purposes of this Policy, development adjacent to a Transportation Hub or Commuter Station generally means an area within an approximate 500 metre radius of the station, representing about a 10-minute walk. The extent and delineation of the boundaries and land-use designations to implement the intent of this policy shall be detailed in area municipal official plans. 11.3.20 Centres and Corridors that correspond to a Rapid Transit Spine, as designated on Schedule ‘C’ – Map ‘C3’, Transit Priority Network, should be - 344 - 26 developed to their fullest potential in accordance with Sub-Section 8A of this Plan. 11.3.21 Where technically and financially feasible, suitable transit services are encouraged to be provided to newly developing areas as early as possible. 11.3.22 Regional Council supports the extension of GO rail service to Bowmanville, Uxbridge and the Seaton community within the Pickering Urban Area as indicated on Schedule 'C' – Map 'C3', Transit Priority Network. Regional Council supports the investigation of improved transit connections from GO Rail services to the Region's northern municipalities. In addition, Regional Council supports the investigation of further extensions of rail passenger service along existing rail corridors, including the C.P.R. Havelock Line and the C.N.R. Uxbridge Line. REGIONAL CYCLING PLAN 11.3.23 The Region in cooperation with the area municipalities, will implement a Regional Cycling Plan, which will: a) recognize that cycling facilities form part of a balanced transportation system; b) establish a network of on and off road cycling facilities across the Region; c) provide policies and programs to address matters of encouragement, enforcement, education, engineering and funding; and d) recommend actions for the implementation of the Plan's policies, programs, and cycling network. 11.3.24 The Regional cycling network will be established over time, and as budget considerations permit, in association with Regional and area municipal projects and activities. 11.3.25 This Plan supports an urban environment and infrastructure that encourages and supports active transportation throughout the Region through policies and practices that ensure safe, direct, comfortable, attractive and convenient connections. GOODS MOVEMENT 11.3.26 Schedule 'C' – Map 'C4', Strategic Goods Movement Network, identifies preferred haul routes that are planned to accommodate commercial vehicles on a year round basis, and which link major generators of traffic. Infrastructure to support this network will be considered as part of the capital works program and will be subject to budgetary considerations. 11.3.27 In the consideration of development applications adjacent to railways, a landscape buffer shall be required of a size to be determined by the Provincial - 345 - 27 Government and/or the Council of the respective area municipality, in consultation with the appropriate railway authority. 11.3.28 Prior to the development of the future airport in the City of Pickering, an investigation to establish the required Transportation System improvements shall be undertaken. 11.3.29 The Region recognizes the 1997 Agreement between the City of Oshawa and Federal Government that guarantees the operation of the Oshawa Executive Airport for fifty years unless a new airport at Pickering opens, in which case Oshawa has committed to continue operating the Executive Airport until at least 2033. Should the Oshawa Executive Airport cease operation, the policies of Section 8, as well as the extension of Stevenson Road and Beatrice Street shown on Schedule ‘C’, Map ‘C2’, Road Network, shall apply to this area without amendment to this Plan. 11.3.30 Councils of the area municipalities may recognize, at their sole discretion, licensed aircraft landing strips in the respective zoning by-laws, provided that such are compatible with the intent of this Plan. 11.3.31 The Oshawa Harbour shall be maintained as a commercial port facility in the Region until such time as studies have been completed for both Oshawa Harbour and St. Marys Cement dock facility in the Municipality of Clarington, after which the role of the Oshawa Harbour may be reconsidered. 11.3.32 Regional Council supports investigations by the Federal and Provincial Governments to examine measures to improve the level of safety associated with the transportation of dangerous goods. 11.3.33 Regional Council supports the development of coordinated, consistent and comprehensive emergency response plans to address incidents related to the transportation of dangerous goods. MITIGATING COMMUNITY AND ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS 11.3.34 In the consideration of development applications abutting or adjacent to arterial roads, Regional Council and Councils of the area municipalities shall have regard to the Region's guidelines and other area municipal guidelines where applicable. 11.3.35 In the consideration of development applications abutting arterial roads where access opportunities are limited, development patterns that promote pedestrian connectivity and permeability to the arterial road will be supported by: a) minimizing the amount of reverse lot frontage along the arterial road; b) promoting alternatives to reverse lot frontage such as window streets and cul-de-sacs adjacent to the arterial road; - 346 - 28 c) providing noise attenuation walls or fencing, where applicable, along the sideyard of lots adjacent to the arterial road; and d) establishing direct visual and pedestrian connections from proposed land uses and/or local streets and to the arterial road. 11.3.36 The Region in conjunction with area municipalities may assess the need for and develop corridor plans in conjunction with Municipal Class Environmental Assessments for major road works, or significant development applications or plans. Such corridor plans will provide a vision for the development of Regional Road corridors over time and shall address: a) the transportation environment, including present and future mobility and access requirements; b) adjacent land uses and the future built environment; and c) streetscaping and the public realm. These corridor plans will be used to guide the development of key arterial corridors and will provide implementation measures and financial commitments for activities such as planning, design, maintenance, planting, construction or reconstruction. 11.3.37 Where a development application or site plan is contingent upon road improvements that are subject to a Municipal Class Environmental Assessment or a corridor plan, as determined by the Region in conjunction with the area municipality, the development application or site plan shall not be approved until the Municipal Class Environmental Assessment or corridor plan are completed to the extent required to assess the development application or site plan. AREA MUNICIPAL OFFICIAL PLANS 11.3.38 In the preparation of area municipal official plans, Councils of the area municipalities shall ensure the inclusion of policies and designations to implement the intention of this Plan and the provisions of this Section, particularly Policies 11.3.1, 11.3.3, 11.3.17, 11.3.18, 11.3.25, 11.3.34 and 11.3.35. - 347 - 29 Section 14 Implementation 14.1 Goal 14.1.1 To offer guidance for the actions and decisions of all governments, individuals, corporations, authorities, boards and agencies. 14.2 General Policies 14.2.1 It is the intention of the Region to implement this Plan by utilizing the powers conferred upon it by the Planning Act, the Municipal Act, and such other statutes as may be applicable. 14.2.2 The Plan recognizes that the implementation of any policy herein requires that the Region have the legal jurisdiction to do so. Specifically, this Plan is not intended to, in any way, infringe, nor is it to be interpreted as in any way infringing, on the statutory rights, powers or prerogatives of any other legal jurisdiction, except as the Region has the legal authority to do so. 14.2.3 The Durham Regional Official Plan establishes a framework to guide the Region's growth and development. It is the intent of the Region that the Regional Official Plan provide general guidelines for the preparation of detailed planning documents by the area municipalities. The level of detail in the Regional Official Plan is intended to sufficiently ensure the achievement of the Regional goals outlined in the Plan. 14.2.4 The provisions of this Plan require that certain types of development proposals, such as aggregate resource extraction areas and aggregate- related industrial uses be permitted only by an application to amend this Plan. This will allow a comprehensive, consistent and thorough review of the appropriateness of such proposals throughout the Region. 14.2.5 Technical changes to the base information on Schedules 'A', 'B', and 'C' shall be made without amendment to this Plan. 14.2.6 Changes and refinements to Schedule 'B' – Map 'B1', Key Natural Heritage and Hydrologic Features, based on updated information from the Province or as a result of a natural heritage evaluation and/or hydrological evaluation will be incorporated into this Plan through a comprehensive review. 14.2.7 Changes as a result of new information shall be made to Schedule 'D' without amendment to this Plan. 14.2.8 At such time as the Provincial Government issues a policy statement under the Planning Act, this Plan will be amended forthwith. 14.2.9 All agricultural and non-agricultural developments outside of Urban Areas shall comply with the Provincial Minimum Distance Separation formulae. - 348 - 30 14.3 Area Municipal Official Plans 14.3.1 Area municipalities are required to prepare and adopt a new area municipal official plan or appropriate amendment to existing official plans in conformity with this Plan. 14.3.2 It is recognized, however, that some time may elapse before the existing area municipal official plans can be amended to conform with this Plan. In the interim, only those provisions of the existing area municipal official plan which are in conformity with this Plan shall remain in force and effect. For greater certainty, and notwithstanding any other provisions of this Plan, it is not the intent of this Plan to repeal any amendments to existing area municipal official plans which have been adopted by Council and are not yet in force. 14.3.3 Area municipalities are encouraged to prepare official plans for part of or for their entire municipality. In the preparation of these plans, priority shall be given to Urban Areas and hamlets. For municipalities not having complete official plan coverage, the policies of this Plan shall be used to guide development and assess development applications. 14.4 Community Improvement Plans REGIONAL COMMUNITY IMPROVEMENT PLANS 14.4.1 For the purposes of promoting complete communities, consistent with the objectives of this Plan pertaining to the principles for the development of Urban Areas, in particular, intensification, the Region may support community improvement from time to time by designating by by-law, Community Improvement Project Areas for the purposes of adopting Regional Community Improvement Plans. These Plans, adopted by Regional Council in accordance with the provisions of Section 28 of the Planning Act, may contain provisions for grants or loans, or providing other assistance consistent with the objectives described in the Community Improvement Plan. Regional Community Improvement Plans may address the following: a) affordable housing; b) infrastructure that is within the Region’s jurisdiction; c) land and buildings within and adjacent to existing or planned transit corridors that have the potential to provide for higher density mixed use development and redevelopment; or d) other matters as the Province may prescribe in accordance with the Planning Act. AREA MUNICIPAL COMMUNITY IMPROVEMENT PLANS 14.4.2 The Region of Durham recognizes that the area municipalities may adopt Community Improvement Plans in accordance with the Planning Act, to - 349 - 31 stimulate the re-use, revitalization, redevelopment and rehabilitation of Urban Areas, based on local needs and priorities. 14.4.3 To assist in the implementation of area municipal Community Improvement Plans, the Region may adopt a Revitalization Program that will guide how the Region may participate financially, or otherwise, in area municipal Community Improvement Plans. 14.4.4 The Region’s participation in an area municipal Community Improvement Plan will be subject to both the Region’s Revitalization Program and the Region’s annual Business Plan and Budget process. 14.4.5 The Region’s participation in the implementation of an area municipal Community Improvement Plan is intended for projects that contribute to achieving the goals of the Regional Official Plan for the development of Urban Areas. 14.5 Zoning By-laws 14.5.1 Where this Plan or any part thereof takes effect, every zoning by-law then in effect in the Region, affected thereby, shall be amended forthwith by the area municipalities to conform with this Plan, pursuant to the Planning Act. 14.5.2 In accordance with the provisions of the Planning Act and the appropriate provisions of this Plan, the Council of an area municipality is encouraged to prezone land using the holding symbol "H" or "h", in conjunction with any use category, and indicate the use to which lands, buildings or structures may be put at such time in the future as the holding symbol is removed by amendment to the by-law. 14.5.3 Prior to passing a by-law to remove the holding symbol, the Council of the area municipality shall ensure that: a) the development is consistent with the orderly and phased development of the municipality; b) the owner has satisfied all of the requirements of the area municipality and entered into any necessary agreements in this regard; and c) the owner has satisfied all the requirements of the Regional Municipality of Durham with respect to the provision of sewer and water services, Regional roads, and entered into any necessary agreements in this regard. 14.5.4 Notwithstanding Policy 14.5.1, this Plan is not intended necessarily to prevent the continuation, expansion, or enlargement of uses which do not conform to the designations and provisions of this Plan. At their sole discretion, the Councils of the area municipalities may zone to permit the continuation, expansion or enlargement of legally existing uses, or the variations to similar uses, provided that such uses: - 350 - 32 a) have no adverse effect on the present uses of the surrounding lands or the implementation of the provisions of this Plan; b) comply with Provincial Minimum Distance Separation formulae, as amended from time to time, if applicable; c) are accessible by a public road which is maintained by the appropriate authority as open to traffic on a year-round basis and is of a standard of construction adequate to provide for the additional traffic generated by the proposed use; d) are subject to any conditions that may be contained in an area municipal official plan; e) where located on the Oak Ridges Moraine; were lawfully existing as of November 15, 2001; and where any expansion or enlargement thereto or variation to a similar use is implemented in conformity with Parts III and IV of the Oak Ridges Moraine Conservation Plan, which contains policies intended to maintain, improve or restore the ecological and hydrological integrity of the Moraine; and f) where located in the Protected Countryside of the Greenbelt Plan Area; were lawfully existing as of December 15, 2004; and where any expansion or enlargement thereto or variation to a similar use is implemented in conformity with the Greenbelt Plan. Each case will be considered on its own merits by the Council of the respective area municipality and may be subject to site plan control. Lot creation associated with such uses shall not be granted. 14.5.5 Regional Council may enact by-laws to regulate the use of land lying within a distance of 45 metres from any limit of a Regional road, as provided for by the Municipal Act. 14.6 Site Plan Control 14.6.1 Regional Council shall encourage the use of the site plan control provisions of the Planning Act to implement the policies and provisions of this Plan and the area municipal official plans, and to coordinate and enhance the physical development of the area municipality. 14.6.2 Provisions for site plan control shall be detailed in the area municipal official plans. To enable the use of site plan control in area municipalities not having appropriate, approved site plan control provisions in their respective official plans, each such municipality is hereby declared to be a proposed site plan control area. The following uses, however, shall be exempted: i) residential development of one or two dwelling units per lot; ii) agricultural and farm-related buildings or structures that are utilized in farming operations; and - 351 - 33 iii) aggregate resource extraction activities. In addition, drawings showing plans and elevations of each building to be erected within designated site plan control areas may be required for apartments and other multiple-family type dwellings of less than 25 units, with the exception of those dwellings exempted herein. The provisions of this Section shall not apply to area municipalities with appropriate, approved site plan control provisions in the respective official plans. 14.6.3 The Council of an area municipality may, by by-law, designate the whole or part of the proposed site plan control area within its jurisdiction as a site plan control area. 14.6.4 Where development subject to site plan control abuts a road, under the jurisdiction of the Region, the area municipality, upon application for site plan approval, shall advise the Region to enable the implementation of the Planning Act. 14.6.5 The Council of the area municipality and/or Regional Council may require the owners of land proposed for development under site plan control to enter into one or more agreements under the Planning Act to address all matters contained therein. 14.7 Subdivision and Condominium Approvals and Agreements 14.7.1 Regional Council shall approve only those plans of subdivision which: a) comply with the provisions of this Plan and the applicable area municipal official plans; and b) can be supplied with adequate Regional services to the satisfaction of Regional Council. 14.7.2 Under conditions of approval attached to plans of subdivision pursuant to the Planning Act: a) Regional Council shall require that the applicants enter into appropriate agreements, which may be registered against the title of the subject lands, and which may include such matters as Regional services, financial requirements, Regional road facilities, dedication of land for public uses, exclusive of parks and other requirements, to implement the provisions of this Plan; b) the Council of the respective area municipality may require that the applicants enter into appropriate agreements, which may be registered against the title of the subject lands, and may include such matters as, but not limited to, financial requirements, local roads, drainage, grading and landscaping, sidewalks and dedication of land for public uses and - 352 - 34 other requirements to implement the provisions of this Plan and the applicable area municipal official plans; c) if approval of a draft plan of subdivision lapses, the growth management objectives of Policy 7.3.9 and Sub-Section 8A shall be considered as a key component of the development review process for any new draft plan of subdivision; d) if a plan of subdivision or part thereof has been registered for eight years or more, and does not meet the growth management objectives of Policy 7.3.9 and does not conform to the Policies of this Plan, Regional Council or the Council of the respective area municipality may use its authority under Section 50(4) of the Planning Act to deem it not be a registered plan of subdivision; and e) Regional Council or the Council of the respective area municipality may require that approvals of draft plans of subdivisions include a lapsing date in accordance with Section 51(32) of the Planning Act. 14.8 Severances 14.8.1 Severances shall only be granted in conformity with the intent of this Plan and this Plan's designations, uses and policies, the zoning by-laws of the respective area municipality and in accordance with the Planning Act. In addition, under no circumstances shall severances be granted that are contrary to this Plan and/or any area municipal official plan. 14.8.2 In determining whether a plan of subdivision under the Planning Act is necessary, three additional lots may be considered as the maximum number of division by severance. 14.8.3 The division of lands by severance shall be in compliance with the provisions of any site plan, subdivision or any other development agreements registered against the title of the subject lands. 14.8.4 The division of land by severance in Employment Areas shall be discouraged unless there exists an agreement between the owner and the Council of the respective area municipality and, where applicable, Regional Council, registered on title of the subject lands, indicating among other things, the subdivision design and the provision of services for the lands affected. The application of this provision, at the discretion of the Council of the respective area municipality, need not apply to infilling within established Employment Areas. 14.8.5 All proposed lots shall have frontage upon, and access to, a public road which is maintained by the appropriate authority as open to traffic on a year-round basis and is of a standard of construction adequate to provide for the additional traffic generated by the proposed development. 14.8.6 Notwithstanding Policy 14.8.5, a land-locked parcel related to a land assembly for a future subdivision proposal may be created, provided that - 353 - 35 there is an overall plan, indicating the approximate extent of the land assembly and provisions for future access. 14.8.7 All parcels of land shall be of an adequate size for the use proposed, having regard to the topography of the land, the siting of proposed buildings and points of access. Where municipal services do not exist and are not to be provided for the development, regard shall be had to the suitability of the soil conditions to provide for an adequate potable private water supply, and for the installation of a satisfactory private sewage disposal system which complies with the standards of the Ministry of the Environment, Conservation and Parks and the Region. 14.8.8 The creation of a lot in an area susceptible to flooding, erosion or any other physical or environmental constraint will be discouraged, unless it can be clearly established that the proposed use does not adversely impact such constraints, in accordance with Policy 2.2.7. 14.8.9 Where applicable, the Provincial Minimum Distance Separation formulae and the Environmental Protection Act and regulations made thereunder shall apply to the division of land by severance. 14.8.10 Where applicable, the approval of any application for severance for multiple residential, commercial or industrial uses shall be subject to the provisions of a site plan control agreement under the Planning Act, which has been entered into with the Council of the respective area municipality, and to the provisions of a servicing agreement, which has been entered into with the Region, and such agreements shall be registered on the title of the subject property. 14.8.11 On the granting of a severance, conditions may be imposed on both the severed and retained parcels, but not to be limited to, the following: a) the fulfillment of financial requirements of the Region and/or area municipality; b) the dedication of lands to the area municipality for park purposes or, as an alternative, the payment of cash-in-lieu of such dedication may be accepted by the area municipality; c) where applicable, the dedication of appropriate road widenings or one- foot reserves across the frontages of all proposed lots; d) the limitation of time for the fulfillment of conditions of approval prior to the lapsing of the severance; e) the submission of a registered reference plan; and f) in the case of surplus farm dwellings, that the retained farm parcel be zoned to prohibit any further severances and the establishment of any residential dwelling, in perpetuity. - 354 - 36 14.8.12 In Prime Agricultural Areas and Major Open Space Areas, any severance applications for agricultural and agricultural-related uses shall be considered in accordance with Sub-Section 9A and Policy 10A.2.3. Where applicable, such severance applications will conform with the Oak Ridges Moraine Conservation Plan, which contains restrictive lot creation policies that are intended to maintain, improve or restore the ecological and hydrological integrity of the Moraine; and the Greenbelt Plan, which contains restrictive lot creation policies that are intended to support long-term agricultural production and economic activity and long-term sustainability of the Natural Heritage System within the Protected Countryside. 14.8.13 The Region shall annually monitor severance activity within the Region. 14.8.14 Acquisition of land in appropriate locations by municipalities or conservation authorities for natural heritage conservation purposes is supported. A severance to secure valued greenspace for natural heritage conservation purposes may be permitted to adjust a property boundary or create a new lot provided that the severed parcel is zoned to permit only natural heritage conservation uses. However, consistent with other policies of this Plan, no new lot may be created for a residential dwelling in Prime Agricultural Areas or where development would negatively impact a key natural heritage and/or hydrologic feature. 14.8.15 In the Oak Ridges Moraine and Greenbelt Protected Countryside, no new lots may be created, except those specified in this Plan, within or partially within a minimum vegetation protection zone of a key natural heritage feature and/or a hydrologically sensitive feature. 14.9 Land Acquisition 14.9.1 Regional Council and the Council of an area municipality may acquire land to implement any feature of this Plan in accordance with the provisions of the Municipal Act and the Planning Act or any other statute. 14.9.2 Acquisition of land by municipalities, public agencies and utility providers for infrastructure to implement any feature of this Plan may be considered, in accordance with the policies of this Plan, applicable statutes, the Oak Ridges Moraine Conservation Plan and the Greenbelt Plan, where applicable. 14.10 Review And Monitoring 14.10.1 A comprehensive review of this Plan may be undertaken as required, at any time to incorporate new objectives, policies and specific designations. This Plan will be reviewed, in whole, or in part, not less frequently than every five years to ensure that it continues to embody the policies of Regional Council and to ensure that it has regard for matters of provincial interest, conforms to Provincial Plans, and is consistent with the Provincial Policy Statements. 14.10.2 A comprehensive review of all of this Plan shall be initiated at the appropriate time to inform the Region's participation in Provincial Plan Reviews, including the Oak Ridges Moraine Conservation Plan, the Greenbelt Plan and the - 355 - 37 Growth Plan for the Greater Golden Horseshoe. In particular, such review will be initiated to assess the implementation of settlement area expansions in the Townships of Brock, Scugog and Uxbridge at the 10 year review of the Greenbelt Plan. 14.10.3 The Region, in consultation with the area municipalities will monitor the following key growth management objectives on a regular basis: a) population and employment forecasts, coincident with the release of relevant Census of Canada information, and updates to the Growth Plan for the Greater Golden Horseshoe; b) intensification rates for each area municipality in relation to Schedule 'E' – Table 'E9' and the Region-wide target of 40% intensification within the built-up area, including the following key growth areas: i) Centres; ii) Corridors; and iii) Waterfront Places; c) the Region-wide density of population and jobs in relation to the 50 people and jobs combined per gross hectare target in greenfield areas and more specifically, the achievement of minimum greenfield area targets for Living Areas and Employment Areas; d) the density of population and jobs in the Urban Growth Centres of Oshawa and Pickering, in relation to the combined density target of 200 residents and jobs per gross hectare; and e) the mix, range, and affordability of housing units. 14.10.4 The effect of new policies, implementing by-laws and projects within Protected Major Transit Station Areas will be monitored in consultation with the area municipalities, based on the following: a) the amount, type and pace of development; b) the mix and density of land uses in the area; c) the re-use and demolition of existing buildings, including heritage buildings; d) the amount and type of employment; e) the overall population; f) the unit count and mix of housing types; g) the population to job ratio; and - 356 - 38 h) parking spaces, loading facilities, transit improvements and active transportation infrastructure. 14.10.4 14.10.5 The Region will not initiate a comprehensive review under s.26 of the Planning Act that would propose an expansion to the Urban Area boundary of the City of Pickering related to the lands referenced in Policy 7.3.11 p) of this Plan, in the absence of an amendment to the Growth Plan for the Greater Golden Horseshoe that provides increased forecasts in Schedule 3. - 357 - 39 Section 15 Interpretation 15.1 Unless otherwise specified in this Plan, deviation from the provisions of the text and Schedules 'A', 'B' and 'C' of this Plan will require an amendment to this Plan. 15.2 In order to provide for flexibility in the interpretation of the numerical figures and quantities in the text, it is intended that such figures and quantities be considered to be approximate, and that for the purposes of preparing area municipal official plans, zoning by-laws, subdivision approvals, site plan approvals, severances or building permits, minor deviations may be permitted, without amendment to this Plan, provided that such deviations do not alter the intent of this Plan. Further, changes to the policy numbering and/or cross-referencing may be undertaken without amendment to this Plan, as well as editorial, lettering and map changes which do not alter the intent of the Plan. 15.3 The examples of permitted uses are included in this Plan to illustrate the range of activities permitted in each designation. Specific uses shall be defined at such time as the area municipal official plans and/or zoning by- laws come into effect. 15.4 Schedule 'A' shows the extent of the urban areas and the distribution of their components. Where the external boundaries of Urban Areas abut or are located immediately adjacent to roads, rights-of-way, railways, transmission lines, lot lines, concession lines and watercourses, it is intended that these boundaries shall coincide with such features. Deviations therefrom shall require an amendment to this Plan. The internal boundaries and alignments of the components of these urban areas are approximate only, and are not intended to mark the exact location or extent of the designation of such components, except where such designation coincides with arterial roads, railways, valleys, transmission lines or other clearly recognizable physical features. The exact internal boundaries shall be defined at such time as the area municipal official plans and zoning by-laws come into effect. 15.5 The detailed boundaries of the Urban Areas of Beaverton, Cannington, Sunderland, Uxbridge, Port Perry and Orono shall be determined in accordance with the limits of municipal service areas. 15.6 Those lands designated as "Living Areas" and being located on the south side of Dundas Street and west of a tributary of the Lynde Creek, Part of Lots 31 and 32, Concession 1, Town of Whitby, represent only those lands within Registered Plan 40M-1484. 15.7 The symbols used on Schedule 'A' are intended to be considered as the general location of certain activities. The exact boundaries shall be defined in area municipal official plans and zoning by-laws. - 358 - 40 15.8 In determining the boundaries of the Prime Agricultural Areas, Shoreline Residential Areas, Major Open Space Areas and Waterfront designations for purposes of preparing zoning by-laws, regard shall be had to the various uses permitted in the respective designations, existing and future roads, other man-made features, property lines, rights-of-way, soil capability, topography, wooded areas, hazard lands and key natural heritage and hydrologic features, in accordance with Section 2, and Schedule 'A', which serves as a general indication of the boundary lines. 15.9 Where clarification is required for the interpretation of any policy in the Plan, reference shall be made to the general policies and, if necessary, the goals of the Plan. 15.10 This Plan has been prepared in accordance with relevant Provincial policies and/or plans. Specific terms appearing in italics in this Plan, are defined in Sub-Section 15A, and where noted, are consistent with the definitions provided in the Provincial Policy Statement (PPS), Oak Ridges Moraine Conservation Plan (ORMCP), Central Pickering Development Plan (CPDP), Greenbelt Plan (GBP) and Growth Plan for the Greater Golden Horseshoe (GP). For specific applicability to any respective Provincial Policy or Plan regard should be given to that document. The boundaries of the Oak Ridges Moraine and Greenbelt Plan Area are shown on Schedules 'A', 'B' and 'D'. The Greenbelt Protected Countryside refers to those lands located within the Greenbelt Plan Area. In accordance with the Greenbelt Plan, the Protected Countryside lands are intended to enhance the spatial extent of agriculturally and environmentally protected lands currently protected by the Oak Ridges Moraine Conservation Plan while at the same time improving linkages between this area and the surrounding major lake systems and watersheds. 15.11 This Plan shall be referred to in area municipal official plans as the Durham Regional Official Plan. 15.12 The Region, and Regional Council, in this Plan shall mean The Regional Municipality of Durham. 15.13 This Plan contains provisions for which approvals have not been granted by the Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing (Deferrals). Such areas do not form part of the approved Plan, until or unless they receive approval from the Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing through further approved amendments to this Plan initiated by Regional Council, but do identify the position of Regional Council. - 359 - 41 Section 15 A Definitions Transit-Oriented Development (TOD): is the clustering of high-density, compact development in proximity to transit infrastructure. The design of TOD places includes a mix of residential, community use, retail and other pedestrian amenities that support transit ridership, along with good quality active transportation connections. - 360 - 42 Part E – Schedules Schedule A Regional Structure Maps Map 'A1' – Brock Map 'A2' – Uxbridge Map 'A3' – Scugog Map 'A4' – Pickering, Ajax, Whitby, Oshawa Map 'A5' – Clarington Schedule B Greenlands System Maps Map 'B1' – Greenbelt Natural Heritage System & Key Natural Heritage and Hydrologic Features Map 'B2' – High Aquifer Vulnerability and Wellhead Protection Areas Map 'B3' – Oak Ridges Moraine Land Use Map 'B4' – Oak Ridges Moraine Landform Conservation Schedule C Transportation System Maps Map 'C1' – Road Network Map 'C2' – Road Network, Pickering, Ajax, Whitby, Oshawa, Courtice Urban Areas Map 'C3' – Transit Priority Network Map 'C4' – Strategic Goods Movement Network Map 'C5' – Protected Major Transit Station Areas Schedule D High Potential Aggregate Resource Areas Map Schedule E Tables Table 'E1' – Aggregate Resource Extraction Areas Table 'E2' – Country Residential Subdivisions Table 'E3' – Rural Employment Areas Table 'E4' – Aggregate-Related Industrial Use Exceptions Table 'E5' – Land Use Groups by Risk to Groundwater Table 'E6' – Wellhead Protection Areas – Land Use Restrictions Table 'E7' – Arterial Road Criteria Table 'E8' – Complete Application Requirements Table 'E9' – Minimum Intensification Allocations, 2015-2031 - 361 - da aen e e 4 (k ! k ( !!(k !(k ³ Highway 401 Val leyFarmRoaT h e E s p la n a d e N Glenann K ingsto nR oad a RThe E s pl a n a d e S o a d Pickering P a r k w a y Westney Road S Highway 4 0 1 Liverpool Road Bayly Street St Martins Drive Kr osnoBoule vard n RoadRadom S treet ³ ³ ue ilModnevsAalguoDAnnes Street Highw a y 4 0 1 Henry Street Brock Street S Victoria Street E t reet W Street E yShoresbGordon Street ³ tiW hOFFIC REG IAL PLAN OF THE IONAL MUNICIPALITY OF DURHAM ") Oshawa !( ")23 Ajax Whitby SCHEDULE 'C' - MAP 'C5a' PROTECTED MAJOR TRANSIT PickeringSTATION AREASLEGEND ")1 Pickering Ajax GOGO Station Stati PROTECTED MAJOR TRANSIT STATION AREA Whitby GOStationon !( ") ") ") 2 22 31 U401V FREEWAY TRANSIT RAPID TRANSIT SPINE HIGH FREQUENCY TRANSIT NETWORK TRANSPORTATION HUB NOTES: 1) THIS MAP FORMS PART OF THE OFFICIAL PLAN OF THE REGIONAL MUNICIPALITY OF DURHAM AND MUST BE Lake Ontario READ IN CONJUNCTION WITH THE TEXT. ")28 "26) ExistingGOOshawaStation URBAN AREA MUNICIPAL BOUNDARY EXISTING FUTURE COMMUTER RAIL !(k !(k COMMUTER STATION 2) THIS MAP IS AN EXCEPT FROM SCHEDULE 'C' - MAP C3 - TRANSIT PRIORITY NETWORK 3) OFFICE CONSOLIDATION - MAY 26, 2020. !( Pickeri Ajng ax dRoaechnyBSdFairall Street Tatra Drive Bayly Street W Bayside GaayGrenwWhitby Cons umers Drive Victoria Street W te WaWatson S t nueAvilyFson - 362 - oRStreet ng Street W ng Street E Ki Waverly Street S iK Centre Street S Olive Avenue Celina Street bb Street Gi Central Park Boulevard S John Street E W Eulalie Avenue E l m St reet t eAlbert Street erFa trbank s Si ve DriLaval de Avenue illsHi Thornton Road S D eanA ven u e rst Avenue Fi Drew Street Fo M i l l S tree t x Stree t StevensonRoadS Ch a m p l ai n A v e n u e Highway 401 ghway 401 HiC d S Bloor Street W S treet E BlBloor Street W Si mc o e S tre Conant Street S Courtice Road ll Boulevard s Road S t evens Ro a d llTruKing Street W Regional Highway 2 Green Road t eerBRustwood S td o rs avw eellDrive luClaringt o n B oA s p e n S p rin g sD riv e Waverley Road de A venue M c b r i Bo w West Side D mHighway 401 a nHighway 418 ville A ve n u e rive OFFIC REG IAL PLAN OF THE 55 34 14IONAL MUNICIPALITY 2 OF DURHAM Thornton' CentralSCHEDULE 'C' - MAP 'C5b' Corners s Oshawa BowmanvillePROTECTED MAJOR TRANSIT STATION AREASLEGEND 22PROTECTED MAJOR TRANSIT STATION AREA ClaringtonURBAN AREA MUNICIPAL BOUNDARY Oshawa EXISTING FUTURE COMMUTER RAIL FREEWAY TRANSIT Courtice RAPID TRANSIT SPINE HIGH FREQUENCY TRANSIT NETWORK TRANSPORTATION HUB NOTES: 1) THIS MAP FORMS PART OF THE OFFICIAL PLAN OF THE REGIONAL MUNICIPALITY OF DURHAM AND MUST BE Lake Ontario READ IN CONJUNCTION WITH THE TEXT. 2) THIS MAP IS AN EXCEPT FROM SCHEDULE 'C' - MAP C3 - TRANSIT PRIORITY NETWORKCOMMUTER STATION 3) OFFICE CONSOLIDATION - MAY 26, 2020. Thornton's Corners Cen ra John S rtubel Oshawat oatsnRitreet Gibb Street oor et Courtice Bowmanville Brook hi nc e W illiam BoulevardPri Baseline Road - 363 - alev e Brands Court Bowle ad rD owRr m o r e S q u a r e i eivnAvonelGt ValleyFarmRoad Storrington Street Crescentl lThe E s pl a n a d e N stoweK ing ston R o ad D ie f eiL The E s pl a n a d e S Circle Chearlo ttPickering P a r k w a y Highway 4 0 1 Liverpool Road ns Drive Sandy Beach Road iD ra v a St reet St MartReyt anBoulevard n u e evard Kr osnoBoulevard nle Bouo Street n Road lGrenobGarvolin A v e n u e evarde iuAntonivelModeivruDlsANaroch BouZator Avenue aaelDouglBem Avenue Miriam Road pChaer Avenue Hall Attachment #4-1 uareeSqntBroGlenanna Road oadnceRAlli79.23HA (195.77AC) Bayly Street Poprad Avenue Tatra Drive Radom Street –Picke r nbaker CourrivealeDGnd Fordon Ave ProposedDelineat i ingGOStationMTS A 0 50 100 200 300 400 500 Metres Proposed MTSA Draft Boundary GO Platform Growth Plan Walkshed Buffer (500m) Region's TMP Walkshed Buffer (800m) PARCEL DATA © 2021 MPAC and its suppliers. All rights reserved. May not be reproduced without permission. This is not a Plan of Survey.2020 Orthophotography provided by © First Base Solutions Inc. on - 364 - nteerseeRoenenetrhe escent ive Pembry Drncon Street lLiRandall Drive F ea r n C r ePlowman Drive e Avenu e ngha m tchiRiBurni ghway 401 SGeorgina Drive Bra m w e llD r i v e amDrive Mill StreetMarwin Road Jall an DrRedmond Drive ive Jacwin Drive Wright C r e s c e n t Hi West neyRoadS zie Avenue Attachment #4-2 ntcersaCChientrscC45.3HA (111.93ACthrglenRoadSKirkh KenMact Frankcom S enuyAveilFRedDriveenutoAveapKnBayly St etSruchCreet Ca r w i n C r es c ent Station Stree Fairall Street treet ) Bayly Street W –AjaxGOStationMTS A 300 400 500 nueAvilyHProposedDelineatio n 0 50 100 200 Metres Proposed MTSA Draft Boundary GO Platform Growth Plan Walkshed Buffer (500m) Region's TMP Walkshed Buffer (800m) PARCEL DATA © 2021 MPAC and its suppliers. All rights reserved. May not be reproduced without permission. This is not a Plan of Survey.2020 Orthophotography provided by © First Base Solutions Inc. - 365 - eyha atelevard B oulMichael reet s S tai bert Street E Cal Gillbert Street W Gi Street o Street E Ontario Street W Ontari Colette Drive lcent PeeSt John Street E St John Street W Reynol dsSt r eet r Cres rte Ca cent Annes Street ve isa DrGerrie Court E Trent Street W Street T er e King Street Centre Street S Byron Street S Garden Street Green Street lAthoBayvi ewAvenue McculHenry Street esoodCre ce DrivDrive Greenwlou ghngs Street tre eeDrive en m o rt in Drive Gl tnerArthur Street PililIrwiBHighw a y 4 0 1 Consumers Drive eet S nBrock StJeffery Street Montecorte Street ctoria Street E Vi Charles Street Dufferin Street Galt Street WatsonStreet W WatsonStreet E Gordon Street Steamer Drive t eertrSbouScaddingA HarnC h a e vireDdWisarbouter S t r e erHat Attachment #4-3 enwayhoresGrWitbSJermyn S t r e e t Maria S t r e e t ateordGSebPortage Dawson S t r e e t Trent Street Harriet S t r e e t Burns Street E Burns Street W cent St etrStreBlaiuhSoeDrivlle Avenue 106.79HA (263.88AC) Victoria S t r e e t W Front S t r e e t Trail onMTS A Newman Cres DriveipslshTaLawrenc e S Nordeag rW venue ProposedDelineat i WhitbyGOStat i 0 75 150 300 450 600 750 Metres Proposed MTSA Draft Boundary GO Platform Growth Plan Walkshed Buffer (500m) Region's TMP Walkshed Buffer (800m) PARCEL DATA © 2020 MPAC and its suppliers. All rights reserved. May not be reproduced without permission. This is not a Plan of Survey.2019 Orthophotography provided by © First Base Solutions Inc. on– - 366 - enent ey Crescent Perry CrescDonegal Avenue lkB a rRoad S Dorchester Drive Salisbury Street Vancouver Street Durham Street Cabot Street Limerick Street Waverly Street S Powell Road bb Street Gi Durham Court sson Avenue rescent RadiV ancoDunbar Dri ve ourt uver CCreCawk tE Thornton Road S B u r n s S treeDrive Laval Stellar Drive V icto ria S t r e e t E Fox Street Bloor Street W Cham pl ain A ve n ue Hi ghway 40 1 Attachment #4-4 Stveson41.72HA (103.09AC) City of OshawaTown of Whitby ProposedDelineation-Thornton’sCornersGOStationMTS A 0 50 100 200 300 400 500 Metres Proposed MTSA Draft Boundary GO Platform Growth Plan Walkshed Buffer (500m) Region's TMP Walkshed Buffer (800m) PARCEL DATA © 2020 MPAC and its suppliers. All rights reserved. May not be reproduced without permission. This is not a Plan of Survey.2019 Orthophotography provided by © First Base Solutions Inc. - 367 - e tttKing Street E Rowe Street King Street W Midtown Charles Street Athol Street E Dri ve Arthur Street Edward Avenue Lasalle Avenue Gliddon Avenue Bagot Street Bruce Street Chadburn Street Centre Street S Celina Street John S t r e e t W Park Boulevard S ac Avenue S and Avenue Oshawa Boulevard S Clarke Street Nassau Street Eulalie Avenue Emma Street Mcgrigor Street lHuron Street lghliCadiHVerdun Road l CentraCourt Street Stacey Avenue my Avenue Drew Street Vi Elm Street bb Street iG Albert Street ng Avenue Banti ve Avenue iOl Simcoe Street S Royal Street Mi Avenue ll Crerar Avenue Bloor Street W Ritson Road S Avenue Street Hal l S t reet SedaViola Howard Street nAlbany Street Cres cDNBeatty Avenue Tresane Street eeo nar t n mandy Street t AeevretnSullrst Ave n u e e iMi Cubert Street F Hillcrest Drive Etna Avenue ege Avenue lCol evard lLviv Bou ghway 401 iH urth A venue FoBloor St Annis Street Cord Attachment #4-5 RownaSreetDreetglasSouOshawa Barrie A v e n u e Quebec Street tche reetrdSOxfoova Road aga R o a d Proposed Fisher Street St reet Street Front 153.68HA (379.76AC) reet E StreetConant Mal Delineation - Central GO Station MTSA 0 75 150 300 450 600 750 Metres Proposed MTSA Draft Boundary GO Platformold Growth Plan Walkshed Buffer (500m) Region's TMP Walkshed Buffer (800m) PARCEL DATA © 2021 MPAC and its suppliers. All rights reserved. May not be reproduced without permission. This is not a Plan of Survey.2020 Orthophotography provided by © First Base Solutions Inc. - 368 - Bloor Street Hancock Road s Road ce Road llTruiCourtM c knight Road C o urt ic e Court Highway 401 Highway 418 ngton P ark Road D arli M egawatt Drive Down Road Attachment #4-6 Lands outside the Urban Area Boundary desired by Clarington Council(17.9 ha/44.5ac) for inclusion in the MTSA 3.31HA (8.18AC) 154.5HA (381.79AC) 14.68HA (36.27AC) Cigas Road Baseline Road ProposedDelineation–CourticeGOStationMTS A 0 75 150 300 450 600 750 Metres Proposed MTSA Draft Boundary GO Platform Urban Area Boundary Growth Plan Walkshed Buffer (500m) Region's TMP Walkshed Buffer (800m) PARCEL DATA © 2021 MPAC and its suppliers. All rights reserved. May not be reproduced without permission. This is not a Plan of Survey. 2020 Orthophotography provided by © First Base Solutions Inc. - 369 - gml Ros s W right A venue Murray Tabb Stre Jackman R o a d ive rd Dril m ers f o raHarveyJones kTSuQ u icet M c b rid e A venue Regional H i g h w a y 2 TedMillerCres Edsall Avenue Rehder A venue Brook ard Munday Court evard well Drive larington BouS t e v e ns Road lCK ing Street W Kings Hill L a n e Bon Drive athon Crescent d Street kgR o e n iGreen Road venue McwotsuReLittle Avenue lliBowmanvStrike Avenue nCres c ent WeldrickCr escenCoHammondSt r eet le Avenue Way e A s p e n S p rin g s D rivamiWillg Rhonda Bout Waverley Road scent Bonnycastle Drive Frye vCreirdD t nH Lawrence CresceleL eifaPadthaLane ndervelre vard ing kstrtoni DyDll Cre Lane ve irescent ve Qi u de DrA u tumn Harvest in Baxter Street n D lynne A rive iWest Sane Hillier Street v on Crese Buttonshaw Street n uBuxtone B utsWool n Road acott Lane Alonna Street Spry Avenue iMart Street Bottrell Millburn Drive t eS t r e Avenue ilMcPha sterve Loscombe Dri ent os er Cres ci BannAttachment #4-7 LoBosAvenue c en ev cenKinRemmingt reetogStScut hill Boul 127.1HA (314.06AC) lliam B o u l e v a r d WiPrince t on S t r e e t onMTSAcrimoRosa ADoreen R on–BowmanvileGOStatiProposedDelineati 0 75 150 300 450 600 750 Metres Proposed MTSA Draft Boundary GO Platform Growth Plan Walkshed Buffer (500m) Region's TMP Walkshed Buffer (800m) PARCEL DATA © 2021 MPAC and its suppliers. All rights reserved. May not be reproduced without permission. This is not a Plan of Survey.2020 Orthophotography provided by © First Base Solutions Inc. - 370 - Report to Planning & Development Committee Report Number: PLN 35-21 Date: September 13, 2021 From: Kyle Bentley Director, City Development & CBO Subject: Zoning By-law Amendment Application A 11/19 Amberlea Creek Development Inc. 760 and 770 Kingston Road Recommendation: 1.That Zoning By-law Amendment Application A 11/19, submitted by Amberlea Creek Developments Inc., to facilitate a residential condominium development consisting of 88 stacked townhouse units, be approved subject to the zoning provisions contained in Appendix I to Report PLN 35-21, and that staff be authorized to finalize and forward an implementing Zoning By-law Amendment to Council for enactment. Executive Summary: The subject lands are located on the north side of Kingston Road, east of Delta Boulevard within the Woodlands Neighbourhood (see Location Map and Air Photo Map, Attachments #1 and #2). Amberlea Creek Developments Inc. applied for a Zoning By-law Amendment, initially proposing the development of 82 back-to-back stacked townhouse units (see Original Conceptual Site Plan (2019), Attachment #3). In 2020, the applicant revised the submitted applications to increase the number of stacked townhouse units from 82 to 88 (see Second Conceptual Site Plan (2020), Attachments #4). In response to concerns identified by City staff and members of the public, the applicant made several refinements to the proposal (see Revised Conceptual Site Plan (2021), Attachment #5). The key changes include: •enlarged the common outdoor amenity area from 247 square metres to 590 square metres; •relocated the visitor parking spaces from the north side of the private road, away from the adjacent residential properties to the north; •increased the minimum landscape buffer width from 1.0 metre to 3.0 metres along the entire north property line; and •provided a 1.8-metre high wood privacy fence along the north property line. The proposal is consistent with the intent of the design and transportation objectives of the Woodlands Neighbourhood policies and will complete the required east-west connection through lands on the north side of Kingston Road, allowing vehicles to access the signalized intersection at Delta Boulevard and Kingston Road. The proposed development establishes a residential use along Kingston Road, an arterial road and Rapid Transit Spine, in an area that is well serviced by various commercial service uses. The proposal will establish stacked townhouse buildings with a - 371 - Report PLN 35-21 September 13, 2021 Subject: Amberlea Creek Developments Inc. (A 11/19) Page 2 maximum height of three and a half storeys, which is compatible with the residential neighbourhood immediately to the north. The proposed building setbacks from the north lot line will minimize any negative visual and privacy impacts on adjacent properties to the north. The proposed stacked townhouse dwellings will be sited and oriented to create a consistent streetwall along the north side of Kingston Road, and are consistent with the goals and objectives of the Draft Kingston Road Corridor and Specialty Retailing Node Urban Design Guidelines. The recommended Zoning By-law provisions provide for appropriate density and performance standards for the development of this site, resulting in transit-supportive intensification along a transit spine and within the Kingston Road Corridor. Site plan approval will address detailed design and technical matters, including the piping of the Amberlea Creek tributary. Ecosystem compensation will be provided to the satisfaction of the Toronto and Region Conservation Authority. Accordingly, staff recommends that Council approve Zoning By-law Amendment Application A 11/19. Financial Implications: The Woodlands Neighbourhood policies of the City’s Official Plan require vehicular access from the current terminus of Delta Boulevard easterly through lands owned by the City to the Mixed Corridor lands. A new public roadway is to be constructed from Delta Boulevard approximately 45.0 metres to the east connecting to the subject lands. This project has been identified as a Development Charge Funded Project with a cost of approximately $125,000.00, where 50 percent will be funded through Development Charges Reserve Fund. The remaining 50 percent will be the City’s share. This project is included in Engineering Services 2022 Capital Budget, which will be before Council for consideration in early 2022. 1.Background 1.1 Property Description The subject lands comprise two properties located on the north side of Kingston Road, east of Delta Boulevard, having a combined area of approximately 0.7 of a hectare, with approximately 88 metres of frontage along Kingston Road (see Location Map, Attachment #1). The lands are bisected by the Amberlea Creek tributary and have a significant amount of vegetation, including mature trees and low-lying shrubs, which are intended to be removed. Surrounding land uses include (see Air Photo Map, Attachment #2): North: Immediately to the north is an established low-density residential neighbourhood consisting of detached dwellings on large deep lots fronting Sheppard Avenue. East: Adjacent lands to the east are occupied by a commercial plaza containing a variety of service commercial uses, including restaurants and personal service uses. South: Across Kingston Road is a vehicle sales and service establishment. - 372 - Report PLN 35-21 September 13, 2021 Subject: Amberlea Creek Developments Inc. (A 11/19) Page 3 West: To the west is a commercial plaza, consisting of various restaurant and retail uses, and further west fronting Whites Road, is a 12-storey residential apartment building, which is currently under construction. 1.2 Applicant’s Proposals Amberlea Creek Developments Inc. has applied for a Zoning By-law Amendment to facilitate a residential condominium development on the subject lands. The applicant's initial submission in 2019 proposed 82 stacked back-to-back townhouse units (see Original Conceptual Site Plan (2019), Attachment #3). In December 2020, the applicant revised the submitted proposal to increase the number of stacked back-to-back townhouse units to a total of 88 (see Second Submission Conceptual Site Plan (2020), Attachment #4). In response to concerns and comments received from City staff and area residents, the applicant has made several refinements to their proposal (see Revised Conceptual Site Plan (2021), Attachment #5). The following changes have been made to the proposal: • enlarged the common outdoor amenity area from 247 square metres to 590 square metres, representing approximately 7 percent of the site area; • relocated the visitor parking spaces on the north side of the private road, away from the adjacent residential properties to the north; • increased the minimum landscape buffer width from 1.0 metre to 3.0 metres along the entire north property line; • relocated waste storage areas to maximize distance from private outdoor amenity spaces and the existing residential lots to the north; and • provided a 1.8-metre high wood privacy fence along the north property line. As a part of the proposed development, the portion of the Amberlea Creek tributary that bisects the subject site is intended to be realigned and enclosed. It is proposed that the tributary be enclosed as it enters at the northwest corner of the site, and realigned along the north and east property lines. It is intended to connect to the existing culvert at the southeast corner of the site to be piped under Kingston Road. Vehicular access to the site is proposed to be provided from Kingston Road by way of a shared driveway access that currently services the abutting commercial plaza to the east at 780 Kingston Road. A second access will be provided through an east-west driveway along the north property line to a future public road connecting to Delta Boulevard. The applicant has indicated that they will work with the City to provide an easement across the east-west portion of the internal private aisleway to allow for internal connectivity between properties along the north side of Kingston Road, enabling access to the Delta Boulevard. The plan proposes 3 separate blocks for stacked back-to-back townhouses containing 2-bedroom dwelling units. Block 1 is proposed to be 3 ½ storeys in height while Blocks 2 and 3 will be 3 storeys in height (see Conceptual Elevation – View from Kingston Road and View from Private Road, Attachment #6 and #7). Each dwelling unit will have either an at-grade patio or a balcony as a private outdoor amenity space. The townhouse blocks are oriented so that dwelling units will front Kingston Road, internal landscaped courtyard areas or the internal private road. - 373 - Report PLN 35-21 September 13, 2021 Subject: Amberlea Creek Developments Inc. (A 11/19) Page 4 Access to the underground parking garage is provided from the internal private road and will be integrated into the west façade of Block 2. Resident parking is provided at a ratio of 1 parking space per dwelling unit for a total of 88 spaces, 86 of which will be provided within the underground parking garage. Visitor parking will be provided at a rate of 0.2 of a space per unit for a total of 18 spaces. The revised conceptual plan also provides for a 590 square metres common outdoor amenity located at the east end of Block 1, fronting Kingston Road. This area will act as a gateway to the development from Kingston Road. A walkway system is proposed providing pedestrian connectivity within the site to the dwelling unit entry areas, courtyards, parking garage, surface parking areas, private amenity areas, and Kingston Road. A formal Site Plan application was received on July 22, 2021, and was deemed to be incomplete as a geotechnical report is required to be submitted. 2. Comments Received 2.1 Comments received in writing and expressed at the November 4, 2019, Statutory Public Meeting A Statutory Public Meeting was held on November 4, 2019, to provide information to area residents regarding the proposed development, where one area resident provided a delegation. The following is a list of key comments and concerns expressed by area residents at the Statutory Public Meeting, and written comments received regarding the applicant's proposals: • requested that the subject lands be used for a commercial development, which would generate employment opportunities in the area and be more compatible with the surrounding commercial uses; • concerned that the proposed piping of the Amberlea Creek tributary will impact the neighbouring properties to the north that already experience high water levels during the spring and fall; • concerned that the proposed development will result in the loss of trees that provide a home and feeding ground for animals and birds; • concerned that the existing residents to the north will have to deal with increased noise, traffic and safety concerns during the construction, and will experience a loss of privacy in their rear yards; • concerned that the properties to the north will experience impacts from noise and headlights from increased traffic along the east/west driveway at the rear of the proposed development; • concerned that the proposed development is too dense and will result in approximately 240 new residents and 90 new vehicles, which will generate a significant amount of noise and traffic, which will be a nuisance to existing residents; • concerned the proposed stacked townhouse units are not consistent with the surrounding neighbourhood to the north, which is characterized by single-detached dwellings on large lots; - 374 - Report PLN 35-21 September 13, 2021 Subject: Amberlea Creek Developments Inc. (A 11/19) Page 5 • requested that the developer be required to construct a concrete fence of 8 feet to 10 feet in height along the shared property line to mitigate noise; and • suggested that traditional townhouses are more appropriate than stacked townhouses as the proposed development will have less soft landscaping and smaller building setbacks than is standard. Written comments were received from Eastbay Holdings Inc., owners of 780 Kingston Road, the adjacent property to the east, requesting that the City require adequate landscape and noise buffering to be installed at the applicant's expense between 780 Kingston Road and the proposed residential development. It was also requested that if the proposed shared access at 780 Kingston Road is approved, the following matters be addressed: • cost-sharing agreement regarding expenses; • maintenance agreements; • indemnity agreements and assumption of liability agreements; and • other such relevant agreements including those which will be assumed by any condominium corporation once the proposed stacked townhouse development has been registered. 2.2 City Departments & Agency Comments 2.2.1 Region of Durham • no objection to the approval of the proposed application; • the Regional Official Plan (ROP) designates the subject lands as “Living Areas”, which are intended to be used predominantly for housing purposes with a mix of housing types, sizes, and tenure; • Kingston Road is designated as a “Regional Corridor” within the ROP, where developments proposed adjacent to Regional Corridors shall be at a higher density and support higher-order transit services and pedestrian-oriented development; • the proposed development conforms to the ROP as it will facilitate residential land uses at higher densities along Kingston Road; • the Region requires the applicant to include all recommended noise attenuation measures of the Noise Impact Study in a future site plan agreement to the satisfaction of the Region; • the revised Phase I and II Environmental Impact Studies and Traffic Impact Study are acceptable; • municipal water supply and sanitary sewerage are available to the subject lands; • based on the submitted information, municipal collection cannot be provided as the road configuration of the private roadway outlined in the plan will not permit continuous movement without reversing and does not conform to the requirements for waste collection service as per Regional Waste By-law 46-2011; • a Waste Management Plan outlining the designated areas for collection and storage of waste shall be submitted as a part of the site plan application, demonstrating how the private collection will function for residents in the proposed townhouse site; and - 375 - Report PLN 35-21 September 13, 2021 Subject: Amberlea Creek Developments Inc. (A 11/19) Page 6 • any requirements of the Regional Municipality of Durham, concerning the provision of Regional services, financial and otherwise, associated with the development of this property shall be addressed through the submission of a future site plan application. 2.2.2 Toronto and Region Conservation Authority (TRCA) • no objection to the proposed application, subject to the appropriate ecosystem compensation being provided consistent with TRCA’s Guideline for Determining Ecosystem Compensation; • all technical matters related to on-site natural features and stormwater management have been addressed; • ecosystem compensation can be secured through an agreement between the landowner and TRCA before the issuance of any TRCA permit and is based on the loss of 0.22 of a hectare of deciduous forest and 120 metres of creek, with the replacement requirement being 0.66 of a hectare of forest planting, 120 metres of creek, and 0.22 of a hectare of land-based compensation; and • costs for ecosystem structure restoration and replicating the land base will be applied at the time of receipt of the funds but are currently valued at $425,123.75. 2.2.3 Ministry of Transportation (MTO) • no objections to the proposed application; • all technical comments have been addressed; • the subject lands are located within MTO’s Permit Control Area for Highway 401, and as such MTO review and approval, along with associated permits will be required; and • MTO Building and Land Use Permit will be required for each Townhouse Block following the approval of a site plan application. 2.2.4 City of Pickering Engineering Services Department • no objection to the proposal; • a new public roadway is to be constructed from Delta Boulevard approximately 45.0 metres east; • this project has been identified as a Development Charge Funded Project with a value of approximately $125,000.00; • the detailed design of this roadway must conform to all municipal standards and criteria; • the applicant will be required to enter into a Development Agreement with the City for the off-site works, including the construction of the public road to Delta Boulevard, road restoration, land transfer, easements, utility relocation, cost-sharing, grading, drainage, and securities; • the applicant will be required to provide the City their proportionate share of cost recovery for the Northeast Quadrant study and the Delta Boulevard and Kingston Road downstream storm sewer oversizing; • a permanent easement within the site will be required in favour of the City, from Delta Boulevard, to allow for proper turnaround facilities for winter maintenance of the public roadway connecting to Delta Boulevard; • a Mutual Access Agreement with the site to the east must be provided, as both the applicant’s site and the neighbouring site will share the access from Kingston Road; and - 376 - Report PLN 35-21 September 13, 2021 Subject: Amberlea Creek Developments Inc. (A 11/19) Page 7 • detailed design matters such as the provision and installation of roads, services, grading, drainage, stormwater management, utilities, tree compensation, construction management, and noise attenuation will be addressed through site plan approval. 2.2.5 City of Pickering Fire Services • no objection to the approval of the proposed application; and • matters concerning fire hydrant location and fire route signage will be further reviewed through the submission of a site plan application. 2.2.6 Durham District School Board • has no objections to the approval of the proposed development; and • students from this development will attend existing schools. 3. Planning Analysis 3.1 The proposal is consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement and conforms to A Place to Grow The Provincial Policy Statement 2020 (PPS) provides provincial policy direction on land use planning. The PPS provides for appropriate development while protecting resources of provincial interest, public health and safety, and the quality of the natural and built environment. The PPS supports improved land use planning and management, which contributes to a more effective and efficient land-use planning system. The PPS indicates that healthy, livable and safe communities are to be sustained by, among other matters, promoting efficient development and land use patterns and accommodating an appropriate range and mix of residential. The PPS outlines that new development should have a compact form, mix of uses and densities that allow for the efficient use of land, in areas that are supported by planned or existing transit services. The proposed development promotes modest residential intensification and provides appropriate density where existing infrastructure and public service facilities are available, and where rapid transit services are operated and are planned. The proposed development is consistent with the PPS policies that encourage the efficient use of land, infrastructure and planned public service facilities. The proposed development is consistent with the PPS. A Place to Grow 2019 sets out a planning vision for growth throughout the Greater Golden Horseshoe. The subject lands are located within the “built-up area” of the City of Pickering. The proposed residential development will contribute to the achievement of more compact complete communities and assist the City and Region to meet their respective intensification targets, which is to accommodate 50 percent of all growth within the existing limits of the current built boundary of the Region and City. The proposed development provides for a compact form of development that is compatible with the surrounding residential land uses within the community and conforms to the Plan. - 377 - Report PLN 35-21 September 13, 2021 Subject: Amberlea Creek Developments Inc. (A 11/19) Page 8 3.2 The proposal is within the density range of the Official Plan and implements the vision of the Kingston Road Corridor & Specialty Retailing Node Intensification Plan The subject lands are located within the Woodlands Neighbourhood and are designated “Mixed Use Areas – Mixed Corridors”. Mixed Use Areas are recognized as lands that have or are intended to have the widest variety of uses and highest levels of activity in the City. The Mixed Corridors designation is intended primarily for residential, retail, community, cultural and recreational uses at a scale serving the community, and provides for a range of commercial uses and residential development at a density range of over 30 units up to and including 140 units per net hectare, and a maximum floor space index (FSI) up to and including 2.5 FSI. In 2019, the Planning & Development Committee endorsed in principle the Kingston Road Corridor and Specialty Retailing Node Intensification Plan (Intensification Plan). The recommended land use for the subject lands within the Intensification Plan is Mixed Use - Type-B within the Whites Precinct, which promotes the creation of residential uses in conjunction with retail, office and service–commercial uses to support the development of complete communities. The City has initiated an Official Plan Amendment (Proposed Amendment 38), to implement the recommendations of the Intensification Plan, including increasing the maximum permitted density and FSI on lands designated "Mixed Corridor" within the Kingston Road Corridor and in the Specialty Retailing Node. Amendment 38 to the Official Plan currently proposes a minimum residential density of over 60 units per net hectare. The amendment is also proposing an FSI of over 0.75 up to 2.5, and consideration for proposals between 2.5 and 5.0 FSI through a site-specific zoning by-law amendment. The lands are located adjacent to Kingston Road, which is identified as a Type “B” Arterial Road and Transit Spine under the City’s Official Plan. These roads are recognized as having a higher level of transit service and are intended to carry moderate volumes of traffic at moderate speeds, and provide access from local roads, collector roads and arterial roads. To promote the development of a livable, transit-oriented community, the Official Plan directs mixed-use and higher density development to be located along designated transit spines and arterial roads. The proposed residential development reflects intensification within the built-up area that makes efficient use of existing and planned resources and infrastructure in a location that is intended to accommodate higher residential densities. The proposed density of 117 units per net hectare and FSI of 1.2 is consistent with the current density and FSI requirements of the Official Plan as well as those proposed through the City-initiated Official Plan amendment. The stacked townhouse blocks will be sited and oriented to be parallel with Kingston Road to establish a strong urban edge along the north side of the public road. The proposed development will make efficient use of existing and planned infrastructure along Kingston Road, while also providing additional housing options to accommodate future residents. The proposal is consistent with the policies of the City’s Official Plan and implements the vision for the Kingston Road Corridor and Specialty Retailing Node Intensification Plan. - 378 - Report PLN 35-21 September 13, 2021 Subject: Amberlea Creek Developments Inc. (A 11/19) Page 9 3.3 The proposal reflects the urban design objectives as set out in the Council endorsed Draft Urban Design Guidelines for the Kingston Road Corridor and Specialty Retailing Node The Woodland Neighbourhood policies of the Pickering Official Plan identify that the Northeast Quadrant Development and Kingston Road Corridor Guidelines apply to the subject lands. These Guidelines are intended to guide the design of Kingston Road, the development of land between Kingston Road and Sheppard Avenue, and lands that flank or front Kingston Road. These Guidelines, which were adopted by Pickering Council in 1997 and 2002, respectively, do not reflect the new vision for the Kingston Road Corridor established by the Council endorsed Draft Kingston Road Corridor and Specialty Retailing Node Urban Design Guidelines. The Development Guidelines are intended to be superseded by the new Draft Urban Design Guidelines. On December 2, 2019, the Planning & Development Committee endorsed the Kingston Road Corridor and Specialty Retailing Node Draft Urban Design Guidelines (Draft Urban Design Guidelines). The Draft Urban Design Guidelines support the goals, objectives, and vision for the area as set out in the Intensification Plan and establish design priorities and principles related to built form, placemaking, and connectivity. The proposed residential condominium development maintains the key urban design objectives of the Guidelines by: • providing a low-rise building height of less than 4-storeys on the subject lands is appropriate given the adjacent residential neighbourhood to the north; • shadowing and overlook on adjacent residential properties to the north will be minimized through a minimum separation of 15.0 metres from the north lot line and compatible building heights; • orienting Block 1 to be parallel with Kingston Road will assist in framing the street line and creating a consistent streetwall along the public roadway; • proposing building heights of 3 ½ storeys adjacent to Kingston Road will assist in creating an appropriate human-scaled pedestrian realm; • providing a minimum setback of 4.5 metres from Kingston Road and a minimum setback of 5.2 metres from the proposed private road will provide sufficient space for landscaping and private outdoor amenity space for units without imposing on the pedestrian walkways or right-of-way; • primary entrances to units within Block 1 are located to be highly visible, face Kingston Road, and provide a direct pedestrian connection to the future municipal sidewalk; • locating the outdoor amenity area adjacent to Kingston Road will maximize visibility from the street, and assist in creating an inviting and safe space; • providing a minimum building separation of 12.0 metres between each Block will ensure appropriate access to sunlight, and maintain privacy for the residents; • providing a private road through the subject lands is consistent with the requirements of the Whites Precinct, which demonstrate an east-west private road traversing through the north portion of the site; • utilizing a private road through the north portion of the subject lands will maximize use of existing access locations along Kingston Road and provide connectivity between adjacent properties; - 379 - Report PLN 35-21 September 13, 2021 Subject: Amberlea Creek Developments Inc. (A 11/19) Page 10 • implementing 2 barrier-free walkway connections between the subject site and future sidewalks along Kingston Road will ensure a seamless grade transition that is easily accessible by pedestrians and cyclists, and serving all users; • minimizing the total amount of surface parking to 20 spaces and providing a landscape buffer of at least 3.0 metres along the north property line will minimize negative visual impact on adjacent properties; • maximizing landscaped open space and providing approximately 40 percent of the site as a landscape surfacing will assist in reducing stormwater run-off and exceeds the minimum requirement of 10 percent soft-landscaping; and • strategically locating the site access, surface parking, loading areas and underground parking access internal to the site and behind the proposed buildings provides for an improved streetscape along Kingston Road. Based on the foregoing, staff are satisfied that the proposal reflects the general intent of the Council endorsed Draft Urban Design Guidelines. Through the site plan review process, staff will continue to ensure the site design and architectural treatment of the proposed buildings is consistent with the Urban Design Guidelines for the Kingston Road Corridor. 3.4 The proposed development is compatible with the character of the surrounding Neighbourhood and provides for an appropriate transition in built form An area resident has expressed concern that the proposed stacked townhouse buildings will not maintain the character of the neighbourhood immediately to the north or provide an appropriate transition in the built form to the existing detached dwellings along Sheppard Avenue. The intention of the Kingston Road Corridor and Specialty Retailing Node Intensification Plan is to provide for intensification within the corridor while ensuring that an appropriate transition in built form is provided to minimize negative impact on existing low-rise residential areas. Compatibility and appropriate transitioning of the proposed stacked townhouse buildings with the immediate neighbourhood is achieved by dealing with the elements of scale, massing, siting, and setbacks. The surrounding residential neighbourhood immediately to the north, along Sheppard Avenue, consists of 1 and 2-storey detached dwellings on existing large lots with depths of approximately 100 metres. Block 3, which will be located nearest to the existing detached dwellings along Sheppard Avenue, will be a maximum of 3-storeys in height (approximately 12.5 metres), will be setback a minimum of approximately 15.0 metres from the north lot line and will maintain a building separation of approximately 78 metres to the nearest dwelling to the north. Within this setback, a 3.0-metre wide landscape buffer and a 1.8-metre high wood privacy fence will be provided along the entire length of the north property line. The proposal will achieve an appropriate transition from the existing residential neighbourhood immediately to the north by maintaining substantial building setbacks and building separation. The future landscaping and privacy fence will minimize any concerns regarding privacy and overlook for existing residents to the north. Further, the applicant is proposing to implement building heights that are compatible with the heights of buildings within the surrounding area. - 380 - Report PLN 35-21 September 13, 2021 Subject: Amberlea Creek Developments Inc. (A 11/19) Page 11 3.5 TRCA and the City support the principle of piping the Amberlea Creek tributary and appropriate ecosystem compensation will be secured As part of the proposed development, the applicant is proposing to realign and enclose the portion of the Amberlea Creek tributary that currently bisects the subject lands. Area residents have expressed concern with the loss of vegetation and natural habitat as a result of piping the tributary. They have also expressed that the piping of the tributary will negatively impact the properties to the north that already experience high water levels. The Woodlands Neighbourhood policies support the principle of piping the Amberlea Creek tributary. The policies require any proposal to pipe the tributary to be supported by environmental and stormwater management reports, and the appropriate approvals and permits. In support of the proposed development and proposal to realign/enclose the Amberlea Creek tributary, the applicant has prepared and submitted the following: • Functional Servicing and Stormwater Management Report, prepared by Cole Engineering Group Limited; • Environmental Impact Study, prepared by North-South Environmental Inc.; and • a Flood Plain Impact Study, prepared by IBI Group Professional Services. The submitted information provided the following: an assessment of environmental features and their functions on the subject lands; an assessment and comparison of the current and future floodplains; and an identification of technical measures to ensure stormwater could be adequately managed on-site. The supporting information concluded that there were no significant features or species identified within the woodland, and the proposal would not substantially impact the floodlines outside of the subject site. The submitted Environmental Impact Study outlined that the development of the lands would result in the loss of 0.22 of a hectare of deciduous forest and 120 metres of the creek. The submitted supporting information has been reviewed by the TRCA and the City’s Engineering Department. Based on this review, both TRCA and the City accept the piping of the Amberlea Creek tributary. As compensation for the piping of the tributary and loss of on-site vegetation, the applicant is required to provide a financial payment to the TRCA of approximately $425,123.75, to be used by the City and/or the TRCA for habitat improvements elsewhere within the Frenchman’s Bay Watershed. This compensation has been established using the TRCA Guideline for Ecosystem Compensation, where 0.66 of a hectare of replacement forest planting, 120 metres of creek replacement, and 0.22 of a hectare of land-base is required for compensation. Before issuing Site Plan Approval and obtaining a TRCA Permit for the proposed development, the applicant will be required to provide the compensation payment to the satisfaction of the City and TRCA. - 381 - Report PLN 35-21 September 13, 2021 Subject: Amberlea Creek Developments Inc. (A 11/19) Page 12 3.6 An east-west road connection from Delta Boulevard will be constructed by the applicant in conjunction with the development of the subject lands The Woodlands Neighbourhood policies provide direction on transportation matters including shared accesses, and easements between properties to provide vehicular access from Delta Boulevard where full turning movements at Kingston Road are available, easterly across the Mixed Corridor lands on the north side of Kingston Road to the ‘former’ Dunbarton School site, which is now occupied by a commercial plaza. To provide for the shared vehicle access between adjacent properties required under the Official Plan, the applicant is proposing an east-west private road, which will extend across the entire north portion of the subject site. In 2014, the Durham Region Land Division Committee approved a vehicular/pedestrian access easement in favour of the subject lands over the adjacent property to the east, 780 Kingston Road. This easement enables the subject lands to share the existing Kingston Road access at 780 Kingston Road. A reciprocal access easement will be required in favour of 780 Kingston Road, over the proposed east/west private road. This easement will provide a connection west through the subject lands to the northwest corner of the site to access Delta Boulevard through lands currently owned by the City. These City-owned lands are intended to be developed as a public road that will connect the proposed private road to Delta Boulevard, which currently terminates in a cul-de-sac. The applicant has agreed to front-end the design and construction of the public road connection through the site plan approval process. The City will reimburse the applicant's costs for the construction of this road, once the road has been constructed to the City’s satisfaction. The road has been identified as a Development Charge Funded Project with a cost of approximately $125,000.00. 3.7 Agreements related to maintenance, expenses and liability associated with shared access easements will be the responsibility of private property owners The adjacent property owner immediately to the east at 780 Kingston Road has requested that the following be required from the applicant if the proposal will utilize the shared access on their lands: a cost-sharing agreement regarding expenses; maintenance agreements; indemnity agreements and assumption of liability agreements; and other such relevant agreements including those which will be assumed by any condominium corporation once the proposed stacked townhouse development has been registered. As outlined previously, a vehicular/pedestrian access easement in favour of the subject lands over 780 Kingston Road was approved by the Durham Region Land Division Committee in 2014. A reciprocal access easement will be required in favour of 780 Kingston Road, over the proposed east/west private road within the proposed development. This access easement will align with the existing access easement over 780 Kingston Road in favour of the subject lands. - 382 - Report PLN 35-21 September 13, 2021 Subject: Amberlea Creek Developments Inc. (A 11/19) Page 13 Further agreements not associated with access, such as those related to cost-sharing, maintenance and liability, are the responsibility of private property owners to negotiate independently. 3.8 The proposal will have minimal traffic impacts on the surrounding road network In support of the rezoning application, the applicant has submitted a Transportation Impact Study (TIS), prepared by Stantec Consulting Ltd. The TIS investigated the traffic conditions and effects of the proposed development on the surrounding road network, including the intersections of Kingston Road and the shared access at 780 Kingston Road; Kingston Road and Delta Boulevard; and Kingston Road and the Highway 401 Westbound Ramps. The study collected data on existing traffic levels on October 4, 2018. The study found that during the morning peak hour (approximately between 6:00 am and 9:00 am) the development is anticipated to generate approximately 32 new 2-way trips (8 inbound and 24 outbound trips) and during the afternoon peak hour (approximately between 3:00 pm to 6:00 pm) approximately 39 new 2-way trips (24 inbound and 15 outbound). The study concluded that the proposed development will not result in any adverse traffic impacts at the study intersections or the surrounding road network due to the low volume of trips anticipated to be generated from the development. Both the Region of Durham Works Department and Engineering Services have reviewed the submitted TIS and concur with the consultant's recommendations. 3.9 Sufficient resident and visitor parking is provided to support the proposed development The proposal provides for a total of 88 residential parking spaces and 18 visitor parking spaces, which represents a minimum parking ratio of 1.0 space per dwelling unit and an additional 0.2 of a space per dwelling unit for visitors. The lands are located along Kingston Road, a Regional Transit Spine, which is currently serviced by Durham Region Transit bus services. The current transit services available are anticipated to be further improved with the introduction of the Durham-Scarborough Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) project that will run the entire length of Kingston Road within Pickering. The BRT project will build upon previous improvements and services associated with the Regional PULSE transit services and will introduce rapid bus transit services between the Scarborough Town Centre and Downtown Oshawa, which will assist in reducing the reliance on personal vehicles and parking demands for the subject lands. The proposed development is also located adjacent to several existing commercial plazas, which provides for a variety of personal service, restaurant, grocery and retail uses within a 5-minute walking distance. To support the proposed parking ratios, the applicant has provided a Parking Assessment within the submitted Traffic Impact Study, prepared by Stantec, which identified that the proposed reduction in residential parking is appropriate, for the following reasons: - 383 - Report PLN 35-21 September 13, 2021 Subject: Amberlea Creek Developments Inc. (A 11/19) Page 14 • the lands are located in a transit-supportive area which is well served by existing surface transit; • the proposed BRT stop at Kingston Road and Whites Road will provide further opportunities for the residents to shift to the preferred transit mode and depend less on the privately owned vehicles; • the presence of adjacent retail use and the proximity to commercial land uses at Kingston Road and Delta Boulevard will encourage more trips by active modes; • dedicated bicycle lanes between Steeple Hill and Delta Boulevard would contribute to reducing car ownership and promote active transportation as a mode for travel; and • sidewalks along Kingston Road, as proposed, would encourage walking as a mode and enhance the safety of pedestrians. Staff are supportive of the proposed residential parking ratios based on the proximity of the development to existing services and the current and planned public transit services available along Kingston Road. 3.10 Response to Additional Key Concerns The table below summarizes the key concerns raised to date and staff’s response. Concerns Staff’s Response Negative construction impact, including noise, dust and vehicles A Construction Management Plan will outline mitigation measures to minimize negative construction impacts 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 be required 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 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. Stormwater run-off concerns The proposed development will not result in a stormwater impact on adjacent properties to the north Stormwater from the proposed development will not be directed onto adjacent lands and will be accommodated within the limits of the subject lands. The applicant has submitted a Functional Servicing and Stormwater Management Report (FSSR) as well as preliminary grading and servicing plans, which have been reviewed by the City’s Engineering Servicing Department. The submitted FSSR and associated plans are required to - 384 - Report PLN 35-21 September 13, 2021 Subject: Amberlea Creek Developments Inc. (A 11/19) Page 15 Concerns Staff’s Response demonstrate that the subject lands, once redeveloped, can be serviced and can accommodate stormwater and not direct drainage to adjacent properties. As part of the Site Plan Approval process, the City will continue the review of detailed grading and drainage plans to ensure that no stormwater or drainage is directed towards adjacent lands. Once the grading plan has been approved by City staff, the applicant will be required to conduct such grading works in accordance with the approved plan. An increase in traffic along the east-west driveway will result in negative noise and light impact on properties to the north The proposed east/west private road will not result in a negative impact on adjacent residential properties The east/west private road proposed along the north portion of the subject lands provides a necessary vehicular and pedestrian connection through the subject lands from Delta Boulevard and the adjacent property to the east, as required under the City’s Official Plan. The private road will be setback a minimum of 3.0 metres from the north lot line and will be screened by landscape plantings and a wood privacy fence with a minimum height of 1.8 metres. The proposed landscape buffer and a wood privacy fence will minimize any noise or light penetration beyond the north property line. Additionally, this road is intended to act as a secondary route with the majority of vehicular traffic still intended to utilize Kingston Road as the primary point of access. Negative impact on private property values Negative impact on residential private property values as a result of the proposal is unlikely Property value is influenced by several factors such as location, proximity to services and amenities, local economics, home improvements and condition, home and property size, and dwelling style. Impact on property value is not a consideration under the Planning Act in the review of development applications. However, appropriate development that is compatible with the surrounding neighbourhood can positively contribute to property values in the immediate area and the community as a whole. 3.11 Technical matters will be addressed through Site Plan Approval Detailed design issues will be dealt with through the site plan approval and draft plan of condominium process. These requirements will address matters such as, but not limited to: • ecosystem compensation; • mutual-access easements; • drainage and grading; - 385 - Report PLN 35-21 September 13, 2021 Subject: Amberlea Creek Developments Inc. (A 11/19) Page 16 • site servicing; • cash-in-lieu of parkland; • requirements for a Construction Management Plan; • landscaping; • resident, visitor and accessible parking spaces; • emergency vehicle access; • waste management collection; • location of community mailboxes; and • location of water meter room, hydro transformers, gas meters and other utilities. 3.12 Conclusion Staff supports the Zoning By-law Amendment Application A 11/19 and recommends that the site-specific implementing by-law, containing the standards set out in Appendix I to this report, be finalized and brought before Council for enactment. 3.13 Applicant’s Comments The applicant supports the recommendations of this report. Appendix Appendix I Recommended Zoning By-law Provisions for Zoning By-law Amendment Application A 11/19 Attachments 1. Location Map 2. Air Photo Map 3. Original Conceptual Site Plan (2019) 4. Second Submission Conceptual Site Plan (2020) 5. Revised Conceptual Site Plan (2021) 6. Conceptual Elevation – View from Kingston Road 7. Conceptual Elevation – View from Private Road - 386 - Report PLN 35-21 September 13, 2021 Subject: Amberlea Creek Developments Inc. (A 11/19) Page 17 Prepared By: Original Signed By Cody Morrison Principal Planner, Development Review Original Signed By Nilesh Surti, MCIP, RPP Manager, Development Review Approved/Endorsed By: Original Signed By Catherine Rose, MCIP, RPP Chief Planner Original Signed By Kyle Bentley, P. Eng. Director, City Development & CBO & Urban Design CM:ld Recommended for the consideration of Pickering City Council Original Signed By Marisa Carpino, M.A. Chief Administrative Officer - 387 - Appendix I to Report PLN 35-21 Recommended Zoning By-law Provisions for Zoning By-law Amendment A 11/19 - 388 - Recommended Zoning By-law Provisions for Zoning By-law Amendment Application A 11/19 That the implementing zoning by-law permit a residential condominium development in accordance with the following provisions: A. Zoning Provisions for Residential Development Permitted Uses 1. Permitted uses include: Stacked Back-to Back Townhouse Dwellings Building Restrictions 2. All buildings and structures shall be located entirely within a building envelope with: a minimum setback of 4.5 metres from the building to Kingston Road, and the east and west property line; and a minimum setback of 15.0 metres from the building to the north property line. 3. Minimum build-to-zone of 3.0 metres along Kingston Road. 4. No building or portion of a building or structure shall be erected within the building envelope, unless a minimum of 60 percent of the entire length of the build-to-zone is occupied by a continuous portion of the exterior wall of a building. 5. Stairs; cover and uncovered porches and platforms; bay, box and bow windows; balconies, box windows; eaves; canopies, window sills and other similar features are permitted to project beyond the building envelope, but no closer than 1.0 metre to any lot line. 6. Minimum separation between buildings: 12.0 metres. 7. Maximum number of dwellings units: 88 8. Maximum building height of 13.0 metres. Parking Requirements 9. Minimum 1.0 parking space per dwelling unit to be provided within an underground garage plus a minimum of 0.2 of a parking space per dwelling unit for visitors to be provided in an underground garage or surface parking area or a combination of the two. 10. No parking lot or parking space shall be permitted within 15.0 metres of the north property line. 11. Minimum 1.0 bicycle parking spaces per dwelling unit. 12. The minimum right-of-way width for a private street shall be 3.8 metres for one-way traffic and 6.5 metres for two-way traffic. - 389 - Landscape Area and Private Residential Amenity Area 13. Private outdoor amenity area: a. Minimum Area: 4.5 square metres per unit 14. Minimum balcony depth: 1.5 metres 15. Common amenity: a. Minimum 590 square metres at grade outdoor amenity area 16. Minimum landscape buffer width along the north lot line: 3.0 metres. - 390 - Attachment #1 to Report #PLN 35-21 Whites RoadKingst o n R o a dEdgewood RoadShadybrook Drive Cobblers Court Kates Lane Sheppard Avenue Dunfair Street Marinet CrescentDeltaBoulevar dWeyburn SquareBayly Street Highwa y 4 0 1 Shadybrook Tot Lot City Development Department Location Map File: Applicant: Municipal Address: A 11/19 Date: Jul. 28, 2021 Amberlea Creek Developments Inc. 760-770 Kingston Road SubjectLands Dunbarton High School L:\PLANNING\01-MapFiles\A\2019\A 11-19 - Amberlea Creek Development Inc\A11_19_LocationMap_v2.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.- 391 - Attachment #2 to Report #PLN 35-21 Whites RoadKingst o n R o a dEdgewood RoadShadybrook Drive Omega Drive Cobblers Court Kates Lane Sheppard Avenue Dunfair Street Marinet CrescentDeltaBoulevar dWeyburn SquareBayly Street Highwa y 4 0 1 Air Photo Map File: Applicant: Municipal Address: A11/19 Date: Jul. 28, 2021 Amberlea Creek Developments Inc. 760-770 Kingston Road SubjectLands L:\PLANNING\01-MapFiles\A\2019\A 11-19 - Amberlea Creek Development Inc\A11_19_AirPhoto_v2.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 Development Department - 392 - Attachment #3 to Report #PLN 35-21 Oct. 10, 2019DATE: Applicant: Municipal Address: File No: FULL SCALE COPIES OF THIS PLAN ARE AVAILABLE FOR VIEWING AT THE CITY OF PICKERING CITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT. City Development Department Original Conceptual Site Plan (2019) L:\Planning\01-MapFiles\A\2019 A 11/19 Amberlea Creek Developments Inc. 760-770 Kingston Road Amenity Area 2 Amenity Area 1 - 393 - Attachment #4 to Report #PLN 35-21 Second Submission Conceptual Site Plan (2020) City Development Department August 11, 2021FULL SCALE COPIES OF THIS PLAN ARE AVAILABLE FOR VIEWING AT THE CITY OF PICKERING CITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT. A 11/19 Amberlea Creek Developments Inc.Applicant: Municipal Address: DATE: File No: 760-770 Kingston Road L:\Planning\01-MapFiles\A\2019 - 394 - Attachment #5 to Report #PLN 35-21 Revised Conceptual Site Plan (2021) City Development Department August 11, 2021FULL SCALE COPIES OF THIS PLAN ARE AVAILABLE FOR VIEWING AT THE CITY OF PICKERING CITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT. A 11/19 Amberlea Creek Developments Inc.Applicant: Municipal Address: DATE: File No: 760-770 Kingston Road L:\Planning\01-MapFiles\A\2019 Kingst o n R o a d Adjacent Area Commercial Road Connection to Delta Boulevard Future Public Area Commercial Adjacent - 395 - Attachment #6 to Report #PLN 35-21 L:\Planning\01-MapFiles\A\2019 August 11, 2021DATE: Applicant: Municipal Address: File No: Conceptual Elevation - View from Kingston Road FULL SCALE COPIES OF THIS PLAN ARE AVAILABLE FOR VIEWING AT THE CITY OF PICKERING CITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT. City Development Department A 11/19 760-770 Kingston Road Amberlea Creek Developments Inc. - 396 - Attachment #7 to Report #PLN 35-21 L:\Planning\01-MapFiles\A\2019 August 11, 2021DATE: Applicant: Municipal Address: File No: Conceptual Elevation - View from Private Road FULL SCALE COPIES OF THIS PLAN ARE AVAILABLE FOR VIEWING AT THE CITY OF PICKERING CITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT. City Development Department A 11/19 760-770 Kingston Road Amberlea Creek Developments Inc. - 397 -