Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
September 23, 2024 - Revised
Council Meeting Agenda September 23, 2024 Hybrid Electronic Meeting Council Chambers 7:00 pm For information related to accessibility requirements please contact: Council & Committee Coordinator 905.420.4611 clerks@pickering.ca 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.Call to Order/Roll Call 2.Moment of Reflection Mayor Ashe will call for a silent moment of reflection. 3.Indigenous Land Acknowledgment Statement Mayor Ashe will read the Indigenous Land Acknowledgment Statement. 4.Disclosure of Interest 5.Adoption of Minutes Council Minutes, June 24, 2024 1 (Confidential In Camera Council Minutes, June 24, 2024, provided underseparate cover) Special Council Minutes – Education & Training, June 25, 2024 44 (Confidential In Camera Special Council Minutes – Education & Training,June 25, 2024, provided under separate cover)Special Council Minutes, July 12, 2024 46 (Confidential In Camera Special Council Minutes, July 12, 2024, provided under separate cover)Special Council Minutes, July 25, 2024 49 Special Council Minutes – Education & Training, July 26, 2024 56 (Confidential In Camera Special Council Minutes – Education & Training,July 26, 2024, provided under separate cover) Special Council Minutes, August 28, 2024 58 Executive Committee Minutes, September 3, 2024 64 Special Council Minutes, September 3, 2024 81 6.Presentations 7.Delegations Council Meeting Agenda September 23, 2024 Hybrid Electronic Meeting Council Chambers 7:00 pm For information related to accessibility requirements please contact: Council & Committee Coordinator 905.420.4611 clerks@pickering.ca Members of the public looking to provide a verbal delegation to Members of Council may do so either in person, or through a virtual connection into the meeting. For more information, and to register as a delegate, visit www.pickering.ca/delegation, and complete the online delegation form or email clerks@pickering.ca. The list of delegates who have registered to speak will be called upon one by one by the Chair in the order in which they have registered. A maximum of 5 minutes shall be allotted for each delegation. Please be advised that your name will appear in the public record and will be posted on the City’s website as part of the meeting minutes. 8. Correspondence 8.1 Corr. 24-24 85 Jeff Abrams, Co-Principal, Principles Integrity, Integrity Commissioner for the City of Pickering Janice Atwood-Petkovski, Co-Principal, Principles Integrity, Integrity Commissioner for the City of Pickering Re: Integrity Commissioner’s Recommendation Report Regarding Complaints against Councillor Robinson, September 17, 2024 Opening Remarks provided by: Jeff Abrams, Co-Principal, Principles Integrity, Integrity Commissioner for the City of Pickering (In Person) Recommendation: Council direction required. 8.2 Corr. 25-24 109 Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing Re: Provincial Planning Statement, 2024 Recommendation: That Corr. 25-24, from the Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing, regarding the Provincial Planning Statement, 2024, be received for information. Council Meeting Agenda September 23, 2024 Hybrid Electronic Meeting Council Chambers 7:00 pm For information related to accessibility requirements please contact: Council & Committee Coordinator 905.420.4611 clerks@pickering.ca 9. Report EC 07-24 of the Executive Committee held on September 3, 2024 Refer to Executive Committee Agenda pages: 9.1 Director, Community Services, Report CS 22-24 1 Recreation & Parks – Ten Year Plan Recommendation: 1. That the Recreation & Parks – Ten Year Plan, as set out in Attachment 1, be endorsed; and, 2. That the appropriate officials of the City of Pickering be authorized to take the necessary actions as indicated in this report. 9.2 Director, Community Services, Report CS 28-24 314 Post Manor Feasibility Study Recommendation: 1. That Report CS 28-24 regarding the Post Manor Feasibility Study be received; 2. That staff be directed to continue discussions with Brock and Kingston Holdings Inc. on acquiring the Post Manor building, for lease or purchase for use as a public art gallery, anticipating an occupancy date in 2029, and report back with an update to Council by Q4, 2025; and, 3. That the appropriate City officials be authorized to take the necessary actions as outlined in this report. 9.3 Director, Corporate Services & City Solicitor, Report CLK 04-24 351 Review and Updates to ADM 100, Public Notice Policy Recommendation: 1. That Report CLK 04-24, regarding the Review and Updates to ADM 100 Public Notice Policy, be received; Council Meeting Agenda September 23, 2024 Hybrid Electronic Meeting Council Chambers 7:00 pm For information related to accessibility requirements please contact: Council & Committee Coordinator 905.420.4611 clerks@pickering.ca 2. That the draft ADM 100 Public Notice Policy, as set out in Attachment 1 to this report, be approved; 3. That going forward, the City Clerk be authorized to update Appendix 1 of Policy ADM 100 to accommodate for any legislated changes pertaining to the provision of notice to the public; 4. That the draft By-law, appended as Attachment 3 to this report, to repeal By-law No. 6166/03 be approved; and, 5. That the appropriate City of Pickering officials be authorized to take such actions as are necessary to give effect to the recommendations in this report. 9.4 Director, Corporate Services & City Solicitor, Report CLK 05-24 401 2025 Committee and Council Meeting Schedule Recommendation: 1. That the 2025 Committee and Council Meeting Schedule, appended as Attachment 1 to Report CLK 05-24, be approved; and, 2. That the appropriate City of Pickering officials be authorized to take the necessary actions as indicated in this report. 9.5 Director, Community Services, Report CS 23-24 405 Celebration of Gordon Lightfoot Public Art – Artist Selection - Commission of Public Art Recommendation: 1. That Council endorse the commission of the public art, entitled “Gordon’s Guitar” to be installed in Ernie L. Stroud Park, Steeple Hill and be awarded to Geordie Lishman; 2. That Council authorize the Director, Finance & Treasurer to finance the net project cost of $53,933.00 to be funded by a transfer from the Public Art Reserve as approved in the 2024 Current Budget; 3. That the Mayor and the City Clerk be authorized to execute the Letter of Understanding, between Geordie Lishman and the City of Council Meeting Agenda September 23, 2024 Hybrid Electronic Meeting Council Chambers 7:00 pm For information related to accessibility requirements please contact: Council & Committee Coordinator 905.420.4611 clerks@pickering.ca Pickering, set out in Attachment 1, subject to minor revisions acceptable to the Director, Community Services and the Director, Corporate Services & City Solicitor; and, 4. That the appropriate officials of the City of Pickering be authorized to take the necessary actions as indicated in this report. 9.6 Director, Community Services, Report CS 24-24 456 Volunteer Program 2023 Activities Update and Volunteer Policy Revisions Recommendation: 1. That Report CS 24-24, regarding the City of Pickering Volunteer Program 2023 Activities Update, be received; 2. That Council endorse the revisions in CUL 080 The Volunteer Policy, as set out in Attachment 2 to this report, subject to minor revisions acceptable to the Director, Community Services; and, 3. That the appropriate officials of the City of Pickering be authorized to take the necessary actions as indicated in this report. 9.7 Director, Community Services, Report CS 25-24 473 City Property Naming - John E. Anderson Recommendation: 1. That Report CS 25-24 regarding the City Property Naming in honour of John E. Anderson be received; 2. That staff be directed to explore the naming of the Exhibit Gallery in the Pickering Heritage & Community Centre as the John E. Anderson Exhibit Gallery subject to undertaking the work outlined in the City Property Naming Procedure (ADM 110-006) and report back with the final recommendations in Q4 2024; 3. That Council grant staff the authority to solicit public comment on the proposed name, as set out in Section 03.02 of City Property Naming Procedure (ADM 110-006); and, Council Meeting Agenda September 23, 2024 Hybrid Electronic Meeting Council Chambers 7:00 pm For information related to accessibility requirements please contact: Council & Committee Coordinator 905.420.4611 clerks@pickering.ca 4. That the appropriate City of Pickering officials be authorized to take the necessary actions as indicated in this report. 9.8 Director, Community Services, Report CS 26-24 476 City Property Naming - Wayne Arthurs Recommendation: 1. That Report CS 26-24 regarding the City Property Naming in honour of Wayne Arthurs be received; 2. That staff be directed to explore the naming of the gymnasium in the future Seaton Recreation Complex & Library as the Wayne Arthurs Gymnasium subject to undertaking the work outlined in City Property Naming Procedure (ADM 110-006) and report back with the final recommendations in Q2 2025; 3. That Council grant staff the authority to solicit public comment on the proposed name, as set out in Section 03.02 of City Property Naming Procedure (ADM 110-006); and, 4. That the appropriate City of Pickering officials be authorized to take the necessary actions as indicated in this report. 9.9 Director, Community Services, Report CS 27-24 479 Indoor Pickleball Facility - Update Recommendation: That Report CS 27-24 regarding an update on Indoor Pickleball facilities be received for information. 9.10 Director, Engineering Services, Report ENG 13-24 486 Pine Creek Erosion Assessment Municipal Class Environmental Assessment Recommendation: Council Meeting Agenda September 23, 2024 Hybrid Electronic Meeting Council Chambers 7:00 pm For information related to accessibility requirements please contact: Council & Committee Coordinator 905.420.4611 clerks@pickering.ca 1. That Report ENG 13-24 regarding the Pine Creek Erosion Assessment Municipal Class Environmental Assessment be received; 2. That Council endorse the Pine Creek Erosion Assessment Municipal Class Environmental Assessment prepared by Aquafor Beech Limited, dated May 10, 2024, to be used by staff as a resource document for identifying and planning projects for Pine Creek rehabilitation in areas under the jurisdiction of the City of Pickering; 3. That the recommendations within the Pine Creek Erosion Assessment Municipal Class Environmental Assessment be implemented in a phased approach, subject to budget and further Council approval for the individual projects; and, 4. That the appropriate officials of the City of Pickering be authorized to take the necessary actions as indicated in this report. 9.11 Director, Engineering Services, Report ENG 14-24 660 Detailed Design for Radom Street Culverts Replacement Request for Proposal No. RFP2024-8 Recommendation: 1. That Request for Proposal No. RFP2024-8 submitted by Aquafor Beech Limited for Consulting and Professional Services for the Detailed Design for Radom Street Culverts Replacement in the amount of $140,261.25 (HST included) be accepted; 2. That the total gross project cost of $172,913.00 (HST included), including the fee amount and other associated costs, and the total net project cost of $155,714.00 (net of HST rebate) be approved; 3. That Council authorize the Director, Finance & Treasurer to finance the total net project cost of $155,714.00 as approved in the 2021 Roads Capital Budget to be funded by a transfer from the Road and Bridges Reserve Fund; and, 4. That the appropriate officials of the City of Pickering be authorized to take the necessary actions as indicated in this report. Council Meeting Agenda September 23, 2024 Hybrid Electronic Meeting Council Chambers 7:00 pm For information related to accessibility requirements please contact: Council & Committee Coordinator 905.420.4611 clerks@pickering.ca 9.12 Director, Engineering Services, Report ENG 16-24 665 Pickering City Centre Park Request for Proposal RGP2024-1 Recommendation: 1. That Request for Proposal No. RFP2024-1 for the Pickering City Centre Park - Design as submitted by MacLennan Jaunkalns Miller Architects Ltd., in the amount of $744,105.00 (HST included) be accepted; 2. That the total gross project cost of $862,778.00 (HST included), including the tendered amount, a contingency and other associated costs, and the total net project cost of $776,958.00 (net of HST rebate) be approved; 3. That Council authorize the Director, Finance & Treasurer to finance the total net project cost of $776,958.00 as follows: a) The sum of $388,479.00 available budget in capital project C10572.2409 as approved in the 2024 Parks Projects Capital Budget to be funded by a transfer of funds from the Casino Reserve; b) The sum of $388,479.00 available budget in capital project C10572.2409 as approved in the 2024 Parks Projects Capital Budget to be funded by a transfer of funds from the Development Charges Parks & Recreation Reserve Fund; and, 4. That the appropriate officials of the City of Pickering be authorized to take the necessary actions as indicated in this report. 9.13 Director, Engineering Services, Report ENG 17-24 672 Sideline 24 Hard Surfacing from Highway 407 to Whitevale Road - Request for Tender No. T2024-9 Recommendation: Council Meeting Agenda September 23, 2024 Hybrid Electronic Meeting Council Chambers 7:00 pm For information related to accessibility requirements please contact: Council & Committee Coordinator 905.420.4611 clerks@pickering.ca 1. That Request for Tender No. T2024-9 for Sideline 24 Hard Surfacing as submitted by IPAC Paving Limited in the total tendered amount of $501,457.28 (HST included) be accepted; 2. That the total gross project cost of $604,347.00 (HST included), including the tendered amount, contingency and other associated costs, and the total net project cost of $544,233.00 (net of HST rebate) be approved; 3. That Council authorize the Director, Finance & Treasurer to revise the funding source for this project by a transfer from the Building Faster Fund (BFF) Reserve Fund, subject to the Province’s approval of the project; a) If the Province does not approve the eligibility of BFF funding for this project, that Council authorize the Director, Finance & Treasurer to finance the project from its original approved funding source, by a transfer from the Roads & Bridges Reserve Fund; and, 4. That the appropriate officials of the City of Pickering be authorized to take the necessary actions as indicated in this report. 9.14 Director, Engineering Services, Report ENG 18-24 678 Proposed Community Safety Zone - West Shore Boulevard Recommendation: 1. That the attached draft by-law be enacted to amend Schedule “14” to By-law 6604/05 to provide for the regulation of Community Safety Zones on highways or parts of highways under the jurisdiction of The Corporation of the City of Pickering to provide for a Community Safety Zone on West Shore Boulevard, from Bayly Street to Beachpoint Promenade; and, 2. That the appropriate officials of the City of Pickering be authorized to take the necessary actions as indicated in this report. 9.15 Director, Engineering Services, Report ENG 19-24 689 Proposed All-way Stop Marshcourt Drive and Beechlawn Drive Council Meeting Agenda September 23, 2024 Hybrid Electronic Meeting Council Chambers 7:00 pm For information related to accessibility requirements please contact: Council & Committee Coordinator 905.420.4611 clerks@pickering.ca Recommendation: 1. That the attached draft by-law be enacted to amend Schedule “6” and Schedule “7” to By-law 6604/05 to provide for the regulation of stop signs on highways or parts of highways under the jurisdiction of The Corporation of the City of Pickering, specifically to address the proposed installation of an all-way stop control at the intersection of Marshcourt Drive and Beechlawn Drive; and, 2. That the appropriate officials of the City of Pickering be authorized to take the necessary actions as indicated in this report. 9.16 Director, Finance & Treasurer, Report FIN 16-24 695 2023 Building Permit Stabilization Reserve Fund Recommendation: It is recommended that Report FIN 16-24 from the Director, Finance & Treasurer regarding the 2022 Building Permit Stabilization Reserve Fund be received for information. 9.17 Director, Finance & Treasurer, Report FIN 17-24 698 Letters of Credit & Surety Bonds Acceptance Policies Recommendation: 1. That Report FIN 17-24 regarding the Letters of Credit (LC) and Surety Bonds Acceptance Policies be received; 2. That Council approve financial policies for the acceptance of Letters of Credit and Surety Bonds (FIN 100 and FIN 110), as set out in Attachment 1 and 2 to this report; and, 3. That the appropriate City of Pickering officials be authorized to take the necessary actions as indicated in this report. 9.18 Director, Finance & Treasurer, Report FIN 18-24 715 Building Faster Fund – 2024 Investment Plan Recommendation: Council Meeting Agenda September 23, 2024 Hybrid Electronic Meeting Council Chambers 7:00 pm For information related to accessibility requirements please contact: Council & Committee Coordinator 905.420.4611 clerks@pickering.ca 1. That Report FIN 18-24 regarding the Building Faster Fund grant from the Province of Ontario be received; 2. That Council authorize and approve the capital project listing in the report to be funded by the Building Faster Fund grant; and, 3. That the appropriate City of Pickering officials be given authority to take the necessary actions to give effect thereto. 9.19 Fire Chief, Report FIR 04-24 723 Funding Request for Fire Station Alerting Quotation No. LL-072224 Recommendation: 1. That Quotation LL-072224 for the sole source supply and installation under the Canoe Cooperative Purchasing of Fire Station alerting (Zetron™) services for Fire Stations 1, 2, 4, 5, and 6, submitted by Williams Communications in the amount of $189,475.00 (HST included) be accepted; 2. That the total gross project cost of $189,475.00 (HST included) and the total net project cost of $170,628.00 (net of HST rebate) be approved; 3. That Council authorize that the budget shortfall of $136,628.00 be approved with funding to be provided at the discretion of the Director Finance & Treasurer; and, 4. That the appropriate officials of the City of Pickering be authorized to take the necessary actions as indicated in this report. 10. New and Unfinished Business 10.1 Director, Corporate Services & City Solicitor, Report AS 01-24 169 Animal Sheltering Agreement Renewal for the Town of Whitchurch-Stouffville - Five-year Term Effective January 1, 2025 Recommendation: Council Meeting Agenda September 23, 2024 Hybrid Electronic Meeting Council Chambers 7:00 pm For information related to accessibility requirements please contact: Council & Committee Coordinator 905.420.4611 clerks@pickering.ca 1. That Report AS 01-24 regarding the Animal Sheltering Agreement Renewal be received; 2. That the Mayor and City Clerk be authorized to execute the Animal Sheltering Agreement Renewal with Whitchurch-Stouffville as set out in Attachment 1 to this report for a further 5-year term commencing January 1, 2025 and ending December 31, 2030, subject to such revisions as are acceptable to the Director, Corporate Services & City Solicitor or Associate Solicitor; and, 3. That appropriate City of Pickering officials be authorized to take the actions necessary to implement the recommendations in this report. 10.2 Director, Community Services, Report CS 29-24 187 Provincial Grant Funding of Municipal Capital Projects - Community Sport and Recreation Infrastructure Fund Recommendation: 1. That Report CS 29-24 regarding Provincial Grant Funding of Municipal Capital Projects be received; 2. That Council authorize staff to apply to the Community Sport and Recreation Infrastructure Fund – Stream 1: Repair and Rehabilitation for the replacement of community playgrounds; 3. That Council authorize staff to apply to the Community Sport and Recreation Infrastructure Fund – Stream 2: New Builds/Signature New Builds for the construction of the City Centre Park; 4. That a copy of this report be forwarded to Peter Bethlenfalvy, MPP, Pickering – Uxbridge; and, 5. That the appropriate officials of the City of Pickering be authorized to take necessary actions as indicated in this report. Council Meeting Agenda September 23, 2024 Hybrid Electronic Meeting Council Chambers 7:00 pm For information related to accessibility requirements please contact: Council & Committee Coordinator 905.420.4611 clerks@pickering.ca 10.3 Director, Community Services, Report CS 30-24 192 Federal Grant Funding of Municipal Capital Projects - Green & Inclusive Community Building Program Recommendation: 1. That Report CS 30-24 regarding the Federal Grant Funding of Municipal Capital Projects be received; 2. That Council authorize staff to apply to the Green & Inclusive Community Building Program: New Build Project for construction of the Seaton Recreation Complex & Library; 3. That Council authorize staff to apply to the Green & Inclusive Community Building Program: Medium Retrofit Project for the O’Brien Arena retrofit; 4. That a copy of this report be forwarded to Jennifer O’Connell, MP Pickering – Uxbridge; and, 5. That the appropriate officials of the City of Pickering be authorized to take necessary actions as indicated in this report. 10.4 Director, Engineering Services, Report ENG 21-24 196 Valley Plentiful Community Gardens Parking Area and Expansion - Request for Quotation No. Q2024-33 Recommendation: 1. That Request for Quotation No. Q2024-33 for the Valley Plentiful Community Gardens Parking Area and Expansion, submitted by 1108575 Ontario Ltd. (Kon-Strutt Construction), in the amount of $119,092.00 (net of HST rebate) or $132,245.76 (HST included) be accepted; 2. That the total gross project cost of $157,721.00 (HST included) for the Valley Plentiful Community Gardens Parking Area and Expansion, including the tendered amount, a contingency and other associated costs, and the total net project cost of $142,033.00 (net of HST rebate) be approved; Council Meeting Agenda September 23, 2024 Hybrid Electronic Meeting Council Chambers 7:00 pm For information related to accessibility requirements please contact: Council & Committee Coordinator 905.420.4611 clerks@pickering.ca 3. That Council authorize the Director, Finance & Treasurer to finance the total net project cost of $142,033.00 for the Valley Plentiful Community Gardens Parking Area and Expansion as follows: a) The sum of $100,000.00 available budget in capital project C10572.2406 as approved in the 2024 Parks Capital Budget be funded by a transfer of funds from the Sustainable Initiatives Reserve; b) The additional required sum of $42,033.00 be funded by the Rate Stabilization Reserve; and, 4. That the appropriate officials of the City of Pickering be authorized to take the necessary actions as indicated in this report. 10.5 Director, Operations, Report OPS 16-24 202 Additional Funds for Replacement of Existing Indoor Tennis Court Flooring at Chestnut Hill Developments Recreation Complex - Tender No. T2024-4 Recommendation: 1. That Report OPS 16-24 of the Director, Operations regarding Additional Funds for Tender No. T2024-4 for the Replacement of Existing Indoor Tennis Court Flooring at the Chestnut Hill Developments Recreation Complex be received; 2. That additional costs in the amount of $347,002.00 (net of HST rebate) over the original estimated project cost for T2024-4 (OPS 09-24) for Replacement of Existing Indoor Tennis Court Flooring at the Chestnut Hill Developments Recreation Complex resulting in a revised total net project cost of $1,176,244.00 (net of HST rebate) be approved; 3. That the Director, Finance & Treasurer be authorized to finance the additional net project cost of $347,002.00 as follows and approved in the 2024 Capital Budget: a) A transfer of $290,263.00 from the Casino Reserve; and, b) A transfer of $56,739.00 from the Tennis Reserve; and, Council Meeting Agenda September 23, 2024 Hybrid Electronic Meeting Council Chambers 7:00 pm For information related to accessibility requirements please contact: Council & Committee Coordinator 905.420.4611 clerks@pickering.ca 4. That the appropriate officials of the City of Pickering be authorized to take the necessary actions as indicated in the report. 10.6 Director, Operations, Report OPS 17-24 207 Fire Station 2 Renovations - RFP2024-11 Recommendation: 1. That RFP No. RFP2024-11 for Renovations to Fire Station 2 as submitted by Adeli Construction Management Inc. in the amount of $368,882.00 (HST excluded) be received; 2. That the total gross project cost of $659,222.00 (HST included), and the total net project cost of $593,650.00 (net of HST rebate) be approved; 3. That the Director, Finance & Treasurer be authorized to finance the net project cost of $593,650.00 as follows and approved in the 2017, 2018, 2022 and 2024 Capital Budgets: a) A transfer of $570,522.00 from the Facilities Reserve; b) A transfer of $23,128.00 from Property Taxes; and, 4. That the appropriate officials of the City of Pickering be authorized to take the necessary actions as indicated in the report. 11. Motions and Notice of Motions 11.1 Addressing Rat Infestations Moved by Councillor Pickles Seconded by Councillor Brenner WHEREAS, residents have been increasingly raising concerns regarding rats on their properties; Council Meeting Agenda September 23, 2024 Hybrid Electronic Meeting Council Chambers 7:00 pm For information related to accessibility requirements please contact: Council & Committee Coordinator 905.420.4611 clerks@pickering.ca And Whereas, the population of rats may be increasing due to warmer climate, development, the availability of food and habitat due to poor waste storage practices and poor property standards; And Whereas, the municipal role to address the rat infestation problem may involve different departments. For example, lower tier for property standards and upper tier for health inspections; Now therefore be it resolved, that the Council of The Corporation of the City of Pickering directs through the Office of the CAO: 1. That staff work with the development community in addressing rat related issues; 2. That staff further work with the Region of Durham Health Department to review the policies and practices of other municipalities, including Toronto and Ottawa; 3. That the City of Pickering work with the Region of Durham to develop public education packages, including rat prevention for residents; 4. That the City of Pickering investigate coordinating with the Region of Durham the training of Municipal Law Enforcement Officers and Health Inspectors to be available to inspect properties and provide advice to residents and businesses to address rat infestations; 5. That the Region of Durham Health Department be requested to review enforcement measures and fines under the Health Protection and Promotion Act to address the problem; and, 6. That a copy of this resolution be circulated to the Honourable Sylvia Jones, Minister of Health and Dr. Robert Kyle, Medical Officer of Health, Region of Durham. 12. By-laws 12.1 By-law 8129/24 Being a by-law to repeal By-law #6166/03, a by-law for establishing policies regarding public notification requirements under the Municipal Council Meeting Agenda September 23, 2024 Hybrid Electronic Meeting Council Chambers 7:00 pm For information related to accessibility requirements please contact: Council & Committee Coordinator 905.420.4611 clerks@pickering.ca Act, 2001. [Refer to Item 4.3 Report CLK 04-24, page 351 of the Executive Committee Agenda] 12.2 By-law 8130/24 Being a by-law to amend By-law 6604/05 providing for the regulating of traffic and parking, standing and stopping on highways or parts of highways under the jurisdiction of the City of Pickering and on private and municipal property. [Refer to Item 4.14 Report ENG 18-24, page 678 of the Executive Committee Agenda] 12.3 By-law 8131/24 Being a by-law to amend By-law 6604/05 providing for the regulating of traffic and parking, standing and stopping on highways or parts of highways under the jurisdiction of the City of Pickering and on private and municipal property. [Refer to Item 4.15 Report ENG 19-24, page 689 of the Executive Committee Agenda] 12.4 By-law 8132/24 212 Being a by-law to appoint Christopher Adams and Jackson Colquhoun as Municipal Law Enforcement Officers for the purpose of enforcing the by-laws of the Corporation of the City of Pickering. 12.5 By-law 8133/24 214 Being a by-law to name Part of Lot 15, Concession 1 Pickering; designated as Part 10, Plan 40R-32680. (Porsche Drive) 12.6 By-law 8134/24 217 Being a By-law to adopt Amendment 48 to the Official Plan for the City of Pickering (OPA 20-001/P). (Brock Road Duffins Forest Inc., 2055 Brock Road) By-law approved by Ontario Land Tribunal (Case No. OLT-23-000498). No action required. By-law being assigned a number for record-keeping purposes in accordance with the Tribunal Order. Council Meeting Agenda September 23, 2024 Hybrid Electronic Meeting Council Chambers 7:00 pm For information related to accessibility requirements please contact: Council & Committee Coordinator 905.420.4611 clerks@pickering.ca 12.6 By-law 8135/24 300 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, Part of Lot 18, Concession 2 South, Now Parts 1 to 12 , 40R-28897, City of Pickering (A 05/20). (Brock Road Duffins Forest Inc., 2055 Brock Road) By-law approved by Ontario Land Tribunal (Case No. OLT-23-000498). No action required. By-law being assigned a number for record-keeping purposes in accordance with the Tribunal Order. 13.Regional Councillor Updates 14.Other Business 15.Confirmatory By-law 16.Adjournment Council Meeting Minutes June 24, 2024 Hybrid Electronic Meeting Council Chambers 7:00 pm Present: Mayor Kevin Ashe Councillors: M. Brenner S. Butt L. CookM. NagyD. Pickles L. Robinson Also Present: M. Carpino -Chief Administrative Officer K. Bentley -Director, City Development & CBO P. Bigioni -Director, Corporate Services & City Solicitor S. Boyd -Fire Chief L. Gibbs -Director, Community Services B. Duffield -Director, Operations J. Flowers -CEO & Director of Public Libraries, Pickering Public Library R. Holborn -Director, Engineering Services F. Jadoon -Director, Economic Development & Strategic Projects S. Karwowski -Director, Finance & Treasurer S. Cassel -City Clerk N. Robinson -Deputy Fire Chief C. Rose -Chief Planner M. Guinto -Division Head, Public Affairs & Corporate Communication V. Plouffe -Division Head, Operations Services L. Arshad -Manager, Economic Development & Marketing F. Patel -Strategic Initiatives & Corporate Priorities Advisor U. Malik -Senior Officer, Economic Development & Strategic Projects C.Redmond -(Acting) Deputy Clerk 1.Call to Order/Roll Call The City Clerk certified that all Members of Council were present and participating in-person. 2.Moment of Reflection Mayor Ashe called for a silent moment of reflection. - 1 - Council Meeting Minutes June 24, 2024 Hybrid Electronic Meeting Council Chambers 7:00 pm 3. Indigenous Land Acknowledgment Statement Mayor Ashe read the Indigenous Land Acknowledgment Statement. 4. Disclosure of Interest No disclosures of interest were noted. Mayor Ashe read a statement to the gallery that in accordance with the City’s Procedure By-law, meeting attendees may not record any portion of the meeting and may not take photographs unless they have been granted permission by Two-Thirds majority of Committee. 5. Adoption of Minutes Resolution # 504/24 Moved by Councillor Butt Seconded by Councillor Cook Special Council Minutes, May 27, 2024 Council Minutes, May 27, 2024 Executive Committee Minutes, June 10, 2024 Special Council Minutes, June 10, 2024 Carried 6. Presentations 6.1 Mayor Kevin Ashe Stephen Boyd, Fire Chief Re: Recognition of Officer Jesse Beaudrow, Pickering Fire Services for receiving the Ontario Medal for Firefighter Bravery Mayor Ashe provided remarks regarding Officer Beaudrow’s courage in responding to the scene of a collision where he risked his life to save others. Mayor Ashe advised that for his bravery, Mr. Beaudrow was presented the Ontario Medal for Firefighter Bravery by the Lieutenant Governor of Ontario on Tuesday, June 18, 2024, at a ceremony held at the Royal Ontario Museum. Mayor Ashe and Chief Stephen Boyd presented Mr. Beaudrow with a Certificate and City pin to recognize and congratulate him for his valiant efforts. 7. Delegations Resolution # 505/24 - 2 - Council Meeting Minutes June 24, 2024 Hybrid Electronic Meeting Council Chambers 7:00 pm Moved by Councillor Cook Seconded by Councillor Brenner That Bruce Cowley, Pickering Resident, and Janine Lang, Consultant Delegation, KPMG LLP, be permitted to delegate in accordance with Section 8.01(c) and (h) of the Procedure By-law. Carried on a Two-Thirds Vote 7.1 Sarah Sheehy, Chair, Pickering Public Library Board Akeem Maginley, Vice-Chair, Pickering Public Library Board Re: 2024 - 2028 Pickering Public Library Strategic Plan and Branding Update Sarah Sheehy, Chair, Pickering Public Library Board and Akeem Maginley, Vice- Chair, Pickering Public Library Board, appeared before Council and through the aid of a PowerPoint presentation provided an overview of the 2024-2028 Pickering Public Library Strategic Plan and Branding Update. Ms. Sheehy advised that the Library Board undertook a comprehensive strategic planning process every four years that involved widespread community engagement. She noted that the new Strategic Plan would allow the Library Board and Library leadership to move forward strategically to ensure that the community was able to hold the Library accountable to its plans and goals. Ms. Sheehy spoke to the details and results of the community engagement process, and discussed the Library’s vision, missions and values. Mr. Maginley, Vice-Chair, Pickering Public Library spoke to the Library’s four Strategic Priorities, and commented that what they heard from the community was that the library was a vital learning hub, that it should continue to improve library spaces so they are welcoming, inclusive and safe places that promoted civic engagement, and that the library was a dynamic organization that adapted in response to community interests. Mr. Maginley concluded that ideas, community, possibilities, and futures were powerful words and that they were excited to bring to life a Pickering that grows and thrives together. 7.2 Susan Philips, Pickering Resident John Philips, Pickering Resident Re: Report CS 15-24 Draft Recreation & Parks – Ten Year Plan and Arena Strategy Susan Philips and John Philips, Pickering Residents, appeared before Council to speak to Report CS 15-24. Through the aid of a PowerPoint presentation, Ms. Philips asked Council to vote for an amendment to the draft Master Plan to remove all recommendations to repurpose one racquetball court and emphasized the need for two permanent courts. - 3 - Council Meeting Minutes June 24, 2024 Hybrid Electronic Meeting Council Chambers 7:00 pm Mr. Phillips spoke to the health benefits of racquetball and handball, and discussed the various community events, programs and charities they were involved with. Ms. Phillips stated that although there had been a decline in membership, that there had been an increase in court usage, and that the usage would continue to increase with the growth of the Seaton community. Mr. Phillips commented that they attended stakeholder meetings where they felt that racquetball and handball were not appropriately considered. He stated that the monitoring timeframe outlined in the Report was not an accurate representation as the courts were closed during the pandemic. Ms. Phillips referred to letters of support they received from a number of organizations. She stated that one court was not enough due to the number of clinics and tournaments they host. She concluded by discussing the reasons why two courts were needed and encouraged Council to consider the amendment. Brief discussion ensued between Members of Council and Ms. Phillips and Mr. Phillips regarding: • whether they would be supportive of a multi-purpose court; • whether both racquetball and handball could use the same court without any modifications and how they would cope during tournaments if they had only one court; and, • how racquetball and handball participation would increase with the future growth of Pickering. 7.3 Matt Bentley, Pickering Resident Re: Report CS 15-24 Draft Recreation & Parks – Ten Year Plan and Arena Strategy Matt Bentley, Pickering Resident, appeared before Council to speak to Report CS 15-24. Through the aid of a PowerPoint presentation, Mr. Bentley spoke to his concerns with the demolition of the outdoor rink in Claremont and requested that Council combine the proposed playground relocation in Claremont with the Council approved reconstruction of the outdoor rink to minimize disruption to the community. He also requested that staff engage Claremont and North Pickering residents on the plans for the implementation of the Claremont Park Master Plan that was approved by Council in 2018. He commented that since that time he had seen the outdoor rink fall into disrepair and noted that other projects in the Plan were still outstanding. Mr. Bentley discussed what he heard at the public consultation including covering the rink, and a year-round ice pad. He stated that the need for the rink was included in the 10-year plan and commented that the rink would serve the growing community. He concluded by asking Council to combine - 4 - Council Meeting Minutes June 24, 2024 Hybrid Electronic Meeting Council Chambers 7:00 pm the playground reconstruction and rink projects and to accept the recommendations put forward from the consultant related to arenas. It was the consensus of Council to recess. Council recessed at 7:43 p.m. and reconvened at 7:49 p.m. 7.4 James Grundy, Pickering Resident Nicholas Zamora, Pickering Resident Re: Report CS 15-24 Draft Recreation & Parks – Ten Year Plan and Arena Strategy James Grundy, Pickering Resident, and Nicholas Zamora, Pickering Resident appeared before Council to discuss Report CS 15-24. Mr. Zamora advised that the purpose of their delegation was to ensure that Greenwood residents be involved in the planning process. He asked that Council ensure that the Master Plan for the Greenwood Community Centre was included into draft Recreation & Parks – Ten Year Plan and Arena Strategy. Mr. Zamora spoke to the history of the Greenwood Community Centre and how much the facility meant to the community. Mr. Grundy advised that the community had provided comments on the design of the park with an objective to enhance the facility and incorporate elements of their vision of Greenwood as a cultural and natural heritage hub for Pickering. He commented that they would like to see Council consider a facility similar to the Discovery Pavilion in Ajax because of its diverse uses and to consider other options such as outdoor exercise equipment and walking paths. Mr. Grundy noted that any reduction in the use of the park was due to the facilities not being redeveloped to keep up with modern interests, and as a result, residents had no choice but to visit other locations. He commented that he would like to see one of the courts reconfigured for pickleball. He concluded by stating that in the 19 years he has lived in Greenwood, he has seen the library and now the community centre taken away. Brief discussion ensued between Members of Council, Mr. Grundy and Mr. Zamora regarding the ongoing consultation process and their commitment to participate in the planning process. 7.5 Iain Donnell, Donnell Law Group Chris Uchiyama, Principal, LHC Heritage Planning & Archaeology Inc. Graham Clarke, Consulting Engineer, Clarke Engineering Re: Report PLN 22-24 Notice of Objection to Part IV Designation of 301 Kingston Road - 5 - Council Meeting Minutes June 24, 2024 Hybrid Electronic Meeting Council Chambers 7:00 pm Iain Donnell, Donnell Law Group, appeared before Council to speak to Report PLN 22-24. Mr. Donnell advised that Mr. Saki could not be in attendance at the meeting and that he was present as his representative. He stated that Mr. Saki wanted to reaffirm that they were committed to including some sort of heritage recognition on the property. Mr. Donnell asked Council to consider not designating the property which would grant the demolition permit. He advised that they had two visits to the Planning Department since the last Council meeting and had been doing everything they could to engage Council and Planning staff. He concluded by asking Council to reconsider the designation. A question and answer period ensued between Members of Council, Mr. Donnell, and staff regarding: • whether the property owner would be agreeable to enter into an agreement to ensure that any new application would include recognition of the historical significance of the property; • that the owner had agreed to do something to recognize the heritage of the property and that he stood by his words; • that the owner would be agreeable to input from the City; and, • the parts of the home that were considered heritage attributes, and if the attributes were deemed to be limited in nature. 7.6 Bruce Cowley, Pickering Resident Re: Corr. 17-24 Council Request to OHRC Bruce Cowley, Pickering Resident, appeared before Council to speak to Corr. 17-24 Council Request to OHRC that was part of the May 27, 2024 Council Meeting Agenda. Mr. Cowley advised that during his May 27th delegation regarding the Ontario Human Rights Commission (OHRC) letter, he expressed his disappointment over their decision against a public inquiry but acknowledged their commitment to monitor developments. He commented that the OHRC confirmed Council's compliance with legislation and emphasized the importance of supporting human rights principles. He stated that during his presentation on May 27th, accusations were made against him which he refuted and outlined his stance on his previous statements that alleged that Councillor Robinson spread bigotry towards the LGBTQIA+ community through posts, tweets, and podcasts. He noted that when Councillor Robinson shared content without comment it could be seen as tacitly endorsing it, potentially spreading bigotry even if not explicitly stating so, and spoke to a number of examples where this occurred with Councillor Robinson. Mr. Cowley stated that the examples underscored the need for vigilance in public discourse and adherence to legal standards, and that as a taxpayer, he was concerned about potential liabilities the City might face due to the actions of Councillor Robinson. He commented that holding municipalities liable for the actions of their elected officials could occur in certain circumstances when it - 6 - Council Meeting Minutes June 24, 2024 Hybrid Electronic Meeting Council Chambers 7:00 pm appeared the action occurred in the process of performing their public duties, and that he was confident the City could defend itself against such a claim. He concluded by stating that it was imperative that the City continue upholding human rights principles, combat bigotry, and suggested that the City consider mandatory training for its elected officials. 7.7 Janine Lang, Consultant Delegation, KPMG LLP Re: Report IT 01-24 Janine Lang, Consultant Delegation appeared before Council via electronic connection and staff advised that she was available for questions if required. Resolution # 506/24 Moved by Councillor Pickles Seconded by Councillor Cook That the order of the agenda be changed to hear Item 9.1, Report, IT 01-24 as the next item of business. Carried 9. Report EC 06-24 of the Executive Committee held on June 10, 2024 9.1 Director, Corporate Services & City Solicitor, Report IT 01-24 Re: IT Capability Assessment Resolution # 507/24 Moved by Councillor Pickles Seconded by Councillor Cook 1. That Council endorse the IT Capability Assessment dated June 10, 2024 set out in Attachment 1; 2. That staff be directed to incorporate the recommendations of the IT Capability Assessment into future planning and budgeting processes for the City of Pickering; and, 3. That appropriate City officials be authorized to take the actions necessary to implement the Recommendations in this report. Carried on a Recorded Vote as Follows: Yes: Councillor Brenner No: Councillor Robinson - 7 - Council Meeting Minutes June 24, 2024 Hybrid Electronic Meeting Council Chambers 7:00 pm Councillor Butt Councillor Cook Councillor Nagy Councillor Pickles Mayor Ashe 8. Correspondence 8.1 Corr. 18-24 Nicole Martin, CAO/Clerk, Town of Amaranth Re: Resolution on Water Testing Services for Private Drinking Water Brief discussion ensued regarding the importance of continuing free provincial water testing services for private drinking water. Resolution # 508/24 Moved by Councillor Butt Seconded by Councillor Brenner Recommendation: 1. That Corr. 18-24 from Nicole Martin, CAO/Clerk, Town of Amaranth, dated May 16, 2024, regarding Resolution on Water Testing Services for Private Drinking Water, be received and endorsed; and, 2. That a copy of this resolution be forwarded to the Honourable Sylvia Jones, Minister of Health, the Honourable Andrea Khanjin, Minister of Environment, Conservation and Parks, the Honourable Peter Bethlenfalvy, M.P.P. Pickering-Uxbridge, Durham Region Public Health, and all Ontario municipalities. Carried 8.2 Corr. 19-24 Stephen Boyd, Fire Chief, City of Pickering Re: Gems for Gems Hope’s Cradle Safe Surrender Program Project Update Chief Boyd appeared before Council to advise that the project had been endorsed financially in November 2023 but since then they received information from the Durham Regional Police Service and Children’s Aid Society of Durham Region that they were unable to enter into memorandums of understanding with respect to the Hopes Cradle project and as a result the City would not go ahead with the project. - 8 - Council Meeting Minutes June 24, 2024 Hybrid Electronic Meeting Council Chambers 7:00 pm Brief discussion ensued regarding the initial support for the program and the recent developments that led to the decision to not take any further action on the matter at this time. Resolution # 509/24 Moved by Councillor Pickles Seconded by Councillor Butt Recommendation: That Corr. 19-24 from Stephen Boyd, Fire Chief, City of Pickering, dated May 10, 2024, regarding Gems for Gems Hope’s Cradle Safe Surrender Program Project Update, be received. Carried on a Recorded Vote as Follows: Yes: Councillor Brenner Councillor Butt Councillor Cook Councillor Nagy Councillor Pickles Mayor Ashe No: Councillor Robinson 8.3 Corr. 20-24 Jason McWilliam, Manager of Legislative Services/Deputy Clerk, Town of Ajax Re: Mental Health and Suicide Awareness through Operation White Heart Brief discussion ensued regarding whether funds to support mental health could be more effectively utilized by investing in tangible mental health programs. Resolution # 510/24 Moved by Councillor Butt Seconded by Councillor Cook Recommendation: That Corr. 20-24 from Jason McWilliam, Manager of Legislative Services/Deputy Clerk, Town of Ajax, dated May 23, 2024, regarding Mental Health and Suicide Awareness through Operation White Heart, be received and endorsed. Carried - 9 - Council Meeting Minutes June 24, 2024 Hybrid Electronic Meeting Council Chambers 7:00 pm 8.4 Corr. 21-24 Kyle Bentley, Director, City Development & CBO, City of Pickering Re: Brougham Community Hall Brief discussion ensued between Members of Council regarding: • the $85,000 needed to bring Brougham Hall back into condition acceptable to Transport Canada was for information only and that the Report did not state that the City would return Brougham Hall back to Transport Canada; • how the cost figure of $85,000 was determined, and clarification that the $730,000 for repairing maintenance issues was needed order for the building to be functionable; • timing on when the matter would be brought back before Council to review the options and if funds would be included in the 2025 Budget; • clarification that the building is currently owned by the Federal Government but that the City leases and manages the site; • that the Federal Government had designated Brougham Hall as a heritage property; • the City of Pickering and Transport Canada’s financial responsibilities for the property; and, • whether the condition of the sub flooring was unsafe. Resolution # 511/24 Moved by Councillor Pickles Seconded by Councillor Cook Recommendation: That Corr. 21-24 from Kyle Bentley, Director, City Development & CBO, City of Pickering, dated June 6, 2024, regarding Brougham Community Hall be received for information. Carried 8.5 Corr. 22-24 Kelly LaRocca, Chief, Mississaugas of Scugog Island First Nation Re: Pickering Mayor’s Request to Revoke O. Reg. 102/72 Brief discussion ensued between Members of Council regarding: • the importance of respecting the consultation process with the Mississaugas of Scugog Island First Nation (MSIFN); • ensuring that MSIFN is consulted before moving forward with any requests to the Minister or for any MZO’s; and, - 10 - Council Meeting Minutes June 24, 2024 Hybrid Electronic Meeting Council Chambers 7:00 pm • clarification that the Consultation and Engagement Agreement that was signed by the Mayor and the Chief was a continuum of discussions they had in regards to the Northeast Pickering Secondary Plan, and that the proposed Official Plan approved by Council, and Regional Council, as well as the MZO or the revocation of the MZO, was a step towards that. Resolution # 512/24 Moved by Councillor Pickles Seconded by Councillor Brenner Recommendation: That Corr. 22-24 from Kelly LaRocca, Chief, Mississaugas of Scugog Island First Nation, dated June 10, 2024, regarding Pickering Mayor’s Request to Revoke O. Reg. 102/72, be received. Carried 8.6 Corr. 23-24 Watson & Associates Economists Limited Re: Assessment of Bill 185, Cutting Red Tape to Build More Homes Act, 2024 Discussion ensued between Members of Council regarding: • how the Bill 185 reversal of the amendment from Bill 23 would impact the funding of master plans and development charge calculations; • how the reduction of the development rate timeline from two years to 18 months under Bill 185, impacted the financial stability and planning for infrastructure development associated with the site plan of the zoning by-law amendments; • what considerations had been made regarding the potential impact for municipalities to use websites instead of newspapers to facilitate public notices and what the impact would be; • that with the implementation of the affordable residential unit exemptions, how Bill 185 would ensure that municipalities could still meet financial obligations while promoting affordable housing initiatives; and, • that allowances for municipalities to make minor amendments to the Development Charges by-laws without background studies or public meetings was not transparent and lacked community input. Resolution # 513/24 Moved by Councillor Pickles Seconded by Councillor Nagy - 11 - Council Meeting Minutes June 24, 2024 Hybrid Electronic Meeting Council Chambers 7:00 pm Recommendation: That Corr. 23-24 from Watson & Associates Economists Limited, dated April 11, 2024, regarding Assessment of Bill 185, Cutting Red Tape to Build More Homes Act, 2024, be received. Carried 9. Report EC 06-24 of the Executive Committee held on June 10, 2024 9.2 Director, Community Services, Report CS 15-24 Draft Recreation & Parks – Ten Year Plan and Arena Strategy A question and answer period ensued between Members of Council and staff regarding: • ensuring that consultation with the interested members of the community regarding the Greenwood Master Plan would continue; • advising Council of any community-based events that staff were consulting on; • the ongoing implementation of the Master Plan and clarification that the timing of the playground relocation was still scheduled for 2024; • whether the playground park project would be delayed because of the multi-purpose pad project; • whether during the consultation process this fall, that staff were committed to engaging the community on the activities they would like to see for the multi-purpose pad; • the timing of when racquetball courts would be implemented; • the effect that the changing demographics and the future growth of Pickering had on facility use; and, • that a consultation process with the community would take place on what activities they would like to see for the multi-purpose pad, and for all detailed design components of the Master Plan going forward. Resolution # 514/24 Moved by Councillor Pickles Seconded by Councillor Brenner 1. That Council receive the draft Recreation & Parks – Ten Year Plan, as set out in Attachment 1, for information, and that any consideration to permanently repurpose the Racquet Ball Courts not be actioned until further meaningful discussions are undertaken with the Racquet Ball Club on its growth plan including the impact of intensification and growth targets in the City of Pickering; - 12 - Council Meeting Minutes June 24, 2024 Hybrid Electronic Meeting Council Chambers 7:00 pm 2. That Council endorse the Arena Strategy, as set out in Attachment 2, save and except that the decision to decommission Don Beer Arena be subject to a needs analysis; and, 3. That the appropriate officials of the City of Pickering be authorized to take the necessary actions as indicated in this report. Carried Unanimously on a Recorded Vote 9.4 Director, Director, Community Services, Report CS 14-24 2024 Community Events Request to Permit Esplanade Park Council Decision: 1. That Council authorize staff to issue a park permit for the use of Esplanade Park by Jennifer O'Connell, MP Pickering-Uxbridge on Friday, July 19, 2024, for the purpose of hosting a free movie in the park to the general public, subject to terms and conditions satisfactory to the Director, Community Services and the Chief Administrative Officer; and, 2. That the appropriate officials of the City of Pickering be authorized to take the necessary action to give effect hereto. 9.8 Director, Economic Development & Strategic Projects, Report ECD 02-24 Family Physician Recruitment Program Council Decision: 1. That Council approve the Memorandum of Understanding (Attachment 2) among the City of Pickering, the Regional Municipality of Durham and all Durham local area municipalities to fund, create, and deliver a family physician recruitment program in Durham, dated May 2024; 2. That the Mayor and the City Clerk be authorized to execute the Memorandum of Understanding; and, 3. That the appropriate City of Pickering officials be authorized to take the necessary actions as indicated in this report. 9.11 Director, Engineering Services, Report ENG 11-24 Fiddlers Court Parking Restrictions Council Decision: - 13 - Council Meeting Minutes June 24, 2024 Hybrid Electronic Meeting Council Chambers 7:00 pm 1. That the attached draft by-law be enacted to amend Schedule “2”, No Parking of Traffic and Parking By-law 6604/05 to provide for the regulation of parking restrictions on highways or parts of highways under the jurisdiction of The Corporation of the City of Pickering. The amendments specifically provide for parking restrictions on Fiddlers Court; and, 2. That the appropriate officials of the City of Pickering be authorized to take the necessary actions as indicated in this report. 9.12 Director, Engineering Services, Report ENG 12-24 Diana, Princess of Wales Park Dedicated Outdoor Pickleball Facility Council Decision: That Report ENG 12-24 providing an update regarding negotiations with Hydro One Networks Inc. for a dedicated outdoor pickleball facility in Diana, Princess of Wales Park be received for information. 9.17 Director, City Development & CBO, Report SUS 06-24 Enhanced Blue Box and Green Bin Availability Council Decision: That Report SUS 06-24, providing an update on Enhanced Blue Box and Green Bin Availability, be received for information. Resolution # 515/24 Moved by Councillor Pickles Seconded by Councill Brenner That Report EC 06-24 of the Executive Committee Meeting held on June 10, 2024 be adopted save and except, Item 9.3, CAO 04-24, Item 9.5, CS 16-24, Item 9.6, CS 17-24, Item 9.7, CS 18-24, Item 9.9, ENG 08-24, Item 9.10, ENG 10-24, Item 9.13, OPS 11-24, Item 9.14, OPS 12-24, Item 9.15, PLN 19-24, Item 9.16, PLN 20-24, Item 9.18, SUS 07-24, and Item 9.19, SUS 08-24. Carried 9.3 Chief Administrative Officer, Report CAO 04-24 Advertising Standards Policy - 14 - Council Meeting Minutes June 24, 2024 Hybrid Electronic Meeting Council Chambers 7:00 pm A question and answer period ensued between Members of Council and staff regarding: • comparison of similar policies and best practices across the Region and the inclusion of an accessibility section; • how the City could give itself the authority to determine what content was appropriate; • that the City would not advertise in mediums of certain content and how this aligned with free speech; • whether Councillors could advertise in any paper they chose through their budget and confirmation that advertising in newspapers was removed from the Council Compensation Policy, but that advertising was permitted through other forms of communications such as newsletters, websites and social media; • that the policy supports the principles of the Corporate Strategic Plan and the Equity, Diversity and Inclusion Strategy; • how the policy would affect major publications that publish opinion pieces; and, • what measures were in place to ensure decisions regarding publications were made fairly. Resolution #516/24 Moved by Councillor Brenner Seconded by Councillor Nagy 1. That Council approve the Advertising Standards Policy as set out in Attachment 1 to this Report, save and except that a new Section 02, titled “Accessibility”, be added with the following provisions, and the remaining sections of the Policy be renumbered accordingly: The City of Pickering is committed to providing services as set out in the Accessibility for Ontarians with Disabilities Act, 2005. City placed advertising is to follow the best practices outlined in the Writing Guide, including but not limited to: • Using plain language; and • Choosing sans-serif fonts and fonts that are easily readable; and, 2. That the appropriate officials of the City of Pickering be authorized to take the necessary actions as indicated in this report. Carried on a Recorded Vote as Follows: - 15 - Council Meeting Minutes June 24, 2024 Hybrid Electronic Meeting Council Chambers 7:00 pm Yes: Councillor Brenner Councillor Butt Councillor Cook Councillor Nagy Councillor Pickles Mayor Ashe No: Councillor Robinson 9.5 Director, Community Services, Report CS 16-24 Recommendation for a West Shore Community Safety Zone Community Safety & Well-Being Advisory Committee Brief discussion between Members of Council and staff regarding whether DRPS had been consulted with lowering the speed limit in the area. Resolution # 517/24 Moved by Councillor Brenner Seconded by Councillor Cook 1. That Report CS 16-24 regarding Community Safety & Well-Being Advisory Committee recommendation to designate West Shore Boulevard as a Community Safety Zone and to decrease the speed limit from West Shore Boulevard, south from Surf Avenue, up to and including Beachpoint Promenade be received; 2. That the request to designate West Shore Boulevard as a Community Safety Zone and to decrease the speed limit as noted above be referred to the Director, Engineering Services for investigation, and to report back in Q3 2024; and, 3. That the appropriate City of Pickering officials be authorized to take the necessary actions as indicated in this report. Carried 9.6 Director, Community Services, Report CS 17-24 Recognition of Paul White A question and answer period ensued between Members of Council and staff regarding: • concerns that recognizing individuals with public art could set a precedent in promoting favouritism, exclusivity, and resentment in the community; - 16 - Council Meeting Minutes June 24, 2024 Hybrid Electronic Meeting Council Chambers 7:00 pm • the volunteer recognition program process at the City; • confirmation that public art could include a number of different types of recognition; and, • that the request was initiated by the executive of the Fairport Beach Neigbourhood Association. Resolution # 518/24 Moved by Councillor Brenner Seconded by Councillor Cook 1. That Report CS 17-24, regarding the recognition of Paul White’s contribution to the community, be received; 2. That the Mayor be requested to include funding in the amount of $10,000 in the City’s 2025 Current Budget to enable staff to undertake a public art installation, to be selected pursuant to Public Art Policy CUL130 and funded from the Public Art Reserve; and, 3. That the appropriate City of Pickering officials be authorized to take the necessary actions as indicated in this report. Carried Unanimously on a Recorded Vote 9.7 Director, Community Services, Report CS 18-24 Sigrid Squire Commemoration in Bicentennial Garden A question and answer period ensued between Members of Council and staff regarding: • that the allocation of spending money on public art installations sets a precedent for fiscal irresponsibility when the community had more pressing needs; • the consideration of alternate ways to recognize members of the community; and, • timing when the commemoration would be completed. Resolution # 519/24 Moved by Councillor Butt Seconded by Councillor Brenner 1. That Report CS 18-24, regarding Sigrid Squire Commemoration in Bicentennial Garden, be received; - 17 - Council Meeting Minutes June 24, 2024 Hybrid Electronic Meeting Council Chambers 7:00 pm 2. That the Mayor be requested to include funding in the amount of $10,000 in the City’s 2025 Current Budget to enable staff to undertake a Commemorative Public Art Installation, to be funded from the Public Art Reserve; and, 3. That the appropriate City of Pickering officials be authorized to take the necessary actions as indicated in this report. Carried 9.9 Director, Engineering Services, Report ENG 08-24 Amendments to the Traffic and Parking By-law 6604/05 Proposed Parking Restrictions on Various Streets Resolution # 520/24 Moved by Councillor Pickles Seconded by Councillor Nagy Council Decision: 1. That the attached draft by-law be enacted to amend Schedule “2”, No Parking to By-law 6604/05 to provide for the regulation of parking restrictions on highways or parts of highways under the jurisdiction of The Corporation of the City of Pickering; and, 2. That the appropriate officials of the City of Pickering be authorized to take the necessary actions as indicated in this report. Carried 9.10 Director, Engineering Services, Report ENG 10-24 Weed Harvesting in Frenchman’s Bay - Waterfront Visionary Advisory Committee Brief discussion ensued between Members of Council and staff regarding how the City plans to keep Frenchman’s Bay open should the temperature continue to rise and without conducting a second cut of the weeds with staff confirming that weed growth had been less this year than in prior years. Resolution # 521/24 Moved by Councillor Cook Seconded by Councillor Pickles - 18 - Council Meeting Minutes June 24, 2024 Hybrid Electronic Meeting Council Chambers 7:00 pm That the recommendation from the Waterfront Visionary Advisory Committee for Council to reconsider the funding for a second cut of weeds in Frenchman’s Bay be received for information. Carried 9.13 Director, Operations, Report OPS 11-24 Supply & Delivery of Nine Midsize SUVs Quotation No. Q2024-18 Brief discussion ensued between Members of Council and staff regarding the number of vehicles the City had purchased this term and what the total cost was to date and how many vehicles had been repurposed. Resolution # 522/24 Moved by Councillor Butt Seconded by Councillor Cook 1. That Request for Quotation No. Q2024-18 submitted by Marigold Ford Lincoln Sales Ltd., in the amount of $312,039.00 (HST excluded) be accepted; 2. That the total gross project cost of $352,604.00 (HST included), and the total net project cost of $317,531.00 (net of HST rebate) be approved; 3. That Council authorize the Director, Finance & Treasurer to finance the total net project cost of $317,531.00 from the Vehicle Replacement Reserve as approved in the 2024 Capital Budget; and, 4. That the appropriate officials of the City of Pickering be authorized to take the necessary actions as indicated in this report. Carried 9.14 Director, Operations, Report OPS 12-24 Consulting Services for the Seaton Community Centre & Library - RFP2024-7 A question and answer period ensued between Members of Council and staff regarding: • the importance of moving forward on this project; • why the City was prioritizing north Pickering residents over south Pickering residents; - 19 - Council Meeting Minutes June 24, 2024 Hybrid Electronic Meeting Council Chambers 7:00 pm • whether the project costs included consultant fees; • whether growth targets for Seaton would be met to ensure there were enough property taxes to recover some of the funds for the project; • how spending on the new development would impact tax rates of existing residents and what measures were in place to prevent undue financial burdens; • how the City would address the concerns of existing residents that felt neglected due to the focus on the new and future developments in the Seaton; and, • that the facility would serve all residents of Pickering. Resolution # 523/24 Moved by Councillor Pickles Seconded by Councillor Brenner 1. That Request for Proposal No. RFP2024-7 for Consulting Services for the Seaton Community Centre & Library as submitted by Perkins + Will Canada Inc. in the amount of $7,150,000.00 (HST excluded) be received; 2. That the total gross project cost of $10,017,450.00 (HST included), and the total net project cost of $9,021,024.00 (net of HST rebate) be approved; 3. That the Director, Finance & Treasurer be authorized to finance the net project cost of $9,021,024.00 as approved in the 2020, 2021 and 2024 Capital Budgets and funded as follows: a) The sum of $6,898,430.00 from the DC - Parks & Recreation Reserve Fund; b) The sum of $225,526.00 from the Seaton Land Group FIA; c) The sum of $1,897,068.00 from the DC - Library Reserve Fund; 4. The Council direct the Chief Administrative Officer to provide operational and financial project updates based on the following schedule: December 2024, June 2025 and every six months thereafter until Substantial Performance of the project; 5. That staff be directed to proceed with the recommendations of the Recreation and Parks 10-Year Plan and Arena Strategy as the basis of design and amenities to be include in the Seaton Community Centre & Library, save and except that a refrigerated outdoor ice pad be considered - 20 - Council Meeting Minutes June 24, 2024 Hybrid Electronic Meeting Council Chambers 7:00 pm as an outdoor amenity which, if possible, be combined with the splash pad; and, 6. That the appropriate officials of the City of Pickering be authorized to take the necessary actions as indicated in the report. Carried 9.15 Director, City Development & CBO, Report PLN 19-24 Pickering Official Plan Review Proposal No. RFP2024-6 for Consulting Services for Public Engagement Brief discussion ensued regarding concerns with consulting costs in light of the City’s current debt load, that the consulting services would be funded from property taxes, and the lack of public engagement undertaken thus far in the process. Resolution # 524/24 Moved by Councillor Butt Seconded by Councillor Brenner 1. That Request for Proposal No. RFP2024-6 for Consulting Services for Public Engagement for the City of Pickering Official Plan Review, submitted by Land Use Research Associates, in the amount of $149,905.00 (excluding HST), be accepted; 2. That the total gross project cost of $169,392.65 (HST included) and the net project cost of $152,544.00 (net of HST rebate), be approved; 3. That Council authorize the Director, Finance & Treasurer to finance the net project cost of $152,544.00 as approved in the 2024 Current Budget as follows: a) The sum of $68,645.00 to be funded by a transfer from the Development Charge Reserve Fund – Growth Related Studies; b) The sum of $83,899.00 to be funded from Property Taxes; and, 4. That the appropriate officials of the City of Pickering be authorized to take such actions as necessary to give effect to this report. Carried on a Recorded Vote as Follows: - 21 - Council Meeting Minutes June 24, 2024 Hybrid Electronic Meeting Council Chambers 7:00 pm Yes: Councill Brenner Councillor Butt Councillor Cook Councillor Nagy Councillor Pickles Mayor Ashe No: Councillor Robinson 9.16 Director, City Development & CBO, Report PLN 20-24 Authorization to Execute a Memorandum of Understanding - Pre-Approval of Design Drawings for Detached Additional Dwelling Units - OPA 23-002P A question and answer period ensued between Members of Council and staff regarding: • whether the public had to choose one of the City’s designs for an additional dwelling unit; • how the Housing Accelerator Fund grant would be monitored to ensure transparency and accountability; • whether additional staffing would be required and if there had been any public consultation; • whether the residents of Whitby had been consulted on the Memorandum of Understanding; • whether homeowners would have to purchase design drawings, and if homeowners could use their own drawings; and, • clarification that there was no obligation to issue a permit without a stamp. Resolution # 525/24 Moved by Councillor Butt Seconded by Councillor Cook 1. That the Mayor and City Clerk be authorized to enter into a Memorandum of Understanding between the City of Pickering and the Town of Whitby, as set out in Attachment 1 to this report, for the sharing of resources to enable the preparation of pre-approved design drawings for detached Additional Dwelling Units, subject to minor revisions as may be required by the Director, Corporate Services & City Solicitor, the Director, City Development & CBO, and the Chief Administrative Officer; and, 2. That appropriate officials of the City of Pickering be authorized to take such action as is necessary to give effect to the recommendations in this report. - 22 - Council Meeting Minutes June 24, 2024 Hybrid Electronic Meeting Council Chambers 7:00 pm Carried 9.18 Director, City Development & CBO, Report SUS 07-24 Licence Extension with Infrastructure Ontario for Duffin Heights Plantings Resolution # 526/24 Moved by Councillor Pickles Seconded by Councillor Cook 1. That the Mayor and City Clerk be authorized to execute a Licence Extension and Amending Agreement with Ontario Infrastructure and Lands Corporation as set out in Attachment 1 to this report, subject to minor revisions as may be required by the Director, Corporate Services & City Solicitor, and/or Chief Administrative Officer; and, 2. That the appropriate officials of the City of Pickering be authorized to take the necessary actions as indicated in this report. Carried 9.19 Director, City Development & CBO, Report SUS 08-24 2023 Sustainable Year-in-Review Resolution # 527/24 Moved by Councillor Pickles Seconded by Councillor Cook That Report SUS 08-24, regarding the release of the 2023 Sustainable Pickering Year in Review, be received for information. Carried Resolution # 528/24 Moved by Councillor Brenner Seconded by Councillor Robinson That the order of the agenda be changed to hear Item 11.16, Report PLN 22-24 as the next item of business. Carried 11. Reports – New and Unfinished Business - 23 - Council Meeting Minutes June 24, 2024 Hybrid Electronic Meeting Council Chambers 7:00 pm 11.16 Director, City Development & CBO, Report PLN 22-24 Notice of Objection to Part IV Designation of 301 Kingston Road Brief discussion ensued between Members of Council and staff regarding: • the reasons for declining the objection, • the reasons to withdraw the Notice of Intention to Designate; and, • the heritage value of the property and the cost to return the heritage attributes of the building. Resolution # 529/24 Moved by Councillor Brenner Seconded by Councillor Robinson That the Notice of Intention to Designate 301 Kingston Road be withdrawn, that a Notice of Withdrawal be served to the Property owner, any persons who objected, and the Ontario Heritage Trust, and that a Notice of Withdrawal be published in the newspaper. Carried on a Recorded Vote as Follows: Yes: Councillor Brenner Councillor Robinson Councillor Pickles Mayor Ashe No: Councillor Butt Councillor Cook Councillor Nagy 10. Report PD 04-24 of the Planning & Development Committee held on June 10, 2024 10.1 Director, City Development & CBO, Report PLN 15-24 Part IV Designation under the Ontario Heritage Act The Percy House - 895 Wonder Drive (formerly 815 Highway 7) Council Decision: 1. That Council endorse the recommendations of the Heritage Pickering Advisory Committee, dated September 7, 2022, to designate 895 Wonder Drive (formerly 815 Highway 7) under Section 29, Part IV of the Ontario Heritage Act; 2. That Council direct staff to serve a Notice of Intention to Designate the property located at 895 Wonder Drive, known as the Percy House, as a property of cultural heritage value or interest, pursuant, to Section 29 of the - 24 - Council Meeting Minutes June 24, 2024 Hybrid Electronic Meeting Council Chambers 7:00 pm Ontario Heritage Act, included as Attachments 5 and 6 to Report PLN 15-24; 3. That, should no Notice of Objection be received by the Clerk within 30 days of the publication of the Notice of Intention to Designate, the Designation By-law for 895 Wonder Drive, included as Attachment 4 to Report PLN 15-24, be presented to Council for passing, and that staff be directed to carry out the notice requirements as prescribed under Section 29(8) of the Ontario Heritage Act; and, 4. That the appropriate officials of the City of Pickering be authorized to take such actions as necessary to give effect to this report. 10.3 Director, City Development & CBO, Report PLN 18-24 Bill 23: Priority Properties for Designation 401 Kingston Road and 1 Evelyn Avenue Council Decision: 1. That Council endorse the recommendations of the Heritage Pickering Advisory Committee, dated April 24, 2024, not to designate 401 Kingston Road and 1 Evelyn Avenue under Section 29, Part IV of the Ontario Heritage Act; 2. That Council approve the removal of the properties at 401 Kingston Road and 1 Evelyn Avenue from the City of Pickering Municipal Heritage Register; and, 3. That the appropriate officials of the City of Pickering be authorized to take such actions as necessary to give effect to this report. Resolution # 530/24 Moved by Councillor Pickles Seconded by Councillor Butt That Report PD 04-24 of the Planning & Development Committee Meeting held on June 10, 2024 be adopted, save and except Item 10.2, PLN 16-24 and Item 10.4, PLN 21-24. Carried 10.2 Director, City Development & CBO, Report PLN 16-24 Bill 23: Provincial Legislation Changes to the Ontario Heritage Act and Priority Properties for Designation - 25 - Council Meeting Minutes June 24, 2024 Hybrid Electronic Meeting Council Chambers 7:00 pm 1027-1031 Dunbarton Road Resolution # 531/24 Moved by Councillor Pickles Seconded by Councillor Robinson That 1027-1031 Dunbarton Road not be designated under Section 29, Part IV of the Ontario Heritage Act. Carried 10.4 Director, City Development & CBO, Report PLN 21-24 Official Plan Amendment Application OPA 23-001/P Zoning By-law Amendment Application A 02/23 Draft Plan of Subdivision SP-2023-01 Draft Plan of Condominium CP-2023-02 Liverpool Road Limited Partnership (607 & 609 Annland Street, 640 Liverpool Road & 1276, 1280, 1288, 1290, 1292 & 1294 Wharf Street) A question and answer period ensued between Members of Council and staff regarding: • concerns with increased traffic, speeding and safety in the area for pedestrians and cyclists, slower EMS response times, and parking and privacy issues; and, • the density of the development, the design of the development, and the live/work space that complimented the Nautical Village. Resolution # 532/24 Moved by Councillor Cook Seconded by Councillor Nagy - 26 - Council Meeting Minutes June 24, 2024 Hybrid Electronic Meeting Council Chambers 7:00 pm 1. That Official Plan Amendment Application OPA 23-001/P, submitted by Liverpool Road Limited Partnership, to re-designate the lands located on the southwest corner of Liverpool Road and Annland Street from “Urban Residential Areas – Low Density Areas” and “Open Space System – Marina Areas” to “Urban Residential Areas – Medium Density Areas” to facilitate a residential common element condominium development be approved, and that the draft by-law to adopt Amendment 51 to the Pickering Official Plan as set out in Appendix I to Report PLN 21-24 be forwarded to Council for enactment; 2. That Zoning By-law Amendment Application A 02/23, submitted by Liverpool Road Limited Partnership, to facilitate a residential common element condominium development consisting of a maximum of 51 townhouse units, 10 of which will contain commercial floorspace at-grade fronting Liverpool Road, be approved, and that the draft Zoning By-law Amendment, as set out in Appendix II to Report PLN 21-24, be finalized and forwarded to Council for enactment; and, 3. That Draft Plan of Subdivision Application SP-2023-01, submitted by Liverpool Road Limited Partnership, to establish a development block to facilitate a residential condominium development and a block for common amenity space, as shown in Attachment 5 to Report PLN 21-24, and the implementing conditions of approval, as set out in Appendix III, be endorsed. Carried on a Recorded Vote as Follows: Yes: Councillor Brenner Councillor Cook Councillor Nagy Councillor Pickles Mayor Ashe No: Councillor Robinson 11. Reports – New and Unfinished Business 11.1 Chief Administrative Officer, Report CAO 05-24 Pickering Heritage & Community Centre Project Update Tender No. T2023-12 – Milestone Report #1 Resolution # 533/24 Moved by Councillor Pickles Seconded by Councillor Brenner That Report CAO 05-24 be received for information. - 27 - Council Meeting Minutes June 24, 2024 Hybrid Electronic Meeting Council Chambers 7:00 pm Carried 11.2 Director, Community Services, Report CS 19-24 Remembrance Day Poppy Markers – Artist Selection Commission of Public Art Resolution # 534/24 Moved by Councillor Pickles Seconded by Councillor Brenner 1. That Council endorse that the commission of public art on the 11 light posts inside Esplanade Park in Pickering be awarded to Linfeng Zhou; 2. That Council authorize the Director, Finance & Treasurer to finance the net project cost of $32,004 to be funded by a transfer from the Public Art Reserve as approved in the 2024 Current Budget; 3. That the Mayor and the City Clerk be authorized to execute the Letter of Understanding, between Linfeng Zhou and the City of Pickering, set out in Attachment 1, subject to minor revisions acceptable to the Director, Community Services and the Director, Corporate Services & City Solicitor; and, 4. That the appropriate officials of the City of Pickering be authorized to take the necessary actions as indicated in this report. Carried 11.3 Director, Community Services, Report CS 20-24 Interim Program Space in Seaton Update Resolution # 535/24 Moved by Councillor Pickles Seconded by Councillor Brenner That Report CS 20-24, regarding Interim Program Space in Seaton Update, be received for information. Carried 11.4 Director, Community Services, Report CS 21-24 Indoor Pickleball - 28 - Council Meeting Minutes June 24, 2024 Hybrid Electronic Meeting Council Chambers 7:00 pm Pickering Soccer Centre Resolution # 536/24 Moved by Councillor Pickles Seconded by Councillor Brenner 1. That a Request for Quotation No. RFQQ2024-21 for Soccer Dome Floor replacement as submitted by Gym-Con Ltd. in the amount of $223,300.00 (HST excluded) be received; 2. That the total gross project cost of $277,562.00 (HST included) and the total net project cost of $249,953.00 (net of HST rebate) be approved; 3. That the Director, Finance & Treasurer be authorized to finance the net project cost of $249,953.00 as approved in the 2023 & 2024 Capital Budgets as follows: a) The sum of $188,920.00 available from the previously approved 2023 Capital Budget be increased to $199,953.00 to be funded from the Rate Stabilization Reserve; b) The sum of $50,000.00 to be funded from Property Taxes as approved in the 2024 Capital Budget; and, 4. That the appropriate officials of the City of Pickering be authorized to take the necessary actions as indicated in the report. Carried It was the consensus of Council to recess. Council recessed at 10:54 p.m. and reconvened at 11:03 p.m. Resolution # 537/24 Moved by Councillor Cook Seconded by Councillor Nagy That due to the remaining items of business on the agenda, the meeting be extended to allow Council to continue to meet beyond 11:00 p.m. Carried 11.5 Director, Economic Development & Strategic Projects, Report ECD 03-24 Corridor Design for a High Frequency Rail Station in Pickering - 29 - Council Meeting Minutes June 24, 2024 Hybrid Electronic Meeting Council Chambers 7:00 pm Resolution # 538/24 Moved by Councillor Pickles Seconded by Councillor Butt 1. That Report ECD 03-24 regarding the Corridor Design for a High Frequency Rail Station in Pickering completed by Weston Williamson & Partners (WW+P) be received; 2. That the appropriate City of Pickering officials be authorized to submit the confidential information package entitled “City of Pickering – HFR Corridor Design” to VIA HFR-VIA TGF.; 3. That the Mayor be requested to send a letter of support for the City of Pickering to be a host community for a VIA HFR Station to VIA HFR-VIA TGF.; 4. That the City Clerk forward a copy of Report ECD 03-24 to the Minister of Transport Canada, the CEO of VIA HFR-VIA TGF., and to the Region of Durham; and, 5. That the appropriate City of Pickering officials be authorized to take the necessary actions as indicated in this report. Carried on a Recorded Vote as Follows: Yes: Councillor Brenner Councillor Butt Councillor Cook Councillor Nagy Councilor Pickles Mayor Ashe No: Councillor Robinson 11.6 Director, Engineering Services, Report ENG 09-24 Shared E-Scooter Pilot Program A question and answer period ensued between Members of Council and staff regarding: • what data would be collected and analyzed during the pilot program; • how issues with improper parking and abandoned e-scooters would be addressed; - 30 - Council Meeting Minutes June 24, 2024 Hybrid Electronic Meeting Council Chambers 7:00 pm • whether there were programs that were time based as opposed to the distance an e-scooter could travel; • what measures would be put in place to protect the safety of residents; • whether there were any insurance and liability implications for the City in case of accidents or property damage; • the maintenance and enforcement of the program; • whether strategies would be put in place to educate residents on safe and proper e-scooter usage; • how the program would be funded and if there were any financial implications to the City; • the benefits of using e-scooters including accessibility and mobility for residents, decrease in car usage, and increase in park usage; and, • confirmation that e-scooters were currently allowed on City and Regional streets in Pickering and that if after reviewing the proposals from the RFP, the City would not be obligated to move forward if the proposals did not meet City standards. Resolution # 539/24 Moved by Councillor Pickles Seconded by Councillor Butt 1. That Report ENG 09-24 regarding a Shared E-scooter Pilot Program be received; 2. That the staff be authorized to issue a ‘Request for Proposal’ to select a vendor to undertake and implement a Shared E-Scooter Pilot Program in the City of Pickering; 3. That a copy of this report be circulated to the Region of Durham, Durham Regional Police Service, Durham Region Transit, and all local Municipalities in Durham Region; and, 4. That the appropriate officials of the City of Pickering be authorized to take the necessary actions as indicated in this report. Carried on a Recorded Vote as Follows: Yes: Councillor Brenner Councillor Butt Councillor Cook Councillor Nagy Councillor Pickles No: Councillor Robinson - 31 - Council Meeting Minutes June 24, 2024 Hybrid Electronic Meeting Council Chambers 7:00 pm Mayor Ashe 11.7 Director, Finance & Treasurer, Report FIN 09-24 Annual Treasurer’s Statement Report Summary of Activity for the Year Ended December 31, 2023 Resolution # 540/24 Moved by Councillor Pickles Seconded by Councillor Brenner 1. That Report FIN 10-24 of the Director, Finance & Treasurer entitled “Annual Treasurer’s Statement Report: Summary of Activity for the Year Ended December 31, 2023” as required by the Development Charges Act and Planning Act be received for information; 2. That the City of Pickering’s “Annual Treasurer’s Statement Report” be made available to the public on the City of Pickering’s website; and, 3. That the appropriate City of Pickering officials be given authority to take the necessary actions to give effect thereto. Carried 11.8 Director, Finance & Treasurer, Report FIN 10-24 Annual Indexing – Development Charges, Community Benefit Charges and Seaton Financial Impacts Agreement Resolution # 541/24 Moved by Councillor Pickles Seconded by Councillor Brenner 1. That Report FIN 10-24 regarding Annual Indexing be received; 2. That effective July 1, 2024 to June 30, 2025, as provided for in By-law No. 7953/22, the Development Charges referred to in Schedule “C” of that By-law be increased by 4.6 percent; 3. That effective July 1, 2024, as provided for in By-law No. 7954/22, the Community Benefit Charges referred to in Schedule “A” of that By-law be increased by 4.6 percent; - 32 - Council Meeting Minutes June 24, 2024 Hybrid Electronic Meeting Council Chambers 7:00 pm 4. That effective July 1, 2024 the payments related to “10 percent Soft Services”, as provided for by the Seaton Financial Impacts Agreement dated November 26, 2015, be increased by 4.6 percent; and, 5. That the appropriate City of Pickering officials be authorized to take the necessary actions as indicated in this report. Carried 11.9 Director, Finance & Treasurer, Report FIN 11-24 Fire Station 2 and City Hall Satellite Office Renovations - Delegated Approval Authorization Resolution # 542/24 Moved by Councillor Pickles Seconded by Councillor Brenner 1. That Council delegate the authority to award contracts with terms and conditions satisfactory to the Director, Operations and the Director, Finance & Treasurer in compliance with the City’s Purchasing Policy with the total value of the contracts not to exceed $732,500.00 (Net of HST) for renovations to Fire Station 2, which was approved in prior year’s Capital Budgets and the funding is presented below: a) Facilities Reserve ($630,000.00), approved as part of project C10700.1809; b) Property Taxes ($55,000.00), approved as part of project C10700.1809; and, c) Rate Stabilization Reserve ($47,500.00), approved as project C10700.2213; 2. That Council delegate the authority to award contracts with terms and conditions satisfactory to the Director, Operations and the Director, Finance & Treasurer in compliance with the City’s Purchasing Policy with the total value of the contracts not to exceed $800,000.00 (Net of HST) for renovations for the leased space at 2460 Brock Road, which was approved in the 2023 Capital Budget (project C10240.2307) to be funded from the Casino Reserve; and, 3. That the appropriate officials of the City of Pickering be authorized to take the necessary actions as indicated in the report. - 33 - Council Meeting Minutes June 24, 2024 Hybrid Electronic Meeting Council Chambers 7:00 pm Carried 11.10 Director, Finance & Treasurer, Report FIN 12-24 Municipal Funding Agreement with Association of Municipalities of Ontario Canada Community-Building Fund Revenues Resolution # 543/24 Moved by Councillor Pickles Seconded by Councillor Brenner 1. That Report FIN 12-24 regarding the Municipal Funding Agreement with Association of Municipalities of Ontario be received; 2. That the Mayor and City Clerk be authorized to execute the Municipal Funding Agreement with the Association of Municipalities of Ontario for a period of ten years from 2024 to 2033; and, 3. That the appropriate City of Pickering officials be given authority to take the necessary actions to give effect thereto. Carried 11.11 Director, Corporate Services & City Solicitor, Report LEG 02-24 Expropriation of Lands Required for a New Fire Station 1521 Bayly Street, Pickering Resolution # 544/24 Moved by Councillor Pickles Seconded by Councillor Brenner 1. That authority be granted to City of Pickering staff to initiate expropriation proceedings for the acquisition of the property municipally known as 1521 Bayly Street, Pickering as depicted in Attachment 1 for the purposes of building a new Fire Station; 2. That authority be granted to City of Pickering staff to serve and publish Notices of Application for Approval to Expropriate the said property, and to forward to the Ontario Land Tribunal any requests for hearing received, to attend the hearings to present the City of Pickering’s position, and to present the Ontario Land Tribunal’s recommendations to City Council for consideration; - 34 - Council Meeting Minutes June 24, 2024 Hybrid Electronic Meeting Council Chambers 7:00 pm 3. That authority be granted to the City Clerk and the Mayor to execute such notices and forms as may be statutorily mandated by the Expropriations Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. E.26 to give effect to Recommendation 2 in this report, including the Notices of Application of Approval to Expropriate; and, 4. That appropriate City of Pickering officials be authorized to take the actions necessary to implement the recommendations in this report. Carried 11.12 CEO/Director of Public Libraries, Report LIB 01-24 Funding Out of Country Conference Pickering Public Library Staff Resolution # 545/24 Moved by Councillor Pickles Seconded by Councillor Brenner 1. Council approve international travel for one Library staff to attend the Association for Rural and Small Libraries (“ARSL”) Annual Conference in Springfield, Massachusetts at a cost not to exceed $1,300; and, 2. That the appropriate officials of the City of Pickering be authorized to take the necessary actions as indicated in this Report. Carried 11.13 Director, Operations, Report OPS 13-24 Supply & Delivery of Five 1 Ton Trucks Quotation No. RFQ2024-11 Resolution # 546/24 Moved by Councillor Pickles Seconded by Councillor Brenner 1. That Quotation No. RFQ2024-11 submitted by Downtown Auto Group, in the amount of $495,462.35 (HST excluded) be accepted; 2. That the total gross project cost of $559,872.00 (HST included), and that the total net project cost of $504,182.00 (net of HST rebate) be approved; - 35 - Council Meeting Minutes June 24, 2024 Hybrid Electronic Meeting Council Chambers 7:00 pm 3. That Council authorize the Director, Finance & Treasurer to finance the total net project cost of $504,182.00 as provided for in the 2024 Capital Budget as follows: a) The sum of $201,673.00 to be funded from by Development Charges – Other Highway Services Reserve Fund; b) The sum of $201,673.00 to be funded from Development Charges – Parks and Recreation Reserve Fund; c) The sum of $100,836.00 to be funded from the Vehicle Replacement Reserve; and, 4. That the appropriate officials of the City of Pickering be authorized to take the necessary actions as indicated in this report. Carried 11.14 Director, Operations, Report OPS 14-24 Supply & Delivery of Five Pickup Trucks Quotation No. RFQ2024-19 Resolution # 547/24 Moved by Councillor Pickles Seconded by Councillor Brenner 1. That Quotation No. RFQ2024-19 submitted by John Bear Buick GMC Limited, in the amount of $326,454.00 (HST excluded) be accepted; 2. That the total gross project cost of $368,893.00 (HST included), and that the total net project cost of $332,200.00 (net of HST rebate) be approved; 3. That Council authorize the Director, Finance & Treasurer to finance the total net project cost of $332,200.00 as provided for in the 2024 Capital Budget as follows: a) The sum of $197,318.00 to be funded from the Vehicle Replacement Reserve Fund; b) The sum of $134,882.00 to be funded from Development Charges - Parks and Recreation Reserve Fund; and, 4. That the appropriate officials of the City of Pickering be authorized to take the necessary actions as indicated in this report. - 36 - Council Meeting Minutes June 24, 2024 Hybrid Electronic Meeting Council Chambers 7:00 pm Carried 11.15 Director, Operations, Report OPS 15-24 Consulting Services for Council Chambers Renovations A question and answer period ensued between Members of Council and staff regarding: • the criteria used to assess the necessity to replace the furniture in the Council Chambers, and if there were options for refurbishment; • the privacy concerns that necessitated the proposed upgrades to the Main Committee Room and the Council Chambers; • the improvements that would enhance accessibility in the Council Chambers; • the methodology used to conduct the acoustic studies, and if back-up acoustic systems would be included in the renovations; • whether modernized technical capabilities would be included as part of the project; • whether there were any areas where potential costs could be reduced without compromising the quality and functionality of the space; and, • whether public feedback would be included as part of the project. Resolution # 548/24 Moved by Councillor Pickles Seconded by Councillor Brenner 1. That RFP2024-9 for Architectural and Engineering Consulting Services for Council Chambers Renovations submitted by +VG Architects in the amount of $274,237.00 (HST excluded) be accepted; 2. That the total gross project cost of $408,198.00 (HST included), including the amount of the proposal, contingency and other associated costs, and the total net project cost of $367,595.00 (net of HST rebate), be approved; 3. That the Director, Finance & Treasurer be authorized to finance the net project cost of $367,595.00 as approved in the 2023 Capital Budget as follows: a) The sum of $250,000.00 to be funded by a transfer from the Casino Reserve; and, b) The sum of $117,595.00 to be funded by a transfer from the Rate Stabilization Reserve. - 37 - Council Meeting Minutes June 24, 2024 Hybrid Electronic Meeting Council Chambers 7:00 pm 4. That the appropriate City of Pickering officials be authorized to take the necessary action to give effect hereto. Carried 11.17 Director, City Development & CBO, Report PLN 23-24 Amendment to General Municipal Fees – Planning Applications Changes to development application review procedures and fees in response to Bill 185, Cutting Red Tape to Build More Homes Act, 2024 Resolution # 549/24 Moved by Councillor Pickles Seconded by Councillor Butt 1. That, in response to legislated changes arising from the enactment of Bill 185, Cutting Red Tape to Build More Homes Act, 2024, the revised City Development Department – Planning Fees be approved, effective June 25, 2024; 2. That an amendment made to Schedule “I” to By-law 6191/03, the General Municipal Fees and Charges By-law, as amended, by: • deleting the pages for City Development Department – Planning; and, • substituting the updated pages for City Development Department – Planning, as set out in Schedule “I” to the Draft By-law provided as Appendix I to Report PLN 23-24, be approved; and, 3. That the revised Draft By-law to amend Schedule “I” to the General Municipal Fees and Charges By-law 6191/03, as set out in Appendix I to Report PLN 23-24, be enacted, to be effective the date of the passing of the By-law. Carried 12. Motions and Notice of Motions 12.1 Potential Amendments to City of Pickering Parks By-law 5495/99 Resolution # 550/24 Moved by Councillor Butt Seconded by Councillor Brenner - 38 - Council Meeting Minutes June 24, 2024 Hybrid Electronic Meeting Council Chambers 7:00 pm WHEREAS, the City of Pickering is growing in population, particularly due to the province of Ontario’s housing strategy; And Whereas, Pickering is experiencing greater intensification which is creating a larger demand for the use of more available outdoor amenity spaces; And Whereas, the use of City parks and outdoor amenities are increasingly becoming more popular among our community; And Whereas, more families are wishing to gather outdoors in City parks to have barbecues and picnics; And Whereas, propane barbecues are currently permitted in City parks, and the use of charcoal or solid fueled portable barbecues are prohibited as per Section 11 of By-law 5495/99; Now therefore be it resolved, that the Council of The Corporation of the City of Pickering directs staff through the Office of the CAO: To investigate and assess the potential for amendments to City of Pickering Parks By-law 5495/99 that would permit the use of charcoal barbecues in City Parks (excluding Pickering's Waterfront) and report back by Q3 2024 with the results of their assessment and a staff recommendation. Carried 13. By-laws 13.1 By-law 8114/24 Being a by-law to amend By-law 6604/05 providing for the regulating of traffic and parking, standing and stopping on highways or parts of highways under the jurisdiction of the City of Pickering and on private and municipal property. 13.2 By-law 8115/24 Being a by-law to amend By-law 6604/05 providing for the regulating of traffic and parking, standing and stopping on highways or parts of highways under the jurisdiction of the City of Pickering and on private and municipal property. 13.3 By-law 8116/24 Being a By-law to adopt Amendment 51 to the Official Plan for the City of Pickering (OPA 23-001/P). - 39 - Council Meeting Minutes June 24, 2024 Hybrid Electronic Meeting Council Chambers 7:00 pm 13.4 By-law 8117/24 Being a By-law to amend Restricted Area (Zoning) By-law 2511, as amended, to implement the Official Plan of the City of Pickering, Region of Durham, Lots 8 to 12 and 16, Plan M-89, and Part of Lot 23 Broken Front Concession 3 (A 02/23). 13.5 By-law 8118/24 Being a by-law to designate the lands legally described as that Concession Broken Front Range 3 Part Lot 32, Plan 350 Part Lot 7 & 40R30182 Part 2,3 (Save and Except 40R31305 Part 1) municipally known as 301 Kingston Road, Pickering, as being of cultural heritage value or interest. 13.6 By-law 8119/24 Being a by-law to Being a by-law to amend By-law No. 6191/03 to confirm General Municipal Fees. 13.7 By-law 8120/24 Being a by-law to amend Zoning By-law 3036, as amended by By-law 7446/15, to remove the “(H)” Holding Provision from the subject lands, being Lot 1, Plan 40M-2597 (A 03/24). (D. Lazaridis) (441 Mahogany Court) 13.8 By-law 8121/24 Being a by-law to amend Restricted Area (Zoning) By-law 3037, as amended, to implement the Official Plan of the City of Pickering, Region of Durham, Part of Lot 17 and 18, Concession 3, and Part 2, 40R-2617 and Part 1, 40R-2418 City of Pickering (A 13/17). (Avonmore Ventures Inc.) (North of William Jackson Drive, South of the Canadian Pacific Railway Corridor) 13.9 By-law 8122/24 Being a by-law to exempt Blocks 165, 167, 168, and 170, Plan 40M-2671, from the part lot control provisions of the Planning Act (1133373 Ontario Inc.) Resolution # 551/24 Moved by Councillor Pickles Seconded by Councillor Cook That By-law Numbers 8114/24 through 8122/24 be approved, save and except By-law 8118/24. - 40 - Council Meeting Minutes June 24, 2024 Hybrid Electronic Meeting Council Chambers 7:00 pm Carried 14. Confidential Council – Public Report Mayor Ashe stated that prior to the Regular Council Meeting, an In-camera session was held at 2:30 pm in accordance with the provisions of the Municipal Act and Procedure By-law 8019/23 to consider a matter pertaining to the security of the property of the municipality or local board, litigation or potential litigation, including matters before administrative tribunals, affecting the municipality or local board, advice that is subject to solicitor-client privilege, including communications necessary for that purpose; and, a trade secret or scientific, technical, commercial, financial or labour relations information, supplied in confidence to the municipality or local board, which, if disclosed, could reasonably be expected to prejudice significantly the competitive position or interfere significantly with the contractual or other negotiations of a person, group of persons, or organization. The matters were discussed in closed session as they pertain to a High Frequency Rail Station in Pickering, an economic development opportunity in the City Centre, the 2023 Corporate Security Annual Report and, Repeal of OPA 46 and settlement of OLT Appeal OLT-23-000606. There was no direction given to staff for the High Frequency Rail Station or the Corporate Security Update. Direction was provided for the following Items pertaining to the economic development opportunity in the City Centre as well as the OLT Appeal matter. Carried 14.1 Confidential Memorandum from the Director, Economic Development & Strategic Projects and Director, Finance & Treasurer Corporate Services & City Solicitor Re: Economic Development Opportunity in Pickering City Centre Resolution # 552/24 Moved by Councillor Pickles Seconded by Councillor Cook That the confidential direction provided to staff during the in-camera portion of the Meeting be approved. Carried Carried 14.2 Confidential Memorandum from the (Acting) Director, City Development & CBO and the Director Corporate Services & City Solicitor Re: Repeal of OPA 46 and settlement of OLT Appeal OLT-23-000606 Resolution # 553/24 Moved by Councillor Nagy Seconded by Councillor Butt - 41 - Council Meeting Minutes June 24, 2024 Hybrid Electronic Meeting Council Chambers 7:00 pm That the City’s external lawyer be instructed to arrange for the settlement of the appeals on the terms set out in the Confidential Memorandum from N. Surti, (Acting) Director, City Development and P. Bigioni, Director Corporate Services & City Solicitor, dated June 24, 2024, and to attend such settlement conference or other hearing before the Ontario Land Tribunal as is required to implement this settlement and to effect the repeal of OPA 46 and By-laws 8015/23 and 8016/23. Carried 15. Regional Councillor Updates There were no updates from Regional Councillors. 16. Other Business 16.1 Councillor Robinson gave Notice of a Motion pertaining to playing the Canadian National Anthem at all Council and Standing Committee Meetings. 16.2 Councillor Robinson gave Notice of a Motion pertaining to flag raisings. 16.3 Councillor Robinson gave Notice of a Motion pertaining to age restrictions at certain events. 16.4 Councillor Robinson gave Notice of a Motion pertaining to access for non- members to use the members changerooms at the Chestnut Hill Developments Recreation Complex. 17. Confirmatory By-law By-law Number 8123/24 Councillor Butt, seconded by Councillor Cook moved for leave to introduce a By-law of the City of Pickering to confirm the proceedings of June 24, 2024. Carried 18. Adjournment Moved by Councillor Nagy Seconded by Councillor Butt That the meeting be adjourned. Carried - 42 - Council Meeting Minutes June 24, 2024 Hybrid Electronic Meeting Council Chambers 7:00 pm The meeting adjourned at 11:53 p.m. Dated this 24th day of June 2024. Kevin Ashe, Mayor Susan Cassel, City Clerk - 43 - Special Council Meeting Minutes Education & Training June 25, 2024 Main Committee Room 1:00 pm Present: Mayor Kevin Ashe Councillors: M. BrennerS. ButtL. CookM. Nagy D. Pickles L. Robinson Also Present: M. Carpino -Chief Administrative Officer P. Bigioni -Director, Corporate Services & City Solicitor S. Cassel -City Clerk 1.Roll Call The City Clerk certified that all Members of Council were present and participating in-person. 2.Disclosure of Interest No disclosures of interest were noted. 3.Education & Training Resolution #554/24 Moved by Councillor Butt Seconded by Councillor Cook That Council move into closed session in accordance with the provisions of Section 239(3.1) of the Municipal Act and the Procedure By-law for the purpose of educating and training Members of Council as it relates to the Fundamentals of Collaborative Leadership. Carried 3.1 Presentation from Dr. JP Gedeon, President, Transformative Directions Ltd. Re: Fundamentals of Collaborative Leadership - Pickering City Council - 44 - Special Council Meeting Minutes Education & Training June 25, 2024 Main Committee Room 1:00 pm This portion of the Meeting was closed to the public. Refer to the In Camera meeting minutes for further information. [City Clerk has custody and control of the In Camera minutes.] Resolution #555/24 Moved by Councillor Butt Seconded by Councillor Cook That Council rise from the closed session. Carried Mayor Ashe stated that during the closed portion of the Meeting, Council received training on the fundamentals of collaborative leadership, and noted that no decisions were made or considered by Council. 4.Adjournment Moved by Councillor Robinson Seconded by Councillor Cook That the meeting be adjourned. Carried The meeting adjourned at 4:38 p.m. Dated this 25th day of June, 2024. Kevin Ashe, Mayor Susan Cassel, City Clerk - 45 - Special Council Meeting Minutes In Camera July 12, 2024 Hybrid Electronic Meeting Main Committee Room 1:15 pm Present: Mayor Kevin Ashe Councillors: M. Brenner S. Butt L. Cook M. Nagy D. Pickles L. Robinson Also Present: R. Holborn -(Acting) Chief Administrative Officer P. Bigioni -Director, Corporate Services & City Solicitor N. Surti -Division Head, Development Review & Urban Design C. Redmond -(Acting) Deputy Clerk J. Currie -Legislative Coordinator 1.Call to Order/Roll Call The (Acting) Deputy Clerk certified that all Members of Council were present andparticipating in person, save and except Councillor Pickles who was participatingelectronically. 2.Disclosure of Interest No disclosures of interest were noted. Resolution #556/24 Moved by Councillor Robinson Seconded by Councillor Cook That Council move into closed session in accordance with the provisions of Section 239(2) of the Municipal Act and the Procedure By-law, to consider a matter pertaining to, litigation or potential litigation, including matters before administrative tribunals, affecting the municipality or local board; advice that is subject to solicitor-client privilege, including communications necessary for that purpose, and a position, plan, procedure, criteria or instruction to be applied to any negotiations to be carried on by or on behalf of the municipality or local board, as it pertains to legal advice regarding litigation matters. - 46 - Special Council Meeting Minutes In Camera July 12, 2024 Hybrid Electronic Meeting Main Committee Room 1:15 pm Carried Council took a brief pause to allow the livestream of the Meeting to be severed. 3.In Camera Matters 3.1 Director, Corporate Services & City Solicitor, Confidential MemorandumRe: Verbal Update and Legal Advice regarding Litigation Matters This portion of the meeting was closed to the public. Refer to the In Camera meeting minutes for further information. [City Clerk has custody and control of the In Camera minutes.] Resolution #557/24 Moved by Councillor Robinson Seconded by Councillor Cook That Council rise and resume into the open session of the Regular Meeting of Council. Carried Council took a brief pause to allow the livestream of the Meeting to be resumed. Mayor Ashe stated that during the closed portion of the meeting, Council considered a matter pertaining to, litigation or potential litigation, including matters before administrative tribunals, affecting the municipality or local board; advice that is subject to solicitor-client privilege, including communications necessary for that purpose, and a position, plan, procedure, criteria or instruction to be applied to any negotiations carried on or to be carried on by or on behalf of the municipality or local board, as it pertains to legal advice regarding litigation matters. Resolution #558/24 Moved by Councillor Nagy Seconded by Councillor Cook That the confidential direction provided to staff during the closed portion of the Meeting be approved. - 47 - Special Council Meeting Minutes In Camera July 12, 2024 Hybrid Electronic Meeting Main Committee Room 1:15 pm Carried 4.Confirmatory By-law By-law 8124/24 Councillor Cook, seconded by Councillor Nagy moved for leave to introduce a By-law of the City of Pickering to confirm the proceedings of July 12, 2024. 5.Adjournment Moved by Councillor RobinsonSeconded by Councillor Nagy That the meeting be adjourned. Carried The meeting adjourned at 2:20 pm. Dated this 12th day of July, 2024 Kevin Ashe, Mayor Carol Redmond, (Acting) Deputy Clerk - 48 - Special Council Meeting Minutes July 25, 2024 Hybrid Electronic Meeting Council Chambers 4:30 pm Present: Mayor Kevin Ashe Councillors: M.BrennerL.CookM.NagyD.Pickles L.Robinson Absent: S.Butt Also Present: M.Carpino -Chief Administrative Officer K.Bentley -Director, City Development & CBO P.Bigioni -Director, Corporate Services & City Solicitor S.Karwowski -Director, Finance & Treasurer B.Duffield -Director, Operations S.Cassel -City Clerk J.Halsall -Division Head, Finance J.Bekramchand - Senior Financial Analyst - Capital & Debt Management C.Redmond -(Acting) Deputy Clerk 1.Roll Call The City Clerk certified that all Members of Council were present and participating in- person, save and except Councillor Butt. 2.Disclosure of Interest No disclosures of interest were noted. Resolution # 559/24 Moved by Councillor Cook Seconded by Councillor Pickles That Council move into closed session in accordance with the provisions of Section 239(2) of the Municipal Act and the Procedure By-law, to consider a matter pertaining to litigation or potential litigation, including matters before administrative tribunals, affecting - 49 - Special Council Meeting Minutes July 25, 2024 Hybrid Electronic Meeting Council Chambers 4:30 pm the municipality or local board and advice that is subject to solicitor-client privilege, including communications necessary for that purpose. These matters are being discussed in closed session as they relate to a Confidential Report from the Director, Finance & Treasurer regarding the Pickering Soccer Dome Insurance Update – Settlement Offer. Carried Members of Council and staff moved from the Council Chambers to the Main Committee Room for the in-camera portion of the Meeting. 3.In Camera Matters 3.1 Director, Finance & Treasurer, Confidential Report FIN 13-24Re: Pickering Soccer Dome Insurance Update -Settlement Offer This portion of the meeting was closed to the public. Refer to the In Camera meeting minutes for further information. [City Clerk has custody and control of the In Camera minutes.] Resolution # 560/24 Moved by Councillor Robinson Seconded by Councillor Cook That Council rise to the open session of the Special Meeting of Council. Carried Council reconvened in the Council Chambers at 5:01 p.m. for the public portion of the Meeting. Upon reconvening, Council took a brief pause to allow the livestream of the Meeting to be resumed. 4.Confidential Special Council – Public Report (Council Chambers) Mayor Ashe advised that during the closed portion of the meeting, Council considered a matter pertaining to the Pickering Soccer Dome Insurance Update – Settlement Offer. These matters were discussed in closed session as they relate to litigation or potential litigation, including matters before administrative tribunals, - 50 - Special Council Meeting Minutes July 25, 2024 Hybrid Electronic Meeting Council Chambers 4:30 pm affecting the municipality or local board and receipt of advice subject to solicitor- client privilege, including communications necessary for that purpose. 4.1 Director, Finance & Treasurer, Confidential Report FIN 13-24 Re: Pickering Soccer Dome Insurance Update -Settlement Offer Resolution # 561/24 Moved by Councillor Pickles Seconded by Councillor Cook Recommendation: 1.That Report FIN 13-24 regarding Pickering Soccer Dome Insurance Update be received; 2.That staff be directed to accept the settlement agreement reached withAviva Insurance Company of Canada and Zurich Insurance Company Ltd.to reimburse the City in the amount of $2,606,904 that represents 92 percent of the net HST construction and installation costs to replace the Pickering Soccer Dome cover, soccer turf and related costs, and thatCouncil direct City staff to not pursue additional financial recovery throughlitigation; and, 3.That the appropriate City of Pickering officials be given authority to take the necessary actions to give effect thereto. Carried 5.Delegations 5.1 There were no delegations. 6.Matters for Consideration 6.1 Director, Finance & Treasurer, Report FIN 14-24 Pickering Soccer Dome Rebuild Project A question and answer period ensued between Members of Council and staff regarding: x the timing of being informed of the budget shortfall with only five days leftbefore the offer of settlement expired, with staff noting it had taken some - 51 - Special Council Meeting Minutes July 25, 2024 Hybrid Electronic Meeting Council Chambers 4:30 pm time to go back and forth with both insurance companies (Aviva and Zurich) as they required additional information during the processing of the claim; x why the upgrades for the Pickering Soccer Dome did not qualify as “like forlike” improvements and were not covered by the City’s insurers; x the amount of the shortfall being paid by the Pickering Football Club beingbased on the current funding agreement in place with the Club and thatstaff would be bringing forward an agreement in the fall outlining how thePickering Football Club would begin to contribute towards the future replacement costs of the asset; x the City’s positive working relationship with the Pickering Football Club overmany years; x how the collapse of the Dome would result in an increase to the City’s insurance premiums and how it would affect any future claims; and, x that due to the rebuild of the Dome, the lifecycle of the asset had now beenreset resulting in the asset lasting for another 20 years instead of theapproximate 12 years it had left prior to the collapse. Resolution # 562/24 Moved by Councillor Cook Seconded by Councillor Nagy 1.That Report FIN 14-24 regarding Pickering Soccer Dome Rebuild projectbe received; 2.That Council authorize the Director, Finance & Treasurer to finance the Pickering Soccer Dome Rebuild project total net HST project cost of$2,833,300 as follows; a)the sum of $2,365,000 to be funded from the settlement agreement reached with Aviva Insurance Company of Canada and Zurich Insurance Company Ltd. (subject to Council’s acceptance of thesettlement agreement); b)the additional sum of $468,300 be funded as follows to cover the remaining over expenditure: i)$241,294 from the settlement agreement reached with AvivaInsurance Company of Canada and Zurich Insurance CompanyLtd. (subject to Council’s acceptance of the settlement agreement); ii)$108,395 from the Rate Stabilization Reserve; - 52 - Special Council Meeting Minutes July 25, 2024 Hybrid Electronic Meeting Council Chambers 4:30 pm iii)$118,611 from the Pickering Football Club (PFC); and, 3.That the appropriate City of Pickering officials be given authority to take thenecessary actions to give effect thereto. Carried Unanimously on a Recorded Vote 6.2 Director, Finance & Treasurer, FIN 15-24 Ontario Transfer Payment Agreement with the Province of Ontario -Building Faster Fund A question and answer period ensued between Members of Council and staff regarding: x the requirements for the City to submit an Investment Plan to the Province that lists potential projects and uses of the funds; x whether the Province was exerting control over the City’s spendingdecisions on what the funds were being used for, how it would be perceivedby the public, and whether the Provincial priorities were taking precedence over local objectives; x the timing of the City’s Municipal Housing Pledge to meet the Provincialhousing targets, the City receiving Strong Mayor Powers after the Pledgehad been signed, and whether the grant funding for exceeding the housing targets would be perceived by the public to be influencing the City’s decisions; x whether projects submitted in the Investment Plan needed to be completedprior to the March 31, 2026 end date in order to receive the grant funds; x a request that staff provide Council with the Province’s definition ofaffordable housing units, and whether the City was looking at modularhousing; x the approach of seeking out grant programs that were of interest to the community and how the City approaches the process to have projectscompleted on time; and, x the funding allocation received by the City being based on the 1,502 new housing starts in 2023, clarifying that the Province based the numbers on the Canadian Mortgage and Housing Corporation housing starts not thenumber of building permits issued. Resolution # 563/24 Moved by Councillor Brenner Seconded by Councillor Cook - 53 - Special Council Meeting Minutes July 25, 2024 Hybrid Electronic Meeting Council Chambers 4:30 pm 1.That Report FIN 15-24 regarding the Ontario Transfer Payment Agreement with the Province of Ontario be received; 2.That the Mayor and City Clerk be authorized to execute the OntarioTransfer Payment Agreement with the Province of Ontario for the Building Faster Fund; 3.That the draft By-law, included as Attachment 1 to Report FIN 15-24, tocreate the Building Faster Fund (BFF) Reserve Fund be approved andenacted; and, 4.That the appropriate City of Pickering officials be given authority to take thenecessary actions to give effect thereto. Carried on a Recorded Vote as Follows: Yes: Councillor Brenner Councillor Cook Councillor Nagy Councillor Pickles Mayor Ashe No: Councillor Robinson 7.By-laws 7.1 By-law 8125/24 Being a By-law to Provide for the Establishment of a Reserve Fund to be known as the Building Faster Fund (BFF) Reserve Fund. Resolution # 564/24 Moved by Councillor Brenner Seconded by Councillor Nagy That By-law 8125/24 be approved. Carried 8.Confirmatory By-law By-law 8126/24 - 54 - Special Council Meeting Minutes July 25, 2024 Hybrid Electronic Meeting Council Chambers 4:30 pm Councillor Cook seconded by Councillor Nagy moved for leave to introduce a By-law of the City of Pickering to confirm the proceedings of the Special Council Meeting of July 25, 2024. Carried 9.Adjournment Moved by Councillor NagySeconded by Councillor Robinson That the meeting be adjourned. Carried The meeting adjourned at 5:46 p.m. Dated this 25th day of July, 2024. Kevin Ashe, Mayor Susan Cassel, City Clerk - 55 - Special Council Meeting Minutes Education & Training July 26, 2024 Main Committee Room 9:00 am Present: Mayor Kevin Ashe Councillors: M. Brenner L. Cook M. Nagy D. Pickles L. Robinson Absent: S. Butt Also Present: M. Carpino -Chief Administrative Officer J. Eddy -Director, Human Resources S. Cassel -City Clerk C.Addo-Bekoe -Manager, People and Culture J. San Antonio -Senior Advisor, Equity, Diversity & Inclusion 1.Roll Call The City Clerk certified that all Members of Council were present and participating in- person, save and except for Councillor Butt. 2.Disclosure of Interest No disclosures of interest were noted. 3.Education & Training Resolution #565/24 Moved by Councillor Cook Seconded by Councillor Nagy That Council move into closed session in accordance with the provisions of Section 239(3.1) of the Municipal Act and the Procedure By-law for the purpose of educating and training Members of Council as it relates to Equity, Diversity, and Inclusion. Carried - 56 - Special Council Meeting Minutes Education & Training July 26, 2024 Main Committee Room 9:00 am 3.1 Presentation from Allison Hector-Alexander, Director, Diversity, Equity and Inclusion, The Regional Municipality of Durham Re: Equity, Diversity, and Inclusion (EDI) Overview Training for Council This portion of the meeting was closed to the public. Refer to the In Camera meeting minutes for further information. [City Clerk has custody and control of the In Camera minutes.] Resolution #566/24 Moved by Councillor Cook Seconded by Councillor Robinson That Council rise from the closed session. Carried Mayor Ashe stated that during the closed portion of the Meeting, Council received training on Equity, Diversity and Inclusion, and noted that no decisions were made or considered by Council. 4.Adjournment Moved by Councillor Cook Seconded by Councillor Pickles That the meeting be adjourned. Carried The meeting adjourned at 12:14 p.m. Dated this 26th day of July, 2024. Kevin Ashe, Mayor Susan Cassel, City Clerk - 57 - Special Council Meeting Minutes August 28, 2024 Hybrid Electronic Meeting Council Chambers 3:15 pm 1 Present: Mayor Kevin Ashe Councillors: M. Brenner S. Butt L. Cook M. Nagy D. Pickles L. Robinson Also Present: M. Carpino -Chief Administrative Officer K. Bentley -Director, City Development & CBO R. Holborn -Director, Engineering Services S. Karwowski -Director, Finance & Treasurer S. Cassel -City Clerk J. Halsall -Division Head, Finance V. Plouffe -Division Head, Operations Services A. Mostert -Manager, Landscape & Parks Development C. Farrell -(Acting) Supervisor, Cultural Services C. Redmond -(Acting) Deputy Clerk 1.Call to Order/Roll Call The City Clerk certified that all Members of Council were present and participating in- person save and except Councillor Cook who was participating electronically. 2.Disclosure of Interest No disclosures of interest were noted. Mayor Ashe advised that there were no requests from credentialed media for filming in Council Chambers. 3.Delegations There were no delegations. 4.Matters for Consideration - 58 - Special Council Meeting Minutes August 28, 2024 Hybrid Electronic Meeting Council Chambers 3:15 pm 2 4.1 Director, Engineering Services, Report ENG 15-24 Beachfront Park Master Plan (Phase 1 implementation) and Alex Robertson Park Gravel Parking Lot Request for Tender No. T2024-7 Richard Holborn, Director, Engineering, provided introductory comments and introduced the consultant delegation, Jana Joyce, Principal, Special Projects, The MBTW Group. Jana Joyce appeared before Council via electronic connection and with the aid of a PowerPoint presentation, provided an overview of the Beachfront Park Master Plan Phase 1 implementation that encompassed the area between Lake Ontario and the Hydro Marsh, from Millennium Square to Alex Robertson Park. J. Joyce outlined the scope of work that included construction of an elevated walkway and cycling route, viewing platforms, access ramps, site lighting, furniture as well as the recommendation for additional shoreline protection improvements. She also advised that the work included the construction of a gravel parking lot in Alex Robertson Park which would act as the construction staging area for the Beachfront Park work. J. Joyce spoke to the background of the project, stakeholder and public engagement, and concluded her presentation by speaking to the timeline of the project. A question and answer period ensued between Members of Council, J. Joyce and staff regarding: •whether the Plan included boat launch access ramps, and a beach volleyball play area; •whether the gravel parking lot in Alex Robertson Park would be reinstated back to a functional parking lot once construction was complete, and whether the gravel used for the lot would be accessible for individuals using mobility devices; •confirmation that the risk of delays to the project would be minimal due to the experience of the contractors who had been pre-qualified and had completed previous projects in a dynamic beach environment next to Lake Ontario shorelines; •confirmation that the Alex Robertson Park parking lot would be an additional seasonal parking lot to the existing lot; •the impact to the new structures should a storm event occur where the water and wind levels were as high as during the storm in 2017; •how high the boardwalk was from the sand, the impact of waves after storm events and concerns with gaps under the support piles and how they would be maintained after a storm event; •confirmation that both beach maintenance ramps and pedestrian ramps would have no steps, and that accessibility mats anchored to the sand would be included at the base of the pedestrian ramps; - 59 - Special Council Meeting Minutes August 28, 2024 Hybrid Electronic Meeting Council Chambers 3:15 pm 3 •confirmation that permits from the Ministry of Natural Resources regarding wildlife would be required prior to construction; •the materials used for the boardwalk, cycling paths and pedestrian areas and the lifespan of the materials; •whether the new observation platforms were within the same footprint as the existing platforms and if the breeding platform that previously existed would be disturbed; •confirmation that the seasonal additional parking lot at Alex Robertson Park would not interfere with the Cricket pitch; •the timing of Phase 2 of the project that would include an expansion of the existing washroom to make it winterized and accessible; •why the City was rushing to approve the project when TRCA had yet to sign off on final approval; •the impacts to the project should it not receive TRCA approval, and if the City would be obligated to pay out the contract with the MBTW Group; •whether the City was considering purchasing the land from OPG for the gravel parking lot, and confirmation that the City had a licencing agreement with OPG for Alex Roberston Park including the gravel parking lot; •the cost of the gravel parking lot being more expensive than anticipated and if there was a way to reduce the cost; •whether the City would be charging residents or visitors to use the parking lot or whether it would fall under the Waterfront Permit Parking System already in place; •the City’s positive long-standing partnership with OPG, and the impact on the City should OPG repurpose the land; •whether OPG would share in the cost of updating the gravel lot to a paved lot, and confirmation that the City had no plans to pave the lot as the gravel lot was the most environmentally sensitive solution; •why the Public Art Reserve Fund was not used for the Indigenous public art that had been incorporated into the design of the metal railing system; •how the construction and long-term use of the parking lot would impact the Hydro Marsh, residents and wildlife; •confirmation that any in-water work beyond September 30, 2024 would be undertaken using isolation measures to prevent harm to fish and other aquatic wildlife, and who would bear the cost of such measures should this occur; •the timing of the public engagement process and if any recent public engagement had taken place; •confirmation that there would be “no fishing” signs placed on the viewing platforms; and, •confirmation that signage that would be installed to let residents know about the construction. - 60 - Special Council Meeting Minutes August 28, 2024 Hybrid Electronic Meeting Council Chambers 3:15 pm 4 Resolution #567/24 Moved by Councillor Brenner Seconded by Councillor Pickles 1.That Request for Tender No. T2024-7 for the Beachfront Park Master Plan, Phase 1 Implementation and the Alex Robertson Park Gravel Parking Lot as submitted by Rutherford Contracting Ltd., in the total tendered amount of $9,500,217.36 (HST included) be accepted; 2.That Council approve the hiring of The MBTW Group as a consultant, in the amount of $146,142.00 (HST included) to undertake contract administration and construction inspection of Request for Tender No. T2024-7 for the Beachfront Park Master Plan, Phase 1 implementation in accordance with Purchasing Policy 10.03 (c), as the assignment is above $50,000.00; 3.That the total gross project cost of $11,211,835.00 (HST included) for the Beachfront Park Master Plan, Phase 1 Implementation, including the tendered amount, a contingency and other associated costs, and the total net project cost of $10,096,605.00 (net of HST rebate) be approved; 4.That Council authorize the Director, Finance & Treasurer to finance the total net project cost $10,096,605.00 for the Beachfront Park Master Plan, Phase 1 Implementation of as follows: a)The sum of $5,048,303.00 available budget in capital project C10320.2206 as approved in the 2024 Parks Capital Budget to be funded by a transfer of funds from the Casino Reserve; b)The sum of $5,048,302.00 available budget in capital project C10320.2206 as approved in the 2024 Parks Capital Budget to be funded by a transfer of funds from the Development Charges Parks & Recreation Reserve Fund; 5.That the total gross project cost of $456,378.00 (HST included) for the Alex Robertson Park Gravel Parking Lot, including the tendered amount, a contingency and other associated costs, and the total net project cost of $410,982.00 (net of HST rebate) be approved; 6.That Council authorize the Director, Finance & Treasurer to finance the total net project cost $410,982.00 for the Alex Robertson Park Gravel Parking Lot of as follows: - 61 - Special Council Meeting Minutes August 28, 2024 Hybrid Electronic Meeting Council Chambers 3:15 pm 5 a)The sum of $100,200.00 available budget in capital project C10572.2408 as approved in the 2024 Parks Capital Budget be increased to $205,491.00 and be funded by a transfer of funds from the Development Charges City’s Reserve Fund; b)The sum of $100,200.00 available budget in capital project C10572.2408 as approved in the 2024 Parks Capital Budget be increased to $205,491.00 and be funded by a transfer of funds from the Development Charges Parks & Recreation Reserve Fund; 7.That Council direct the Chief Administrative Officer to provide operational and financial project updates based on the following schedule of Q1 2025, and upon completion Q3 2025; and, 8.That the appropriate officials of the City of Pickering be authorized to take the necessary actions as indicated in this report. Carried Unanimously on a Recorded Vote 5.Confirmatory By-law By-law 8127/24 Councillor Nagy, seconded by Councillor Robinson moved for leave to introduce a By-law of the City of Pickering to confirm the proceedings of August 28, 2024. Carried 6.Adjournment Moved by Councillor Butt Seconded by Councillor Brenner That the meeting be adjourned. Carried The meeting adjourned at 4:38 pm. Dated this 28th day of August, 2024. - 62 - Special Council Meeting Minutes August 28, 2024 Hybrid Electronic Meeting Council Chambers 3:15 pm 6 Kevin Ashe, Mayor Susan Cassel, City Clerk - 63 - Executive Committee Meeting Minutes September 3, 2024 Hybrid Electronic Meeting – 2:00 pm Chair: Councillor Butt 1 Present: Mayor Kevin Ashe Councillors: M.Brenner S.Butt L. Cook M.Nagy D. Pickles L. Robinson Also Present: M. Carpino -Chief Administrative Officer K. Bentley -Director, City Development & CBO S. Boyd -Fire Chief B.Duffield -Director, Operations J. Eddy -Director, Human Resources L. Gibbs -Director, Community Services R. Holborn -Director, Engineering Services F. Jadoon -Director, Economic Development & Strategic Projects S. Karwowski -Director, Finance & Treasurer S. Cassel -City Clerk C. Rose -Chief Planner I. Marouchko -Manager, Water Resources M. Murray -Manager, Community Services Administration & Strategic Initiatives J. Currie -Legislative Coordinator 1.Call to Order/Roll Call The City Clerk certified that all Members of Council were present and participating in-person, save and except Councillor Cook who was participating via electronic connection. 2.Disclosure of Interest No disclosures of interest were noted. Chair Butt read a statement to the gallery that in accordance with the City’s ProcedureBy-law, meeting attendees may not record any portion of the meeting and may not take photographs unless they have been granted permission by Two-Thirds majority of Committee. - 64 - Executive Committee Meeting Minutes September 3, 2024 Hybrid Electronic Meeting – 2:00 pm Chair: Councillor Butt 2 There were no requests from credentialed media for filming in Council Chambers. 3. Delegations 3.1 John Taggart, Member, Whitevale District Residents Association Re: Report CS 22-24 Recreation & Parks – Ten Year Plan John Taggart, Member, Whitevale District Residents Association appeared before the Committee via electronic connection to speak to Report CS 22-24. J. Taggart provided an overview of the community value of the Whitevale Community Centre (WCC), the Whitevale Arts and Culture Centre (WACC), as well as Whitevale Park. J. Taggart noted concerns that the Whitevale District Residents Association had that the Recreation & Parks – Ten Year Plan suggested that these assets may be gradually phased out and replaced by the new Seaton Recreational Complex & Library. J. Taggart concluded by recommending that the Recreation and Parks – Ten Year Plan be revised to ensure that a retention and preservation first approach be applied when studying the future of the WCC and the WACC and noted these assets as essential places for community connectivity and belonging. A brief discussion ensued between Members of the Committee and J. Taggart regarding clarification that the City would continue to support the WCC and the WACC as valued assets. 4. Matters for Consideration 4.1 Director, Community Services, Report CS 22-24 Recreation & Parks – Ten Year Plan L. Gibbs, Director, Community Services provided introductory comments and introduced the consultant delegation Steve Langlois, Principal Planner, Monteith Brown Planning Consultants. Steve Langlois appeared before the Committee and with the aid of a PowerPoint presentation, provided an overview of the Recreation & Parks – Ten Year Plan and outlined the plans scope and the building blocks that the Ten Year Plan was based on. S. Langlois noted various public engagement activities and summarized the community input that was received pertaining to the draft plan. S. Langlois concluded by summarizing key revisions to the draft plan and implementation recommendations. A question and answer period ensued between Members of the Committee, S. Langlois, and staff regarding: - 65 - Executive Committee Meeting Minutes September 3, 2024 Hybrid Electronic Meeting – 2:00 pm Chair: Councillor Butt 3 • whether Pickering’s changing demographics would be monitored and reviewed throughout the ten year span of the Recreation & Parks Plan, and that annual reports would be provided; • clarification that the 101 recommendations were not in order of priority; • clarification of what factors were considered to inform the recommendation for the proposed Seaton Recreation Complex & Library pool size; • whether a 25 m pool, would accommodate the current and future high community demand for swimming programs and whether the maximum amount of swim lanes would be incorporated into a 25 m pool; • whether additional basketball courts, both indoor and outdoor, were considered in the Recreation & Parks – Ten Year Plan; • clarification that no decisions were recommended concerning the Arena Strategy in this plan; • clarification of what stage of planning the Seaton Recreation Complex & Library was in; • clarification of when the Soccer Dome would have availability of courts for Pickle Ball; • managing expectations and transparency to the public, pertaining to when the various initiatives under the Plan would be implemented and the ability for the Plan to be flexible if priorities changed over the course of the ten year period; • clarification that acquisition of parklands was a priority over receiving cash in lieu; • whether there were concrete plans to incorporate cricket pitches in newer parks and the feasibility of utilizing baseball diamonds for the purpose of cricket; • clarification that any consideration of decommissioning of community halls would be required to go to Council for approval; • clarification of how underrepresented populations were defined and how these populations would be accommodated; • whether slower population growth was considered when the Recreation & Parks – Ten Year Plan was formulated; • whether there was public consultation conducted specific to increased digital services and the use of artificial intelligence; and, • whether in-person services were projected to decrease due to digital advances. Recommendation: Moved by Councillor Pickles Seconded by Councillor Robinson - 66 - Executive Committee Meeting Minutes September 3, 2024 Hybrid Electronic Meeting – 2:00 pm Chair: Councillor Butt 4 1. That the Recreation & Parks – Ten Year Plan, as set out in Attachment 1, be endorsed; and, 2. That the appropriate officials of the City of Pickering be authorized to take the necessary actions as indicated in this report. Carried on a Recorded Vote as Follows: Yes: No: Councillor Brenner Councillor Robinson Councillor Butt Councillor Cook Councillor Nagy Councillor Pickles Mayor Ashe 4.2 Director, Community Services, Report CS 28-24 Post Manor Feasibility Study L. Gibbs, Director, Community Services provided introductory comments and introduced the consultant delegations Julie Whelan, Associate Director, Nordicity and Caitlin Cross, Consultant, Nordicity. Julie Whelan and Caitlin Cross appeared before the Committee via electronic connection and with the aid of a PowerPoint presentation, provided an overview of the Post Manor Feasibility Study. They spoke to the project goals, public engagement, the facility scan overview, and case studies that informed the Study. J. Whelan provided a summary of the Post Manor vision as a community-based art gallery and noted various proposed facility features, programming potential, and provided mock-up floor plan illustrations. J. Whelan further outlined anticipated challenges and considerations of the project. C. Cross provided information pertaining to governance considerations, projected revenue and expenses, and recommended next steps. A brief discussion ensued between Members of the Committee, J. Whelan, and C. Cross regarding clarification of the cost of leasing versus purchasing the property and whether the Station Gallery in Whitby was included in the study as a comparable facility. Recommendation: Moved by Councillor Brenner Seconded by Councillor Cook - 67 - Executive Committee Meeting Minutes September 3, 2024 Hybrid Electronic Meeting – 2:00 pm Chair: Councillor Butt 5 1. That Report CS 28-24 regarding the Post Manor Feasibility Study be received; 2. That staff be directed to continue discussions with Brock and Kingston Holdings Inc. on acquiring the Post Manor building, for lease or purchase for use as a public art gallery, anticipating an occupancy date in 2029, and report back with an update to Council by Q4, 2025; and, 3. That the appropriate City officials be authorized to take the necessary actions as outlined in this report. Carried Unanimously on a Recorded Vote 4.3 Director, Corporate Services & City Solicitor, Report CLK 04-24 Review and Updates to ADM 100, Public Notice Policy A question and answer period ensued between Members of the Committee and staff regarding: • revisions to the definitions contained in the Policy and whether the definition of newspaper had been changed from the legislated definition contained in the Legislation Act; • which newspapers would be used for notices that were required to be in a newspaper and clarification of which department the City’s new ADM 280, Advertising Standards Policy fell under; • the benchmarking undertaken in the creation of the Policy and why only 13 municipalities had been reviewed in that process; and, • clarification that there were no budget implications pertaining to the adoption of the Public Notice Policy. Recommendation: Moved by Councillor Brenner Seconded by Councillor Nagy 1. That Report CLK 04-24, regarding the Review and Updates to ADM 100 Public Notice Policy, be received; 2. That the draft ADM 100 Public Notice Policy, as set out in Attachment 1 to this report, be approved; - 68 - Executive Committee Meeting Minutes September 3, 2024 Hybrid Electronic Meeting – 2:00 pm Chair: Councillor Butt 6 3. That going forward, the City Clerk be authorized to update Appendix 1 of Policy ADM 100 to accommodate for any legislated changes pertaining to the provision of notice to the public; 4. That the draft By-law, appended as Attachment 3 to this report, to repeal By-law No. 6166/03 be approved; and, 5. That the appropriate City of Pickering officials be authorized to take such actions as are necessary to give effect to the recommendations in this report. Carried on a Recorded Vote as Follows: Yes: No: Councillor Brenner Councillor Robinson Councillor Butt Councillor Cook Councillor Nagy Councillor Pickles Mayor Ashe 4.4 Director, Corporate Services & City Solicitor, Report CLK 05-24 2025 Committee and Council Meeting Schedule A detailed discussion ensued between Members of the Committee and staff regarding the absence of budget meeting dates in the 2025 Meeting Schedule with clarification being given that there would be opportunity for Council Members to contribute to the budget process under the Strong Mayor Budget and the process surrounding any proposed amendments. Further discussion ensued regarding the meeting times for Executive Committee and Council Meetings with the City Clerk noting that a change to such meeting times would require an amendment to the Procedure By-law. Recommendation: Moved by Councillor Brenner Seconded by Councillor Nagy 1. That the 2025 Committee and Council Meeting Schedule, appended as Attachment 1 to Report CLK 05-24, be approved; and, - 69 - Executive Committee Meeting Minutes September 3, 2024 Hybrid Electronic Meeting – 2:00 pm Chair: Councillor Butt 7 2. That the appropriate City of Pickering officials be authorized to take the necessary actions as indicated in this report. Carried on a Recorded Vote as Follows: Yes: No: Councillor Brenner Councillor Robinson Councillor Butt Councillor Cook Councillor Nagy Councillor Pickles Mayor Ashe 4.5 Director, Community Services, Report CS 23-24 Celebration of Gordon Lightfoot Public Art – Artist Selection - Commission of Public Art A brief discussion ensued between Members of the Committee and staff regarding expending funds on this art when Gordon Lightfoot did not have ties to the Pickering community, whether local high school students could be recruited to create public artwork installations in the future to save money spent on public art, and clarification that Geordie Lishman was local to the City of Pickering. Recommendation: Moved by Councillor Brenner Seconded by Councillor Nagy 1. That Council endorse the commission of the public art, entitled “Gordon’s Guitar” to be installed in Ernie L. Stroud Park, Steeple Hill and be awarded to Geordie Lishman; 2. That Council authorize the Director, Finance & Treasurer to finance the net project cost of $53,933.00 to be funded by a transfer from the Public Art Reserve as approved in the 2024 Current Budget; 3. That the Mayor and the City Clerk be authorized to execute the Letter of Understanding, between Geordie Lishman and the City of Pickering, set out in Attachment 1, subject to minor revisions acceptable to the Director, Community Services and the Director, Corporate Services & City Solicitor; and, - 70 - Executive Committee Meeting Minutes September 3, 2024 Hybrid Electronic Meeting – 2:00 pm Chair: Councillor Butt 8 4. That the appropriate officials of the City of Pickering be authorized to take the necessary actions as indicated in this report. Carried on a Recorded Vote as Follows: Yes: No: Councillor Brenner Councillor Robinson Councillor Butt Councillor Cook Councillor Nagy Councillor Pickles Mayor Ashe 4.6 Director, Community Services, Report CS 24-24 Volunteer Program 2023 Activities Update and Volunteer Policy Revisions Recommendation: Moved by Councillor Brenner Seconded by Councillor Nagy 1. That Report CS 24-24, regarding the City of Pickering Volunteer Program 2023 Activities Update, be received; 2. That Council endorse the revisions in CUL 080 The Volunteer Policy, as set out in Attachment 2 to this report, subject to minor revisions acceptable to the Director, Community Services; and, 3. That the appropriate officials of the City of Pickering be authorized to take the necessary actions as indicated in this report. Carried 4.7 Director, Community Services, Report CS 25-24 City Property Naming - John E. Anderson A detailed discussion ensued between Members of the Committee and Staff regarding whether all past and future Mayors of Pickering would be honoured with similar City Property Naming and clarification that there were City Policies in place that addressed facility naming being ADM 110-006, City Property Naming Procedure and ADM 150, Marketing Partnership and Advertising Policy. - 71 - Executive Committee Meeting Minutes September 3, 2024 Hybrid Electronic Meeting – 2:00 pm Chair: Councillor Butt 9 Recommendation: Moved by Councillor Brenner Seconded by Councillor Nagy 1. That Report CS 25-24 regarding the City Property Naming in honour of John E. Anderson be received; 2. That staff be directed to explore the naming of the Exhibit Gallery in the Pickering Heritage & Community Centre as the John E. Anderson Exhibit Gallery subject to undertaking the work outlined in the City Property Naming Procedure (ADM 110-006) and report back with the final recommendations in Q4 2024; 3. That Council grant staff the authority to solicit public comment on the proposed name, as set out in Section 03.02 of City Property Naming Procedure (ADM 110-006); and, 4. That the appropriate City of Pickering officials be authorized to take the necessary actions as indicated in this report. Carried 4.8 Director, Community Services, Report CS 26-24 City Property Naming - Wayne Arthurs Recommendation: Moved by Councillor Brenner Seconded by Councillor Nagy 1. That Report CS 26-24 regarding the City Property Naming in honour of Wayne Arthurs be received; 2. That staff be directed to explore the naming of the gymnasium in the future Seaton Recreation Complex & Library as the Wayne Arthurs Gymnasium subject to undertaking the work outlined in City Property Naming Procedure (ADM 110-006) and report back with the final recommendations in Q2 2025; - 72 - Executive Committee Meeting Minutes September 3, 2024 Hybrid Electronic Meeting – 2:00 pm Chair: Councillor Butt 10 3. That Council grant staff the authority to solicit public comment on the proposed name, as set out in Section 03.02 of City Property Naming Procedure (ADM 110-006); and, 4. That the appropriate City of Pickering officials be authorized to take the necessary actions as indicated in this report. Carried 4.9 Director, Community Services, Report CS 27-24 Indoor Pickleball Facility - Update Recommendation: Moved by Councillor Brenner Seconded by Councillor Nagy That Report CS 27-24 regarding an update on Indoor Pickleball facilities be received for information. Carried 4.10 Director, Engineering Services, Report ENG 13-24 Pine Creek Erosion Assessment - Municipal Class Environmental Assessment A question and answer period ensued between Members of the Committee and staff regarding: • how the cost of the recommended process would be managed and how costs would be covered should the expected grants fall through; • whether there were specific metrics to assess the effectiveness of the project and how the public would be informed; • whether there were fail safes in place if the erosion plan were to fail; and, • whether there were additional costs associated with the Pine Creek Erosion Assessment studies. Recommendation: Moved by Councillor Brenner Seconded by Councillor Nagy - 73 - Executive Committee Meeting Minutes September 3, 2024 Hybrid Electronic Meeting – 2:00 pm Chair: Councillor Butt 11 1. That Report ENG 13-24 regarding the Pine Creek Erosion Assessment Municipal Class Environmental Assessment be received; 2. That Council endorse the Pine Creek Erosion Assessment Municipal Class Environmental Assessment prepared by Aquafor Beech Limited, dated May 10, 2024, to be used by staff as a resource document for identifying and planning projects for Pine Creek rehabilitation in areas under the jurisdiction of the City of Pickering; 3. That the recommendations within the Pine Creek Erosion Assessment Municipal Class Environmental Assessment be implemented in a phased approach, subject to budget and further Council approval for the individual projects; and, 4. That the appropriate officials of the City of Pickering be authorized to take the necessary actions as indicated in this report. Carried 4.11 Director, Engineering Services, Report ENG 14-24 Detailed Design for Radom Street Culverts Replacement - Request for Proposal No. RFP2024-8 Recommendation: Moved by Councillor Brenner Seconded by Councillor Nagy 1. That Request for Proposal No. RFP2024-8 submitted by Aquafor Beech Limited for Consulting and Professional Services for the Detailed Design for Radom Street Culverts Replacement in the amount of $140,261.25 (HST included) be accepted; 2. That the total gross project cost of $172,913.00 (HST included), including the fee amount and other associated costs, and the total net project cost of $155,714.00 (net of HST rebate) be approved; 3. That Council authorize the Director, Finance & Treasurer to finance the total net project cost of $155,714.00 as approved in the 2021 Roads Capital Budget to be funded by a transfer from the Road and Bridges Reserve Fund; and, 4. That the appropriate officials of the City of Pickering be authorized to take the necessary actions as indicated in this report. - 74 - Executive Committee Meeting Minutes September 3, 2024 Hybrid Electronic Meeting – 2:00 pm Chair: Councillor Butt 12 Carried 4.12 Director, Engineering Services, Report ENG 16-24 Pickering City Centre Park - Request for Proposal RGP2024-1 A Brief discussion ensued between Members of the Committee and Staff regarding clarification of the budgeted cost of promotional signage. Recommendation: Moved by Councillor Brenner Seconded by Councillor Nagy 1. That Request for Proposal No. RFP2024-1 for the Pickering City Centre Park - Design as submitted by MacLennan Jaunkalns Miller Architects Ltd., in the amount of $744,105.00 (HST included) be accepted; 2. That the total gross project cost of $862,778.00 (HST included), including the tendered amount, a contingency and other associated costs, and the total net project cost of $776,958.00 (net of HST rebate) be approved; 3. That Council authorize the Director, Finance & Treasurer to finance the total net project cost of $776,958.00 as follows: a) The sum of $388,479.00 available budget in capital project C10572.2409 as approved in the 2024 Parks Projects Capital Budget to be funded by a transfer of funds from the Casino Reserve; b) The sum of $388,479.00 available budget in capital project C10572.2409 as approved in the 2024 Parks Projects Capital Budget to be funded by a transfer of funds from the Development Charges Parks & Recreation Reserve Fund; and, 4. That the appropriate officials of the City of Pickering be authorized to take the necessary actions as indicated in this report. Carried Unanimously on a Recorded Vote 4.13 Director, Engineering Services, Report ENG 17-24 Sideline 24 Hard Surfacing from Highway 407 to Whitevale Road - Request for Tender No. T2024-9 - 75 - Executive Committee Meeting Minutes September 3, 2024 Hybrid Electronic Meeting – 2:00 pm Chair: Councillor Butt 13 Recommendation: Moved by Councillor Brenner Seconded by Councillor Nagy 1. That Request for Tender No. T2024-9 for Sideline 24 Hard Surfacing as submitted by IPAC Paving Limited in the total tendered amount of $501,457.28 (HST included) be accepted; 2. That the total gross project cost of $604,347.00 (HST included), including the tendered amount, contingency and other associated costs, and the total net project cost of $544,233.00 (net of HST rebate) be approved; 3. That Council authorize the Director, Finance & Treasurer to revise the funding source for this project by a transfer from the Building Faster Fund (BFF) Reserve Fund, subject to the Province’s approval of the project; a) If the Province does not approve the eligibility of BFF funding for this project, that Council authorize the Director, Finance & Treasurer to finance the project from its original approved funding source, by a transfer from the Roads & Bridges Reserve Fund; and, 4. That the appropriate officials of the City of Pickering be authorized to take the necessary actions as indicated in this report. Carried 4.14 Director, Engineering Services, Report ENG 18-24 Proposed Community Safety Zone - West Shore Boulevard Recommendation: Moved by Councillor Brenner Seconded by Councillor Nagy 1. That the attached draft by-law be enacted to amend Schedule “14” to By-law 6604/05 to provide for the regulation of Community Safety Zones on highways or parts of highways under the jurisdiction of The Corporation of the City of Pickering to provide for a Community Safety Zone on West Shore Boulevard, from Bayly Street to Beachpoint Promenade; and, 2. That the appropriate officials of the City of Pickering be authorized to take the necessary actions as indicated in this report. - 76 - Executive Committee Meeting Minutes September 3, 2024 Hybrid Electronic Meeting – 2:00 pm Chair: Councillor Butt 14 Carried 4.15 Director, Engineering Services, Report ENG 19-24 Proposed All-way Stop - Marshcourt Drive and Beechlawn Drive Recommendation: Moved by Councillor Brenner Seconded by Councillor Nagy 1. That the attached draft by-law be enacted to amend Schedule “6” and Schedule “7” to By-law 6604/05 to provide for the regulation of stop signs on highways or parts of highways under the jurisdiction of The Corporation of the City of Pickering, specifically to address the proposed installation of an all-way stop control at the intersection of Marshcourt Drive and Beechlawn Drive; and, 2. That the appropriate officials of the City of Pickering be authorized to take the necessary actions as indicated in this report. Carried 4.16 Director, Finance & Treasurer, Report FIN 16-24 2023 Building Permit Stabilization Reserve Fund A question and answer period ensued between Members of the Committee and staff regarding: • whether there were alternative strategies in place to maintain the ability to enforce building codes and manage administrative costs; • clarification of the purpose of transferring funds from Reserve Funds into the Rate Stabilization Fund and what the level of transparency was to the public; • clarification of how the Reserve Fund remained adequately funded; and, • whether there were other approaches studied, ensuring best practices. Recommendation: Moved by Councillor Brenner Seconded by Councillor Nagy - 77 - Executive Committee Meeting Minutes September 3, 2024 Hybrid Electronic Meeting – 2:00 pm Chair: Councillor Butt 15 It is recommended that Report FIN 16-24 from the Director, Finance & Treasurer regarding the 2022 Building Permit Stabilization Reserve Fund be received for information. Carried 4.17 Director, Finance & Treasurer, Report FIN 17-24 Letters of Credit & Surety Bonds Acceptance Policies A question and answer period ensued between Members of the Committee and staff regarding: • whether any developers had requested the use of Surety Bonds due to financial hardship; • whether there was an increased risk to the City if developers used Surety Bonds rather than Letters of Credit; • clarification that there was no history of issues with Surety Bonds; and, • clarification that Surety Bonds were issued only upon thorough credit checks. Recommendation: Moved by Councillor Brenner Seconded by Mayor Ashe 1. That Report FIN 17-24 regarding the Letters of Credit (LC) and Surety Bonds Acceptance Policies be received; 2. That Council approve financial policies for the acceptance of Letters of Credit and Surety Bonds (FIN 100 and FIN 110), as set out in Attachment 1 and 2 to this report; and, 3. That the appropriate City of Pickering officials be authorized to take the necessary actions as indicated in this report. Carried 4.18 Director, Finance & Treasurer, Report FIN 18-24 Building Faster Fund – 2024 Investment Plan Recommendation: Moved by Councillor Brenner Seconded by Councillor Nagy - 78 - Executive Committee Meeting Minutes September 3, 2024 Hybrid Electronic Meeting – 2:00 pm Chair: Councillor Butt 16 1. That Report FIN 18-24 regarding the Building Faster Fund grant from the Province of Ontario be received; 2. That Council authorize and approve the capital project listing in the report to be funded by the Building Faster Fund grant; and, 3. That the appropriate City of Pickering officials be given authority to take the necessary actions to give effect thereto. Carried 4.19 Fire Chief, Report FIR 04-24 Funding Request for Fire Station Alerting - Quotation No LL-072224 Recommendation: Moved by Councillor Brenner Seconded by Councillor Nagy 1. That Quotation LL-072224 for the sole source supply and installation under the Canoe Cooperative Purchasing of Fire Station alerting (Zetron™) services for Fire Stations 1, 2, 4, 5, and 6, submitted by Williams Communications in the amount of $189,475.00 (HST included) be accepted; 2. That the total gross project cost of $189,475.00 (HST included) and the total net project cost of $170,628.00 (net of HST rebate) be approved; 3. That Council authorize that the budget shortfall of $136,628.00 be approved with funding to be provided at the discretion of the Director Finance & Treasurer; and, 4. That the appropriate officials of the City of Pickering be authorized to take the necessary actions as indicated in this report. Carried 5. Member Updates on Committees There were no Committee Updates. - 79 - Executive Committee Meeting Minutes September 3, 2024 Hybrid Electronic Meeting – 2:00 pm Chair: Councillor Butt 17 6. Other Business 6.1 Councillor Cook gave Notice of a Motion regarding an anti-littering campaign to protect public spaces and the waterfront. 6.2 Councillor Pickles gave Notice of a Motion regarding a strategy for managing rats. 6.3 Councillor Pickles gave Notice of a Motion regarding urban/downtown schools. 7. Adjournment Moved by Mayor Ashe Seconded by Councillor Robinson That the meeting be adjourned. Carried The meeting adjourned at 5:20 p.m. - 80 - Special Council Meeting Minutes September 3, 2024 Hybrid Electronic Meeting Council Chambers Immediately Following the Executive Committee Meeting 1 Present: Mayor Kevin Ashe Councillors: M. BrennerS. ButtL. Cook M. NagyD. Pickles L. Robinson Also Present: M. Carpino -Chief Administrative Officer K. Bentley -Director, City Development & CBO D. Jacobs -Manager, Policy & Geomatics S. Cassel -City Clerk C. Rose -Chief Planner B. Weiler -Principal Planner, Policy J. Currie -Legislative Coordinator 1.Call to Order/Roll Call The City Clerk certified that all Members of Council were present and participating in- person, save and except Councillor Cook who was participating via electronic connection. 2.Disclosure of Interest No disclosures of interest were noted. There were no requests from credentialed media for filming in Council Chambers. 3.Delegations There were no delegations. 4.Matters for Consideration 4.1 Director, City Development & CBO, Report PLN 24-24 Housing Accelerator Fund Round 2 -City of Pickering Action Plan and Housing Accelerator Fund Application - 81 - Special Council Meeting Minutes September 3, 2024 Hybrid Electronic Meeting Council Chambers Immediately Following the Executive Committee Meeting 2 Kyle Bentley, Director, City Development & Chief Building Official, provided an introduction to the report noting that the City of Pickering was not awarded funding in the first round of the Housing Accelerator Fund (HAF) application and that there was an opportunity for the City of Pickering to apply for funding in the Housing Accelerator Fund Round 2 (HAF2). K. Bentley introduced Brandon Weiler, Principal Planner, Policy. Brandon Weiler, Principal Planner, Policy, appeared before Council and with the aid of a PowerPoint presentation, provided an overview of the Housing Accelerator Fund (HAF) and the Housing Accelerator Fund Round 2 (HAF2). B. Weiler provided a summary of the HAF2 requirements, the submission process, and the proposed HAF2 Pickering Initiatives. A question and answer period ensued between Members of Council and staff regarding: • clarification that the City of Pickering was not awarded funding in their first application for the HAF; • other Durham Region municipalities that had been awarded funding in the first HAF round; • clarification of the amounts that were awarded and how the funds could be utilized by the municipalities; • that an application to HAF2 was not guaranteed to be successful; • clarification that the proposed additional initiatives would include committing to a four units as-of-right by-law and concerns pertaining to the potential increased traffic and parking needs; • clarification of the requirements imposed by the federal government and whether Pickering could be subjected to mandatory conditions or restrictions should they be awarded the funding; and, • whether community engagement was possible prior to submitting the application. Resolution #568/24 Moved by Councillor Brenner Seconded by Councillor Robinson That Report PLN 24-24, providing information on the Housing Accelerator Fund Round 2, be received for information. - 82 - Special Council Meeting Minutes September 3, 2024 Hybrid Electronic Meeting Council Chambers Immediately Following the Executive Committee Meeting 3 Carried Unanimously on a Recorded Vote 4.2 Federation of Canadian Municipalities (FCM) Endorsement for Appointment to Standing Committees, Working Groups and Forums - Councillor Nagy Resolution #569/24 Moved by Councillor Brenner Seconded by Councillor Cook WHEREAS the Federation of Canadian Municipalities (FCM) represents the interests of member municipalities on policy and program matters that fall within federal jurisdiction; And Whereas, FCM’s Board of Directors has established standing committees, working groups, caucuses and forums comprised of both Board members and non-Board municipal elected officials to facilitate more detailed debate and provide the board with recommendations on priority policy and program issues; Now therefore be it resolved that the Council of The Corporation of the City of Pickering: 1. Endorses Councillor Mara Nagy to stand for appointment to one or more of FCM’s Standing Committees, Working Groups, or Forums for a term ending June 2025; 2. That the City assumes all costs associated with Councillor Mara Nagy attending FCM’s Standing Committee, Working Group, or Forum meetings, or other relevant FCM Board-related meetings, and such costs shall be covered in accordance with Policy ADM 190, Council Compensation Policy; and, 3. That a copy of this resolution be forwarded to FCM. Carried on a Recorded Vote as Follows: Yes: No: Councillor Brenner Councillor Robinson Councillor Butt - 83 - Special Council Meeting Minutes September 3, 2024 Hybrid Electronic Meeting Council Chambers Immediately Following the Executive Committee Meeting 4 Councillor Cook Councillor Nagy Councillor Pickles Mayor Ashe 5. Confirmatory By-law By-law 8128/24 Councillor Pickles, seconded by Councillor Butt moved for leave to introduce a By-law of the City of Pickering to confirm the proceedings of September 3, 2024. Carried 6. Adjournment Moved by Councillor Butt Seconded by Councillor Brenner That the meeting be adjourned. Carried The meeting adjourned at 6:48 pm. Dated this 3rd day of September, 2024. Kevin Ashe, Mayor Susan Cassel, City Clerk - 84 - Integrity Commissioner’s Recommendation Report Regarding Complaints Against Councillor Robinson September 17, 2024 Introduction [1]Principles Integrity was appointed the Integrity Commissioner for the City of Pickering on November 15, 2022. We are also privileged to serve as Integrity Commissioner for a number of other Ontario municipalities. [2]Integrity commissioners carry out a range of functions for municipalities and their local boards. They assist in the development of the ethical framework, for example by suggesting content or commentary for codes of conduct. They conduct education and training for members of council and outreach for members of the community. One of the most important functions is the provision of advice and guidance to members to help sort out ethical grey areas or to confirm activities that support compliance. And finally, but not principally, they investigate allegations that a person has fallen short of compliance with the municipality’s ethical framework and where appropriate they submit public reports on their findings, and make recommendations, including recommending sanctions, that council for the municipality may consider imposing in giving consideration to that report. [3]Though it is not an Integrity Commissioner’s only, or even primary function, they also serve as an independent investigator when there are allegations that a Member has contravened the Code of Conduct, conflict of interest provisions or in other ways breached the Municipality’s ethical framework; and where appropriate, they submit public reports on their findings and make recommendations, including recommending sanctions, that Council may impose after giving consideration to that report. [4]When we deliver reports following an investigation our approach wherever possible is to provide tangible guidance for course correction, where appropriate, and improvement going forward. Executive Summary: [5]This report results from a lengthy complaint against Councillor Robinson submitted by Mayor Ashe regarding numerous actions alleged to breach the Code of Conduct, as well as an individual complaints and concerns received from the public about a paid editorial taken out by Councillor Robinson on February 6, 2024. Corr. 24-24 - 85 - [6] We have grouped the various complaints by category where possible, which include: • Continuing to publicly advance a platform which has already been found to be in breach of the Code • Equating PFLAG with groups engaging in undesirable, illegal and/or immoral acts • Publicly denouncing and attacking Black History Month • Equating loss of pay (for previous Code violations) with being a modern day slave • Associating with a foreign nationalist politician known for racist and Islamophobic views • Publicly attacking the Mayor for attending church, and providing misinformation regarding the absence of prayer at the opening of Council meetings • Making various scandalous social media posts • Impugning the City’s CAO’s integrity and disparaging volunteer committee members • Disparaging staff and councillors in public statements • Crowdfunding for replacement of pay forfeited by Council-imposed sanctions for previous Code breaches [7] We have found all of the complaints alleged to be substantiated and to constitute breaches of the Code. [8] We are recommending a 90-day suspension of pay, the most severe sanction which may be imposed by a Council under the Municipal Act. Process [9] In conducting this investigation, Principles Integrity applied the principles of procedural fairness and was guided by the complaint process set out under the Code of Conduct. [10] This fair and balanced process includes the following elements: • Reviewing the complaints to determine whether they are within scope and jurisdiction and in the public interest to pursue, including giving consideration to whether the complaints should be restated or narrowed, where this better reflects the public interest; • Notifying the Respondent, and providing her with the opportunity to respond in full to the allegations; - 86 - • Reviewing the Code of Conduct and other relevant documentation and interviewing relevant witnesses as necessary; and, • Providing the Respondent with the opportunity to review and provide comments to the Integrity Commissioner’s Preliminary Findings Report, and taking those comments into consideration prior to finalizing and submitting a Recommendation Report. Code Provisions [11] Some of the relevant provisions of the Council Code of Conduct are set out below: Policy Objective: 2. Attaining an elected position within one's community is a privilege which carries significant responsibilities and obligations. Members of Council are held to a high standard as leaders of the community and are expected to become well informed on all aspects of municipal governance, administration, planning and operations. They are also expected to carry out their duties in a fair, impartial, transparent, professional, and respectful manner. 3. All Members of the Council of the City of Pickering are committed to protecting and promoting the well-being and best interests of the citizens of the City with the highest standards of integrity and ethical conduct. This Code is an affirmation of this commitment It recognizes and is based on the following key statements of principle: a) Members are committed to performing their duties of office, and arranging private affairs, in a manner that promotes public confidence in the integrity of Member and respect for Council as a whole. b) Members are committed to acting and being seen to act with integrity and impartiality that will bear the closest scrutiny. c) Members are committed to serving their constituents in a conscientious and diligent manner. d) Members are committed to working with City officials and staff in a conscientious and respectful manner. […] Statutory Provisions and References to Legislation 02.02 This Code of Conduct operates along with, and as a supplement to, the existing statutes governing the conduct of Members. The following Acts of - 87 - Provincial legislation govern the conduct of Members of Council: a) The Municipal Act, 2001; b) The Municipal Conflict of Interest Act, 1990; c) The Municipal Elections Act, 1996; d) The Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act, 1990; e) The Occupational Health and Safety Act, 1990; and f) The Human Rights Code, 1990. […] 04 Gifts and Benefits 04.04 Despite anything else in this Code, a Member shall not accept a Gift or Benefit of value greater than $500.00 and shall not accept from a single source during a 12-month period Gifts and Benefits of total value greater than $500.00. 04.05 A Member who receives a Gift or Benefit of value greater than $200.00, or received from a single source during a 12-month period Gifts and Benefits of total value greater than $200.00, shall within 30 days of receipt, file a Disclosure Statement with the City Clerk. […] 05 Interaction with the Public, Other Members, and Council/Staff Relations 05.01 Members have a duty to treat members of the public, one another, and staff, with respect and dignity and without abuse, bullying, or intimidation. […] 09 Communications and Media Relations 9.01 Members shall fairly and accurately communicate the decisions of Council even if they disagree with a majority decision of Council, in order to foster respect for the decision-making process of Council. […] 17 Reprisals 17.01 No Member shall seek any reprisal or threaten any reprisal, against a complainant or any other person for providing relevant information to the Integrity Commissioner in the course of an inquiry pursuant to a complaint. […] 23 Confidentiality - 88 - 23.02 A Complaint about any Member is to be treated as the personal information of the Member against whom the Complaint is directed, and of the complainant. Under the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act, both the Member and the complainant must therefore consent to the public disclosure of the Complaint. […] 26.04 Every Member shall comply with the requirements of this Code of Conduct, and shall act in accordance with its spirit and intent, in all matters pertaining to the performance of his or her duties as a Member. [12] Relevant provisions of the Ontario Human Rights Code are set out below: Services 1. Every person has a right to equal treatment with respect to services, goods and facilities, without discrimination because of race, ancestry, place of origin, colour, ethnic origin, citizenship, creed, sex, sexual orientation, gender identity, gender expression, age, marital status, family status or disability. [emphasis added] Infringement prohibited 9. No person shall infringe or do, directly or indirectly, anything that infringes a right under this Part. Definitions re: Parts I and II 10. (1) In Part I and in this Part, “harassment” means engaging in a course of vexatious comment or conduct that is known or ought reasonably to be known to be unwelcome; (emphasis added) The Complaints [13] This investigation stems from a large itemized complaint submitted by Mayor Ashe regarding certain actions of Councillor Robinson alleged to breach the Code of Conduct (the “Code”), as well as an individual complaint submitted by a community member, and concerns also received from additional community members in respect of a paid editorial taken out by Councillor Robinson on February 6, 2024. The complaint submitted by Mayor Ashe is complex and touches on a number of events, and so some time has been dedicated to set out the background of these complaints. [14] Some complaints relate to like instances of the same impugned behaviour; where possible, these complaints have been grouped into categories for ease of analysis. - 89 - [15] Subsequent to the filing of this complaint, Council also approved a motion on March 25, 2024 to request that the Ontario Human Rights Commission hold a public inquest inquiry with respect to the inclusion of tools in the Municipal Act to address behaviour by councillors which promotes racism, bias, and discrimination, and further to advise the City of Pickering with respect to other tools in this regard.1 1. Repeated public, media, social media commentary about the subject matter of the two previous complaints made to the Integrity Commissioner regarding the Councillor’s behaviour. Background and Context [16] Councillor Robinson has been the subject of two prior reports of the Integrity Commissioner in which she was found to have breached the Code and for which sanctions were recommended.2 In both cases, Council adopted the recommended sanctions. It is noted that Councillor Robinson has commenced a judicial review in respect of both reports, as she has indicated in her response to the current complaints. [17] The first report related to the use of Facebook for a communication found to be sarcastic and bullying towards three named individuals who had opposed the Councillor’s request for a minor variance to accommodate a shipping container at her home. [18] The second report related to Councillor Robinson’s behaviour at a Durham District School Board rally during which she read out three Notices of Motion, indicating that she could not get a seconder for these Notices of Motion from among her colleagues on Council. These Notices of Motion are addressed in detail in the previous reports, but in summary they related to: o restricting and removing the City’s support for drag queen story time, flying of Pride and Trans flags at City premises, and any related LGTBQ+ related events and activities; o removing the universal washrooms and changes rooms from City facilities, specifically the Chestnut Hills Recreation Centre. [19] These Notice of Motion and attendant commentary were found in breach of the Code as they promote homophobic and transphobic attitudes. 1 March 25, 2024 (pickering.ca) (item 13.4) 2 September 25, 2023 (pickering.ca) (Corr.28-23); October 23, 2023 (pickering.ca) (Corr.30-23). - 90 - [20] The current complaint indicates that Councillor Robinson has attended several interviews with right-wing social media commentators and has also posted her own YouTube commentaries wherein she reiterates her position on the issues for which she has already found to be in breach of the Code. Analysis and Findings [21] The conduct attracting these complaints is a collection of recorded individual statements and interviews with members of the right-wing social media world. Each interview or statement features similar key messaging, which involves repeating the desired motions and the reasons behind them. In the second report, we have already determined that this conduct constitutes thinly-veiled homophobia and transphobia and, in the absence of new evidence, we are bound to that finding. Councillor Robinson refers to pride and LGBTQ matters as being “political”; it is noted that the matters represent prohibited grounds of discrimination, and that citing the very existence of people as a politically controversial issue as support for her position is clearly discriminatory. [22] Despite the clear findings of the Integrity Commissioner and the subsequent sanctions adopted by Council, Councillor Robinson has not been contrite, but instead has become further entrenched in her position and has taken or created at least 16 opportunities to continue advancing a platform which has already been found to be in breach of the Code. 2. Publications and Statements Regarding Participation in the Santa Claus Parade Background and Context [23] Councillor Robinson engaged in numerous public communications, including postings on X (formerly Twitter) and a paid editorial in the Oshawa Central Newspaper, in which she challenged PFLAG’s participation in the annual Santa Claus parade, in some places equating it to the participation of cannabis companies, gun clubs, adult stores, and “strippers”. Analysis and Findings [24] Councillor Robinson has equated existence as a member of the LGBTQ community with drug use, gun clubs, adult sexuality, and exotic dancers, and suggests that participation in the parade is a means to “sell” or “promote” membership in the community. This fails to recognize sexuality and gender identity as an innate human characteristic and instead casts it as deviance from which children must be protected. - 91 - We find this to be a breach of the fundamental principle enumerated in the Code to protect and promote the well-being and best interests of the citizens of the City with the highest standards of integrity and ethical conduct, and a breach of the specific duty set out at 5.01 to treat members of the public with respect and dignity and without abuse, bullying, or intimidation. 3. Paid Editorial relating to Black History Month Background and Context [25] Councillor Robinson took out a paid editorial in the February 6, 2024 edition of the Oshawa/Central newspaper in which she took issue with Black History Month as prioritizing one peoples’ history over another, and promoting divisiveness. This complaint was also made by members of the public. Analysis and Findings [26] Councillor Robinson has chosen Black History Month to launch an attack on Black experience, which aligns with her prior choice of Pride month to attack LGBTQ interests. The very existence of Black History month is predicated on the fact that history is written by the powerful from their own point of view, and it cannot be meaningfully argued that Black people have ever in history occupied that position with respect to White people. Consequently, there are stories that have not been told and are highlighted during the month of February to begin integrating them into our understanding of history as a whole. [27] The editorial suggests that Councillor Robinson is also a victim of prejudice, and she refers to herself as a “modern day slave” within it. She suggests that there were “wrongs” on “both sides”, which minimizes the reality of racism both past and present, denies the very real impacts of systemic racism, and dismisses the reality that racism is still prevalent today. This is, in itself, a racist act. There was no public or municipal purpose whatsoever for this article, and it is noted that Councillor Robinson sought out the opportunity to pay to publish this document in the Oshawa Central newspaper. [28] We find this to be a breach of the fundamental principle enumerated in the Code to protect and promote the well-being and best interests of the citizens of the City with the highest standards of integrity and ethical conduct, and a breach of the specific duty set out at 5.01 to treat members of the public with respect and dignity and without abuse, bullying, or intimidation. 4. Use of Term “Modern Day Slave” Background and Context - 92 - [29] Councillor Robinson has referred to herself publicly in numerous different media as being a “modern-day slave” because of the sanctions imposed for her breaches of the Code of Conduct. Analysis and Findings [30] The language Councillor Robinson chose to use in describing the sanctions imposed by Council is clearly intended to be provocative; rather than simply choosing different language, Councillor Robinson goes to great pains to attempt to justify the use of the word “slave” as being legitimate by referring to dictionary definitions of slavery as well as the Modern Day Slavery Act . A cursory search of that legislation reveals that it is aimed at eliminating the use of slave labour in manufacturing imported goods in the supply chain and does not in any way relate to a person whose income is suspended based on sanctions authorized by a valid act of legislation, as is the case here. As a paralegal, she should be aware of this. [31] Councillor Robinson also takes a particular interest in stating that “slave” is not a word unique to the Black community and that she is entitled to use it. In this context, it is racist to suggest her experience, which is fully legal, can be equated to slavery, which is both abhorrent and completely illegal. It is noted that she used the term in her editorial about Black History Month. [32] Councillor Robinson’s financial sanctions are deemed by the Municipal Act, 2001 to be appropriate penalties for breaching the Code. She has commenced a judicial review process, as is her right, with respect to these matters. We find that her insistence on referring to herself as a “modern day slave”, including within a paid editorial in opposition to Black History Month, is a violation of the Code duty imposed on Members to treat members of the public, one another, and staff, with respect and dignity and without abuse, bullying or intimidation. 5. Association with Christine Anderson Background and Context [33] Councillor Robinson previously acknowledged attending an event featuring Christine Anderson, a German nationalist politician known for racist and Islamophobic views. She later issued an apology for her attendance. Subsequently, she appeared at another event featuring Christine Anderson, this time acting as a speaker at the event. [34] Councillor Robinson takes the position that her second attendance as a speaker was a “different way to engage” with people than her first attendance as an audience member, and she indicates that she feels that her apology is not invalidated by her subsequent repeat attendance for this reason. - 93 - Analysis and Findings [35] Councillor Robinson issued an apology for attending an event as a passive audience member and then became an actual participant, which clearly demonstrates that her apology was either insincere at the time, or that she no longer feels apologetic. She also states that although she has a framed photo of Christine Anderson in her office, this does not mean she agrees with or endorses her message. This is simply not credible. It is not up to us to determine how Councillors choose to decorate their offices, but in conjunction with the prior attendance at a Christine Anderson event, attending as a speaker shows alignment with this individual and her views, which are widely recognized as racist and Islamophobic. [36] We find that her continued association with Christine Anderson and her messages are a violation of the Code duty imposed on Members to treat members of the public, one another, and staff, with respect and dignity and without abuse, bullying, or intimidation. 6. Facebook Posting regarding Mayor Ashe’s attendance at Church Background and Context [37] Councillor Robinson posted the following on Facebook: - 94 - Analysis and Findings [38] The elimination of prayer not only at Pickering City Council, but also at most municipal Councils across Canada, was the result of the Supreme Court decision in Mouvement Laique Quebecois v. Saguenay (Ville) 3 and not the personal preferences of municipal councillors or mayors. Pickering City Council received a staff report on this and other matters as part of the review of its procedural by-law. Delegations were received, debates were held, consultations with Councillors were undertaken, and the amendments were passed as By-law 8019-23 on June 26, 2023. [39] We find that the statements contained in this posting are inappropriate and misleading and constitute a breach of the Code obligation at 9.01 to fairly and accurately communicate the decisions of Council even if a councillor disagrees with a majority decision of Council, in order to foster respect for the decision- making process of Council. We also find that the accusations levelled at the Mayor in this posting were unfairly based on the misinformation contained in it, and as such we find that the posting also violates the Code in that Councillor Robinson fails to treat her fellow Council member with respect and dignity and without abuse. 7. Various Social Media Postings and Photographs Background and Context [40] Following the imposition of sanctions for breaches of the Code, Councillor Robinson made postings on Facebook as follows: o A photo depicting a piece of tape over her mouth o A photo depicting her holding a piece of cardboard inscribed with the phrase “I faithfully & diligently uphold the responsibility of being your voice even in the absence of compensation. -Lisa Robinson City Councillor” and captioned, “What would you do if you lost ¼ of your salary?” o Sharing a publication by “Druthers” regarding the basis for her sanctions and which contained misinformation. Analysis and Findings [41] The image of Councillor Robinson with a piece of tape over her mouth suggests that she is not permitted to speak. That is not an accurate representation. She is not being silenced; like all members of Council, she is governed by both the Procedural By-law as well as the Code that was adopted by the Council she chose to sit on. 3 2015 SCC 16 - 95 - [42] The image depicting Councillor Robinson holding the cardboard sign is a statement of her position following the imposition of sanctions. We do not find that this posting contravenes the Code. However, this same picture appears with more lengthy commentary in what appears to be Councillor Robinson’s e- newsletter entitled “My Inaugural Year in the Realm of Politics”, which commentary accuses her fellow councillors of defaming and silencing her. We find that this is inappropriate and misleading and constitutes a breach of the Code obligation at 9.01 to fairly and accurately communicate the decisions of Council even if a councillor disagrees with a majority decision of Council, in order to foster respect for the decision-making process of Council. [43] The reposting of the Druthers article is clear misinformation. The caption on the posting is “Thank you Druthers newspaper for your unwavering dedication to reporting the truth and prioritizing accuracy over sensationalism. Your commitment to providing reliable information is truly commendable.” [44] In her response to the complaint, however, Councillor Robinson acknowledged that not all the information in the article was true. Her position is that sharing the article did not constitute her endorsement of it. That is completely at odds with her overt endorsement of the article as being accurate and truthful. This is a reckless, irresponsible, and unacceptable response from a public figure, particularly when the correct or incorrect nature of the information shared is within her personal knowledge because it is actually about her. She further submitted that she felt her constituents were entitled to access to the information, while at the same time expressly acknowledging that not all of it was true. This demonstrates not only an indifference to whether she was endorsing untruthful information, but an intent to convey information with the actual knowledge that it was not true. [45] We find that this is inappropriate and misleading and constitutes a breach of the Code obligation at 9.01 to fairly and accurately communicate the decisions of Council even if a councillor disagrees with a majority decision of Council, in order to foster respect for the decision-making process of Council. 8. Commentary Regarding Committee Members Background and Context [46] Councillor Robinson is alleged to have impugned the integrity of the CAO as well as the knowledge and skills of committee members on the Community Safety and Wellbeing Committee, of which she was a member. Through commentary regarding the committee selection process in a paid editorial, she questioned the use of the word “expert” to describe committee members and criticized the transparency of the appointment process. - 96 - Analysis and Findings [47] The committee appointment process is outlined in the Committees and Taskforces of Council Policy (the “Policy”). Per the Policy, the Clerk provides all applications to the staff resource for each committee for review and recommendation based on the applicants’ “relevant experience and expertise” in relation to each committee’s specific mandate. Council is provided with the staff recommendations as well as the applications and any appended resumes of all applicants. Council has the opportunity to question staff in closed session regarding their recommendations and retains the ultimate discretion to select or reject any candidate regardless of staff recommendations. [48] In her paid editorial, Councillor Robinson took exception to the use of the term “expert” in relation to those who serve on committees, and expressed concern that this term misleads people. Municipalities frequently make use of public participation on Council committees to bring additional valuable experience, knowledge, and perspectives to Council’s decision-making process. It is widely understood that these individuals are contributing to their community as volunteers and are not paid staff members or consultants engaged entirely for their professional expertise. While there may be more accurate words to choose than “expert” to describe these committee members, Councillor Robinson’s statements unfairly cast doubt on the qualifications and earnestness of those who commit to serve in this role. [49] The fact that Councillor Robinson was a member of the Community Safety and Wellbeing Committee is a further aggravating factor; she is not merely making a general observation about committee composition but clearly disparaged those who sat on the Community Safety and Wellbeing Committee with her. We find this to be a violation of the Code duty imposed on Members to treat members of the public, one another, and staff, with respect and dignity and without abuse, bullying, or intimidation. [50] The process to select committee members as set out in the Policy is merit-based, with designated staff – who are themselves experts in their own fields – making recommendations for membership based on “expertise and experience” of applicants when viewed through the lens of the committee mandate. Council is given full access to all application materials for their own review and retains the ultimate ability to follow or disregard the recommendations of staff. This is a healthy and balanced approach to community appointments to Council committees. [51] We are satisfied that the Policy was observed in both letter and spirit in the appointments made in December of 2022. Councillor Robinson was present and participated in the appointments, including having access to all application - 97 - materials and even acting as a seconder for motions to appoint members to the Committee of Adjustment and the Animal Services Committee. [52] We are also satisfied that the Policy was observed in both letter and spirit in the appointment of members to the Community Safety and Wellbeing Committee, subject to the membership requirements imposed by the Police Services Act (now Community Safety and Policing Act). Indeed, Councillor Robinson agreed to participate in that committee with a full understanding of the appointment process that took place. [53] We find that her statements regarding lack of transparency in the process are unsupported, inappropriate, and misleading, and constitute a breach of the Code obligation at 9.01 to fairly and accurately communicate the decisions of Council even if they disagree with a majority decision of Council, in order to foster respect for the decision-making process of Council. 9. Disparaging Councillors and Staff in various media Background and Context [54] Councillor Robinson has made numerous public statements regarding members of Council and, in the instance under review, the Chief Administrative Officer. In these editorial statements, she accused her Council colleagues of “persecuting” her and in engaging in behaviour which is illogical, biased, vindictive, and influenced by lobbying. She indicates that she is being bullied and discounted and suggests her gender may be the cause. Analysis and Findings [55] Councillor Robinson takes the position that because she does not specify individuals by name, she could be speaking, in a very general sense, about anyone in the political realm. This is contradicted by her assertions in these pieces that she has firsthand experience with the things she describes (“I can attest to this personally”), or that she was unaware of the extent of the “smoke and mirrors” until she “became a politician” herself. [56] These statements demonstrate that her comments are based on her own experience as a Councillor in Pickering and makes it clear that the politicians and “leadership” she is referring to are her own colleagues and administrative staff. The failure to specifically accuse people by name does not reduce the impact of these statements and creates a cloud over all elected officials on City Council, as well as municipal administration. - 98 - [57] With respect to the Mayor himself, she refers to bullying, intimidation, sexism, and then indicates in her response that she’s been unable to utilize the existing mechanisms to address these issues because of the power imbalance inherent in their roles. It is not credible that she would not avail herself of a private process out of fear or intimidation but would instead choose to pay to publish articles making accusations, and then decry the lack of processes available to address them. The Respect in the Workplace Policy specifically addresses the type of behaviour the Councillor alleges to have experienced and includes specific procedures to investigate and address it. [58] We find that in publishing these statements, Councillor Robinson has breached her duty to treat her colleagues with respect and dignity and without abuse, bullying or intimidation. While she specifically named the Mayor and made accusations against him, the fact that she relied on innuendo and suggestion rather than direct allegations to attack her fellow Councillors does not mitigate the breach of the Code. 10. Give-Send-Go Crowdfunding Account Background and Context [59] Councillor Robinson is the beneficiary of a Give-Send-Go account established to collect money on her behalf. A link to this account is published on her website. Analysis and Findings [60] Councillor Robinson takes the position throughout her discussion of the sanctions imposed on her that she has lost all her income based on the suspension of pay, and as such she missed a mortgage payment and is concerned about her financial wellbeing. However, her personal website indicates that she has worked in real estate for over twenty years, holding specific designations. Her business website shows active listings. She is also a licenced paralegal. [61] In the response to this complaint, Councillor Robinson indicates that the funding is intended to assist her with the legal fees she is incurring on the judicial review. This is contradicted by an interview she gave to Derek Sloan where it is clearly stated that this money is intended to replace her salary. [62] The Give-Send-Go page itself, which continues to be active, states that the funding will go directly to Councillor Robinson. Despite her assertions that she did not set this page up to benefit herself, her personal webpage contains an active “donate” button that links directly to the Give-Send-Go account. She acknowledges that the purpose of this button is to allow people access to the site if they wish to provide her with money. - 99 - [63] Councillor Robinson advises that she has no role in respect of this account, and that she is unaware of how much money, if any, has been raised through the account. Further, she states that any money raised is or will be directed to her lawyer. Whether or not the money comes to her or is directed to others on her behalf to satisfy her own financial obligations is irrelevant, as payment of her legal fees clearly constitutes a financial benefit to her. [64] Importantly, Councillor Robinson claims that the funding will not have any undue influence on her decisions as a councillor. We find that to be inaccurate. The funding is replacing the pay she is not receiving as a direct result of legislatively- approved sanctions for violating the Code. Allowing her to benefit from this, essentially avoiding the impact of the sanctions, encourages continued disregard for the Code and renders the concept of sanctions to be meaningless, which clearly has an ability to impact her behaviour as a councillor. While the Councillor indicates she will be complying with “fundraising rules”, it is noted that fundraising rules apply to municipal election campaigns, and not ongoing fundraising for personal matters. [65] Finally, as this funding is intended to act as income replacement, whether such funding would constitute reportable income is not within the purview of this report but bears consideration in other contexts. [66] We find that Councillor Robinson has received or is intending to receive a benefit from a single source – a group of individuals ensuring she will not face the impact of previous sanctions imposed upon her for contravening the Code. Despite alleging that she is unaware of the amount raised and making no effort to ascertain that figure when asked for clarification, we find that there is nonetheless a benefit that is accruing to the Councillor in contravention of section 4 gift provisions set out in the Code. 11. Public Commentary Regarding Planning Committee Meeting Background and Context [67] Councillor Robinson attended a Planning Committee meeting on November 26, 2023, during which she attempted to read out a constituent letter (or have the letter read by a member of the public who was not the constituent) in violation of procedure, and she subsequently posted the following on “X”: - 100 - Analysis and Findings [68] Councillor Robinson’s post suggests that the viewpoint of a constituent was unfairly silenced during a Planning Committee meeting and, as such, the constituent was not permitted to communicate concerns with respect to a planning decision. Her response to this allegation reaffirms her position that she was entitled to read this constituent letter during the meeting, and that not being allowed to do so prevented citizen participation in the planning process. [69] The Procedural By-law permits delegations to appear before the committee, or to provide written comment, or to do both. Written submissions are to be provided to Council as well as to administrative staff to be considered in the recommendation and decision-making process. We find that this is an established and observed procedure of which the Councillor was well aware, as evidenced by her statement that the majority declined to suspend the usual rules to allow her request. The constituent’s written submission was circulated as required, and under Council’s delegation process was permitted full participation in the process. We therefore - 101 - find that the Councillor’s post was misleading as it inaccurately paints the Councillors and Mayor sitting on the committee as having suppressed or denied citizen participation in the process. [70] We find that this constitutes a breach of the Code obligation at 9.01 to fairly and accurately communicate the decisions of Council even if a councillor disagrees with a majority decision of Council, in order to foster respect for the decision- making process of Council. 12. Additional Consideration: Allegation of Bias [71] In the course of investigating this complaint, Councillor Robinson has alleged that Principles Integrity is biased against her, and therefore cannot impartially and independently conduct an investigation into the complaints against her. She bases this allegation on the fact that she has commenced a judicial review process in respect of two prior investigations conducted by Principles Integrity into complaints against her. [72] It is an important issue of procedural fairness to address the issue of bias in this context. The independence and impartiality of an administrative fact-finding agency or tribunal is fundamental to the proper application of procedural fairness in an investigation, and this is determined through an assessment of whether there is a reasonable apprehension of bias. Though an integrity commissioner has broader functions than an agency or tribunal, the principle is applicable to our work. [73] The objective test is whether a reasonable person informed of the facts, viewing the matter realistically and practically, and having thought the matter through, would conclude that the tribunal members were not institutionally independent and impartial or that they were institutionally or individually biased in the conduct of the matter. [A fulsome discussion of this principle and its legal basis can be found at Appendix ‘A’.] [74] Ultimately, however, the question is whether an Integrity Commissioner is able to review the matter without bias. In this situation, the allegations arise from the fact that the Councillor has sought a judicial review in respect of two prior reports issued by Principles Integrity addressing complaints against her. This is her right, enshrined in legislation, and we respect that right. [75] We have taken the Councillor’s concerns into account, and having given them due consideration, we conclude that the mere existence of the judicial review – a legitimate exercise of a legal right – cannot be construed as giving rise to bias. The entire adjudicative framework of Canada contains built in routes of appeal, and this is no different. Exercising that right does not, in and of itself, lead to a situation of inherent bias. - 102 - [76] The judicial review has not affected our perspective nor our judgment in undertaking this investigation. Based on the jurisprudence, we are confident in our ability to maintain an independent and impartial perspective in the investigation of the complaints against Councillor Robinson. [77] As a precautionary measure, key steps in the investigation, including the drafting of the findings set out in this report, were assigned to an experienced municipal expert with no prior engagement in matters involving Councillor Robinson. Disciplinary Role of Council [78] This Report is the culmination of an independent and confidential investigation conducted in accordance with the Municipal Act, and in accordance with the tenets of procedural fairness. [79] The role of the Integrity Commissioner is to undertake a thorough and impartial investigation, which has now been completed. The tenets of procedural fairness require us to provide reasons for our conclusions and recommendations, and we have done that. Procedural fairness also requires us to conduct a process where parties can participate in the review and resolution of a complaint. [80] We have a statutory obligation to conduct investigations in a confidential manner. That means that Council is not able to conduct its own ‘investigation’ because it does not, by operation of the statute, have access to all of the information that contributed to our findings in this matter. [81] The obligation to conduct a fair and independent investigation has been discharged. [82] The role of Council is not to reinvestigate the complaint or the findings in this report. The role of Council is to review this report and decide which recommendations to adopt, if any. Recommendations and Concluding Remarks: [83] An Integrity Commissioner may recommend that sanctions be imposed, including a reprimand, or a suspension of pay for up to 90-days. [84] An important aspect of an Integrity Commissioner’s investigation report, where a breach is substantiated, is to daylight the concern for Council and the public. [85] We are of the view that the Councillor’s conduct represents a breach of the provisions of the Code of Conduct and a continued pattern of behaviour for which she was previously sanctioned. - 103 - [86] The evidence discloses that, even in the face of previous sanctions following two earlier Reports of Code violations, the Councillor persists in engaging in unacceptable behaviour. [87] Given the continued conduct exhibited by the Councillor as substantiated through this investigation, we conclude that a further monetary sanction is warranted. [88] A suspension of pay does not affect the Councillor’s ability to attend meetings or otherwise continue in the role4, but it does take away a portion of their salary, as a penalty for violation of the Code. [89] The factors to be taken into consideration in determining a penalty ought to include proportionality and deterrence. We would add to this the concept of progressive discipline. [90] Following receipt of our August 14, 2023 Report dealing with the targeting of citizens on Facebook, Council imposed a 30-day suspension of pay. [91] Following receipt of our October 13, 2023 Report dealing with publicly promoting homophobic and transphobic positions, Council imposed a 60-day suspension of pay. [92] We are therefore recommending that Council impose a 90-day suspension of pay. If there were legislative authority for such (similar to the Education Act in regard to school board Trustees), we would recommend the suspension of the Councillor from attending meetings for a period of 90 days. [93] During the investigation the Councillor lodged counter-complaints against the Mayor. This action must be recognized as a reprisal – conduct clearly contrary to the Code of Conduct. [94] She alleged bias against the Integrity Commissioner. Again, this must be recognized as an attempt at obstruction, intended to derail our investigation of the complaints. [95] Her steadfast refusal to recognize any of her conduct as contraventions of the Code or to acknowledge the hurt and harm she inflicts on others through her actions demonstrate an arrogant self-righteousness which we have rarely encountered in our municipal political leaders. [96] Her conduct raises real concerns about impacts on those individuals within already-marginalized groups of society. 4 Unlike the Education Act, which contemplates suspending Trustees found in breach of the Code from attending meetings, the Municipal Act lacks this simple mechanism. - 104 - [97] Based on all of the above, a significant sanction is warranted. [98] We therefore recommend as follow: 1. That the remuneration paid to Councillor Robinson be suspended for a period of 90 days; [100] We wish to conclude by publicly thanking the parties, members of Council and current and former staff who participated in our investigation. We express genuine appreciation for the sharing of time, knowledge and perspective by everyone concerned. [101] We will be available to introduce this report and respond to questions during the Council meeting at which this report is considered. - 105 - Appendix A - Bias In one of the leading cases on bias of administrative tribunals and agencies, a panel of the Federal Court of Appeal 5 stated at paragraph 37: [37] It is now recognized that the constitutional or common law rules of independence and impartiality applicable to the courts do not apply with the same stringency to administrative tribunals….[quoting from a Supreme Court of Canada decision] “an informed person’s assessment will always depend on the circumstances. The nature of the dispute to be decided, the other duties of the administrative agency and the operational context as a whole will of course affect the assessment. In a criminal trial, the smallest detail capable of casting doubt on the judge’s impartiality will be cause for alarm, whereas greater flexibility must be shown toward administrative tribunals.” [In that matter, the three members of the panel who had been appointed by the Canadian Human Rights Commission to inquire into a complaint had not been appointed to a newly established tribunal. Their appointments were therefore not being extended. The continuation of the hearing before them would result in their remuneration on a per diem basis for the duration of the matter. The complainant alleged that the tribunal members were not independent or impartial, given that their appointments had not been extended and their per diem remuneration was to be impacted by the continuation of the hearing.] In finding no reasonable apprehension of bias, the Court stated: [38] The appellant, in my view, in what I can only term either a desperate move or a wasted effort (un coup d’épée dans l’eau), argues that there is a reasonable apprehension of bias resulting from the fact that the three members, being paid on a per diem basis, might protract and prolong the hearing of the complaint in order to extract more money from the government. … Again, a reasonable person well informed of all the facts surrounding these proceedings and the allegations made by the appellant could not and would not 5 Northwest Territories v Public Service Alliance of Canada 2001 FCA 162 (CanLII). - 106 - conclude that the members would be, for that reason, institutionally or individually biased in the conduct of their hearing. … More than fanciful speculation is required to create in the mind of a well- informed and reasonable person a reasonable apprehension of bias. As Cory J. said in R. v. S. (R.D.), 1997 CanLII 324 (SCC), [1997] 3 S.C.R. 484, at paragraph 112, the threshold for a finding of real or perceived bias is high and mere suspicion is not enough: a real likelihood of probability of bias must be demonstrated. In a similar allegation of bias raised by a respondent against the investigating Integrity Commissioner, in the City of Ottawa case involving Councillor Chiarelli, the Court stated: [73] … The structure for establishing a position of “Integrity Commissioner” has been designed by the Province to create that office as independent. The Legislature has designed the structure, and no inference can be drawn that, due to that structure, the independence and neutrality of the Commissioner is “tainted” because the Mayor or members of Council may have indicated their views. [74] The Commissioner’s role is investigative, not adjudicative. … [75] The test to show bias or a reasonable apprehension of bias on the part of an adjudicator is a high one: "Bias" refers to anything that may reasonably lead the adjudicator to decide the case on some basis other than the evidence before the tribunal and the law. "Apprehended bias" refers to anything that may lead the informed and reasonable observer to form a reasonable apprehension that the adjudicator might decide the case on some basis other than the evidence and the law.3 There is a “strong presumption” of impartiality; “the threshold for a successful allegation of apprehended bias is high”. [76] The test for showing bias or a reasonable apprehension of bias on the part of someone performing an investigative or administrative function is even higher than it is for someone performing an adjudicative function: The standard of conduct which is applicable to those performing an adjudicative function is different from those performing a purely administrative or investigative - 107 - function. In the case of an administrative or investigative function, the standard is not whether there is a reasonable apprehension of bias on the part of the investigator, but rather whether the investigator maintained an open mind, that is whether the investigator has not predetermined the issue. [118] …we find that the Commissioner showed professionalism, courtesy, patience and restraint in his dealings with Councillor Chiarelli and his counsel. [119] …We see no basis, whatsoever, for the allegation that the Commissioner proceeded with a closed mind, that his investigation was predetermined, or that the Commissioner discharged his duties in a manner that could give rise to a reasonable apprehension of bias. - 108 - PROVINCIAL PLANNING STATEMENT, 2024 Under the Planning Act MINISTRY OF MUNICIPAL AFFAIRS AND HOUSING Corr. 25-24 - 109 - PROVINCIAL PLANNING STATEMENT, 2024 Approved by the Lieutenant Governor in Council, Order in Council No. 1099/2024 The Provincial Planning Statement was issued under section 3 of the Planning Act and came into effect October 20, 2024. It replaces the Provincial Policy Statement that came into effect on May 1, 2020. © King’s Printer for Ontario, 2024 ISBN 978-1-4868-8225-0 (Print) ISBN 978-1-4868-8226-7 (PDF) ISBN 978-1-4868-8227-4 (HTML) Disponible en français - 110 - Table of Contents CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION ...........................................................................................................1 Vision ............................................................................................................................. 1 Role of the Provincial Planning Statement ................................................................... 2 Legislative Authority ..................................................................................................... 2 How to Read the Provincial Planning Statement.......................................................... 3 CHAPTER 2: BUILDING HOMES, SUSTAINING STRONG AND COMPETITIVE COMMUNITIES ...............6 2.1 Planning for People and Homes.............................................................................. 6 2.2 Housing.................................................................................................................... 7 2.3 Settlement Areas and Settlement Area Boundary Expansions............................... 8 2.4 Strategic Growth Areas ........................................................................................... 9 2.5 Rural Areas in Municipalities................................................................................. 11 2.6 Rural Lands in Municipalities ................................................................................ 12 2.7 Territory Without Municipal Organization ........................................................... 12 2.8 Employment .......................................................................................................... 13 2.9 Energy Conservation, Air Quality and Climate Change......................................... 15 CHAPTER 3: INFRASTRUCTURE AND FACILITIES .............................................................................16 3.1 General Policies for Infrastructure and Public Service Facilities........................... 16 3.2 Transportation Systems ........................................................................................ 16 3.3 Transportation and Infrastructure Corridors ........................................................ 17 3.4 Airports, Rail and Marine Facilities ....................................................................... 17 3.5 Land Use Compatibility ......................................................................................... 18 3.6 Sewage, Water and Stormwater........................................................................... 18 3.7 Waste Management.............................................................................................. 20 3.8 Energy Supply........................................................................................................ 20 3.9 Public Spaces, Recreation, Parks, Trails and Open Space ..................................... 20 CHAPTER 4: WISE USE AND MANAGEMENT OF RESOURCES...........................................................21 4.1 Natural Heritage.................................................................................................... 21 4.2 Water..................................................................................................................... 22 4.3 Agriculture............................................................................................................. 23 4.4 Minerals and Petroleum........................................................................................ 25 4.5 Mineral Aggregate Resources ............................................................................... 26 4.6 Cultural Heritage and Archaeology ....................................................................... 28 CHAPTER 5: PROTECTING PUBLIC HEALTH AND SAFETY.................................................................29 5.1 General Policies for Natural and Human-Made Hazards ...................................... 29 5.2 Natural Hazards..................................................................................................... 29 5.3 Human-Made Hazards .......................................................................................... 31 CHAPTER 6: IMPLEMENTATION AND INTERPRETATION .................................................................32 6.1 General Policies for Implementation and Interpretation ..................................... 32 6.2 Coordination.......................................................................................................... 34 7: FIGURE 1 – NATURAL HERITAGE PROTECTION LINE....................................................................36 8: DEFINITIONS.............................................................................................................................38 9: APPENDIX – SCHEDULE 1: LIST OF LARGE AND FAST-GROWING MUNICIPALITIES .......................56 - 111 - Provincial Planning Statement, 2024 Chapter 1: Introduction Vision Ontario is a vast, fast-growing province that is home to many urban, rural and northern communities distinguished by different populations, economic activity, pace of growth, and physical and natural conditions. More than anything, a prosperous Ontario will see the building of more homes for all Ontarians. This is why the province has set a goal of getting at least 1.5 million homes built by 2031. Ontario will increase the supply and mix of housing options, addressing the full range of housing affordability needs. Every community will build homes that respond to changing market needs and local demand. Providing a sufficient supply with the necessary mix of housing options will support a diverse and growing population and workforce, now and for many years to come. A prosperous and successful Ontario will also support a strong and competitive economy that is investment-ready and recognized for its influence, innovation and diversity. Ontario’s economy will continue to mature into a centre of industry and commerce of global significance. Central to this success will be the people who live and work in this province. Ontario’s land use planning framework, and the decisions that are made, shape how our communities grow and prosper. Prioritizing compact and transit-supportive design, where locally appropriate, and optimizing investments in infrastructure and public service facilities will support convenient access to housing, quality employment, services and recreation for all Ontarians. Cultural heritage and archaeology in Ontario will provide people with a sense of place. And while many Ontarians still face a complex range of challenges, municipalities will work with the Province to support the long term prosperity and well-being of residents through the design of communities responsive to the needs of all Ontarians. Ontario’s vibrant agricultural sector and sensitive areas will continue to form part of the province’s economic prosperity and overall identity. Growth and development will be prioritized within urban and rural settlements that will, in turn, support and protect the long-term viability of rural areas, local food production, and the agri-food network. In addition, resources, including natural areas, water, aggregates and agricultural lands will be protected. Potential risks to public health or safety or of property damage from natural hazards and human-made hazards, including the risks associated with the impacts of climate change will be mitigated. Ontario will continue to recognize the unique role Indigenous communities have in land use planning and development, and the contribution of Indigenous communities’ perspectives and traditional knowledge to land use planning decisions. Meaningful early engagement and constructive, cooperative relationship-building between planning authorities and Indigenous communities will facilitate knowledge-sharing and inform decision-making in land use planning. Above all, Ontario will continue to be a great place to live, work and visit where all Ontarians enjoy a high standard of living and an exceptional quality of life. 1 - 112 - Provincial Planning Statement, 2024 Role of the Provincial Planning Statement The Provincial Planning Statement provides policy direction on matters of provincial interest related to land use planning and development. As a key part of Ontario’s policy-led planning system, the Provincial Planning Statement sets the policy foundation for regulating the development and use of land province-wide, helping achieve the provincial goal of meeting the needs of a fast-growing province while enhancing the quality of life for all Ontarians. Municipal official plans are the most important vehicle for implementation of the Provincial Planning Statement and for achieving comprehensive, integrated and long-term planning. Official plans should coordinate cross-boundary matters to complement the actions of other planning authorities and promote mutually beneficial outcomes. Zoning and development permit by-laws are also important for the implementation of the Provincial Planning Statement. Zoning and development permit by-laws should be forward-looking and facilitate opportunities for an appropriate range and mix of housing options for all Ontarians. Land use planning is only one of the tools for implementing provincial interests. A wide range of legislation, regulations, policies and programs may apply to decisions with respect to Planning Act applications, affect planning matters, and assist in implementing these interests. The Province’s rich cultural diversity is one of its distinctive and defining features. Indigenous communities have a unique relationship with the land and its resources, which continues to shape the history and economy of the Province today. Ontario recognizes the unique role Indigenous communities have in land use planning and development, and the contribution of Indigenous communities’ perspectives and traditional knowledge to land use planning decisions. The Province recognizes the importance of consulting with Aboriginal communities on planning matters that may affect their section 35 Aboriginal or treaty rights. Legislative Authority The Provincial Planning Statement is a policy statement issued under the authority of section 3 of the Planning Act and came into effect on October 20, 2024. The Provincial Planning Statement applies to all decisions in respect of the exercise of any authority that affects a planning matter made on or after October 20, 2024. In respect of the exercise of any authority that affects a planning matter, section 3 of the Planning Act requires that decisions affecting planning matters shall be consistent with policy statements issued under the Act. Comments, submissions or advice that affect a planning matter that are provided by the council of a municipality, a local board, a planning board, a minister or ministry, board, commission or agency of the government shall be consistent with the Provincial Planning Statement. 2 - 113 - Provincial Planning Statement, 2024 How to Read the Provincial Planning Statement The provincial policy-led planning system recognizes and addresses the complex inter-relationships among environmental, economic, health and social factors in land use planning. The Provincial Planning Statement supports a comprehensive, integrated and long-term approach to planning, and recognizes linkages among policy areas. The Provincial Planning Statement is more than a set of individual policies. It is to be read in its entirety and the relevant policies are to be applied to each situation. When more than one policy is relevant, a decision-maker should consider all of the relevant policies to understand how they work together. The language of each policy, including the Implementation and Interpretation policies, will assist decision-makers in understanding how the policies are to be implemented. There is no implied priority in the order in which the policies appear. While specific policies sometimes refer to other policies for ease of use, these cross-references do not take away from the need to read the Provincial Planning Statement as a whole. Consider Specific Policy Language When applying the Provincial Planning Statement it is important to consider the specific language of the policies. Each policy provides direction on how it is to be implemented, how it is situated within the broader Provincial Planning Statement, and how it relates to other policies. Some policies set out positive directives, such as “settlement areas shall be the focus of growth and development.” Other policies set out limitations and prohibitions, such as “development and site alteration shall not be permitted.” Other policies use enabling or supportive language, such as “should,” “promote,” and “encourage.” The choice of language is intended to distinguish between the types of policies and the nature of implementation. There is some discretion when applying a policy with enabling or supportive language in contrast to a policy with a directive, limitation or prohibition. Geographic Scale of Policies The Provincial Planning Statement recognizes the diversity of Ontario and that local context is important. Policies are outcome-oriented, and some policies provide flexibility in their implementation provided that provincial interests are upheld. While the Provincial Planning Statement is to be read as a whole, not all policies will be applicable to every site, feature or area. The Provincial Planning Statement applies at a range of geographic scales. Some of the policies refer to specific areas or features and can only be applied where these features or areas exist. Other policies refer to planning objectives that need to be considered in the context of the municipality or planning area as a whole, and are not necessarily applicable to a specific site or development proposal. 3 - 114 - Provincial Planning Statement, 2024 Within the Great Lakes –St. Lawrence River Basin, there may be circumstances where planning authorities should consider agreements related to the protection or restoration of the Great Lakes – St. Lawrence River Basin. Examples of these agreements include Great Lakes agreements between Ontario and Canada, between Ontario and Quebec and the Great Lakes States of the United States of America, and between Canada and the United States of America. Policies Represent Minimum Standards The policies of the Provincial Planning Statement represent minimum standards. Within the framework of the provincial policy-led planning system, planning authorities and decision-makers may go beyond these minimum standards to address matters of importance to a specific community, unless doing so would conflict with any policy of the Provincial Planning Statement. Defined Terms and Meanings Except for references to legislation which are italicized, other italicized terms in the Provincial Planning Statement are defined in the Definitions chapter. For non-italicized terms, the normal meaning of the word applies. Terms may be italicized only in specific policies; for these terms, the defined meaning applies where they are italicized and the normal meaning applies where they are not italicized. Defined terms in the Definitions chapter are intended to capture both singular and plural forms of these terms in the policies. Provincial Guidance Provincial guidance, including guidance material, guidelines and technical criteria may be issued from time to time to assist planning authorities and decision-makers with implementing the policies of the Provincial Planning Statement. Information, technical criteria and approaches outlined in provincial guidance are meant to support implementation but not add to or detract from the policies of this Provincial Planning Statement. Relationship with Provincial Plans The Provincial Planning Statement provides overall policy directions on matters of provincial interest related to land use planning and development in Ontario, and applies province-wide, except where this Provincial Planning Statement or another provincial plan provides otherwise. Provincial plans, such as the Greenbelt Plan and the Oak Ridges Moraine Conservation Plan, build upon the policy foundation provided by the Provincial Planning Statement. They provide additional land use planning policies to address issues facing specific geographic areas in Ontario. Provincial plans are to be read in conjunction with the Provincial Planning Statement. They take precedence over the policies of the Provincial Planning Statement to the extent of any conflict, except where the relevant legislation provides otherwise. 4 - 115 - Provincial Planning Statement, 2024 Where the policies of provincial plans address the same, similar, related, or overlapping matters as the policies of the Provincial Planning Statement, applying the more specific policies of the provincial plan satisfies the more general requirements of the Provincial Planning Statement. In contrast, where matters addressed in the Provincial Planning Statement do not overlap with policies in provincial plans, the policies in the Provincial Planning Statement must be independently satisfied. Land use planning decisions made by municipalities, planning boards, the Province, or a commission or agency of the government must be consistent with the Provincial Planning Statement. Where provincial plans are in effect, planning decisions must conform or not conflict with them, as the case may be. 5 - 116 - Provincial Planning Statement, 2024 Chapter 2: Building Homes, Sustaining Strong and Competitive Communities 2.1 Planning for People and Homes 1. As informed by provincial guidance, planning authorities shall base population and employment growth forecasts on Ontario Population Projections published by the Ministry of Finance and may modify, as appropriate. 2. Notwithstanding policy 2.1.1, municipalities may continue to forecast growth using population and employment forecasts previously issued by the Province for the purposes of land use planning. 3. At the time of creating a new official plan and each official plan update, sufficient land shall be made available to accommodate an appropriate range and mix of land uses to meet projected needs for a time horizon of at least 20 years, but not more than 30 years, informed by provincial guidance. Planning for infrastructure, public service facilities, strategic growth areas and employment areas may extend beyond this time horizon. Where the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing has made a zoning order, the resulting development potential shall be in addition to projected needs over the planning horizon established in the official plan. At the time of the municipality’s next official plan update, this additional growth shall be incorporated into the official plan and related infrastructure plans. 4. To provide for an appropriate range and mix of housing options and densities required to meet projected requirements of current and future residents of the regional market area, planning authorities shall: a) maintain at all times the ability to accommodate residential growth for a minimum of 15 years through lands which are designated and available for residential development; and b) maintain at all times where new development is to occur, land with servicing capacity sufficient to provide at least a three-year supply of residential units available through lands suitably zoned, including units in draft approved or registered plans. 5. Where planning is conducted by an upper-tier municipality, the land and unit supply maintained by the lower-tier municipality identified in policy 2.1.4 shall be based on and reflect the allocation of population and units by the upper-tier municipality. 6 - 117 - Provincial Planning Statement, 2024 6. Planning authorities should support the achievement of complete communities by: a) accommodating an appropriate range and mix of land uses, housing options, transportation options with multimodal access, employment, public service facilities and other institutional uses (including schools and associated child care facilities, long- term care facilities, places of worship and cemeteries), recreation, parks and open space, and other uses to meet long-term needs; b) improving accessibility for people of all ages and abilities by addressing land use barriers which restrict their full participation in society; and c) improving social equity and overall quality of life for people of all ages, abilities, and incomes, including equity-deserving groups. 2.2 Housing 1. Planning authorities shall provide for an appropriate range and mix of housing options and densities to meet projected needs of current and future residents of the regional market area by: a) establishing and implementing minimum targets for the provision of housing that is affordable to low and moderate income households, and coordinating land use planning and planning for housing with Service Managers to address the full range of housing options including affordable housing needs; b) permitting and facilitating: 1. all housing options required to meet the social, health, economic and well- being requirements of current and future residents, including additional needs housing and needs arising from demographic changes and employment opportunities; and 2. all types of residential intensification, including the development and redevelopment of underutilized commercial and institutional sites (e.g., shopping malls and plazas) for residential use, development and introduction of new housing options within previously developed areas, and redevelopment, which results in a net increase in residential units in accordance with policy 2.3.1.3; c) promoting densities for new housing which efficiently use land, resources, infrastructure and public service facilities, and support the use of active transportation; and d) requiring transit-supportive development and prioritizing intensification, including potential air rights development, in proximity to transit, including corridors and stations. 7 - 118 - Provincial Planning Statement, 2024 2.3 Settlement Areas and Settlement Area Boundary Expansions 2.3.1 General Policies for Settlement Areas 1. Settlement areas shall be the focus of growth and development. Within settlement areas, growth should be focused in, where applicable, strategic growth areas, including major transit station areas. 2. Land use patterns within settlement areas should be based on densities and a mix of land uses which: a) efficiently use land and resources; b) optimize existing and planned infrastructure and public service facilities; c) support active transportation; d) are transit-supportive, as appropriate; and e) are freight-supportive. 3. Planning authorities shall support general intensification and redevelopment to support the achievement of complete communities, including by planning for a range and mix of housing options and prioritizing planning and investment in the necessary infrastructure and public service facilities. 4. Planning authorities shall establish and implement minimum targets for intensification and redevelopment within built-up areas, based on local conditions. 5. Planning authorities are encouraged to establish density targets for designated growth areas, based on local conditions. Large and fast-growing municipalities are encouraged to plan for a target of 50 residents and jobs per gross hectare in designated growth areas. 6. Planning authorities should establish and implement phasing policies, where appropriate, to ensure that development within designated growth areas is orderly and aligns with the timely provision of the infrastructure and public service facilities. 8 - 119 - Provincial Planning Statement, 2024 2.3.2 New Settlement Areas and Settlement Area Boundary Expansions 1. In identifying a new settlement area or allowing a settlement area boundary expansion, planning authorities shall consider the following: a) the need to designate and plan for additional land to accommodate an appropriate range and mix of land uses; b) if there is sufficient capacity in existing or planned infrastructure and public service facilities; c) whether the applicable lands comprise specialty crop areas; d) the evaluation of alternative locations which avoid prime agricultural areas and, where avoidance is not possible, consider reasonable alternatives on lower priority agricultural lands in prime agricultural areas; e) whether the new or expanded settlement area complies with the minimum distance separation formulae; f) whether impacts on the agricultural system are avoided, or where avoidance is not possible, minimized and mitigated to the extent feasible as determined through an agricultural impact assessment or equivalent analysis, based on provincial guidance; and g) the new or expanded settlement area provides for the phased progression of urban development. 2. Notwithstanding policy 2.3.2.1.b), planning authorities may identify a new settlement area only where it has been demonstrated that the infrastructure and public service facilities to support development are planned or available. 2.4 Strategic Growth Areas 2.4.1 General Policies for Strategic Growth Areas 1. Planning authorities are encouraged to identify and focus growth and development in strategic growth areas. 2. To support the achievement of complete communities, a range and mix of housing options, intensification and more mixed-use development, strategic growth areas should be planned: a) to accommodate significant population and employment growth; b) as focal areas for education, commercial, recreational, and cultural uses; c) to accommodate and support the transit network and provide connection points for inter-and intra-regional transit; and d) to support affordable, accessible, and equitable housing. 9 - 120 - Provincial Planning Statement, 2024 3. Planning authorities should: a) prioritize planning and investment for infrastructure and public service facilities in strategic growth areas; b) identify the appropriate type and scale of development in strategic growth areas and the transition of built form to adjacent areas; c) permit development and intensification in strategic growth areas to support the achievement of complete communities and a compact built form; d) consider a student housing strategy when planning for strategic growth areas; and e) support redevelopment of commercially-designated retail lands (e.g., underutilized shopping malls and plazas), to support mixed-use residential. 2.4.2 Major Transit Station Areas 1. Planning authorities shall delineate the boundaries of major transit station areas on higher order transit corridors through a new official plan or official plan amendment adopted under section 26 of the Planning Act. The delineation shall define an area within an approximately 500 to 800- metre radius of a transit station and that maximizes the number of potential transit users that are within walking distance of the station. 2. Within major transit station areas on higher order transit corridors, planning authorities shall plan for a minimum density target of: a) 200 residents and jobs combined per hectare for those that are served by subways; b) 160 residents and jobs combined per hectare for those that are served by light rail or bus rapid transit; or c) 150 residents and jobs combined per hectare for those that are served by commuter or regional rail. 3. Planning authorities are encouraged to promote development and intensification within major transit station areas, where appropriate, by: a) planning for land uses and built form that supports the achievement of minimum density targets; and b) supporting the redevelopment of surface parking lots within major transit station areas, including commuter parking lots, to be transit-supportive and promote complete communities. 4. For any particular major transit station area, planning authorities may request the Minister to approve an official plan or official plan amendment with a target that is lower than the applicable target established in policy 2.4.2.2, where it has been demonstrated that this target cannot be achieved because: a) development is prohibited by provincial policy or severely restricted on a significant portion of the lands within the delineated area; or b) there are a limited number of residents and jobs associated with the built form, but a major trip generator or feeder service will sustain high ridership at the station or stop. 10 - 121 - Provincial Planning Statement, 2024 5. Planning authorities may plan for major transit station areas that are not on higher order transit corridors by delineating boundaries and establishing minimum density targets. 6. All major transit station areas should be planned and designed to be transit-supportive and to achieve multimodal access to stations and connections to nearby major trip generators by providing, where feasible: a) connections to local and regional transit services to support transit service integration; b) infrastructure that accommodates a range of mobility needs and supports active transportation, including sidewalks, bicycle lanes, and secure bicycle parking; and c) commuter pick-up/drop-off areas. 2.4.3 Frequent Transit Corridors 1. Planning authorities shall plan for intensification on lands that are adjacent to existing and planned frequent transit corridors, where appropriate. 2.5 Rural Areas in Municipalities 1. Healthy, integrated and viable rural areas should be supported by: a) building upon rural character, and leveraging rural amenities and assets; b) promoting regeneration, including the redevelopment of brownfield sites; c) accommodating an appropriate range and mix of housing in rural settlement areas; d) using rural infrastructure and public service facilities efficiently; e) promoting diversification of the economic base and employment opportunities through goods and services, including value-added products and the sustainable management or use of resources; f) providing opportunities for sustainable and diversified tourism, including leveraging historical, cultural, and natural assets; g) conserving biodiversity and considering the ecological benefits provided by nature; and h) providing opportunities for economic activities in prime agricultural areas, in accordance with policy 4.3. 2. In rural areas, rural settlement areas shall be the focus of growth and development and their vitality and regeneration shall be promoted. 3. When directing development in rural settlement areas in accordance with policy 2.3, planning authorities shall give consideration to locally appropriate rural characteristics, the scale of development and the provision of appropriate service levels. Growth and development may be directed to rural lands in accordance with policy 2.6, including where a municipality does not have a settlement area. 11 - 122 - Provincial Planning Statement, 2024 2.6 Rural Lands in Municipalities 1. On rural lands located in municipalities, permitted uses are: a) the management or use of resources; b) resource-based recreational uses (including recreational dwellings not intended as permanent residences); c) residential development, including lot creation, where site conditions are suitable for the provision of appropriate sewage and water services; d) agricultural uses, agriculture-related uses, on-farm diversified uses and normal farm practices, in accordance with provincial standards; e) home occupations and home industries; f) cemeteries; and g) other rural land uses. 2. Development that can be sustained by rural service levels should be promoted. 3. Development shall be appropriate to the infrastructure which is planned or available, and avoid the need for the uneconomical expansion of this infrastructure. 4. Planning authorities should support a diversified rural economy by protecting agricultural and other resource-related uses and directing non-related development to areas where it will minimize constraints on these uses. 5. New land uses, including the creation of lots, and new or expanding livestock facilities, shall comply with the minimum distance separation formulae. 2.7 Territory Without Municipal Organization 1. On rural lands located in territory without municipal organization, the focus of development activity shall be related to the sustainable management or use of resources and resource-based recreational uses (including recreational dwellings not intended as permanent residences). 2. Development shall be appropriate to the infrastructure which is planned or available, and avoid the need for the unjustified and/or uneconomical expansion of this infrastructure. 3. The establishment of new permanent townsites shall not be permitted. 12 - 123 - Provincial Planning Statement, 2024 4. In areas adjacent to and surrounding municipalities, only development that is related to the sustainable management or use of resources and resource-based recreational uses (including recreational dwellings not intended as permanent residences) shall be permitted. Other uses may only be permitted if: a) the area forms part of a planning area; b) the necessary infrastructure and public service facilities are planned or available to support the development and are financially viable over their life cycle; and c) it has been determined that the impacts of development will not place an undue strain on the public service facilities and infrastructure provided by adjacent municipalities, regions and/or the Province. 2.8 Employment 2.8.1 Supporting a Modern Economy 1. Planning authorities shall promote economic development and competitiveness by: a) providing for an appropriate mix and range of employment, institutional, and broader mixed uses to meet long-term needs; b) providing opportunities for a diversified economic base, including maintaining a range and choice of suitable sites for employment uses which support a wide range of economic activities and ancillary uses, and take into account the needs of existing and future businesses; c) identifying strategic sites for investment, monitoring the availability and suitability of employment sites, including market-ready sites, and seeking to address potential barriers to investment; d) encouraging intensification of employment uses and compatible, compact, mixed-use development to support the achievement of complete communities; and e) addressing land use compatibility adjacent to employment areas by providing an appropriate transition to sensitive land uses. 2. Industrial, manufacturing and small-scale warehousing uses that could be located adjacent to sensitive land uses without adverse effects are encouraged in strategic growth areas and other mixed-use areas where frequent transit service is available, outside of employment areas. 3. In addition to policy 3.5, on lands within 300 metres of employment areas, development shall avoid, or where avoidance is not possible, minimize and mitigate potential impacts on the long- term economic viability of employment uses within existing or planned employment areas, in accordance with provincial guidelines. 4. Major office and major institutional development should be directed to major transit station areas or other strategic growth areas where frequent transit service is available. 13 - 124 - Provincial Planning Statement, 2024 2.8.2 Employment Areas 1. Planning authorities shall plan for, protect and preserve employment areas for current and future uses, and ensure that the necessary infrastructure is provided to support current and projected needs. 2. Planning authorities shall protect employment areas that are located in proximity to major goods movement facilities and corridors, including facilities and corridors identified in provincial transportation plans, for the employment area uses that require those locations. 3. Planning authorities shall designate, protect and plan for all employment areas in settlement areas by: a) planning for employment area uses over the long-term that require those locations including manufacturing, research and development in connection with manufacturing, warehousing and goods movement, and associated retail and office uses and ancillary facilities; b) prohibiting residential uses, commercial uses, public service facilities and other institutional uses; c) prohibiting retail and office uses that are not associated with the primary employment use; d) prohibiting other sensitive land uses that are not ancillary to uses permitted in the employment area; and e) including an appropriate transition to adjacent non-employment areas to ensure land use compatibility and economic viability. 4. Planning authorities shall assess and update employment areas identified in official plans to ensure that this designation is appropriate to the planned function of employment areas. In planning for employment areas, planning authorities shall maintain land use compatibility between sensitive land uses and employment areas in accordance with policy 3.5 to maintain the long-term operational and economic viability of the planned uses and function of these areas. 14 - 125 - Provincial Planning Statement, 2024 5. Planning authorities may remove lands from employment areas only where it has been demonstrated that: a) there is an identified need for the removal and the land is not required for employment area uses over the long term; b) the proposed uses would not negatively impact the overall viability of the employment area by: 1. avoiding, or where avoidance is not possible, minimizing and mitigating potential impacts to existing or planned employment area uses in accordance with policy 3.5; 2. maintaining access to major goods movement facilities and corridors; c) existing or planned infrastructure and public service facilities are available to accommodate the proposed uses; and d) the municipality has sufficient employment lands to accommodate projected employment growth to the horizon of the approved official plan. 2.9 Energy Conservation, Air Quality and Climate Change 1. Planning authorities shall plan to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and prepare for the impacts of a changing climate through approaches that: a) support the achievement of compact, transit-supportive, and complete communities; b) incorporate climate change considerations in planning for and the development of infrastructure, including stormwater management systems, and public service facilities; c) support energy conservation and efficiency; d) promote green infrastructure, low impact development, and active transportation, protect the environment and improve air quality; and e) take into consideration any additional approaches that help reduce greenhouse gas emissions and build community resilience to the impacts of a changing climate. 15 - 126 - Provincial Planning Statement, 2024 Chapter 3: Infrastructure and Facilities 3.1 General Policies for Infrastructure and Public Service Facilities 1. Infrastructure and public service facilities shall be provided in an efficient manner while accommodating projected needs. Planning for infrastructure and public service facilities shall be coordinated and integrated with land use planning and growth management so that they: a) are financially viable over their life cycle, which may be demonstrated through asset management planning; b) leverage the capacity of development proponents, where appropriate; and c) are available to meet current and projected needs. 2. Before consideration is given to developing new infrastructure and public service facilities: a) the use of existing infrastructure and public service facilities should be optimized; and b) opportunities for adaptive re-use should be considered, wherever feasible. 3. Infrastructure and public service facilities should be strategically located to support the effective and efficient delivery of emergency management services, and to ensure the protection of public health and safety in accordance with the policies in Chapter 5: Protecting Public Health and Safety. 4. Public service facilities should be planned and co-located with one another, along with parks and open space where appropriate, to promote cost-effectiveness and facilitate service integration, access to transit and active transportation. 5. Planning authorities, in collaboration with school boards, should consider and encourage innovative approaches in the design of schools and associated child care facilities, such as schools integrated in high-rise developments, in strategic growth areas, and other areas with a compact built form. 3.2 Transportation Systems 1. Transportation systems should be provided which are safe, energy efficient, facilitate the movement of people and goods, are appropriate to address projected needs, and support the use of zero-and low-emission vehicles. 2. Efficient use should be made of existing and planned infrastructure, including through the use of transportation demand management strategies, where feasible. 16 - 127 - Provincial Planning Statement, 2024 3. As part of a multimodal transportation system, connectivity within and among transportation systems and modes should be planned for, maintained and, where possible, improved, including connections which cross jurisdictional boundaries. 3.3 Transportation and Infrastructure Corridors 1. Planning authorities shall plan for and protect corridors and rights-of-way for infrastructure, including transportation, transit, and electricity generation facilities and transmission systems to meet current and projected needs. 2. Major goods movement facilities and corridors shall be protected for the long term. 3. Planning authorities shall not permit development in planned corridors that could preclude or negatively affect the use of the corridor for the purpose(s) for which it was identified. New development proposed on adjacent lands to existing or planned corridors and transportation facilities should be compatible with, and supportive of, the long-term purposes of the corridor and should be designed to avoid, or where avoidance is not possible, minimize and mitigate negative impacts on and adverse effects from the corridor and transportation facilities. 4. The preservation and reuse of abandoned corridors for purposes that maintain the corridor’s integrity and continuous linear characteristics should be encouraged, wherever feasible. 5. The co-location of linear infrastructure should be promoted, where appropriate. 3.4 Airports, Rail and Marine Facilities 1. Planning for land uses in the vicinity of airports, rail facilities and marine facilities shall be undertaken so that: a) their long-term operation and economic role is protected; and b) airports, rail facilities and marine facilities, and sensitive land uses are appropriately designed, buffered and/or separated from each other, in accordance with policy 3.5. 2. Airports shall be protected from incompatible land uses and development by: a) prohibiting new residential development and other sensitive land uses in areas near airports above 30 NEF/NEP; b) considering redevelopment of existing residential uses and other sensitive land uses or infilling of residential and other sensitive land uses in areas above 30 NEF/NEP only if it has been demonstrated that there will be no negative impacts on the long-term function of the airport; and c) prohibiting land uses which may cause a potential aviation safety hazard. 17 - 128 - Provincial Planning Statement, 2024 3.5 Land Use Compatibility 1. Major facilities and sensitive land uses shall be planned and developed to avoid, or if avoidance is not possible, minimize and mitigate any potential adverse effects from odour, noise and other contaminants, minimize risk to public health and safety, and to ensure the long-term operational and economic viability of major facilities in accordance with provincial guidelines, standards and procedures. 2. Where avoidance is not possible in accordance with policy 3.5.1, planning authorities shall protect the long-term viability of existing or planned industrial, manufacturing or other major facilities that are vulnerable to encroachment by ensuring that the planning and development of proposed adjacent sensitive land uses is only permitted if potential adverse affects to the proposed sensitive land use are minimized and mitigated, and potential impacts to industrial, manufacturing or other major facilities are minimized and mitigated in accordance with provincial guidelines, standards and procedures. 3.6 Sewage, Water and Stormwater 1. Planning for sewage and water services shall: a) accommodate forecasted growth in a timely manner that promotes the efficient use and optimization of existing municipal sewage services and municipal water services and existing private communal sewage services and private communal water services; b) ensure that these services are provided in a manner that: 1. can be sustained by the water resources upon which such services rely; 2. is feasible and financially viable over their life cycle; 3. protects human health and safety, and the natural environment, including the quality and quantity of water; and 4. aligns with comprehensive municipal planning for these services, where applicable. c) promote water and energy conservation and efficiency; d) integrate servicing and land use considerations at all stages of the planning process; e) consider opportunities to allocate, and re-allocate if necessary, the unused system capacity of municipal water services and municipal sewage services to support efficient use of these services to meet current and projected needs for increased housing supply; and f) be in accordance with the servicing options outlined through policies 3.6.2, 3.6.3, 3.6.4 and 3.6.5. 2. Municipal sewage services and municipal water services are the preferred form of servicing for settlement areas to support protection of the environment and minimize potential risks to human health and safety. For clarity, municipal sewage services and municipal water services include both centralized servicing systems and decentralized servicing systems. 18 - 129 - Provincial Planning Statement, 2024 3. Where municipal sewage services and municipal water services are not available, planned or feasible, private communal sewage services and private communal water services are the preferred form of servicing for multi-unit/lot development to support protection of the environment and minimize potential risks to human health and safety. 4. Where municipal sewage services and municipal water services or private communal sewage services and private communal water services are not available, planned or feasible, individual on- site sewage services and individual on-site water services may be used provided that site conditions are suitable for the long-term provision of such services with no negative impacts. At the time of the official plan review or update, planning authorities should assess the long-term impacts of individual on-site sewage services and individual on-site water services on environmental health and the financial viability or feasibility of other forms of servicing set out in policies 3.6.2 and 3.6.3. 5. Partial services shall only be permitted in the following circumstances: a) where they are necessary to address failed individual on-site sewage services and individual on-site water services in existing development; b) within settlement areas, to allow for infilling and minor rounding out of existing development on partial services provided that site conditions are suitable for the long- term provision of such services with no negative impacts; or c) within rural settlement areas where new development will be serviced by individual on-site water services in combination with municipal sewage services or private communal sewage services. 6. In rural areas, where partial services have been provided to address failed services in accordance with policy 3.6.5.a), infilling on existing lots of record may be permitted where this would represent a logical and financially viable connection to the existing partial service and provided that site conditions are suitable for the long-term provision of such services with no negative impacts. 7. Planning authorities may allow lot creation where there is confirmation of sufficient reserve sewage system capacity and reserve water system capacity. 19 - 130 - Provincial Planning Statement, 2024 8. Planning for stormwater management shall: a) be integrated with planning for sewage and water services and ensure that systems are optimized, retrofitted as appropriate, feasible and financially viable over their full life cycle; b) minimize, or, where possible, prevent or reduce increases in stormwater volumes and contaminant loads; c) minimize erosion and changes in water balance including through the use of green infrastructure; d) mitigate risks to human health, safety, property and the environment; e) maximize the extent and function of vegetative and pervious surfaces; f) promote best practices, including stormwater attenuation and re-use, water conservation and efficiency, and low impact development; and g) align with any comprehensive municipal plans for stormwater management that consider cumulative impacts of stormwater from development on a watershed scale. 3.7 Waste Management 1. Waste management systems need to be planned for and provided that are of an appropriate size, type, and location to accommodate present and future requirements, and facilitate integrated waste management. 3.8 Energy Supply 1. Planning authorities should provide opportunities for the development of energy supply including electricity generation facilities and transmission and distribution systems, energy storage systems, district energy, renewable energy systems, and alternative energy systems, to accommodate current and projected needs. 3.9 Public Spaces, Recreation, Parks, Trails and Open Space 1. Healthy, active, and inclusive communities should be promoted by: a) planning public streets, spaces and facilities to be safe, meet the needs of persons of all ages and abilities, including pedestrians, foster social interaction and facilitate active transportation and community connectivity; b) planning and providing for the needs of persons of all ages and abilities in the distribution of a full range of publicly-accessible built and natural settings for recreation, including facilities, parklands, public spaces, open space areas, trails and linkages, and, where practical, water-based resources; c) providing opportunities for public access to shorelines; and d) recognizing provincial parks, conservation reserves, and other protected areas, and minimizing negative impacts on these areas. 20 - 131 - Provincial Planning Statement, 2024 Chapter 4: Wise Use and Management of Resources 4.1 Natural Heritage 1. Natural features and areas shall be protected for the long term. 2. The diversity and connectivity of natural features in an area, and the long-term ecological function and biodiversity of natural heritage systems, should be maintained, restored or, where possible, improved, recognizing linkages between and among natural heritage features and areas, surface water features and ground water features. 3. Natural heritage systems shall be identified in Ecoregions 6E & 7E1, recognizing that natural heritage systems will vary in size and form in settlement areas, rural areas, and prime agricultural areas. 4. Development and site alteration shall not be permitted in: a) significant wetlands in Ecoregions 5E, 6E and 7E1; and b) significant coastal wetlands. 5. Development and site alteration shall not be permitted in: a) significant wetlands in the Canadian Shield north of Ecoregions 5E, 6E and 7E1; b) significant woodlands in Ecoregions 6E and 7E (excluding islands in Lake Huron and the St. Marys River)1; c) significant valleylands in Ecoregions 6E and 7E (excluding islands in Lake Huron and the St. Marys River)1; d) significant wildlife habitat; e) significant areas of natural and scientific interest; and f) coastal wetlands in Ecoregions 5E, 6E and 7E1 that are not subject to policy 4.1.4.b), unless it has been demonstrated that there will be no negative impacts on the natural features or their ecological functions. 6. Development and site alteration shall not be permitted in fish habitat except in accordance with provincial and federal requirements. 7. Development and site alteration shall not be permitted in habitat of endangered species and threatened species, except in accordance with provincial and federal requirements. 1 Ecoregions 5E, 6E and 7E are shown on Figure 1. 21 - 132 - Provincial Planning Statement, 2024 8. Development and site alteration shall not be permitted on adjacent lands to the natural heritage features and areas identified in policies 4.1.4, 4.1.5, and 4.1.6 unless the ecological function of the adjacent lands has been evaluated and it has been demonstrated that there will be no negative impacts on the natural features or on their ecological functions. 9. Nothing in policy 4.1 is intended to limit the ability of agricultural uses to continue. 4.2 Water 1. Planning authorities shall protect, improve or restore the quality and quantity of water by: a) using the watershed as the ecologically meaningful scale for integrated and long-term planning, which can be a foundation for considering cumulative impacts of development; b) minimizing potential negative impacts, including cross-jurisdictional and cross- watershed impacts; c) identifying water resource systems; d) maintaining linkages and functions of water resource systems; e) implementing necessary restrictions on development and site alteration to: 1. protect all municipal drinking water supplies and designated vulnerable areas; and 2. protect, improve or restore vulnerable surface and ground water, and their hydrologic functions; f) planning for efficient and sustainable use of water resources, through practices for water conservation and sustaining water quality; and g) ensuring consideration of environmental lake capacity, where applicable. 2. Development and site alteration shall be restricted in or near sensitive surface water features and sensitive ground water features such that these features and their related hydrologic functions will be protected, improved or restored, which may require mitigative measures and/or alternative development approaches. 3. Municipalities are encouraged to undertake, and large and fast-growing municipalities shall undertake watershed planning to inform planning for sewage and water services and stormwater management, including low impact development, and the protection, improvement or restoration of the quality and quantity of water. 4. Despite policy 4.2.3, where planning is conducted by an upper-tier municipality that includes one or more lower-tier large and fast-growing municipalities, the upper-tier municipality shall undertake watershed planning in partnership with lower-tier municipalities, including lower-tier large and fast-growing municipalities. 5. All municipalities undertaking watershed planning are encouraged to collaborate with applicable conservation authorities. 22 - 133 - Provincial Planning Statement, 2024 4.3 Agriculture 4.3.1 General Policies for Agriculture 1. Planning authorities are required to use an agricultural system approach, based on provincial guidance, to maintain and enhance a geographically continuous agricultural land base and support and foster the long-term economic prosperity and productive capacity of the agri-food network. 2. As part of the agricultural land base, prime agricultural areas, including specialty crop areas, shall be designated and protected for long-term use for agriculture. 3. Specialty crop areas shall be given the highest priority for protection, followed by Canada Land Inventory Class 1, 2, and 3 lands, and any associated Class 4 through 7 lands within the prime agricultural area, in this order of priority. 4.3.2 Permitted Uses 1. In prime agricultural areas, permitted uses and activities are: agricultural uses, agriculture-related uses and on-farm diversified uses based on provincial guidance. Proposed agriculture-related uses and on-farm diversified uses shall be compatible with, and shall not hinder, surrounding agricultural operations. Criteria for these uses may be based on provincial guidance or municipal approaches, as set out in municipal planning documents, which achieve the same objectives. 2. In prime agricultural areas, all types, sizes and intensities of agricultural uses and normal farm practices shall be promoted and protected in accordance with provincial standards. 3. New land uses in prime agricultural areas, including the creation of lots and new or expanding livestock facilities, shall comply with the minimum distance separation formulae. 4. A principal dwelling associated with an agricultural operation shall be permitted in prime agricultural areas as an agricultural use, in accordance with provincial guidance, except where prohibited in accordance with policy 4.3.3.1.c). 23 - 134 - Provincial Planning Statement, 2024 5. Where a residential dwelling is permitted on a lot in a prime agricultural area, up to two additional residential units shall be permitted in accordance with provincial guidance, provided that, where two additional residential units are proposed, at least one of these additional residential units is located within or attached to the principal dwelling, and any additional residential units: a) comply with the minimum distance separation formulae; b) are compatible with, and would not hinder, surrounding agricultural operations; c) have appropriate sewage and water services; d) address any public health and safety concerns; e) are of limited scale and are located within, attached, or in close proximity to the principal dwelling or farm building cluster; and f) minimize land taken out of agricultural production. Lots with additional residential units may only be severed in accordance with policy 4.3.3.1.c). 6. For greater certainty, the two additional residential units that are permitted on a lot in a prime agricultural area in accordance with policy 4.3.2.5 are in addition to farm worker housing permitted as an agricultural use. 4.3.3 Lot Creation and Lot Adjustments 1. Lot creation in prime agricultural areas is discouraged and may only be permitted in accordance with provincial guidance for: a) agricultural uses, provided that the lots are of a size appropriate for the type of agricultural use(s) common in the area and are sufficiently large to maintain flexibility for future changes in the type or size of agricultural operations; b) agriculture-related uses, provided that any new lot will be limited to a minimum size needed to accommodate the use and appropriate sewage and water services; c) one new residential lot per farm consolidation for a residence surplus to an agricultural operation, provided that: 1. the new lot will be limited to a minimum size needed to accommodate the use and appropriate sewage and water services; and 2. the planning authority ensures that new dwellings and additional residential units are prohibited on any remnant parcel of farmland created by the severance. The approach used to ensure that no new dwellings or additional residential units are permitted on the remnant parcel may be recommended by the Province, or based on municipal approaches that achieve the same objective; and d) infrastructure, where the facility or corridor cannot be accommodated through the use of easements or rights-of-way. 2. Lot adjustments in prime agricultural areas may be permitted for legal or technical reasons. 24 - 135 - Provincial Planning Statement, 2024 3. The creation of new residential lots in prime agricultural areas shall not be permitted, except in accordance with policy 4.3.3.1.c). 4.3.4 Removal of Land from Prime Agricultural Areas 1. Planning authorities may only exclude land from prime agricultural areas for expansions of or identification of settlement areas in accordance with policy 2.3.2. 4.3.5 Non-Agricultural Uses in Prime Agricultural Areas 1. Planning authorities may only permit non-agricultural uses in prime agricultural areas for: a) extraction of minerals, petroleum resources and mineral aggregate resources; or b) limited non-residential uses, provided that all of the following are demonstrated: 1. the land does not comprise a specialty crop area; 2. the proposed use complies with the minimum distance separation formulae; 3. there is an identified need within the planning horizon identified in the official plan as provided for in policy 2.1.3 for additional land to accommodate the proposed use; and 4. alternative locations have been evaluated, and i. there are no reasonable alternative locations which avoid prime agricultural areas; and ii. there are no reasonable alternative locations in prime agricultural areas with lower priority agricultural lands. 2. Impacts from any new or expanding non-agricultural uses on the agricultural system are to be avoided, or where avoidance is not possible, minimized and mitigated as determined through an agricultural impact assessment or equivalent analysis, based on provincial guidance. 4.3.6 Supporting Local Food and the Agri-food Network 1. Planning authorities are encouraged to support local food, facilitate near-urban and urban agriculture, and foster a robust agri-food network. 4.4 Minerals and Petroleum 4.4.1 General Policies for Minerals and Petroleum 1. Minerals and petroleum resources shall be protected for long-term use. 4.4.2 Protection of Long-Term Resource Supply 1. Mineral mining operations and petroleum resource operations shall be identified and protected from development and activities that would preclude or hinder their expansion or continued use or which would be incompatible for reasons of public health, public safety or environmental impact. 25 - 136 - Provincial Planning Statement, 2024 2. Known mineral deposits, known petroleum resources and significant areas of mineral potential shall be identified, and development and activities in these resources or on adjacent lands which would preclude or hinder the establishment of new operations or access to the resources shall only be permitted if: a) resource use would not be feasible; or b) the proposed land use or development serves a greater long-term public interest; and c) issues of public health, public safety and environmental impact are addressed. 4.4.3 Rehabilitation 1. Rehabilitation to accommodate subsequent land uses shall be required after extraction and other related activities have ceased. Progressive rehabilitation should be undertaken wherever feasible. 4.4.4 Extraction in Prime Agricultural Areas 1. Extraction of minerals and petroleum resources is permitted in prime agricultural areas provided that the site will be rehabilitated. 4.5 Mineral Aggregate Resources 4.5.1 General Policies for Mineral Aggregate Resources 1. Mineral aggregate resources shall be protected for long-term use and, where provincial information is available, deposits of mineral aggregate resources shall be identified. 4.5.2 Protection of Long-Term Resource Supply 1. As much of the mineral aggregate resources as is realistically possible shall be made available as close to markets as possible. Demonstration of need for mineral aggregate resources, including any type of supply/demand analysis, shall not be required, notwithstanding the availability, designation or licensing for extraction of mineral aggregate resources locally or elsewhere. 2. Extraction shall be undertaken in a manner which minimizes social, economic and environmental impacts. 3. Mineral aggregate resource conservation shall be undertaken, including through the use of accessory aggregate recycling facilities within operations, wherever feasible. 26 - 137 - Provincial Planning Statement, 2024 4. Mineral aggregate operations shall be protected from development and activities that would preclude or hinder their expansion or continued use or which would be incompatible for reasons of public health, public safety or environmental impact. Existing mineral aggregate operations shall be permitted to continue without the need for official plan amendment, rezoning or development permit under the Planning Act. Where the Aggregate Resources Act applies, only processes under the Aggregate Resources Act shall address the depth of extraction of new or existing mineral aggregate operations. When a license for extraction or operation ceases to exist, policy 4.5.2.5 continues to apply. 5. In known deposits of mineral aggregate resources and on adjacent lands, development and activities which would preclude or hinder the establishment of new operations or access to the resources shall only be permitted if: a) resource use would not be feasible; or b) the proposed land use or development serves a greater long-term public interest; and c) issues of public health, public safety and environmental impact are addressed. 4.5.3 Rehabilitation 1. Progressive and final rehabilitation shall be required to accommodate subsequent land uses, to promote land use compatibility, to recognize the interim nature of extraction, and to mitigate negative impacts to the extent possible. Final rehabilitation shall take surrounding land use and approved land use designations into consideration. 2. Comprehensive rehabilitation planning is encouraged where there is a concentration of mineral aggregate operations. 3. In parts of the Province not designated under the Aggregate Resources Act, rehabilitation standards that are compatible with those under the Act should be adopted for extraction operations on private lands. 4.5.4 Extraction in Prime Agricultural Areas 1. In prime agricultural areas, on prime agricultural land, extraction of mineral aggregate resources is permitted as an interim use provided that: a) impacts to the prime agricultural areas are addressed, in accordance with policy 4.3.5.2; and b) the site will be rehabilitated back to an agricultural condition. 2. Despite policy 4.5.4.1.b), complete rehabilitation to an agricultural condition is not required if: a) the depth of planned extraction makes restoration of pre-extraction agricultural capability unfeasible; and b) agricultural rehabilitation in remaining areas is maximized. 27 - 138 - Provincial Planning Statement, 2024 4.5.5 Wayside Pits and Quarries, Portable Asphalt Plants and Portable Concrete Plants 1. Wayside pits and quarries, portable asphalt plants and portable concrete plants used on public authority contracts shall be permitted, without the need for an official plan amendment, rezoning, or development permit under the Planning Act in all areas, except those areas of existing development or particular environmental sensitivity which have been determined to be incompatible with extraction and associated activities. 4.6 Cultural Heritage and Archaeology 1. Protected heritage property, which may contain built heritage resources or cultural heritage landscapes, shall be conserved. 2. Planning authorities shall not permit development and site alteration on lands containing archaeological resources or areas of archaeological potential unless the significant archaeological resources have been conserved. 3. Planning authorities shall not permit development and site alteration on adjacent lands to protected heritage property unless the heritage attributes of the protected heritage property will be conserved. 4. Planning authorities are encouraged to develop and implement: a) archaeological management plans for conserving archaeological resources; and b) proactive strategies for conserving significant built heritage resources and cultural heritage landscapes. 5. Planning authorities shall engage early with Indigenous communities and ensure their interests are considered when identifying, protecting and managing archaeological resources, built heritage resources and cultural heritage landscapes. 28 - 139 - Provincial Planning Statement, 2024 Chapter 5: Protecting Public Health and Safety 5.1 General Policies for Natural and Human-Made Hazards 1. Development shall be directed away from areas of natural or human-made hazards where there is an unacceptable risk to public health or safety or of property damage, and not create new or aggravate existing hazards. 5.2 Natural Hazards 1. Planning authorities shall, in collaboration with conservation authorities where they exist, identify hazardous lands and hazardous sites and manage development in these areas, in accordance with provincial guidance. 2. Development shall generally be directed to areas outside of: a) hazardous lands adjacent to the shorelines of the Great Lakes -St. Lawrence River System and large inland lakes which are impacted by flooding hazards, erosion hazards and/or dynamic beach hazards; b) hazardous lands adjacent to river, stream and small inland lake systems which are impacted by flooding hazards and/or erosion hazards; and c) hazardous sites. 3. Development and site alteration shall not be permitted within: a) the dynamic beach hazard; b) defined portions of the flooding hazard along connecting channels (the St. Marys, St. Clair, Detroit, Niagara and St. Lawrence Rivers); c) areas that would be rendered inaccessible to people and vehicles during times of flooding hazards, erosion hazards and/or dynamic beach hazards, unless it has been demonstrated that the site has safe access appropriate for the nature of the development and the natural hazard; and d) a floodway regardless of whether the area of inundation contains high points of land not subject to flooding. 4. Planning authorities shall prepare for the impacts of a changing climate that may increase the risk associated with natural hazards. 29 - 140 - Provincial Planning Statement, 2024 5. Despite policy 5.2.3, development and site alteration may be permitted in certain areas associated with the flooding hazard along river, stream and small inland lake systems: a) in those exceptional situations where a Special Policy Area has been approved. The designation of a Special Policy Area, and any change or modification to the official plan policies, land use designations or boundaries applying to Special Policy Area lands, must be approved by the Ministers of Municipal Affairs and Housing and Natural Resources and Forestry prior to the approval authority approving such changes or modifications; or b) where the development is limited to uses which by their nature must locate within the floodway, including flood and/or erosion control works or minor additions or passive non-structural uses which do not affect flood flows. 6. Development shall not be permitted to locate in hazardous lands and hazardous sites where the use is: a) an institutional use including hospitals, long-term care homes, retirement homes, pre- schools, school nurseries, day cares and schools; b) an essential emergency service such as that provided by fire, police, and ambulance stations and electrical substations; or c) uses associated with the disposal, manufacture, treatment or storage of hazardous substances. 7. Where the two zone concept for flood plains is applied, development and site alteration may be permitted in the flood fringe, subject to appropriate floodproofing to the flooding hazard elevation or another flooding hazard standard approved by the Minister of Natural Resources and Forestry. 8. Further to policy 5.2.7, and except as prohibited in policies 5.2.3 and 5.2.6, development and site alteration may be permitted in those portions of hazardous lands and hazardous sites where the effects and risk to public safety are minor, could be mitigated in accordance with provincial standards, and where all of the following are demonstrated and achieved: a) development and site alteration is carried out in accordance with floodproofing standards, protection works standards, and access standards; b) vehicles and people have a way of safely entering and exiting the area during times of flooding, erosion and other emergencies; c) new hazards are not created and existing hazards are not aggravated; and d) no adverse environmental impacts will result. 9. Development shall generally be directed to areas outside of lands that are unsafe for development due to the presence of hazardous forest types for wildland fire. Development may however be permitted in lands with hazardous forest types for wildland fire where the risk is mitigated in accordance with wildland fire assessment and mitigation standards. 30 - 141 - Provincial Planning Statement, 2024 5.3 Human-Made Hazards 1. Development on, abutting or adjacent to lands affected by mine hazards; oil, gas and salt hazards; or former mineral mining operations, mineral aggregate operations or petroleum resource operations may be permitted only if rehabilitation or other measures to address and mitigate known or suspected hazards are under way or have been completed. 2. Sites with contaminants in land or water shall be assessed and remediated as necessary prior to any activity on the site associated with the proposed use such that there will be no adverse effects. 31 - 142 - Provincial Planning Statement, 2024 Chapter 6: Implementation and Interpretation 6.1 General Policies for Implementation and Interpretation 1. The Provincial Planning Statement shall be read in its entirety and all relevant policies are to be applied to each situation. 2. The Provincial Planning Statement shall be implemented in a manner that is consistent with the recognition and affirmation of existing Aboriginal and treaty rights in section 35 of the Constitution Act, 1982. 3. The Provincial Planning Statement shall be implemented in a manner that is consistent with Ontario Human Rights Code and the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. 4. When implementing the Provincial Planning Statement, the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing may make decisions that take into account other considerations to balance government priorities. 5. Official plans shall identify provincial interests and set out appropriate land use designations and policies. Official plans shall provide clear, reasonable and attainable policies to protect provincial interests and facilitate development in suitable areas. In order to protect provincial interests, planning authorities shall keep their official plans up-to- date with the Provincial Planning Statement. The policies of the Provincial Planning Statement continue to apply after adoption and approval of an official plan. 6. Planning authorities shall keep their zoning and development permit by-laws up-to-date with their official plans and the Provincial Planning Statement by establishing permitted uses, minimum densities, heights and other development standards to accommodate growth and development. 7. Where a planning authority must decide on a planning matter before their official plan has been updated to be consistent with the Provincial Planning Statement, or before other applicable planning instruments have been updated accordingly, it must still make a decision that is consistent with the Provincial Planning Statement. 8. In addition to land use approvals under the Planning Act, infrastructure may also have requirements under other legislation and regulations. For example, an environmental assessment process may be required for new infrastructure and modifications to existing infrastructure under applicable legislation. Wherever possible and practical, approvals under the Planning Act and other legislation or regulations should be integrated provided the intent and requirements of both processes are met. 32 - 143 - Provincial Planning Statement, 2024 9. To assess progress on implementation of the Provincial Planning Statement, the Province may: a) identify key indicators to measure the outcomes, relevance and efficiency of the policies in the Provincial Planning Statement in consultation with municipalities, Indigenous communities, other public bodies and stakeholders; b) monitor and assess the implementation of the Provincial Planning Statement through the collection and analysis of data under each indicator; and c) consider the resulting assessment in each review of the Provincial Planning Statement. 10. Municipalities are encouraged to monitor and report on the implementation of the policies in their official plans, in accordance with any requirements for reporting planning information to the Province, data standards, and including through any other guidelines that may be issued by the Minister. 11. Strategic growth areas and designated growth areas are not land use designations and their delineation does not confer any new land use designations, nor alter existing land use designations. Any development on lands within the boundary of these identified areas is still subject to the relevant provincial and municipal land use planning policies and approval processes. 12. Density targets represent minimum standards and planning authorities are encouraged to go beyond these minimum targets, where appropriate, except where doing so would conflict with any policy of the Provincial Planning Statement or any other provincial plan. 13. Minimum density targets will be revisited at the time of each official plan update to ensure the target is appropriate. 33 - 144 - Provincial Planning Statement, 2024 6.2 Coordination 1. A coordinated, integrated and comprehensive approach should be used when dealing with planning matters within municipalities, across lower, single and/or upper-tier municipal boundaries, and with other orders of government, agencies, boards, and Service Managers including: a) managing and/or promoting growth and development that is integrated with planning for infrastructure and public service facilities, including schools and associated child care facilities; b) economic development strategies; c) managing natural heritage, water, agricultural, mineral, and cultural heritage and archaeological resources; d) infrastructure, multimodal transportation systems, public service facilities and waste management systems; e) ecosystem, shoreline, watershed, and Great Lakes related issues; f) natural and human-made hazards; g) population, housing and employment projections, based on regional market areas, as appropriate; and h) addressing housing needs in accordance with provincial housing policies and plans, including those that address homelessness. 2. Planning authorities shall undertake early engagement with Indigenous communities and coordinate on land use planning matters to facilitate knowledge-sharing, support consideration of Indigenous interests in land use decision-making and support the identification of potential impacts of decisions on the exercise of Aboriginal or treaty rights. 3. Planning authorities are encouraged to engage the public and stakeholders early in local efforts to implement the Provincial Planning Statement, and to provide the necessary information to ensure the informed involvement of local citizens, including equity-deserving groups. 4. Planning authorities and school boards shall collaborate to facilitate early and integrated planning for schools and associated child care facilities to meet current and future needs. 5. Planning authorities shall collaborate with publicly-assisted post-secondary institutions, where they exist, to facilitate early and integrated planning for student housing that considers the full range of housing options near existing and planned post-secondary institutions to meet current and future needs. 6. Further to policy 6.2.5, planning authorities should collaborate with publicly-assisted post- secondary institutions on the development of a student housing strategy that includes consideration of off-campus housing targeted to students. 34 - 145 - Provincial Planning Statement, 2024 7. Planning authorities should coordinate emergency management and other economic, environmental and social planning considerations to support efficient and resilient communities. 8. Municipalities, the Province, and other appropriate stakeholders are encouraged to undertake a coordinated approach to planning for large areas with high concentrations of employment uses that cross municipal boundaries. 9. Where planning is conducted by an upper-tier municipality, the upper-tier municipality in consultation with lower-tier municipalities shall: a) identify and allocate population, housing and employment projections for lower-tier municipalities; b) identify areas where growth and development will be focused, including strategic growth areas, and establish any applicable minimum density targets; c) identify minimum density targets for growth and development taking place in new or expanded settlement areas, where applicable; and d) provide policy direction for the lower-tier municipalities on matters that cross municipal boundaries. 10. Where there is no upper-tier municipality or where planning is not conducted by an upper-tier municipality, planning authorities shall ensure that policy 6.2.9 is addressed as part of the planning process, and should coordinate these matters with adjacent planning authorities. 35 - 146 - Provincial Planning Statement, 2024 7: Figure 1 – Natural Heritage Protection Line 36 - 147 - Provincial Planning Statement, 2024 37 - 148 - Provincial Planning Statement, 2024 8: Definitions Access standards: means methods or procedures to ensure safe vehicular and pedestrian movement, and access for the maintenance and repair of protection works, during times of flooding hazards, erosion hazards and/or other water-related hazards. Active transportation: means human-powered travel, including but not limited to, walking, cycling, inline skating and travel with the use of mobility aids, including motorized wheelchairs and other power-assisted devices moving at a comparable speed. Additional needs housing: means any housing, including dedicated facilities, in whole or in part, that is used by people who have specific needs beyond economic needs, including but not limited to, needs such as mobility requirements or support functions required for daily living. Examples of additional needs housing may include, but are not limited to long-term care homes, adaptable and accessible housing, and housing for persons with disabilities such as physical, sensory or mental health disabilities, and housing for older persons. Adjacent lands: means a) for the purposes of policy 3.3.3, those lands contiguous to existing or planned corridors and transportation facilities where development would have a negative impact on the corridor or facility. The extent of the adjacent lands may be recommended in provincial guidance or based on municipal approaches that achieve the same objectives; b) for the purposes of policy 4.1.8, those lands contiguous to a specific natural heritage feature or area where it is likely that development or site alteration would have a negative impact on the feature or area. The extent of the adjacent lands may be recommended by the Province or based on municipal approaches which achieve the same objectives; c) for the purposes of policies 4.4.2.2 and 4.5.2.5, those lands contiguous to lands on the surface of known petroleum resources, mineral deposits, or deposits of mineral aggregate resources where it is likely that development would constrain future access to the resources. The extent of the adjacent lands may be recommended by the Province; and d) for the purposes of policy 4.6.3, those lands contiguous to a protected heritage property or as otherwise defined in the municipal official plan. Adverse effect: as defined in the Environmental Protection Act, means one or more of: a) impairment of the quality of the natural environment for any use that can be made of it; b) injury or damage to property or plant or animal life; c) harm or material discomfort to any person; d) an adverse effect on the health of any person; e) impairment of the safety of any person; f) rendering any property or plant or animal life unfit for human use; g) loss of enjoyment of normal use of property; and h) interference with normal conduct of business. 38 - 149 - Provincial Planning Statement, 2024 Affordable: means a) in the case of ownership housing, the least expensive of: 1. housing for which the purchase price results in annual accommodation costs which do not exceed 30 percent of gross annual household income for low and moderate income households; or 2. housing for which the purchase price is at least 10 percent below the average purchase price of a resale unit in the municipality; b) in the case of rental housing, the least expensive of: 1. a unit for which the rent does not exceed 30 percent of gross annual household income for low and moderate income households; or 2. a unit for which the rent is at or below the average market rent of a unit in the municipality. Agricultural condition: means a) in regard to specialty crop areas, a condition in which substantially the same areas and same average soil capability for agriculture are restored, the same range and productivity of specialty crops common in the area can be achieved, and, where applicable, the microclimate on which the site and surrounding area may be dependent for specialty crop production will be maintained, restored or enhanced; and b) in regard to prime agricultural land outside of specialty crop areas, a condition in which substantially the same areas and same average soil capability for agriculture will be maintained, restored or enhanced. Agricultural impact assessment: means the evaluation of potential impacts of non- agricultural uses on the agricultural system. An assessment recommends ways to avoid or if avoidance is not possible, minimize and mitigate adverse impacts. Agricultural system: means a system comprised of a group of inter-connected elements that collectively create a viable, thriving agri-food sector. It has two components: a) An agricultural land base comprised of prime agricultural areas, including specialty crop areas. It may also include rural lands that help to create a continuous productive land base for agriculture; and b) An agri-food network which includes agricultural operations, infrastructure, services, and assets important to the viability of the agri-food sector. Agricultural uses: means the growing of crops, including nursery, biomass, and horticultural crops; raising of livestock; raising of other animals for food, fur or fibre, including poultry and fish; aquaculture; apiaries; agro-forestry; maple syrup production; and associated on-farm buildings and structures, including, but not limited to livestock facilities, manure storages, value-retaining facilities, and housing for farm workers, when the size and nature of the operation requires additional employment. Agri-food network: Within the agricultural system, a network that includes elements important to the viability of the agri-food sector such as regional infrastructure and transportation networks; agricultural operations including on- farm buildings and primary processing; infrastructure; agricultural services, farm markets, and distributors; and vibrant, agriculture-supportive communities. Agri-tourism uses: means those farm-related tourism uses, including limited accommodation such as a bed and breakfast, that promote the enjoyment, education or activities related to the farm operation. Agriculture-related uses: means those farm- related commercial and farm-related industrial uses that are directly related to farm operations in the area, support agriculture, benefit from being in close proximity to farm operations, and provide direct products and/or services to farm operations as a primary activity. 39 - 150 - Provincial Planning Statement, 2024 Airports: means all Ontario airports, including designated lands for future airports, with Noise Exposure Forecast (NEF)/Noise Exposure Projection (NEP) mapping. Alternative energy system: means a system that uses sources of energy or energy conversion processes to produce power, heat and/or cooling that significantly reduces the amount of harmful emissions to the environment (air, earth and water) when compared to conventional energy systems. Archaeological resources: includes artifacts, archaeological sites and marine archaeological sites, as defined under the Ontario Heritage Act. The identification and evaluation of such resources are based upon archaeological assessments carried out by archaeologists licensed under the Ontario Heritage Act. Areas of archaeological potential: means areas with the likelihood to contain archaeological resources, as evaluated using the processes and criteria that are established under the Ontario Heritage Act. Areas of mineral potential: means areas favourable to the discovery of mineral deposits due to geology, the presence of known mineral deposits or other technical evidence. Areas of natural and scientific interest: means areas of land and water containing natural landscapes or features that have been identified as having life science or earth science values related to protection, scientific study or education. Brownfield sites: means undeveloped or previously developed properties that may be contaminated. They are usually, but not exclusively, former industrial or commercial properties that may be underutilized, derelict or vacant. Built heritage resource: means a building, structure, monument, installation or any manufactured or constructed part or remnant that contributes to a property’s cultural heritage value or interest as identified by a community, including an Indigenous community. Coastal wetland: means a) any wetland that is located on one of the Great Lakes or their connecting channels (Lake St. Clair, St. Marys, St. Clair, Detroit, Niagara and St. Lawrence Rivers); or b) any other wetland that is on a tributary to any of the above-specified water bodies and lies, either wholly or in part, downstream of a line located 2 kilometres upstream of the 1:100 year floodline (plus wave run-up) of the large water body to which the tributary is connected. Compact built form: means a land use pattern that encourages the efficient use of land, walkable neighbourhoods, mixed land uses (residential, retail, workplace, and institutional) all within one neighbourhood, proximity to transit and reduced need for infrastructure. Compact built form can include detached and semi-detached houses on small lots as well as townhouses, duplexes, triplexes and walk-up apartments, multi-storey commercial developments, and apartments or offices above retail. Walkable neighbourhoods can be characterized by roads laid out in a well- connected network, destinations that are easily accessible by transit and active transportation, sidewalks with minimal interruptions for vehicle access, and a pedestrian-friendly environment along roads. Comprehensive rehabilitation: means rehabilitation of land from which mineral aggregate resources have been extracted that is coordinated and complementary, to the extent possible, with the rehabilitation of other sites in an area where there is a high concentration of mineral aggregate operations. 40 - 151 - Provincial Planning Statement, 2024 Complete communities: means places such as mixed-use neighbourhoods or other areas within cities, towns, and settlement areas that offer and support opportunities for equitable access to many necessities for daily living for people of all ages and abilities, including an appropriate mix of jobs, a full range of housing, transportation options, public service facilities, local stores and services. Complete communities are inclusive and may take different shapes and forms appropriate to their contexts to meet the diverse needs of their populations. Conserved: means the identification, protection, management and use of built heritage resources, cultural heritage landscapes and archaeological resources in a manner that ensures their cultural heritage value or interest is retained. This may be achieved by the implementation of recommendations set out in a conservation plan, archaeological assessment, and/or heritage impact assessment that has been approved, accepted or adopted by the relevant planning authority and/or decision-maker. Mitigative measures and/or alternative development approaches should be included in these plans and assessments. Cultural heritage landscape: means a defined geographical area that may have been modified by human activity and is identified as having cultural heritage value or interest by a community, including an Indigenous community. The area may include features such as buildings, structures, spaces, views, archaeological sites or natural elements that are valued together for their interrelationship, meaning or association. Defined portions of the flooding hazard along connecting channels: means those areas which are critical to the conveyance of the flows associated with the one hundred year flood level along the St. Marys, St. Clair, Detroit, Niagara and St. Lawrence Rivers, where development or site alteration will create flooding hazards, cause updrift and/or downdrift impacts and/or cause adverse environmental impacts. Deposits of mineral aggregate resources: means an area of identified mineral aggregate resources, as delineated in Aggregate Resource Inventory Papers or comprehensive studies prepared using provincial guidance for surficial and bedrock resources, as amended from time to time, that has a sufficient quantity and quality to warrant present or future extraction. Designated and available: means lands designated in the official plan for urban residential use. For municipalities where more detailed official plan policies (e.g., secondary plans) are required before development applications can be considered for approval, only lands that have commenced the more detailed planning process are considered to be designated and available for the purposes of this definition. Designated growth areas: means lands within settlement areas designated for growth or lands added to settlement areas that have not yet been fully developed. Designated growth areas include lands which are designated and available for residential growth in accordance with policy 2.1.4.a), as well as lands required for employment and other uses. Designated vulnerable area: means areas defined as vulnerable, in accordance with provincial standards, by virtue of their importance as a drinking water source. 41 - 152 - Provincial Planning Statement, 2024 Development: means the creation of a new lot, a change in land use, or the construction of buildings and structures requiring approval under the Planning Act, but does not include: a) activities that create or maintain infrastructure authorized under an environmental assessment process or identified in provincial standards; or b) works subject to the Drainage Act; or c) for the purposes of policy 4.1.4.a), underground or surface mining of minerals or advanced exploration on mining lands in significant areas of mineral potential in Ecoregion 5E, where advanced exploration has the same meaning as under the Mining Act. Instead, those matters shall be subject to policy 4.1.5.a). Dynamic beach hazard: means areas of inherently unstable accumulations of shoreline sediments along the Great Lakes -St. Lawrence River System and large inland lakes, as identified by provincial standards, as amended from time to time. The dynamic beach hazard limit consists of the flooding hazard limit plus a dynamic beach allowance. Ecological function: means the natural processes, products or services that living and non-living environments provide or perform within or between species, ecosystems and landscapes. These may include biological, physical and socio- economic interactions. Employment area: means those areas designated in an official plan for clusters of business and economic activities including manufacturing, research and development in connection with manufacturing, warehousing, goods movement, associated retail and office, and ancillary facilities. An employment area also includes areas of land described by subsection 1(1.1) of the Planning Act. Uses that are excluded from employment areas are institutional and commercial, including retail and office not associated with the primary employment use listed above. Endangered species: means a species that is classified as “Endangered Species” on the Species at Risk in Ontario List, as updated and amended from time to time. Energy storage system: means a system or facility that captures energy produced at one time for use at a later time to reduce imbalances between energy demand and energy production, including for example, flywheels, pumped hydro storage, hydrogen storage, fuels storage, compressed air storage, and battery storage. Erosion hazard: means the loss of land, due to human or natural processes, that poses a threat to life and property. The erosion hazard limit is determined using considerations that include the 100 year erosion rate (the average annual rate of recession extended over a one hundred year time span), an allowance for slope stability, and an erosion/erosion access allowance. Essential emergency service: means services which would be impaired during an emergency as a result of flooding, the failure of floodproofing measures and/or protection works, and/or erosion. Fish: means fish, which as defined in the Fisheries Act, includes fish, shellfish, crustaceans, and marine animals, at all stages of their life cycles. Fish habitat: as defined in the Fisheries Act, means water frequented by fish and any other areas on which fish depend directly or indirectly to carry out their life processes, including spawning grounds and nursery, rearing, food supply, and migration areas. Flood fringe: for river, stream and small inland lake systems, means the outer portion of the flood plain between the floodway and the flooding hazard limit. Depths and velocities of flooding are generally less severe in the flood fringe than those experienced in the floodway. Flood plain: for river, stream and small inland lake systems, means the area, usually low lands adjoining a watercourse, which has been or may be subject to flooding hazards. 42 - 153 - Provincial Planning Statement, 2024 Flooding hazard: means the inundation, under the conditions specified below, of areas adjacent to a shoreline or a river or stream system and not ordinarily covered by water: a) along the shorelines of the Great Lakes -St. Lawrence River System and large inland lakes, the flooding hazard limit is based on the one hundred year flood level plus an allowance for wave effects and other water-related hazards; b) along river, stream and small inland lake systems, the flooding hazard limit is the greater of: 1. the flood resulting from the rainfall actually experienced during a major storm such as the Hurricane Hazel storm (1954) or the Timmins storm (1961), transposed over a specific watershed and combined with the local conditions, where evidence suggests that the storm event could have potentially occurred over watersheds in the general area; 2. the one hundred year flood; and 3. a flood which is greater than 1. or 2. which was actually experienced in a particular watershed or portion thereof, for example, as a result of ice jams and which has been approved as the standard for that specific area by the Minister of Natural Resources and Forestry; except where the use of the one hundred year flood or the actually experienced event has been approved by the Minister of Natural Resources and Forestry as the standard for a specific watershed (where the past history of flooding supports the lowering of the standard). Floodproofing standard: means the combination of measures incorporated into the basic design and/or construction of buildings, structures, or properties to reduce or eliminate flooding hazards, wave effects and other water-related hazards along the shorelines of the Great Lakes - St. Lawrence River System and large inland lakes, and flooding hazards along river, stream and small inland lake systems. Floodway: for river, stream and small inland lake systems, means the portion of the flood plain where development and site alteration would cause a danger to public health and safety or property damage. Where the one zone concept is applied, the floodway is the entire contiguous flood plain. Where the two zone concept is applied, the floodway is the contiguous inner portion of the flood plain, representing that area required for the safe passage of flood flow and/or that area where flood depths and/or velocities are considered to be such that they pose a potential threat to life and/or property damage. Where the two zone concept applies, the outer portion of the flood plain is called the flood fringe. Freight-supportive: in regard to land use patterns, means transportation systems and facilities that facilitate the movement of goods. This includes policies or programs intended to support efficient freight movement through the planning, design and operation of land use and transportation systems. Approaches may be recommended in provincial guidance or based on municipal approaches that achieve the same objectives. Frequent transit: means a public transit service that runs at least every 15 minutes in both directions throughout the day and into the evening every day of the week. Great Lakes -St. Lawrence River System: means the major water system consisting of Lakes Superior, Huron, St. Clair, Erie and Ontario and their connecting channels, and the St. Lawrence River within the boundaries of the Province of Ontario. Green infrastructure: means natural and human- made elements that provide ecological and hydrological functions and processes. Green infrastructure can include components such as natural heritage features and systems, parklands, stormwater management systems, street trees, urban forests, natural channels, permeable surfaces, and green roofs. 43 - 154 - Provincial Planning Statement, 2024 Ground water feature: means water-related features in the earth’s subsurface, including recharge/discharge areas, water tables, aquifers and unsaturated zones that can be defined by surface and subsurface hydrogeologic investigations. Habitat of endangered species and threatened species: means habitat within the meaning of section 2 of the Endangered Species Act, 2007. Hazardous forest types for wildland fire: means forest types assessed as being associated with the risk of high to extreme wildland fire using risk assessment tools established by the Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources, as amended from time to time. Hazardous lands: means property or lands that could be unsafe for development due to naturally occurring processes. Along the shorelines of the Great Lakes -St. Lawrence River System, this means the land, including that covered by water, between the international boundary, where applicable, and the furthest landward limit of the flooding hazard, erosion hazard or dynamic beach hazard limits. Along the shorelines of large inland lakes, this means the land, including that covered by water, between a defined offshore distance or depth and the furthest landward limit of the flooding hazard, erosion hazard or dynamic beach hazard limits. Along river, stream and small inland lake systems, this means the land, including that covered by water, to the furthest landward limit of the flooding hazard or erosion hazard limits. Hazardous sites: means property or lands that could be unsafe for development and site alteration due to naturally occurring hazards. These may include unstable soils (sensitive marine clays [leda], organic soils) or unstable bedrock (karst topography). Hazardous substances: means substances which, individually, or in combination with other substances, are normally considered to pose a danger to public health, safety and the environment. These substances generally include a wide array of materials that are toxic, ignitable, corrosive, reactive, radioactive or pathological. Heritage attributes: means, as defined under the Ontario Heritage Act, in relation to real property, and to the buildings and structures on the real property, the attributes of the property, buildings and structures that contribute to their cultural heritage value or interest. Higher order transit: means transit that generally operates in partially or completely dedicated rights-of-way, outside of mixed traffic, and therefore can achieve levels of speed and reliability greater than mixed-traffic transit. Higher order transit can include heavy rail (such as subways, elevated or surface rail, and commuter rail), light rail, and buses in dedicated rights-of-way. Housing options: means a range of housing types such as, but not limited to single-detached, semi- detached, rowhouses, townhouses, stacked townhouses, multiplexes, additional residential units, tiny homes, laneway housing, garden suites, rooming houses and multi-residential buildings, including low-and mid-rise apartments. The term can also refer to a variety of housing arrangements and forms such as, but not limited to, life lease housing, co-ownership housing, co-operative housing, community land trusts, land lease community homes, affordable housing, additional needs housing, multi- generational housing, student housing, farm worker housing, culturally appropriate housing, supportive, community and transitional housing and housing related to employment, educational, or institutional uses, such as long-term care homes. Hydrologic function: means the functions of the hydrological cycle that include the occurrence, circulation, distribution and chemical and physical properties of water on the surface of the land, in the soil and underlying rocks, and in the atmosphere, and water’s interaction with the environment including its relation to living things. 44 - 155 - Provincial Planning Statement, 2024 Impacts of a changing climate: means the present and future consequences from changes in weather patterns at local and regional levels including extreme weather events and increased climate variability. Individual on-site sewage services: means sewage systems, as defined in O. Reg. 332/12 under the Building Code Act, 1992, that are owned, operated and managed by the owner of the property upon which the system is located. Individual on-site water services: means individual, autonomous water supply systems that are owned, operated and managed by the owner of the property upon which the system is located. Infrastructure: means 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 distribution systems, communications/telecommunications including broadband, transit and transportation corridors and facilities, active transportation systems, oil and gas pipelines and associated facilities. Institutional use: for the purposes of policy 5.2.6, means land uses where there is a threat to the safe evacuation of vulnerable populations such as older persons, persons with disabilities, and those who are sick or young, during an emergency as a result of flooding, failure of floodproofing measures or protection works, or erosion. Intensification: means the development of a property, site or area at a higher density than currently exists through: a) redevelopment, including the reuse of brownfield sites and underutilized shopping malls and plazas; b) the development of vacant and/or underutilized lots within previously developed areas; c) infill development; and d) the expansion or conversion of existing buildings. Large and fast-growing municipalities: means municipalities identified in Schedule 1. Large inland lakes: means those waterbodies having a surface area of equal to or greater than 100 square kilometres where there is not a measurable or predictable response to a single runoff event. Legal or technical reasons: means severances for purposes such as easements, corrections of deeds, quit claims, and minor boundary adjustments, which do not result in the creation of a new lot. Low and moderate income households: means a) in the case of ownership housing, households with incomes in the lowest 60 percent of the income distribution for the municipality; or b) In the case of rental housing, household with incomes in the lowest 60 percent of the income distribution for renter households for the municipality. Low impact development: means an approach to stormwater management that seeks to manage rain and other precipitation as close as possible to where it falls to mitigate the impacts of increased runoff and stormwater pollution. It typically includes a set of site design strategies and distributed, small-scale structural practices to mimic the natural hydrology to the greatest extent possible through infiltration, evapotranspiration, harvesting, filtration, and detention of stormwater. Low impact development can include, for example: bio- swales, vegetated areas at the edge of paved surfaces, permeable pavement, rain gardens, green roofs, and exfiltration systems. 45 - 156 - Provincial Planning Statement, 2024 Major facilities: means facilities which may require separation from sensitive land uses, including but not limited to airports, manufacturing uses, transportation infrastructure and corridors, rail facilities, marine facilities, sewage treatment facilities, waste management systems, oil and gas pipelines, industries, energy generation facilities and transmission systems, and resource extraction activities. Major goods movement facilities and corridors: means transportation facilities, corridors and networks associated with the inter-and intra- provincial movement of goods. Examples include: inter-modal facilities, ports, airports, rail facilities, truck terminals, freight corridors, freight facilities, and haul routes, primary transportation corridors used for the movement of goods and those identified in provincial transportation plans. Approaches that are freight-supportive may be recommended in provincial guidance or based on municipal approaches that achieve the same objectives. Major transit station area: means 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. Major trip generators: means origins and destinations with high population densities or concentrated activities which generate many trips (e.g., strategic growth areas, major office and office parks, major retail, employment areas, community hubs, large parks and recreational destinations, public service facilities, and other mixed-use areas). Marine facilities: means ferries, harbours, ports, ferry terminals, canals and associated uses, including designated lands for future marine facilities. Mine hazard: means any feature of a mine as defined under the Mining Act, or any related disturbance of the ground that has not been rehabilitated. Minerals: means metallic minerals and non- metallic minerals as herein defined, but does not include mineral aggregate resources or petroleum resources. Metallic minerals means those minerals from which metals (e.g., copper, nickel, gold) are derived. Non-metallic minerals means those minerals that are of value for intrinsic properties of the minerals themselves and not as a source of metal. They are generally synonymous with industrial minerals (e.g., graphite, kyanite, mica, nepheline syenite, salt, talc, and wollastonite). Critical minerals are a subset of raw materials that have specific industrial, technological or strategic applications for which there are a few viable substitutes. Mineral aggregate operation: means a) lands under license or permit, other than for wayside pits and quarries, issued in accordance with the Aggregate Resources Act; b) for lands not designated under the Aggregate Resources Act, established pits and quarries that are not in contravention of municipal zoning by-laws and including adjacent land under agreement with or owned by the operator, to permit continuation of the operation; and c) associated facilities used in extraction, transport, beneficiation, processing or recycling of mineral aggregate resources and derived products such as asphalt and concrete, or the production of secondary related products. 46 - 157 - Provincial Planning Statement, 2024 Mineral aggregate resources: means gravel, sand, clay, earth, shale, stone, limestone, dolostone, sandstone, marble, granite, rock or other material prescribed under the Aggregate Resources Act suitable for construction, industrial, manufacturing and maintenance purposes but does not include metallic ores, asbestos, graphite, kyanite, mica, nepheline syenite, salt, talc, wollastonite, mine tailings or other material prescribed under the Mining Act. Mineral aggregate resource conservation: means a) the recovery and recycling of manufactured materials derived from mineral aggregates (e.g., glass, porcelain, brick, concrete, asphalt, slag, etc.), for re-use in construction, manufacturing, industrial or maintenance projects as a substitute for new mineral aggregates; and b) the wise use of mineral aggregates including utilization or extraction of on-site mineral aggregate resources prior to development occurring. Mineral deposits: means areas of identified minerals that have sufficient quantity and quality based on specific geological evidence to warrant present or future extraction. Mineral mining operation: means mining operations and associated facilities, or, past producing mines with remaining mineral development potential that have not been permanently rehabilitated to another use. Minimum distance separation formulae: means formulae and guidelines developed by the Province, as amended from time to time, to separate uses so as to reduce incompatibility concerns about odour from livestock facilities. Multimodal: means relating to the availability or use of more than one form of transportation, such as automobiles, walking, cycling, buses, rapid transit, higher order transit, rail (such as freight), trucks, air, and marine. Municipal sewage services: means a sewage works within the meaning of section 1 of the Ontario Water Resources Act that is owned or operated by a municipality. Municipal water services: means a municipal drinking-water system within the meaning of section 2 of the Safe Drinking Water Act, 2002. Natural heritage features and areas: means features and areas, including significant wetlands, significant coastal wetlands, other coastal wetlands in Ecoregions 5E, 6E and 7E, fish habitat, significant woodlands and significant valleylands in Ecoregions 6E and 7E (excluding islands in Lake Huron and the St. Marys River), habitat of endangered species and threatened species, significant wildlife habitat, and significant areas of natural and scientific interest, which are important for their environmental and social values as a legacy of the natural landscapes of an area. Natural heritage system: means a system made up of natural heritage features and areas, and linkages intended to provide connectivity (at the regional or site level) and support natural processes which are necessary to maintain biological and geological diversity, natural functions, viable populations of indigenous species, and ecosystems. These systems can include natural heritage features and areas, federal and provincial parks and conservation reserves, other natural heritage features, lands that have been restored or have the potential to be restored to a natural state, areas that support hydrologic functions, and working landscapes that enable ecological functions to continue. The Province has a recommended approach for identifying natural heritage systems, but municipal approaches that achieve or exceed the same objective may also be used. 47 - 158 - Provincial Planning Statement, 2024 Negative impacts: means a) in regard to policy 3.6.4 and 3.6.5, potential risks to human health and safety and degradation to the quality and quantity of water, sensitive surface water features and sensitive ground water features, and their related hydrologic functions, due to single, multiple or successive development. Negative impacts should be assessed through environmental studies including hydrogeological or water quality impact assessments, in accordance with provincial standards; b) in regard to fish habitat, any harmful alteration, disruption or destruction of fish habitat, except where an exemption to the prohibition has been authorized under the Fisheries Act; c) in regard to other natural heritage features and areas, degradation that threatens the health and integrity of the natural features or ecological functions for which an area is identified due to single, multiple or successive development or site alteration activities. d) in regard to policy 4.2, degradation to the quality and quantity of water, sensitive surface water features and sensitive ground water features, and their related hydrologic functions, due to single, multiple or successive development or site alteration activities; and e) in regard to policy 3.3.3, any development or site alteration that would compromise or conflict with the planned or existing function, capacity to accommodate future needs, and cost of implementation of the corridor. Normal farm practices: means a practice, as defined in the Farming and Food Production Protection Act, 1998, that is conducted in a manner consistent with proper and acceptable customs and standards as established and followed by similar agricultural operations under similar circumstances; or makes use of innovative technology in a manner consistent with proper advanced farm management practices. Normal farm practices shall be consistent with the Nutrient Management Act, 2002 and regulations made under that Act. Oil, gas and salt hazards: means any feature of a well or work as defined under the Oil, Gas and Salt Resources Act, or any related disturbance of the ground that has not been rehabilitated. On-farm diversified uses: means uses that are secondary to the principal agricultural use of the property, and are limited in area. On-farm diversified uses include, but are not limited to, home occupations, home industries, agri-tourism uses, uses that produce value-added agricultural products, and electricity generation facilities and transmission systems, and energy storage systems. One hundred year flood: for river, stream and small inland lake systems, means that flood, based on an analysis of precipitation, snow melt, or a combination thereof, having a return period of 100 years on average, or having a 1% chance of occurring or being exceeded in any given year. One hundred year flood level: means a) for the shorelines of the Great Lakes, the peak instantaneous stillwater level, resulting from combinations of mean monthly lake levels and wind setups, which has a 1% chance of being equalled or exceeded in any given year; b) in the connecting channels (St. Marys, St. Clair, Detroit, Niagara and St. Lawrence Rivers), the peak instantaneous stillwater level which has a 1% chance of being equalled or exceeded in any given year; and c) for large inland lakes, lake levels and wind setups that have a 1% chance of being equalled or exceeded in any given year, except that, where sufficient water level records do not exist, the one hundred year flood level is based on the highest known water level and wind setups. Other water-related hazards: means water- associated phenomena other than flooding hazards and wave effects which act on shorelines. This includes, but is not limited to ship-generated waves, ice piling and ice jamming. 48 - 159 - Provincial Planning Statement, 2024 Partial services: means a) municipal sewage services or private communal sewage services combined with individual on-site water services; or b) municipal water services or private communal water services combined with individual on- site sewage services. Petroleum resource operations: means oil, gas and salt wells and associated facilities and other drilling operations, oil field fluid disposal wells and associated facilities, and wells and facilities for the underground storage of natural gas, other hydrocarbons, and compressed air energy storage. Petroleum resources: means oil, gas, and salt (extracted by solution mining method) and formation water resources which have been identified through exploration and verified by preliminary drilling or other forms of investigation. This may include sites of former operations where resources are still present or former sites that may be converted to underground storage for natural gas, other hydrocarbons, or compressed air energy storage. Planned corridors: means corridors or future corridors which are required to meet projected needs, and are identified through provincial transportation plans, preferred alignment(s) determined through the Environmental Assessment Act process, or identified through planning studies where the Ontario Ministry of Transportation, Metrolinx, Ontario Ministry of Energy and Electrification, Ontario Northland, Ministry of Northern Development or Independent Electricity System Operator (IESO) or any successor to those ministries or entities is actively pursuing, or has completed, the identification of a corridor. Approaches for the identification and protection of planned corridors may be recommended in guidelines developed by the Province. Portable asphalt plant: means a facility a) with equipment designed to heat and dry aggregate and to mix aggregate with bituminous asphalt to produce asphalt paving material, and includes stockpiling and storage of bulk materials used in the process; and b) which is not of permanent construction, but which is to be dismantled at the completion of the construction project. Portable concrete plant: means a building or structure a) with equipment designed to mix cementing materials, aggregate, water and admixtures to produce concrete, and includes stockpiling and storage of bulk materials used in the process; and b) which is not of permanent construction, but which is designed to be dismantled at the completion of the construction project. Prime agricultural area: means areas where prime agricultural lands predominate. This includes areas of prime agricultural lands and associated Canada Land Inventory Class 4 through 7 lands, and additional areas with a local concentration of farms which exhibit characteristics of ongoing agriculture. Prime agricultural areas may be identified by a planning authority based on provincial guidance or informed by mapping obtained from the Ontario Ministry of Agriculture, Food and Agribusiness and the Ontario Ministry of Rural Affairs or any successor to those ministries. Prime agricultural land: means specialty crop areas and/or Canada Land Inventory Class 1, 2, and 3 lands, as amended from time to time, in this order of priority for protection. Private communal sewage services: means a sewage works within the meaning of section 1 of the Ontario Water Resources Act that serves six or more lots or private residences and is not owned by a municipality. 49 - 160 - Provincial Planning Statement, 2024 Private communal water services: means a non- municipal drinking-water system within the meaning of section 2 of the Safe Drinking Water Act, 2002 that serves six or more lots or private residences. Protected heritage property: means property designated under Part IV or VI of the Ontario Heritage Act; property included in an area designated as a heritage conservation district under Part V of the Ontario Heritage Act; property subject to a heritage conservation easement or covenant under Part II or IV of the Ontario Heritage Act; property identified by a provincial ministry or a prescribed public body as a property having cultural heritage value or interest under the Standards and Guidelines for the Conservation of Provincial Heritage Properties; property protected under federal heritage legislation; and UNESCO World Heritage Sites. Protection works standards: means the combination of non-structural or structural works and allowances for slope stability and flooding/erosion to reduce the damage caused by flooding hazards, erosion hazards and other water-related hazards, and to allow access for their maintenance and repair. Provincial and federal requirements: means a) in regard to policy 4.1.6, legislation and policies administered by the federal or provincial governments for the purpose of fisheries protection (including fish and fish habitat), and related, scientifically established standards such as water quality criteria for protecting lake trout populations; and b) in regard to policy 4.1.7, legislation and policies administered by the provincial government or federal government, where applicable, for the purpose of protecting species at risk and their habitat. Public service facilities: means land, buildings and structures, including but not limited to schools, hospitals and community recreation facilities, for the provision of programs and services provided or subsidized by a government or other body, such as social assistance, recreation, police and fire protection, health, child care and educational programs, including elementary, secondary, post-secondary, long- term care services, and cultural services. Public service facilities do not include infrastructure. Quality and quantity of water: is measured by indicators associated with hydrologic function such as minimum base flow, depth to water table, aquifer pressure, oxygen levels, suspended solids, temperature, bacteria, nutrients and hazardous contaminants, and hydrologic regime. Rail facilities: means rail corridors, rail sidings, train stations, inter-modal facilities, rail yards and associated uses, including designated lands for future rail facilities. Redevelopment: means the creation of new units, uses or lots on previously developed land in existing communities, including brownfield sites. Regional market area: refers to an area that has a high degree of social and economic interaction. The upper or single-tier municipality, or planning area, will normally serve as the regional market area. However, where a regional market area extends significantly beyond these boundaries, then the regional market area may be based on the larger market area. Where regional market areas are very large and sparsely populated, a smaller area, if defined in an official plan, may be utilized. Renewable energy source: means an energy source that is renewed by natural processes and includes wind, water, biomass, biogas, biofuel, solar energy, geothermal energy and tidal forces. Renewable energy system: means a system that generates electricity, heat and/or cooling from a renewable energy source. 50 - 161 - Provincial Planning Statement, 2024 Reserve sewage system capacity: means design or planned capacity in a waste water treatment facility, within municipal sewage services or private communal sewage services, which is not yet committed to existing or approved development. For lot creation using private communal sewage services and individual on-site sewage services, reserve sewage system capacity includes approved capacity to treat and land- apply, treat and dispose of, or dispose of, hauled sewage in accordance with applicable legislation but not by land-applying untreated, hauled sewage. Treatment of hauled sewage can include, for example, a sewage treatment plant, anaerobic digestion, composting or other waste processing. Reserve water system capacity: means design or planned capacity in a water treatment facility which is not yet committed to existing or approved development. Reserve water system capacity applies to municipal water services or private communal water services, and not individual on-site water services. Residence surplus to an agricultural operation: means one existing habitable detached dwelling, including any associated additional residential units, that are rendered surplus as a result of farm consolidation (the acquisition of additional farm parcels to be operated as one farm operation). River, stream and small inland lake systems: means all watercourses, rivers, streams, and small inland lakes or waterbodies that have a measurable or predictable response to a single runoff event. Rural areas: means a system of lands within municipalities that may include rural settlement areas, rural lands, prime agricultural areas, natural heritage features and areas, and resource areas. Rural lands: means lands which are located outside settlement areas and which are outside prime agricultural areas. Sensitive: in regard to surface water features and ground water features, means features that are particularly susceptible to impacts from activities or events including, but not limited to, water withdrawals, and additions of pollutants. Sensitive land uses: means buildings, amenity areas, or outdoor spaces where routine or normal activities occurring at reasonably expected times would experience one or more adverse effects from contaminant discharges generated by a nearby major facility. Sensitive land uses may be a part of the natural or built environment. Examples may include, but are not limited to: residences, day care centres, and educational and health facilities. Settlement areas: means urban areas and rural settlement areas within municipalities (such as cities, towns, villages and hamlets). Ontario’s settlement areas vary significantly in terms of size, density, population, economic activity, diversity and intensity of land uses, service levels, and types of infrastructure available. Settlement areas are: a) built-up areas where development is concentrated and which have a mix of land uses; and b) lands which have been designated in an official plan for development over the long term. Sewage and water services: includes municipal sewage services and municipal water services, private communal sewage services and private communal water services, individual on-site sewage services and individual on-site water services, and partial services. 51 - 162 - Provincial Planning Statement, 2024 Significant: means a) in regard to wetlands, coastal wetlands and areas of natural and scientific interest, an area identified as provincially significant using evaluation criteria and procedures established by the Province, as amended from time to time; b) in regard to woodlands, an area which is ecologically important in terms of features such as species composition, age of trees and stand history; functionally important due to its contribution to the broader landscape because of its location, size or due to the amount of forest cover in the planning area; or economically important due to site quality, species composition, or past management history. These are to be identified using criteria and procedures established by the Province; c) in regard to other features and areas in policy 4.1, ecologically important in terms of features, functions, representation or amount, and contributing to the quality and diversity of an identifiable geographic area or natural heritage system; and d) in regard to mineral potential, an area identified as provincially significant through provincial guidance, such as the Provincially Significant Mineral Potential Index. e) in regard to cultural heritage and archaeology, resources that have been determined to have cultural heritage value or interest. Processes and criteria for determining cultural heritage value or interest are established by the Province under the authority of the Ontario Heritage Act. Criteria for determining significance for the resources identified in section c) - d) are provided in provincial guidance, but municipal approaches that achieve or exceed the same objective may also be used. While some significant resources may already be identified and inventoried by official sources, the significance of others can only be determined after evaluation. Site alteration: means activities, such as grading, excavation and the placement of fill that would change the landform and natural vegetative characteristics of a site. For the purposes of policy 4.1.4.a), site alteration does not include underground or surface mining of minerals or advanced exploration on mining lands in significant areas of mineral potential in Ecoregion 5E, where advanced exploration has the same meaning as in the Mining Act. Instead, those matters shall be subject to policy 4.1.5.a). Special Policy Area: means an area within a community that has historically existed in the flood plain and where site-specific policies, approved by both the Ministers of Natural Resources and Forestry and Municipal Affairs and Housing, are intended to provide for the continued viability of existing uses (which are generally on a small scale) and address the significant social and economic hardships to the community that would result from strict adherence to provincial policies concerning development. The criteria for designation and procedures for approval are established by the Province. A Special Policy Area is not intended to allow for new or intensified development and site alteration, if a community has feasible opportunities for development outside the flood plain. 52 - 163 - Provincial Planning Statement, 2024 Specialty crop area: means areas within the agricultural land base designated based on provincial guidance. In these areas, specialty crops are predominantly grown such as tender fruits (peaches, cherries, plums), grapes, other fruit crops, vegetable crops, greenhouse crops, and crops from agriculturally developed organic soil, usually resulting from: a) soils that have suitability to produce specialty crops, or lands that are subject to special climatic conditions, or a combination of both; b) farmers skilled in the production of specialty crops; and c) a long-term investment of capital in areas such as crops, drainage, infrastructure and related facilities and services to produce, store, or process specialty crops. Strategic growth areas: means within settlement areas, nodes, corridors, and other areas that have been identified by municipalities to be the focus for accommodating intensification and higher- density mixed uses in a more compact built form. Strategic growth areas include major transit station areas, existing and emerging downtowns, lands in close proximity to publicly-assisted post- secondary institutions and other areas where growth or development will be focused, that may include infill, redevelopment (e.g., underutilized shopping malls and plazas), brownfield sites, the expansion or conversion of existing buildings, or greyfields. Lands along major roads, arterials, or other areas with existing or planned frequent transit service or higher order transit corridors may also be identified as strategic growth areas. Surface water feature: means water-related features on the earth’s surface, including headwaters, rivers, permanent and intermittent streams, inland lakes, seepage areas, recharge/discharge areas, springs, wetlands, and associated riparian lands that can be defined by their soil moisture, soil type, vegetation or topographic characteristics. Threatened species: means a species that is classified as “Threatened Species” on the Species at Risk in Ontario List, as updated and amended from time to time. Transit service integration: means the coordinated planning or operation of transit service between two or more agencies or services that contributes to the goal of seamless service for riders and could include considerations of service schedules, service routes, information, fare policy, and fare payment. Transit-supportive: in regard to land use patterns, means development that makes transit viable, optimizes investments in transit infrastructure, and improves the quality of the experience of using transit. It often refers to compact, mixed-use development that has a high level of employment and residential densities, including air rights development, in proximity to transit stations, corridors and associated elements within the transportation system. Approaches may be recommended in guidelines developed by the Province or based on municipal approaches that achieve the same objectives. Transportation demand management: means a set of strategies that result in more efficient use of the transportation system by influencing travel behaviour by mode, time of day, frequency, trip length, regulation, route, or cost. Transportation system: means a system consisting of facilities, corridors and rights-of-way for the movement of people and goods, and associated transportation facilities including transit stops and stations, sidewalks, cycle lanes, bus lanes, high occupancy vehicle lanes, rail facilities, parking facilities, park’n’ride lots, service centres, rest stops, vehicle inspection stations, inter-modal facilities, harbours, airports, marine facilities, ferries, canals and associated facilities such as storage and maintenance. Two zone concept: means an approach to flood plain management where the flood plain is differentiated in two parts: the floodway and the flood fringe. 53 - 164 - Provincial Planning Statement, 2024 Urban agriculture: means food production in settlement areas, whether it is for personal consumption, commercial sale, education, or therapy. Examples include, but are not limited to, vertical agriculture facilities, community gardens, greenhouses, and rooftop gardens. Valleylands: means a natural area that occurs in a valley or other landform depression that has water flowing through or standing for some period of the year. Vulnerable: means surface and/or ground water that can be easily changed or impacted. Waste management system: means sites and facilities to accommodate waste from one or more municipalities and includes recycling facilities, transfer stations, processing sites and disposal sites. Watershed: means an area that is drained by a river and its tributaries. Watershed planning: means planning that provides a framework for establishing comprehensive and integrated goals, objectives, and direction for the protection, enhancement, or restoration of water resources, including the quality and quantity of water, within a watershed and for the assessment of cumulative, cross- jurisdictional, and cross-watershed impacts. Watershed planning evaluates and considers the impacts of a changing climate on water resource systems and is undertaken at many scales. It may inform the identification of water resource systems. Water resource systems: means a system consisting of ground water features and areas, surface water features (including shoreline areas), natural heritage features and areas, and hydrologic functions, which are necessary for the ecological and hydrological integrity of the watershed. Wave effects: means the movement of water up onto a shoreline or structure following the breaking of a wave, including wave uprush, wave set up and water overtopping or spray; the limit of wave effects is the point of furthest landward horizontal movement of water onto the shoreline. Wayside pits and quarries: means a temporary pit or quarry opened and used by or for a public authority solely for the purpose of a particular project or contract of road construction and not located on the road right-of-way. Wetlands: means lands that are seasonally or permanently covered by shallow water, as well as lands where the water table is close to or at the surface. In either case the presence of abundant water has caused the formation of hydric soils and has favoured the dominance of either hydrophytic plants or water tolerant plants. The four major types of wetlands are swamps, marshes, bogs and fens. Periodically soaked or wet lands being used for agricultural purposes which no longer exhibit wetland characteristics are not considered to be wetlands for the purposes of this definition. Wildland fire assessment and mitigation standards: means the combination of risk assessment tools and environmentally appropriate mitigation measures identified by the Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources to be incorporated into the design, construction and/or modification of buildings, structures, properties and/or communities to reduce the risk to public safety, infrastructure and property from wildland fire. Wildlife habitat: means areas where plants, animals and other organisms live, and find adequate amounts of food, water, shelter and space needed to sustain their populations. Specific wildlife habitats of concern may include areas where species concentrate at a vulnerable point in their annual or life cycle; and areas which are important to migratory or non-migratory species. 54 - 165 - Provincial Planning Statement, 2024 Woodlands: means treed areas that provide environmental and economic benefits to both the private landowner and the general public, such as erosion prevention, hydrological and nutrient cycling, provision of clean air and the long-term storage of carbon, provision of wildlife habitat, outdoor recreational opportunities, and the sustainable harvest of a wide range of woodland products. Woodlands include treed areas, woodlots or forested areas and vary in their level of significance at the local, regional and provincial levels. Woodlands may be delineated according to the Forestry Act definition or the Province’s Ecological Land Classification system definition for “forest.” 55 - 166 - Provincial Planning Statement, 2024 9: Appendix – Schedule 1: List of Large and Fast-Growing Municipalities Town of Ajax City of Mississauga City of Barrie Town of Newmarket City of Brampton City of Niagara Falls City of Brantford Town of Oakville City of Burlington City of Oshawa Town of Caledon City of Ottawa City of Cambridge City of Pickering Municipality of Clarington City of Richmond Hill City of Guelph City of St. Catharines City of Hamilton City of Toronto City of Kingston City of Vaughan City of Kitchener City of Waterloo City of London Town of Whitby City of Markham City of Windsor Town of Milton 56 - 167 - Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing © King’s Printer for Ontario, 2024 ISBN 978-1-4868-8225-0 (Print) ISBN 978-1-4868-8226-7 (PDF) ISBN 978-1-4868-8227-4 (HTML) ontario.ca/PPS Disponible en français - 168 - Report to Council Report Number: AS 01-24 Date: September 23, 2024 From: Paul Bigioni Director, Corporate Services & City Solicitor Subject: Animal Sheltering Agreement Renewal for the Town of Whitchurch-Stouffville -Five-year Term Effective January 1, 2025-File: S-3010-001-24 Recommendation: 1.That Report AS 01-24 regarding the Animal Sheltering Agreement Renewal be received; 2.That the Mayor and City Clerk be authorized to execute the Animal Sheltering Agreement Renewal with Whitchurch-Stouffville as set out in Attachment 1 to this report for a further5-year term commencing January 1, 2025 and ending December 31, 2030, subject tosuch revisions as are acceptable to the Director, Corporate Services & City Solicitor orAssociate Solicitor; and 3.That appropriate City of Pickering officials be authorized to take the actions necessary to implement the recommendations in this report. Executive Summary: The purpose of this report is to renew the Animal Sheltering Agreement allowing Animal Services to continue to provide sheltering services for The Corporation of the Town of Whitchurch-Stouffville for an additional five-year term effective January 1, 2025 and ending December 31, 2030. Since 2019, Pickering Animal Services has been the sole animal sheltering facility for The Town of Whitchurch-Stouffville. Of the 2,478 animals housed at the shelter, 449 of those were from Stouffville. Staff from the Town of Whitchurch-Stouffville are very appreciative of the existing partnership and are pleased with the professional care and attention that Pickering Animal Services provides to their animals and residents. Stouffville staff have been consulted on the minor changes to this Animal Sheltering Agreement and look forward to working with the City for another five years. Animal Services recommends that the renewal Animal Sheltering Agreement set out in Attachment 1 of this report, be initiated with the Town of Whitchurch-Stouffville for a five-year term beginning January 1, 2025 and ending December 31, 2030. Relationship to the Pickering Strategic Plan: The recommendations in this report respond to the Pickering Strategic Plan Priority of Strengthen Existing & Building New Partnerships. - 169 - AS 01-24 September 23, 2024 Subject: Animal Sheltering Agreement Renewal for the Town of Whitchurch-Stouffville Page 2 Financial Implications: The fees set out in the Animal Sheltering Agreement are divided into guaranteed (monthly service costs) and variable (per animal cost) and the income will be reflected in the Animal Services annual operating account. Based on revenues received over the past five years, the estimated total revenue from the Town of Whitchurch Stouffville is expected to be $32,000.00 per year, equaling $160,000.00 total over the five-year term. Discussion: The purpose of this report is to renew the Animal Sheltering Agreement with The Corporation of the Town of Whitchurch Stouffville for a five-year term beginning January 1, 2025 and ending December 31, 2030. On September 17, 2018, Council approved Resolution #473/18 authorizing the execution of an agreement with the Town of Whitchurch Stouffville for Animal Services to provide sheltering services for their animals. The current Agreement is set to expire on December 31, 2024, and therefore staff are seeking approval from Council to enter into an agreement renewal for a five-year term beginning January 1, 2025 and ending December 31, 2030. Staff have consulted with staff from the Town of Whitchurch Stouffville in the preparation of the draft Animal Sheltering Agreement and they are agreeable to its terms. Whitchurch-Stouffville recognizes that our current site is temporary and continues to see this partnership as a long- term arrangement, with a keen interest in moving to the new facility when the time comes. As such, Animal Services recommends that an Animal Sheltering Agreement be initiated for the Town of Whitchurch-Stouffville for animal services to continue to shelter their animals as set out in Attachment 1 for a five-year term beginning January 1, 2025 and ending December 31, 2030. Attachment: 1.Draft Animal Shelter Agreement with the Town of Whitchurch-Stouffville (revised)2.Draft Animal Shelter Agreement with the Town of Whitchurch-Stouffville (clean) Prepared By: Approved/Endorsed By: Lindsey Narraway Paul Bigioni Supervisor, Animal Services Director, Corporate Services & City Solicitor Original Signed By:Original Signed By: - 170 - AS 01-24 September 23, 2024 Subject: Animal Sheltering Agreement Renewal for the Town of Whitchurch-Stouffville Page 3 LN:ks Recommended for the consideration of Pickering City Council Marisa Carpino, M.A. Chief Administrative Officer Original Signed By: - 171 - THIS AGREEMENT is made as of December 1xxxx, 202418 BETWEEN: THE CORPORATION OF THE CITY OF PICKERING (“ Pickering”) - and - THE CORPORATION OF THE TOWN OF WHITCHURCH-STOUFFVILLE (“Whitchurch-Stouffville”) WHEREAS Whitchurch-Stouffville requires an animal shelter facility to feed, shelter and care for animals from Whitchurch-Stouffville and Pickering has agreed to provide the use of their facility based upon the terms and conditions set out in this Agreement; AND WHEREAS Council for Whitchurch-Stouffville authorized the execution of this Agreement by way of Resolution on _________________. NOW THEREFORE Pickering and Whitchurch-Stouffville agree as follows: Definitions 1. In this Agreement, (a) “Service Costs” include the feed, care, cleaning and facility operation including staff and maintenance costs required in conjunction with the Shelter; and (b) “Shelter” means the facility operated as The Pickering Animal Shelter on the property municipally known as 1688 Highway 7, PickeringBrougham, ON L1Y 0A7L0H 1A0, or such replacement animal shelter facility as designated by Pickering in accordance with Section 2319. (c) “Whitchurch-Stouffville Animals” means the stray dogs, cats and small animals (such as domestic rabbits, guinea pigs, birds, reptiles, etc.) delivered by Whitchurch-Stouffville staff to the Shelter; Sheltering Services 2. The Shelter will house domestic animals, including cats, dogs and small animals. 3. The Shelter shall feed, shelter and care for all Whitchurch-Stouffville Animals in accordance with all applicable legislation. 4. Stray small animals may be impounded at the Shelter on a case by case basis at the discretion of Shelter staff. Attachment 1 to Report AS 01-24 - 172 - Animal Shelter Agreement Page 2 5. Feral cats and kittens may be impounded at the Shelter on a case by case basis at the discretion of Shelter staff. 6. Once Whitchurch-Stouffville Animals are impounded by the Shelter, the Shelter shall be responsible for the health and wellbeing of the Whitchurch-Stouffville Animals, including any costs incurred for veterinary services required. 7. Redemption, surrenders, adoption and euthanasia for all Whitchurch-Stouffville Animals shall be in accordance with policies and procedures established by the Shelter. Upon execution of this Agreement, and as revised or amended during the term of this Agreement, the Shelter agrees to provide copies of all applicable policies and procedures to Whitchurch-Stouffville. 8. Section 65 does not apply to Whitchurch-Stouffville Animals being held by the Shelter under protective custody or pursuant to the provisions of the Health Protection and Promotion Act, R.S.O. 1990 c. H.7 (“HPPA”) and any regulations passed under it, and the Dog Owners’ Liability Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. D.16 (“DOLA”) and any regulations passed under it. 9. Whitchurch-Stouffville shall be responsible for any veterinary or euthanasia costs associated with Whitchurch-Stouffville Animals being held under Protective Custody. 10. Pursuant to court proceedings under Dog Owners’ Liability Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. D.16, If the shelter is at capacity, Whitchurch-Stouffville will be responsible for any external costs to the Shelter as a result of having to house animals at another facility. Any alternative facility used to house animals must be approved by the Town of Whitchurch-Stouffville, prior to the animal being transferred. 8.11. Whitchurch-Stouffville shall be responsible for an additional daily impound fee of $20.00 per animal and any veterinary or euthanasia costs associated with Whitchurch-Stouffville Animals being held by the Shelter pursuant to HPPA and DOLA. 9.12. Whitchurch-Stouffville Animals being held by the Shelter pursuant to HPPA and DOLA shall be quarantined for a period of ten days upon an order issued by the Regional Municipality of York. 10.13. Fees for all services provided by the Shelter to the public (e.g. adoption, impound fees) save and except for licensing fees, shall be in accordance with Pickering’s approved fee schedule as described in By-law 6811/07, as amended. The Shelter shall be responsible for the collection of any fees for services. 11.14. The Shelter shall retain all fees with regards to redemption, surrender and adoption for all Whitchurch-Stouffville Animals. Formatted: List Paragraph, No bullets or numbering Formatted: List Paragraph, No bullets or numbering Formatted: List Paragraph, No bullets or numbering - 173 - Animal Shelter Agreement Page 3 12.15. The Shelter agrees to require all owners claiming a dog from the Shelter to purchase a Whitchurch-Stouffville pet licence as per Whitchurch-Stouffville By- law 2017-057-RE and fee structure. 13.16. The Shelter will remit all fees collected for the sale of Whitchurch-Stouffville pet licences in accordance with Section 1511 and all licence information associated therewith to Whitchurch-Stouffville staff on a quarterly basis, or as otherwise agreed to in writing by the Parties. Shelter Fees 14.17. Whitchurch-Stouffville shall pay to Pickering the Shelter Fees for the year 2019 as set out in this Section, however, Whitchurch-Stouffville acknowledges and agrees that the Shelter Fees set out in this Section reflect the Shelter Fees for the year 2019 only 2025 only and that Pickering will reasonably determine the Shelter Fees for each successive year of the Term, and any extension term, but shall not be permitted to increase the Shelter Fees by more than 2%5% in any successive year. Pickering shall provide not less than ninety (90) days prior written notice to Whitchurch-Stouffville of any change to the Shelter Fees for the next subsequent year of this Agreement and any extension thereof, failing which no change to the Shelter Fees shall be permitted for the given year. Shelter Fees 2019 costs to be as follows: (a) Service Costs: $560.21500/month (b) Per Animal Cost Dog: $220200/impound Cat: $12000/impound Small Animal: $ 50/impound (no daily fee) (c) Daily Fee (up to the 6th day) Dog/Cat $3020/day Quarantined Animal $20/day (+ daily fee) (plus applicable taxes) 15.18. Whitchurch-Stouffville shall remit monthly -Shelter Fees to Pickering on the first day of each and every month throughout the Term, and any extension term. 19. Notwithstanding the foregoing, in the event Pickering has designated a replacement animal shelter facility pursuant to Section 2319, the Shelter Fees for the designated replacement animal shelter facility shall be determined in accordance with Section 2319. Commented [LN1]: This had been going up 2.5% yearly. 2025 is expected to increase by 2% to $560.21 monthly Commented [LN2]: As per Sept 2022 memo - daily care has been $25 per day. Formatted: List Paragraph, No bullets or numbering - 174 - Animal Shelter Agreement Page 4 16. Term 17.20. The term of this Agreement shall commence on January 1, 2019 2025 and end on December 31, 2024 2030 (the “Term”). 18.21. The parties may mutually agree to extend the Term for an additional 5 years. Either party shall provide at least 90 days written notice to the other party, given prior to the expiry of the Term, of its request to extend the Term. The other party shall respond in writing within 30 days advising whether it will agree to extend the Term. Any extension term will be subject to the same terms and conditions as herein contained unless otherwise agreed to by the parties. Failing such mutual agreement to extend the Term, this Agreement shall expire as set out herein. 19.22. Either party may, in its discretion, terminate this Agreement without cause prior to the expiry of the Term, or any extension term, by providing the other party at least 180120 days prior written notice of such termination. Upon termination in accordance with this provision, neither party shall owe any further obligation to the other, and Whitchurch-Stouffville shall not be liable for any costs or losses incurred by Pickering or the Shelter and/or any third party arising from or in connection with the cancellation or termination of this Agreement. Replacement Shelter Facility 20.23. Pickering reserves the right, in its discretion, to designate a replacement animal shelter facility by providing Whitchurch-Stouffville at least 120 days prior written notice of such designation. Within 60 days upon receipt of notice, the parties shall mutually agree on the amount of the Shelter Fees to be paid by Whitchurch- Stouffville for the designated replacement animal shelter facility for the remainder of the Term, and any extension term. Notwithstanding the foregoing, the Shelter Fees shall not be less than the Shelter Fees payable immediately prior to notice of Pickering’s designation of a replacement animal shelter facility. If, within 60 days of receipt of notice, the parties have not agreed to the Shelter Fees and/or Whitchurch-Stouffville does not agree to relocate to the designated replacement animal shelter facility, this Agreement shall terminate 60 days thereafter and neither party shall have any liability to the other as a consequence of such termination. Hours of Operation 21.24. The Shelter shall provide or exceed the following hours of operation to the public (“regular facility operating hours”): Formatted: Indent: Left: 0.5", No bullets or numbering Formatted: Font: (Default) Arial Formatted: Normal Formatted: Font: (Default) Arial - 175 - Animal Shelter Agreement Page 5 Monday - Friday 10:00 am – 4:00 pm Saturday 10:00 am – 2:00 pm Sunday Closed 22.25. Whitchurch-Stouffville staff shall have full access to the Shelter facilities 24 hours per day, seven days per week. 23.26. Whitchurch-Stouffville staff shall be responsible for impounding and following pre-established procedures implemented by Pickering for all animals entering the Shelter outside regular facility operating hours. Indemnity 24.27. Each of Pickering and Whitchurch-Stouffville shall indemnify and save harmless the other from and against any and all actions, losses, damages, claims, costs and expenses (including solicitors' fees on a solicitor and client basis) to which the party being indemnified shall or may become liable by reason of any breach, violation or non-performance by the party so indemnifying of any covenant, term or provision of this Agreement or by reason of any damage, injury or death occasioned to or suffered by any person or persons including Pickering or Whitchurch-Stouffville, as the case may be, or any property, or any animal being sheltered, by reason of any wrongful act, neglect or default on the part of the party so indemnifying or any of those persons for whom it is in law responsible. Insurance 25.28. Whitchurch-Stouffville, at its sole cost and expense, shall purchase and keep in force and effect throughout the Term, and any extension term, comprehensive general liability insurance, identifying Pickering as an additional insured, pertaining to Whitchurch-Stouffville’s liability to others in respect of injury, death or damage to property occurring upon, in or about the Shelter, with coverage for any one occurrence of claim of not less than $2,000,000.00 such insurance to be for not less than $2,000,000.00 per occurrence or loss. Such insurance policy shall not be cancelled unless prior notice by registered letter has been given to Pickering by the insurer 30 days in advance of the expiry date. 26.29. Whitchurch-Stouffville shall provide to Pickering an insurance certificate, in a form satisfactory to Pickering, completed by Whitchurch-Stouffville’s insurance provider confirming such coverage. - 176 - Animal Shelter Agreement Page 6 27.30. The provision of the insurance policy required by this Section shall not relieve Whitchurch-Stouffville from liability for claims not covered by the insurance policy or which exceed its limits, if any, for which Whitchurch-Stouffville may be held responsible. 28.31. Whitchurch-Stouffville shall not do, omit to do, or permit to be done or omitted to be done upon, in or about the Shelter anything that may contravene or be prohibited by any of Pickering’s insurance policies in force from time to time covering or relevant to any part of the Shelter or which would prevent Pickering from procuring its policies with companies acceptable to Pickering. If the conduct of Whitchurch-Stouffville upon, in or about the Shelter or any acts or omissions of Whitchurch-Stouffville upon, in or about the Shelter directly causes or results in any increase in premiums for any of Pickering’s insurance policies, Whitchurch- Stouffville shall pay such increase to Pickering. Records 29.32. In accordance with the Animals for Research Act, R.R.O., 1990 Reg. 23(10), the Shelter shall be responsible for maintaining accurate records on behalf of Whitchurch-Stouffville, as directed. 30.33. Upon request by Whitchurch-Stouffville, the Shelter will provide a detailed activity report with respect to the number of animals impounded, length of time at the shelter and a breakdown of the final disposition of animals. Default 31.34. If at any time Whitchurch-Stouffville is in default in the performance of any of its obligations under this Agreement and such default continues for 15 days after the receipt by Whitchurch-Stouffville of notice from Pickering setting out the particulars of such default, Pickering shall have the right to terminate this Agreement. General 32.35. Whitchurch-Stouffville will be permitted to display a window decal on a front window of the Shelter, as determined by Pickering, for the purpose of advising the public of Whitchurch-Stouffville’s use of the Pickering Shelter. The design of such decal will be coordinated jointly by both parties. 33.36. Pickering shall be responsible for all facility and property maintenance, including cleaning, snow removal, grass cutting, and any required repairs or maintenance to the Shelter. - 177 - Animal Shelter Agreement Page 7 34.37. No amendment to this Agreement shall be effective unless it is in writing and signed by both parties. 35.38. (1) Any notice to Pickering under this Agreement shall be in writing and shall be delivered to the following address: Pickering Civic Complex Attention: City Clerk One The Esplanade Pickering, Ontario L1V 6K7 and any notice to Whitchurch-Stouffville shall be in writing and shall be delivered to the following address: Attention: Manager, Municipal Law Enforcement 111 Sandiford Drive Stouffville, ON L4A 0Z8 (2) Notice shall be sufficiently given if delivered in person or sent by registered mail or sent by facsimile transmission during normal business hours on a business day. 36.39. This Agreement shall enure to the benefit of and be binding upon the parties and their respective successors (including any successor by reason of amalgamation or statutory arrangement) and permitted assigns. IN WITNESS WHEREOF Pickering and Whitchurch-Stouffville have signed this Agreement. THE CORPORATION OF THE CITY OF PICKERING THE CORPORATION OF THE TOWN OF WHITCHURCH-STOUFFVILLE Per:_____________________________ Kevin Ashe, MayorDavid Ryan, Mayor Per:_____________________________ Per:_____________________________ Susan Cassel, City Clerk Debbie Shields, City Clerk - 178 - Animal Shelter Agreement Page 8 - 179 - THIS AGREEMENT is made as of , 2024 BETWEEN: THE CORPORATION OF THE CITY OF PICKERING (“Pickering”) -and - THE CORPORATION OF THE TOWN OF WHITCHURCH-STOUFFVILLE (“Whitchurch-Stouffville”) WHEREAS Whitchurch-Stouffville requires an animal shelter facility to feed, shelter and care for animals from Whitchurch-Stouffville and Pickering has agreed to provide the use of their facility based upon the terms and conditions set out in this Agreement; AND WHEREAS Council for Whitchurch-Stouffville authorized the execution of this Agreement by way of Resolution on _________________. NOW THEREFORE Pickering and Whitchurch-Stouffville agree as follows: Definitions 1.In this Agreement, (a)“Service Costs” include the feed, care, cleaning and facility operationincluding staff and maintenance costs required in conjunction with theShelter; and (b)“Shelter” means the facility operated as The Pickering Animal Shelter onthe property municipally known as 1688 Highway 7, Pickering, ON, L1Y0A7, or such replacement animal shelter facility as designated byPickering in accordance with Section 23. (c)“Whitchurch-Stouffville Animals” means the stray dogs, cats and smallanimals (such as domestic rabbits, guinea pigs, birds, reptiles, etc.)delivered by Whitchurch-Stouffville staff to the Shelter; Sheltering Services 2.The Shelter will house domestic animals, including cats, dogs and small animals. 3.The Shelter shall feed, shelter and care for all Whitchurch-Stouffville Animals in accordance with all applicable legislation. 4.Stray small animals may be impounded at the Shelter on a case-by-case basis atthe discretion of Shelter staff. Attachment 2 to Report AS 01-24 - 180 - Animal Shelter Agreement Page 2 5. Feral cats and kittens may be impounded at the Shelter on a case-by-case basisat the discretion of Shelter staff. 6. Once Whitchurch-Stouffville Animals are impounded by the Shelter, the Shelter shall be responsible for the health and wellbeing of the Whitchurch-StouffvilleAnimals, including any costs incurred for veterinary services required. 7. Redemption, surrenders, adoption and euthanasia for all Whitchurch-Stouffville Animals shall be in accordance with policies and procedures established by theShelter. Upon execution of this Agreement, and as revised or amended duringthe term of this Agreement, the Shelter agrees to provide copies of all applicablepolicies and procedures to Whitchurch-Stouffville. 8. Section 6 does not apply to Whitchurch-Stouffville Animals being held by the Shelter under protective custody or pursuant to the provisions of the Health Protection and Promotion Act, R.S.O. 1990 c. H.7 (“HPPA”) and any regulationspassed under it, and the Dog Owners’ Liability Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. D.16(“DOLA”) and any regulations passed under it. 9.Whitchurch-Stouffville shall be responsible for any veterinary or euthanasia costsassociated with Whitchurch-Stouffville Animals being held under ProtectiveCustody. 10.Pursuant to court proceedings under Dog Owners’ Liability Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. D.16, If the shelter is at capacity, Whitchurch-Stouffville will be responsible forany external costs to the Shelter as a result of having to house animals atanother facility. Any alternative facility used to house animals must be approvedby the Town of Whitchurch-Stouffville, prior to the animal being transferred. 11.Whitchurch-Stouffville shall be responsible for an additional daily impound fee of$20.00 per animal and any veterinary or euthanasia costs associated withWhitchurch-Stouffville Animals being held by the Shelter pursuant to HPPA andDOLA. 12.Whitchurch-Stouffville Animals being held by the Shelter pursuant to HPPA andDOLA shall be quarantined for a period of ten days upon an order issued by theRegional Municipality of York. 13.Fees for all services provided by the Shelter to the public (e.g. adoption, impoundfees) save and except for licensing fees, shall be in accordance with Pickering’sapproved fee schedule as described in By-law 6811/07, as amended. TheShelter shall be responsible for the collection of any fees for services. 14.The Shelter shall retain all fees with regards to redemption, surrender and adoption for all Whitchurch-Stouffville Animals. - 181 - Animal Shelter Agreement Page 3 15. The Shelter agrees to require all owners claiming a dog from the Shelter to purchase a Whitchurch-Stouffville pet licence as per Whitchurch-Stouffville By-law 2017-057-RE and fee structure. 16. The Shelter will remit all fees collected for the sale of Whitchurch-Stouffville pet licences in accordance with Section 15 and all licence information associated therewith to Whitchurch-Stouffville staff on a quarterly basis, or as otherwise agreed to in writing by the Parties. Shelter Fees 17. Whitchurch-Stouffville shall pay to Pickering the Shelter Fees as set out in this Section, however, Whitchurch-Stouffville acknowledges and agrees that the Shelter Fees set out in this Section reflect the Shelter Fees for the year 2025 only and that Pickering will reasonably determine the Shelter Fees for each successive year of the Term, and any extension term, but shall not be permitted to increase the Shelter Fees by more than 2% in any successive year. Pickering shall provide not less than ninety (90) days prior written notice to Whitchurch- Stouffville of any change to the Shelter Fees for the next subsequent year of this Agreement and any extension thereof, failing which no change to the Shelter Fees shall be permitted for the given year. Shelter Fees Costs to be as follows: (a) Service Costs: $560.21/month (b) Per Animal Cost Dog: $220/impound Cat: $120/impound Small Animal: $ 50/impound (no daily fee) (c) Daily Fee (up to the 6th day) Dog/Cat $30/day Quarantined Animal $20/day (+ daily fee) (plus applicable taxes) 18. Whitchurch-Stouffville shall remit monthly -Shelter Fees to Pickering on the first day of each and every month throughout the Term, and any extension term. 19. Notwithstanding the foregoing, in the event Pickering has designated a replacement animal shelter facility pursuant to Section 23, the Shelter Fees for the designated replacement animal shelter facility shall be determined in accordance with Section 23. - 182 - Animal Shelter Agreement Page 4 Term 20.The term of this Agreement shall commence on January 1, 2025 and end on December 31, 2030 (the “Term”). 21.The parties may mutually agree to extend the Term for an additional 5 years.Either party shall provide at least 90 days written notice to the other party, givenprior to the expiry of the Term, of its request to extend the Term. The other party shall respond in writing within 30 days advising whether it will agree to extend theTerm. Any extension term will be subject to the same terms and conditions asherein contained unless otherwise agreed to by the parties. Failing such mutualagreement to extend the Term, this Agreement shall expire as set out herein. 22.Either party may, in its discretion, terminate this Agreement without cause prior to the expiry of the Term, or any extension term, by providing the other party atleast 180 days prior written notice of such termination. Upon termination inaccordance with this provision, neither party shall owe any further obligation tothe other, and Whitchurch-Stouffville shall not be liable for any costs or losses incurred by Pickering or the Shelter and/or any third party arising from or in connection with the cancellation or termination of this Agreement. Replacement Shelter Facility 23.Pickering reserves the right, in its discretion, to designate a replacement animal shelter facility by providing Whitchurch-Stouffville at least 120 days prior writtennotice of such designation. Within 60 days upon receipt of notice, the partiesshall mutually agree on the amount of the Shelter Fees to be paid by Whitchurch-Stouffville for the designated replacement animal shelter facility for the remainder of the Term, and any extension term. Notwithstanding the foregoing, the Shelter Fees shall not be less than the Shelter Fees payable immediately prior to noticeof Pickering’s designation of a replacement animal shelter facility. If, within 60days of receipt of notice, the parties have not agreed to the Shelter Fees and/orWhitchurch-Stouffville does not agree to relocate to the designated replacement animal shelter facility, this Agreement shall terminate 60 days thereafter and neither party shall have any liability to the other as a consequence of suchtermination. Hours of Operation 24. The Shelter shall provide or exceed the following hours of operation to the public(“regular facility operating hours”): Monday - Friday 10:00 am – 4:00 pm Saturday 10:00 am – 2:00 pm Sunday Closed 25.Whitchurch-Stouffville staff shall have full access to the Shelter facilities 24 hoursper day, seven days per week. - 183 - Animal Shelter Agreement Page 5 26.Whitchurch-Stouffville staff shall be responsible for impounding and followingpre-established procedures implemented by Pickering for all animals entering the Shelter outside regular facility operating hours. Indemnity 27.Each of Pickering and Whitchurch-Stouffville shall indemnify and save harmless the other from and against any and all actions, losses, damages, claims, costsand expenses (including solicitors' fees on a solicitor and client basis) to whichthe party being indemnified shall or may become liable by reason of any breach,violation or non-performance by the party so indemnifying of any covenant, termor provision of this Agreement or by reason of any damage, injury or death occasioned to or suffered by any person or persons including Pickering orWhitchurch-Stouffville, as the case may be, or any property, or any animal beingsheltered, by reason of any wrongful act, neglect or default on the part of theparty so indemnifying or any of those persons for whom it is in law responsible. Insurance 28.Whitchurch-Stouffville, at its sole cost and expense, shall purchase and keep inforce and effect throughout the Term, and any extension term, comprehensivegeneral liability insurance, identifying Pickering as an additional insured, pertaining to Whitchurch-Stouffville’s liability to others in respect of injury, deathor damage to property occurring upon, in or about the Shelter, with suchinsurance to be for not less than $2,000,000.00 per occurrence or loss. Suchinsurance policy shall not be cancelled unless prior notice by registered letter hasbeen given to Pickering by the insurer 30 days in advance of the expiry date. 29.Whitchurch-Stouffville shall provide to Pickering an insurance certificate, in aform satisfactory to Pickering, completed by Whitchurch-Stouffville’s insuranceprovider confirming such coverage. 30.The provision of the insurance policy required by this Section shall not relieve Whitchurch-Stouffville from liability for claims not covered by the insurance policyor which exceed its limits, if any, for which Whitchurch-Stouffville may be heldresponsible. 31.Whitchurch-Stouffville shall not do, omit to do, or permit to be done or omitted tobe done upon, in or about the Shelter anything that may contravene or beprohibited by any of Pickering’s insurance policies in force from time to timecovering or relevant to any part of the Shelter or which would prevent Pickeringfrom procuring its policies with companies acceptable to Pickering. If the conduct of Whitchurch-Stouffville upon, in or about the Shelter or any acts or omissions ofWhitchurch-Stouffville upon, in or about the Shelter directly causes or results inany increase in premiums for any of Pickering’s insurance policies, Whitchurch-Stouffville shall pay such increase to Pickering. - 184 - Animal Shelter Agreement Page 6 Records 32.In accordance with the Animals for Research Act, R.R.O., 1990 Reg. 23(10), the Shelter shall be responsible for maintaining accurate records on behalf ofWhitchurch-Stouffville, as directed. 33.Upon request by Whitchurch-Stouffville, the Shelter will provide a detailed activityreport with respect to the number of animals impounded, length of time at the shelter and a breakdown of the final disposition of animals. Default 34.If at any time Whitchurch-Stouffville is in default in the performance of any of its obligations under this Agreement and such default continues for 15 days after thereceipt by Whitchurch-Stouffville of notice from Pickering setting out theparticulars of such default, Pickering shall have the right to terminate thisAgreement. General 35.Whitchurch-Stouffville will be permitted to display a window decal on a frontwindow of the Shelter, as determined by Pickering, for the purpose of advisingthe public of Whitchurch-Stouffville’s use of the Pickering Shelter. The design of such decal will be coordinated jointly by both parties. 36.Pickering shall be responsible for all facility and property maintenance, includingcleaning, snow removal, grass cutting, and any required repairs or maintenanceto the Shelter. 37.No amendment to this Agreement shall be effective unless it is in writing andsigned by both parties. 38.(1) Any notice to Pickering under this Agreement shall be in writing and shall be delivered to the following address: Pickering Civic Complex Attention: City Clerk One The Esplanade Pickering, ON L1V 6K7 and any notice to Whitchurch-Stouffville shall be in writing and shall be delivered to the following address: Attention: Manager, Municipal Law Enforcement 111 Sandiford Drive Stouffville, ON L4A 0Z8 - 185 - Animal Shelter Agreement Page 7 (2)Notice shall be sufficiently given if delivered in person or sent by registeredmail or sent by facsimile transmission during normal business hours on abusiness day. 39.This Agreement shall enure to the benefit of and be binding upon the partiesand their respective successors (including any successor by reason ofamalgamation or statutory arrangement) and permitted assigns. IN WITNESS WHEREOF Pickering and Whitchurch-Stouffville have signed this Agreement. THE CORPORATION OF THE CITY OF PICKERING THE CORPORATION OF THE TOWN OF WHITCHURCH-STOUFFVILLE Per:_____________________________ Kevin Ashe, Mayor Per:_____________________________ Per:_____________________________ Susan Cassel, City Clerk - 186 - Report to Council Report Number: CS 29-24 Date: September 23, 2024 From: Laura Gibbs Director, Community Services Subject: Provincial Grant Funding of Municipal Capital Projects - Community Sport and Recreation Infrastructure Fund - File: A-1440-001 Recommendation: 1. That Report CS 29-24 regarding Provincial Grant Funding of Municipal Capital Projects be received; 2. That Council authorize staff to apply to the Community Sport and Recreation Infrastructure Fund – Stream 1: Repair and Rehabilitation for the replacement of community playgrounds; 3. That Council authorize staff to apply to the Community Sport and Recreation Infrastructure Fund – Stream 2: New Builds/Signature New Builds for the construction of the City Centre Park; 4. That a copy of this report be forwarded to Peter Bethlenfalvy, MPP, Pickering – Uxbridge; and, 5. That the appropriate officials of the City of Pickering be authorized to take necessary actions as indicated in this report. Executive Summary: The purpose of this report is to obtain Council authorization to submit applications to Stream 1 and Stream 2 of the Community Sport and Recreation Infrastructure Fund (CSRIF). The CSRIF requires proof of a Resolution of Council to provide evidence of support for the applicant to undertake the project. The Community Sport and Recreation Infrastructure Fund – Stream 1, was identified by staff as an ideal grant program to fund a portion of the planned costs for playground replacement because it supports critical facility repairs that provide community sport and recreation within Ontario. The CSRIF – Stream 1 funds up to 50 percent of eligible funds, with maximum grant contribution of $1,000,000. The fund allows for a maximum of one grant submission per organization. The Community Sport and Recreation Infrastructure Fund – Stream 2, was identified by staff as an ideal grant program to fund a portion of the planned costs for the construction of City Centre Park because it funds new construction projects in Ontario that create spaces for sport and recreation. The CSRIF – Stream 2 funds up to 50 percent of eligible funds, with a maximum grant contribution of $10,000,000. This fund allows for a maximum of one grant - 187 - CS 29-24 September 23, 2024 Subject: Provincial Grant Funding of Municipal Capital Projects Page 2 submission per organization. Relationship to the Pickering Strategic Plan: The recommendations in this report respond to the Pickering Strategic Plan Priorities of Advocate for an Inclusive, Welcoming, Safe & Healthy Community; Advance Innovation & Responsible Planning to Support a Connected, Well-Serviced Community; and Lead & Advocate for Environmental Stewardship. Financial Implications: The Community Sport and Recreation Infrastructure Fund will contribute 50 percent of eligible project expenses to a maximum of $1,000,000 for Stream 1, and $10,000,000 for Stream 2. Eligible project expenses include development of plans or permits, project management costs including consultants, transportation and delivery costs, fixed equipment and technology, construction costs, and the cost to purchase, produce and install Ontario Builds signage. 1. CSRIF Stream 1: Repair and Rehabilitation The City has seven playground replacement projects planned for 2025 and 2026. All grant funds from Stream 1 are required to be spent within 24 months of the grant recipient entering into a funding agreement with the Ministry in respect of the project. Project details are referenced below: Project Description Funding Source Current Forecast Bayshore Tot Lot Park Parks Infrastructure Replacement Reserve 200,000$ Lynn Heights Park Parks Infrastructure Replacement Reserve 200,000 Bonita Park Parks Infrastructure Replacement Reserve 200,000 Bay Ridges Kinsmen Park Casino Reserve 325,000 Clearside Park Casino Reserve 150,000 Glengrove Park Casino Reserve 200,000 Pinegrove Park Casino Reserve 250,000 Total 1,525,000$ Various Playground Replacements 2025/2026 Budget - 188 - CS 29-24 September 23, 2024 Subject: Provincial Grant Funding of Municipal Capital Projects Page 3 The CSRIF funds 50 percent of eligible expenses. The City will apply for total eligible costs mentioned above of $1,525,000, which would result in a maximum grant contribution of $762,500. 2. CSRIF Stream 2: New Builds / Signature Builds In 2024, the City plans to commence the design of a new urban park in the City Centre that will include Pickering’s first permanent outdoor refrigerated skating rink. All grant funds from Stream 2 are required to be incurred no later than March 31, 2027. A 10 percent holdback of the funds will be released upon the completion of the project and the Ministry’s satisfactory review of the recipient’s final report. The below table shows the impact of receiving the maximum grant funding for Stream 2 for the City Park Project: With CSRIF Grant Difference Gross Project Cost:14,256,000$ 14,256,000$ -$ Less: Grant - 7,128,000 (7,128,000) Net Cost 14,256,000$ 7,128,000$ (7,128,000)$ Funding: DC - Parks and Recreation 7,128,000 3,564,000 3,564,000 City Share (Taxpayer)7,128,000 3,564,000 3,564,000 Net Funding 14,256,000$ 7,128,000$ 7,128,000$ City Centre Park - Construction 2026 Budget Current Forecast: Receiving the maximum potential grant funding would reduce the net cost of the City Centre Park project in half. The savings will be split between the DC Parks & Recreation Reserve Fund and the City’s Reserves. The above DC funding may change when the City completes its new DC Study in 2025. Discussion: The purpose of this report is to obtain Council authorization to submit applications to Stream 1 and Stream 2 of the Community Sport and Recreation Infrastructure Fund (CSRIF). The CSRIF requires proof of a Resolution of Council to provide evidence of support for the applicant to undertake the project. - 189 - CS 29-24 September 23, 2024 Subject: Provincial Grant Funding of Municipal Capital Projects Page 4 1. Replacement of Seven Community Playgrounds The City provides playgrounds at 63 parks throughout Pickering. Most of the City’s playgrounds offer creative play structures and/or traditional play equipment; three sites provide swings only. The City is updating seven of its parks with new playground equipment in an effort to support safe, enjoyable and inclusive spaces for community members to gather. The seven parks include: •Bayshore Tot Lot Park •Lynn Heights Park •Bonita Park •Bay Ridges Kinsmen Park •Clearside Park •Glengrove Park •Pinegrove Park As the City replaces older play structures, consideration is given to include components that are barrier-free for persons with disabilities. With over 60 playground sites and an average lifespan of around 20 years per structure, the City averages 3 playground replacements per year. These upgrades will deliver more accessible spaces, foster a more inclusive environment, enriching the experiences and opportunities available within our parks. 2.Construction of City Centre Park As part of The Shops at Pickering City Centre redevelopment and City Centre Master Plan, the landowner is conveying 0.5753 hectares (1.42 acres) of parkland to the City of Pickering for the construction of an urban park located in the existing parking lot directly across Glenanna Road from the Pickering Civic Complex. Through input from Council, staff, and public engagement, a number of features are recommended for consideration in the Pickering City Centre Park design. As this park space is to become a recreation hub in City Centre, it must be multi-functional and able to host many different recreational uses. The main features that are anticipated to be included in the design, subject to the completion of community consultation, include: •an outdoor refrigerated recreational skating rink (winter) and public event space(summer) •public washroom and ice rink maintenance facility, including space to house theice-resurfacer •skate rental and concession facility •interactive water feature & public art •large shade structure and stage area •soft landscaping and trees •public seating / gathering area - 190 - CS 29-24 September 23, 2024 Subject: Provincial Grant Funding of Municipal Capital Projects Page 5 Through Resolution #379/24, Council confirmed the second capital budget priority to be the Pickering City Centre Project, Phase 1 – City Centre Park. The estimated total cost of the park, including design, construction, furniture, and fixtures is $15.0 million. Council recommended that the Mayor be requested to include $1.5 million for the design in the 2024 Capital Budget and $13.5 million for construction and related costs in the Capital Forecast. A budget of $1.5 million was approved in the 2024 Capital Budget. The deadline to apply to Steam 1 of the Community Sport and Recreation Infrastructure Fund (CSRIF) is October 29, 2024. The deadline to apply to Stream 2 of the CSRIF is open from August 19, 2024 to March 31, 2027. Applications in Stream 2 will be accepted on an ongoing basis until funding has been fully allocated. Attachment: None. Prepared/Approved By: Approved/Endorsed By: Original Signed By Original Signed By Laura Gibbs, MBA, MSc. Richard Holborn, P. Eng Director, Community Services Director, Engineering Services Original Signed By Stan Karwowski MBA, CPA, CMA Director, Finance & Treasurer LG:snc Recommended for the consideration of Pickering City Council Original Signed By Marisa Carpino, M.A. Chief Administrative Officer - 191 - Report to Council Report Number: CS 30-24 Date: September 23, 2024 From: Laura Gibbs Director, Community Services Subject: Federal Grant Funding of Municipal Capital Projects -Green & Inclusive Community Building Program-File: A-1440-001 Recommendation: 1.That Report CS 30-24 regarding the Federal Grant Funding of Municipal Capital Projectsbe received; 2.That Council authorize staff to apply to the Green & Inclusive Community Building Program: New Build Project for construction of the Seaton Recreation Complex & Library; 3.That Council authorize staff to apply to the Green & Inclusive Community Building Program: Medium Retrofit Project for the O’Brien Arena retrofit; 4.That a copy of this report be forwarded to Jennifer O’Connell, MP Pickering – Uxbridge;and, 5.That the appropriate officials of the City of Pickering be authorized to take necessaryactions as indicated in this report. Executive Summary: The purpose of this report is to obtain Council authorization to submit applications to the Green & Inclusive Community Building Program (GICB) New Build Project stream and Medium Retrofit Project stream. The GICB requires proof of a Resolution of Council to provide evidence of support for the applicant to undertake the project. The GICB New Building Project stream was identified by staff as an ideal grant opportunity to fund a portion of the planned costs for the construction of the Seaton Recreation Complex & Library because it funds the construction of new publicly accessible community buildings for underserved and high-needs communities across Canada. The GICB will fund up to 50 percent of eligible costs for new build projects that exceed $10 million in total eligible expenses. GICB will consider projects over $25 million on a case-by-case basis. The GICB will contribute maximum grant funding of $25 million per project. The GICB Medium Retrofit Project stream was identified by staff as an ideal grant opportunity to fund a portion of the planned costs for the repair of the O’Brien Arena retrofit because it funds projects that range in size from $250,000 to $2,999,999 in total eligible funding and aims to achieve 25 percent in energy efficiency improvements as a result of the retrofit. The GICB will fund up to 80 percent of eligible costs for medium retrofits up to $9,999,999. - 192 - CS 30-24 September 23, 2024 Subject: Federal Grant Funding of Municipal Capital Projects Page 2 Relationship to the Pickering Strategic Plan: The recommendations in this report respond to the Pickering Strategic Plan Priorities of Advocate for an Inclusive, Welcoming, Safe & Healthy Community; Advance Innovation & Responsible Planning to Support a Connected, Well-Serviced Community; and Lead & Advocate for Environmental Stewardship, Innovation & Resiliency. Financial Implications: The below table shows the impact of receiving the maximum eligible funding from the GICB grant for the Seaton Recreation Complex & Library construction costs: For every dollar received in grant funding, the local taxpayer will benefit by 2.5 cents. However, this grant will reduce the City use of debt, that in-turn will preserve the City’s debt capacity to be used in future years for new Council approved capital projects. The City is currently undertaking a new DC Background Study with a planned completion date of June 30, 2025. The new DC Study may shift the level of DC funding for this project. The O’Brien retrofit project is another project that can benefit from the GICB grant. The current estimated cost of this project is $2,900,000 and the GICB grant could fund a maximum of 80 percent, or $2,320,000, with the latter amount of $580,000 being funded by the City. If unsuccessful, the City will need to fund the total project cost. Discussion: The purpose of this report is to obtain Council authorization to submit applications to the Green & Inclusive Community Building Fund (GICB) New Build Project stream and Medium Retrofit Project stream. The GICB requires proof of a Resolution of Council to provide evidence of support for the applicant to undertake the project. Current Forecast: With GICB Grant Difference Gross Estimated Project Cost:219,550,000$ 219,550,000$ -$ Less: Grant - 25,000,000 (25,000,000) Net Cost 219,550,000$ 194,550,000$ (25,000,000)$ Funding: Growth Related DC Debt: Parks & Recreaton 179,155,500 158,755,192 20,400,308 Library 34,905,000 30,930,393 3,974,607 City Share (Taxpayer)5,489,500 4,864,415 625,085 Net Funding 219,550,000$ 194,550,000$ 25,000,000$ Seaton Rec Complex - Construction 2026 Budget - 193 - CS 30-24 September 23, 2024 Subject: Federal Grant Funding of Municipal Capital Projects Page 3 1. The Green & Inclusive Community Building Fund In 2020, the Government of Canada announced up to $1.5 billion in federal funding over five years to establish the GICB program. On April 16, 2024, the Government of Canada released Budget 2024 which provided a $500 million top-up and extended the program until March 2029. A program intake was opened on September 4, 2024, and closes on October 16, 2024. The GICB Program is part of Canada’s strengthened climate plan, which was introduced in December 2020 as the Healthy Environment and a Healthy Economy Plan. The Program supports the first pillar of the Plan by improving the places where Canadians live and gather – which will cut pollution, make life more affordable and create thousands of jobs in construction. As a requirement of this program, new builds need to be designed to meet net-zero carbon design standards. The Seaton Recreation Complex & Library is already being designed to meet these requirements. Projects in excess of $25 million are considered in cases where the federal investment can be effectively delivered by March 31, 2029, either to complete the project or bring the project to the next phase of funding for completion where the investments are secured. 2. The Seaton Recreation Complex & Library The Seaton Recreation Complex & Library is a new multipurpose recreation and library facility, totaling around an estimated 220,000 square feet, that will serve all Pickering residents. To be located near the current intersection of Whitevale Road and Sideline 24, this facility is envisioned to include various program amenities including 25 metre, multi-lane indoor pool with a separate warm water leisure tank, fitness centre with a group fitness studio, two pad arena, triple gymnasium, walking track, multi-purpose program rooms, and library branch with a full suite of services. As per Resolution #523/24, the design phase of the project is currently underway with the award of consulting services of Perkins + Will Canada Inc. at the Council Meeting of June 24, 2024. The Seaton Recreation Complex & Library is designed to meet net-zero carbon standards, as required by the GICB. The amenities of the new facility will be informed by the Recreation & Parks – Ten Year Plan and Library Strategic Plan, incorporating feedback and input of residents and stakeholders, and will be subject to the approval of Council. This facility will be the first multipurpose Recreation Complex built in Pickering since the Chestnut Hill Developments Recreation Complex (formerly Pickering Recreation Complex) opened in 1983. 3. The O’Brien Arena The Chestnut Hill Developments Recreation Complex (CHDRC) is home to the Delaney and O’Brien ice pads, which are co-located with other recreational amenities in the Complex. The Delaney Rink was constructed in 1983 (renovated in 2015) and the O’Brien Rink opened in 1992; both share common amenities including change rooms, storage areas, referee and coach rooms, concessions, lobby entrance, and customer service reception area. The rinks do not share refrigeration systems and each ice rink has its own dedicated refrigeration plant. - 194 - CS 30-24 September 23, 2024 Subject: Federal Grant Funding of Municipal Capital Projects Page 4 The O’Brien Rink is 185 feet by 85 feet and has a seating capacity of approximately 200. This rink is used mainly by Durham West Girls Hockey and the Ajax Pickering Ringette Association. Summer ice is only offered at the O’Brien Arena and the Delaney Rink becomes a dry pad in the summer and is used for recreational programming, ball hockey and lacrosse. The O’Brien Arena has a planned retrofit that includes structural repairs, building envelope, and lighting. The repair and replacement of these building features will result in improved energy efficiency with improvements to the building envelope. This will reduce energy costs for the operation of this arena and improve the City’s ability to continue to offer ice all year round with an improved facility. Attachment: None Prepared/Approved By: Approved/Endorsed By: Original Signed By Original Signed By Laura Gibbs, MBA, MSc. Brian Duffield Director, Community Services Director, Operations Original Signed By Stan Karwowski, MBA, CPA, CMA Director, Finance & Treasurer LG:snc Recommended for the consideration of Pickering City Council Original Signed By Marisa Carpino, M.A. Chief Administrative Officer - 195 - Report to Council Report Number: ENG 21-24 Date: September 23, 2024 From: Richard Holborn Director, Engineering Services Subject: Valley Plentiful Community Gardens Parking Area and Expansion -Request for Quotation No. Q2024-33-File: A-1440 Recommendation: 1. That Request for Quotation No. Q2024-33 for the Valley Plentiful Community GardensParking Area and Expansion, submitted by 1108575 Ontario Ltd. (Kon-StruttConstruction), in the amount of $119,092.00 (net of HST rebate) or $132,245.76 (HSTincluded) be accepted; 2.That the total gross project cost of $157,721.00 (HST included) for the Valley Plentiful Community Gardens Parking Area and Expansion, including the tendered amount, acontingency and other associated costs, and the total net project cost of $142,033.00 (netof HST rebate) be approved; 3.That Council authorize the Director, Finance & Treasurer to finance the total net project cost of $142,033.00 for the Valley Plentiful Community Gardens Parking Area and Expansion as follows: a)The sum of $100,000.00 available budget in capital project C10572.2406 as approvedin the 2024 Parks Capital Budget be funded by a transfer of funds from theSustainable Initiatives Reserve; b)The additional required sum of $42,033.00 be funded by the Rate Stabilization Reserve; and, 4.That the appropriate officials of the City of Pickering be authorized to take the necessaryactions as indicated in this report. Executive Summary: The purpose of this report is to obtain Council approval to award Request for Quotation No. Q2024-33 for the Valley Plentiful Community Gardens Parking Area and Expansion, located in Diana, Princess of Wales Park, directly south of Kingston Road. The primary access to the Valley Plentiful Community Garden area is located at the Chestnut Hill Developments Recreation Complex which is quite a distance from the garden site. This results in many of the gardeners parking on the gravel shoulder of Kingston Road which is a safety concern. In addition, with the upcoming reconstruction and urbanization of Kingston Road as part of the Durham Scarborough Bus Rapid Transit project, road-side parking will no longer be available. - 196 - ENG 21-24 September 23, 2024 Subject: Valley Plentiful Community Gardens Parking Area and Expansion Page 2 City staff met with the Region of Durham, Hydro One Networks Inc. (HONI), and Valley Plentiful Community Garden members to develop a parking lot proposal. This project includes the construction of a thirteen car asphalt parking lot complete with two accessible parking spaces, an access driveway off Kingston Road, three large raised accessible garden beds, a bicycle rack, and associated landscaping and site restoration work. As part of the 2024 Parks Capital Budget, $100,000.00 was approved for the construction of a parking lot and community garden expansion in Diana, Princess of Wales Park. Additional funds are required as the net project cost exceeds the approved funds. Request for Quotation No. Q2024-33 was advertised on Bids & Tenders on July 18, 2024 and closed on August 13, 2024, with sixteen companies submitting responses. The lowest compliant response was submitted by 1108575 Ontario Ltd. (Kon-Strutt Construction). The total gross project cost for the Valley Plentiful Community Gardens Parking Area and Expansion including the amended quotation amount, a construction contingency and other associated costs is estimated at $157,721.00 (HST included) with an estimated total net project cost of $142,033.00 (net of HST rebate). Relationship to the Pickering Strategic Plan: The recommendations in this report respond to the Pickering Strategic Plan Priorities of Advocate for an Inclusive, Welcoming, Safe & Healthy Community; and Lead & Advocate for Environmental Stewardship, Innovation & Resiliency. Financial Implications: 1.Quotation Amount $117,031.65 15,214.11 Quotation No. Q2024-33 (amended amount) HST (13%) Total Gross Quotation Amount $132,245.76 2.Estimated Project Cost Summary Quotation No. Q2024-33 (amended amount) $117,032.00 Associated Costs Hydro One Networks Engineering Review Fees Geotechnical Investigations and Materials Testing Allowance 1,500.00 7,000.00 Contingency (12% of Quotation No. Q2024-33) 14,044.00 Sub Total – Costs $139,576.00 HST (13%) 18,145.00 Total Gross Project Cost $157,721.00 HST Rebate (11.24%) (15,688.00) Total Net Project Cost $142,033.00 - 197 - ENG 21-24 September 23, 2024 Subject: Valley Plentiful Community Gardens Parking Area and Expansion Page 3 3.Approved Source of Funds – 2024 Parks Capital Budget Expense Code Source of Funds Budget Available Required C10572.2406.01-504700 C10572.2406.01- 504700 Sustainable Initiatives Reserve Rate Stabilization Reserve $100,000.00 0.00 $100,000.00 42,033.00 Total $100,000.00 $142,033.00 Net Project Cost under (over) Approved Funds ($42,033.00) A contingency of 12 per cent of the tendered amount has been included as an associated cost to cover potentially unforeseen site conditions such as poor soils. It is being recommended that the additional expenditure of $42,033.00 be funded by the Rate Stabilization Reserve. Discussion: The purpose of this report is to obtain Council approval to award Request for Quotation No. Q2024-33 for the Valley Plentiful Community Gardens Parking Area and Expansion, located in Diana, Princess of Wales Park, directly south of Kingston Road. This project includes the construction of a thirteen car asphalt parking lot complete with two accessible parking spaces, an access driveway off Kingston Road, three large raised accessible garden beds, a bicycle rack, and associated landscaping and site restoration work. The Valley Plentiful Community Garden members have requested parking in close proximity to the garden plots for many years. When the garden plots were originally created, they had an informal agreement to use some of the parking spaces at the former Pickering Produce business that was located on Kingston Road, west of the park. With the redevelopment of the Pickering Produce site, this opportunity was no longer available. The primary parking area currently available for Valley Plentiful Community Garden users is located at the Chestnut Hill Developments Recreation Complex. The distance from the south garden to the recreation complex parking lot is approximately 370 metres, and the distance to the north garden is approximately 470 metres. Given the lengthy distance from the parking area to the garden plots, gardeners with accessibility challenges, seniors, and food bank volunteers have been parking their vehicles on the gravel shoulder on Kingston Road, which the City considers as a safety concern. The Region of Durham will be proceeding shortly with the reconstruction of Kingston Road to accommodate a new Bus Rapid Transit route. Work will include urbanization of the road, a new sidewalk and a cycle path, which will eliminate any opportunity for roadside parking. Valley Plentiful Community Garden membership have also indicated the need for more raised beds to service their members who have disabilities. Three new raised beds, constructed from wood timbers are to be constructed between the proposed parking area and existing garden beds. - 198 - ENG 21-24 September 23, 2024 Subject: Valley Plentiful Community Gardens Parking Area and Expansion Page 4 As part of the 2024 Parks Capital Budget $100,000.00 was approved for the construction of a parking lot and community garden expansion in Diana, Princess of Wales Park. This park is owned by Hydro One Networks Inc. (HONI) as a transmission corridor, and the City of Pickering has a license agreement to allow it to be used as a public park. As such, a formal submission to HONI was required to receive their engineering review and approval in order to proceed with the proposed site alterations. HONI have specific requirements for site access control and the pavement design must be able to withstand the heavy loading of their maintenance vehicles. The site design and pavement detailing that was issued for procurement has been approved by HONI. Additionally, City staff have been coordinating with Region of Durham staff regarding the location and design of the driveway access as it relates to the proposed Kingston Road improvements. The Region of Durham are in support of the proposed parking area and its entrance off Kingston Road. Note that once the Kingston Road improvements are completed, access to this parking lot will be restricted to eastbound traffic only (right in/right out movements). Request for Quotation No. Q2024-33 was advertised on Bids & Tenders on July 18, 2024 and closed on August 13, 2024, with sixteen companies submitting responses. The lowest compliant response was submitted by 1108575 Ontario Ltd. (Kon-Strutt Construction). The total gross project cost for the Valley Plentiful Community Gardens Parking Area and Expansion which includes the amended quotation amount, a construction contingency and other associated costs is estimated at $157,721.00 (HST included) with an estimated total net project cost of $142,033.00 (net of HST rebate). All required pre-conditions of award have been received and approved. Upon careful examination of all quotations received, the Engineering Services Department recommends acceptance of the lowest compliant response submitted by 1108575 Ontario Ltd. (Kon-Strutt Construction) for Request for Quotation No. Q2024-33 in the amended amount of $132,245.76 (HST included), and that the total net project cost of $142,033.00 (net of HST rebate) be approved. Attachment: 1. Location Map - 199 - ENG 21-24 September 23, 2024 Subject: Valley Plentiful Community Gardens Parking Area and Expansion Page 5 Prepared By: Approved/Endorsed By: Arnold Mostert, O.A.L.A. Richard Holborn, P. Eng. Manager, Landscape & Parks Development Director, Engineering Services Cathy Bazinet, CPPB, NIGP-CPP Stan Karwowski, MBA, CPA, CMA Manager, Procurement Director, Finance & Treasurer AM:mjh Recommended for the consideration of Pickering City Council Marisa Carpino, M.A. Chief Administrative Officer Original signed by:Original signed by: Original signed by:Original signed by: Original signed by: - 200 - Attachment 1 to Report ENG 21-24 Engineering Services Location Map -Cl1./-Department Proposed Parking Lot -Diana Princess of Wales Park PJCKERING ... uoo Sep 05, 2024 - 201 - Report to Council Report Number: OPS 16-24 Date: September 23, 2024 From: Brian Duffield Director, Operations Subject: Additional Funds for Replacement of Existing Indoor Tennis Court Flooring at Chestnut Hill Developments Recreation Complex -Tender No. T2024-4 -File: A-1440 Recommendation: 1. That Report OPS 16-24 of the Director, Operations regarding Additional Funds for Tender No. T2024-4 for the Replacement of Existing Indoor Tennis Court Flooring at theChestnut Hill Developments Recreation Complex be received; 2.That additional costs in the amount of $347,002.00 (net of HST rebate) over the originalestimated project cost for T2024-4 (OPS 09-24) for Replacement of Existing Indoor Tennis Court Flooring at the Chestnut Hill Developments Recreation Complex resulting in a revised total net project cost of $1,176,244.00 (net of HST rebate) be approved; 3.That the Director, Finance & Treasurer be authorized to finance the additional net projectcost of $347,002.00 as follows and approved in the 2024 Capital Budget: a.A transfer of $290,263.00 from the Casino Reserve; and, b.A transfer of $56,739.00 from the Tennis Reserve. 4.That the appropriate officials of the City of Pickering be authorized to take the necessaryactions as indicated in the report. Executive Summary: The purpose of this report is to request additional funding for work awarded by Report OPS 09-24 (Council Resolution #497/24) to remove and replace the existing indoor tennis courts at the Chestnut Hill Developments Recreation Complex, including existing sub-base, painting, and related work. Concealed conditions below the existing floor revealed more extensive removals and repairs than could be determined prior to commencing construction, requiring repairs to electrical conduits embedded in the underside of the existing asphalt, oversized post anchor foundations, and corrosion on concealed portions of structural steel columns. A need has also been identified for localized pre-emptive thickening of the new concrete floor slab to accommodate heavy vehicle traffic for future pool renovations based on a recently completed condition assessment. The existing contingency and related costs allocated by Report OPS 09-24 have all been allocated, and additional funds are required before the contractor can be authorized to proceed with the work required to complete the project. Supplemental funding is included to offset related additional testing and inspection, and consulting fees, and to establish a new project - 202 - OPS 16-24 September 23, 2024 Subject: Additional Funds for Replacement of Existing Indoor Tennis Court Flooring at Chestnut Hill Developments Recreation Complex Page 2 contingency in case other unforeseen conditions are encountered. The increased costs still remain within the total approved Capital Budget for the project. Relationship to the Pickering Strategic Plan: The recommendations in this report respond to the Pickering Strategic Plan Priorities of Advocate for an Inclusive, Welcoming, Safe & Healthy Community; and, Advance Innovation & Responsible Planning to Support a Connected, Well-Serviced Community. Financial Implications: 1.Tender Amount T2024-4 (Tennis Court Floor) $437,600.00 T2024-4 (Structural Coating) 84,000.00 T2024-4 (Painting Walls & Purlins) Subtotal 103,300.00 $624,900.00 HST (13%) 81,237.00 Total Gross Tender Cost $706,137.00 2. Estimated Project Costing Summary Original Award (T2024-4), May 27, 2024 (including change orders and other costs to date) $814,425.00 Remaining contingency & testing/inspection 475.00 Sub-total (OPS 09-24) $814,900.00 Additional Costs Additional Testing and Inspection Costs 20,000.00 Additional Consulting Costs 20,000.00 Estimated Additional Construction Costs 181,000.00 Additional Contingency 120,000.00 Total Project Cost $1,155,900.00 HST (13%) 150,267.00 Total Gross Project Costs $1,306,167.00 HST Rebate (11.24%) (129,923.00) Total Net Project Cost $1,176,244.00 - 203 - OPS 16-24 September 23, 2024 Subject: Additional Funds for Replacement of Existing Indoor Tennis Court Flooring at Chestnut Hill Developments Recreation Complex Page 3 3. Approved Source of Funds – Community Services Capital Budget Approved Code Source of Funds Funds Available Funds Required C10225.2407 Casino Reserve $2,210,000.00 $927,300.00 C10225.2408 Tennis Reserve 167,000.00 112,264.00 C10225.2409 Tennis Reserve 265,000.00 136,680.00 Total Funds $2,642,000.00 $1,176,244.00 The unused funds of $1,465,756.00 will be “Returned to Source” and therefore, will be available to fund 2025 Capital Budget projects. These capital accounts will be closed after the construction period. All costs for this tender will be consolidated into C10225.2407 (Tennis Court Flooring Replacement). The funding from C10225.2408 (Tennis Court Coating) and C10225.2409 (Tennis Court Painting) will be transferred to C10225.2407 and the two projects will be subsequently closed. While preliminary testing and investigation was conducted, the precise conditions under the entire existing tennis court floor could not be confirmed prior to tender. Due to the potential high cost of any sub-grade repairs that might be encountered, such as from poor or unstable soils, a higher than standard contingency has been requested for this project. Discussion: The purpose of this report is to request additional funding for construction costs related to removal and replacement of the existing indoor tennis courts at the Chestnut Hill Developments Recreation Complex, including existing base, as awarded by Report OPS 09-24. Removal of the existing floor and base has been completed, but resulted in discovery of a large number of electrical conduits embedded in the asphalt, including both power and fire alarm wiring. Many were damaged or otherwise deteriorated requiring their complete replacement. Good practice also requires that the new conduits be relocated to a minimum of 150mm below the slab to prevent similar damage during any potential future work. Foundations below the existing tennis post anchors were also found to be much deeper and more substantial in size than originally estimated. These conditions could not be confirmed prior to commencing the work and will need to be partially or completely replaced and re-poured in order to accommodate new net anchors. The resulting disruptions to existing soils and sub-base will require new backfill materials, and additional compaction. Corrosion has also been found at the bottom of several of the pre-engineered steel columns, below the previous finished elevation of the courts. These columns form the primary supportive Project Cost under (over) approved funds by $1,465,756.00 - 204 - OPS 16-24 September 23, 2024 Subject: Additional Funds for Replacement of Existing Indoor Tennis Court Flooring at Chestnut Hill Developments Recreation Complex Page 4 structure for this part of the building and should be treated with epoxy paint to prevent further deterioration while they are exposed. Additionally, since this project was initially tendered, staff have completed a comprehensive review and condition assessment of the exiting pools at the Chestnut Hill Developments Recreation Complex. Both pool tanks are original, dating back to 1983 and are nearing the end of their serviceable life. Extensive retrofit is expected to be required within five years. As the detailed scope of this work is not yet fully known, all options must remain available, which could include extensive works requiring the use of heavy equipment. The pools are situated at the centre of the building, making the only viable access route for such equipment through the tennis courts. The new concrete slab included in the scope of work of T2024-4 was only 100mm thick, and would prove inadequate to support the heavy construction traffic that might be required for an extensive pool retrofit. An access and travel route has been identified, wherein the new concrete slab will be increased in thickness to 200mm and provided with steel reinforcement. Electrical conduits being replaced within this area will also be buried deeper for added protection. This change alone, consumed more than half of the original contingency included in Report OPS 09-24, but is deemed prudent and to be a good investment to mitigate potential damage to the tennis court floor, when the pool work is undertaken. Additional testing and inspection costs will be required due to the additional excavations and compaction work. Extending the construction schedule will also incur additional contract administration fees from the project consultants to ensure compliance with the design and tender documents. Repairs and work have continued on site, to the extent possible within the limits of approved funding, but approval of the requested additional funds is required before all of the necessary repairs and additional work can be awarded to the contractor. It will also result in a longer shutdown of the indoor tennis courts than originally planned. Completion of all works is now estimated by the end of 2024, but will be advanced to the earliest possible date. Attachment: None. Prepared By: Approved/Endorsed By: Original Signed By: Original Signed By: Vince Plouffe, OAA, MRAIC Cathy Bazinet, CPPB, NIGP-CPP Division Head, Operations Services Manager, Procurement Original Signed By: Original Signed By: Brian Duffield Laura Gibbs MBA, MSc. Director, Operations Director, Community Services - 205 - OPS 16-24 September 23, 2024 Subject: Additional Funds for Replacement of Existing Indoor Tennis Court Flooring at Chestnut Hill Developments Recreation Complex Page 5 Original Signed By: Stan Karwowski, MBA, CPA, CMA Director, Finance & Treasurer VP:nm Recommended for the consideration of Pickering City Council Original Signed By: Marisa Carpino, M.A. Chief Administrative Officer - 206 - Report to Council Report Number: OPS 17-24 Date: September 23, 2024 From: Brian Duffield Director, Operations Subject: Fire Station 2 Renovations -RFP2024-11-File: A-1440 Recommendation: 1. That RFP No. RFP2024-11 for Renovations to Fire Station 2 as submitted by AdeliConstruction Management Inc. in the amount of $368,882.00 (HST excluded) bereceived; 2.That the total gross project cost of $659,222.00 (HST included), and the total net project cost of $593,650.00 (net of HST rebate) be approved; 3.That the Director, Finance & Treasurer be authorized to finance the net project cost of$593,650.00 as follows and approved in the 2017, 2018, 2022 and 2024 Capital Budgets: a.A transfer of $570,522.00 from the Facilities Reserve; b.A transfer of $23,128.00 from Property Taxes; and, 4.That the appropriate officials of the City of Pickering be authorized to take the necessaryactions as indicated in the report. Executive Summary: The purpose of this report is to award a construction contract for various renovations to Fire Station 2, located at 553 Kingston Road. The scope of work includes the creation of additional and accessible washrooms; upgrades to the existing kitchen, living quarters and dormitories; conversion of existing building lighting to LED; and, improvements for safe roof access. Multiple separate, but related, building projects were combined into a single scope of work for greater efficiency, including better cost control and avoiding multiple disruptions to an emergency service facility. Fire Station 2 will remain operational during construction. Request for Proposal No. RFP2024-11 was advertised on the City’s bids & tenders portal on July 3, 2024 and closed on July 31, 2024. Fourteen proposals were submitted. The Evaluation Committee, consisting of three staff from Operations, reviewed and evaluated the proposals received using criteria outlined in the bid document. Subject to receipt and approval of all pre-conditions of award required in accordance with the bid document, the top-ranked proposal submitted by Adeli Construction Management Inc. in - 207 - OPS 17-24 September 23, 2024 Subject: Fire Station 2 Renovations Page 2 the amount of $368,882.00 (HST excluded), is recommended by the Evaluation Committee for approval. The total gross project cost is estimated to be $659,222.00 and the total net project cost is estimated at $593,650.00 (net of HST rebate). Relationship to the Pickering Strategic Plan: The recommendations in this report respond to the Pickering Strategic Plan Priority of Advance Innovation & Responsible Planning to Support a Connected, Well-Serviced Community. Financial Implications: 1. RFP Amount RFP2024-11 $368,882.00 HST (13%) 47,954.66 Total Gross Tender Cost $416,836.66 2. Estimated Project Costing Summary RFP2024-11 $368,882.00 Window Replacement Allowance 15,000.00 Furnace & AC Replacement Allowance 47,500.00 Additional Consulting Costs 25,000.00 Testing & Inspection 18,000.00 Permit & Approvals 15,000.00 Contingency (20%) 94,000.00 Total Project Cost $583,382.00 HST (13%) 75,840.00 Total Gross Project Costs $659,222.00 HST Rebate (11.24%) (65,572.00) Total Net Project Cost $593,650.00 3. Approved Source of Funds – Community Services Capital Budget Approved Code Source of Funds Funds Available Funds Required C10700.1809 Facilities Reserve $630,000.00 $570,522.00 C10700.1809 5-Year Debt 371,000.00 0.00 C10700.1809 Property Taxes 23,128.00 23,128.00 C10700.2213 Rate Stabilization 15,000.00 0.00 C10700.2412 Facilities Reserve 47,500.00 0.00 Total Funds $1,086,628.00 $593,650.00 - 208 - OPS 17-24 September 23, 2024 Subject: Fire Station 2 Renovations Page 3 A number of separate capital projects have been combined into this scope of work. Some pre- date the updated project codes introduced during the transition to the City’s new SAP financial systems in 2021. For clarity, work included in RFP2024-11 includes projects previously approved as 5340.1703, 5340.1708, 5340.1809, 5340.2206, 5340.2206 combined into C10700.1809. Additional funding was approved in the 2024 capital budget and added to C10700.1809 in the amount of $630,000.00. It is recommended that all costs be captured under C10700.1809. Funding from projects C10700.2213 (Fire Station 2 Window Replacement) and C10700.2412 (FS2 Furnace and AC Replacement) will be transferred to project C10700.1809 and are included in the approval as these works must be completed during the same time period due to the state of deterioration of the related assets. This work will be assigned through change orders to the project in order to avoid any risk of the City assuming the role and liability of the Constructor under the Construction Act and Health and Safety Act. As an amalgam of several different projects in a building that is over fifty years old, and given that such renovations typically reveal unknown and concealed conditions, a larger than normal contingency has been included to offset the increased risks. Discussion: The purpose of this report is to award a construction contract for various renovations to Fire Station 2, located at 553 Kingston Road. The scope of work includes the creation of additional and accessible washrooms, upgrades to the existing kitchen and sleeping quarters, conversion of existing building lighting to LED, and improvements for safe roof access. Multiple separate, but related, building projects were combined into a single scope of work for greater efficiency, including better cost control and avoiding multiple disruptions to an emergency service facility. Fire Station 2 will remain operational during construction. Fire Station 2 was originally built in 1977, when accessibility requirements did not yet exist in the building code. As the needs of the Fire Services Department have evolved, retrofit of older stations is required. The proposed renovations include refinishing the existing washroom, and creation of a new, separate washroom on the ground floor. Creation of an additional, separate washroom in the basement was awarded through quotation Q2024-7 in advance of RFP2024- 11 in order to ensure that interior washrooms would remain available throughout the construction period. Inclement weather and the 24-hour nature of emergency services make the use of temporary outdoor washroom facilities impractical. The basement washroom is currently under construction and will be completed before the work of RFP2024-11 will commence. Several other building systems at Fire Station are also at end of life. Existing interior and exterior lighting is to be converted to LED for better performance and cost efficiency. Retrofitting the existing kitchen and sleeping quarters was also included in the project scope to address the age and condition of both spaces. The upper flat roof, located above the apparatus bay, currently requires access through a small window opening at the top of the hose tower, making it difficult for maintenance staff to reach and safely access the roof. A Project Cost under (over) approved funds by $492,978.00 - 209 - OPS 17-24 September 23, 2024 Subject: Fire Station 2 Renovations Page 4 portable ladder is then also required to separately reach the lower flat roof. Access to both roofs is complicated by the mansard style parapets on the building, making ladder use from grade difficult and potentially hazardous. A permanent landing and door will be added at the top of the hose tower, and connecting stairs installed to allow better and safer access to both roofs for maintenance and inspections. Several exterior windows, an existing furnace and air conditioner at this facility are also at end of life and will be replaced as part of the work. Capital project funding for these respective scopes of work were approved as C10700.2213 and C10700.2412. Both urgently need to be completed due to the conditions of these assets and will be awarded to the same contractor as change orders to the project, as having a separate contractor on site at the same time would result in the City assuming the duties and liabilities associated with the role of the Constructor under the Construction Act, thereby assuming responsibility for health and safety on the project. This project was originally to be tendered in 2020, but was cancelled and then repeatedly deferred with the onset of Covid in order to help protect Fire Services staff from unnecessary risk of exposure during the pandemic. Now that the related risk levels have been significantly reduced all deferred work can proceed and must be completed. Request for Proposal No. RFP2024-11 was advertised on the City’s bids&tenders portal on July 3, 2024 and closed on July 31, 2024. Fourteen proposals were submitted. The Evaluation Committee, consisting of three staff from Operations, reviewed and evaluated the proposals received using criteria outlined in the bid document. Proposals were evaluated and ranked based on the contractor’s experience on similar projects, their proposed work plan and deliverables, their proposed Safety Plan, and their pricing. Adeli Construction Management Inc. was the top-ranked Proponent and is recommended for the award, subject to receipt and approval of all pre-conditions of award required in accordance with the bid document. Upon careful examination of all proposals and relevant documents received in response to RFP2024-11, the Evaluation Committee recommends acceptance of the proposal submitted by Adeli Construction Management Inc. in the amount of $368,882 (HST excluded). The total gross project cost is estimated to be $659,222.00 and the total net project cost is estimated at $593,650.00 (net of HST rebate). Attachment: None. Prepared By: Approved/Endorsed By: Original Signed By: Original Signed By: Vince Plouffe, OAA, MRAIC Cathy Bazinet, CPPB, NIGP-CPP Division Head, Operations Services Manager, Procurement - 210 - OPS 17-24 September 23, 2024 Subject: Fire Station 2 Renovations Page 5 Original Signed By: Original Signed By: Brian Duffield Stan Karwowski, MBA, CPA, CMA Director, Operations Director, Finance & Treasurer Original Signed By: Stephen Boyd Fire Chief BD:vp Recommended for the consideration of Pickering City Council Original Signed By: Marisa Carpino, M.A. Chief Administrative Officer - 211 - Memo To: Mayor Ashe and September 16, 2024 Members of Council From: Jason Litoborski Manager, Municipal Law Enforcement Services Copy: Director, Corporate Services & City Solicitor Supervisor, Licensing & Enforcement Subject: Appointment By-law - Christopher Adams and Jackson Colquhoun File: L-2000-001-24 Please find attached a draft by-law to appoint Christopher Adams and Jackson Colquhoun as Municipal Law Enforcement Officers for the City of Pickering. Christopher Adams has been in the position of Parking Control Officer effective June 24, 2024. Jackson Colquhoun has been in the position of Municipal Law Enforcement Officer effective September 9, 2024. This draft by-law is attached for the consideration of City Council at its meeting scheduled for September 23, 2024. Attachment Draft Appointment By-law - 212 - The Corporation of the City of Pickering By-law No. 8132/24 Being a by-law to appoint Christopher Adams and Jackson Colquhoun as Municipal Law Enforcement Officers for the purpose of enforcing the by-laws of the Corporation of the City of Pickering. Whereas pursuant to section 15(1) of the Police Services Act R.S.O. 1990 Cp 15, as amended, a municipal council may appoint persons to enforce the by-laws of the municipality; and Whereas pursuant to section 15 (2) of the said Act, municipal by-law enforcement officers are peace officers for the purpose of enforcing municipal by-laws; Now therefore the Council of The Corporation of the City of Pickering hereby enacts as follows: 1.Christopher Adams is hereby appointed as a Municipal Law Enforcement Officer in and for the City of Pickering in order to ascertain whether the provisions of all by-laws of The Corporation the City of Pickering are obeyed and to enforce or carry into effect the said by-laws. 2.Jackson Colquhoun is hereby appointed as a Municipal Law Enforcement Officer in and forthe City of Pickering in order to ascertain whether the provisions of all by-laws of The Corporation the City of Pickering are obeyed and to enforce or carry into effect the said by- laws. 3.This appointment shall expire upon the employee noted in section 1 and 2 ceasing to beemployed by the City of Pickering or until the repeal of this by-law. 4.The provisions of this by-law shall come into force and take effect on the day of the finalpassing thereof. By-law passed this 23rd day of September, 2024. ________________________________ Kevin Ashe, Mayor ________________________________ Carol Redmond, (Acting) Deputy Clerk - 213 - Memo To: Susan Cassel September 16, 2024 City Clerk From: Paul Bigioni Director, Corporate Services & City Solicitor Copy: Director, City Development & CBO Director, Engineering Services Division Head, Water Resources & Development Services Subject: Request for Private Road Naming By-law -Owner: Pickering Developments (Bayly) Inc.-Part Lot 15, Concession 1, being Part 10, Plan 40R-32680(Porsche Drive)File: Roadded.616 The City is entering into a Site Plan Control Agreement with Pickering Developments (Bayly) Inc. and Porsche Cars Canada, Inc. for the development of a tourist attraction on Part Lot 15, Concession 1, Pickering. Through the application process a request was made for the driveway to be named as a private road. On May 6, 2024 at the Executive Committee meeting Council voted in favour of using the name “Porsche Drive” for the private road. It is now appropriate to name the said private road. Attached is a location map and draft by-law for the consideration of City Council at its meeting scheduled for September 23, 2024. PB:ca Attachment Draft By-law and location map - 214 - The Corporation of the City of Pickering By-law No. 8133/24 Being a by-law to name Part of Lot 15, Concession 1 Pickering; designated as Part 10, Plan 40R-32680. Whereas pursuant to the Municipal Act, S.O. 2001, c. 25, the council of a local municipality may pass by-laws for giving names to or changing the names of private roads. Now therefore the Council of The Corporation of the City of Pickering hereby enacts as follows: 1.The private road comprising of Part of Lot 15, Concession 1 Pickering;designated as Part 10, Plan 40R-332680; is hereby named Porsche Drive. By-law passed this 23rd day of September, 2024 ________________________________ Kevin Ashe, Mayor ________________________________ Carol Redmond, (Acting) Deputy Clerk - 215 - Ch u r c h S t r e e t S Bayly Street 1:3,000 SCALE: PN-6 City DevelopmentDepartment Porsche DriveFile:Property Description:Roadded.616 Part 10, 40R-32680 THIS IS NOT A PLAN OF SURVEY. Date: Sep. 10, 2024 ¯ E Part 10,40R-32680 © The Corporation of the City of Pickering Produced (in part) under license from: © King's Printer, Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources. All rights reserved.; © His Majesty the King in Right of Canada, Department ofNatural Resources. All rights reserved.; © Teranet Enterprises Inc. and its suppliers. All rights reserved.; © Municipal PropertyAssessment Corporation and its suppliers. All rights reserved.- 216 - OLT Case No. OLT-23-000498 July 8, 2024 The Corporation of the City of Pickering By-law No. 8134/24 Being a By-law to adopt Amendment 48 to the Official Plan for the City of Pickering (OPA 20-001/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; And 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; And 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; And whereas the Region has advised that Amendment 48 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 48 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 RegionalMunicipality of Durham the documentation required by Procedure: AreaMunicipal Official Plans and Amendments. 3.This By-law shall come into force and take effect on the day of the final passing hereof. Note: Written Decision of the Ontario Land Tribunal issued on July 8, 2024 - 217 - Exhibit “A” to By-law 8134/24 Amendment 48 to the City of Pickering Official Plan - 218 - Amendment 48 to the Pickering Official Plan Purpose: The purpose of this amendment is to re-designate lands at the southeast corner of Brock Road and Usman Road, municipally known as 2055 Brock Road, from “Urban Residential Areas – Medium Density Areas” to “Urban Residential Areas – High Density Areas” and “Open Space System – Natural Areas”, and to add a site-specific policy for the portion of the lands designated as “Urban Residential Areas – High Density Areas”, to permit a maximum residential density of 286 units per net hectare, to facilitate a high-density residential development. Location: The site specific amendment affects the lands located on the southeast corner of Brock Road and Usman Road, described as Part of Lot 18, Concession 2 South, Now Parts 1 to 12, 40R-28897, City of Pickering. Basis: Through the review of Official Plan Amendment Application OPA 20-001/P and Zoning By-law Amendment Application A 05/20, City Council determined that the Amendment facilitates a development that is compatible with the surrounding community, minimizes adverse impacts on the existing low density neighbourhood to the north and is an appropriate intensification project in Pickering’s urban area. The subject lands are located on Brock Road, which is designated as an arterial road and a Rapid Transit Spine under the Durham Regional Official Plan, which are intended to provide for higher density development. The Amendment is consistent with the policies of the Provincial Policy Statement 2020, and conforms to A Place to Grow: Growth Plan for the Greater Golden Horseshoe (2020) and the Durham Regional Official Plan. Actual Amendment: The City of Pickering Official Plan is hereby amended by: 1.Amending Schedule I – Land Use Structure by replacing the “Urban ResidentialAreas – Medium Density Areas” designation with “Urban Residential Areas – HighDensity Areas” and “Open Space System – Natural Areas” designation for lands located on the south-easterly corner Brock Road and Usman Road, municipally known as 2055 Brock Road, as illustrated on Schedule ‘A’ attached to this amendment. 2.Revising Policy 12.15 – Brock Ridge Neighbourhood Policies, by adding a newsubsection 12.15(d): (h)despite Table 9 of Chapter 3, establish a maximum residential density of 286 units per net hectare for lands located on the southeast corner of Brock Road and Usman Road, described as Part of Lot 18, Concession 2 South, Now Part 1to 11, 40R-28897, City of Pickering. 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. OPA 20-001/P A 05/20 Brock Road Duffins Forest Inc. - 219 - Edition 9 TownsNpoflJxoodge City of Pickering City of Pickering City Development Department ~April,2023 This Map Forms Part of Edition 9 of the Pickering Official Plan and Must Be Read in Conjunction with the Other Schedules and the Text Schedule 'A' to Amendment '48' Existing Official Plan ,----,____, c Q) (.) en f-----,---------j ~ >---+-----, u r-----l--~ C ,-----.__, * >- f-----,---------j &. Extract of Schedule I to the Pickering Official Plan Land Use Structure Open Space System 1111 Active Recreational Areas 1111 Natural Areas Urban Residential Areas Low Density ELZJ Medium Density as-Medium Density Areas" reas-High Density Areas" Mixed Use Areas 1111 Mixed Corridor Freeways and Major Utilities ~ Potential Multi-use Area - 220 - PROCEEDING COMMENCED UNDER subsection 22(7) of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P. 13, as amended Applicant/Appellant: Brock Road Duffins Forest Inc. Subject: Request to amend the Official Plan – Refusal of request Description: To permit a total of 372 residential units comprising of a 20 and 6-storey building connected by a 4-storey podium and townhouse units Reference Number: OPA 20-001/P Property Address: 2055 Brock Road Municipality/UT: Pickering/Durham OLT Case No: OLT-23-000498 OLT Lead Case No: OLT-23-000498 OLT Case Name: Brock Road Duffins Forest Inc. v Pickering (City) PROCEEDING COMMENCED UNDER subsection 34(11) of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P. 13, as amended Applicant/Appellant: Brock Road Duffins Forest Inc. Subject: Application to amend the Zoning By-law – Refusal of application Description: To permit a total of 372 residential units comprising of a 20 and 6-storey building connected by a 4-storey podium and townhouse units Reference Number: A 05/20 Property Address: 2055 Brock Road Municipality/UT: Pickering/Durham OLT Case No: OLT-23-000499 OLT Lead Case No: OLT-23-000498 Ontario Land Tribunal Tribunal ontarien de l’aménagement du territoire ISSUE DATE: July 08, 2024 CASE NO(S).: OLT-23-000498 Written Decision from the Ontario Land Tribunal - 221 - 2 OLT-23-000498 PROCEEDING COMMENCED UNDER subsection 51(34) of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P. 13, as amended Applicant/Appellant: Brock Road Duffins Forest Inc. Subject: Proposed Plan of Subdivision - Refusal by Approval Authority Description: To permit a total of 372 residential units comprising of a 20 and 6-storey building connected by a 4-storey podium and townhouse units Reference Number: SP-2020-01 Property Address: 2055 Brock Road Municipality/UT: Pickering/Durham OLT Case No: OLT-23-000501 OLT Lead Case No: OLT-23-000498 PROCEEDING COMMENCED UNDER subsection 41(12) of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P. 13, as amended Applicant/Appellant: Brock Road Duffins Forest Inc. Subject: Site Plan Description: To permit a total of 372 residential units comprising of a 20 and 6-storey building connected by a 4-storey podium and townhouse units Reference Number: S07/23 Property Address: 2055 Brock Road Municipality/UT: Pickering/Durham OLT Case No: OLT-23-000613 OLT Lead Case No: OLT-23-000498 Heard: April 29 to May 9, 2024, by Video Hearing (Excluding May 8, 2024) APPEARANCES: Parties Counsel Brock Road Duffins Park Inc. L. Longo City of Pickering J. Mark Joblin Kindwin (Brock) Development Corporation (“Kindwin”) A. Lusty (Present for Opening and Closing Submissions only) - 222 - 3 OLT-23-000498 DECISION DELIVERED BY STEVEN T. MASTORAS AND ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL INTRODUCTION [1] The Tribunal held an eight-day video hearing (“Hearing”) on appeals relating to applications for an Official Plan Amendment (“OPA”), a Zoning By-law Amendment (“ZBA”), a Draft Plan of Subdivision (“DPS”), and a Site Plan Amendment (“SPA”) pursuant to Sections 22(7), 34(11), 51(39), and 41(12) of the Planning Act (“Act”), respectively (together the “Applications”/“Appeals”). [2] The Appeals are the result of a decision by the City of Pickering (“City”), in the Region of Durham (“Region”), refusing the Applications. The property address is known as 2055 Brock Road (“Subject Site”), now owned by Brock Road Duffins Park Inc. (“Appellant”/“Applicant”). [3] The associated SPA application was submitted to the City in March 2023, just prior to the City’s consideration of the OPA, ZBA, and DPS. The SPA Appeal application was subsequently filed with the Tribunal on June 28, 2023, pursuant to s. 41(12) of the Act and has been administratively consolidated with the three Appeals previously referenced under the lead case file OLT-23-000498. [4] As a brief outline, the Appellant is seeking approval to develop the Subject Site consisting of four development blocks, a total of 372 residential units, at a maximum floor space index (“FSI”) of 2.02, and a density of 286 units per hectare (“UPH”) (“Proposal”). [5] The Applicant is seeking a Tribunal decision allowing the Appeals associated with the OPA and ZBA in their final form as presented to the Tribunal, and that the Tribunal also allow the DPS appeal with conditions (Exhibits 6A and 6B). Additionally, the Applicant is seeking a further Tribunal decision allowing the SPA appeal, in principle, and in accordance with plans prepared by Kohn Partnership Architects Inc. Architects Inc. (“Kohn”) and is requesting that the Tribunal withhold a Final Order associated with the SPA appeal until a final draft instrument is agreed to between the Parties. - 223 - 4 OLT-23-000498 [6] The Tribunal notes that the City's Development and Planning Staff Report dated April 3, 2023 (“PSR”) (Exhibit 2C, Tab F) recommended approval of the proposed OPA (OPA 20-001/P), ZBA (A 05/20), and DPS (SP-2020-01) Applications, along with the requisite instruments currently before the Tribunal, in full support of the Proposal. [7] For the following reasons, the Tribunal allows the first three appeals and allows the more recent SPA appeal, in principle, with the final Order withheld subject to conditions outlined in the Order below. Following the Tribunal’s consideration of the policy and legislative framework and based on the evidence, analysis, and conclusions, the Proposal represents good land use planning and is in the public interest. PRELIMINARY MATTER [8] The Parties advised the Tribunal that a Settlement on the issue of cost recovery between Kindwin and the Appellant, completed on March 26, 2024, maintains specific conditions associated with the SPA and DPS. The agreement between the Parties (Exhibit 3) refers to proportionate cost recovery of services including land, roads, sanitary sewers, stormwater services, and utilities from which the Applicant will benefit, subject to the decision of the Tribunal relating to the Appeals. With the consent of the Parties, the Tribunal determined that Kindwin could be excused for the balance of the Hearing and was provided the opportunity to return for closing submissions. SUBJECT SITE AND SURROUNDING AREA [9] The Subject Site consists of a total size of approximately 5.047 ha and is just north of West Duffins Creek, abutting the Duffins Creek Valley Lands, and north of Finch Avenue, which ends at Kingston Road to the east of Brock Road. The overall property has a 230 metres (“m”) frontage along Brock Road and approximately 120 metres of frontage along Usman Road (south). The total proposed developable area is 1.311 ha. - 224 - 5 OLT-23-000498 [10] This developable area of the Subject Site at the south-east corner of Brock Road and Usman Road (south) is directly across from the Pickering Islamic Centre (“PIC”) to the north, which also fronts on Brock Road at the northeast corner of Usman Road (south). There are several neighbouring blocks of townhomes with some detached homes to the north and north/east and single-family detached homes that abut the west of Brock Road, which are setback further to the west and separated by Rayleen Crescent, all forming part of the Brock Ridge Neighbourhood. [11] There are three community parks in the immediate area, including Usman Park to the north, Brock Ridge Community Park to the southwest, and Major Oaks Park to the northwest. Pedestrian sidewalks currently exist along the perimeter of the Subject Site on Brock Road and Usman Road (south), and there are no current pedestrian crossings at this intersection. There is also a Stormwater Management Pond along a portion of Saffron Drive (Exhibit 2I, pgs.19, and 25). THE PROPOSAL [12] The Proposal consists of a twenty-storey (“Block A”/“Tower 1”) located at the south- west corner of the development area connected to a six-storey (“Block A”/“Tower 2”) to the north along a portion of Brock Road and to the east along Usman Road (south). They are both linked by a four-storey podium, containing a total of 328 units. Block A/Towers 1 and 2 are designed to share a common exterior rooftop-amenity-area at level 5 between the two towers and maintain a separation distance of 15 m. [13] A new north-south internal roadway with pedestrian sidewalks and crossings is a component of the design, with an oval/circular drop-off connection, barrier-free entrances, service/loading areas, 10 short-term surface parking spaces, and below-grade access to parking south of Usman Road (south), separating the remaining 10-townhouse units (“Block B”) and 34 back-to-back townhouse units (“Block C” and “Block D”) at the easterly and southerly sections of the development envelope. As previously stated, a total of 372 residential units are contained in the Proposal, which represents a total residential density - 225 - 6 OLT-23-000498 of 286 UPH and an FSI of 2.02 rather than the permitted FSI of 2.32. The two-level, below- grade parking areas are designed to be constructed entirely within the development envelope up to the perimeter retaining walls, maximizing the footprint of the built form. [14] A proposed Privately-Owned Publicly Accessible Space (“POPS”) with an area of approximately 660.7 square metres (“m2”) is incorporated into the Subject Site design at the south end of the new public north-south roadway, which also abuts the oval/circular drop-off area. There are perimeter sidewalks with access to the POPS, which is also adjacent to a stairwell to the below-grade parking levels and an additional 6 short-term surface parking spaces nearby. Site Plan and Statistics are attached below (Exhibit 2E, pg. 5). [15] All Parties acknowledged that the Proposal identifies a significant portion of the overall property (3.736 ha) and that the associated buffer (Exhibit 2E, pg. 4, in grey hatching) would be conveyed to the Toronto Region Conservation Authority (“TRCA”) for long-term protection and preservation, as stipulated in the instruments submitted to the - 226 - 7 OLT-23-000498 Tribunal (Exhibits 6A and 6B), which will become part of the West Duffins Creek lands. This portion of the Subject Site is presently zoned Open Space Hazard Lands (“OS-HL”) under By-law 7085/10, and an easement for maintenance access approval is pending from the TRCA. LEGISLATIVE FRAMEWORK [16] The Proposal and its related planning instruments must be representative of good planning; have regard for matters of provincial interest in s. 2 of the Act; be consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement, 2020 (“PPS”); and conform with A Place to Grow: Growth Plan for the Greater Golden Horseshoe (“GP”). The Proposal must also conform with the Region of Durham Official Plan (“DROP”), the City Official Plan (“COP”), and the City Zoning By-law 3036 (“ZBL”). The proposed SPA must be compliant with applicable by- laws, and any conditions proposed must be reasonable and necessary, having appropriate regard to the nature of the Proposal. [17] Furthermore, s. 2.1(1) of the Act requires that the Tribunal must also have regard for the decision of the City of Pickering Council (“City Council”) made on May 9, 2023, and the information considered by it at the time the Applications were denied, despite the support of its Planning staff, and instructed its Counsel to appear at this Hearing to oppose the development with separately retained transportation and land use planning witnesses. HEARING EVIDENCE AND ANALYSIS [18] The following individuals were qualified without objection to provide opinion evidence to the Tribunal in their respective fields of expertise, as noted below: • For the Applicant – Dana Anderson – Land Use Planning; Kathryn Bell – Architectural and Urban Design; and Michael Linton – Transportation Engineering & Planning. - 227 - 8 OLT-23-000498 • For the City - Allan Ramsay – Land Use Planning; Robert Freedman – Urban Design; and Joshua de Boer – Transportation Engineering. [19] The written evidence considered for the purposes of the Hearing was marked in the following order: • Exhibit 1 - The original Affidavit of Service for Notice of the first Case Management Conference, dated August 2, 2023; • Exhibit 2 – Joint Document Book (Volumes A to K) (Volume G-Tab B- discarded); • Exhibit 3 – Minutes of Settlement (“MOS”) between Kindwin (Brock); Development Corporation, and the Applicant; and, • Exhibit 4 – Draft OPA; • Exhibit 5 – Draft ZBA; • Exhibit 6A and 6B – DPS with Conditions and Plan; • Exhibit 7 – Durham/Scarborough BRT Design; • Exhibit 8A and 8B – Kathryn Bell Curriculum Vitae and Acknowledgement of Expert’s Duty; • Exhibit 9 – Durham Region Official Plan Schedules; • Exhibit 10 – Ontario Transit Supportive Guidelines; - 228 - 9 OLT-23-000498 • Exhibit 11 – 2465 Brock Road Development Inc. - Planning Report (January 9, 2023); • Exhibit 12 – Architectural Sections; • Exhibit 13 – South Durham RT Map (Frequency 2024); • Exhibit 14 – ROPA 186 Maps (Schedule ‘C’); • Exhibit 15 – Final Appendix B (per de Boer Testimony); • Exhibit 16 – Brock Road/Dellbrook Avenue Intersection; • Exhibit 17 – City of Toronto Mid-Rise Avenue Study; and, • Exhibit 18 – City of Toronto, Downtown Tall Blocks Design Guidelines. ISSUES [20] In addition to the legislative framework evidence and analysis, the Hearing focused largely on the following key issues, based on much of the commonality from community input through Participant statements, with appropriate regard for the City Council decision refusing the Applications, and whether the development, as proposed: a) Represents good land use planning and urban design that is compatible with the existing low-rise Brock Ridge Neighbourhood area character; b) Maintains an appropriate level of intensification, with attention to height, density, shadow impact, and overlook; - 229 - 10 OLT-23-000498 c) Would result in undue adverse impacts to the surrounding area from a traffic/transportation/congestion/emergency service and pedestrian safety perspective, including the adequacy of proposed on-site parking for unit owners and visitors; and, d) Preserves natural heritage, enhances public parks and amenities, and enhances the quality of life in the community. PLANNING HISTORY OF THE SUBJECT SITE [21] Ms. Anderson was retained prior to this Proposal and has been directly involved with the Subject Site for several years. She provided the Tribunal with a detailed history of previous applications that came before the City and consultations around a number of different proposals. [22] In an attempt to gain a better understanding of the detailed history and evolution of the Subject Site, and for the benefit of the general public, the Tribunal has condensed the important details from Ms. Anderson’s chronological evidence leading up to the current Proposal, with the following summary: a) A previous 2010 site-specific zoning (H)RH/MU-3 through By-law 7085/10 (“ZBL-2010”) was approved, allowing a mixed-use proposal consisting of offices, ground-floor commercial retail, and twelve live-work townhomes with an H provision. As previously detailed, the West Duffins Creek lands component at that time was rezoned from the Greenbelt (“G”) zone to the current OS-HL zoning and was similarly expected to be conveyed to the TRCA; b) The property was purchased by a new owner (“Fortress”) in 2013, and by 2016, it became evident that although building permits were obtained, - 230 - 11 OLT-23-000498 construction did not proceed, and a separate ZBA application was filed consisting of twenty-five townhome units on the entirety of the property; c) In July 2017, the current Applicant acquired the Subject Site, and submitted a new application with a total of 59 townhomes, which was subsequently withdrawn around March 2018. In April 2019, a pre-consultation meeting with the City, and the Applicant resulted in a new proposal (April 2020); d) All of the requisite supporting studies for the new proposal were submitted to the City (Exhibit 2G, Tab A, para. 44), and the application, deemed complete in May 2020, was the subject of a community open house in September 2020. A Statutory Public Meeting was held in January 2021, and by February 2022, further revisions were adopted, including the expansion of the POPS, changes to setbacks, step backs, density, parking underground, landscaping, and buffering in Block C, with all supplementary requisite studies combined with City and Region history (see Exhibit 2G, Tab A, paras. 50-60); e) A second resubmission followed in October 2022 with a number of updates that led up to the current Proposal’s consideration in April 2023. The PSR of April 3, 2023, recommended support for the Proposal, which came before the City’s Planning and Development Committee (“Committee”) on April 24, 2023 (note: this Committee consists of all City Council Members). f) The Region confirmed its support for higher densities along the Brock Road corridor, including high-density residential development conducive to transit use, consistent with the PPS encouraging the efficient use of land, existing infrastructure, and conforms to the GP in an effort to meet the Region’s intensification targets in a compatible manner with the community. The TRCA and City Engineering also confirmed their support of the Proposal (Exhibit 2G, Tab A, paras. 61-64). - 231 - 12 OLT-23-000498 g) Despite Planning staff recommendations in support of the OPA, ZBA, and DPS, the Proposal was not approved by the Committee, which was ultimately adopted at City Council on May 3, 2023. Following the Clerk’s notice of refusal of the Applications, Appeals to the Tribunal were submitted by the Applicant, and the Proposal in its current form is now before the Tribunal; h) Through the Appeals, the proposed OPA will establish a redesignation of the Subject Site from “Urban Residential Areas – Medium Density Areas” to “Urban Residential Areas – High Density Areas” and “Open Space System – Natural Areas”, and add a site-specific policy for the portion of the lands designated as “Urban Residential Areas – High Density Areas” to permit a maximum residential density of 286 [UPH], to facilitate the Proposal. The instrument is attached to this Order (Exhibit 4) below; i) The current ZBL-2010 is proposed to change to a site-specific “RHII-6”, “RMI-7”, “OS-PP”, and OS-HL” to permit a high-density residential development consisting of a twenty-storey building containing 328 units, 34 three storey back-to-back townhomes, and 10 three storey townhomes. The ZBA will include a number of provisions referenced in her witness statement (Exhibit 2G, Tab A, paras. 92-93). The instrument is also attached to this Order (Exhibit 5) below; and, j) The proposed DPS is intended to establish a single development block, including the portion of the valleylands for the West Duffins Creek and an associated buffer to be conveyed to the TRCA. The instrument is also attached to this Order (Exhibits 6A and 6B) below. [23] Land use planning evidence is outlined in greater detail later in this Decision, as the Tribunal firstly finds it appropriate to initially provide its analysis of Transportation, Architecture and Urban Design issues. - 232 - 13 OLT-23-000498 TRANSPORTATION EVIDENCE Transit, Traffic, and Parking [24] A significant portion of the Hearing considered evidence provided by Mr. Linton and Mr. de Boer, primarily resulting from a substantial number of community concerns around issues of traffic and pedestrian safety, as outlined in numerous written Participant statements. After careful review of their Agreed Statement of Facts (“ASF”) submissions, and the testimony from both expert Transportation witnesses, it became increasingly evident that there was a limited difference of opinion regarding several issues. The Tribunal determined that both witnesses acknowledged at some point in their testimony that the following conditions existed in relation to the Proposal itself, including but not limited to the following: a) Brock Road is a busy “Type A” arterial roadway functioning as a present-day high-order transit corridor, with four High-Frequency Bus stops in north/south directions, along Brock Road, and an important responsibility of the Region. High Occupancy Vehicle (“HOV”) lanes, anticipated with roadway widening along Brock Road from four to six or possibly seven lanes, should also serve to accommodate greater densities and new development along this important corridor; b) Major new transit initiatives, including the east-west transit routes to the south currently along the Kingston Road Urban Growth Area, along with the proposed Rapid Transit Corridor once established along Kingston Road, as proposed by the Region, should provide for significantly expanded transit service to the immediate area. This is within a reasonable walking distance and is expected to reduce vehicular demand. Walking distance was established to be within approximately 550 metres (“m”) to 600 m from the Usman Road (south) intersection at Brock Road, consistent with, by way of example, a Major Transit Station Area (“MTSA”) requirement of 800 m. - 233 - 14 OLT-23-000498 Based on this, transit will be more readily accessible to all current area residents and any new residents associated with the Proposal (see Future Transportation Context image below (Exhibit 2I-Tab A, pg. 38)); c) Brock Road presently has a designated right-turn-lane-northbound and a designated left-turn-lane-southbound, both turning east onto Usman Road (south). There are concrete curbs/medians running north/south along Brock Road, and a curb/median requiring a right-turn-north-only onto Brock Road from Usman Road (south), all separating vehicular traffic; d) Current and future expected levels of traffic activity do not warrant any changes or modifications, however, both witnesses agree that the Region’s more recent approvals of a half-signalled intersection at Usman Road (south) and Brock Road will serve to resolve issues relating to pedestrian safety and likely help to improve traffic flows during peak periods. The concern with safe pedestrian crossings will also be addressed with two new signaled crosswalks proposed, as no crosswalks currently exist; - 234 - 15 OLT-23-000498 e) The development requires 509 vehicle parking spaces, zero bicycle parking spaces, and zero loading spaces. The Proposal contains 509 vehicle parking spaces, 372 bicycle parking spaces, and 2 loading spaces, which are fully satisfied on-site. This meets and exceeds the City Zoning By-law requirements. Additionally, as these parking provisions are accommodated entirely at the Subject Site, consisting of 416 resident spaces and 93 visitor spaces, it is generally not anticipated that there will be a need for any added parking on the local street network stemming from the Proposal; f) Peak traffic counts in witness testimony were not in dispute, but important to note was that significant volume exists in morning and afternoon rush-hour periods. There is a significantly higher traffic count demand tied to the PIC peak volumes at midday on Fridays (Exhibits 2F and Tab E) combined with very active pedestrian crossings in all directions. There was also no dispute regarding the Proposal’s potential impact on traffic counts and that, if approved, the Proposal’s traffic impact overall would be limited. This was further reinforced in the PSR of April 3, 2023 (Exhibit 2C, pg. 604). The Tribunal notes that the PSR indicates that it would be helpful if the half-signal intersection were expedited with pedestrian crossings and installed prior to the construction of the Proposal. This is recommended by Region and City staff, based on their own pedestrian volume analysis, and despite the limited traffic warrant activity shared by both witnesses; and g) Finally, there was also no dispute with regard to any concerns around Emergency Vehicle or Service Vehicle access, as no concerns were expressed by the City or Regional agencies. [25] One area of disagreement related to Mr. de Boer’s opinion that the half-signaled intersection should be a requirement of the Proposal, before it is constructed and subject to a Holding provision (“H”), despite the fact that the Region provided its approval for the - 235 - 16 OLT-23-000498 work in the 2023 budget, scheduled to have construction commence at the intersection in 2024. [26] Furthermore, Mr. de Boer opined that it was important for any underground work to factor in the future prospect of a need for a fully signaled intersection based on the possibility of increased traffic counts. His rationale for this appeared to be that there is an ongoing redevelopment application by the PIC with a proposal to expand its facilities in the near term, currently under appeal as a separate matter before the Tribunal and scheduled for a hearing in September 2024. Generally speaking, and only for context, the proposed PIC redevelopment approved by City Council intends to add a three-storey private school addition with a total area of approximately 3162 m2 and a two-level above-grade parking structure at the north-east portion of the site, providing a limited number of new parking spaces. City Planning staff comments require a significantly higher number of new additional parking spaces. The Tribunal was not in a position to weigh-in on this issue at this time but felt it appropriate to briefly reference the prospect of this additional matter scheduled to come before the Tribunal in September 2024. [27] As a separate matter, Mr. Linton opined that further north along Brock Road, the intersection at Usman Road (north), which crosses over to Major Oaks Road, could readily be modified to extend a westerly left-turn-lane by 16.3 m, allowing for an increase in left- turn lane vehicular storage at this fully signalled intersection with the implementation of lane-width reductions to 3 m. He proposed that the City could enact optional peak-period parking restrictions, and if deemed helpful, specifically to the northerly portion of Usman Road (north), which can currently accommodate approximately 8-9 on-street parking spaces without any apparent restrictions. Mr. de Boer disagreed with this scenario, noting that Mr. Linton’s suggested recommendation for 3 m wide lanes was not feasible and that a road-widening was a better alternative. During cross-examination, his view regarding feasibility was countered when Mr. de Boer indicated he was not familiar with the other 3 m wide lanes that existed approximately 450 m to the north of this intersection at Brock Road and Dellbrook Avenue (Exhibit 16), which have apparently been in operation for a number of years. - 236 - 17 OLT-23-000498 FINDINGS REGARDING TRANSPORTATION EVIDENCE [28] After careful consideration of both transportation witness statements and analysis of the witness testimony, respectively, the Tribunal finds that it is persuaded by the evidence as presented by the Applicants and concludes that appropriate regard has been given to the overall transportation planning issues in the area. The Transportation evidence and analysis addresses all matters regarding present and future transit objectives, the provision of on-site parking for future residents and visitors, and whether the Proposal meets and exceeds the City’s Zoning By-law requirements in anticipation of ongoing and future traffic conditions. The Tribunal determines that future vehicular movements with a widened Brock Road will no doubt, deliver significant benefits to the surrounding community, tied to meaningful improvements such as a half-signalled intersection at Usman Road (south) and Brock Road, and improved safety measures with new pedestrian crossings. In conclusion, the Proposal poses no significant adverse impact on the immediate neighbourhood and community, purely from a transportation planning perspective. ARCHITECTURE AND URBAN DESIGN EVIDENCE [29] Ms. Bell confirmed at the outset of her testimony that she concurred and adopted as her own the Witness and Reply Statements of Sean Lawrence, who was unable to attend the Hearing for personal reasons. Ms. Bell has shared carriage of the Proposal for the Applicant since 2020 and was directly involved in the April 2023 final submission to the City. As a visual reference, the below architectural image from Kohn (Exhibit 2E, pg. 3) is provided: - 237 - 18 OLT-23-000498 [30] Ms. Bell opined that overall, the Proposal is a well-designed mix of housing, sensitive to the surrounding neighbourhood, and represents at scale and density that reflects the City and Region’s desire to continue with residential growth. She asserted that the architectural design, with most of the massing and height along or adjacent to Brock Road (a 45 m Right-of-Way) (“ROW”), is well-situated and has been responsive to neighbourhood concerns regarding overlooks, and shadowing. She stated that the design is pedestrian-friendly, has a sound internal layout for vehicular access, and has a comprehensive array of indoor/outdoor amenities for new residents and visitors to the Subject Site. [31] More specifically, Ms. Bell opined that the stacked, and back-to-back townhomes in Blocks B, C, and D, which are more immediate in proximity to the existing residential neighbourhood to the north/east, complements existing residential built forms. According to architectural cross-sections (Exhibit 12), approximate measurements consist of Block B with a setback of 7.32 m from the Subject Site northerly property line, a built-form width of 12 m by 55.4 m length, and with a height of 9.63 m, virtually identical in height to homes to the north along Saffron Drive. Block C, which is perpendicular to Block B, has a total length of 43 m, a height of 12.4 m, and a 1.5 m privacy screen, at a slightly lower grade, which is also in line with the height of existing homes along Saffron Drive. Block D is similar to - 238 - 19 OLT-23-000498 Block C in height at 12. 4 m, however, it maintains a slightly larger built form at 18 m in width, setback 17.5 m from Block B, in a parallel manner at the south end of the development envelope overlooking the Proposal’s conveyed lands, with a length of approximately 81 m (Exhibit 2E, pg.16). Block D has effectively no impact on dwellings to the north along Saffron Drive. Furthermore, with the addition of privacy screens to rooftop terraces, the Proposal effectively addresses privacy concerns with neighbours from Blocks B, C, and D. [32] Ms. Bell also opined that the Subject Site maintains an attractive, and comprehensive landscape design (Exhibit 2E, pg. 5), despite some challenges with most, with at-grade limited soil levels, covering the entire site, that are the result of the below- grade development envelope. Ms. Bell did state that there is a reasonable mix of plantings reflective of current SPA guidelines/policies which are expected to be clarified further between the City and Applicant, including improved buffering if the Proposal is allowed by the Tribunal. [33] Regarding overlook and shadowing, Ms. Bell dealt extensively with the impact of the Proposal, with particular regard given to Block A/Towers 1 and 2. She asserted that Tower 2 has a distance separation of approximately 35 m diagonally, in relation to dwellings to the north-east, and its six-storey height transitions well with the PIC directly to the north as an institutional use. Tower 1 also has a diagonal distance separation of 95 m from the nearest external residential property at Saffron Drive and is located approximately 60 m from homes to the west along Rayleen Crescent. Ms. Bell opined that the slender design of Tower 1, with its limited floorplate of 810 m2, recessed balconies, terraces, setbacks, and step backs from the podium level, offer an appropriate scale and density, with limited overlook respectful of neighbourhood residential dwellings, especially with its positioning at the south-west corner of the development envelope. [34] Ms. Bell referenced the Sun/Shadow Impact Study (“SSIS”) (Exhibit 2E, pg. Tab B), which she asserted makes evident that the scale, massing, and building height of Towers 1 and 2 allow for compatible transitioning to properties to the north and north-east and - 239 - 20 OLT-23-000498 predominantly show that most shadowing exists internally within the Subject Site. The SSIS demonstrates that Proposal’s impact is kept to a maximum of two hours during peak seasons, including the spring, summer, fall, and winter, between the hours of approximately 9:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. She concluded that the minimal impact of shadowing and overlook, adequately addresses neighbourhood concerns that were the direct result of architectural design revisions, in concert with the City and public consultation over the course of the multi-year application process. [35] With respect to amenity space, Ms. Bell concurred with the City staff that a ratio of 4 m2 per residential unit (totaling 1488 m2) exceeds typical projects of this size in other developments. The amenity space exceeds the City’s requirements, complementing the Proposal with more than adequate indoor/outdoor areas for both residents and visitors. Privately-Owned Publicly Accessible Space (“POPS”) [36] The POPS was emphasized as an important additional feature of the Proposal achieved with input from City staff and design guideline best practices, evolving from approximately 600 m2 originally to 660 m2 in the final Proposal. Ms. Bell opined that the visibility and access to the POPS as determined by these iterative discussions with the City allows for easy access from Usman Road (south) for pedestrians, cyclists, and vehicular drop offs, with landscaped elements in the design, allowing for natural views adjacent to West Duffins Creek. [37] Finally, Ms. Bell reiterated that appropriate protections are in place through the SPA process, which will implement any outstanding matters of importance associated with the Proposal’s progress and ultimate construction. [38] It is important to note that Ms. Anderson’s witness statement provides a thorough analysis of the range and types of residential units that form part of each of the four Blocks A to D (Exhibit 2G, Tab A, paras. 80-83). She asserted that the Proposal “provides a high- quality design that optimizes the use of the land and infrastructure” and reflects the - 240 - 21 OLT-23-000498 Regional objectives of intensification while at the same time being compatible with the neighbourhood. Her focus on perhaps the more controversial element (Tower 1) stressed that despite the presence of the tower at the south-westerly corner, the manner in which it is situated on the Subject Site, along with the appropriate transition through a shared four- storey podium connecting to Tower 2 at six-storeys, adjacent to Blocks B, C, and D, represents good planning and design. [39] Ms. Anderson opined that Tower 1 represents a landmark feature, and because of its location, concerns regarding overlook and shadowing are mitigated. At the same time, she asserted that the four and six-storey levels directly across from the PIC were a “strategic” design decision respectful of the Masjid’s height, inclusive of minarets. She also reiterated that the Proposal represents a good design and is compatible with the surrounding community. [40] Mr. Freedman’s testimony extensively outlined the history of the surrounding neighbourhoods, his interpretation of COP/DROP policies and guidelines along with the evolution of transit and transportation plans for the area. He generally concurred that a residential redevelopment of the Subject Site may be appropriate along this transit corridor, however, this Proposal represents “over-intensification” and is “out of character” with the Brock Road Neighbourhood, which is predominantly a low-rise residential area. He asserted that the Proposal’s density of 286 units per hectare (“UPH”) represents twice the density permitted at 140 UPH for a high-density site and insisted that a mid-rise development was more appropriate for this area, in line with his position that this is a mid- rise site. [41] Mr. Freedman opined extensively in relation to area characteristics from a broader context and focused his assessment on the density, built form, and mass, but in particular the Tower 1 height of twenty-storeys located at the south-west corner of the Subject Site. Specifically, Mr. Freedman opined that Tower 1 is too tall and the Proposal’s density, at twice the permitted level in the COP, was inappropriate within the overall context of the Brock Road corridor. Mr. Freedman emphasized, in particular, that Tower 1 was not a - 241 - 22 OLT-23-000498 good fit with the community and the Brock Road corridor, was less suitable for higher densities, and that such projects should be more appropriately focused along the Kingston Road Urban Growth Centre and further south to the Anchor Mobility Hub surrounding the GO Station, among other nodes. [42] Regarding built form, Mr. Freedman opined that the Tower 1 design does not enhance the character of the surrounding neighbourhood and therefore contravenes the COP’s objectives. Regarding transition and good separation distance, Mr. Freedman emphasized that despite the respective Tower 1 separation of 60 m to the west and 95 m to the north-east, the negative impact as seen from a distance “creates the impression that the residents of the tower can see into the neighbourhood, the yards, and the windows of the surrounding houses – negatively impacting neighbourhood privacy”, and that “the separation distance in this suburban context is not enough to overcome this extreme height differential and the sense of being watched from above.” He shared the same opinion with respect to the 35 m separation distance from the six-storey, Tower 2 design. He also noted that the PIC is more representative of a landmark at three-storeys (plus the additional height of the adjacent minarets) across Usman Road (south), and the Proposal impedes its visibility. During cross-examination, Mr. Freedman briefly acknowledged that current zoning, allows for up to eight-storeys in height fronting along Usman Road (south). [43] Finally, Mr. Freedman also opined that the POPS was not ideally situated on the Subject Site, was impacted by shadowing, and suggested that it would be more accessible if relocated to the front along Brock Road or Usman Road (south), requiring an entire redesign of the Proposal. Regarding landscaping and buffering, Mr. Freeman suggested that a reduced perimeter for parking, setback for garage construction impacting Brock Road and Usman Road (south), would allow for improved planting alternatives, again requiring an overall redesign of the development. No design or architectural alternatives were presented at the Hearing. - 242 - 23 OLT-23-000498 [44] During further cross-examination, Mr. Freedman acknowledged that, through his extensive experience, mid-rise projects normally allow for up to twelve-storeys in neighbouring municipalities along avenues with a 20 m to 36 m ROW. Brock Road is currently a four-lane 45 m ROW, and despite the anticipated addition of up to three new lanes along the corridor at the Region’s initiative, Mr. Freedman maintained that any comparison was “apples to oranges” between the mid-rise definitions of neighbouring municipalities as they relate to the Subject Site. Supplemental to this during cross, Counsel for the Applicant clarified with the witness that generally, maximum heights in the DROP and COP do not presently exist and did eventually elicit a response acknowledging twelve-storeys buildings along Brock Road could be deemed mid-rise. FINDINGS REGARDING ARCHITECTURE, URBAN DESIGN, AND THE POPS [45] After careful analysis of witness statements on the subject of the architectural and urban design evidence and careful regard to oral testimony from the witnesses, the Tribunal is persuaded by the Applicant’s evidence in this area. The Tribunal determined that the Applicant demonstrated considerable effort in ensuring any City and Regional issues have been addressed associated with built form design. [46] The Tribunal also finds that the Proposal demonstrates a creative and appropriate transition with Blocks B, C, and D, as they are closest in proximity to existing built-form residential dwellings in the surrounding area. From this point to the west and south-west (Block A), the design also provides a gradual connection to Tower 2 along Usman Road (south) at four storeys with an appropriate design step back at levels five and six. The design ultimately transitions very well to Tower 1 at the furthest distance away to the south-west corner of the development area along Brock Road. [47] The 35 m, 60 m, and 95 m setbacks, respectively, are significant and enhance the character of the overall community, well-separated from the existing residential built forms. The addition of Block A with Towers 1 and 2 allows for an attractive and creative diversity of residential design, with increased housing alternatives and a minimal degree of - 243 - 24 OLT-23-000498 shadowing in a relatively compact form. The Tribunal agrees that a slenderer architectural Tower 1 design element, previously described as graduated from Blocks B, C, and D, represents a complement to the residential area’s mix of housing. There is limited overlook into the neighbouring community to the north, north-east, and to the west, and shadowing is minimally impactful, mostly affecting the Subject Site internally to a rather limited extent depending on the time of year. [48] Finally, it is important to recognize the opinion of City Planning staff. The PSR goes on to address the issue of ensuring a sensitive transition between Tower 1 and states that “the applicant has provided a progressive stepping of building heights, and has sited the tallest portion of the building to maximize separation from the detached dwellings” and notes that as per the cross-section below, “the proposal replicates the existing building height and setbacks established immediately to the north.” Above: Cross Section Elevation view from the west (PSR-Exhibit 2C, pg.601) - 244 - 25 OLT-23-000498 [49] The Tribunal also concurs that the POPS is well-designed in its current proposed location and should not be relocated along Brock Road or Usman Road (south), requiring an entirely new site design, as suggested by the City’s witness. The current POPS design will result in reduced at-grade, street, and vehicular noise in its proposed location, buffered by adjacent built-forms. The increase in size of the POPS resulting from City staff consultations to 660 m2, should serve to provide enhanced public open space alternatives to the immediate community. Furthermore, it is important to note the City staff’s position in the PSR (Exhibit 2C, Tab F, pg. 609 and 601), which states that “the final design details for the POPS will be confirmed through the [SPA] process.” The Tribunal is also confident that the possibility of enhanced signage alternatives encouraged through SPA deliberations with the City could also assist in its degree of visibility and at the same time maintaining a high level of community safety at its proposed location. LAND USE PLANNING EVIDENCE [50] In their Agreed Statement of Facts (“ASF”) (Exhibit 2J, Tab A), the Planning witnesses acknowledged among a number of issues, that it is the extent of proposed growth and development that is in dispute not whether the site is an appropriate location for growth and development. Provincial Framework Planning Act [51] Mr. Ramsay, retained by the City in August 2023, provided his opinions regarding s. 2 of the Act, initially confirming that the Proposal is in a location that is appropriate for residential intensification. However, he stated that the Proposal represents an overdevelopment of the Subject Site and is out of character/not compatible with the predominantly low-rise community. He asserted that the Proposal does not have sufficient regard for matters of provincial interest specific to s. 2 of the Act. Through his witness - 245 - 26 OLT-23-000498 statement (Exhibit 2H, Tab A, para. 26), Mr. Ramsay briefly highlighted the updated changes to the Proposal submitted in March 2023, including that it: - maintains the height of the tower of 20-and 6-storeys; - maintains the height of the podium of 4-storeys; - an increase in the total gross floor area from 30,269 m2 to 30,367 m2; - maintains the number of residential dwellings [at] 372 (328 apartment units,10 street townhouse units and 44 stacked townhouse units) - maintains the density of 286 uph ; and, - increases indoor/outdoor amenity space from 1,851 m2 to 1,960 m2. [52] More specifically, regarding s. 2 of the Act, Mr. Ramsay expressed concern with the following areas where there is disagreement with the Proposal: (h) the orderly development of safe and healthy communities; (n) the resolution of planning conflicts involving public and private interests; (p) the appropriate location of growth and development; and (r) the promotion of built form that, (i) is well-designed, (ii) encourages a sense of place, and (iii) provides for public spaces that are of high quality, safe, accessible, attractive and vibrant. [53] Mr. Ramsay testified that the Proposal does not represent orderly development nor does the design represent an appropriate height, scale, and massing; setbacks are inadequate along Brock Road; privacy and overlook are concerns; public and private interests are at odds with each other due to the adverse impact on the surrounding community, especially with the streetscape impact of Tower 1; the design does not encourage a sense of place, and that it does not provide for public spaces that are of high quality, safe, accessible, attractive, and vibrant. [54] Ms. Anderson testified initially at a high level, that she rebuts Mr. Ramsay’s opinion, and that the Proposal has the appropriate regard for s. 2 (h), (n), (p), and (r) of the Act and makes reference to the MHBC Planning Justification Report (“PJR”) for greater detail, which was consistently updated, as the Proposal evolved (Exhibit 2D, Tab A, 4.1 Planning Act, and Tabs B and C). More specifically, she asserted that the DPS: will facilitate - 246 - 27 OLT-23-000498 continuous and orderly development which makes use of existing underutilized lands, in close proximity to commercial uses within a reasonable distance; large landscaped open space is accessible; and the density increase supports active transportation as well as greater levels of public transit. [55] Furthermore, Ms. Anderson stated that: public consultation in accordance with the Act was ongoing throughout the process; existing development surrounds the Proposal along with natural features, protected by the land conveyance to the TRCA; and, the close proximity of commercial uses, employment, and recreational facilities, are complemented by the increased density. [56] Finally, regarding s. 2 of the Act, she testified that the Proposal provides a high- quality, well-designed built form that offers a sense of place and fit within the surrounding area. She asserted that it also provides accessible, safe, and high quality public open space and amenity areas for both current and future residents. Provincial Policy Statement 2020 [57] In his witness statement (2H, Tab A, paras. 57, 58, 65), Mr. Ramsay outlines his position that the Proposal generally maintains consistency with the PPS, beginning with: Managing and Directing Land Use (Section 1.1.1 a) through i)). He shared the same general opinion that the Proposal maintained consistency with the PPS, regarding Housing (1.4.3). [58] Mr. Ramsay maintained a different view, however, regarding the Proposal’s consistency with the PPS related to Settlement Areas (Sections 1.1.3.1, 1.1.3.2, 1.1.3.3, 1.1.3.4). He asserted that the OPA and ZBA: will result in a development that is inappropriate, as it is situated adjacent to low-rise development to the north, east and west; it does not take into account existing building stock in this area of low-rise housing forms; and the height density setbacks and overall intensity of the Proposal is not compatible with the community. - 247 - 28 OLT-23-000498 [59] Furthermore, he stated that the Proposal is not consistent with the PPS, as it related to Public Spaces, Recreation, Parks, Trails, and Open Space (1.5.1). Specifically, he reiterated that the POPS, located within the interior of the Subject Site, is “neither visible nor accessible from Brock Road and has limited visibility from Usman Road with access along a private driveway.” [60] Ms. Anderson fundamentally disagreed with Mr. Ramsay’s position regarding the POPS, and as a reference, the Tribunal refers to the Witness Reply of Mr. Lawrence (Exhibit 2G, Tab C, para. 3) whereby he states: • The location of the POPS space as proposed followed extensive discussion with City staff throughout the Zoning Bylaw Amendment application process, and the location as shown was deemed the preferred location. The POPS is accessible from Usman Road by means of a continuous sidewalk and pedestrian crossing. The POPS is not located off Brock Road or accessible from Brock Road, as a street wall was the preferred built form along the Brock Road frontage following the City’s design guidelines and best practices. As referenced in the Duffins Precinct Development Guidelines, M1 4.4, amenity should not be located along Brock Road, but instead separated by building mass. [61] Furthermore, Ms. Anderson opined that the Proposal is compatible with the existing and evolving community. She stated that it supports increased densities along a critical transit spine, efficiently utilizing existing infrastructure and is focused on delivering a development pattern that supports strong, livable, and healthy communities. [62] Ms. Anderson testified that the Proposal also showed particular regard to sections 51(24) and 41 of the Act, as they apply to the DPS Block Plan and SPA, respectively. She notes in (2G, Tab A, para. 103) that the SPA will further crystalize in numerous respects, also conforming with City and Regional objectives, including the following: - 248 - 29 OLT-23-000498 • Provides for the massing and design of the proposed buildings, the relationship of the proposed buildings to adjacent buildings, streets, and exterior areas to which members of the public have access, the provision of interior walkways, stairs, and elevators to which members of the public have access from streets, open spaces, and interior walkways in adjacent buildings. Matters relating to exterior design, including the character, scale, appearance, and design features of buildings and their sustainable design, landscaping, road and access design, parking and loading, amenity areas including walkways and pedestrian connections, as well as lighting are set out on the site plan as well as in the supporting plans and reports submitted with the SPA. [63] She concluded that the PPS strongly encourages new development that will provide long term prosperity, environmental health, and social well-being, facilitating economic growth and a range of new housing forms and options responding to current and future needs. As a new development of a vacant site, she opined that the Proposal is consistent with all of the PPS criteria and maintains that it represents an appropriate level of intensification that will integrate well with the surrounding community, optimizing transit investments and standards, and minimizing land consumption and service costs. Growth Plan [64] Mr. Ramsay’s view that the Proposal does not conform to the GP, which refers to Policies for Where and How to Grow, Managing Growth, focuses on sections 1.2.1, and where he asserts the Proposal does not: • Prioritize intensification and higher densities in strategic growth areas to make efficient use of land and infrastructure and support transit viability. - 249 - 30 OLT-23-000498 • Improve the integration of land use planning with planning and investment in infrastructure and public service facilities, including integrated service delivery through community hubs, by all levels of government. • Provide for different approaches to managing growth that recognize the diversity of communities in the GGH. [65] He expands further on this topic by noting: this is not a strategic growth area; the Proposal is “ad hoc” as it relates to density and does not support the broader urban structure in the City where infrastructure and public services facilities are planned and available; and the Proposal is not located where the City directs higher densities that should exist more appropriately. [66] He did acknowledge that regarding section 2.2.1, generally, there was conformity with the GP, as the Proposal is within the delineated built-up areas; however, he highlights concern with regard to 2.2.2(1) through 2.2.2(3), where such density is more appropriate in other areas, the Proposal ultimately “does not conform with the City wide intensification policies” and “the guiding principles (Section 1.2.1) and intensification strategy requirements (Section 2.2.2(3))” of the GP. [67] Ms. Anderson rebutted this and testified that the Proposal conforms to and serves to implement the policies of the GP in that it meets the Region’s intensification objectives, providing connectivity along Brock Road with its density and is compatible with the neighbouring community, in a compact form (see PJR-Exhibit 2D, 4.3). Furthermore, she noted that this is reinforced, and is in line with, the shifted timelines for growth forecasts to 2051. Additionally, the Proposal’s instruments remain in conformity with the policies of the GP, and the density will complement an area that is well served by existing transit, optimizing the use of existing water, wastewater, and stormwater infrastructure with existing community services, parks, the natural environment, and local businesses in close proximity. - 250 - 31 OLT-23-000498 [68] Regarding density, Ms. Anderson reiterated that the Proposal: prioritizes the immediate access to current and pending major transit initiatives; will implement a much needed range of housing types and options, and that no policies preclude such development along an arterial corridor of such significance in its current form and into the future. FINDINGS REGARDING THE ACT, PPS AND GP [69] The Tribunal prefers the evidence of Ms. Anderson, which includes the PJR (Exhibit 2D, Tabs A, B, and C) that more broadly and consistently addresses the requisite legislative framework dating back to 2020. The Proposal is located in a predominantly residential area, with neighbouring commercial uses in close proximity, and along an arterial transit corridor that can accommodate and implement provincial objectives and guidelines. The Applicant’s evidence demonstrates appropriate regard for s. 2 of the Act, is consistent with the PPS, and conforms to the GP. The Proposal promotes intensification that complements the existing surrounding area, represents efficient design and built form, and is at a density that efficiently utilizes existing infrastructure and public service facilities. [70] The Proposal is responsive to and will most definitely benefit from anticipated major transit initiatives, with the anticipated widening of the ROW along the Brock Road corridor but will also have a favourable impact on public utilization of planned additional transit initiatives further to the south across Kingston Road, in the near future. [71] The Applicant’s evidence regarding consistency, and conformity with the above legislative framework, is corroborated further through the PSR (2C, Tab F) as referenced throughout this Decision. Specifically, the PSR reinforces that the Proposal: appropriately transitions its built form to adjacent residential areas; has minimal shadow impact; does not have any adverse transportation impact; implements numerous improvements through a number of future traffic management strategies; offers an enlarged POPS; offers sufficient indoor/outdoor amenity space; complies with the Duffins Precinct Environmental - 251 - 32 OLT-23-000498 Servicing Plan; and, concurrently, approves of the instruments implementing the Proposal, with Attachments 1, 2, and 3, as attached to the Order that follows in this Decision. REGIONAL AND CITY POLICIES Region of Durham Official Plan [72] Regarding the DROP (consolidated in 2020), Ms. Anderson opined that the Proposal conforms with the plan, as it facilitates residential uses with taller heights and densities along regional corridors such as Brock Road, allowing for taller buildings. The Region’s density objectives are further enhanced through proposed new transit improvements with implementation in the near term (2031) along this important corridor (Exhibit 2D, Tab A, pgs. 50-54). She also asserted that the Proposal’s increase in height and density should not be prevented where it meets the Region’s objectives. In this instance, while not directly in the designated “Urban Growth Area,” located close in proximity just to the south of the Subject Site, the Proposal meets the Region’s density objectives, and also preserves/enhances the Natural Heritage System (Duffins Creek) through the previously referenced land conveyance to the TRCA. [73] In her witness statement (Exhibit 2G, paras. 114-116), Ms. Anderson expands further regarding the following: • Within the Regional Official Plan (“ROP”), the Subject Lands are designated as “Living Areas” with a “Regional Corridor” overlay. A portion of the Subject Lands located adjacent to Duffins Creek are also designated “Major Open Space Areas”. A portion of the Subject Lands are identified as “Key Natural Heritage and Hydrologic Features” and “High Aquifer Vulnerability Areas” within Schedule B of the ROP. Brock Road is also identified as a “Transit Spine” on Schedule C of the ROP and identified as a Type A Arterial Road on Schedule 3, Map C2: Road Network, and a High Frequency Transit Line on Schedule 3, Map C3: Transit Priority Network. - 252 - 33 OLT-23-000498 • The “Living Areas” are intended to accommodate a full range of housing developed in a cost effective and efficient manner, while maintaining an attractive, safe living environment that is respectful of existing natural areas. The proposal conforms to these objectives by proposing a compact built form within a built-up area, and through site design and layout, providing adequate setbacks to the adjacent natural features to ensure these areas are not adversely impacted by the proposal. • Regional Corridors are to be developed to promote transit and be designed with a mix of higher density uses. Sensitive urban design is to be used that is oriented towards the corridors. 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 FSI 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 the area municipal official plans. The proposed development meets these policies. [74] Regarding the recent DROP (adopted 2023), which is awaiting Ministerial approval, Ms. Anderson importantly denotes in her witness statement that the Proposal appropriately considers and conforms with updated objectives as follows: • Brock Road is a High Frequency Transit Network, a Type A Arterial Road, and a Regional Corridor, and the valley lands are designated as a Regional Natural Heritage System and form part of the Urban River Valley; • Community Areas are to be planned as complete communities providing a range of housing, transportation, and lifestyle choices; and, - 253 - 34 OLT-23-000498 • Regional Corridors are generally identified as appropriate locations for higher-density development. Built form along Regional Corridors is encouraged to be multi-storey compact, pedestrian friendly and transit- supportive. The new policies also encourage the area municipalities to establish transit supportive density targets along the Regional Corridors and designate key development areas as prime opportunities for transit supportive intensification. Within the Medium Density Areas on Schedule I Land Use Structure; Sheet 1. This structural designation extends the full extent of lands along the east side of Brock Road up to Finch Avenue to the north. [75] The PSR (Exhibit 2C, Tab F, pg. 598) states that the Proposal conforms to the DROP, in that the increase in proposed density is appropriate and that Brock Road, is within Regional responsibility, which maintains a designation recognizing the corridor as a Type “A” Arterial, Transit Spine in the COP, with a higher level of transit service and moderate traffic levels/speeds, with access to local collectors. The DROP designates Brock Road as a High-Frequency Transit Network (“HFTN”). Higher density developments, with mixed uses and at an appropriate scale and context are encouraged in HFTN designations. The PSR goes on to state: • The proposed density will facilitate a built form that has been demonstrated to achieve a compatible transition with the existing residential neighbourhood immediately to the north, by siting a built form that has a similar building height and setbacks to the existing dwellings, providing appropriate building separation between the existing dwellings and the apartment building. The proposal has been designed to maximize the separation between the tallest and most dense components of the development and existing residential properties to the north, which will limit any negative impacts with respect to privacy and shadowing. On the easterly portion of the subject lands, and nearest to existing detached dwellings, the proposed development provides for compatible building heights, and a less dense built form, through the - 254 - 35 OLT-23-000498 placement of townhouse units with adjoining rear yards along the north property boundary.” • The proposal is located along an arterial road and a collector road that can accommodate the traffic generated by this development. Furthermore, siting the apartment building adjacent to Brock Road, which is identified as a transit spine, encourages the opportunity to reduce auto-dependency, and contribute to the development of a livable, transit-oriented community. [76] Mr. Ramsay opined that the DROP stipulates broad policies, requiring greater efficiency in design, and deferred to Mr. Freedman’s testimony in this regard. He also asserted that more in accordance with the DROP, the redevelopment should consist of a mid-rise design along a Regional corridor such as this one. City of Pickering Official Plan [77] As he continued with his land use planning opinion, Mr. Ramsay asserted that the Proposal does not reflect the objectives and guidelines of the COP, noting in particular, section 3.2. Similarly, with Mr. Freedman, he argued that the proper location for this degree of density, “which can be better achieved elsewhere”, includes along Kingston Road, and areas like a Mobility Hub further south towards the GO Transit Station among other options. [78] Mr. Ramsay also testified that Block A, in particular, is too big and reiterated that it did not represent good urban design. He stated that the Duffin Creek Lands conveyance and their integration with the Subject Site, is appropriate, but the ZBA will not protect or enhance the neighbourhood, and that it represents an overdevelopment of the Subject Site. He estimated that 100 UPH could potentially be achieved at the Subject Site but that even this degree of density “was a stretch,” and that anything greater was not contemplated in the COP. He also concurred with Mr. Freedman’s analysis that the COP’s intended provisions are to locate developments such as this on Kingston Road and - 255 - 36 OLT-23-000498 elsewhere. Both believe it is the intended provisions of the COP, that this Proposal’s overall scale, massing, density, and height, will be “overly dominating.” [79] Ms. Anderson’s opinion disagreed, and she stated that the Proposal serves to implement the objectives of the COP, by “providing for a compact and urban residential built form on a site with the Built Boundary of the City’s existing Urban Area, where the majority of growth is to occur ” and “ directs increased density to an area of the [Subject Site] located along Brock Road, an identified Regional Corridor and Transit Spine, and [is] appropriate for the proposed level of intensification.” [80] Furthermore, Ms. Anderson reiterated that the proposed OPA “seeks to permit high- density residential uses in order to ensure a transit-supportive and vibrant form of development is achieved along Brock Road within the Brock Ridge neighbourhood. The proposed development is in conformity with the City’s natural heritage system policies and has been carefully designed to protect the existing natural features adjacent [to] the site. The proposed development, and associated planning applications conform to and serve to implement the applicable objectives and policies of the City of Pickering OP.” [81] The PSR (Exhibit 2C, Tab F, pg. 598) states that the “Medium Density” designation is intended primarily for residential uses and denotes a range of 30 to 80 UPH. It also encourages a variety of housing forms as part of the Brock Ridge Neighbourhood policies, and suggests that “the City Council should acknowledge the landowners’ interest in maximizing the developable area of the property” and “that City Council shall encourage a broad diversity of housing by form, location, size, tenure, and cost within the neighbourhoods and villages of the City, so that the housing needs of existing and future residents can be met as they evolve over time.” The Tribunal determines that this reinforces the Applicant’s evidence, asserting that the Proposal conforms to the COP. - 256 - 37 OLT-23-000498 Duffins Precinct Development Guidelines (1997) [82] As an additional and important consideration, the DPDG, provides some direction for land use, transportation, community design, and servicing within the Duffins Precinct, excluding the portion to be conveyed to the TRCA. Following some clarifications/corrections in her witness statement, Ms. Anderson assisted the Tribunal in better understanding the planning-related objectives of the growth framework. Some of these changes are summarized below: • The Subject Site is within Area 5 (not Area 2) of the growth framework, which targets units between 45 and 119 units, and has a density range between 30 and 80 UPH; and, • The key consideration is that what has not been achieved in relation to all areas in the Duffins Precinct Area is that Area 2 has effectively no new intensification, and Areas 3 and 4 have underachieved the planned maximum units by 441 units. This clearly makes evident the fact that existing and proposed developments have not achieved the minimum unit targets and are at the low end of density ranges. • Though the proposal exceeds the maximum density guideline, the increase in density offsets the under achieved density in other parts of the area and is provided in a compatible design, without adverse impacts, and will contribute to the much-needed housing now required to meet the City’s housing pledge and growth to 2051. [83] Mr. Ramsay opined that the Proposal contravenes the Duffins Precinct Development Guidelines 1997 (“DPDG”), resulting in adverse impacts on adjacent properties and will “[establish] a negative urban design precedent for the City.” - 257 - 38 OLT-23-000498 [84] The PSR (Exhibit 2C, pg. 599) again reinforced the Applicant’s evidence, maintaining that the design provides an appropriate transition in built form from the adjacent residential areas and meets the objectives of the DPDG, including: • A range of housing types, including detached, semi-detached, townhomes, and multi-unit dwellings; • Building form adjacent to Brock Road that is sensitive to the potential impacts of the road but does not turn its back on it; • Streetscape and architectural designs that are aesthetically pleasing, diverse, encourage social interaction within a neighbourhood, and support safe environments; and, • Development that embraces the natural environment. [85] During cross-examination, Mr. Ramsay acknowledged that the COP did not have any height restrictions, but instead primarily maintained its range of FSI objectives. Additionally, he recognized that with a framework horizon of 2016, the COP (2007) is considered outdated and does require an up-to-date review, reflective of ongoing and new growth. Conveniently and quite timely, evidence from the Applicant showed that a City- initiated review of the COP is underway as of March 2024, (Exhibit 19). It announces a public consultation process will commence in late May 2024, all in an effort to “maintain its conformity with Provincial and Regional planning documents through amendments to the [COP].” The Report also notes that the City “is projected to enter a significant period of growth in the coming decades,” and will therefore “not only increase the population and number of housing units within the community but will result in changes in the needs of residents.” Concurrent to this, the witness also acknowledged that the evolution of current provincial guidelines are pursuing a more comprehensive, updated approach, and relatedly, did not dispute that the PSR of April 2023, recommended approval of the OPA, ZBA, and DPS along with the requisite instruments. - 258 - 39 OLT-23-000498 City of Pickering Zoning By-law 3036 [86] A review of the updated draft ZBA (Exhibit 5 and Attachment “2” to this Order), confirms that the implementing instrument, amends the City ZBL 3036 as previously amended by ZBL-2010. Ms. Anderson testified that this updated draft ZBA has the concurrence of City Planning staff, as similarly recommended for approval through its PSR of April 2023. Regarding conformity with the ZBL, the final paragraph of this instrument is quoted below for clarity: • By-law 3036 is hereby further amended only to the extent necessary to give effect to the provisions of this By-law as it applies to the area set out in Schedule I to this By-law. Definitions and subject matters not specifically dealt with in this By-law shall be governed by relevant provisions of By-law 3036. FINDINGS REGARDING THE DROP, COP, DPDG, AND CITY ZBL [87] The Tribunal is again persuaded by the Applicant, based on witness evidence, and corroborated by the City PSR of April 2023. It was acknowledged by the City’s witnesses that, despite opinions regarding the overall size of Block A, the City ZBL currently allows up to an eight-storey, 70 m building length along Usman Road (south) from Brock Road and up to four storeys further east. The approximately 50 m length along Brock Road, with a four-level podium and six storeys (also in Block A), is in line with the current City ZBL, existing as-of-right since approximately 2010, and has the full support of City Planning staff. [88] The Proposal achieves a number of objectives through elements that conform with the above, including: the land conveyance to the TRCA at the outset; the provision of public and private amenities and the provision of the POPS in a central and accessible location; the provision of a wide variety of housing options; pedestrian connectivity; with noise and traffic mitigation factored into the design. The Tribunal determined by way of careful evaluation of the evidence, that almost everything associated with the density, - 259 - 40 OLT-23-000498 height, and massing of the Proposal, other than Tower 1, conforms to the DROP, the COP, DPDG, and the City ZBL. SUPPLEMENTAL PLANNING EVIDENCE AND ANALYSIS Planning Staff Report and Analysis [89] While neither of the Parties chose to subpoena Planning staff for the purposes of the Hearing, it became quite evident that the Parties allowed the PSR of April 2023 to speak for itself and effectively represent a supplemental, detailed expert perspective on the Proposal from the City’s own Planning Department. As referenced a number of times in oral evidence and by way of the JDB submitted (Exhibit 2), Planning staff has played an integral role in the evolution of various proposals on the Subject Site since 2010. No doubt, the Tribunal may have benefited from their supplemental direct evidence at the Hearing, however, in their absence, Ms. Anderson appropriately shared many of her thoughts about the City Planning staff’s role in the process through her witness statement. It is her opinion that the PSR provides a comprehensive and thorough assessment of the Proposal in relation to the PPS, GP, DROP, and COP. She continues with a brief summary of the PSR, as follows: a) The PSR addresses matters related to urban design including the transition of height and built form proposed, shadow impacts, the provision of indoor and outdoor amenity space, POPS, sustainability, and connectivity. b) The [PSR] recommends approval of the proposed applications based on its thorough and comprehensive analysis. The City’s Planning Staff support the proposed residential density and height, as it will facilitate a built form that has been demonstrated to achieve a compatible transition with the neighbourhood immediately to the north through appropriate building siting, setbacks, separation distances, height, and massing. - 260 - 41 OLT-23-000498 c) Staff note the compact form of development and design will maintain and protect the natural areas within the associated valleylands to the south and east and conveyed the appropriate lands to the TRCA. Planning Staff note the plan will provide for a more diversified housing mix of housing forms and tenure that will assist the City in achieving its intensification targets, while providing at-grade amenity space for use by the broader community. d) Staff note that the proposal is located on an arterial road and a collector that can accommodate the proposed traffic generated by the development. Planning Staff confirm that the proposed applications are consistent with the PPS, conform to the Growth Plan, the Region of Durham Official Plan, and the City Official Plan. e) They further support the OPA and ZBA and POS with Draft Conditions. [90] As a brief summary, it is also important to note that the PSR references agency comments and input, including from the Region, TRCA, the District and Catholic District School Boards, Durham Region Police, City Engineering, Fire Services, and Sustainability, all of whom have no objections to the Proposal, and have received appropriate consideration from the Tribunal. [91] Mr. Ramsay, on the other hand, appeared to have given minimal regard to the position of Planning staff in his evidence, and when asked during cross-examination if he had consulted with the department during his analysis, in preparation for the Hearing, he indicated that he had not consulted with them or any other City or Regional agency, in his review. It became apparent to the Tribunal that this decision may have limited Mr. Ramsay’s efforts, which could have allowed for a more fulsome analysis. Counsel for the Applicant quite appropriately argued in closing, that this may have been the basis for a “flawed foundation” of opinions opposing the Proposal, and summarized these as a “largely speculative, overstated, and unsupported” overall land use planning opinion. - 261 - 42 OLT-23-000498 Compatibility with the Community [92] Finally, in considering site-specific proposals such as these, the Tribunal must always contemplate compatibility. Ms. Anderson defines compatibility as a design that co- exists with the surrounding area, without adverse impacts. The Proposal encourages an adequate supply, mix, and range of housing types and options and blends this with compatibility in a very unique fashion, with careful consideration given to the site-specific dynamics of the Subject Site. [93] The City’s planning and urban design witnesses each suggested that as a low-rise community consisting of predominantly single-family detached and townhome dwellings, the Proposal represents an affront to the surrounding area from a density, built form, height, massing, and design perspective, particularly with the height of Tower 1. They persisted with this opinion, and both appeared to evade existing permitted zoning on the Subject Site, allowing up to eight-storeys along Usman Road (south) with the potential for a building with a length of 70 m from Brock Road, plus an additional four-storeys beyond that point. [94] Ms. Anderson effectively shared her opinion that perhaps the most important contributing elements that are foundational and unique to the Proposal, includes its overall compact and creative design, density, height, and built form with immediate access to existing and planned future transit, road widening, and access to current municipal infrastructure. She reiterated the significance of maintaining the conveyed portion of the Subject Site to the TRCA and the natural heritage elements of that component of the Proposal. She also affirmed that the Transportation analysis was thorough, addressing any and all concerns raised about all related issues. [95] Ms. Anderson further opined that from an urban design and architectural perspective, issues such as overlook, shadowing, and privacy were effectively addressed with the requisite studies in consulting evidence and testimony, emphasizing setbacks, - 262 - 43 OLT-23-000498 step backs, efficient land use, and accessible public and private amenity space with a prominent POPS element. [96] Without belabouring the question of height and density, Ms. Anderson reiterated that the Subject Site is underdeveloped. While not within a designated Urban Growth Area, the Subject Site is uniquely situated along a very busy transportation and transit corridor, has met all City and Regional departmental and agency requirements, and fundamentally has the continued support of City Planning staff. In summary, the Tribunal accepts the Applicant’s evidence and opinions on the issue of compatibility with the community and surrounding area. CONCLUSIONS [97] The evidence that has led the Tribunal to its Decision is founded on well-established expert witness statements and oral testimony. In general, the Tribunal maintains a very serious responsibility, when considering site-specific applications of this nature and must carefully provide its rationale, with careful attention to the legislative framework outlined above. A balanced approach in this matter, must weigh the benefits of compact, creative, and well-designed density and attention to natural heritage, along the well-established Brock Road arterial corridor, and evaluate the Proposal as it relates to the surrounding area and its neighbourhood character. [98] Brock Road is clearly a strategic corridor that provides high-use transit availability now and will expand more significantly into the future. It is precisely these opportunities that allow for new housing in areas where growth should occur, as demonstrated, where there are also a variety of benefits that exist from efficient use of municipal infrastructure both in the immediate area, and the broader community. [99] The Tribunal concludes that the Proposal appropriately and creatively factors in these current conditions along the Brock Road transit corridor, the Brock Ridge - 263 - 44 OLT-23-000498 Neighbourhood and surrounding area. The Applicant’s comprehensive evidence provides a solid foundational basis for support of this Proposal. [100] The Tribunal has also given appropriate regard to the Council decision adopting the recommendation of the Committee refusing the Applications, noting its unanimous disagreement with recommendations in full support of the Proposal, from their own Planning staff, the Region, and all relevant agencies and departments. Notwithstanding this final issue, it is the determination of the Tribunal that the height, density, design, massing, and built form all transition well with the surrounding community. The Proposal represents good planning, enhancing public safety, and will combine significant long-term economic benefits that will follow along this very important corridor. [101] Finally, in addition to weighing the merits of the Appeals and the Proposal, the Tribunal should also be aware of ongoing City, Regional, and Provincial updates and new initiatives associated with their respective policies and guidelines. As mentioned earlier in this Decision, the Region, and City have recently pursued some new policy initiatives and are attempting to update their guidelines and requirements, reflecting many of the current and future housing and economic challenges that they, among others are confronted with. Provincial legislation and policy documents also continue to evolve around transit- supportive communities. Intensification on lands that are adjacent to existing and planned frequent transit corridors are active opportunities for growth and increased densities. It is worth reiterating the importance of this, as it applies to Brock Road specifically in this circumstance, with its widening to six or seven lanes, allowing the City to expand on these new density, tied to transportation enhancements. [102] The timing of the Proposal and the overall redevelopment of the Subject Site, with the natural heritage conveyance component is precisely the right fit and has effectively demonstrated that a site-specific Decision of the Tribunal is well-deserved in this instance. Allowing a well-designed plan at the Subject Site is a reasonable, balanced, and pragmatic choice. The Proposal: has appropriate regard to the legislative framework relating to s. 2 of - 264 - 45 OLT-23-000498 the Act; maintains consistency with the PPS; and conforms with the GP, the DROP, the COP, and the City ZBL. ORDER [103] THE TRIBUNAL ORDERS THAT: 1. The Appeal pursuant to s. 22(7) of the Planning Act by Brock Road Duffins Forest Inc. is allowed, and the Official Plan for the City of Pickering is amended as set out in Attachment 1 to this Order, and 2. The Appeal pursuant to s. 34(11) of the Planning Act by Brock Road Duffins Forest Inc. is allowed, and the municipality is directed to amend By-law 3036 as amended by By-law 7085/10, as set out in Attachment 2 to this Order. The Tribunal authorizes the municipal clerk of the City of Pickering to assign a number to this by-law for record-keeping purposes; and, 3. The Appeal pursuant to s. 51(34) of the Planning Act by Brock Road Duffins Forest Inc. is allowed, and the Draft Plan of Subdivision is authorized as set out in Attachment 3 to this Order. [104] THE TRIBUNAL FURTHER ORDERS THAT the Appeal pursuant to s. 41(12) of the Planning Act is allowed, in principle, with the final Order withheld pending confirmation that the Owner has entered into a Site Plan Agreement with the City of Pickering, which shall include all final plans and drawings as well as securities (see Exhibit 2I, Tab H, pp. 82-94). Such approval shall include conditions associated with the Owner’s settlement with Kindwin (Brock) Development Corporation (included as Exhibit 3, s. 4), associated with cost recovery. - 265 - 46 OLT-23-000498 [105] The Member shall remain seized of this Appeal and may be spoken to regarding either: a) A settlement hearing; or b) A contested hearing at which the Tribunal shall decide/settle any unresolved matters. “Steven T. Mastoras” STEVEN T. MASTORAS MEMBER Ontario Land Tribunal Website: www.olt.gov.on.ca Telephone: 416-212-6349 Toll Free: 1-866-448-2248 The Conservation Review Board, the Environmental Review Tribunal, the Local Planning Appeal Tribunal and the Mining and Lands Tribunal are amalgamated and continued as the Ontario Land Tribunal (“Tribunal”). Any reference to the preceding tribunals or the former Ontario Municipal Board is deemed to be a reference to the Tribunal. - 266 - 47 OLT-23-000498 ATTACHMENT “1” - 267 - 48 OLT-23-000498 - 268 - 49 OLT-23-000498 - 269 - 50 OLT-23-000498 - 270 - 51 OLT-23-000498 - 271 - - 272 - 53 OLT-23-000498 - 273 - 54 OLT-23-000498 - 274 - 55 OLT-23-000498 - 275 - 56 OLT-23-000498 - 276 - 57 OLT-23-000498 - 277 - 58 OLT-23-000498 - 278 - 59 OLT-23-000498 - 279 - 60 OLT-23-000498 - 280 - 61 OLT-23-000498 - 281 - 62 OLT-23-000498 - 282 - 63 OLT-23-000498 - 283 - 64 OLT-23-000498 - 284 - 65 OLT-23-000498 - 285 - 66 OLT-23-000498 - 286 - 67 OLT-23-000498 - 287 - 68 OLT-23-000498 - 288 - 69 OLT-23-000498 - 289 - 70 OLT-23-000498 ATTACHMENT “3” - 290 - 71 OLT-23-000498 - 291 - 72 OLT-23-000498 - 292 - 73 OLT-23-000498 - 293 - 74 OLT-23-000498 - 294 - 75 OLT-23-000498 - 295 - 76 OLT-23-000498 - 296 - 77 OLT-23-000498 - 297 - 78 OLT-23-000498 - 298 - 79 OLT-23-000498 - 299 - OLT Case No. OLT-23-000498 July 8, 2024 The Corporation of the City of Pickering By-law No. 8135/24 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, Part of Lot 18, Concession 2 South, Now Parts 1 to 12 , 40R-28897, City of Pickering (A 05/20) Whereas the Council of The Corporation of the City of Pickering received an application to rezone the subject lands being Part of Part of Lot 18, Concession 2 South, Now Parts 1 to 12, 40R-28897, in the City of Pickering to permit a high-density, residential development; And whereas an amendment to Zoning By-law 3036, as amended by By-law 7085/10, is therefore deemed necessary; Now therefore the Council of The Corporation of the City of Pickering hereby enacts as follows: 1.Schedules I, II, and III Schedules I, II, and III to this By-law with notations and references shown thereon are hereby declared to be part of this By-law. 2.Area Restricted The provisions of this By-law shall apply to those lands being Part of Lot 18, Concession 2 South, Now Parts 1 to 12, 40R-28897, in the City of Pickering, designated “RHII-6”, “RMI-7”, “OS-PP” & “OS-HL” on Schedule I to this By-law. 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)“Amenity Space” means the total passive or active recreational area provided on a lot for the personal, shared or communal use of the residents of a building or buildings, and includes balconies, patios, rooftop gardens and other similar features, but does not include indoor laundry or locker facilities. (2)“Balcony” means an attached covered or uncovered platform projecting from the face of an exterior wall, including above a porch, which is only directly accessible from within a building, usually surrounded by a balustrade or railing, and does not have direct exterior access to grade. - 300 - By-law No. 8135/24 Page 2 (3)“Bay Window” means a window with at least three panels set at different angles to create a projection from the outer wall of a building, and includes a bow window. (4)“Block” means all land fronting on one side of a street between the nearest streets, intersecting, meeting or crossing said street. (5)“Build-to-Zone” shall mean an area of land in which all or part of a building elevation of one or more buildings is to be located. (6)“Building” means a structure occupying an area greater than 10 square metres and consisting of any combination of walls, roof and floor but shall not include a mobile home. (7)“Building, Main” means a building in which is carried on the principal purpose for which the lot is used. (8)“Daylight Triangle” means an area free of buildings, structures, fences and hedges up to 0.9 metres in height and which area is to be determined by measuring, from the point of intersection of street lines on a corner lot, the distance required by this By-law along each such street line and joining such points with a straight line. The triangular-shaped land between the intersecting street lines and the straight line joining the points the required distance along the street lines is the daylight triangle. (9)“Development Agreement” means an executed contract between a developer/property owner and the City of Pickering that is required in order to implement development and may include a subdivision agreement, site plan agreement, or other similar agreements for development. (10)“Dwelling” includes: a)“Accessory Dwelling Unit” means a separate dwelling unit subsidiary to and located in the same building as an associated principal dwelling unit; and its creation does not result in the creation of a semi-detached dwelling, duplex dwelling, three-unit dwelling or converted dwelling. b)“Apartment Dwelling” means a residential use building containing four or more principal dwelling units where the units are connected by a common corridor or vestibule, other than a townhouse dwelling or stacked dwelling. c)“Back-to-Back Townhouse Dwelling” means a residential use building containing four or more attached principal dwelling units divided vertically where each unit is divided by common walls, including a common rear wall without a rear yard setback, and whereby each unit has an independent entrance to the unit from the outside accessed through the front yard or exterior side yard. - 301 - By-law No. 8135/24 Page 3 d)“Block Townhouse Dwelling” means a residential use building containing three or more attached principal dwelling units divided vertically, and where all dwelling units are located on one lot and accessed from a private street, laneway or common condominium aisle. e)“Dwelling Unit” means a residential unit that: i)consists of a self-contained set of rooms located in a building or structure; ii)is used or intended for use as a residential premise; iii)contains kitchen and bathroom facilities that are intended for the use of the unit only; and iv)is not a mobile home or any vehicle. (11)“Existing” means existing as of the date of the enactment of the provision that contains that word. (12)“Floor Area” means the total area of all floors of a building within the outside walls. (13)“Floor Area, Net” means the total area of all floors of a building measured from the interior faces of the exterior walls or demising walls, but does not include the following areas: (a)Motor vehicle parking and bicycle parking below established grade; (b)Motor vehicle parking and bicycle parking at or above established grade; (c)Loading spaces and related corridors used for loading purposes; (d)Rooms for storage, storage lockers, washrooms, electrical, utility, mechanical and ventilation; (e)Indoor amenity space required by this By-law; (f)Elevator, garbage and ventilating shafts; (g)Mechanical penthouse; and (h)Stairwells in the building. (14)“Floor Space Index” means the total net floor area of all buildings on a lot divided by the total area of the lot. (15)“Grade” or “Established Grade” means the average elevation of the finished level of the ground adjoining all exterior walls of a building. (16)“Gross Floor Area” means the total area of each floor whether located above, at or below grade, measured between the exterior faces of the exterior walls of the building at each floor level but excluding any porch, veranda, cellar, mechanical room or penthouse, or areas dedicated to parking within the building. For the purposes of this definition, the walls of an inner court shall be deemed to be exterior walls. - 302 - By-law No. 8135/24 Page 4 (17)“Gross Leasable Floor Area” means the total floor area designed for tenant occupancy and exclusive use, including basements, mezzanines and upper floor areas if any; expressed in square metres and measured from the centre line of joint partitions and from outside wall faces. (18)“Ground Floor” means the floor of a building at or first above grade. (19)“Ground Floor Area” means the gross floor area only on the ground floor. (20)“Height” means 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. When the regulation establishes height in storeys, means the number of storeys. The height requirements of this By-law shall not apply to rooftop mechanical penthouses. (21)“Landscaped Area” means an outdoor area on a lot comprising trees, plants, decorative stonework, retaining walls, walkways, or other landscape or architectural elements, excluding aisles and areas for loading, parking or storing of vehicles. (22)“Lane” means a thoroughfare not intended for general traffic circulation that provides means of vehicular access to the rear of a lot where the lot also fronts or flanks onto a street, or where a lot fronts onto public or private open space. The lane may be maintained by a condominium corporation as a private road condominium or by a government authority. (23)“Loading Space” means an unobstructed area of land which is provided and maintained upon the same lot or lots upon which the principal use is located and which area is provided for the temporary parking of one commercial motor vehicle while merchandise or materials are being loaded or unloaded from such vehicles. (24)“Lot” means a parcel of land fronting on a street, whether or not occupied by a building or structure. (25)“Lot Area” means the total horizontal area of a lot. (26)“Lot Line” means a line delineating any boundary of a lot. (27)“Main Wall” means a primary exterior front, rear or side wall of a building, not including permitted projections. (28)“Park, Private” means an area of land not under the jurisdiction of a public authority that is designed or maintained for active or passive recreational purposes. (29)“Parking Area” means one or more parking spaces, including related aisles, for the parking or storage of vehicles. - 303 - By-law No. 8135/24 Page 5 (30)“Parking Garage” means a building, or part thereof, used for the parking of vehicles and may include any permitted use in the first storey, but shall not include any area where vehicles for sale or repair are kept or stored. A parking garage includes underground parking and a parking structure. (31)“Parking Lot” means a lot or portion thereof provided for the parking of motor vehicles accessory or incidental to the main use. (32)“Parking Space” means an unobstructed area of land that is accessible by an aisle, having access to a street or lane that is reserved for the purpose of the temporary parking or storage of one motor vehicle. (33)“Parking Space, Bicycle” means an area used exclusively for parking or storing a bicycle. (34)“Parking Structure” means a building or portion thereof, containing one or more parking spaces. (35)“Patio” means an outdoor area where seating accommodation can be provided and/or where meals or refreshments are served to the public for consumption. (36)“Podium” means the base of a building, structure or part thereof located at or above established grade that projects from the tower portion of the building. (37)“Point Tower” means a compact and slender building form. (38)“Porch” means a roofed deck or portico structure with direct access to the ground that is attached to the exterior wall of a building. (39)“Premises” means the whole or part of lands, buildings or structures, or any combination of these. (40)“Primary Entrance Door” means the principal entrance by which the public enters or exits a building or individual retail/commercial unit or the resident enters or exits a dwelling unit. (41)“Primary Window” means all windows except bathroom, hallway, closet or kitchen windows. (42)“Setback” means the distance between a building and a lot line. In calculating the setback the horizontal distance from the respective lot line shall be used. (43)“Storey” means that portion of a building other than a basement, cellar, or attic, included between the surface of any floor, and the surface of the floor, roof deck or ridge next above it. (44)“Storey, First” means the storey with its floor closest to grade and its ceiling more than 1.8 metres above grade. - 304 - By-law No. 8135/24 Page 6 (45)“Street” means a public highway but does not include a lane or a King’s Highway (Highway 401). Where a 0.3 metre reserve abuts a street, or where a daylight triangle abuts a street, for the purposes of determining setbacks the street shall be deemed to include the 0.3 metre reserve and/or the daylight triangle, however, nothing herein shall be interpreted as granting a public right of access over the 0.3 metre reserve or as an assumption of the 0.3 metre reserve as a public highway for maintenance purposes under the Municipal Act. (46)“Street Line” means the dividing line between a lot and a street. (47)“Street, Private” means: a)a right-of-way or roadway that is used by vehicles and is maintained by a condominium corporation; b)a private road condominium, which provides access to individual freehold lots; c)a roadway maintained by a corporation to provide vehicular and pedestrian access to parking lots and individual retail/commercial units; and d)a private right-of-way over private property, that affords access to lots abutting a private road, but is not maintained by a public body and is not a lane. (48)“Structure” means anything that is erected, built or constructed of parts joined together with a fixed location on the ground, or attached to something having a fixed location in or on the ground and shall include buildings, walls or any sign, but does not include fences below six feet in height or in-ground swimming pools. (49)“Tower” means the storeys within that portion of a building or structure or part thereof located above the podium. (50)“Tower Floor Plate” means the average floor area of all storeys within that portion of a building or structure or part thereof located above the podium, measured to the exterior faces of exterior walls of each storey of a building or structure. (51)“Uncovered Platform” means an attached or freestanding structure not covered by a roof, which is located on the same level as or lower than the first storey of the building associated with the platform. 5.Permitted Uses and Zone Regulations (1)Permitted Uses (“RHII-6” Zone) No person shall within the lands zoned “RHII-6” on Schedule I to this By- law, use any lot or erect, alter, or use any building or structure for any purpose except the following: a)Apartment Dwelling - 305 - By-law No. 8135/24 Page 7 (2)Permitted Uses (“RMI-7” Zone) No person shall within the lands zoned “RMI-7” on Schedule I to this By-law, use any lot or erect, alter, or use any building or structure for any purpose except the following: a)Block Townhouse Dwelling b)Back-to-Back Townhouse Dwelling (3)Zone Regulations (“RHII-6” & “RMI-7” Zone) No person shall within the lands zoned “RHII-6” & “RMI-7” on Schedule I to this By-law, use any lot or erect, alter, or use any building or structure except in accordance with the following provisions: “RHII-6” “RMI-7” a)Floor Space Index (FSI)i)the area shown on Schedule I to this By-law, zoned “RHII-6”, “RMI-7” and “OS-PP” shall be the extent of lands for the purposes of calculating FSI ii)minimum FSI – 0.75 iii)maximum FSI – 2.02 b)Number of Dwelling Units i)minimum 74 units ii)maximum 372 units c)Building Height i)the maximum height of a building is specified by the number following the HT symbol as shown on Schedule III to this By-law ii)notwithstanding section 5 (3) c) i) above, enclosed stairwells providing roof access may exceed the maximum building height as shown on Schedule III to a maximum of 2.7 metres d)Building Location and Setbacks i)no building or part of a building, or structure shall be erected outside of a building envelope, as shown on Schedule II to this By-law ii)no building or portion of a building or structure shall be erected within the building envelope, unless a minimum of 80 percent of the entire length of the build-to-zone, as shown on Schedule II to this By-law, contains a continuous portion of the exterior wall of a building iii)notwithstanding section 5 (3) d) i) above, buildings or portions of buildings not exceeding 4.5 metres in height and used solely for stairwell access to an underground parking garage or waste collection are permitted to be located beyond the building envelope, provided such buildings are setback a minimum of 7.0 metres from all lots lines - 306 - By-law No. 8135/24 Page 8 “RHII-6” “RMI-7” e)Setback for Below Grade Parking Structures i)minimum – 0.0 metres ii)notwithstanding Section 5 (3) e) i) above, a minimum setback of 1.5 metres shall be provided from a lot line abutting a “S4-11” zone f)Podium Requirements i)minimum height of podium – 10.5 metres (3-storeys) ii)maximum height of podium –13.5 metres (4-storeys) Nil g)Tower Floor Plate i)maximum tower floor plate for a building greater than 37.5 metres in height – 810 square metres ii)notwithstanding Section 5 (3) g) i) above, balconies shall be excluded from the calculation of tower floor plate Nil h)Parking Requirements i)1.0 parking space per dwelling unit i)2.0 parking spaces per dwelling unit i)Visitor Parking Requirements i)0.25 of a parking space per dwelling unit j)Private Amenity Requirements i)a minimum of one balcony, deck or private patio shall be provided for each dwelling unit ii)minimum area – 3.0 square metres i)a minimum of one balcony, deck, or rooftop patio shall be provided for each back-to-back townhouse dwelling unit, which shall have a minimum area of 4.5 square metres k)Common Amenity Space Requirements i)minimum – 2.0 square metres of indoor amenity space per dwelling unit ii)minimum – 2.0 square metres of outdoor amenity space per dwelling unit (a minimum contiguous area of 40.0 square metres must be provided in a common location) - 307 - By-law No. 8135/24 Page 9 “RHII-6” “RMI-7” iii)lands zoned “OS-PP” on Schedule I to this By-law, are permitted to contribute to the common amenity space requirement outlined under Section 5 (3) k) ii) above l)Landscaped Area i)minimum – 10 percent of land area ii)the area shown on Schedule I to this By-law, zoned “RHII- 6” and “RMI-7” shall be the extent of lands for the purpose of calculating landscaped area (4)Permitted Uses (“OS-HL” Zone) No person shall within the lands designated “OS-HL” on Schedule I attached hereto use any lot or erect, alter or use any building or structure for any purpose except the following: (a)preservation and conservation of the natural environment, soil and wildlife; and (b)resource management. (5)Zone Requirements (“OS-HL” Zone) (a)No buildings or structures shall be permitted to be erected, nor shall the placing or removal of fill be permitted, except where buildings or structures are used only for purposes of flood and erosion control, resource management, or pedestrian trail and walkway purposes. (6)Permitted Uses (“OS-PP”) No person shall within the lands designated “OS-HL” on Schedule I attached hereto use any lot or erect, alter or use any building or structure for any purpose except the following: (a)Private Park 6.Special Provisions (“RHII-6” & “RMI-7” Zones) (1)Sections 5.21.1, 5.21.2(a), 5.21.2(b), 5.21.2(d), 5.21.2(e), 5.21.2(f), 5.22 and 6.4 of By-law 3036, as amended, shall not apply to the lands zoned “RHII-6” and “RMI-7” on Schedule I attached to this By-law. (2)A private street shall have a minimum width of 6.5 metres. (3)Waste shall be stored within a fully enclosed building, structure or partially underground structure. (4)Air Conditioners are not permitted to be located between a building and a street, however are permitted to be located on a balcony or roof or on a private patio at or below grade. - 308 - By-law No. 8135/24 Page 10 (5)Permitted Encroachments No part of the building envelope shall be obstructed except as follows: (a)Projections such as awnings, canopies, window sills, chimney breasts, fireplaces, belt courses, cornices, pilasters, eaves, piers, eave troughs, and other similar architectural features may be permitted to project a maximum of 2.0 metres beyond the building envelope as illustrated on Schedule II to this By-law, but shall maintain a minimum setback of 0.6 metres to a lot line. (b)Any stairs, including to a porch or any associated landing, uncovered platform, covered platform, and any unenclosed ramp for wheelchair access may encroach beyond the building envelope no closer than 0.45 metres to a lot line. (c)A balcony, porch, uncovered platform or covered platform may encroach beyond the building envelope to a maximum of 2.0 metres or half the distance of the required setback, whichever is less. (d)A bay, box or bow window, with or without foundation, having a maximum width of 4.0 metres may encroach beyond the building envelope to a maximum of 0.6 metres or half the distance, whichever is less. (6)Height Exceptions (a)Notwithstanding Section 5 (3) c) and f), the following building elements may exceed the maximum building heights: (a)equipment used for the functional operation of the building and structures including electrical, utility, mechanical and ventilation equipment, enclosed stairwells roof access, maintenance equipment storage, chimneys, vents, and window washing equipment; (b)architectural features, parapets, elements and structures associated with a green roof; (c)planters, landscaping features, guard rails, divider screens on a balcony and/or terrace; and (d)trellises, pergolas and unenclosed structures providing safety or wind/noise protection to rooftop amenity space. (7)Yards Abutting Daylight Triangles Where a lot abuts a daylight triangle, the setback provisions shall be measured as if the daylight triangle did not exist, provided all buildings are setback 0.6 metres from the daylight triangle with the exception of window sills, belt courses, cornices, eaves, eave troughs and architectural elements, such as the architectural projections from the podium and canopies, which may project to within 0.3 metres of the daylight triangle. - 309 - By-law No. 8135/24 Page 11 (8)Bicycle Parking Space Requirements a)Minimum number of bicycle parking spaces: i)0.5 of a space per apartment dwelling unit; and ii)1.0 space per block townhouse dwelling and back-to-back townhouse dwelling; b)Where the number of bicycle parking spaces exceeds 50 spaces, a minimum of 25 percent of the total required must be located within: i)a building or structure; ii)a secure area such as a supervised parking lot or enclosure; or iii)bicycle lockers. c)Where four or more bicycle parking spaces are provided in a common parking area, each space must contain a parking rack that is securely anchored to the ground and attached to a heavy base such as concrete. d)Dimensions: i)if located in a horizontal position (on the ground): a minimum length of 1.6 metres and a minimum width of 0.6 metres; ii)if located in a vertical position (on the wall): a minimum length of 1.5 metres and a minimum width of 0.5 metres; iii)if stacked: a minimum length of 1.5 metres and a minimum width of 0.45 metres. (9)Loading Standards Where a loading space is provided, the following regulations apply: (a)the minimum dimensions of a loading space are 3.5 metres in width and 12.0 metres in length, with a minimum vertical clearance of 4.2 metres; (b)a loading space shall abut the building for which the loading space is provided; (c)an unenclosed loading space located above established grade shall be set back a minimum of 10.0 metres from a street line; (d)an enclosed loading space located above established grade shall not be located beyond the building envelope as shown on Schedule III to this By-law. - 310 - By-law No. 8135/24 Page 12 7.Special Provisions (“RMI-7” Zone) (1)Private Garage Requirements: (a)Minimum one private garage per block townhouse dwelling, the vehicular entrance of which shall be located not less than 6.0 metres from a private street. (b)A private garage shall have a minimum width of 3.0 metres and a minimum depth of 6.0 metres provided, however, the width may include one interior step and the depth may include two interior steps. (2)A driveway for a block townhouse dwelling shall not exceed the width of the unit to which it provides access. (3)Rooftop private amenity space shall not be permitted for block townhouse dwellings. 8.By-law 3036 By-law 3036, is hereby further amended only to the extent necessary to give effect to the provisions of this By-law as it applies to the area set out in Schedule I to this By-law. Definitions and subject matters not specifically dealt with in this By-law shall be governed by relevant provisions of By-law 3036. 9.Effective Date That this By-law shall come into force in accordance with the provisions of the Planning Act. Note: Written Decision of the Ontario Land Tribunal issued on July 8, 2024 - 311 - Br o c k R o a d Saffron Drive Usman Road i N Schedule I to By-Law 8135/24 Approved by the Ontario Land TribunalWritten Decision issued on July 8, 2024 OS-HL 88.7m 107.7m 1 0 . 4 m 16 . 3 m 21. 8 m 1 6 . 9 m 75.0m 58 . 5 m 13. 7 m RHII-6 RMI-7 101.1m 29 . 5 m 22.5m 36 . 0 m 22.7m 30 . 7 m OS-PP 82.7m 15 6 . 4 m 12 7 . 7 m 304.6m - 312 - Br o c k R o a d Usman Road Saffron Drive Su n f l o w e r R o a d i N Schedule II to By-Law 8135/24 Approved by the Ontario Land Tribunal Written Decision issued on July 8, 2024 6.4m 19.3m 10.0m 10.0m 3.7m3.7m 1.6m 3.7m 4.0m 3.5m 3.5m 5.5m 5.5m 7.0m 7.0m 90.5m 68.0m 24.6m 148.9m 38.6m 45 . 2 m 3.3m 3.0m 2.0m57 . 2 m Build-to-Zone (5.0 metres) Building Envelope 4.9m - 313 - Br o c k R o a d Usman Road Saffron Drive Su n f l o w e r R o a d i N Schedule III to By-Law 8135/24 Approved by the Ontario Land Tribunal Written Decision issued on July 8, 2024 HT: 20.5m (Max: 6 Storeys) HT: 15.0m (Max: 4 Storeys) HT: 63.5m (Max: 20 Storeys) HT: 11.2m (Max: 3 Storeys) HT: 13.5m (Max: 3 Storeys) 10 . 4 m 16 . 3 m 21. 8 m 1 6 . 9 m 13. 7 m 87.2m 70.7m 38.5m 71.5m 30 . 5 m 156.0m 42.6m 32 . 9 m 12 . 5 m 22 . 7 m 41.2m 52.7m 12 . 4 m 11 . 0 m 35 . 1 m 41.9m 8.5m - 314 - PROCEEDING COMMENCED UNDER subsection 22(7) of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P. 13, as amended Applicant/Appellant: Brock Road Duffins Forest Inc. Subject: Request to amend the Official Plan – Refusal of request Description: To permit a total of 372 residential units comprising of a 20 and 6-storey building connected by a 4-storey podium and townhouse units Reference Number: OPA 20-001/P Property Address: 2055 Brock Road Municipality/UT: Pickering/Durham OLT Case No: OLT-23-000498 OLT Lead Case No: OLT-23-000498 OLT Case Name: Brock Road Duffins Forest Inc. v Pickering (City) PROCEEDING COMMENCED UNDER subsection 34(11) of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P. 13, as amended Applicant/Appellant: Brock Road Duffins Forest Inc. Subject: Application to amend the Zoning By-law – Refusal of application Description: To permit a total of 372 residential units comprising of a 20 and 6-storey building connected by a 4-storey podium and townhouse units Reference Number: A 05/20 Property Address: 2055 Brock Road Municipality/UT: Pickering/Durham OLT Case No: OLT-23-000499 OLT Lead Case No: OLT-23-000498 Ontario Land Tribunal Tribunal ontarien de l’aménagement du territoire ISSUE DATE: July 08, 2024 CASE NO(S).: OLT-23-000498 Written Decision from the Ontario Land Tribunal - 315 - 2 OLT-23-000498 PROCEEDING COMMENCED UNDER subsection 51(34) of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P. 13, as amended Applicant/Appellant: Brock Road Duffins Forest Inc. Subject: Proposed Plan of Subdivision - Refusal by Approval Authority Description: To permit a total of 372 residential units comprising of a 20 and 6-storey building connected by a 4-storey podium and townhouse units Reference Number: SP-2020-01 Property Address: 2055 Brock Road Municipality/UT: Pickering/Durham OLT Case No: OLT-23-000501 OLT Lead Case No: OLT-23-000498 PROCEEDING COMMENCED UNDER subsection 41(12) of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P. 13, as amended Applicant/Appellant: Brock Road Duffins Forest Inc. Subject: Site Plan Description: To permit a total of 372 residential units comprising of a 20 and 6-storey building connected by a 4-storey podium and townhouse units Reference Number: S07/23 Property Address: 2055 Brock Road Municipality/UT: Pickering/Durham OLT Case No: OLT-23-000613 OLT Lead Case No: OLT-23-000498 Heard: April 29 to May 9, 2024, by Video Hearing (Excluding May 8, 2024) APPEARANCES: Parties Counsel Brock Road Duffins Park Inc. L. Longo City of Pickering J. Mark Joblin Kindwin (Brock) Development Corporation (“Kindwin”) A. Lusty (Present for Opening and Closing Submissions only) - 316 - 3 OLT-23-000498 DECISION DELIVERED BY STEVEN T. MASTORAS AND ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL INTRODUCTION [1] The Tribunal held an eight-day video hearing (“Hearing”) on appeals relating to applications for an Official Plan Amendment (“OPA”), a Zoning By-law Amendment (“ZBA”), a Draft Plan of Subdivision (“DPS”), and a Site Plan Amendment (“SPA”) pursuant to Sections 22(7), 34(11), 51(39), and 41(12) of the Planning Act (“Act”), respectively (together the “Applications”/“Appeals”). [2] The Appeals are the result of a decision by the City of Pickering (“City”), in the Region of Durham (“Region”), refusing the Applications. The property address is known as 2055 Brock Road (“Subject Site”), now owned by Brock Road Duffins Park Inc. (“Appellant”/“Applicant”). [3] The associated SPA application was submitted to the City in March 2023, just prior to the City’s consideration of the OPA, ZBA, and DPS. The SPA Appeal application was subsequently filed with the Tribunal on June 28, 2023, pursuant to s. 41(12) of the Act and has been administratively consolidated with the three Appeals previously referenced under the lead case file OLT-23-000498. [4] As a brief outline, the Appellant is seeking approval to develop the Subject Site consisting of four development blocks, a total of 372 residential units, at a maximum floor space index (“FSI”) of 2.02, and a density of 286 units per hectare (“UPH”) (“Proposal”). [5] The Applicant is seeking a Tribunal decision allowing the Appeals associated with the OPA and ZBA in their final form as presented to the Tribunal, and that the Tribunal also allow the DPS appeal with conditions (Exhibits 6A and 6B). Additionally, the Applicant is seeking a further Tribunal decision allowing the SPA appeal, in principle, and in accordance with plans prepared by Kohn Partnership Architects Inc. Architects Inc. (“Kohn”) and is requesting that the Tribunal withhold a Final Order associated with the SPA appeal until a final draft instrument is agreed to between the Parties. - 317 - 4 OLT-23-000498 [6] The Tribunal notes that the City's Development and Planning Staff Report dated April 3, 2023 (“PSR”) (Exhibit 2C, Tab F) recommended approval of the proposed OPA (OPA 20-001/P), ZBA (A 05/20), and DPS (SP-2020-01) Applications, along with the requisite instruments currently before the Tribunal, in full support of the Proposal. [7] For the following reasons, the Tribunal allows the first three appeals and allows the more recent SPA appeal, in principle, with the final Order withheld subject to conditions outlined in the Order below. Following the Tribunal’s consideration of the policy and legislative framework and based on the evidence, analysis, and conclusions, the Proposal represents good land use planning and is in the public interest. PRELIMINARY MATTER [8] The Parties advised the Tribunal that a Settlement on the issue of cost recovery between Kindwin and the Appellant, completed on March 26, 2024, maintains specific conditions associated with the SPA and DPS. The agreement between the Parties (Exhibit 3) refers to proportionate cost recovery of services including land, roads, sanitary sewers, stormwater services, and utilities from which the Applicant will benefit, subject to the decision of the Tribunal relating to the Appeals. With the consent of the Parties, the Tribunal determined that Kindwin could be excused for the balance of the Hearing and was provided the opportunity to return for closing submissions. SUBJECT SITE AND SURROUNDING AREA [9] The Subject Site consists of a total size of approximately 5.047 ha and is just north of West Duffins Creek, abutting the Duffins Creek Valley Lands, and north of Finch Avenue, which ends at Kingston Road to the east of Brock Road. The overall property has a 230 metres (“m”) frontage along Brock Road and approximately 120 metres of frontage along Usman Road (south). The total proposed developable area is 1.311 ha. - 318 - 5 OLT-23-000498 [10] This developable area of the Subject Site at the south-east corner of Brock Road and Usman Road (south) is directly across from the Pickering Islamic Centre (“PIC”) to the north, which also fronts on Brock Road at the northeast corner of Usman Road (south). There are several neighbouring blocks of townhomes with some detached homes to the north and north/east and single-family detached homes that abut the west of Brock Road, which are setback further to the west and separated by Rayleen Crescent, all forming part of the Brock Ridge Neighbourhood. [11] There are three community parks in the immediate area, including Usman Park to the north, Brock Ridge Community Park to the southwest, and Major Oaks Park to the northwest. Pedestrian sidewalks currently exist along the perimeter of the Subject Site on Brock Road and Usman Road (south), and there are no current pedestrian crossings at this intersection. There is also a Stormwater Management Pond along a portion of Saffron Drive (Exhibit 2I, pgs.19, and 25). THE PROPOSAL [12] The Proposal consists of a twenty-storey (“Block A”/“Tower 1”) located at the south- west corner of the development area connected to a six-storey (“Block A”/“Tower 2”) to the north along a portion of Brock Road and to the east along Usman Road (south). They are both linked by a four-storey podium, containing a total of 328 units. Block A/Towers 1 and 2 are designed to share a common exterior rooftop-amenity-area at level 5 between the two towers and maintain a separation distance of 15 m. [13] A new north-south internal roadway with pedestrian sidewalks and crossings is a component of the design, with an oval/circular drop-off connection, barrier-free entrances, service/loading areas, 10 short-term surface parking spaces, and below-grade access to parking south of Usman Road (south), separating the remaining 10-townhouse units (“Block B”) and 34 back-to-back townhouse units (“Block C” and “Block D”) at the easterly and southerly sections of the development envelope. As previously stated, a total of 372 residential units are contained in the Proposal, which represents a total residential density - 319 - 6 OLT-23-000498 of 286 UPH and an FSI of 2.02 rather than the permitted FSI of 2.32. The two-level, below- grade parking areas are designed to be constructed entirely within the development envelope up to the perimeter retaining walls, maximizing the footprint of the built form. [14] A proposed Privately-Owned Publicly Accessible Space (“POPS”) with an area of approximately 660.7 square metres (“m2”) is incorporated into the Subject Site design at the south end of the new public north-south roadway, which also abuts the oval/circular drop-off area. There are perimeter sidewalks with access to the POPS, which is also adjacent to a stairwell to the below-grade parking levels and an additional 6 short-term surface parking spaces nearby. Site Plan and Statistics are attached below (Exhibit 2E, pg. 5). [15] All Parties acknowledged that the Proposal identifies a significant portion of the overall property (3.736 ha) and that the associated buffer (Exhibit 2E, pg. 4, in grey hatching) would be conveyed to the Toronto Region Conservation Authority (“TRCA”) for long-term protection and preservation, as stipulated in the instruments submitted to the - 320 - 7 OLT-23-000498 Tribunal (Exhibits 6A and 6B), which will become part of the West Duffins Creek lands. This portion of the Subject Site is presently zoned Open Space Hazard Lands (“OS-HL”) under By-law 7085/10, and an easement for maintenance access approval is pending from the TRCA. LEGISLATIVE FRAMEWORK [16] The Proposal and its related planning instruments must be representative of good planning; have regard for matters of provincial interest in s. 2 of the Act; be consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement, 2020 (“PPS”); and conform with A Place to Grow: Growth Plan for the Greater Golden Horseshoe (“GP”). The Proposal must also conform with the Region of Durham Official Plan (“DROP”), the City Official Plan (“COP”), and the City Zoning By-law 3036 (“ZBL”). The proposed SPA must be compliant with applicable by- laws, and any conditions proposed must be reasonable and necessary, having appropriate regard to the nature of the Proposal. [17] Furthermore, s. 2.1(1) of the Act requires that the Tribunal must also have regard for the decision of the City of Pickering Council (“City Council”) made on May 9, 2023, and the information considered by it at the time the Applications were denied, despite the support of its Planning staff, and instructed its Counsel to appear at this Hearing to oppose the development with separately retained transportation and land use planning witnesses. HEARING EVIDENCE AND ANALYSIS [18] The following individuals were qualified without objection to provide opinion evidence to the Tribunal in their respective fields of expertise, as noted below: • For the Applicant – Dana Anderson – Land Use Planning; Kathryn Bell – Architectural and Urban Design; and Michael Linton – Transportation Engineering & Planning. - 321 - 8 OLT-23-000498 • For the City - Allan Ramsay – Land Use Planning; Robert Freedman – Urban Design; and Joshua de Boer – Transportation Engineering. [19] The written evidence considered for the purposes of the Hearing was marked in the following order: • Exhibit 1 - The original Affidavit of Service for Notice of the first Case Management Conference, dated August 2, 2023; • Exhibit 2 – Joint Document Book (Volumes A to K) (Volume G-Tab B- discarded); • Exhibit 3 – Minutes of Settlement (“MOS”) between Kindwin (Brock); Development Corporation, and the Applicant; and, • Exhibit 4 – Draft OPA; • Exhibit 5 – Draft ZBA; • Exhibit 6A and 6B – DPS with Conditions and Plan; • Exhibit 7 – Durham/Scarborough BRT Design; • Exhibit 8A and 8B – Kathryn Bell Curriculum Vitae and Acknowledgement of Expert’s Duty; • Exhibit 9 – Durham Region Official Plan Schedules; • Exhibit 10 – Ontario Transit Supportive Guidelines; - 322 - 9 OLT-23-000498 • Exhibit 11 – 2465 Brock Road Development Inc. - Planning Report (January 9, 2023); • Exhibit 12 – Architectural Sections; • Exhibit 13 – South Durham RT Map (Frequency 2024); • Exhibit 14 – ROPA 186 Maps (Schedule ‘C’); • Exhibit 15 – Final Appendix B (per de Boer Testimony); • Exhibit 16 – Brock Road/Dellbrook Avenue Intersection; • Exhibit 17 – City of Toronto Mid-Rise Avenue Study; and, • Exhibit 18 – City of Toronto, Downtown Tall Blocks Design Guidelines. ISSUES [20] In addition to the legislative framework evidence and analysis, the Hearing focused largely on the following key issues, based on much of the commonality from community input through Participant statements, with appropriate regard for the City Council decision refusing the Applications, and whether the development, as proposed: a) Represents good land use planning and urban design that is compatible with the existing low-rise Brock Ridge Neighbourhood area character; b) Maintains an appropriate level of intensification, with attention to height, density, shadow impact, and overlook; - 323 - 10 OLT-23-000498 c) Would result in undue adverse impacts to the surrounding area from a traffic/transportation/congestion/emergency service and pedestrian safety perspective, including the adequacy of proposed on-site parking for unit owners and visitors; and, d) Preserves natural heritage, enhances public parks and amenities, and enhances the quality of life in the community. PLANNING HISTORY OF THE SUBJECT SITE [21] Ms. Anderson was retained prior to this Proposal and has been directly involved with the Subject Site for several years. She provided the Tribunal with a detailed history of previous applications that came before the City and consultations around a number of different proposals. [22] In an attempt to gain a better understanding of the detailed history and evolution of the Subject Site, and for the benefit of the general public, the Tribunal has condensed the important details from Ms. Anderson’s chronological evidence leading up to the current Proposal, with the following summary: a) A previous 2010 site-specific zoning (H)RH/MU-3 through By-law 7085/10 (“ZBL-2010”) was approved, allowing a mixed-use proposal consisting of offices, ground-floor commercial retail, and twelve live-work townhomes with an H provision. As previously detailed, the West Duffins Creek lands component at that time was rezoned from the Greenbelt (“G”) zone to the current OS-HL zoning and was similarly expected to be conveyed to the TRCA; b) The property was purchased by a new owner (“Fortress”) in 2013, and by 2016, it became evident that although building permits were obtained, - 324 - 11 OLT-23-000498 construction did not proceed, and a separate ZBA application was filed consisting of twenty-five townhome units on the entirety of the property; c) In July 2017, the current Applicant acquired the Subject Site, and submitted a new application with a total of 59 townhomes, which was subsequently withdrawn around March 2018. In April 2019, a pre-consultation meeting with the City, and the Applicant resulted in a new proposal (April 2020); d) All of the requisite supporting studies for the new proposal were submitted to the City (Exhibit 2G, Tab A, para. 44), and the application, deemed complete in May 2020, was the subject of a community open house in September 2020. A Statutory Public Meeting was held in January 2021, and by February 2022, further revisions were adopted, including the expansion of the POPS, changes to setbacks, step backs, density, parking underground, landscaping, and buffering in Block C, with all supplementary requisite studies combined with City and Region history (see Exhibit 2G, Tab A, paras. 50-60); e) A second resubmission followed in October 2022 with a number of updates that led up to the current Proposal’s consideration in April 2023. The PSR of April 3, 2023, recommended support for the Proposal, which came before the City’s Planning and Development Committee (“Committee”) on April 24, 2023 (note: this Committee consists of all City Council Members). f) The Region confirmed its support for higher densities along the Brock Road corridor, including high-density residential development conducive to transit use, consistent with the PPS encouraging the efficient use of land, existing infrastructure, and conforms to the GP in an effort to meet the Region’s intensification targets in a compatible manner with the community. The TRCA and City Engineering also confirmed their support of the Proposal (Exhibit 2G, Tab A, paras. 61-64). - 325 - 12 OLT-23-000498 g) Despite Planning staff recommendations in support of the OPA, ZBA, and DPS, the Proposal was not approved by the Committee, which was ultimately adopted at City Council on May 3, 2023. Following the Clerk’s notice of refusal of the Applications, Appeals to the Tribunal were submitted by the Applicant, and the Proposal in its current form is now before the Tribunal; h) Through the Appeals, the proposed OPA will establish a redesignation of the Subject Site from “Urban Residential Areas – Medium Density Areas” to “Urban Residential Areas – High Density Areas” and “Open Space System – Natural Areas”, and add a site-specific policy for the portion of the lands designated as “Urban Residential Areas – High Density Areas” to permit a maximum residential density of 286 [UPH], to facilitate the Proposal. The instrument is attached to this Order (Exhibit 4) below; i) The current ZBL-2010 is proposed to change to a site-specific “RHII-6”, “RMI-7”, “OS-PP”, and OS-HL” to permit a high-density residential development consisting of a twenty-storey building containing 328 units, 34 three storey back-to-back townhomes, and 10 three storey townhomes. The ZBA will include a number of provisions referenced in her witness statement (Exhibit 2G, Tab A, paras. 92-93). The instrument is also attached to this Order (Exhibit 5) below; and, j) The proposed DPS is intended to establish a single development block, including the portion of the valleylands for the West Duffins Creek and an associated buffer to be conveyed to the TRCA. The instrument is also attached to this Order (Exhibits 6A and 6B) below. [23] Land use planning evidence is outlined in greater detail later in this Decision, as the Tribunal firstly finds it appropriate to initially provide its analysis of Transportation, Architecture and Urban Design issues. - 326 - 13 OLT-23-000498 TRANSPORTATION EVIDENCE Transit, Traffic, and Parking [24] A significant portion of the Hearing considered evidence provided by Mr. Linton and Mr. de Boer, primarily resulting from a substantial number of community concerns around issues of traffic and pedestrian safety, as outlined in numerous written Participant statements. After careful review of their Agreed Statement of Facts (“ASF”) submissions, and the testimony from both expert Transportation witnesses, it became increasingly evident that there was a limited difference of opinion regarding several issues. The Tribunal determined that both witnesses acknowledged at some point in their testimony that the following conditions existed in relation to the Proposal itself, including but not limited to the following: a) Brock Road is a busy “Type A” arterial roadway functioning as a present-day high-order transit corridor, with four High-Frequency Bus stops in north/south directions, along Brock Road, and an important responsibility of the Region. High Occupancy Vehicle (“HOV”) lanes, anticipated with roadway widening along Brock Road from four to six or possibly seven lanes, should also serve to accommodate greater densities and new development along this important corridor; b) Major new transit initiatives, including the east-west transit routes to the south currently along the Kingston Road Urban Growth Area, along with the proposed Rapid Transit Corridor once established along Kingston Road, as proposed by the Region, should provide for significantly expanded transit service to the immediate area. This is within a reasonable walking distance and is expected to reduce vehicular demand. Walking distance was established to be within approximately 550 metres (“m”) to 600 m from the Usman Road (south) intersection at Brock Road, consistent with, by way of example, a Major Transit Station Area (“MTSA”) requirement of 800 m. - 327 - 14 OLT-23-000498 Based on this, transit will be more readily accessible to all current area residents and any new residents associated with the Proposal (see Future Transportation Context image below (Exhibit 2I-Tab A, pg. 38)); c) Brock Road presently has a designated right-turn-lane-northbound and a designated left-turn-lane-southbound, both turning east onto Usman Road (south). There are concrete curbs/medians running north/south along Brock Road, and a curb/median requiring a right-turn-north-only onto Brock Road from Usman Road (south), all separating vehicular traffic; d) Current and future expected levels of traffic activity do not warrant any changes or modifications, however, both witnesses agree that the Region’s more recent approvals of a half-signalled intersection at Usman Road (south) and Brock Road will serve to resolve issues relating to pedestrian safety and likely help to improve traffic flows during peak periods. The concern with safe pedestrian crossings will also be addressed with two new signaled crosswalks proposed, as no crosswalks currently exist; - 328 - 15 OLT-23-000498 e) The development requires 509 vehicle parking spaces, zero bicycle parking spaces, and zero loading spaces. The Proposal contains 509 vehicle parking spaces, 372 bicycle parking spaces, and 2 loading spaces, which are fully satisfied on-site. This meets and exceeds the City Zoning By-law requirements. Additionally, as these parking provisions are accommodated entirely at the Subject Site, consisting of 416 resident spaces and 93 visitor spaces, it is generally not anticipated that there will be a need for any added parking on the local street network stemming from the Proposal; f) Peak traffic counts in witness testimony were not in dispute, but important to note was that significant volume exists in morning and afternoon rush-hour periods. There is a significantly higher traffic count demand tied to the PIC peak volumes at midday on Fridays (Exhibits 2F and Tab E) combined with very active pedestrian crossings in all directions. There was also no dispute regarding the Proposal’s potential impact on traffic counts and that, if approved, the Proposal’s traffic impact overall would be limited. This was further reinforced in the PSR of April 3, 2023 (Exhibit 2C, pg. 604). The Tribunal notes that the PSR indicates that it would be helpful if the half-signal intersection were expedited with pedestrian crossings and installed prior to the construction of the Proposal. This is recommended by Region and City staff, based on their own pedestrian volume analysis, and despite the limited traffic warrant activity shared by both witnesses; and g) Finally, there was also no dispute with regard to any concerns around Emergency Vehicle or Service Vehicle access, as no concerns were expressed by the City or Regional agencies. [25] One area of disagreement related to Mr. de Boer’s opinion that the half-signaled intersection should be a requirement of the Proposal, before it is constructed and subject to a Holding provision (“H”), despite the fact that the Region provided its approval for the - 329 - 16 OLT-23-000498 work in the 2023 budget, scheduled to have construction commence at the intersection in 2024. [26] Furthermore, Mr. de Boer opined that it was important for any underground work to factor in the future prospect of a need for a fully signaled intersection based on the possibility of increased traffic counts. His rationale for this appeared to be that there is an ongoing redevelopment application by the PIC with a proposal to expand its facilities in the near term, currently under appeal as a separate matter before the Tribunal and scheduled for a hearing in September 2024. Generally speaking, and only for context, the proposed PIC redevelopment approved by City Council intends to add a three-storey private school addition with a total area of approximately 3162 m2 and a two-level above-grade parking structure at the north-east portion of the site, providing a limited number of new parking spaces. City Planning staff comments require a significantly higher number of new additional parking spaces. The Tribunal was not in a position to weigh-in on this issue at this time but felt it appropriate to briefly reference the prospect of this additional matter scheduled to come before the Tribunal in September 2024. [27] As a separate matter, Mr. Linton opined that further north along Brock Road, the intersection at Usman Road (north), which crosses over to Major Oaks Road, could readily be modified to extend a westerly left-turn-lane by 16.3 m, allowing for an increase in left- turn lane vehicular storage at this fully signalled intersection with the implementation of lane-width reductions to 3 m. He proposed that the City could enact optional peak-period parking restrictions, and if deemed helpful, specifically to the northerly portion of Usman Road (north), which can currently accommodate approximately 8-9 on-street parking spaces without any apparent restrictions. Mr. de Boer disagreed with this scenario, noting that Mr. Linton’s suggested recommendation for 3 m wide lanes was not feasible and that a road-widening was a better alternative. During cross-examination, his view regarding feasibility was countered when Mr. de Boer indicated he was not familiar with the other 3 m wide lanes that existed approximately 450 m to the north of this intersection at Brock Road and Dellbrook Avenue (Exhibit 16), which have apparently been in operation for a number of years. - 330 - 17 OLT-23-000498 FINDINGS REGARDING TRANSPORTATION EVIDENCE [28] After careful consideration of both transportation witness statements and analysis of the witness testimony, respectively, the Tribunal finds that it is persuaded by the evidence as presented by the Applicants and concludes that appropriate regard has been given to the overall transportation planning issues in the area. The Transportation evidence and analysis addresses all matters regarding present and future transit objectives, the provision of on-site parking for future residents and visitors, and whether the Proposal meets and exceeds the City’s Zoning By-law requirements in anticipation of ongoing and future traffic conditions. The Tribunal determines that future vehicular movements with a widened Brock Road will no doubt, deliver significant benefits to the surrounding community, tied to meaningful improvements such as a half-signalled intersection at Usman Road (south) and Brock Road, and improved safety measures with new pedestrian crossings. In conclusion, the Proposal poses no significant adverse impact on the immediate neighbourhood and community, purely from a transportation planning perspective. ARCHITECTURE AND URBAN DESIGN EVIDENCE [29] Ms. Bell confirmed at the outset of her testimony that she concurred and adopted as her own the Witness and Reply Statements of Sean Lawrence, who was unable to attend the Hearing for personal reasons. Ms. Bell has shared carriage of the Proposal for the Applicant since 2020 and was directly involved in the April 2023 final submission to the City. As a visual reference, the below architectural image from Kohn (Exhibit 2E, pg. 3) is provided: - 331 - 18 OLT-23-000498 [30] Ms. Bell opined that overall, the Proposal is a well-designed mix of housing, sensitive to the surrounding neighbourhood, and represents at scale and density that reflects the City and Region’s desire to continue with residential growth. She asserted that the architectural design, with most of the massing and height along or adjacent to Brock Road (a 45 m Right-of-Way) (“ROW”), is well-situated and has been responsive to neighbourhood concerns regarding overlooks, and shadowing. She stated that the design is pedestrian-friendly, has a sound internal layout for vehicular access, and has a comprehensive array of indoor/outdoor amenities for new residents and visitors to the Subject Site. [31] More specifically, Ms. Bell opined that the stacked, and back-to-back townhomes in Blocks B, C, and D, which are more immediate in proximity to the existing residential neighbourhood to the north/east, complements existing residential built forms. According to architectural cross-sections (Exhibit 12), approximate measurements consist of Block B with a setback of 7.32 m from the Subject Site northerly property line, a built-form width of 12 m by 55.4 m length, and with a height of 9.63 m, virtually identical in height to homes to the north along Saffron Drive. Block C, which is perpendicular to Block B, has a total length of 43 m, a height of 12.4 m, and a 1.5 m privacy screen, at a slightly lower grade, which is also in line with the height of existing homes along Saffron Drive. Block D is similar to - 332 - 19 OLT-23-000498 Block C in height at 12. 4 m, however, it maintains a slightly larger built form at 18 m in width, setback 17.5 m from Block B, in a parallel manner at the south end of the development envelope overlooking the Proposal’s conveyed lands, with a length of approximately 81 m (Exhibit 2E, pg.16). Block D has effectively no impact on dwellings to the north along Saffron Drive. Furthermore, with the addition of privacy screens to rooftop terraces, the Proposal effectively addresses privacy concerns with neighbours from Blocks B, C, and D. [32] Ms. Bell also opined that the Subject Site maintains an attractive, and comprehensive landscape design (Exhibit 2E, pg. 5), despite some challenges with most, with at-grade limited soil levels, covering the entire site, that are the result of the below- grade development envelope. Ms. Bell did state that there is a reasonable mix of plantings reflective of current SPA guidelines/policies which are expected to be clarified further between the City and Applicant, including improved buffering if the Proposal is allowed by the Tribunal. [33] Regarding overlook and shadowing, Ms. Bell dealt extensively with the impact of the Proposal, with particular regard given to Block A/Towers 1 and 2. She asserted that Tower 2 has a distance separation of approximately 35 m diagonally, in relation to dwellings to the north-east, and its six-storey height transitions well with the PIC directly to the north as an institutional use. Tower 1 also has a diagonal distance separation of 95 m from the nearest external residential property at Saffron Drive and is located approximately 60 m from homes to the west along Rayleen Crescent. Ms. Bell opined that the slender design of Tower 1, with its limited floorplate of 810 m2, recessed balconies, terraces, setbacks, and step backs from the podium level, offer an appropriate scale and density, with limited overlook respectful of neighbourhood residential dwellings, especially with its positioning at the south-west corner of the development envelope. [34] Ms. Bell referenced the Sun/Shadow Impact Study (“SSIS”) (Exhibit 2E, pg. Tab B), which she asserted makes evident that the scale, massing, and building height of Towers 1 and 2 allow for compatible transitioning to properties to the north and north-east and - 333 - 20 OLT-23-000498 predominantly show that most shadowing exists internally within the Subject Site. The SSIS demonstrates that Proposal’s impact is kept to a maximum of two hours during peak seasons, including the spring, summer, fall, and winter, between the hours of approximately 9:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. She concluded that the minimal impact of shadowing and overlook, adequately addresses neighbourhood concerns that were the direct result of architectural design revisions, in concert with the City and public consultation over the course of the multi-year application process. [35] With respect to amenity space, Ms. Bell concurred with the City staff that a ratio of 4 m2 per residential unit (totaling 1488 m2) exceeds typical projects of this size in other developments. The amenity space exceeds the City’s requirements, complementing the Proposal with more than adequate indoor/outdoor areas for both residents and visitors. Privately-Owned Publicly Accessible Space (“POPS”) [36] The POPS was emphasized as an important additional feature of the Proposal achieved with input from City staff and design guideline best practices, evolving from approximately 600 m2 originally to 660 m2 in the final Proposal. Ms. Bell opined that the visibility and access to the POPS as determined by these iterative discussions with the City allows for easy access from Usman Road (south) for pedestrians, cyclists, and vehicular drop offs, with landscaped elements in the design, allowing for natural views adjacent to West Duffins Creek. [37] Finally, Ms. Bell reiterated that appropriate protections are in place through the SPA process, which will implement any outstanding matters of importance associated with the Proposal’s progress and ultimate construction. [38] It is important to note that Ms. Anderson’s witness statement provides a thorough analysis of the range and types of residential units that form part of each of the four Blocks A to D (Exhibit 2G, Tab A, paras. 80-83). She asserted that the Proposal “provides a high- quality design that optimizes the use of the land and infrastructure” and reflects the - 334 - 21 OLT-23-000498 Regional objectives of intensification while at the same time being compatible with the neighbourhood. Her focus on perhaps the more controversial element (Tower 1) stressed that despite the presence of the tower at the south-westerly corner, the manner in which it is situated on the Subject Site, along with the appropriate transition through a shared four- storey podium connecting to Tower 2 at six-storeys, adjacent to Blocks B, C, and D, represents good planning and design. [39] Ms. Anderson opined that Tower 1 represents a landmark feature, and because of its location, concerns regarding overlook and shadowing are mitigated. At the same time, she asserted that the four and six-storey levels directly across from the PIC were a “strategic” design decision respectful of the Masjid’s height, inclusive of minarets. She also reiterated that the Proposal represents a good design and is compatible with the surrounding community. [40] Mr. Freedman’s testimony extensively outlined the history of the surrounding neighbourhoods, his interpretation of COP/DROP policies and guidelines along with the evolution of transit and transportation plans for the area. He generally concurred that a residential redevelopment of the Subject Site may be appropriate along this transit corridor, however, this Proposal represents “over-intensification” and is “out of character” with the Brock Road Neighbourhood, which is predominantly a low-rise residential area. He asserted that the Proposal’s density of 286 units per hectare (“UPH”) represents twice the density permitted at 140 UPH for a high-density site and insisted that a mid-rise development was more appropriate for this area, in line with his position that this is a mid- rise site. [41] Mr. Freedman opined extensively in relation to area characteristics from a broader context and focused his assessment on the density, built form, and mass, but in particular the Tower 1 height of twenty-storeys located at the south-west corner of the Subject Site. Specifically, Mr. Freedman opined that Tower 1 is too tall and the Proposal’s density, at twice the permitted level in the COP, was inappropriate within the overall context of the Brock Road corridor. Mr. Freedman emphasized, in particular, that Tower 1 was not a - 335 - 22 OLT-23-000498 good fit with the community and the Brock Road corridor, was less suitable for higher densities, and that such projects should be more appropriately focused along the Kingston Road Urban Growth Centre and further south to the Anchor Mobility Hub surrounding the GO Station, among other nodes. [42] Regarding built form, Mr. Freedman opined that the Tower 1 design does not enhance the character of the surrounding neighbourhood and therefore contravenes the COP’s objectives. Regarding transition and good separation distance, Mr. Freedman emphasized that despite the respective Tower 1 separation of 60 m to the west and 95 m to the north-east, the negative impact as seen from a distance “creates the impression that the residents of the tower can see into the neighbourhood, the yards, and the windows of the surrounding houses – negatively impacting neighbourhood privacy”, and that “the separation distance in this suburban context is not enough to overcome this extreme height differential and the sense of being watched from above.” He shared the same opinion with respect to the 35 m separation distance from the six-storey, Tower 2 design. He also noted that the PIC is more representative of a landmark at three-storeys (plus the additional height of the adjacent minarets) across Usman Road (south), and the Proposal impedes its visibility. During cross-examination, Mr. Freedman briefly acknowledged that current zoning, allows for up to eight-storeys in height fronting along Usman Road (south). [43] Finally, Mr. Freedman also opined that the POPS was not ideally situated on the Subject Site, was impacted by shadowing, and suggested that it would be more accessible if relocated to the front along Brock Road or Usman Road (south), requiring an entire redesign of the Proposal. Regarding landscaping and buffering, Mr. Freeman suggested that a reduced perimeter for parking, setback for garage construction impacting Brock Road and Usman Road (south), would allow for improved planting alternatives, again requiring an overall redesign of the development. No design or architectural alternatives were presented at the Hearing. - 336 - 23 OLT-23-000498 [44] During further cross-examination, Mr. Freedman acknowledged that, through his extensive experience, mid-rise projects normally allow for up to twelve-storeys in neighbouring municipalities along avenues with a 20 m to 36 m ROW. Brock Road is currently a four-lane 45 m ROW, and despite the anticipated addition of up to three new lanes along the corridor at the Region’s initiative, Mr. Freedman maintained that any comparison was “apples to oranges” between the mid-rise definitions of neighbouring municipalities as they relate to the Subject Site. Supplemental to this during cross, Counsel for the Applicant clarified with the witness that generally, maximum heights in the DROP and COP do not presently exist and did eventually elicit a response acknowledging twelve-storeys buildings along Brock Road could be deemed mid-rise. FINDINGS REGARDING ARCHITECTURE, URBAN DESIGN, AND THE POPS [45] After careful analysis of witness statements on the subject of the architectural and urban design evidence and careful regard to oral testimony from the witnesses, the Tribunal is persuaded by the Applicant’s evidence in this area. The Tribunal determined that the Applicant demonstrated considerable effort in ensuring any City and Regional issues have been addressed associated with built form design. [46] The Tribunal also finds that the Proposal demonstrates a creative and appropriate transition with Blocks B, C, and D, as they are closest in proximity to existing built-form residential dwellings in the surrounding area. From this point to the west and south-west (Block A), the design also provides a gradual connection to Tower 2 along Usman Road (south) at four storeys with an appropriate design step back at levels five and six. The design ultimately transitions very well to Tower 1 at the furthest distance away to the south-west corner of the development area along Brock Road. [47] The 35 m, 60 m, and 95 m setbacks, respectively, are significant and enhance the character of the overall community, well-separated from the existing residential built forms. The addition of Block A with Towers 1 and 2 allows for an attractive and creative diversity of residential design, with increased housing alternatives and a minimal degree of - 337 - 24 OLT-23-000498 shadowing in a relatively compact form. The Tribunal agrees that a slenderer architectural Tower 1 design element, previously described as graduated from Blocks B, C, and D, represents a complement to the residential area’s mix of housing. There is limited overlook into the neighbouring community to the north, north-east, and to the west, and shadowing is minimally impactful, mostly affecting the Subject Site internally to a rather limited extent depending on the time of year. [48] Finally, it is important to recognize the opinion of City Planning staff. The PSR goes on to address the issue of ensuring a sensitive transition between Tower 1 and states that “the applicant has provided a progressive stepping of building heights, and has sited the tallest portion of the building to maximize separation from the detached dwellings” and notes that as per the cross-section below, “the proposal replicates the existing building height and setbacks established immediately to the north.” Above: Cross Section Elevation view from the west (PSR-Exhibit 2C, pg.601) - 338 - 25 OLT-23-000498 [49] The Tribunal also concurs that the POPS is well-designed in its current proposed location and should not be relocated along Brock Road or Usman Road (south), requiring an entirely new site design, as suggested by the City’s witness. The current POPS design will result in reduced at-grade, street, and vehicular noise in its proposed location, buffered by adjacent built-forms. The increase in size of the POPS resulting from City staff consultations to 660 m2, should serve to provide enhanced public open space alternatives to the immediate community. Furthermore, it is important to note the City staff’s position in the PSR (Exhibit 2C, Tab F, pg. 609 and 601), which states that “the final design details for the POPS will be confirmed through the [SPA] process.” The Tribunal is also confident that the possibility of enhanced signage alternatives encouraged through SPA deliberations with the City could also assist in its degree of visibility and at the same time maintaining a high level of community safety at its proposed location. LAND USE PLANNING EVIDENCE [50] In their Agreed Statement of Facts (“ASF”) (Exhibit 2J, Tab A), the Planning witnesses acknowledged among a number of issues, that it is the extent of proposed growth and development that is in dispute not whether the site is an appropriate location for growth and development. Provincial Framework Planning Act [51] Mr. Ramsay, retained by the City in August 2023, provided his opinions regarding s. 2 of the Act, initially confirming that the Proposal is in a location that is appropriate for residential intensification. However, he stated that the Proposal represents an overdevelopment of the Subject Site and is out of character/not compatible with the predominantly low-rise community. He asserted that the Proposal does not have sufficient regard for matters of provincial interest specific to s. 2 of the Act. Through his witness - 339 - 26 OLT-23-000498 statement (Exhibit 2H, Tab A, para. 26), Mr. Ramsay briefly highlighted the updated changes to the Proposal submitted in March 2023, including that it: - maintains the height of the tower of 20-and 6-storeys; - maintains the height of the podium of 4-storeys; - an increase in the total gross floor area from 30,269 m2 to 30,367 m2; - maintains the number of residential dwellings [at] 372 (328 apartment units,10 street townhouse units and 44 stacked townhouse units) - maintains the density of 286 uph ; and, - increases indoor/outdoor amenity space from 1,851 m2 to 1,960 m2. [52] More specifically, regarding s. 2 of the Act, Mr. Ramsay expressed concern with the following areas where there is disagreement with the Proposal: (h) the orderly development of safe and healthy communities; (n) the resolution of planning conflicts involving public and private interests; (p) the appropriate location of growth and development; and (r) the promotion of built form that, (i) is well-designed, (ii) encourages a sense of place, and (iii) provides for public spaces that are of high quality, safe, accessible, attractive and vibrant. [53] Mr. Ramsay testified that the Proposal does not represent orderly development nor does the design represent an appropriate height, scale, and massing; setbacks are inadequate along Brock Road; privacy and overlook are concerns; public and private interests are at odds with each other due to the adverse impact on the surrounding community, especially with the streetscape impact of Tower 1; the design does not encourage a sense of place, and that it does not provide for public spaces that are of high quality, safe, accessible, attractive, and vibrant. [54] Ms. Anderson testified initially at a high level, that she rebuts Mr. Ramsay’s opinion, and that the Proposal has the appropriate regard for s. 2 (h), (n), (p), and (r) of the Act and makes reference to the MHBC Planning Justification Report (“PJR”) for greater detail, which was consistently updated, as the Proposal evolved (Exhibit 2D, Tab A, 4.1 Planning Act, and Tabs B and C). More specifically, she asserted that the DPS: will facilitate - 340 - 27 OLT-23-000498 continuous and orderly development which makes use of existing underutilized lands, in close proximity to commercial uses within a reasonable distance; large landscaped open space is accessible; and the density increase supports active transportation as well as greater levels of public transit. [55] Furthermore, Ms. Anderson stated that: public consultation in accordance with the Act was ongoing throughout the process; existing development surrounds the Proposal along with natural features, protected by the land conveyance to the TRCA; and, the close proximity of commercial uses, employment, and recreational facilities, are complemented by the increased density. [56] Finally, regarding s. 2 of the Act, she testified that the Proposal provides a high- quality, well-designed built form that offers a sense of place and fit within the surrounding area. She asserted that it also provides accessible, safe, and high quality public open space and amenity areas for both current and future residents. Provincial Policy Statement 2020 [57] In his witness statement (2H, Tab A, paras. 57, 58, 65), Mr. Ramsay outlines his position that the Proposal generally maintains consistency with the PPS, beginning with: Managing and Directing Land Use (Section 1.1.1 a) through i)). He shared the same general opinion that the Proposal maintained consistency with the PPS, regarding Housing (1.4.3). [58] Mr. Ramsay maintained a different view, however, regarding the Proposal’s consistency with the PPS related to Settlement Areas (Sections 1.1.3.1, 1.1.3.2, 1.1.3.3, 1.1.3.4). He asserted that the OPA and ZBA: will result in a development that is inappropriate, as it is situated adjacent to low-rise development to the north, east and west; it does not take into account existing building stock in this area of low-rise housing forms; and the height density setbacks and overall intensity of the Proposal is not compatible with the community. - 341 - 28 OLT-23-000498 [59] Furthermore, he stated that the Proposal is not consistent with the PPS, as it related to Public Spaces, Recreation, Parks, Trails, and Open Space (1.5.1). Specifically, he reiterated that the POPS, located within the interior of the Subject Site, is “neither visible nor accessible from Brock Road and has limited visibility from Usman Road with access along a private driveway.” [60] Ms. Anderson fundamentally disagreed with Mr. Ramsay’s position regarding the POPS, and as a reference, the Tribunal refers to the Witness Reply of Mr. Lawrence (Exhibit 2G, Tab C, para. 3) whereby he states: • The location of the POPS space as proposed followed extensive discussion with City staff throughout the Zoning Bylaw Amendment application process, and the location as shown was deemed the preferred location. The POPS is accessible from Usman Road by means of a continuous sidewalk and pedestrian crossing. The POPS is not located off Brock Road or accessible from Brock Road, as a street wall was the preferred built form along the Brock Road frontage following the City’s design guidelines and best practices. As referenced in the Duffins Precinct Development Guidelines, M1 4.4, amenity should not be located along Brock Road, but instead separated by building mass. [61] Furthermore, Ms. Anderson opined that the Proposal is compatible with the existing and evolving community. She stated that it supports increased densities along a critical transit spine, efficiently utilizing existing infrastructure and is focused on delivering a development pattern that supports strong, livable, and healthy communities. [62] Ms. Anderson testified that the Proposal also showed particular regard to sections 51(24) and 41 of the Act, as they apply to the DPS Block Plan and SPA, respectively. She notes in (2G, Tab A, para. 103) that the SPA will further crystalize in numerous respects, also conforming with City and Regional objectives, including the following: - 342 - 29 OLT-23-000498 • Provides for the massing and design of the proposed buildings, the relationship of the proposed buildings to adjacent buildings, streets, and exterior areas to which members of the public have access, the provision of interior walkways, stairs, and elevators to which members of the public have access from streets, open spaces, and interior walkways in adjacent buildings. Matters relating to exterior design, including the character, scale, appearance, and design features of buildings and their sustainable design, landscaping, road and access design, parking and loading, amenity areas including walkways and pedestrian connections, as well as lighting are set out on the site plan as well as in the supporting plans and reports submitted with the SPA. [63] She concluded that the PPS strongly encourages new development that will provide long term prosperity, environmental health, and social well-being, facilitating economic growth and a range of new housing forms and options responding to current and future needs. As a new development of a vacant site, she opined that the Proposal is consistent with all of the PPS criteria and maintains that it represents an appropriate level of intensification that will integrate well with the surrounding community, optimizing transit investments and standards, and minimizing land consumption and service costs. Growth Plan [64] Mr. Ramsay’s view that the Proposal does not conform to the GP, which refers to Policies for Where and How to Grow, Managing Growth, focuses on sections 1.2.1, and where he asserts the Proposal does not: • Prioritize intensification and higher densities in strategic growth areas to make efficient use of land and infrastructure and support transit viability. - 343 - 30 OLT-23-000498 • Improve the integration of land use planning with planning and investment in infrastructure and public service facilities, including integrated service delivery through community hubs, by all levels of government. • Provide for different approaches to managing growth that recognize the diversity of communities in the GGH. [65] He expands further on this topic by noting: this is not a strategic growth area; the Proposal is “ad hoc” as it relates to density and does not support the broader urban structure in the City where infrastructure and public services facilities are planned and available; and the Proposal is not located where the City directs higher densities that should exist more appropriately. [66] He did acknowledge that regarding section 2.2.1, generally, there was conformity with the GP, as the Proposal is within the delineated built-up areas; however, he highlights concern with regard to 2.2.2(1) through 2.2.2(3), where such density is more appropriate in other areas, the Proposal ultimately “does not conform with the City wide intensification policies” and “the guiding principles (Section 1.2.1) and intensification strategy requirements (Section 2.2.2(3))” of the GP. [67] Ms. Anderson rebutted this and testified that the Proposal conforms to and serves to implement the policies of the GP in that it meets the Region’s intensification objectives, providing connectivity along Brock Road with its density and is compatible with the neighbouring community, in a compact form (see PJR-Exhibit 2D, 4.3). Furthermore, she noted that this is reinforced, and is in line with, the shifted timelines for growth forecasts to 2051. Additionally, the Proposal’s instruments remain in conformity with the policies of the GP, and the density will complement an area that is well served by existing transit, optimizing the use of existing water, wastewater, and stormwater infrastructure with existing community services, parks, the natural environment, and local businesses in close proximity. - 344 - 31 OLT-23-000498 [68] Regarding density, Ms. Anderson reiterated that the Proposal: prioritizes the immediate access to current and pending major transit initiatives; will implement a much needed range of housing types and options, and that no policies preclude such development along an arterial corridor of such significance in its current form and into the future. FINDINGS REGARDING THE ACT, PPS AND GP [69] The Tribunal prefers the evidence of Ms. Anderson, which includes the PJR (Exhibit 2D, Tabs A, B, and C) that more broadly and consistently addresses the requisite legislative framework dating back to 2020. The Proposal is located in a predominantly residential area, with neighbouring commercial uses in close proximity, and along an arterial transit corridor that can accommodate and implement provincial objectives and guidelines. The Applicant’s evidence demonstrates appropriate regard for s. 2 of the Act, is consistent with the PPS, and conforms to the GP. The Proposal promotes intensification that complements the existing surrounding area, represents efficient design and built form, and is at a density that efficiently utilizes existing infrastructure and public service facilities. [70] The Proposal is responsive to and will most definitely benefit from anticipated major transit initiatives, with the anticipated widening of the ROW along the Brock Road corridor but will also have a favourable impact on public utilization of planned additional transit initiatives further to the south across Kingston Road, in the near future. [71] The Applicant’s evidence regarding consistency, and conformity with the above legislative framework, is corroborated further through the PSR (2C, Tab F) as referenced throughout this Decision. Specifically, the PSR reinforces that the Proposal: appropriately transitions its built form to adjacent residential areas; has minimal shadow impact; does not have any adverse transportation impact; implements numerous improvements through a number of future traffic management strategies; offers an enlarged POPS; offers sufficient indoor/outdoor amenity space; complies with the Duffins Precinct Environmental - 345 - 32 OLT-23-000498 Servicing Plan; and, concurrently, approves of the instruments implementing the Proposal, with Attachments 1, 2, and 3, as attached to the Order that follows in this Decision. REGIONAL AND CITY POLICIES Region of Durham Official Plan [72] Regarding the DROP (consolidated in 2020), Ms. Anderson opined that the Proposal conforms with the plan, as it facilitates residential uses with taller heights and densities along regional corridors such as Brock Road, allowing for taller buildings. The Region’s density objectives are further enhanced through proposed new transit improvements with implementation in the near term (2031) along this important corridor (Exhibit 2D, Tab A, pgs. 50-54). She also asserted that the Proposal’s increase in height and density should not be prevented where it meets the Region’s objectives. In this instance, while not directly in the designated “Urban Growth Area,” located close in proximity just to the south of the Subject Site, the Proposal meets the Region’s density objectives, and also preserves/enhances the Natural Heritage System (Duffins Creek) through the previously referenced land conveyance to the TRCA. [73] In her witness statement (Exhibit 2G, paras. 114-116), Ms. Anderson expands further regarding the following: • Within the Regional Official Plan (“ROP”), the Subject Lands are designated as “Living Areas” with a “Regional Corridor” overlay. A portion of the Subject Lands located adjacent to Duffins Creek are also designated “Major Open Space Areas”. A portion of the Subject Lands are identified as “Key Natural Heritage and Hydrologic Features” and “High Aquifer Vulnerability Areas” within Schedule B of the ROP. Brock Road is also identified as a “Transit Spine” on Schedule C of the ROP and identified as a Type A Arterial Road on Schedule 3, Map C2: Road Network, and a High Frequency Transit Line on Schedule 3, Map C3: Transit Priority Network. - 346 - 33 OLT-23-000498 • The “Living Areas” are intended to accommodate a full range of housing developed in a cost effective and efficient manner, while maintaining an attractive, safe living environment that is respectful of existing natural areas. The proposal conforms to these objectives by proposing a compact built form within a built-up area, and through site design and layout, providing adequate setbacks to the adjacent natural features to ensure these areas are not adversely impacted by the proposal. • Regional Corridors are to be developed to promote transit and be designed with a mix of higher density uses. Sensitive urban design is to be used that is oriented towards the corridors. 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 FSI 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 the area municipal official plans. The proposed development meets these policies. [74] Regarding the recent DROP (adopted 2023), which is awaiting Ministerial approval, Ms. Anderson importantly denotes in her witness statement that the Proposal appropriately considers and conforms with updated objectives as follows: • Brock Road is a High Frequency Transit Network, a Type A Arterial Road, and a Regional Corridor, and the valley lands are designated as a Regional Natural Heritage System and form part of the Urban River Valley; • Community Areas are to be planned as complete communities providing a range of housing, transportation, and lifestyle choices; and, - 347 - 34 OLT-23-000498 • Regional Corridors are generally identified as appropriate locations for higher-density development. Built form along Regional Corridors is encouraged to be multi-storey compact, pedestrian friendly and transit- supportive. The new policies also encourage the area municipalities to establish transit supportive density targets along the Regional Corridors and designate key development areas as prime opportunities for transit supportive intensification. Within the Medium Density Areas on Schedule I Land Use Structure; Sheet 1. This structural designation extends the full extent of lands along the east side of Brock Road up to Finch Avenue to the north. [75] The PSR (Exhibit 2C, Tab F, pg. 598) states that the Proposal conforms to the DROP, in that the increase in proposed density is appropriate and that Brock Road, is within Regional responsibility, which maintains a designation recognizing the corridor as a Type “A” Arterial, Transit Spine in the COP, with a higher level of transit service and moderate traffic levels/speeds, with access to local collectors. The DROP designates Brock Road as a High-Frequency Transit Network (“HFTN”). Higher density developments, with mixed uses and at an appropriate scale and context are encouraged in HFTN designations. The PSR goes on to state: • The proposed density will facilitate a built form that has been demonstrated to achieve a compatible transition with the existing residential neighbourhood immediately to the north, by siting a built form that has a similar building height and setbacks to the existing dwellings, providing appropriate building separation between the existing dwellings and the apartment building. The proposal has been designed to maximize the separation between the tallest and most dense components of the development and existing residential properties to the north, which will limit any negative impacts with respect to privacy and shadowing. On the easterly portion of the subject lands, and nearest to existing detached dwellings, the proposed development provides for compatible building heights, and a less dense built form, through the - 348 - 35 OLT-23-000498 placement of townhouse units with adjoining rear yards along the north property boundary.” • The proposal is located along an arterial road and a collector road that can accommodate the traffic generated by this development. Furthermore, siting the apartment building adjacent to Brock Road, which is identified as a transit spine, encourages the opportunity to reduce auto-dependency, and contribute to the development of a livable, transit-oriented community. [76] Mr. Ramsay opined that the DROP stipulates broad policies, requiring greater efficiency in design, and deferred to Mr. Freedman’s testimony in this regard. He also asserted that more in accordance with the DROP, the redevelopment should consist of a mid-rise design along a Regional corridor such as this one. City of Pickering Official Plan [77] As he continued with his land use planning opinion, Mr. Ramsay asserted that the Proposal does not reflect the objectives and guidelines of the COP, noting in particular, section 3.2. Similarly, with Mr. Freedman, he argued that the proper location for this degree of density, “which can be better achieved elsewhere”, includes along Kingston Road, and areas like a Mobility Hub further south towards the GO Transit Station among other options. [78] Mr. Ramsay also testified that Block A, in particular, is too big and reiterated that it did not represent good urban design. He stated that the Duffin Creek Lands conveyance and their integration with the Subject Site, is appropriate, but the ZBA will not protect or enhance the neighbourhood, and that it represents an overdevelopment of the Subject Site. He estimated that 100 UPH could potentially be achieved at the Subject Site but that even this degree of density “was a stretch,” and that anything greater was not contemplated in the COP. He also concurred with Mr. Freedman’s analysis that the COP’s intended provisions are to locate developments such as this on Kingston Road and - 349 - 36 OLT-23-000498 elsewhere. Both believe it is the intended provisions of the COP, that this Proposal’s overall scale, massing, density, and height, will be “overly dominating.” [79] Ms. Anderson’s opinion disagreed, and she stated that the Proposal serves to implement the objectives of the COP, by “providing for a compact and urban residential built form on a site with the Built Boundary of the City’s existing Urban Area, where the majority of growth is to occur ” and “ directs increased density to an area of the [Subject Site] located along Brock Road, an identified Regional Corridor and Transit Spine, and [is] appropriate for the proposed level of intensification.” [80] Furthermore, Ms. Anderson reiterated that the proposed OPA “seeks to permit high- density residential uses in order to ensure a transit-supportive and vibrant form of development is achieved along Brock Road within the Brock Ridge neighbourhood. The proposed development is in conformity with the City’s natural heritage system policies and has been carefully designed to protect the existing natural features adjacent [to] the site. The proposed development, and associated planning applications conform to and serve to implement the applicable objectives and policies of the City of Pickering OP.” [81] The PSR (Exhibit 2C, Tab F, pg. 598) states that the “Medium Density” designation is intended primarily for residential uses and denotes a range of 30 to 80 UPH. It also encourages a variety of housing forms as part of the Brock Ridge Neighbourhood policies, and suggests that “the City Council should acknowledge the landowners’ interest in maximizing the developable area of the property” and “that City Council shall encourage a broad diversity of housing by form, location, size, tenure, and cost within the neighbourhoods and villages of the City, so that the housing needs of existing and future residents can be met as they evolve over time.” The Tribunal determines that this reinforces the Applicant’s evidence, asserting that the Proposal conforms to the COP. - 350 - 37 OLT-23-000498 Duffins Precinct Development Guidelines (1997) [82] As an additional and important consideration, the DPDG, provides some direction for land use, transportation, community design, and servicing within the Duffins Precinct, excluding the portion to be conveyed to the TRCA. Following some clarifications/corrections in her witness statement, Ms. Anderson assisted the Tribunal in better understanding the planning-related objectives of the growth framework. Some of these changes are summarized below: • The Subject Site is within Area 5 (not Area 2) of the growth framework, which targets units between 45 and 119 units, and has a density range between 30 and 80 UPH; and, • The key consideration is that what has not been achieved in relation to all areas in the Duffins Precinct Area is that Area 2 has effectively no new intensification, and Areas 3 and 4 have underachieved the planned maximum units by 441 units. This clearly makes evident the fact that existing and proposed developments have not achieved the minimum unit targets and are at the low end of density ranges. • Though the proposal exceeds the maximum density guideline, the increase in density offsets the under achieved density in other parts of the area and is provided in a compatible design, without adverse impacts, and will contribute to the much-needed housing now required to meet the City’s housing pledge and growth to 2051. [83] Mr. Ramsay opined that the Proposal contravenes the Duffins Precinct Development Guidelines 1997 (“DPDG”), resulting in adverse impacts on adjacent properties and will “[establish] a negative urban design precedent for the City.” - 351 - 38 OLT-23-000498 [84] The PSR (Exhibit 2C, pg. 599) again reinforced the Applicant’s evidence, maintaining that the design provides an appropriate transition in built form from the adjacent residential areas and meets the objectives of the DPDG, including: • A range of housing types, including detached, semi-detached, townhomes, and multi-unit dwellings; • Building form adjacent to Brock Road that is sensitive to the potential impacts of the road but does not turn its back on it; • Streetscape and architectural designs that are aesthetically pleasing, diverse, encourage social interaction within a neighbourhood, and support safe environments; and, • Development that embraces the natural environment. [85] During cross-examination, Mr. Ramsay acknowledged that the COP did not have any height restrictions, but instead primarily maintained its range of FSI objectives. Additionally, he recognized that with a framework horizon of 2016, the COP (2007) is considered outdated and does require an up-to-date review, reflective of ongoing and new growth. Conveniently and quite timely, evidence from the Applicant showed that a City- initiated review of the COP is underway as of March 2024, (Exhibit 19). It announces a public consultation process will commence in late May 2024, all in an effort to “maintain its conformity with Provincial and Regional planning documents through amendments to the [COP].” The Report also notes that the City “is projected to enter a significant period of growth in the coming decades,” and will therefore “not only increase the population and number of housing units within the community but will result in changes in the needs of residents.” Concurrent to this, the witness also acknowledged that the evolution of current provincial guidelines are pursuing a more comprehensive, updated approach, and relatedly, did not dispute that the PSR of April 2023, recommended approval of the OPA, ZBA, and DPS along with the requisite instruments. - 352 - 39 OLT-23-000498 City of Pickering Zoning By-law 3036 [86] A review of the updated draft ZBA (Exhibit 5 and Attachment “2” to this Order), confirms that the implementing instrument, amends the City ZBL 3036 as previously amended by ZBL-2010. Ms. Anderson testified that this updated draft ZBA has the concurrence of City Planning staff, as similarly recommended for approval through its PSR of April 2023. Regarding conformity with the ZBL, the final paragraph of this instrument is quoted below for clarity: • By-law 3036 is hereby further amended only to the extent necessary to give effect to the provisions of this By-law as it applies to the area set out in Schedule I to this By-law. Definitions and subject matters not specifically dealt with in this By-law shall be governed by relevant provisions of By-law 3036. FINDINGS REGARDING THE DROP, COP, DPDG, AND CITY ZBL [87] The Tribunal is again persuaded by the Applicant, based on witness evidence, and corroborated by the City PSR of April 2023. It was acknowledged by the City’s witnesses that, despite opinions regarding the overall size of Block A, the City ZBL currently allows up to an eight-storey, 70 m building length along Usman Road (south) from Brock Road and up to four storeys further east. The approximately 50 m length along Brock Road, with a four-level podium and six storeys (also in Block A), is in line with the current City ZBL, existing as-of-right since approximately 2010, and has the full support of City Planning staff. [88] The Proposal achieves a number of objectives through elements that conform with the above, including: the land conveyance to the TRCA at the outset; the provision of public and private amenities and the provision of the POPS in a central and accessible location; the provision of a wide variety of housing options; pedestrian connectivity; with noise and traffic mitigation factored into the design. The Tribunal determined by way of careful evaluation of the evidence, that almost everything associated with the density, - 353 - 40 OLT-23-000498 height, and massing of the Proposal, other than Tower 1, conforms to the DROP, the COP, DPDG, and the City ZBL. SUPPLEMENTAL PLANNING EVIDENCE AND ANALYSIS Planning Staff Report and Analysis [89] While neither of the Parties chose to subpoena Planning staff for the purposes of the Hearing, it became quite evident that the Parties allowed the PSR of April 2023 to speak for itself and effectively represent a supplemental, detailed expert perspective on the Proposal from the City’s own Planning Department. As referenced a number of times in oral evidence and by way of the JDB submitted (Exhibit 2), Planning staff has played an integral role in the evolution of various proposals on the Subject Site since 2010. No doubt, the Tribunal may have benefited from their supplemental direct evidence at the Hearing, however, in their absence, Ms. Anderson appropriately shared many of her thoughts about the City Planning staff’s role in the process through her witness statement. It is her opinion that the PSR provides a comprehensive and thorough assessment of the Proposal in relation to the PPS, GP, DROP, and COP. She continues with a brief summary of the PSR, as follows: a) The PSR addresses matters related to urban design including the transition of height and built form proposed, shadow impacts, the provision of indoor and outdoor amenity space, POPS, sustainability, and connectivity. b) The [PSR] recommends approval of the proposed applications based on its thorough and comprehensive analysis. The City’s Planning Staff support the proposed residential density and height, as it will facilitate a built form that has been demonstrated to achieve a compatible transition with the neighbourhood immediately to the north through appropriate building siting, setbacks, separation distances, height, and massing. - 354 - 41 OLT-23-000498 c) Staff note the compact form of development and design will maintain and protect the natural areas within the associated valleylands to the south and east and conveyed the appropriate lands to the TRCA. Planning Staff note the plan will provide for a more diversified housing mix of housing forms and tenure that will assist the City in achieving its intensification targets, while providing at-grade amenity space for use by the broader community. d) Staff note that the proposal is located on an arterial road and a collector that can accommodate the proposed traffic generated by the development. Planning Staff confirm that the proposed applications are consistent with the PPS, conform to the Growth Plan, the Region of Durham Official Plan, and the City Official Plan. e) They further support the OPA and ZBA and POS with Draft Conditions. [90] As a brief summary, it is also important to note that the PSR references agency comments and input, including from the Region, TRCA, the District and Catholic District School Boards, Durham Region Police, City Engineering, Fire Services, and Sustainability, all of whom have no objections to the Proposal, and have received appropriate consideration from the Tribunal. [91] Mr. Ramsay, on the other hand, appeared to have given minimal regard to the position of Planning staff in his evidence, and when asked during cross-examination if he had consulted with the department during his analysis, in preparation for the Hearing, he indicated that he had not consulted with them or any other City or Regional agency, in his review. It became apparent to the Tribunal that this decision may have limited Mr. Ramsay’s efforts, which could have allowed for a more fulsome analysis. Counsel for the Applicant quite appropriately argued in closing, that this may have been the basis for a “flawed foundation” of opinions opposing the Proposal, and summarized these as a “largely speculative, overstated, and unsupported” overall land use planning opinion. - 355 - 42 OLT-23-000498 Compatibility with the Community [92] Finally, in considering site-specific proposals such as these, the Tribunal must always contemplate compatibility. Ms. Anderson defines compatibility as a design that co- exists with the surrounding area, without adverse impacts. The Proposal encourages an adequate supply, mix, and range of housing types and options and blends this with compatibility in a very unique fashion, with careful consideration given to the site-specific dynamics of the Subject Site. [93] The City’s planning and urban design witnesses each suggested that as a low-rise community consisting of predominantly single-family detached and townhome dwellings, the Proposal represents an affront to the surrounding area from a density, built form, height, massing, and design perspective, particularly with the height of Tower 1. They persisted with this opinion, and both appeared to evade existing permitted zoning on the Subject Site, allowing up to eight-storeys along Usman Road (south) with the potential for a building with a length of 70 m from Brock Road, plus an additional four-storeys beyond that point. [94] Ms. Anderson effectively shared her opinion that perhaps the most important contributing elements that are foundational and unique to the Proposal, includes its overall compact and creative design, density, height, and built form with immediate access to existing and planned future transit, road widening, and access to current municipal infrastructure. She reiterated the significance of maintaining the conveyed portion of the Subject Site to the TRCA and the natural heritage elements of that component of the Proposal. She also affirmed that the Transportation analysis was thorough, addressing any and all concerns raised about all related issues. [95] Ms. Anderson further opined that from an urban design and architectural perspective, issues such as overlook, shadowing, and privacy were effectively addressed with the requisite studies in consulting evidence and testimony, emphasizing setbacks, - 356 - 43 OLT-23-000498 step backs, efficient land use, and accessible public and private amenity space with a prominent POPS element. [96] Without belabouring the question of height and density, Ms. Anderson reiterated that the Subject Site is underdeveloped. While not within a designated Urban Growth Area, the Subject Site is uniquely situated along a very busy transportation and transit corridor, has met all City and Regional departmental and agency requirements, and fundamentally has the continued support of City Planning staff. In summary, the Tribunal accepts the Applicant’s evidence and opinions on the issue of compatibility with the community and surrounding area. CONCLUSIONS [97] The evidence that has led the Tribunal to its Decision is founded on well-established expert witness statements and oral testimony. In general, the Tribunal maintains a very serious responsibility, when considering site-specific applications of this nature and must carefully provide its rationale, with careful attention to the legislative framework outlined above. A balanced approach in this matter, must weigh the benefits of compact, creative, and well-designed density and attention to natural heritage, along the well-established Brock Road arterial corridor, and evaluate the Proposal as it relates to the surrounding area and its neighbourhood character. [98] Brock Road is clearly a strategic corridor that provides high-use transit availability now and will expand more significantly into the future. It is precisely these opportunities that allow for new housing in areas where growth should occur, as demonstrated, where there are also a variety of benefits that exist from efficient use of municipal infrastructure both in the immediate area, and the broader community. [99] The Tribunal concludes that the Proposal appropriately and creatively factors in these current conditions along the Brock Road transit corridor, the Brock Ridge - 357 - 44 OLT-23-000498 Neighbourhood and surrounding area. The Applicant’s comprehensive evidence provides a solid foundational basis for support of this Proposal. [100] The Tribunal has also given appropriate regard to the Council decision adopting the recommendation of the Committee refusing the Applications, noting its unanimous disagreement with recommendations in full support of the Proposal, from their own Planning staff, the Region, and all relevant agencies and departments. Notwithstanding this final issue, it is the determination of the Tribunal that the height, density, design, massing, and built form all transition well with the surrounding community. The Proposal represents good planning, enhancing public safety, and will combine significant long-term economic benefits that will follow along this very important corridor. [101] Finally, in addition to weighing the merits of the Appeals and the Proposal, the Tribunal should also be aware of ongoing City, Regional, and Provincial updates and new initiatives associated with their respective policies and guidelines. As mentioned earlier in this Decision, the Region, and City have recently pursued some new policy initiatives and are attempting to update their guidelines and requirements, reflecting many of the current and future housing and economic challenges that they, among others are confronted with. Provincial legislation and policy documents also continue to evolve around transit- supportive communities. Intensification on lands that are adjacent to existing and planned frequent transit corridors are active opportunities for growth and increased densities. It is worth reiterating the importance of this, as it applies to Brock Road specifically in this circumstance, with its widening to six or seven lanes, allowing the City to expand on these new density, tied to transportation enhancements. [102] The timing of the Proposal and the overall redevelopment of the Subject Site, with the natural heritage conveyance component is precisely the right fit and has effectively demonstrated that a site-specific Decision of the Tribunal is well-deserved in this instance. Allowing a well-designed plan at the Subject Site is a reasonable, balanced, and pragmatic choice. The Proposal: has appropriate regard to the legislative framework relating to s. 2 of - 358 - 45 OLT-23-000498 the Act; maintains consistency with the PPS; and conforms with the GP, the DROP, the COP, and the City ZBL. ORDER [103] THE TRIBUNAL ORDERS THAT: 1. The Appeal pursuant to s. 22(7) of the Planning Act by Brock Road Duffins Forest Inc. is allowed, and the Official Plan for the City of Pickering is amended as set out in Attachment 1 to this Order, and 2. The Appeal pursuant to s. 34(11) of the Planning Act by Brock Road Duffins Forest Inc. is allowed, and the municipality is directed to amend By-law 3036 as amended by By-law 7085/10, as set out in Attachment 2 to this Order. The Tribunal authorizes the municipal clerk of the City of Pickering to assign a number to this by-law for record-keeping purposes; and, 3. The Appeal pursuant to s. 51(34) of the Planning Act by Brock Road Duffins Forest Inc. is allowed, and the Draft Plan of Subdivision is authorized as set out in Attachment 3 to this Order. [104] THE TRIBUNAL FURTHER ORDERS THAT the Appeal pursuant to s. 41(12) of the Planning Act is allowed, in principle, with the final Order withheld pending confirmation that the Owner has entered into a Site Plan Agreement with the City of Pickering, which shall include all final plans and drawings as well as securities (see Exhibit 2I, Tab H, pp. 82-94). Such approval shall include conditions associated with the Owner’s settlement with Kindwin (Brock) Development Corporation (included as Exhibit 3, s. 4), associated with cost recovery. - 359 - 46 OLT-23-000498 [105] The Member shall remain seized of this Appeal and may be spoken to regarding either: a) A settlement hearing; or b) A contested hearing at which the Tribunal shall decide/settle any unresolved matters. “Steven T. Mastoras” STEVEN T. MASTORAS MEMBER Ontario Land Tribunal Website: www.olt.gov.on.ca Telephone: 416-212-6349 Toll Free: 1-866-448-2248 The Conservation Review Board, the Environmental Review Tribunal, the Local Planning Appeal Tribunal and the Mining and Lands Tribunal are amalgamated and continued as the Ontario Land Tribunal (“Tribunal”). Any reference to the preceding tribunals or the former Ontario Municipal Board is deemed to be a reference to the Tribunal. - 360 - 47 OLT-23-000498 ATTACHMENT “1” - 361 - 48 OLT-23-000498 - 362 - 49 OLT-23-000498 - 363 - 50 OLT-23-000498 - 364 - 51 OLT-23-000498 - 365 - - 366 - 53 OLT-23-000498 - 367 - 54 OLT-23-000498 - 368 - 55 OLT-23-000498 - 369 - 56 OLT-23-000498 - 370 - 57 OLT-23-000498 - 371 - 58 OLT-23-000498 - 372 - 59 OLT-23-000498 - 373 - 60 OLT-23-000498 - 374 - 61 OLT-23-000498 - 375 - 62 OLT-23-000498 - 376 - 63 OLT-23-000498 - 377 - 64 OLT-23-000498 - 378 - 65 OLT-23-000498 - 379 - 66 OLT-23-000498 - 380 - 67 OLT-23-000498 - 381 - 68 OLT-23-000498 - 382 - 69 OLT-23-000498 - 383 - 70 OLT-23-000498 ATTACHMENT “3” - 384 - 71 OLT-23-000498 - 385 - 72 OLT-23-000498 - 386 - 73 OLT-23-000498 - 387 - 74 OLT-23-000498 - 388 - 75 OLT-23-000498 - 389 - 76 OLT-23-000498 - 390 - 77 OLT-23-000498 - 391 - 78 OLT-23-000498 - 392 - 79 OLT-23-000498 - 393 -