Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
November 4, 2024
Planning & Development Committee Meeting Agenda November 4, 2024 Hybrid Electronic Meeting – 7:00 pm Council Chambers Chair: Councillor Pickles 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. Disclosure of Interest 3. Statutory Public Meetings Statutory Public Meetings are held to receive input and feedback on certain types of planning applications. Members of the public looking to provide a verbal delegation to Members of the Planning & Development Committee 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 on-line 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. Delegates are allotted a maximum of 5 minutes to make their 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. Information Reports 3.1 Information Report 02-24 1 Official Plan Amendment OPA 22-002/P Zoning By-law Amendment A 05/22 Bayfield Realty Advisors and Pickering Ridge Lands Inc. 1755 Pickering Parkway 3.2 Information Report 03-24 33 Zoning By-law Amendment A 03/20 (R1) Pickering Developments (Bayly) Inc. Durham Live Lands (Part of Lots 15 and 16, Concession 1) Planning & Development Committee Meeting Agenda November 4, 2024 Hybrid Electronic Meeting – 7:00 pm Council Chambers Chair: Councillor Pickles For information related to accessibility requirements please contact: Council & Committee Coordinator 905.420.4611 clerks@pickering.ca 4. Delegations Members of the public looking to provide a verbal delegation to Members of the Planning & Development Committee 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 on-line 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. Delegates are allotted a maximum of 5 minutes to make their 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. 5. Planning & Development Reports 5.1 Director, City Development & CBO, Report PLN 30-24 46 Zoning By-law Amendment Application A 01/24 City Initiated: City of Pickering Consolidated Zoning By-law Consultant Delegation Bobby Gauthier, Principal, Urban and Community Planning, Planning, Transportation and Infrastructure, WSP (Virtual) Recommendation: 1. That Report PLN 30-24 regarding the City Initiated City of Pickering Consolidated Zoning By-law be received (see Appendix I); 2. That Zoning By-law Amendment Application A 01/24, initiated by the City of Pickering, to prepare a Consolidated Zoning By-law, be approved; and, 3. That staff be directed to bring forward the final Consolidated Zoning By-law, subject to refinements as may be warranted following comments and submissions at, and after, the Planning & Development Committee Meeting and staff’s further review, for enactment at the December 16, 2024 Council meeting. Planning & Development Committee Meeting Agenda November 4, 2024 Hybrid Electronic Meeting – 7:00 pm Council Chambers Chair: Councillor Pickles For information related to accessibility requirements please contact: Council & Committee Coordinator 905.420.4611 clerks@pickering.ca 5.2 Director, City Development & CBO, Report PLN 28-24 124 Teranet Sublicensing Agreement Renewal – Ontario Parcel Mapping Data Contract Extension with the Region of Durham Recommendation: 1. That Council approve entering into a sublicensing agreement with the Region of Durham to extend the delivery of digital parcel mapping data to the City of Pickering, for a five-year period, at an annual cost of $12,910.00 per year (net HST), beginning in 2025; and, 2. That the appropriate officials of the City of Pickering be authorized to give effect thereto. 5.3 Director, City Development & CBO, Report PLN 29-24 129 5113 Brock Road (Claremont) Notice of Intention to Designate a Property under Part IV, Section 29 of the Ontario Heritage Act Recommendation: 1. That Council endorse the recommendations of the Heritage Pickering Advisory Committee, dated February 28, 2024, to designate 5113 Brock Road (Claremont) 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 5113 Brock Road (Claremont), known as the G.M. Forsyth House, as a property of cultural heritage value or interest, pursuant to Section 29 of the Ontario Heritage Act, included as Attachments 4 and 5 to Report PLN 29-24; 3. That, should no Notice of Objection be received by the City Clerk within 30 days of the publication of the Notice of Intention to Designate, the Designation By-law for 5113 Brock Road (Claremont), included as Attachment 6 to Report PLN 29-24, be forwarded to Council for enactment, and that staff be directed to carry out the notice requirements as prescribed under Section 29(8) of the Ontario Heritage Act; and, Planning & Development Committee Meeting Agenda November 4, 2024 Hybrid Electronic Meeting – 7:00 pm Council Chambers Chair: Councillor Pickles 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 such actions as necessary to give effect to this report. 6. Member Updates on Committees 7. Other Business 8. Adjournment Information Report to Planning & Development Committee Report Number: 02-24 Date: November 4, 2024 From: Catherine Rose, MCIP, RPP Chief Planner Subject: Official Plan Amendment OPA 22-002/P Zoning By-law Amendment A 05/22 Bayfield Realty Advisors and Pickering Ridge Lands Inc. 1755 Pickering Parkway 1.Purpose of this Report The purpose of this report is to provide preliminary information regarding applicationsfor Official Plan Amendment and Zoning By-law Amendment, submitted by BayfieldRealty Advisors and Pickering Ridge Lands Inc., to facilitate a multi-phased, high-density, mixed-use residential development. This report is intended to assist members of the public and other interested stakeholdersto understand the proposal. The Planning & Development Committee will hear publicdelegations on the applications, ask questions for clarification, and identify any planningissues. This report is for information, and no decision on these applications is being made at this time. Staff will bring forward a recommendation report for consideration by the Planning & Development Committee upon completion of a comprehensiveevaluation of the proposal. 2.Property Location and Description The subject property is located at the southeast corner of Pickering Parkway and Brock Road, known as “The Shops at Pickering Ridge” (see Location Map, Attachment 1). The site is approximately 9.48 hectares, with frontages along Brock Road to the west, andPickering Parkway to the north. The property is an irregularly shaped parcel with acommercial shopping plaza having a total gross floor area of approximately26,585 square metres. This includes several single-storey, stand-alone, and multi- tenanted buildings, offering a variety of retail, commercial and restaurant uses. Some of the tenants include Kitchen Stuff Plus, Dollar Tree, Fabricland, Sabina’s Casual Dining& Pub, Goodlife Fitness, and Blue Sky Supermarket. The surrounding land uses are as follows (see Air Photo Map, Attachment 2): North: At the southeast corner of Pickering Parkway and Brock Road is a stand-alone retail use with an automobile service station (Canadian Tire). Across Pickering Parkway to the north is another commercial plaza with various restaurants, retail and commercial stores, including, but not limited to, Walmart, Rona+, McDonald’s, Toys-R-Us, PetSmart and LCBO. These lands are subject to approved applications for Official Plan Amendment (OPA 20-003/P) and Zoning By-law Amendment (A 07/20), which permit a phased high-density, mixed-use - 1 - Information Report 02-24 Page 2 development consisting of five towers with building heights ranging between 25 to 32 storeys, comprising approximately 1,599 residential units and 4,568 square metres of commercial space at grade. To the northeast of the subject lands, south of Pickering Parkway, is a recently constructed medium-density residential development consisting of 130 townhouse dwelling units. Further north of Pickering Parkway is an existing low-density residential neighbourhood, consisting of primarily detached dwellings, and Beechlawn Public Park. East: To the east are lands owned by the City of Pickering, designated for the future construction of the Notion Road overpass. The municipal boundary of Pickering extends to Notion Road. East of Notion Road, within the Town of Ajax, land uses include St. Francis de Sales Catholic Cemetery, and an industrial area with outdoor aggregate storage, motor vehicle repair shops, towing businesses, and recycling services. South: Immediately to the south, is Highway 401 and the Metrolinx/CN railway corridor. Southeast of the subject property is the Durham Live Casino and Hotel. West: Across Brock Road at the southwest corner is an existing automobile Service Station and a Tim Horton’s drive-through restaurant. Further west, are two 8-storey residential buildings, a Retirement Residence, as well as townhouse dwelling units. 3. Previous Application Submission On June 6, 2022, the Applicant originally submitted applications for Official Plan Amendment and Zoning By-law Amendment Applications. The Official Plan Amendment was intended to cover the entire site, while the Zoning By-law Amendment was initially prepared to only apply to Phase 1 of the proposed development. At the time of submission, the applicant indicated that future phases would proceed through separate rezoning applications at later dates. On January 9, 2023, the applicant requested that the review of the applications be temporarily paused, to allow time to revise the scope of the Zoning By-law Amendment application to include the entire site. On April 12, 2024, the applicant resubmitted their application for an Official Plan Amendment, along with a revised Zoning By-law Amendment covering all phases of the proposed development. 4. Applicant’s Proposal 4.1 Conceptual Master plan for the entire landholdings Bayfield Realty Advisors and Pickering Ridge Lands Inc. have developed a master plan that outlines their long-term vision for their landholdings (see Submitted Conceptual Master Plan, Submitted Site Plan, Conceptual Rendering and Conceptual Height Massing, Attachments 3 to 6). The submitted conceptual master plan proposes the following: - 2 - Information Report 02-24 Page 3 • a multi-phased mixed-use development consisting of seven buildings with twelve towers, ranging in height from 20 to 43 storeys • a total of 26,103 square metres of non-residential gross floor area • a total of 5,297 dwelling units, including studio, one-, two-, and three-bedroom units • a total of 4,238 parking spaces for residents, visitors and commercial uses, located within 4 to 6 levels of underground parking for each phase of development • a proposed residential parking rate of 0.8 spaces per dwelling unit, and a visitor parking space of 0.15 spaces per unit • a total of 2,649 bicycle spaces • a network of new public streets and private roads connecting to Brock Road and Pickering Parkway • a new 1.04 hectare central public park, to be conveyed to the City • privately-owned publicly accessible amenity spaces (POPS) located throughout the site To facilitate the proposed master plan, the applicant has submitted applications for Official Plan Amendment and Zoning By-law Amendment. The applicant is requesting a site-specific amendment to the City’s Official Plan to allow a maximum net residential density of over 80 units per net hectare (with no maximum), and to increase the maximum permitted FSI to 5.0. The amendment would permit additional uses, including medium and high-density residential, retailing of goods and services, offices and restaurants to facilitate the proposed development. The applicant has requested that the subject lands be rezoned to appropriate zone categories, with an updated list of permitted uses. They also propose new development standards, including building height, setbacks and stepbacks, podium height, building separation, tower floor plate size, landscaping, indoor and outdoor amenity areas, and parking standards for residential, visitor and various commercial uses. A shared parking formula is also proposed. Additionally, the applicant seeks to implement an “(H)” Holding Symbol to outline the conditions that must be met before each phase of construction begins, and to ensure that the necessary infrastructure is in place to support the development. 4.2 Details of Phase 1 of the proposed development The applicant is proposing to redevelop the westernmost portion of the subject lands, fronting onto Brock Road, as the first phase of development. This phase covers a total area of 1.18 hectares and includes a portion of the existing commercial building that houses Sunlife Financial, among other tenants, as well as a surface parking lot. A portion of the existing building and parking area are proposed to be demolished as part of Phase 1 (see Submitted Conceptual Blocks 1 and 2, and Block 1 – View looking south, Attachments 7 and 8). Key development details for Phase 1 are as follows: • two, 31-storey buildings including a 7-storey podium • 1,669 square metres of non-residential gross floor area on the ground floor • a total of 678 dwelling units • the proposed unit mix for Phase 1 includes: • 5.5 percent – studio units - 3 - Information Report 02-24 Page 4 • 49.6 percent – one-bedroom units • 32.4 percent – two-bedroom units • 12.5 percent – three-bedroom units • 702 parking spaces within four levels of underground parking Vehicular access to Block 1 will be provided from a new east-west public road via a right-in, right-out, access from Brock Road, in the same location as the existing access. This access is approximately 100 metres north of the existing Highway 401 westbound exit ramp at Brock Road. The new public east-west road will have a right-of-way width of 18.5 metres, that will extend east through future phases of development. The proposed development includes both indoor and outdoor amenity areas. The indoor amenities, located on the 6th and 7th floors, will have a total area of approximately 1,538 square metres. Outdoor amenities will consist of landscaped areas at ground level, located to the northeast and south of the proposed buildings, along with private balconies. The proposed public road and proposed public park will be required to be conveyed to the City, however, the applicant has not proposed any public parkland or public roads to be conveyed to the City as part of Phase 1. Additionally, the applicant has not identified any affordable housing units or whether the buildings will be condominiums or rentals for Phase 1 or subsequent phases. A Tenant Relocation Strategy has been prepared to ensure that current tenants are accommodated elsewhere on-site as the phased development progresses. The applicant has advised staff that tenants from Phase 1 have been contacted and offered the opportunity to relocate to available vacant units in the eastern portion of the site. Further approvals will be required for a draft plan of subdivision and site plan applications. Draft plan of condominium application, if applicable, will also need to be submitted at a later stage for each building. 5. Policy Framework 5.1 Provincial Planning Statement (2024) On October 20, 2024, the Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing (MMAH) issued a new Provincial Planning Statement (PPS), replacing both the Provincial Policy Statement (2020) and A Place to Grow: Growth Plan for the Greater Golden Horseshoe (2019). The PPS states that to support the achievement of complete communities, a range and mix of housing options, intensification and more mixed-use development should be planned. It directs Planning Authorities to permit development and intensification in strategic growth areas to support the achievement of complete communities and a compact built form. The PPS also encourages Planning Authorities to support redevelopment of commercially designated retail lands (i.e., underutilized shopping malls and plazas) to mixed-use residential development, among other policies. - 4 - Information Report 02-24 Page 5 The applicant’s proposal appears to generally conform to the new PPS. Staff will further assess the proposal against the policies of the new PPS during the continued processing of the applications. 5.2 Durham Regional Official Plan “Envision Durham" On May 17, 2023, Durham Regional Council adopted the new Official Plan “Envision Durham”, as amended. The Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing approved the Official Plan in part on September 3, 2024. The new Regional Official Plan designates the subject lands as “Rapid Transit Corridor” and includes them in the Urban System within an identified Strategic Growth Area. Strategic Growth Areas are represented as optimal locations for prioritizing intensification and higher-density, mixed-use development, aiming to create mixed-use, compact and dense urban, amenity-rich environments. The new Official Plan states that the minimum Transit Supportive Density target is 150 people and jobs per gross hectare for the Rapid Transit Corridors. These corridors are intended to support a full range and mix of uses, including residential, commercial, and compatible employment uses such as offices, all in a higher density, compact and pedestrian-oriented built form. The applicant’s proposed development appears to conform to the policies and provisions of the Regional Official Plan. 5.3 Pickering Official Plan The subject lands are located within the Village East Neighbourhood and are designated as “Mixed-Use Areas – Specialty Retailing Node” and “Natural Area” in the Pickering Official Plan. Mixed Use Areas are intended to support a wide variety of uses and the highest levels of activity in the City. In these areas, a range of uses for residents, businesses and visitors, including residential, retail, commercial, business, office, service, recreational, community and cultural uses are permitted. The greatest diversity of uses, highest levels of activity, and best quality of design are directed toward the City Centre and the Mixed Corridor along Kingston Road and Brock Road. The Specialty Retailing Node designation allows for a variety of uses, including hotels, special-purpose commercial uses like large format retailers, retail warehouses, automotive uses and ancillary retailing of other goods, and services. It also permits restaurants, limited offices, community, cultural and recreational uses, community gardens, and limited residential development at higher densities as an integral part of an overall development scheme. The permitted residential density range is over 80 units up to and including 180 units per net hectare, with a maximum floor space index (FSI) up to and including 2.5. The maximum gross leasable floorspace for the retailing of goods and services is to be determined by a site-specific zoning by-law amendment. The “Natural Area” designation is found on the eastern limits of the subject lands. This designation allows for conservation, environmental protection, restoration, education, passive recreation, and similar uses. Development or site alteration may only be permitted in key natural heritage and/or key hydrologic features for purposes such as - 5 - Information Report 02-24 Page 6 forest, fish and wildlife management, conservation and flood and erosion control and other similar environmental protection and restoration projects. Minor recreational and educational uses, such as non-motorized trails, footbridges and picnic facilities, are also permitted. 5.4 OPA 38 Kingston Road Corridor and Specialty Retailing Node Intensification Plan In January 2022, Council adopted the City Initiated Official Plan Amendment 38 (OPA 38), which was approved by the Region of Durham in November 2022. However, it has been appealed to the Ontario Land Tribunal (OLT) by six landowners, although the subject landowners are not among the appellants. The appeals are currently progressing through various legal proceedings, with discussions aimed at making the appeals site-specific. Meanwhile, OPA 38 is not yet in final force and effect. The proponent is encouraged to demonstrate how the proposed development aligns with the intent of OPA 38 and the Draft Urban Design Guidelines. The subject lands are located in the Brock Precinct within the Intensification Plan (see OPA 38, Schedule XIV – Brock Precinct Intensification Area, Attachment 9). The lands have multiple designations. The western portion of the property is designated as “Mixed Use Type A” and “Public Park”, while the eastern portion is designated as “Mixed Use Type C”, “Residential” and “Natural Area”. The minimum permitted residential density is over 60 units per net hectare (with no maximum), and the floor space index (FSI) permitted is over 0.75 to a maximum of 2.5. Through a site-specific zoning by-law amendment, consideration may be given to proposals to allow an increase to the FSI beyond 2.5, up to and including 5.0, subject to the following criteria: • the site is generally located in an appropriate gateway location and/or adjacent to Highway 401 • the proposal is compatible with adjacent land uses, particularly stable residential neighbourhoods, in terms of massing, height, scale and transition • the applicant demonstrates that the proposed development would not preclude other properties within the precinct from developing or redeveloping to their planned potential • the proposal meets the general intent of the policies of the Official Plan The policy recommendations of OPA 38 outline the following per each designation: • Mixed Use Type A – This designation is intended for the greatest and highest-intensity uses within the intensification areas, combining higher-density residential, commercial, retail and office uses. Office uses are encouraged to be located in Mixed Use A areas, particularly at major intersections with access to existing and planned transportation infrastructure. • Mixed Use Type C – This designation features a combination of residential and retail uses, with a greater proportion of residential compared to retail. It represents the least-intensive mixed-use zone within the Kingston Road Corridor. This area will include smaller-scale retail and service uses that complement residential uses, - 6 - Information Report 02-24 Page 7 reflecting a community-oriented role. Retail and commercial-service uses should be primarily located on the ground floor, while office uses should be permitted, but secondary to residential retail and service-commercial uses. This designation is generally located adjacent to existing or proposed green spaces or community and institutional facilities. • Residential – This designation allows for various residential building types, including apartment dwellings of different heights, townhouses and live-work units. Office and retail uses are permitted but limited to live-work units on the ground floor of residential buildings. Areas designated for residential uses are encouraged to offer a broad diversity of housing options in terms of form, location, size, tenure, and cost, addressing the needs of existing and future residents, including affordable and special needs housing. This designation is typically adjacent to existing low-rise residential neighbourhoods. • Public Parks – This designation is strategically located to enhance and interact with existing green spaces, forming a cohesive network that includes parks, squares, trails, lookouts, natural heritage features and more. Public parks are intended to serve community functions and will be designed to accommodate diverse programming throughout the year. • Natural Area – Policies under this designation (as outlined in Chapters 10 and 16 of the Official Plan) encourage the implementation of erosion control and stormwater management best practices to improve existing flood conditions within the Kingston Corridor Intensification Area. The Intensification Plan included several recommended policies related to the subject lands, summarized in Attachment 10 to this report. 6. Draft Urban Design Guidelines The Council-endorsed Draft Kingston Road Corridor and Specialty Retailing Node Urban Design Guidelines include several key urban design objectives related to block structure, built form, site design, landscaping, building design, pedestrian connections, parking, and the transition and massing of buildings (see Draft Kingston Road Corridor and Specialty Retailing Node Intensification Plan – Design Recommendations Related to the Proposal, Attachment 11). On December 2, 2019, the Planning & Development Committee endorsed the Kingston Road Corridor and Specialty Retailing Node Draft Urban Design Guidelines. These guidelines support the goals, objectives, and vision for the area as set out in the Intensification Plan and establish design priorities and principles for built form, placemaking, and connectivity. The guidelines state that over time, the lands within the corridor should accommodate cars, bicycles and transit, while catering to pedestrians. The guidelines divide the corridor into six distinct precincts, each with specific standards for their geographic area. The Brock Precinct covers the lands around the intersection of Kingston and Brock Road, as well as areas north of Highway 401 and east of Brock Road. The Urban Design Guidelines outline the built form vision for the Brock Precinct as follows: - 7 - Information Report 02-24 Page 8 • the greatest concentration of height and density will be located at gateway locations along Brock Road • additional clusters of tall buildings will be located in the southern portions of the precinct near Highway 401 • primary frontages within the Brock Precinct will be distributed along a series of internal roads, particularly the new north-south roads that cross Pickering Parkway • secondary frontages are concentrated at gateway intersections, the western portion of Pickering Parkway, and blocks facing public open spaces • several publicly accessible spaces of different sizes will be provided in the Brock Precinct to ensure adequate open space for the growing population. These include public parks, Privately-Owned Publicly Accessible Spaces (POPS) and Gateway Plazas • a series of linear parks, developed and maintained as POPS, are proposed to connect larger open spaces • a public park will be located in the southern part of the Precinct. It should be sized and programmed to service the residents south of Pickering Parkway and should include features such as children’s play structures, seating areas, unprogrammed open green space and a multi-use court • south of Pickering Parkway, POPS will be organized within blocks of mixed-use and residential development. These spaces are intended to provide places of respite from retail activity and contribute to complete communities offering residents places to live, work and play Details of the applications will be assessed against the applicable policy framework, including the policy recommendations of OPA 38, and the design priorities of the Draft Urban Design Guidelines during the further processing of the applications. 7. Affordable Housing Section 6.4 of the Pickering Official Plan states that City Council shall require a minimum of 25 percent of new residential construction, on a City-wide basis, to be of forms that would be affordable to households of low or moderate incomes. Under the Official Plan, “affordable” is defined as annual housing costs (rent or mortgage payments) that do not exceed 30 percent of gross household income. The applicant has submitted a Planning Justification Report which includes a section on affordable housing. The report notes that, due to factors like timing of planning approvals, marketing, construction, phasing and various internal and external variables, the tenure (ownership or rental) of the units cannot be confirmed at this time. Although the sale prices have not yet been determined, the report states that the proposed development will offer a wide range of unit sizes and layouts, designed to suit different income levels. It further suggests that the development will generally provide a more affordable home ownership option compared to many traditional greenfield developments. The report states that the project aims to reduce the barriers to homeownership by offering a more affordable alternative with a variety of sizes and options for all life stages within the community. The applicant’s proposal will be assessed against the affordable housing policies contained within the Pickering Official Plan during further processing of the applications. - 8 - Information Report 02-24 Page 9 8. Zoning By-law 3036, as amended The subject lands are dual zoned: Mixed Use Specialty Retailing Node One “MU-SRN-1” and Open Space – Hazard Lands “OS-HL” within Zoning By-law 3036, as amended by By-laws 6549/05 and 7176/11. Most of the lands are zoned MU-SRN-1, and a portion of the lands to the east are zoned “OS-HL” – Open Space Hazard Lands, and “(H) MU-SRN-1” Zone. The MU-SRN-1 zone category permits various commercial uses, including professional offices, restaurants, retail stores, hotels, spas, financial institutions, assembly halls, food stores, and places of amusement or entertainment. The OS-HL zone category permits preservation and conservation of the natural environment, soil and wildlife, and resource management. A “(H)” Holding Symbol applies to the eastern portion of the lands, enacted through By-law 7176/11, as part of a previously approved Zoning By-law Amendment (A 7/10). This holding provision was added to allow for the construction of a stormwater pond. The By-law specifies that the “(H)” Holding Provision will not be removed until the following conditions are met: (i) appropriate arrangements have been made to the satisfaction of the City of Pickering for the conveyance of lands to the City, free and clear of all encumbrance for the purposes of widening Notion Road for the construction of a Highway 401 overpass; and (ii) appropriate arrangements have been made to the satisfaction of the Toronto and Region Conservation Authority and the City of Pickering for the future management of the Regional Storm flood volumes in the absence of a stormwater facility. 9. Comments Received 9.1 Public Comments from the Public Open House meeting and written submissions On September 18, 2024, the City Development Department hosted a Public Open House Meeting to inform area residents about the proposed development. Notices were mailed to all properties within 150 metres of the subject lands, as well as to an expanded circulation radius, as requested by the Local and Regional Councilors. In total, notices were mailed to 874 property owners. Four notice signs were also erected on the property and notice of the meeting was also provided through the City’s social media accounts. A total of 22 residents attended the meeting, and since the applications were received, the City has received a total of 16 written submissions regarding the development. The key themes from comments received by area residents at the Public Open House meeting and through written submissions include: concerns about traffic congestion; the loss of existing retail and commercial spaces; shadow impacts; the timing for the construction of the proposed public park; the lack of new schools and community space to support future residents; building design; parking and impacts to existing businesses; and lack of parking for future residents and visitors (see Public Comments, Attachment 12). - 9 - Information Report 02-24 Page 10 9.2 Agency Comments 9.2.1 Toronto and Region Conservation Authority (TRCA) • TRCA staff have no objection to the approval of the Official Plan Amendment and Zoning By-law amendment applications subject to applicable conditions provided by TRCA concerning on-site retention for all impervious surfaces • TRCA recommends that the technical comments provided be addressed as part of a future Site Plan Approval Application 9.2.2 Canadian National (CN) Rail • CN Rail has advised that the proposed development is feasible, and can be designed to meet the CN Rail, Railway Association of Canada, the Federation of Canadian Municipalities, and the Ministry of Environment guidelines • as the proposed development is more than 75 metres from the two rail corridors, a vibration assessment and vibration mitigation measures are not required • the submitted Traffic and Land Use Compatibility Study (Noise) was peer-reviewed, and comments included should be incorporated as part of a required updated Study, and submitted for CN’s review. The recommendations and requirements included in the Noise Study shall be included within the required CN Agreement 9.2.3 Ministry of Transportation • the Ministry of Transportation is supportive of the Official Plan and Zoning By-law amendment applications in principle • the applicant will be required to attain an MTO Site Plan Approval and MTO permits before any construction activities • the applicant is advised that appropriate setbacks will be required from Highway 401 and service roads • further details and requirements have also been provided, which will be reviewed as part of the future associated Site Plan Application submission 9.2.4 Metrolinx • before site plan approval, the applicant must submit a final Noise & Vibration Study, to the satisfaction of Metrolinx • before site plan approval, the Owner shall grant Metrolinx an environmental easement for operational emissions, which is to be registered on title for uses within 300 metres of the rail right-of-way • Metrolinx has advised that appropriate noise and warning clauses must be included within associated development agreements and before Site Plan Approval, environmental easements must be included on the title of the subject lands 9.2.5 Region of Durham • the Region of Durham has identified that in accordance with By-law 11-2000, the Official Plan Amendment application is exempt from Regional Approval - 10 - Information Report 02-24 Page 11 • the proposed development conforms to the current Regional Official Plan and the Region’s new Council-adopted Regional Official Plan, ‘Envision Durham’ • the proposed development will increase the density and array of housing types of the Regional Corridor and Living Areas and contribute towards reaching the City’s intensification allocation • the proposed zoning by-law application conforms to the Regional Official Plan, and the Region has no objection to the proposed amendment, subject to the inclusion of an (H) Holding symbol on the subject site to demonstrate through a future site servicing agreement that there is sufficient sanitary servicing capacity to enable the full development of the site • the Region has identified that further investigation is required concerning the proposed servicing of the entirety of the subject lands and clarification on easement requirements as part of the future submission 9.2.6 Durham Catholic District School Board (DCDSB) • the DCDSB has advised they have no objections to the proposed development • students from the proposed development would be included within the catchment areas of St. Wilfred Elementary School and St. Mary’s High School 9.2.7 Durham District School Board (DDSB) • the DDSB has advised they have no objections to the proposed development • students from the proposed development would be included within the catchment areas of Lincoln Avenue Public School and Pickering High School in Ajax 9.3 City Department Comments 9.3.1 Engineering Services Department • the applicant will be required to provide more technical analysis concerning the proposed servicing scheme and erosion control for the subject lands that are to the satisfaction of both the City and the Region of Durham • the submitted Traffic Impact Study is to be revised and indicate details such as public road alignment with existing accesses to the north of the subject lands, and confirmation of signalization, among other technical details 9.3.2 Sustainability Division • staff have no objections to the proposed development applications • the Applicant has committed to pursuing several sustainable design elements including providing: • site and conceptual building design in accordance with Accessibility for Ontarians with Disabilities Act (AODA) • community safety by designing the proposed site using Crime Prevention through Environmental Design (CPTED) principles that encourage site and building design to eliminate or reduce criminal behaviour and create a safe space • light pollution reduction measures by designing the proposed development to meet the dark sky compliant requirements - 11 - Information Report 02-24 Page 12 • bird-friendly building design and glazing to reduce bird collisions caused by buildings • support for alternative transportation through the provision of electric vehicle (EV) parking spaces and long and short-term bicycle parking spaces • commitment to diverging 50 percent of the construction waste from landfill sites and providing a waste sorting system for garbage, recycling and organics • using water efficiency and supporting sustainable stormwater management practices • the applicant has also committed to the following ISDS Tier 2 performance measures to be implemented at the Site Plan Stage: • provide new resident education information packages to familiarize new tenants with sustainable development features and lifestyle practices, including additional signage posted on sites to educate residents and visitors of sustainability features • urban heat island reduction measures • the Applicant will be required to complete the ISDS Mid to High-Rise Residential & Non-Residential Checklist and cover letter 9.3.3 Office of Affordability • the Applicant will be required to provide a revised Affordable Housing Brief, containing the following key information: • clarify how the proposed development fulfills Federal, Provincial, Regional and the City’s affordable housing objectives • identify whether any grants or other supportive housing opportunities, as well as partnerships with any not-for-profit organizations, have been pursued • a summary of how many of the proposed units will be accessible • identify how many units (by size and typology) would be considered affordable to low and moderate income households • include present day prices for the proposed units to indicate how many units would be affordable (sold or rented) in the current housing market 10. Planning & Design Section Comments The following key concerns and issues have been raised so far. These, along with other comments identified through the review process, must be addressed by the applicant before a formal recommendation report is presented to the Planning & Development Committee: 10.1 Land Use Policies • ensure the proposal aligns with the Provincial Planning Statement (2024), the Region of Durham Official Plan “Envision Durham” (2024), Council approved OPA 38, and the Council endorsed Kingston Road Corridor and Specialty Retailing Node Draft Urban Design Guidelines • assess the appropriateness of the proposal, including the requested density increase within the context of the policy framework, and the urban design objectives of the Kingston Road Corridor and the Specialty Retailing Node Study - 12 - Information Report 02-24 Page 13 • request the applicant to explore options to provide affordable housing, along with a mix of residential types, sizes and tenures, as well as encourage the applicant to include rental housing in addition to condominium tenureship • ensure sufficient retail and commercial space is being replaced, given the removal of existing service-commercial and retail uses that currently service the community • require the inclusion of office space to provide opportunities for professional services that would benefit the community 10.2 Site Design and Built Form • evaluate the appropriateness of the master plan site layout, street pattern, right-of- way width, park location and size, proposed building heights and pedestrian connections ensuring the proposal meets the goals and objectives of the Council endorsed Draft Urban Design Guidelines for the Kingston Corridor and Specialty Retailing Node • ensure the greatest densities and building heights are directed in proximity to Highway 401 • ensure building massing and height are scaled appropriately for the surrounding streets and residential areas to create a human-scaled environment that respects the context • require building heights to comply with the recommended 45-degree angular plane from the front property line, beginning at a height of 80 percent the width of the adjacent right-of-way as identified in the Council endorsed Urban Design Guidelines • ensure the proposed tower floor plate sizes conform to the maximum size recommended in the Council endorsed Draft Urban Design Guidelines for the Kingston Corridor and Specialty Retailing Node • review proposed building heights and tower placements to minimize shadowing and wind impacts on public spaces, such as parks, public roads, and POPS, while maintaining adequate sunlight and skyviews 10.3 Parks and Amenity Spaces • determine the appropriate amount of land to be dedicated to the City for park space, in accordance with the Planning Act and the City’s parkland requirements • determine whether Block 1 should provide its share of parkland dedication, given that the timeline for redeveloping other parts of the landholdings is unknown • ensure the proposed park space is to be conveyed to the City, free of all encumbrances, and in accordance with the Parkland By-law and applicable guidelines 10.4 Street Network, Traffic, and Parking • encourage the applicant to provide at-grade parking for accessibility needs, visitors, and patrons of the commercial/retail uses and public park spaces • assess whether the development will cause significant traffic impacts or operation issues at the intersection of Brock Road and Pickering Parkway, the 401 interchange and other local roads within the neighbourhood • ensure that the future street network within the larger site is consistent with the Kingston Road Corridor and Specialty Retailing Node Intensification Plan - 13 - Information Report 02-24 Page 14 • require the entire right-of-way for all new public roads to be provided within the proposed development area • ensure that the proposed east-west and north-south public roads are complete streets with cycling facilities, landscaping, seating areas and street trees, as illustrated in the Council-endorsed Draft Urban Design Guidelines • determine whether the proposed north-south public road connections are aligned with existing accesses to the north of Pickering Parkway and whether traffic signalization is warranted • ensure accessible pedestrian paths of travel are provided throughout the site, including pedestrian connections to street networks, public transit, parks and other outdoor amenity spaces 10.5 Other matters to be addressed • determine whether any existing reciprocal easements exist between the subject lands and adjacent properties • assess the proposed zoning and provisions standards, and determine the required conditions for the proposed “(H)” Holding provision • ensure that engineering requirements and Region of Durham requirements are addressed and that there is sufficient sanitary, storm sewer and water capacity to service the development • review the proposed phasing plan to ensure the necessary infrastructure (roads, sanitary, water and storm sewers) will be constructed to support each phase of development • require the applicant to apply for draft plan of subdivision for the creation of the future development blocks, public roads and public park • ensure that any land conveyances to the City for the new Highway 401 road crossing, from Notion Road to Squires Beach Road, are included in the first phase of development, and conveyed to the City free of encumbrances for future road allowance Further issues may be identified following receipt and review of comments from the circulated departments, agencies and the public. The City Development Department will conclude its position on the applications after it has received and assessed comments from the circulated departments, agencies, and the public. 11. Information Received Copies of the plans and studies submitted in support of the revised applications are listed below and available for viewing on the City’s website at pickering/ca/devapp, or in person by appointment at the office of the City of Pickering, City Development Department: • Architectural Master Plan, prepared by Turner Fleischer, dated April 10, 2024 • Architectural Phasing Plans, prepared by Turner Fleischer, dated April 4, 2024 • Survey, prepared by Speight, Van Nostrand & Gibson Limited, dated February 22, 2022 • Planning Justification Report, prepared by Zelinka Priamo Ltd., dated April 12, 2024 - 14 - Information Report 02-24 Page 15 • Functional Servicing Report and Stormwater Management Report, prepared by the Odan/Detech Group Inc, dated April 10, 2024 • Geotechnical Report, prepared by DS Consultants Ltd., dated March 15, 2023 • Landscape Master Plan, prepared by Studio TLA, dated March 5, 2024 • Landscape Drawing Set, prepared by Studio TLA, dated March 19, 2024 • Master Servicing and Stormwater Management Report, prepared by the Odan/Detech Group Inc, dated April 10, 2024 • Traffic and Land Use Compatibility Study (Noise), prepared by Howe Gastmeier Chapnik Limited, dated March 4, 2024 • Pedestrian Level Wind Study, prepared by Gradient Wind Engineers & Scientists, dated February 1, 2024 • Sun and Shadow Study, prepared by Turner Fleischer, dated March 4, 2024 • Traffic Impact Study Report, prepared by R.V. Anderson Associates Limited, dated April 9, 2024 • Tree Inventory Preservation Plan, prepared by Studio TLA, dated June 18, 2021 • Air Quality, Dust and Odour Study, prepared by SLR Consulting (Canada) Ltd., dated March 15, 2024 • Environmental Site Assessment, Phase 1, prepared by DS Consultants, dated March 14, 2023 • Environmental Site Assessment, Phase 2, prepared by DS Consultants, dated March 14, 2023 • Site Lighting Plan – Phase 1, prepared by e-Lumen Consulting Engineers Lighting, dated November 9, 2023 • Urban Design Brief, prepared by Turner Fleischer, dated April 8, 2024 12. Procedural Information 12.1 General • written comments regarding this proposal should be directed to the City Development Department • all comments received will be noted and used as input to a Recommendation Report prepared by the City Development Department for a subsequent meeting of Council or a Committee of Council • any member of the public who wishes to be notified of Council’s decision regarding this proposal must request such in writing to the City Clerk 13. Owner/Applicant Information The Owners of this property are Pickering Ridge Lands Inc. and Bayfield Realty Advisors, represented by Zelinka Priamo Ltd. Attachments: 1. Location Map 2. Air Photo 3. Submitted Conceptual Master Plan 4. Submitted Site Plan - 15 - Information Report 02-24 Page 16 5.Conceptual Rendering6.Conceptual Height Massing7.Submitted Conceptual Blocks 1 and 2 8.Block 1 – View looking South 9.Brock Precinct Intensification Area10.Kingston Road Corridor and Specialty Retailing Node Intensification Plan –Recommended Policies Related to the Proposal11.Draft Kingston Road Corridor and Specialty Retailing Node Intensification Plan – Design Recommendations Related to the Proposal 12.Public Comments Prepared By: Original Signed By Amanda Zara Dunn, MCIP, RPP Principal Planner, Development Review Original Signed By Nilesh Surti, MCIP, RPP Division Head, Development Review & Urban Design Approved/Endorsed By: Original Signed By Catherine Rose, MCIP, RPP Chief Planner AM:ld - 16 - Attachment 1 to Information Report 02-24 Br o c k R o a d Highway 401 Kingston R o a d To y A v e n u e No t i o n R o a d Beechlaw n D riv e Ma r s h c o u r t D r i v e Pickering Parkway Den m a r Road Fairfield Cresce n t Sq u i r e s B e a c h R o a d Bu r n s i d e D r i v e Larks mere Court Plummer Street Tribro Studios Avenue Ashford Drive DenmarPark BeechlawnPark © 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 of Natural Resources. All rights reserved.; © Teranet Enterprises Inc. and its suppliers all rights reserved.; © Municipal Property Assessment Corporation and its suppliers all rights reserved.; City DevelopmentDepartment Location MapFile:Applicant:Municipal Address: OPA 22-002/P and A 05/22 Date: Sep. 11, 2024 ¯ E Pickering Ridge Lands Inc. and Bayfield Realty Advisors Inc. 1755 and 1775 Pickering Parkway SubjectLands L:\PLANNING\01-MapFiles\OPA\2022\OPA 22-002P & A 05-22 Pickering Ridge Lands Inc. and Bayfield Realty Advisors Inc\OPA 22-002P & A 05-22_LocationMap.mxd 1:7,000 SCALE:THIS IS NOT A PLAN OF SURVEY.- 17 - Attachment 2 to Information Report 02-24 Br o c k R o a d Highway 401 Kingston R o a d To y A v e n u e No t i o n R o a d Bainbridge Drive Beechlawn Drive Marshcourt Drive Geta Circle Pickering Parkway B a nbury Court Denmar R oad Fairfiel dCrescent Sq u i r e s B e a c h R o a d Quartz Street Salk R o a d Bu r n s i d e D r i v e LarksmereCourt Plummer Street Tribro Studios Avenue As h f o r d D r i v e 1:7,000 SCALE: © 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 of Natural Resources. All rights reserved.; © Teranet Enterprises Inc. and its suppliers all rights reserved.; © Municipal Property Assessment Corporation and its suppliers all rights reserved.; City DevelopmentDepartment Air Photo MapFile:Applicant:Municipal Address: OPA 22-002/P and A 05/22 Pickering Ridge Lands Inc. and Bayfield Realty Advisors Inc. 1755 and 1775 Pickering Parkway THIS IS NOT A PLAN OF SURVEY. Date: Sep. 11, 2024 L:\PLANNING\01-MapFiles\OPA\2022\OPA 22-002P & A 05-22 Pickering Ridge Lands Inc. and Bayfield Realty Advisors Inc\OPA 22-002P & A 05-22_AirPhoto.mxd ¯ E SubjectLands - 18 - Attachment 3 to Information Report 02-24 L:\Planning\01-MapFiles\OPA\2022 Sept. 11, 2024DATE: Applicant: Municipal Address: File No: Conceptual Master Plan FULL SCALE COPIES OF THIS PLAN ARE AVAILABLE FOR VIEWING AT THE CITY OF PICKERING CITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT. City Development Department OPA 22-002/P & A 05/22 Pickering Ridge Lands Inc. & Bayfield Realty Advisors Inc. 1755 & 1775 Pickering Parkway N - 19 - Attachment 4 to Information Report 02-24 L:\Planning\01-MapFiles\OPA\2022 Sept. 11, 2024DATE: Applicant: Municipal Address: File No: Submitted Site Plan FULL SCALE COPIES OF THIS PLAN ARE AVAILABLE FOR VIEWING AT THE CITY OF PICKERING CITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT. City Development Department OPA 22-002/P & A 05/22 Pickering Ridge Lands Inc. & Bayfield Realty Advisors Inc. 1755 & 1775 Pickering Parkway N - 20 - Attachment 5 to Information Report 02-24 L:\Planning\01-MapFiles\OPA\2022 Sept. 11, 2024DATE: Applicant: Municipal Address: File No: Conceptual Rendering - View from Highway FULL SCALE COPIES OF THIS PLAN ARE AVAILABLE FOR VIEWING AT THE CITY OF PICKERING CITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT. City Development Department OPA 22-002/P & A 05/22 Pickering Ridge Lands Inc. & Bayfield Realty Advisors Inc. 1755 & 1775 Pickering Parkway - 21 - Attachment 6 to Information Report 02-24 L:\Planning\01-MapFiles\OPA\2022 Sept. 11, 2024DATE: Applicant: Municipal Address: File No: Conceptual Height Massing FULL SCALE COPIES OF THIS PLAN ARE AVAILABLE FOR VIEWING AT THE CITY OF PICKERING CITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT. City Development Department OPA 22-002/P & A 05/22 Pickering Ridge Lands Inc. & Bayfield Realty Advisors Inc. 1755 & 1775 Pickering Parkway - 22 - Attachment 7 to Information Report 02-24 L:\Planning\01-MapFiles\OPA\2022 Sept. 11, 2024DATE: Applicant: Municipal Address: File No: Conceptual Plan - Block 1 and 2 FULL SCALE COPIES OF THIS PLAN ARE AVAILABLE FOR VIEWING AT THE CITY OF PICKERING CITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT. City Development Department OPA 22-002/P & A 05/22 Pickering Ridge Lands Inc. & Bayfield Realty Advisors Inc. 1755 & 1775 Pickering Parkway N - 23 - Attachment 8 to Information Report 02-24 L:\Planning\01-MapFiles\OPA\2022 Sept. 11, 2024DATE: Applicant: Municipal Address: File No: Block 1 - View looking south FULL SCALE COPIES OF THIS PLAN ARE AVAILABLE FOR VIEWING AT THE CITY OF PICKERING CITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT. City Development Department OPA 22-002/P & A 05/22 Pickering Ridge Lands Inc. & Bayfield Realty Advisors Inc. 1755 & 1775 Pickering Parkway - 24 - Attachment 9 to Information Report 02-24 L:\Planning\01-MapFiles\OPA\2022 Sept. 11, 2024DATE: Applicant: Municipal Address: File No: OPA 38, Schedule XIV - Brock Precinct Intensification Area FULL SCALE COPIES OF THIS PLAN ARE AVAILABLE FOR VIEWING AT THE CITY OF PICKERING CITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT. City Development Department OPA 22-002/P & A 05/22 Pickering Ridge Lands Inc. & Bayfield Realty Advisors Inc. 1755 & 1775 Pickering Parkway G u i l d R o a d Ro y a l R o a d No t i o n R o a d Ba i n b r i d g e D r i v e Kingst o n R o a d Br o c k R o a d Pi c k e r i n g P a r k w a y Ci t y C e n t r e N e i g h b o u r h o o d Highway 4 0 1 Legend Mixed Use Type A Mixed Use Type B Mixed Use Type C Residential Community Use Public Park Natural Areas Rail Road Privately Owned Public Spaces (POPS) Potential Community Facility Future Public Street Future Private Street Gateways Proposed Controlled Intersection Schedule XIV: Kingston Mixed Corridor and Brock Mixed Node Intensification Areas Sheet 4 of 4 - Brock Precinct Intensification Area Schedule 'B' to Official Plan Amendment 38 Identified Heritage Resource Location shown on map: - 25 - Page 1 of 2 Attachment 10 to Information Report 02-24 Kingston Road Corridor and Specialty Retailing Node Intensification Plan – Recommended Policies Related to the Proposal The policy recommendations of the Intensification Plan designate the subject lands as “Mixed Use Type A”, “Mixed Use Type C”, “Residential”, “Public Park” and “Natural Areas”. The Intensification Plan outline that “Mixed Use A” areas shall provide a combination of residential, retail and office uses in mixed use buildings, or in separate buildings on mixed use sites. “Mixed Use A” areas are intended to have the greatest densities and represent the highest intensity uses within the Corridor or Node. Office uses are encouraged to be located in “Mixed Use A” areas, with preferred office locations at major intersections or gateways where access to existing and planned transportation infrastructure is greatest, including higher order transit facilities. “Mixed Use Type C” areas feature a combination of residential and retail uses, with a greater proportion of residential and retail uses, and a lower proportion of retail. These represent the least-intensive mixed-use zones within the Kingston Road Corridor. “Mixed Use Type C” areas will include occasional smaller-scale retail and service uses which are complimentary to residential uses, reflecting their community-oriented role. “Mixed Use Type C” lands are often located adjacent to existing or proposed green spaces or community and institutional facilities. “Residential” areas feature predominantly residential use, generally in areas that otherwise are intended to have a high degree of mixed use, and where a mix of uses on a specific site may not be desirable or achievable. They are located throughout the Kingston Road Corridor and Specialty Retailing Node, typically adjacent to existing low-rise residential neighbourhoods. The Plan also provides the following key policy recommendations relevant to the proposed development: •Residential development should support the City’s affordable housing targets whichencourage a minimum 25 percent of new residential construction to be of forms that wouldbe affordable to households of low or moderate-income. •Tall buildings (consisting of buildings 13 storeys or greater) should be located withingateways and at the intersection of transit spines and major arterials, along the highway,and in proximity to highway accesses. •Building articulation, including vertical projections, recession, design treatments and otherarchitectural details, is encouraged at gateway locations to create an enhanced visualinterest and a human-scaled environment. •Transitions between buildings and appropriate transitions in height, mass and scale must be established in response to stable residential neighborhoods to the north and east. •Secondary frontages are encouraged to have a minimum of 30 percent of the lot frontagefor retail uses, commercial-service uses or consolidated office and residential entrances. •All buildings fronting Brock Road and Pickering Parkway should be setback 5.0 metresfrom the front property line and all buildings should be setback a minimum of 2.0 metresfrom new public and private streets that are internal to the development block. - 26 - Page 2 of 2 • Podium portions of tall buildings should have a minimum height of 3 storeys and a maximum height of 6 storeys, with a minimum ground floor height of 4.5 metres. • Variety and variation on the streetwall will be provided through encouraging a fine-grain pattern of retail units/residential entrances, and the establishment of façade articulation and rhythm through building projections/recesses and the use of different façade materials. • Public Parks will be provided through redevelopment in the Brock Precinct, and the precise location, size and design of the public parks within the development blocks where they are conceptually identified will be determined through the implementing zoning by-law and detailed block planning. • Privately owned publicly accessible spaces (POPS) form a key part of the public realm network, providing valuable amenity space through developments. • South of Pickering Parkway open spaces are organized along the main public road as places of respite from the retail activity, and to further the vision for a more sustainable “greener” community. • Private landowners should provide public easements as necessary over POPS to provide access to the general public. • Delivery of on-site Community Facilities is encouraged to be integrated into multi-storey, mixed-use developments (i.e., forming part of the podium of a residential tower). • Additional street trees should be incorporated within the existing streetscape on the east side of Brock Road to provide shade and comfort for pedestrians walking along Brock Road. • At Brock Road in the Brock Precinct, additional street trees should be incorporated within the existing streetscape on the east side of Brock Road to provide shade and comfort for pedestrians walking from Brock Road and Kingston Road south to the Specialty Retailing Node. • All public or private streets should be designed as “complete streets” which should accommodate facilities including pedestrian zones, cycling facilities or multi-use paths, and street trees. • Within the Brock Precinct, enhanced active transportation infrastructure is recommended for Pickering Parkway. This could occur through raised cycle tracks introduced on both sides of the road, along with a landscape and furniture zone. • Parking spaces must be strategically located to minimally impact the public realm, refrain from interfering with active street frontages, and reduce pedestrian/vehicular conflicts. • New development will provide an adequate supply of parking and loading to meet site requirements while balancing broader mobility objectives to decrease reliance on private vehicle use. - 27 - Page 1 of 4 Attachment 11 to Information Report 02-24 Kingston Road Corridor and Specialty Retailing Node Urban Design – Recommended Policies Related to the Proposal Built Form •Block lengths should generally range between 100 and 150 metres to promote permeabilitywithin the streetscape, support walkability, and increase the ease of pedestrian and cyclistmovement. •Block layouts should be designed to maximize views and vistas through developmentblocks and towards gateways. •Entrances should be highly visible, front onto the public street, and connect to pedestrian walkways or sidewalks. Entrances should promote visibility and views between interior andexterior spaces. •For tall buildings over 13 storeys in height, a minimum separation distance of 25 metresshall generally be maintained between towers. •A minimum separation distance of 15 metres shall generally be provided between facingbuildings on site with multiple buildings. On multi-building sites, it is encouraged thatbuildings are offset or angled away from each other to maintain privacy between facingunits. •The following setback criteria should be applied: •Buildings fronting Brock Road and Pickering Parkway shall be setback 5.0 metres fromthe front property lines; •Buildings shall be setback a minimum of 2.0 metres from new public and private streetsthat are internal to the development block; •All buildings shall be setback a minimum of 3.0 metres from parks and other open spaces; •Where retail and commercial uses are located, setback areas should accommodatespill-out areas from commercial activity (i.e., patios, displays, waiting areas) to improvethe pedestrian experience. These areas should be primarily hardscaped to act as an extension of the sidewalk and accommodate for higher levels of foot traffic. •Site grading shall consider facilities designed to provide access for persons with disabilitiesincluding the provisions of ramp access. •Entrances and access points should be integrated with at-grade design. Informational signage, pavement markings and soft landscaping can help orient users, enhance safetyand minimize confusion. •Vehicular entrances and access points should have minimal impact on walkways and the pedestrian realm and where possible should be integrated with building design. •Structured underground parking is preferred over surface parking or above-gradestructured parking to reduce the urban heat island effect and minimize blank walls. •Above-grade parking structures shall be encouraged to be designed with active uses on all sides. - 28 - Page 2 of 4 • At-grade parking structures shall be designed with active uses fronting the public street and other pedestrian uses, such as retail or amenity uses. These should incorporate visually-appealing architectural and landscape treatments • Access points to parking structures should be located at the rear or side of buildings, and away from main streets and intersection corners. • Landscaping shall be an integral piece of the site design and be developed to unify and enhance the overall architecture of a development. High-quality, durable and diverse landscape elements shall be encouraged. • A minimum of 10 percent of each lot shall be landscaped, with a significant proportion of that being soft landscaping. • Landscaping shall support and define a consistent and attractive street edge. The selection and spacing of all plantings should relate to the street type and adjacent land use and site conditions. • Within sites, landscaping shall define pedestrian routes and enhance visual imagery of the site. Large tree canopies are encouraged along pedestrian routes to provide shade and comfort. • Sustainable and Low Impact Development (LID) measures are encouraged on flat roofs of all buildings, including residential, commercial and mixed-use buildings. Green roofs are encouraged to act as public amenity spaces. • New buildings should be massed and scaled to establish compatible heights to adjacent streets and open spaces, while retaining a comfortable pedestrian scale. • In cases where buildings have a height of 8 storeys or more proposed adjacent to the streetline, the upper storeys of the building should be sited on podiums having a minimum height of 3 storeys and a maximum height of 6 storeys. • Development shall incorporate building and landscape design which minimizes the extent and duration of shadows and maximizes access to sunlight for adjacent low-rise developments, parks, open space, primary frontages, and other intensively used areas of the public realm. • The shadow impact of buildings on adjacent residential buildings, public parks and privately owned publicly accessible spaces shall be assessed through a shadow impact study, where appropriate, and minimized to the extent possible. • Development shall incorporate building and landscape design which protects and buffers the pedestrian realm from prevailing winds. • To help create a human-scaled environment along public streets, an angular plane shall be applied through the following: • On Brock Road and Pickering Parkway, built form shall conform to an angular plane extended at a 45-degree angle from the front property line, beginning at a height of 80 percent the width of the adjacent right-of-way. • A consistent streetwall should be maintained along all primary frontages. The minimum streetwall height along all streets shall be 3 storeys, with a minimum ground floor height of 4.5 metres to accommodate for retail uses. - 29 - Page 3 of 4 • The podium portion of tall buildings shall have a minimum height of 3 storeys and a maximum height of 6 storeys. • All street-related uses should have primary entrances fronting onto the public street and feature transparent windows and doors to provide outlook and animation onto the street edge. • Building stepbacks should be a minimum of 2.5 metres. • A fine-grain pattern of retail units and/or residential entrances is encouraged to provide variety and variation in the streetwall. Variation in frontage width is encouraged to flexibly accommodate a range of street-related uses, including multiple internal formats and layouts or commercial/retail units. • Primary and Secondary Frontages are indicated in the Urban Design Guidelines. Primary Frontages shall contain predominantly street-related active retail or commercial service uses at grade, with primary entrances oriented towards the street to encourage a vibrant public realm. • Tall buildings should be designed and sited to minimize shadows, maximize sky views, and reduce negative micro-climate impacts, particularly where high-rise development is directly adjacent to low-rise neighbourhoods, parks and open spaces. • Building towers shall be subject to a minimum 25 metre separation distance, measured between the exterior edge of the building face. Buildings shall have a maximum tower floor plate of 750 metres square. Placemaking • Privately owned publicly-accessible spaces (POPS) form a key part of the public realm network, providing valuable amenity space through development. POPS are owned and maintained by private landowners, but open to the general public to enjoy. They can take a variety of forms, including parks, linear parks and urban squares. • The location of POPS will be identified in the implementing zoning by-law and their exact size, location and design shall be addressed through detailed block planning. The location and design of POPS should seek to physically and visually connect to public streets. • POPS should be framed by and relate to surrounding buildings; at-grade active uses shall support the programming of the open space and offer a surveillance element to promote safety. • POPS should maximize sun exposure and strive to achieve 5 consecutive hours of sun as measured on March 21 and September 21. • POPS designed as Urban Squares should be located in commercial areas and be designed to accommodate relatively higher levels of pedestrian foot traffic, with more hardscaped areas relative to softscape. Urban squares should be larger than 100 square metres and should be sized based on local site conditions. They should be large enough to allow for active programming and public events. • Public art should be located in or with close proximity to community-oriented spaces, such as parks, open spaces, public squares, plazas, and gateways, to maximize visibility. It should be exhibited along streets and laneways that support a continuous flow of high pedestrian volumes. - 30 - Page 4 of 4 Connectivity • Sidewalks and pedestrian paths should provide a network of accessible and inter-connected pedestrian routes which relate directly to surrounding buildings and destinations. • Adequate space should be provided within the public right-of-way to allow for landscape and furniture zones adjacent to sidewalks and pedestrian paths. • Pedestrian paths should be well-designed and inviting to users, with features such as soft landscaping, plantings, public art, wayfinding signage and pedestrian-scaled lighting implemented where appropriate. Where possible, a generous urban tree canopy is encouraged. • The proposed north-south and east-west public street is identified as a primary street. Primary streets should be designed to prioritize public transit facilities, such as stops, shelters and dedicated lanes. • Travel lanes should be designed with a minimum width of 3.5 metres, and should be provided in both directions of travel. • Sidewalks should be provided on both sides of the road. They should be designed to accommodate all user groups and be a minimum width of 2.0 metres. • Where appropriate, dedicated raised cycle tracks should be provided on primary streets. Landscaping and street furniture zones should be provided on both sides of the street to provide a comfortable public realm. They should be wide enough to accommodate a continuous row of street trees, typically a width of 2.0 metres. • On-street lay-by parking lanes should be provided, where practical, having a minimum width of 2.5 metres. They may be provided on one or both sides of the road. • Private streets are designed to similar municipal standards as public streets, but remain in private ownership. Private streets must provide the same high-quality public realm and streetscape experience as public streets, and are expected to adopt similar treatments and aesthetics to ensure that a uniform streetscape character is maintained across the precinct. • Private landowners shall be responsible for ongoing maintenance to ensure that publicly accessible spaces remain in a state of good repair. • Brock Road is a significant street which carries pedestrians, cyclists and vehicular traffic. Additional street trees should be incorporated on the east side of Brock Road to provide shade and comfort for pedestrians. • Enhanced active transportation infrastructure is recommended for Pickering Parkway. - 31 - Attachment 12 to Information Report 02-24 Public Comments Received Below are public comments received by area residents at the Public Open House meeting and through written submissions: •concerns about increased traffic congestion in surrounding neighbourhoods, particularlyalong Pickering Parkway •concerns that local roads and the Brock Road off-ramp do not have the capacity to handlethe additional vehicles generated by the development •concerns about the loss of retail stores and other commercial services serving arearesidents, including the impact of displacement and phasing on current commercial tenants •comments about shadow impacts on the proposed park space •requests for clarification on the location of POPS •questions about the location of the proposed public park, the availability of on-streetparking, and the types of amenities the park will offer •requests for clarification on which phase of development will the public park be provided •inquiries about whether school space is proposed as part of this development •comments about whether appropriate setbacks and stepbacks from the towers were considered •concerns about how parking for existing tenants would be affected and how each phase ofthe construction phase would impact the existing tenants •questions about whether the proposed buildings will incorporate bird-friendly design andglazing •concerns about whether the proposed parking rates are appropriate for the development •positive feedback on the design and appearance of the proposed buildings •questions about the timing and phasing of the development, including what will bedemolished in the first phase •concerns about the current issue with the dump trucks accessing industrial activities on theeast side of Notion Road •concerns about compatibility with the existing industrial uses to the east •concerns that the existing infrastructure, including roads and bridges, need to be widenedbefore such a development is approved •suggestions that the applicant should install landscape buffers and noise attenuationmeasures along the shared property line to the northwest of the development •a recommendation that noise warning clauses be included in any purchase and rentalagreements to inform future residents and tenants that noise from the existing commercialuse (Canadian Tire) may be audible at times - 32 - Information Report to Planning & Development Committee Report Number: 03-24 Date: November 4, 2024 From: Catherine Rose, MCIP, RPP Chief Planner Subject: Zoning By-law Amendment A 03/20 (R1) Pickering Developments (Bayly) Inc. Durham Live Lands (Part of Lots 15 and 16, Concession 1) 1.Purpose of this Report The purpose of this report is to provide preliminary information regarding a revisedapplication for Zoning By-law Amendment, submitted by Pickering Developments(Bayly) Inc., to permit various tourism, commercial, and employment uses on a sectionof the Durham Live lands. This report is intended to assist members of the public and other interested stakeholders with understanding the proposal. The Planning & Development Committeewill hear public delegations on the revised application, ask questions for clarification,and identify any planning issues. This report is for information, and no decision on thisapplication is being made at this time. Staff will bring forward a recommendation report for consideration by the Planning & Development Committee upon completion of a comprehensive evaluation of the proposal. 2.Property Location and Description The lands subject to the revised rezoning application are part of the Durham Live lands,located east of Squires Beach Road, north of Bayly Street, west of Church Street South,and south of Durham Live Avenue/Tribro Studios Avenue. The specific parcel of land to be rezoned is on the south side of Tribro Studios Avenue, east of Squires Beach Road,and has an area of approximately 5.3 hectares (see Location Map, Attachment 1). Thisland is currently used for farming. The uses surrounding the lands to be rezoned are asfollows (see Air Photo Map, Attachment 2): North: To the north, across Tribro Studios Avenue, are open space lands that include Duffins Creek tributaries and wetlands, as well as the Pickering Casino Resort. Further north are the Metrolinx/Canadian National rail lines and Highway 401. East: To the east are vacant Durham Live lands. In June 2024, the applicant submitted pre-consultation applications for these lands, proposing a mixed- use development containing residential, commercial, retail, and entertainment uses. Additionally, lands at the northwest corner of Bayly Street and Church Street South are subject to an application for Site Plan Approval (S 07/22), - 33 - Information Report 03-24 Page 2 submitted by Porsche Canada. Construction of the Porsche Experience Centre is underway, with final site plan approval expected by November 2024. The Centre is scheduled to open in the first half of 2025. Further east, across from Church Street South, located in the Town of Ajax, is a warehouse/distribution centre that is under construction. South: To the south are open space lands containing significant woodlands, Duffins Creek tributaries, and a Provincially Significant Wetland (PSW). At the northeast corner of Bayly Street and Squires Beach Road are the Pickering Pentecostal Church and an industrial parcel containing truck storage. West: To the west are more open space lands containing significant woodlands, Duffins Creek tributaries, and a PSW. Further west is a portion of Durham Live lands, located east of Squires Beach Road, which is zoned for mixed employment uses. Additional land owned by Durham Live is located on the west side of Squires Beach Road. 3.Zoning History The following table provides a summary of previous Zoning By-law AmendmentApplications and Minister’s Zoning Orders (MZOs) that apply to the Durham Live Lands. Timeline Application Description July 2017 Zoning By-law Amendment Application A 03/14 In July 2017, the Ontario Municipal Board approved Zoning By-law 7404/15 for the entire Durham Live Lands. The site-specific by-law rezoned the eastern section of the Durham Live Lands (including where the Pickering Casino Resort and Porsche Experience Centre are located) to “Major Tourist Destination (MTD)” zone with three holding provisions. The remainder of the Durham Live Lands were rezoned to “Urban Reserve (UR)” zone. October 2018 Removal of Holding Application A 06/18 In October 2018, Council approved Zoning By-law 7661/18 to remove the “(H-1)” Holding Provision from the eastern section of the Durham Live Lands (including where the Pickering Casino Resort and Porsche Experience Centre are located). January 2020 Removal of Holding Application A 16/19 In January 2020, Council approved Zoning By-law 7735/19 to remove the “(H-2)” Holding Provision from the eastern section of the Durham Live Lands (including where the Pickering Casino Resort and Porsche Experience Centre are located). - 34 - Information Report 03-24 Page 3 Timeline Application Description March 2020 Original Zoning By-law Amendment Application A 03/20 In March 2020, the applicant originally applied for a Zoning By-law Amendment to rezone the remainder of the Durham Live Lands (excluding the additional land owned by Durham Live located on the west side of Squires Beach Road) from “UR” zone to “MTD” zone and “Natural Heritage System (NHS)” zone. A public meeting for the original proposal was held in June 2020. October 2020 Minister’s Zoning Order 607/20 In October 2020, the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing (MMAH) issued MZO 607/20 to rezone the Durham Live lands as follows: •The easterly section of the Durham Live lands(including the section of lands subject to thisrevised application) was rezoned from “MTD” zone and “UR” zone to “Mixed Use Major Tourist and Entertainment Zone”. •The section of lands containing significantwoodlands, Duffins Creek tributaries, PSW, and their associated vegetation protection bufferswere rezoned from “UR” zone to “NaturalHeritage and Open Space Zone”. •A western section of the lands that are east of Squires Beach Road was rezoned from “UR”zone to “Mixed Employment Zone”. •Additional land owned by Durham Live, locatedon the west side of Squires Beach Road, was rezoned from “UR” zone to “Warehousing and Logistics Zone”. July 2021 Minister’s Zoning Order 515/21 In July 2021, the MMAH issued MZO 515/21 to remove the additional land owned by Durham Live, located on the west side of Squires Beach Road, from MZO 607/20. As a result of removing the lands from the MZO, the zoning for this parcel reverted to the “UR” zone established through By- law 7404/15. - 35 - Information Report 03-24 Page 4 Timeline Application Description April 2024 Minister’s Zoning Order 164/24 In April 2024, the MMAH issued MZO 164/24 to remove the section of lands subject to this revised application from MZO 607/20. These lands were originally proposed for the TriBro Film Studio. The film studio has since been developed at 915 Sandy Beach Road. As a result of removing these lands from the MZO, the zoning for this section of lands reverted to the “UR” zone established through By-law 7404/15. 4. Applicant’s Revised Proposal On September 27, 2024, the applicant requested to reactivate their dormant 2020 rezoning application. The applicant is proposing revisions to the rezoning application for the section of the Durham Live lands that were recently removed by MZO 164/24. As noted earlier, these lands, located on the south side of Tribro Studios Avenue and east of Squires Beach Road, and have an area of approximately 5.3 hectares. The applicant is proposing to rezone these lands from “UR” zone to a “MTD” zone, to permit various tourism, commercial, and employment uses (see Submitted Plan, Attachment 3). The full list of proposed land uses can be found in Attachment 4 of this report. The proposed area of land to be rezoned is identical to the area of land that was rezoned to “Mixed Use Major Tourist and Entertainment Zone” through MZO 607/20, and subsequently removed through MZO 164/24. The applicant has indicated that they have entered into an agreement with LaunchPad Golf to develop these lands for a driving range. A future application for Site Plan Approval will be required. 5. Policy Framework 5.1 Provincial Planning Statement (2024) On October 20, 2024, the MMAH issued a new Provincial Planning Statement (PPS), replacing both the Provincial Policy Statement (2020), and A Place to Grow: Growth Plan for the Greater Golden Horseshoe (2019). The PPS directs Planning authorities to promote economic development and competitiveness by providing for an appropriate mix and range of employment, institutional, and broader mixed uses to meet long-term needs. The PPS also encourages the intensification of employment uses and compatible, compact, mixed-use development to support the achievement of complete communities. The applicant’s revised proposal conforms to the new PPS. - 36 - Information Report 03-24 Page 5 5.2 Durham Regional Official Plan “Envision Durham" On May 17, 2023, Durham Regional Council adopted the new Official Plan “Envision Durham”, as amended. The MMAH approved the Official Plan in part on September 3, 2024. The new Regional Official Plan (ROP) designates the section of lands subject to this rezoning application as “Employment Areas” and includes them in the Urban System. This designation permits a variety of employment uses, including but not limited to, manufacturing, warehousing, major facilities, hotels, service industries, and limited associated retail and ancillary facilities. Policy 10.3.5 of the ROP allows for additional uses on the Durham Live lands, including but not limited to, certain residential, retail, entertainment, and personal service uses, in accordance with the provisions of MZO 607/20, as amended by MZO 515/21. The applicant’s revised proposal conforms to the new ROP. 5.2 Pickering Official Plan The Pickering Official Plan (POP) designates the section of lands subject to this rezoning application as “Employment Areas – Prestige Employment”, and a small section of the lands as “Open Space Systems – Natural Areas”. The section of lands designated Natural Areas are also identified as being within the “Natural Heritage System” and containing “Significant Woodlands” and “Wetlands”. The Prestige Employment designation permits various industrial uses (including manufacturing, warehousing, research and development facilities, etc.), limited commercial uses serving the area (including offices, personal service uses, restaurants, hotels, etc.), and community, cultural, and recreational uses. The Natural Areas designation allows for conservation, environmental protection, restoration, education, passive recreation, and similar uses. Development or site alteration may only be permitted in key natural heritage and/or key hydrologic features for purposes such as forest, fish, and wildlife management, conservation, flood, and erosion control, and other similar environmental protection and restoration projects. Minor recreational and educational uses, such as non-motorized trails, footbridges, and picnic facilities are also permitted. In support of the original rezoning application submitted in 2020, the applicant submitted an Environmental Impact Study (EIS), prepared by Beacon Environmental Limited, dated February 2020. The EIS stated that the environmental features identified on the section of land subject to this application no longer exist, as the features were removed by a previous landowner through farming activities. Staff will assess the revised proposal against the policies of the POP during the continued processing of this application. - 37 - Information Report 03-24 Page 6 5.3 Zoning By-law 2511, as amended by By-law 7404/15 The lands subject to this revised application are zoned “UR” zone with Zoning By-law 2511, as amended by By-law 7404/15. Permissible uses within the “UR” zone include: • outdoor recreational uses without buildings or structures; • preservation and conservation of the natural environment, soil, and wildlife; and • existing lawful uses. As noted in Section 4 of this report, the applicant is proposing to rezone these lands to an “MTD” zone to permit various tourism, commercial, and employment uses. The proposed area of land to be rezoned is identical to the area of land that was rezoned to “Mixed Use Major Tourist and Entertainment Zone” through MZO 607/20, and subsequently removed through MZO 164/24. There are 34 permitted land uses within the “Mixed Use Major Tourist and Entertainment Zone”, in which the applicant is proposing to permit 21 of those land uses, and remove 13 of those land uses. The applicant is proposing to remove the following land uses: • apartment dwellings • amphitheater • arena • convention or conference centre • film studio • gaming establishment/casino • home-based business • hotel • major tourist establishment • performance arts centre • restaurant plaza • stadium • waterpark/wave pool In addition, the applicant is proposing to permit the following new land uses: • laboratories • manufacturing plants • software development and processing establishments • vehicle service facilities • warehouses and distribution facilities A full list of the applicant’s proposed land uses can be found in Attachment 4 of this report. The applicant is also proposing that the zoning regulations (including minimum parking requirements, maximum building height, and maximum gross floor area) for the “MTD” zone established through Zoning By-law 7404/15 apply to these lands. - 38 - Information Report 03-24 Page 7 6. Comments Received 6.1 Public Comments Notice of the Hybrid Electronic Statutory Public Meeting regarding this revised rezoning application was provided through a mailing to all properties within 150 metres of the subject property. Four Public Meeting Notice Signs were erected at the property on October 3, 2024. As of the date of this report, no written or verbal comments have been received from the public. 6.2 Agency Comments The revised rezoning application was circulated to the following agencies for their review and comment: Canadian National Railway, Durham Regional Police – Radio Systems, Durham Region Transit, Elexicon Energy, Enbridge Gas, Canada Post, Hydro One, Metrolinx, Ministry of Municipal Affairs & Housing, Ministry of Transportation, Toronto and Region Conservation Authority, Region of Durham, and Town of Ajax. As of the date of this report, written comments have been received from the following agencies: 6.2.1 Enbridge Gas • Enbridge Gas does not object to the proposed application. However, we reserve the right to amend or remove development conditions. 6.2.2 Ministry of Transportation (MTO) • The Ministry would prefer to see a report on the anticipated traffic generation from a “Major Tourist Destination” zone and any other high-level plans. • Any impact on environmental features within MTO lands will need to be addressed by the applicant. 6.2.3 Durham Regional Police – Radio Systems • Construction in the subject area will pose no immediate obstruction issues for the Region’s NextGen radio system and associated microwave links. 6.3 City Department Comments The revised rezoning application was circulated to the following City Departments for their review and comment: Engineering Services, Fire Services, and Sustainability. As of the date of this report, written comments have been received from the following departments: - 39 - Information Report 03-24 Page 8 6.3.1 Fire Services • Fire Services has no objections to the revised application. 7. Planning & Design Section Comments The following is a summary of key concerns and issues that have been identified by staff for further review and consideration. These matters, and others identified through the circulation and review of the revised proposal, are required to be addressed by the applicant before a final recommendation report to the Planning & Development Committee: • in consultation with the Toronto and Region Conservation Authority, ensure that the adjacent lands zoned “Natural Heritage and Open Space Zone”, established through MZO 607/20, are adequately protected Further issues may be identified following receipt and review of comments from the circulated departments, agencies, and the public. The City Development Department will conclude its position on the application after it has received and assessed comments from the circulated departments, agencies, and the public. 8. Information Received Updated reports submitted in support of the revised application are listed below and available for viewing on the City’s website at pickering.ca/devapp or in person by appointment at the office of the City of Pickering, City Development Department: • Planning Justification Memorandum, prepared by Kristy Kilbourne Consulting Inc., dated September 2024 • Draft Zoning By-law, prepared by Kristy Kilbourne Consulting Inc. 9. Procedural Information 9.1 General • written comments regarding this proposal should be directed to the City Development Department • all comments received will be noted and used as input to a Recommendation Report prepared by the City Development Department for a subsequent meeting of Council or a Committee of Council • any member of the public who wishes to be notified of Council’s decision regarding this proposal must request such in writing to the City Clerk 10. Owner/Applicant Information The Owner of this property is Pickering Developments (Bayly) Inc., who is represented by Kristy Kilbourne Consulting Inc. - 40 - Information Report 03-24 Page 9 Attachments: 1.Location Map2.Air Photo Map 3.Submitted Plan 4.List of Proposed Land Uses Prepared By: Approved/Endorsed By: Catherine Rose, MCIP, RPP Chief Planner Isabel Lima Senior Planner Nilesh Surti, MCIP, RPP Division Head, Development Review & Urban Design IL:jc Original Signed By Original Signed By Original Signed By - 41 - Ch u r c h S t r e e t S Highway 40 1 Pickering Parkway No t i o n R o a d Be e c h l a w n D r i v e Sq u i r e s B e a c h R o a d Ashford Drive Durham Live Avenue Bayly Street Copperstone Drive Tribro Studios Avenue City DevelopmentDepartment Location MapFile:Applicant:Legal Description: A 03/20 (R1) Date: Oct. 07, 2024 ¯ E Pickering Developments (Bayly) Inc. Part of Lots 15 and 16, Concession 1 (Durham Lands Owned byPickering Development (Bayly) Inc. L:\PLANNING\01-MapFiles\A\2020\A 03-20 Durham LIve\A03_20 (R1)_LocationMap.mxd 1:8,000 SCALE:THIS IS NOT A PLAN OF SURVEY. © The Corporation of the City of Pickering Produced (in part) under license from: © Kings Printer, Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources. All rights reserved.; © His Majesty the King in Right of Canada, Department of Natural Resources. All rights reserved.; ©Teranet Enterprises Inc. and its suppliers. All rights reserved.; © Municipal Property Assessment Corporation and its suppliers. All rights reserved. Live Lands) Lands Subject toRevised Zoning By-Law Amendment A 03/20 (R1)Pickering Casino Resort Attachment 1 to Information Report 03-24 - 42 - Ch u r c h S t r e e t S Highway 40 1 Pickering Parkway No t i o n R o a d Be e c h l a w n D r i v e Sq u i r e s B e a c h R o a d Ashford Drive Bayly Street Copperstone Drive Air Photo MapFile:Applicant:A 03/20 (R1) Date: Oct. 17, 2024 ¯ Pickering Developments (Bayly) Inc. L:\PLANNING\01-MapFiles\A\2020\A 03-20 Durham LIve\A 03_20 (R1)\A03_20 (R1)_AirPhoto.mxd 1:8,000 SCALE: THIS IS NOT A PLAN OF SURVEY. © The Corporation of the City of Pickering Produced (in part) under license from: © Kings Printer, Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources. All rights reserved.; © His Majesty the King in Right of Canada, Department of Natural Resources. All rights reserved.; ©Teranet Enterprises Inc. and its suppliers. All rights reserved.; © Municipal Property Assessment Corporation and its suppliers. All rights reserved. City DevelopmentDepartment E Lands Owned byPickering Development (Bayly) Inc. Lands Subject toRevised Zoning By-Law AmendmentA 03/20 (R1)Pickering Casino Resort Legal Description:Part of Lots 15 and 16, Concession 1 (Durham Live Lands) Attachment 2 to Information Report 03-24 - 43 - L:\Planning\01-MapFiles\A\2020 Oct. 17, 2024DATE: Applicant: Legal Description: File No: Submitted Plan FULL SCALE COPIES OF THIS PLAN ARE AVAILABLE FOR VIEWING AT THE CITY OF PICKERING CITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT. City Development Department A 03/20 (R1) Part of Lots 15 and 16, Concession 1 (Durham Live Lands) Pickering Developments (Bayly) Inc. N Attachment 3 to Information Report 03-24 - 44 - Zoning By-law Amendment A 03/20 (R1) List of Proposed Land Uses The applicant is proposing to rezone a portion of the Durham Live Lands from “Urban Reserve Zone” to a “Major Tourist Destination Zone” category to permit the following uses: i.Accessory uses, buildings, and structures ii.Art Galleries iii.Banquet Facilities iv.Bake Shops v.Botanical Gardens vi.Business Support Services vii.Cafes viii.Cinemas ix.Convenience Stores x.Commercial Fitness or Recreation Centres xi.Commercial Schools xii.Community Centres xiii.Community Gardens xiv.Curling rinks, tennis courts, bowling alleys, or similar recreational facilities xv.Daycare centres xvi.Dry-cleaner’s distribution centres xvii.Financial Institutions xviii.Museums xix.Nightclubs xx.Parking lots xxi.Parking garages xxii.Personal service establishments xxiii.Places of amusement xxiv.Private clubs xxv.Restaurants xxvi.Retail stores and accessory retail sales xxvii.Service and repair shops xxviii.Spas xxix.Supermarkets xxx.Travel agencies xxxi.Travel information centres xxxii.Vehicle rental establishments xxxiii.Laboratories xxxiv.Manufacturing plants xxxv.Medical Offices xxxvi.Offices xxxvii.Software development and processing establishments xxxviii.Vehicle service facilities xxxix.Warehouses and distribution facilities Attachment 4 to Information Report 03-24 - 45 - Report to Planning & Development Committee Report Number: PLN 30-24 Date: November 4, 2024 From: Kyle Bentley Director, City Development & CBO Subject: Zoning By-law Amendment Application A 01/24 City Initiated: City of Pickering Consolidated Zoning By-law Recommendation: 1. That Report PLN 30-24 regarding the City Initiated City of Pickering Consolidated Zoning By-law be received (see Appendix I); 2. That Zoning By-law Amendment Application A 01/24, initiated by the City of Pickering, to prepare a Consolidated Zoning By-law, be approved; and 3. That staff be directed to bring forward the final Consolidated Zoning By-law, subject to refinements as may be warranted following comments and submissions at, and after, the Planning & Development Committee Meeting and staff’s further review, for enactment at the December 16, 2024 Council meeting. Executive Summary: The purpose of this report is to present a City-wide Draft Consolidated Zoning By-law (the “Draft Zoning By-law”) to Council for consideration. Upon Council approval, a final Consolidated Zoning By-law will be forwarded to the December 16, 2024 Council Meeting for enactment. This final By-law may include any refinements or amendments following staff review of comments and submissions made at or after the Planning & Development Committee Meeting. The Consolidated Zoning By-law Review (CZBR) was initiated in 2020, and involved extensive public consultation, including virtual and in-person open houses. Over 160 public and stakeholder comments were received during the CZBR, leading to the preparation of a City-wide Draft Consolidated Zoning By-law. The First Draft of the Consolidated Zoning By-law (the “First Draft ZBL”) was released for comment in early 2023. The Second Draft Zoning By-law (the “Second Draft ZBL”) was made available for comment prior to, and at, the Statutory Public Meeting, held on April 2, 2024. The third Draft Zoning By-law – September 2024, (the “Draft Zoning By-law”), discussed in this Report, incorporates revisions based on public and stakeholder feedback received at, and since, the Statutory Public Meeting, as well as any other matters identified by staff. The Draft Zoning By-law consolidates six existing parent zoning by-laws, introducing modernized definitions, zoning provisions, and zoning categories. Recent legislative changes aimed at increasing housing supply are also incorporated. The Draft Zoning By-law adopts the approaches to definitions, zoning provisions, and zone category structure of the two newer - 46 - PLN 30-24 November 4, 2024 Subject: Zoning By-law Amendment Application A 01/24 City Initiated: City of Pickering Consolidated Zoning By-law Page 2 existing parent zoning by-laws 7364/14 Seaton and 7553/17 City Centre. These By-laws will be repealed and replaced by the Draft Zoning By-law. The four older existing parent zoning by-laws 2511, 2520, 3036 and 3037 will be superseded by the Draft Zoning By-law to assist in the interpretation of site-specific exceptions carried forward to the Draft Zoning By-law. The Draft By-law is on the City’s website, and the public can view the Draft Zoning By-law text and an interactive zoning map online. Subject to Council’s adoption of the By-law, written notice of passing of the Draft Zoning By-law will be mailed, starting a 20-day appeal period. Staff will advise Council on any appeals to the Ontario Land Tribunal. Following the approval of the final Zoning By-law, staff will carry out implementation tasks to ensure there is appropriate training and maintenance related to the approved Zoning By-law. Staff is recommending that Council approve the Zoning By-law Amendment Application A 01/24 and that the Final Draft Zoning By-law, as may be amended, be forwarded to the December 16, 2024 Council meeting for adoption. 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: No direct costs to the City are anticipated as a result of the recommendations of this report. Discussion: The purpose of this report is to present, for consideration at the November 4th Planning & Development Committee Meeting, a City-wide Draft Consolidated Zoning By-law (the “Draft Zoning By-law”). Subject to Council’s approval, a final Consolidated Zoning By-law will be forwarded to the December 16, 2024 Council Meeting, subject to any refinements or amendments following comments and submissions at, and after, the Planning & Development Committee Meeting, and staff’s further review. This report addresses revisions to the Draft Zoning By-law resulting from public, stakeholders', and staff comments, received on the Second Draft - February 2024 Zoning By-law (the “Second Draft ZBL”) presented at the Statutory Public Meeting held April 2, 2024 (see Information Report 01-24, Attachment 1). The Draft Zoning By-law is a consolidation of the City’s current six parent Zoning By-laws 2511, 2520, 3036, 3037, 7364/14 and 7553/17. It is the first major modernization of definitions, general provisions, and restructuring of zoning categories. Also included for the first time is an online interactive zoning map. A copy of the Draft Zoning by-law is available for viewing on the City’s website at Let’s Talk Pickering, and at the offices of the City of Pickering, City Development Department. - 47 - PLN 30-24 November 4, 2024 Subject: Zoning By-law Amendment Application A 01/24 City Initiated: City of Pickering Consolidated Zoning By-law Page 3 1. Background In 2020, a multi-phase Consolidated Zoning By-law Review (CZBR) was initiated. It started with the completion of eight discussion papers, and the initiation of public consultation. The discussion papers provided an overview of the relevant provisions in each of the existing parent zoning by-laws, and an analysis of how the existing zoning related to planning policies and legislation at the local, regional, and provincial levels. The discussion papers identified the following: • recent best practices in Ontario municipalities • guiding principles for the preparation of a new consolidated zoning by-law • an assessment of key policy gaps and issues • recommendations for a new zoning category structure Public consultation included: the opportunity for feedback on the Let’s Talk Pickering website page (the central place for information about the CZBR); four virtual open houses; two in-person open houses; and six update reports to Planning Committee and Council. In total, over 160 people attended, or viewed, in-person and virtual open houses. The Second Draft ZBL was presented to the Planning & Development Committee at a Statutory Public meeting on April 2, 2024. The First Draft ZBL and the Second Draft ZBL were released for public review and comment in 2023 and 2024 respectively. Approximately 165 comments have been received from the public and stakeholders on these first two Draft Zoning By-laws. Staff reviewed the comments, met with the public and stakeholders to discuss the comments, and revised the Draft Zoning By-law as appropriate. See Attachment 3, Responses to Public and Agency Comments, for a listing of all comments received on the Draft Zoning By-law and corresponding explanation on how each comment has been addressed. 2. The Draft Zoning By-law A Statutory Public Meeting was held April 2, 2024. Attachment 1, Information Report 01-24, considered at this meeting, discusses the preparation of the Draft Zoning By-law, its structure, provisions, and zoning categories. The following discussion addresses additional information and matters that have emerged since the Statutory Public Meeting. Attachment 2, New and Modified Provisions included in the Third Draft By-law, outline how the Draft Zoning By-law presented at the Statutory Public Meeting has been updated. 2.1 Public and Stakeholder Comments All comments received from both the public and stakeholders on the Draft Zoning By-law are summarized in Attachment 3, Responses to Public and Agency Comments. Comments intended to streamline the Draft Zoning By-law, and improve the administrative process for development, were also received from City staff. - 48 - PLN 30-24 November 4, 2024 Subject: Zoning By-law Amendment Application A 01/24 City Initiated: City of Pickering Consolidated Zoning By-law Page 4 Attachment 3 also includes staff responses, as well as an indication of whether, and how, the Draft Zoning By-law has been amended. 2.2 Nightclubs At the Statutory Public Meeting, a member of the Committee expressed concern about the calls received from the public over noise from nightclubs impacting residential neighbourhoods. Staff consulted further with Municipal By-law Enforcement and Legal Services. Staff understand that nightclubs are a significant cause for resident complaints about noise, and are the basis for on-going legal proceedings. Accordingly, a nightclub definition and provisions prohibiting nightclubs within 150 metres of a residential zone, and prohibiting an outdoor patio accessory to a nightclub, were added to the Second Draft ZBL. Staff will continue to review other potential additions to the definition of a nightclub, so as to differentiate it from a restaurant operating with an outdoor patio. 2.3 Driveway Length At the Statutory Public Meeting, a Committee member suggested requiring builders to increase minimum required driveway lengths to accommodate larger vehicles. Existing site-specific zoning by-laws require garage fronts to be set back a minimum of 6.0 metres, which accommodates a minimum driveway length of 6.0 metres, and typical vehicle lengths. It is the experience of staff that developers are often requesting a reduction to driveway lengths, which is rarely supported. Longer driveway lengths are often achievable on deeper lots. Increasing minimum driveway lengths (i.e.,i.e. the minimum setback to the garage door) on lots with reduced minimum depths, could potentially decrease the interior length of the dwelling, and/or decrease rear yards depths. At this time, staff is not proposing to increase minimum driveway lengths but will conduct a further review of the merits of requiring greater minimum driveway lengths. 2.4 Transitions provisions The Draft Zoning By-law contains provisions that recognize, for a five-year period, the status of existing Planning Act and Building Act applications. The following are key points of the proposed transition provisions: • Transition provisions lapse 5 years after the adoption of the Draft Zoning By-law. • Minor variances related to complete development applications can be processed under existing parent zoning by-laws in force at the time of submission of the complete development application. • A revision submitted after the adoption date of the Draft By-law to a complete site plan application (including an application for a multi-phase development site), would not be grandfathered. - 49 - PLN 30-24 November 4, 2024 Subject: Zoning By-law Amendment Application A 01/24 City Initiated: City of Pickering Consolidated Zoning By-law Page 5 2.5 Technical Revisions The Draft Zoning By-law contains housekeeping provisions that delegate technical revisions to the Director, City Development & CBO without the requirement for a minor variance or zoning by-law amendment. Technical revisions are those that are administrative and do not change the intent and purpose of the Draft Zoning By-law. 2.6 The Draft By-law will either replace or supersede the current six parent By-laws The Seaton Zoning By-law 7364/14 and City Centre Zoning By-law 7553/17 will be repealed and replaced by the Draft Zoning By-law, while existing Zoning By-laws 2511, 2520, 3036, 3037, will not be repealed but superseded by the Draft Zoning By-law. Zoning By-laws 7364/14 and 7553/17 are the most recent of the City’s parent zoning by-laws reflecting modern development. The approaches to definitions, zoning provisions and zone category structure used in these newer by-laws have been updated and carried forward to the proposed Draft Zoning By-law and applied city-wide. Some site-specific exceptions carried forward into the Draft Zoning By-law refer to existing parent Zoning By-laws 2511, 2520, 3036, 3037. Therefore, these by-laws will not be repealed at this time and will continue to be in force as needed for the exceptions. Once the Draft Zoning By-law comes into force, staff will review the carried forward exceptions to determine whether any further exceptions can be consolidated into the approved Zoning By-law. Staff will also review whether any of the superseded zoning by-laws can be repealed. Parent Zoning By-law 3036 is required to continue to be in force until Official Plan Amendment 38 (OPA 38) implementing the Kingston Road Corridor and Specialty Retailing Node and Intensification Study is approved by the Ontario Land Tribunal, and an implementing zoning by-law for the OPA 38 lands amending the Draft Zoning By-law is prepared. 2.7 Provincial Policy Statements and Legislative Changes The Draft Zoning By-law has been prepared to be consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement, 2020 (PPS 2020) as required by Section 3 of the Planning Act. Recently, after preparation of the Draft Zoning By-law, the Province introduced the new policy document, the Provincial Planning Statement, 2024 (PPS 2024), replacing the PPS 2020, and incorporating the Growth Plan for the Greater Golden Horseshoe, 2020. The PPS 2024 is expected to come into force later this year after the writing of this report. The Draft By-law has been prepared to be consistent with draft PPS 2024. Since the initiation of the Consolidated Zoning By-law Review, the Planning Act has been modified to introduce, among other changes, a requirement that all municipalities permit a minimum of three dwelling units on residential lots that have full municipal services and to eliminate minimum parking requirements for Protected Major Transit Station Areas (PMTSAs). The existing parent zoning by-laws were amended in 2023 to permit up to two additional dwelling units on most residential lots in Pickering and to introduce accompanying zoning provisions. These new zoning permissions and - 50 - PLN 30-24 November 4, 2024 Subject: Zoning By-law Amendment Application A 01/24 City Initiated: City of Pickering Consolidated Zoning By-law Page 6 provisions have been carried forward into the Draft Zoning By-law. To implement the changes to minimum parking requirements in PMTSAs, the Draft Zoning By-law proposes the elimination of minimum parking requirements in Pickering’s PMTSA as identified in the recently approved Durham Region Official Plan. 2.8 Durham Region and Pickering Official Plans Envision Durham, the Region’s recently approved official plan, describes how the Region will accommodate growth, while meeting the needs of residents and businesses and protecting resources in Durham. Earlier in 2024, a review of the City’s Official Plan was initiated and is scheduled to be completed by 2026. A new Pickering Official Plan will conform to Envision Durham policy direction. Envision Durham and a new Pickering Official Plan will inform future updates to the Draft Zoning By-law. The Planning Act requires municipalities to update comprehensive zoning by-laws within three years of the adoption of a new official plan. A consolidated city-wide zoning by-law with updated provisions will greatly assist in future comprehensive zoning by-law reviews intended to bring zoning into conformity with a new official plan. 3. Next Steps Written notice of passing of the final By-law will be mailed by the City, no later than 15 days after the day the by-law is passed, to each person and public body that filed a written request to be notified of Council’s decision, and to any prescribed person or public body. Paper copies of the Council passed Draft Zoning By-law are required to be sent to the clerk of Durham Region. The appeal period to the Ontario Land Tribunal (OLT) is 20 days from the date of the notice of passing of the final Zoning By-law. The following individuals may make an appeal to the OLT under the Planning Act: • persons who made oral submissions at the April 2, 2024, statutory public meeting • persons who provided written submission to Council • the registered owner of any land to which the Draft Zoning By-law applies Any appeals will be reviewed by City Development and Legal Services. Information and next steps on appeals will be discussed in future reports to Council. Once the Zoning By-law is approved, significant staff resources will continue to be required for the following: • Posting the Draft Zoning By-law and the interactive zone map to the City’s website and continuing maintenance and updating. • Providing training to City staff users of the Draft Zoning By-law to ensure consistent zoning review. • Updating templates used in City Development for zoning review. - 51 - PLN 30-24 November 4, 2024 Subject: Zoning By-law Amendment Application A 01/24 City Initiated: City of Pickering Consolidated Zoning By-law Page 7 •Reviewing development applications to ensure compliance with both the existing parent zoning by-laws and the Draft Zoning By-law (where applicable zoningprovisions are appealed to the OLT) until the applicable appeals have beenwithdrawn or disposed of, and the applicable sections of the Draft Zoning By-law aredeemed to have come into force. Appendix: Appendix I Draft Consolidated Zoning By-law (under separate cover) Attachments: 1.Information Report 01-24 2.New and Modified Provisions included in the Third Draft By-law3.Responses to Public and Agency Comments Prepared By: Approved/Endorsed By: Original Signed By Original Signed By Mimi Lau, MCIP, RPP Catherine Rose, MCIP, RPP Senior Planner Chief Planner Original Signed By Original Signed By Deborah Wylie, MCIP, RPP Kyle Bentley, P. Eng. Manager, Zoning & Administration Director, City Development & CBO ML:DW:jc Recommended for the consideration of Pickering City Council Marisa Carpino, M.A. Chief Administrative Officer Original Signed By - 52 - Information Report to Planning & Development Committee Report Number: 01-24 Date: April 2, 2024 From: Catherine Rose Chief Planner Subject: Zoning By-law Amendment Application A 01/24 City Initiated: City of Pickering Consolidated Zoning By-law 1.Purpose of this Report The purpose of this report is to provide information on the second draft of the Consolidated Zoning By-law (Draft Zoning By-law). This report contains general information on the public engagement undertaken, how the current six parent Zoning By-laws wereconsolidated, the new structure of the zoning categories, and the new zoning provisions. This report is intended to assist members of the public and other interested stakeholdersin understanding the proposed Draft Zoning By-law. The Planning & Development Committee will hear public delegations on the Draft Zoning By-law, ask questions for clarification, and identify any planning matters for further consideration. This report is forinformation purposes, and no decision is to be made at this time. Following a review ofthe public, agency and stakeholder comments, staff will bring forward a recommendationreport, and a final Draft Zoning By-law for consideration by the Planning & Development Committee. 2.The Draft Zoning By-law A copy of the Draft Zoning By-law is available for viewing on the City’s website at Let’sTalk Pickering, or at the offices of the City of Pickering, City Development Department. 3.Background Report PLN 18-19 to the Planning & Development Committee outlined the need to update and consolidate the City’s existing six parent Zoning By-laws 2511, 2520, 3036,3037, 7364/14 (Seaton) and 7553/17 (City Centre). In 2020, a multi-phase ComprehensiveZoning By-law Review (CZBR) was initiated. Phase 1 of the CZBR continued throughout2020 and 2021, during which staff, with the assistance of the consulting firm of WSP Canada Group Ltd. (WSP) prepared a public consultation strategy, completed eight discussion papers, and hosted an electronic open house. The discussion papers provided an overview of the relevant provisions in each of theexisting parent zoning by-laws, and an analysis of how the existing zoning relates toplanning policies and legislation at the local, regional, and provincial levels. Also discussed were recent best practices in Ontario municipalities that have undertaken acomprehensive zoning by-law review. Guiding principles, and an approach to structuringzoning categories, were recommended. Attachment 1 to Report PLN 30-24 - 53 - Information Report 01-24 Page 2 As Phase 2 of the CZBR commenced, the project was renamed as the “Consolidated” Zoning By-law Review, to more accurately reflect the nature of the work completed. By contrast, a “Comprehensive” Review would imply updating the zoning to implement the Official Plan designations. A Comprehensive Review of the Zoning By-law will be initiated following completion of a new Pickering Official Plan. Phase 2 includes the preparation of the Draft of the Consolidated Zoning By-law, and public engagement. In 2022, staff released the first Draft Zoning By-law for public review and comment. Staff reports PLN 03-22 and PLN 36-22 provided information on the first Draft Zoning By-law. Following comments received from City staff, the public, agencies, and stakeholders, a second Draft Zoning By-law was released on February 6, 2024. This Information Report 01-24 provides general information on the second Draft Zoning By-law. 4. Community Engagement The City’s website page, Let’s Talk Pickering, has been the central place for information about the CZBR and the Draft Zoning By-law. The site contains the following information: the eight discussion papers; reports to Council; open house and informational videos; the text and mapping of the Draft Zoning By-law; staff answers to submitted questions; the community consultation program; and next steps. To date, as part of Phases 1 and 2, four virtual open houses, and two in-person open houses have been held to address the discussion papers and the Draft Zoning By-law. The most recent in-person open house was held on March 12, 2024, at Pickering City Hall. Another in-person open house will be held at Pickering City Hall, immediately prior to the April 2, 2024 Statutory Public Meeting. Notice for these events has included ads in the News Advertiser (when in publication), and more recently, the Toronto Star; mobile boulevard signage; City website notices; brochure and post card drops; and emailing. In total, over 160 people have attended, or viewed, in-person and virtual open houses. The comments received are summarized in the Comment Summary Matrix available for viewing on Let’s Talk Pickering. This matrix also includes consultant/staff responses to each comment. To date, approximately 165 comments have been received from the public, agencies, and City staff. Comments on the Draft Zoning By-law will be accepted until May 1, 2024, and will be reviewed to inform the preparation of the final Draft Zoning By-law. The final Draft Zoning By-law will be presented later in 2024 to Council for consideration. The comments received to-date fall generally into one of the following themes: • general zoning inquiries for particular properties, requests for clarification of zoning provisions, and corrections to the online zoning map • requests from landowners/developers, some with submitted development applications, for site-specific zoning changes (staff advises that requests for site-specific zoning changes are not being considered through the Consolidated Zoning By-law Review) - 54 - Information Report 01-24 Page 3 • requests from the Toronto and Region Conservation Authority to rezone certain Authority-owned lands to Environmental Protection that are currently zoned for residential uses, despite the presence of natural heritage features or hazard lands • general comments on the structure of the Draft Zoning By-law • comments that support more mixed-use zoning and implementation of Official Plan policies 5. Consolidating the Existing Zoning By-laws 5.1 The existing six parent Zoning By-laws are consolidated Except for the Seaton Zoning By-law 7364/14, the zones and provisions of all the existing parent zoning by-laws have been consolidated and harmonized in the Draft Zoning By-law. This includes administrative provisions; definitions; general regulations; parking and loading standards; definitions; zone-specific provisions for permitted uses, and lot and building standards; and provisions for enactment and transition. Seaton Zoning By-law 7364/14 has been retained except for its administration and enactment chapters as a chapter within the Draft Zoning By-law. In addition to the six parent zoning by-laws, the Draft Zoning By-law incorporates the following two zoning amendments recently passed by Council: • regulations for Infill and Replacement Housing in Established Neighbourhoods, which were adopted by Council in 2021 and approved by the Ontario Land Tribunal in 2023, are applied to the certain neighbourhoods through an overlay map, and establish additional lot and building standards that supersede the provisions for a given zone • regulations for Additional Dwelling Units, adopted by Council in 2023, bringing the Draft Zoning By-law in conformity with the changes to the Planning Act in 2022 5.2 Zoning categories are restructured The structure of the zone categories in the six existing zoning by-laws was reviewed to establish a single structure of new zones for the Draft Zoning By-law that would apply city-wide. The approach to consolidating the existing zone categories was to establish a clear zone structure to guide future development, simplify and consolidate the similar provisions of existing zones, reduce the number of zones, order residential zones according to density, and carry forward some site-specific zoning as exceptions. See Attachment 1 for a table of the Proposed Zone Categories. Consolidating residential zones from the six existing Zoning By-laws is a critical step in the new city-wide Draft Zoning By-law. The intent of this step of the process was not to result in any significant variances from the existing residential standards, but rather simplify and consolidate the similar provisions of the existing zones. The residential zones are reorganized into the three broader zone categories of R1 – Residential First Density, R2 – Residential Second Density, and R3 – Residential Third Density, according to the density of their permitted dwelling types. Within each category, there are subzones that establish lot frontage and lot area provisions. - 55 - Information Report 01-24 Page 4 Attachment 2 of this report is a concordance table, demonstrating how the zones from the existing parent Zoning By-laws have been consolidated into the zone structure for the Draft Zoning By-law. 5.3 Site-specific Exceptions The existing six parent Zoning By-laws contain exceptions approved through site specific rezonings after the enactment of the original parent by-laws. All exceptions were reviewed to determine if they could be consolidated, deleted, or carried forward into the Draft Zoning By-law. This review looked at whether there were similarities among the exceptions, and whether they complied with zones and provisions of the Draft Zoning By-law. Exceptions were deleted if they complied with the provisions of the Draft Zoning By-law. Exceptions were carried forward if they did not comply with the Draft Zoning By-law provisions. Carrying forward exceptions into the Draft Zoning By-law ensures that existing zoning permissions are not removed from properties. This approach has reduced, in half, the total number from approximately 850 to 412 Exceptions. The exceptions that are carried forward are numbered, and the numbers are displayed at a property level on the interactive zone map. The user of the By-law can then search for it numerically if their property is subject to an exception. 5.4 Transition provisions The Draft Zoning By-law contains provisions that recognize, for a five-year period, the status of existing Planning Act and Building Act applications. These proposed provisions allow applications submitted prior to the Draft Zoning By-law coming into effect, to continue to be processed according to the Zoning By-laws that were in effect at the time of application. A by-law comes into effect once Council passes a by-law and the appeal period lapses without any appeals, or when a by-law is appealed, and the Ontario Land Tribunal (OLT) issues an order dismissing the appeal, or approving, or approving with modifications. 5.5 Kingston Road Corridor and Specialty Retail Node Intensification Areas Council adopted Official Plan Amendment 38 (OPA 38) for the Kingston Road Corridor and Specialty Retail Node Intensification Areas on January 24, 2022. On November 4, 2022, the Region of Durham issued a notice of decision to approve OPA 38. That decision was appealed to the OLT. The Draft Zoning By-law does not propose zoning for the lands subject to OPA 38. The new Zoning By-law will be amended following the decision of the Tribunal, and preparation of an implementing zoning by-law for the OPA 38 lands. Until then, the OPA 38 lands will continue to be subject to the current Zoning By-law 3036. 5.6 Minister’s Zoning Orders The Planning Act authorizes the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing to make a Minister’s Zoning Order (MZOs) and enact an Ontario Regulation to regulate the use of land, buildings, and structures anywhere in Ontario. MZOs are a level of zoning that - 56 - Information Report 01-24 Page 5 supersedes municipal zoning wherever the municipal and provincial zoning conflict. Four provincial Minister’s Zoning Orders cover certain lands in Pickering, and often, the public are unaware that their property may be subject to an MZO. To improve the understanding of zoning in Pickering, the Draft Zoning By-law contains an informational schedule (Schedule 2) that outlines the lands that are subject to the four MZOs. Schedule 2 – Minister’s Zoning Orders, can be viewed on Let’s Talk Pickering. In addition, Section 16, Enactment, states that the MZOs remain in effect and supersede the Draft Zoning By-law. 6. New and modified zoning provisions In addition to consolidation, the six existing Zoning By-laws were reviewed against the City’s Official Plan, current best practices, and emerging issues. Attachment 3 outlines the sections of the CZBL that were updated or modified. Below is a discussion of the new zoning provisions that were added to address the various emerging issues of Council or community interest. 6.1 Short-term rentals The existing parent Zoning By-laws do not contain provisions regulating short-term rentals. New provisions are proposed that would permit, in all residential zones, a maximum of one short-term rental in an owner-occupied principal residence, as defined by the federal Income Tax Act. 6.2 Nightclubs In response to public comments with concerns over noise, a new general regulation is introduced that prohibits nightclubs within 150 metres of a Residential Zone, as well as prohibiting an outdoor patio accessory to a nightclub. 6.3 Agriculture-Related and On-Farm Diversified Uses To conform to the City’s Official Plan and Provincial Policy, zoning regulations within the Rural Zones in the Draft Zoning By-law are updated to permit a range of agriculture- related uses, such as a farm winery or cidery, and on-farm diversified uses, such as an agritourism use. On-farm diversified uses are restricted to one hectare or two percent of the total lot area. These uses provide flexibility for farm-owners in diversifying their income, and boost the rural economy, while protecting primary agricultural use. 6.4 Driveway widenings and minimum interior garage size The current Seaton and Duffin Heights By-laws restrict driveway widths. The Draft Zoning By-law proposes zoning provisions regulating a maximum driveway width, and minimum landscaped open area, to accommodate additional parking. All residential lots in the City will be subject to restrictions to accommodate additional parking while protecting on-site drainage and streetscape concerns. These proposed provisions align with the additional dwelling unit zoning provisions. - 57 - Information Report 01-24 Page 6 Also introduced are zoning provisions requiring a minimum interior garage size. These provisions ensure residential garages adequately accommodate the minimum required vehicle parking and storage. 6.5 Integrated Sustainable Design Standards To support the Integrated Sustainable Design Standards (ISDS), and as directed by Council Resolutions #914/22 and #3323/23, new definitions, and provisions that address heat island reduction, permit rooftop solar panels, specify minimum outdoor amenity areas for certain uses, and required minimum bicycle parking rates, are included in the Draft Zoning By-law. 7. Next Steps As noted in Section 2, a copy of the Draft Zoning By-law is available for viewing on the City’s website at Let’s Talk Pickering, or at the offices of the City of Pickering, City Development Department. Comments on the Draft Zoning By-law will be accepted up to May 1, 2024. Until this time, staff will continue to engage the public and stakeholders through providing information on the City’s website and meeting with stakeholders as requested. Comments received will inform staff of the preparation of a final Draft Zoning By-law. A staff recommendation report along with the final Draft Zoning By-law will be presented to Council later in 2024. 8. Procedural Information • written comments regarding the Draft Zoning By-law should be directed to the City Development Department • oral comments may be made at the Statutory Public Meeting • all comments received will be noted and used as input to a Recommendation Report and a final Draft Zoning By-law prepared by the City Development Department for consideration at a subsequent meeting of Council or a Committee of Council • any member of the public who wishes to reserve the option to appeal Council’s decision must provide comments to the City before Council adopts the final Draft Zoning By-law • any member of the public who wishes to be notified of Council’s decision regarding this proposal must request such in writing to the City Clerk Attachments 1. Proposed Zone Categories 2. Concordance of Zoning Categories 3. New and Modified Provisions - 58 - Information Report 01-24 Page 7 Prepared By: Original Signed By Mimi Lau, MCIP, RPP Senior Planner, Zoning & Administration Original Signed By Deborah Wylie, MCIP, RPP Manager, Zoning & Administration Approved/Endorsed By: Original Signed By Catherine Rose, MCIP, RPP Chief Planner ML:DW:ld Date of Report: March 18, 2024 - 59 - Proposed Zone Categories Page 1 of 5 Attachment 1 to Information Report 01-24 Zone Name Zoning Symbol(s) Main Permitted Uses Residential Residential First Density R1A, R1B, R1C, R1D, R1E, R1F, R1G, R1H, R1I Single-detached Residential Second Density R2A, R2B R1 permitted uses plus semi-detached, duplex Residential Third Density R3A, R3B, R3C R2 permitted uses plus townhouses, apartments Commercial Commercial General C1 Range of commercial uses Commercial Automotive Service C2 Automobile Service Station, Car Wash, Convenience Store, Restaurant, Outdoor Display Area uses Commercial Highway C3 Range of Retail and Automobile Service uses Commercial Hamlet CH Range of Retail and Automobile Service uses Mixed-Use Local Node LN Retail, service and office uses Community Node CN Community, cultural and limited retail uses Mixed-Use General MU1 Residential, retail, service uses City Centre City Centre One CC1 Residential, commercial and community uses City Centre Two CC2 Residential and commercial City Centre Residential One CCR1 Townhouses, office and personal service, park City Centre Residential Two CCR2 Similar but wider range of uses permitted in CCR1 - 60 - Proposed Zone Categories Page 2 of 5 Zone Name Zoning Symbol(s) Main Permitted Uses City Centre Civic CCC Civic, community and office uses City Centre Open Space CCOS Park and community uses City Centre Natural Heritage System CCNHS Community garden and park Employment Employment General E1 Manufacturing Employment Prestige E2 Light manufacturing, warehousing Employment Commercial E3 Places of assembly, light manufacturing, warehousing, limited retail Environmental Protection and Open Space Environmental Protection EP Agriculture, conservation, passive recreation Open Space OS Agriculture, community centre, park, community garden Open Space Waterfront OSW Aquaculture, marina, community centre, conservation Stormwater Management Facility SWM Stormwater management pond Golf Course GC Golf course Rural and Oak Ridges Moraine Agriculture A Agriculture, a detached dwelling, farm related uses, community centre, schools Quarry Q Agriculture, quarry, forestry Oak Ridges Moraine – Agricultural ORMA Agriculture, a detached dwelling, conservation - 61 - Proposed Zone Categories Page 3 of 5 Zone Name Zoning Symbol(s) Main Permitted Uses Oak Ridges Moraine – Environmental Protection ORMEP Conservation uses Oak Ridges Moraine – Institutional ORMI Community uses, school, recreation, place of worship Oak Ridges Moraine – Commercial ORMC Limited commercial uses Oak Ridges Moraine – Residential General ORMR5, ORMR6 Detached dwelling Institutional and Other Institutional General I1 Community uses Urban Reserve UR Uses legally existing at the date of the passing of the Draft Zoning By-law, passive recreation Utility UT Conservation, passive recreation, parking lot, stormwater management Seaton Urban Area Seaton Low Density Type 1 SLD1 Detached, semi, duplex, multi-attached, block & back-to-back townhouses Seaton Low Density Type 1 Heritage Lot SLD1HL Detached, semi, duplex, multi-attached, block & back-to-back townhouses Seaton Low Density Type 1 Townhouses SLD1T Detached, semi, duplex, multi-attached, block & back-to-back townhouses Seaton Low Density Type 2 SLD2 Detached, semi, duplex, multi-attached, block & back-to-back townhouses Seaton Low Density Type 2 Multiple SLD2M Detached, semi, duplex, multi-attached, block & back-to-back townhouses - 62 - Proposed Zone Categories Page 4 of 5 Zone Name Zoning Symbol(s) Main Permitted Uses Seaton Medium Density Detached & Semi SMDDS Seaton Low Density uses and apartment dwelling Seaton Medium Density Multiple SMDM Seaton Low Density uses and apartment dwelling Seaton High Density SH Street multiple attached dwelling, apartment dwelling, personal service uses Seaton Mixed Corridor Type 1 SMC1 Range of residential, community, retail and automotive uses Seaton Mixed Corridor Type 2 SMC2 Range of residential, community, retail and automotive uses Seaton Mixed Corridor Type 3 SMC3 Range of residential, community, retail and automotive uses Seaton Minor Commercial Cluster SMCC Apartment dwelling, live work, and retail uses Seaton Local Node SLN Block and back-to-back townhouses, live work, and apartment dwelling, and retail, service, entertainment uses Seaton Community Node SCN Seaton Local Nodes uses, home improvement centre, hotel Seaton Community Node Pedestrian Predominant Area SCNPP Seaton Local Nodes uses, home improvement centre, hotel Seaton Prestige Employment General SPEG Light manufacturing, business services, schools, hotel, data and communications Seaton Prestige Employment Node SPEN Light manufacturing, business services, schools, hotel, data and communications Seaton Prestige Employment Heritage Lot SPEHL Light manufacturing, business services, schools, hotel, data and communications - 63 - Proposed Zone Categories Page 5 of 5 Zone Name Zoning Symbol(s) Main Permitted Uses Seaton Employment Service SES Office, retail, business service Seaton Community Use SCU Schools, place of worship, community Seaton District/Community Park SDCP Community and recreational uses Seaton Open Space SOS Limited community and recreational uses Seaton Utility SUT Water and sewage pumping and treatment, energy pipelines, highways - 64 - Concordance of Zoning By-law Categories Page 1 of 4 Attachment 2 to Information Report 01-24 Parent Zoning By-law Zone Category Draft Zoning By-law Zone Category Residential R6 First Density – R1A V First Density – R1B R1 First Density – R1C R3 First Density – R1D R4 First Density – R1E S1 First Density – R1F S2 First Density – R1G S3 First Density – R1H S4 First Density – R1I SD Second Density – R2A RM Second Density – R2B RMM Second Density – R3A n/a Third Density – R3B n/a Third Density – R3C Mixed Use, Commercial and Other Zones City Centre City Centre One – CC1 City Centre One – CC1 City Centre Two – CC2 City Centre Two – CC2 City Centre Residential One – CCR1 City Centre Residential One – CCR1 City Centre Residential Two – CCR2 City Centre Residential Two – CCR2 City Centre Civic – CCC City Centre Civic – CCC Open Space – OS City Centre Open Space – CCOS Natural Heritage System –NHS City Centre Natural Heritage System – CCNHS Mixed Use LCA, C1 Local Node Zone – LN CCA Community Node Zone – CN MU Mixed Use Zone – MU Commercial SC, SPC, CO, C2 Commercial General – C1 CA, CA3 Automotive Service Commercial – C2 C3 Highway Commercial – C3 - 65 - Concordance of Zoning By-law Categories Page 2 of 4 Parent Zoning By-law Zone Category Draft Zoning By-law Zone Category HM, HMC Hamlet Commercial – CH Employment M2, M2S General Employment – E1 M1 Prestige Employment – E2 MC Employment Commercial – E3 Open Space and Environmental Protection G Environmental Protection – EP O1, O2, OS, CP, and NP Exceptions Open Space – O O3B Open Space Water – OSW OS – SWM Storm Water Management Facility – SWM GC Golf Course – GC Agriculture and Rural A Agriculture A Q Quarry Q ORM-A ORMA ORM-EP ORMEP ORM-I, ORM-R ORMI ORM-M1 ORM-M1 Institutional and Other ES, I(C), I(R), I(PRA), CU General Institutional – I1 R(NH) Institutional/Residential – I2 UR Urban Reserve – UR CNR Utility – U - 66 - Concordance of Zoning By-law Categories Page 3 of 4 Parent Zoning By-law Zone Category Draft Zoning By-law Zone Category Seaton Residential Low Density Type 1 – LD1 Seaton Low Density Type 1 – SLD1 Low Density Type 1 – Townhouses – LD1-T Seaton Low Density Type 1 – Townhouse (SLD1T) Low Density Type 1 – Heritage Lot – LD1-HL Seaton Low Density Type 1 – Heritage Lot (SLD1HL) Low Density Type 2 – LD2 Seaton Low Density Type 2 (SLD2) Low Density Type 2 – Multiple – LD2-M Seaton Low Density Type 2 – Multiple (SLD2M) Medium Density – Detached & Semi – MD- DS Seaton Medium Density – Detached & Semi (SMDDS) Medium Density – Multiple – MD-M Seaton Medium Density – Multiple (SMDM) High Density – H Seaton High Density (SHD) Mixed Use Mixed Corridor Type 1 – MC1 Seaton Mixed Corridor Type 1 – SMC1 Mixed Corridor Type 2 – MC2 Seaton Mixed Corridor Type 2 – SMC2 Mixed Corridor Type 3 – MC3 Seaton Mixed Corridor Type 3 – SMC3 Minor Commercial Cluster – MCC Seaton Minor Commercial Cluster – SMCC Local Node – LN Seaton Local Node – SLN Community Node – CN Seaton Community Node – SCN Community Node Pedestrian Predominant Area – CN-PP Seaton Community Node Pedestrian Predominant Area – SCNPP Employment Seaton Prestige Employment General – PEG Seaton Prestige Employment General – SPEG Seaton Prestige Employment Node – PEN Seaton Prestige Employment Node – SPEN - 67 - Concordance of Zoning By-law Categories Page 4 of 4 Parent Zoning By-law Zone Category Draft Zoning By-law Zone Category Seaton Prestige Employment Heritage Lot – PE-HL Seaton Prestige Employment Heritage Lot – SPEHL Seaton Employment Service – ES Seaton Employment Service – SES Community Use Seaton Community Use – CU Seaton Community Use – SCU Natural Heritage and Open Space Seaton District/Community Park – DCP Seaton District/Community Park – SDCP Seaton Open Space – OS Seaton Open Space – SOS Seaton Stormwater Management – SWM Seaton Stormwater Management – SSWM Seaton Golf Course – GC Seaton Golf Course – SGC Seaton Natural Heritage System – NHS Seaton Natural Heritage System – SNHS Seaton Cemetery – CE Seaton Cemetery – SCE Seaton Hamlet Heritage Open Space – HHOS Seaton Hamlet Heritage Open Space – SHHOS Seaton Utility – Utility – UT Seaton Utility – SUT - 68 - New and Modified Provisions Page 1 of 3 Attachment 3 to Information Report 01-24 Draft Zoning By-law Section Added/Modified 1 Administration 1.9 Transition Clarifies how provisions apply to applications that have been submitted and deemed complete at the time the Draft Zoning By-law comes into effect. Transition provisions are proposed to be repealed 5 years from the effective date of the CZBL. 3 Definitions 3.2 Defined Terms Definitions added include: Adverse Effect; Amenity Area, Common Outdoor; Amenity Area, Common Indoor; Ancillary Retail Sales; Aquaculture; Common Outdoor; Dwelling Width; Electric Vehicle Supply Equipment; Flat Roof; Front Entrance; Green Roof; Dwelling Depth; Dwelling Width; Landscaped Open Space; Main Front Wall; Shipping Container; Short-term Rental; Solar or Shade Parking Structure; Stacking Lane; Vertical Farming; Veterinary Clinic Definitions modified include: Amenity Area; Area of High Aquifer Vulnerability; Commercial Vehicle; Contractor’s Yard; Drive-through Facility; Driveway; Dwelling Unit, Additional; Grade Existing; Average Grade; Ground Floor; Height; Landscaped Area; Lot coverage; Lot Depth; Motor Vehicle; Nightclub; Obnoxious; Park; Person; Retirement Home; Self-storage Facility; Setback; Theatre 4 General Regulations 4.3 Additional Dwelling Unit Zoning By-laws 8034/23, 8035/23, 8036/23, 8037/23, 8038/23, and 8039/23 permitting additional dwelling units are consolidated here. 4.9 CLOCA and TRCA Regulated Areas Recognizes Bill 23 and the evolving role of conservation authorities in application review. Provisions maintain that boundaries of regulated areas “shall be” determined by CLOCA and TRCA as applicable. However, the provision stating that “final boundaries of the regulated area shall be determined by CLOCA or TRCA, as appropriate” is removed. 4.11 Established Neighbourhood Precinct Overlay Zone Infill & Replacement Housing and Building Height Zoning By-laws 7872/21, 7873/21, 7874/21, 7900/22, 7901/22, and 7902/22 are consolidated here. - 69 - New and Modified Provisions Page 2 of 3 Draft Zoning By-law Section Added/Modified 4.14 Height Exceptions Responds to Integrated Sustainable Design Standards (ISDS): a) Performance Measure ER2 to ER4 (Heat Island Reduction) general regulation for Height Exceptions permits rooftop solar panels and associated equipment to exceed the maximum permitted building height by 1.5 metres. b) Performance Measure ER1 (Emissions, Renewable Energy, and Resilience) general regulation for Height Exceptions permits a parapet wall that forms part of a green room to exceed the maximum permitted building height by 1.5 metres. 4.22 Nightclubs Establishes minimum distance separation from residential areas for night clubs. 4.23 Oak Ridges Moraine Area Special Provisions For clarification, Subsection 8 Areas of High Aquifer Vulnerability added to reference to Schedule 3 and the Official Plan, in particular section 10.13 Areas of Groundwater Protection and 16.43 Groundwater Vulnerability – Oak Ridges Moraine. 4.24 On-farm Diversified Uses Identifies that home industry is subject to a maximum gross floor area and applies the provisions of Section 4.16 Home Industries. 4.27 Outdoor Storage Permits outdoor storage as a principal use in any zone that permits outdoor storage and requires a visible barrier to any adjacent yard, highway, or street. Conditions remain and permission does not apply to Open Space Waterfront zone. 4.30 Public Uses Permitted in All Zones Clarifies the provisions that apply to public uses. 4.33 Rooming Homes Rooming houses are required to encompass the entire dwelling and limited to one per lot; the maximum number of bedrooms changed from 10 to 6. 4.35 Seasonal Farm Help Dwelling Removes the minimum floor area of 58.0 square metres as a requirement. 4.38 Shipping Containers Provides direction on the location of shipping containers used for storage. 4.39 Short term rental and definition Responds to public concerns and supports possible future licensing. - 70 - New and Modified Provisions Page 3 of 3 Draft Zoning By-law Section Added/Modified 5 Parking, Stacking, and Loading Regulations 5.11 Residential Driveway and Front Yard Landscaping Requirements Responds to need for additional parking on private property. 5.12 Parking and Storage of Vehicles in Residential and City Centre Zones Provision implemented City-wide. 5.13 Bicycle Parking Space Requirements Responds to ISDS Performance Measure T3 (Bicycle Parking and Storage Facilities) minimum short-term and long-term bicycle parking rates applied. 6 Residential Zone Regulations Sections 6 Residential and Section 8 Mixed Use Zone Regulations Responds to ISDS Performance Measure LN7 (Common Outdoor Amenity Space) minimum outdoor amenity areas are specified for apartment dwellings in the City Centre zones and the Residential Third Density zones. 8 Mixed-Use Zone Regulations 8.3 Lot and Building Requirements Mixed Use General (MU1) the intent of the zone provisions changed from permitting high-rise mixed-use development to permitting low-rise mixed-use development. 12 Rual and Oak Ridges Moraine Zone Regulations 12.3 Oak Ridges Moraine Zones Adds Oak Ridges Moraine Commercial (ORMC) to reflect existing uses in the hamlet of Claremont. 13 Institutional and Other Zone Regulations 13.2 Permitted Uses UR Zone Urban Reserve Zone recognizes existing uses and permits a new detached dwelling provided a detached dwelling was already a permitted use - 71 - New and Modified Provisions included in the Draft Zoning By-law By-law Section Added/Modified Preamble Section 1. Overview of Zoning By-laws Clarified that any development contravening the by-law is an offence. Preamble Section 2. Overview of the Zoning By-law for the City of Pickering Minor grammatical corrections. Preamble Section 3. Checking the Zoning and Applicable Provisions Clarified the relationship between Minister’s Zoning Orders and the City’s Zoning By-law. Added reference to new Schedule 8 showing Protected Major Transit Station Area. Preamble Section 5. Relationship to Other By-laws, etc. Clarified that other utility operators may be subject to other regulations and setbacks, such as pipelines and rail lines, in response to comments received from utility providers. 1.6 Legal Non-Conformity Replaced these provisions with the clearer provisions used in the Seaton By-law, for consistency and clarity. 1.7 Legal Non-compliance Replaced the provision regarding land acquisition by a public authority for improved clarity and flexibility for the landowner. Added new provisions that recognize legal non-complying buildings, structures, parking areas and driveways as complying so that they can further expand or be altered. 1.9 Transition Added a more fulsome list of planning applications to be eligible for transition, including site plans, consents, subdivisions, condominium, part-lot control and minor variances. Added a new clause that allows an existing application that is transitioned to be varied through a minor variance, so that some flexibility is provided to existing application processes. Clarified transition for applications that were received and processed by the City under a previous application process (pre-application submission). Clarified that applications which have been transitioned will only cover buildings/structures as generally shown in the application, and that new buildings may be subject to a new application and the new zoning by-law. Attachment 2 to Report PLN 30-24 - 72 - By-law Section Added/Modified 1.10 Technical Revisions to the Zoning By-law Added a new section that allows for staff to make interpretation decisions around minor formatting and numbering issues that do not change the intent of the By-law. Definition – Daylight Triangle Corrected wording to clarify that the dimensions of a daylighting triangle are determined through the development approvals process. Definition – Dwelling, Live-Work Corrected wording to align with the Ontario Building Code. Definition – Landscape Strip Clarified that the height of landscape strips is as identified in the text of the by-law. Definition – Lot Coverage Revised definition to allow better enforcement and align with municipal best practices. Definition – Lot Frontage Clarified the measurement of lot frontage. Definition – Rooming House Clarified that rooming houses refer to a maximum of 6 bedrooms. Definition - Reserve Added this definition to aid in ensuring consistent interpretation wherever this term is being used. Definition - Street Simplified this definition. Section 4.27 (formerly Section 4.8) – Below Grade Entrances to Dwelling Units Added encroachment of entrances into permitted yards. 4.11 – Frontage on a Street Simplified provision. 4.13 – Height Exceptions Clarification that rooftop mechanical equipment is regulated by section 4.31. 4.18 – Live Work Dwelling Clarified that the minimum floor area applies to the commercial use and not the dwelling portion. 4.22.3.7 – Non-conforming buildings in the Oak Ridges moraine Area Provision deleted as it is difficult to implement in zoning and is better administered as a policy under the Oak Ridges Moraine Plan. 4.25 – Outdoor Patio Clarified that outdoor patios are permitted wherever restaurants are permitted, subject to meeting the standards. 4.27 – Permitted Encroachments Updated to reflect that exterior entrances are allowed to encroach into required yards provided they are not closer than 0.9 m to the lot line. - 73 - By-law Section Added/Modified 5.2 – Parking Space Requirements Updated in accordance with recent changes to the Planning Act allowing no minimum parking requirement within the Protected Major Transit Station (PMTSA). Added a new schedule 8 depicting the boundaries of the Protected Major Transit Station Area. Table 5.1 – Parking Space Requirements Updated parking requirement for hotel so that it is clearer and more in line with expected parking demand. 5.4 – Accessible Parking Spaces Updated to require accessible parking spaces to be shown on a Site Plan. 5.9 – Surface Parking Spaces in City Centre Zones Clarified that a landscape strip with a minimum height of 1.5 metres for screening purposes is required where a parking area is provided adjacent to residential development. Table 5.3: Minimum driveway width and minimum landscaped open space in residential zones In response to comments, the minimum required landscaped open space for lots with 11 metres frontage was reduced from 45 percent to 30 percent, thereby allowing 2 adjacent driveways on the lot. Table 6.9 – Lot and building requirements in the Residential Third Density Zones Updated to include the minimum building separation requirements for taller buildings. Added a maximum floor plate requirement to the R3C zone. Introduced amenity area requirements, to require the provision of recreational space on the lot at a rate of 4 square metres per unit for developments with more than 8 units. Table 8.3: Lot and Building Requirements for the Mixed-Use Zones Added amenity area requirements to the Mixed Use 1 Zone. Table 8.6: Lot and Building Requirements for the City Centre Zones Maintained the requirement for a minimum 4 square metres of amenity area per unit, in the existing City Centre By-law, but eliminates the requirement for a minimum of 2 square metres per dwelling unit in indoor space and a minimum of 2 square metres per dwelling unit in outdoor space, in favour of 1 contiguous common outdoor amenity area of at least 40.0 square metres. Table 10.2: Permitted Uses in the Employment Zones Added self-storage facility as a permitted use, to acknowledge that this use exists in various zones across the City. Table 10.3: Lot and Building Requirements in the Employment Zones Clarified that a minimum landscape strip must have a height of 1.5 metres where abutting zones that permit sensitive uses. - 74 - By-law Section Added/Modified Table 12.2: Uses Permitted in the Rural Zones Removed cemetery and place of worship as permitted uses in the A zones. Table 13.2: Uses Permitted in the Institutional and Other Zones Added additional dwelling unit, rooming house, short-term rental and home occupation as permitted uses in the Urban Reserve Zone, provided the lot had permission for a single detached dwelling on the date of passing of the By-law. These are uses typically permitted in residential zones. Seaton Section 14.1 – Definitions Removed reference to adult video and unnecessary language from air conditioner definition. Added definitions of ancillary retail sales; floor area, net; net density; public authority; and short-term rental Updated definition of art gallery/studio. Seaton 14.2 – General Regulations Added Section 14.2.22 Short Term Rental. Seaton Section 14.2.4 – Public Uses Permitted in All Zones Updated. Seaton Section 14.2.5 – Permitted Encroachments Clarified encroachments of exterior steps. Seaton Section 14.2.6 – Legal Non-Conformity and Section 14.2.7 – Legal Non-Complying Buildings and Structures and Section 14.2.8 - Legal Non-Complying Lots Deleted these sections, as these are covered off by the provisions under Section 1.6 and 1.7. 15 – Exception Zones Clarified the applicability of the former parent zoning by-laws versus the new Consolidated Zoning By-law. 16 – Enactment Clarified that the new Consolidated Zoning By-law comes into force on the day it was passed if no appeals are received. If appeals are received, the appealed portions shall come into force when all appeals of the portion of the By-law have been withdrawn or fully disposed of and the rest of the By-law shall come into force the day the By-law is passed. Clarified the status of the former parent zoning by-laws, which are superseded. Clarified the status of Minister’s Zoning Orders. - 75 - Responses to Public and Agency Comments Resident or Organization / Address Comment(s) Response Trans Canada Pipeline (TCPL) Request that the Zoning By-law schedules show TCPL’s pipelines and facilities, where applicable, as UT (or as an appropriate ‘Infrastructure’ symbol). We can provide GIS shape files to the Township; however, A data sharing agreement is required prior to sharing of GIS shape files. Recommend the following changes to the proposed draft Zoning By-law: 1.Add in Section 3.2 Defined Terms, the Provincial Policy Statement 2020 (PPS 2020) definition of ‘Infrastructure. 2.Create a new zone symbol for Infrastructure to distinguish these corridors and facilities from public utilities. 3.Rename the proposed title of Section 4.45 from ‘Utilities Permitted in All Zones,’ to ‘Utilities and Infrastructure’. 4.Add the following new regulations to 4.45 Utilities and Infrastructure, as renamed: 4.45.3 In any zone where lands abut a pipeline right-of-way, permanent buildings and structures, as well as retaining walls, driveways, parking spaces and parking areas, shall be setback a minimum of 7 metres from the edge of the pipeline right-of-way; and, accessory structures, including pools, decks and sheds, shall be setback a minimum TCPL's pipelines and facilities will be integrated under an informational attachment to the draft Zoning By-law once a data-sharing agreement is entered into. Such attachment is intended to show facilities of infrastructure operators. The Preamble will be updated to note that the relevant infrastructure operator should be consulted for any development proposed near these areas. With respect to the requested revisions, we prefer not to incorporate the definition of infrastructure from the PPS 2020, as the definition is written in the context of interpreting the policies of the PPS 2020. We note the term public use is defined which incorporates various elements of the PPS infrastructure definition, including oil and gas pipelines. This type of infrastructure is permitted in all zones. We do not agree with creating a new infrastructure zone. The zoning by-law already contains a utility zone. Comment number 3 is no longer applicable as these provisions have been merged under Section 4.29 of the draft Zoning By-law. With respect to the requested setbacks, these have not been incorporated. The Preamble will be updated to note that the relevant infrastructure operator should be Attachment 3 to Report PLN 30-24 - 76 - Responses to Public and Agency Comments Resident or Organization / Address Comment(s) Response 3 metres setback from the edge of the pipeline right-of way. consulted for any development proposed near these areas in which case the infrastructure operator can apply setbacks accordingly. Resident/Landowner 3430 Seventh Concession Road The CZBL indicates this parcel of land as Agricultural - A. However, there is an existing golf course on the subject lands zoned A/GC under amending By-law 5076/00, permitting the golf course. The CZBL Agricultural zoning does not permit a golf course. The mapping is updated to reflect A/GC and OS-HL zoning on the site as per site- specific exception By-laws 5706/00 and 5720/00. Resident/Landowner Park Crescent Update zoning to open space. It is in the hazard zone and owned by the TRCA or City. These lands are rezoned to OS as requested by the Toronto and Region Conservation Authority. Resident/Landowner 509 Park Crescent Incorrect Zoning - Should be rezoned to OSW/OS. These lands are rezoned to OS as requested by the Toronto and Region Conservation Authority. Resident/Landowner 5375 Sideline 4 Requested clarification about whether the draft Consolidated Zoning By-law allow secondary dwellings in the Oak Ridges Moraine. The City has reviewed its policies and zoning provisions for Additional Dwelling Units (ADUs, i.e., secondary dwellings) based on recent provincial policy changes through the More Homes Built Faster Act (Bill 13). The provisions have been updated in both the current zoning by-laws and in the draft Consolidated Zoning By- law to permit ADUs on most lots. 5375 Sideline 4 is situated within the Oak Ridges Moraine, and presently is zoned ORM-EP – Oak Ridges Moraine - Environmental Protection zone by Zoning By-law 3037, as amended. The proposed - 77 - Responses to Public and Agency Comments Resident or Organization / Address Comment(s) Response zoning in the draft Comprehensive Zoning By-law for your property will remain ORM- EP. The current and proposed ORM-EP zoning does not permit an ADU either within a second structure or accessory structure or in the principal dwelling. The intent of not permitting ADUs within a second structure or accessory structure within the Oak Ridges Moraine is related to servicing, environmental protection and engineering concerns. Malone Given Parsons representing North- East Pickering Landowners Group (NEPLOG) Section 1.0 • The preferred approach to zoning is to permit a range of built forms and typologies (from single detached dwellings to higher density townhouse units such as stacked and back-to-back units) within the same general residential zone. Section 2.0 • Concerned that the parking requirements of 2 parking spaces for all residential building types is overly restrictive and request the City to require a lower parking rate of 1 parking space per unit. • Request the City to use driveway and garage standards that are inclusive for all built forms such as a reduced parking space dimension of 2.6 metres by 5.6 metres. Section 1.0 Response The Consolidated Zoning By-law is principally a consolidation exercise, and efforts were made to appropriately integrate MZOs into the second draft Consolidated Zoning By-law. Please note the current in-effect MZOs can be found by selecting Schedule 2 of the Layers List in the Interactive Map. Section 2.0 Response The first draft of the Consolidated Zoning By-law consolidates all existing Residential zones, many of which, such as the Residential- General zones, were not organized by density (despite numbering such as R1 to R6 which suggest otherwise). The first draft was preliminary. Now that the Exception Zones have been - 78 - Responses to Public and Agency Comments Resident or Organization / Address Comment(s) Response • Encourage the City to consider more modern and flexible building zone standards for new residential communities in the Residential Second and Third Density zones. • Request that the prohibition of a temporary sales office until an applicable plan of subdivision or condominium has received draft plan approval or the property is in a zone the permits the proposed development be removed from the draft Consolidated Zoning By-law. Section 3.1 • Request that the City consider including stacked and back-to-back townhouses within the draft Consolidated Zoning By- law. • Clarification requested if landscaping area in any yards can be counted towards both amenity area and landscaping area, and how indoor amenity areas can be regulated for individual dwelling units such as townhouses Section 3.2 • Request clarification that the MU1 zone adequately captures the range of mixed uses and built forms intended for the mixed-use category. reviewed, further work was completed to reorganize and streamline the Residential zones in the second draft. At the time that NEPLOG Secondary Plan process is complete and when there is an area specific zoning-by-law amendment, the City will consider how best to integrate this area-specific by-law into the Consolidated Zoning By-law. It is not expected that the new Zoning By-law will include the zones which will be applied to these lands, as the zoning and standards should be informed by the Secondary Plan process. Section 3.1 Response Further refinements to the permitted uses and amenity area requirements have been incorporated into the second draft. Section 3.2 Response The Mixed-Use Zone category was developed to reflect the City's Official Plan designations and provide a zone basis for the City to use when reviewing zoning by- law amendments for mixed-use development applications instead of developing new zone codes. The Mixed- Use zones are organized by density with Local Node (LN) zone permitting smallest scale and uses and the Mixed-Use General - 79 - Responses to Public and Agency Comments Resident or Organization / Address Comment(s) Response Section 3.3 • Concerned that the parking requirement of 2 parking spaces for all residential building types is overly restrictive. (MU1) zone permitting an increased scale and range of uses. The MU1 zone has been revised to address smaller-scale mixed use development, generally up to 5 storeys. It is intended that this zone could serve as a starting point for future development applications. As this project is primarily a consolidation exercise, it is anticipated that further effort will be conducted to modify/simplify or add new Mixed Use zones in a future zoning by-law. Section 3.3 Response Parking rates for areas outside of the City were informed by the benchmarking exercise discussed in Discussion Paper #7 as well as an evaluation of site-specific exceptions for medium-density housing forms in the City. As this project is primarily a consolidation exercise, significant refinements may be considered in a subsequent Zoning By-law review stage. Further, there are opportunities for reduced parking rates within the Kingston Road Corridor intensification area. This area is excluded from the Consolidated Zoning By- law project and will be reviewed as part of a separate City initiated zoning by-law amendment. - 80 - Responses to Public and Agency Comments Resident or Organization / Address Comment(s) Response MHBC Planning Urban Design & Landscape Architecture 2055 Brock Road Request draft Consolidated Zoning By-law be revised to reflect an active development application. The draft Zoning By-law is revised to reflect the July 8, 2024, Ontario Land Tribunal Decision OLT 23-000498. Resident/Landowner 3290 Greenburn Place Will Section 14.2.9 apply in RE zones, and is it part of the General Provisions? Other references are Home Occupation and Parking in Driveway. Please note that Section 14.2.9 of the draft Zoning By-law applies to the Seaton Urban Area only. The subject site, 3290 Greenburn Place, is not located in this area and subject to Site Specific By-law 2044/85 (see Exception 312). Any Residential zone outside of the Seaton Urban Area will be subject to Section 5.12 - Restrictions on the Parking and Storage of Vehicles which regulates the parking and storage of vehicles. A Vehicle Sales or Rental Establishment is not a permitted use in the RE zone, nor permitted is a Home Industries (See Section 4.15 - Home Industries). The height of a garage is regulated through Section 4.2.3 of the draft By-law which limits the height to 3.5m except for a detached private garage with a pitched roof which permits a height of 4.5m. Please see Exception 312 for additional provisions that are applicable to the lands. - 81 - Responses to Public and Agency Comments Resident or Organization / Address Comment(s) Response Resident/Landowner 1230 Sandbar Road Zone in line with waterfront open space. The zoning shown in the first draft was the existing zoning from By-law 2511 and carried forward. In response to specific comments from TRCA on the first draft, some zoning updates in this area have been made in response to TRCA's separate comments. Resident/Landowner 734A Krosno Boulevard This property contains a freehold townhome but is zoned RM4. Other RM zoning specify interior side yard setbacks, yet RM4 wording remains unchanged from current bylaw 2520. RM2 and RM5 zones for street townhomes have a 0.9m side setback for interior. In the Final Draft Consolidated Zoning By- law, the Residential zones have been consolidated and streamlined to ease readability to respond to comments from the public and stakeholders. In the case of this property, the new zone, R3A, contains streamlined provisions for street townhouses, which apply a minimum interior side yard setback of 0.0 m where two street townhouses share a common wall. Resident/Landowner 2215 Brock Road This would be better utilized if zoned multi- use, community use like for a library, or community centre, or low- rise commercial / mixed residential. The adjacent neighbourhoods north of Finch would utilize it. We note that this property is currently zoned Agriculture A and is the site of a former commercial greenhouse. The intent of the Consolidated Zoning By-law Review is to consolidate the existing zoning. This site is zoned Urban Reserve in the draft Consolidated Zoning By-law, to indicate that the site may be developed in the future, subject to a development application. - 82 - Responses to Public and Agency Comments Toronto and Region Conservation Authority Appreciate that the draft Zoning By-law highlights TRCA’s roles and pleased to see TRCA’s Regulated Area mapping is to be included as a schedule. Propose zoning for certain TRCA owned lands, or under a management agreement with the City, to ensure environmental protection. Clarification requested for zoning certain Environmental Protection – EP and Open Space – OS lands to Agricultural – A. Ensure the draft Zoning By-law reflects the requirements of source protection plans in accordance with the Clean Water Act. Request the following: • carry over the definition of watercourse to the Seaton zoning regulations; • incorporate a setback from stable top of bank or shoreline hazard; • prohibit development including accessory and additional dwelling units; and accessory uses, building and structures in lands identified as hazardous lands or sites; • amend section 4.9.1 to outline that not all regulated areas may be captured in the draft Zoning By-law; • clarify rationale for a minimum 4 metre setback from the EP zone; • prohibit certain uses such as day care in hazardous lands and site; We would be pleased to obtain and review any updated regulation area mapping to assess its incorporation into the final zoning by-law. Although this Zoning By-law Review is principally a consolidation exercise, and site-specific zone changes are not being addressed typically, we have reviewed and agreed with incorporating the requested site-specific changes. The reason is that TRCA is requesting modifications to an EP or OS zone over its landholdings, which would not require a site-specific evaluation to inform the modification. We note that the comment regarding the Rouge National Urban Park zoning is subject to further review. At this time, it is preferred that the Clean Water Act requirements be left to processes outside of zoning, but we welcome further discussion on the merits of incorporating them into zoning. Further review of the Highly Vulnerable Aquifer provisions will be considered in the third/final draft CZBL. We appreciate the suggestion to carry forward the definition of watercourse into the Seaton definitions. As the term is not used in the Seaton zone provisions, we do not feel it is necessary currently. In large part the intent of this chapter is to consolidate the existing Seaton zoning regulations. - 83 - Responses to Public and Agency Comments • define Significant Valleylands, Wetlands, Significant Woodlands, Fish Habitat and Seepage Areas and Springs; • generally, prohibit new stormwater management facilities within EP zones; • clarify that major (or active) recreational uses are not permitted within the EP zone and/or highlighting that only minor (or passive) recreational uses will be permitted within EP zones; and • refine definition of structure to provide examples such as headwall, outlet pipes, etc, for clarity on permitted types of structures and no confusion for ponds, underground tanks, etc. We would prefer not to incorporate a setback from stable top of bank or shoreline hazard as it would be difficult for zoning administration to enforce this in many circumstances. Generally, any specifically hazardous lands identified through a development process would be incorporated into a protective zone such as EP. We have made the requested revision to the “checking the zoning” section as suggested. Regarding your comments on Section 4.1, Accessory Dwelling Units, we have added the requested provision to accessory dwelling units. Regarding your comments on 4.2.1, Accessory Uses, Buildings and Structures, it would not be appropriate to make this change, as the location of hazardous lands/sites will not be clear to zoning administration and this section will be applied very frequently to sheds and many other types of minor structures. There may also be exceptions to this given there is a wide variety of accessory structures. The Zoning By-law does not contain a fulsome map of these areas. A prohibition on a use in a particular area of land should be identified on a map or relate to the entirety of the lot. The suggested edit in Section 4.27.5 (former Section 4.9.1) has been - 84 - Responses to Public and Agency Comments integrated. Former Section 4.12 (Environmental Protection (EP) and City Centre Natural Heritage System (CCNHS) Zone Setback) has been deleted. The general provision requiring the minimum 4 metre setback has been deleted. Generally, the feature plus its required buffer/setback should be incorporated into the EP zone mapping through development application processes. The request to prohibit certain uses where there is a threat to the safe evacuation of vulnerable populations such as day care use is addressed through a proposed new provision which cross references with section 4.9.6. This focuses on day care uses. The medical use would not involve overnight care and would not be the same as the uses listed in Section 4.9.6 The terms, Significant Valleylands, Wetlands, Significant Woodlands, Fish Habitat and Seepage Areas and Springs are defined to assist in the interpretation of the provisions of 4.22.5. As the terms are not used in the Seaton zoning chapter, there is not a need to define them in the Seaton chapter. Note that only existing stormwater management (SWM) facilities in the EP zoning are permitted. The City may have - 85 - Responses to Public and Agency Comments Resident or Organization / Address Comment(s) Response used the prior G zoning to permit SWM facilities, and since this G zone was replaced by the EP zone, there is a need to recognize these existing uses as they will continue to function as essential infrastructure. Moving forward, the City will utilize the specific SWM zone for new facilities. It is the City’s intent not to allow for major recreational facilities in the EP zone. The allowance for buildings and structures would only be related to the established permitted uses listed in the table. As such only accessory structures associated with passive recreational uses would be allowed in the EP zone (e.g., for trails). We added the word “permitted” to clarify. A further revision of the definition of structure is not necessary. Structures would be limited to the permitted uses and the definition of accessory (i.e., related to the use) and the definition of structure. Resident/Landowner 570 Kingston Road Zoning map does not indicate which zoning establishment this address falls under. This property is located within the Kingston Road Corridor and Special Retailing Node Intensification Area, which is not subject to this proposed draft Consolidated Zoning By-Law, and thus it has not been assigned a proposed new parent zone. Policy and zoning - 86 - Responses to Public and Agency Comments Resident or Organization / Address Comment(s) Response updates for this area are being undertaken through a separate process which will be incorporated into the CZBL at a future date. Currently, the property is subject to a site- specific exception zone, LCA-7, which was established through municipal by-laws 2599/87,4121/92, and 4080/92. Durham Live The draft Consolidated By-law proposed to zone the Durham Live lands as C1 (General Commercial) and UR (Urban Reserve) which does not reflect the site- specific exceptions and MZO that exists on the site. The following is a summary of requests for changes: • Area 1 (Pickering Casino Resort Lands): Objects to the proposed C1 zoning. Requests a C1 Exception; Objects to UR zone for the westerly lands of Area 1, requests for these lands to be added to the C1 Exception; No comments on the UR zone in northeastern corner • Area 2 (MZO Lands): Exclude these from the draft Consolidated Zoning By-law • Area 3 (Lands West of Squires Beach Road): Create a UR Exception zone The Durham Live Lands are subject to site- specific By-laws 7404/15, 7661/18, and 7735/20, in addition to MZO 607/20. The Consolidated Zoning By-law Project is a consolidation of the various By-laws, including site-specific exceptions, into one City-wide By- law. Therefore, most site- specific zoning will not change, and simply be consolidated. This will maintain aspects of previous prevailing zoning by-laws. As such, existing site permissions for Durham Live Lands will be maintained through the existing exceptions and MZO. There is no need to create a new C1 or UR exception zone to reflect these existing permissions. The MZO is reflected in Schedule 2 of the draft Consolidated Zoning By-law. As noted in the Preamble of the draft By-law, in the event of a conflict between this draft Zoning By-law and an MZO, the MZO - 87 - Responses to Public and Agency Comments Resident or Organization / Address Comment(s) Response prevails. Exception Zone 70 has since been created for Area 1 which aligns with the MZO wording. Resident/Landowner 1862 Liverpool Road What is the current zoning for this site? Has there been any studies for the future use of the properties abutting this site? What is the City's vision for this site? Any information on plans for those properties, including any development applications or site-specific studies, can be obtained from the City's Development Planning department. We note that zoning in the second draft Consolidated Zoning By-law is updated to the Urban Reserve zone, to reflect the possibility that future development may occur, subject to an application. Melymuk Consulting Limited 2215 Brock Road It is requested that the second Draft of the City’s Consolidated Zoning By-law (and all subsequent drafts) zone the developable portion of the property at 2215 Brock Road as “CN” (Community Node) with an exception to allow residential uses such as townhouses and apartments with heights up to 62 metres. Currently, 2215 Brock Road is zoned A under Zoning By-law 3036. From our understanding, you are seeking to rezone your property to be consistent with the designations that exist on the site (Community Node and Natural Area). Under the draft Zoning By-law, the site is proposed to be rezoned to Urban Reserve. The Urban Reserve zone provides for and regulates existing uses on lands which are primarily undeveloped for urban uses. Generally, these uses have limited buildings or structures. The Urban Reserve zone is intended to protect land from premature subdivision and development to provide for future comprehensive - 88 - Responses to Public and Agency Comments Resident or Organization / Address Comment(s) Response development on those lands. It should be noted that the Consolidated Zoning By-law Project is a consolidation of our various By-laws into one City-wide By- law. Therefore, most zoning has not changed, and simply has been consolidated. Some other elements of the project include updating outdated terminology and providing a more accessible Zoning By-law. Requests for pre-zoning are not being contemplated within this process. The current zoning reflects the existing use on the subject site. The process for rezoning includes an application, specific supporting studies, and a public meeting. Resident/Landowner 1675 Montgomery Park Road Please advise for this property if we should follow the requirements of the parent by-law 2511, or the current draft by-law? Until the new Consolidated Zoning By-law (CZBL) is enacted by Council, the requirements of the parent By-Laws apply to any change you may wish to make to your property. However, as the CZBL is principally a consolidation exercise, the intent is mainly to carry forward existing zoning standards into one document. Resident/Landowner 490 Kingston Road Zoning info for 478-490 Kingston Road does not appear on the map This site is located within the Kingston Road Corridor. This area is excluded from the Consolidated Zoning By-law project and will be reviewed as part of a separate City initiated zoning by-law amendment. For - 89 - Responses to Public and Agency Comments Resident or Organization / Address Comment(s) Response more information about this project, please visit: https://www.pickering.ca/en/city- hall/kingston-road-corridor- intensification.aspx Resident/Landowner 940 Brock Road In your zoning GIS map, this property is classified as E3 (Employment Commercial). In other resources (MPAC) I see it is MC- 18. My goal is to open an indoor Cricket facility (sportsplex). Would this use be permitted at this location? Confirmed that a Cricket Facility is permitted as a "Commercial-Recreational Establishment" under By-law 6255/04. Resident/Landowner 1289 Wharf Street The proposed Zoning By-law will not permit restaurant use as a principal permitted use. Request for subject lands to be placed within a site-specific Open Space Waterfront Zone. This property will be rezoned OSW which recognizes (permits) the restaurant. Resident/Landowner 1230 Sandbar Road Sandbar Road remains residential zoning, when in fact the land is not to be used as residential. A rezoning may be required. There is no record of Sandbar Rd being zoned OS, zoned R4 under 2511. City confirmed this property is under TRCA ownership and therefore rezoned as EP. Resident/Landowner Saxton Glen Estate Clarification of provisions concerning Accessory Structures; Permitted Uses and Antenna Towers as it relates to By-law 2044/85 and the Saxton Glen community. We note that By-law 3044/85 has been incorporated as Exception 312, under Section 15.312. In consideration of the comments, we have proposed modifications to accessory structure requirements (see new Sections 15.312.2.b.xi.A and B). Resident/Landowner Park Crescent This land is owned by the TRCA and should be part of the open space system" The TRCA has provided details comments regarding zoning for their lands, and the land has been rezoned according to - 90 - Responses to Public and Agency Comments Resident or Organization / Address Comment(s) Response TRCA’s request. Resident/Landowner 520 Marksbury Crescent This property should be zoned as open space as should properties to the east and west which are owned by the TRCA and cannot be built on due to ongoing erosion due to the shoreline hazard. The waterfront trail goes through this lot. The TRCA has provided details comments regarding zoning for their lands, and the land has been rezoned according to TRCA’s request. Resident/Landowner 2550 Brock Road The proposed Zoning is reflected as A, whereas a site-specific zoning by-law was passed in 2022 (7696/22) to permit the redevelopment of the lands. The draft By-law would appear to be reverting to the former zoning applicable to the lands, which should not occur. The intent is to carry forward existing exceptions which have now been included in the second draft Consolidated Zoning By-law. Resident/Landowner 1920 Bayly Street Discrepancy between the listed exception and actual By-law This site is zoned M-IC(DN) as per site- specific exception By-law 5829/01, amending Zoning By-law 2511. This is reflected on the interactive zoning by-law mapping. Resident/Landowner 2460 Brock Road This is not being built as mixed use. A mixed- use area has a mix of apartments, shops, and spaces for people to sit or hang out. This is a strip mall full of parking and some offices. Bring in extra legislation or design requirements about what "mixed use" is, and if you don't address surface parking, you're going to end up with some very ugly and inaccessible areas. Toss the parking underground, make a square, make it easy to This site is subject to site-specific exception By-law 7642/18 from a previous zoning by-law amendment application. This exception permits both commercial and residential uses, including a drive-through facility. The draft Consolidated Zoning By-law provides the City with modernized standards to regulate above and below- grade parking structures, and a new Mixed Use Zone Chapter to use as a basis when - 91 - Responses to Public and Agency Comments Resident or Organization / Address Comment(s) Response access by foot or bike (it’s for the people that live close by, right?). This isn't working. Also why is there a drive through here? reviewing mixed-use development applications. Currently, the intent is to maintain existing zoning requirements for lands with an exception zone and to require the owner to submit a rezoning application for any proposed changes. Resident/Landowner 1650 McBrady Crescent Request to re-evaluate uses permitted in LN and other mixed use uses or commercial zones adjacent to residential zones (i.e., night clubs and loud restaurants in strip plaza behind houses) - Ward 3. Other comments: • increases in water infrastructure capacity is not keeping pace with rate of condo development (low water pressure); • Increased bike safety connecting Brock Road to Kingston Road; • concerned about small businesses as intensification happens; and • include in future City-wide studies. It is noted that the City will need to review the policies of the Official Plan for commercial areas to fulsomely respond to this comment. As such, this comment is flagged for consideration in future studies. The concerns about nightclubs are noted. Nightclubs can be impactful in terms of noise and there is a compatibility issue with respect to nearby residential uses. We have reviewed and updated the night club provisions. Resident/Landowner Bay Ridges Area If rooming houses or short-term rentals open in Pickering there should be regulation. The draft Zoning By-law includes rooming houses provisions in Section 4.32 and Short-term rental provisions in Section 4.38 to help better regulate these uses in the City. Miller Thomson LLP representing GFL Environmental Services Inc. GFL’s is dissatisfied by how the site was split into different zones. GFL's view is that the entire Site should be zoned E1 in recognition of the existing Waste Transfer Station To reflect the existing Waster Transfer Station in an industrial area and avoid legal non-conformity, 1034, 1048, 1060 and 1070 Toy Avenue will continue to be zoned - 92 - Responses to Public and Agency Comments Resident or Organization / Address Comment(s) Response 1034, 1048, 1060 and 1070 Toy Avenue operations. Furthermore, the Waste Transfer Station use should be explicitly permitted on these lands given the long-standing use. GFL’s intention is to continue that use in this location and the continued need for its services in Pickering and Durham Region. as per the site-specific exceptions applicable to the sites. This will maintain aspects of previous prevailing zoning by- laws. Please see Exceptions 21, 48 and 73 as they apply to the sites. Resident/Landowner General 1. How is the City of Pickering altering restrictive residential zones such as RS1 to address intergenerational living needs of families? Parking needs, for example. 2. Does the city have any plans to further design or designate how parcels in MU1 are used? How can the City enforce the vision of the Official Plan? 3. How can the City provide existing residents with a more diverse offering in local nodes? 4. In the future, will the City consider zoning industrial as more mixed use? The CZBL is a consolidation effort to bring existing By-laws into one By-law. Additional Dwelling Unit (ADUs) provisions have been incorporated in Section 4.3 of this draft. Parking needs for ADUs are considered. Additional driveway widening provisions are included in Section 5.11 of the draft Zoning By-law. Official Plan policies are primarily enforced through the provisions of the Zoning By- law. One of the tasks of the new CZBL project is to ensure that all zoning provisions reflect Official Plan policies. A diverse offering of neighbourhood- appropriate services (including retail uses such as food stores or restaurants and community uses such as libraries or day cares) are permitted in the Local Node (LN) zone. There may be other avenues for the City to support or encourage a broad mix of uses in Local Nodes, but zoning can only permit the uses, not facilitate the diversity of mix. - 93 - Responses to Public and Agency Comments Resident or Organization / Address Comment(s) Response The CZBL includes three employment zones with a variety of uses, including a range of industrial uses. The overall vision and land use strategy for employment areas is set out in the Official Plan. Changes such as the suggestion of approaching employment areas as more mixed use in nature may be dealt with at the time of the next Official Plan Review. That process will provide several opportunities for public participation. Resident/Landowner 345 Kingston Road There's no zoning This site is located within the Kingston Road Corridor. This area is excluded from the Consolidated Zoning By-law project and will be reviewed as part of a separate City initiated zoning by-law amendment. For more information about this project, please visit: https://www.pickering.ca/en/city- hall/kingston-road-corridor- intensification.aspx Resident/Landowner 5229 Brock Road (also known as ‘Old’ Brock Road) The front of the property is zoned ORM-R5 and the back approximately 3 acres is zoned ORM-A. The adjacent Ward Farm, on the south side, has recently been approved for housing development by the Ontario Land Tribunal (OLT) Plan Approval 18T-90016 (R). I would like to request that the zoning on my back property be changed to ORM-R6 consistent with the farm. Currently, 5229 Old Brock Road is zoned “ORM-A” “ORM-R5” & “ORM-EP” Under Zoning By-law 3037, as amended by By- law 6640/06. A residential dwelling is a permitted use. From my understanding, you are seeking to rezone your property to be consistent with the recent OLT approved development - 94 - Responses to Public and Agency Comments Resident or Organization / Address Comment(s) Response adjacent to your lot. It should be noted that the Consolidated Zoning By-law Project is a consolidation of our various By-laws into one City-wide By-law. Therefore, most zoning has not changed, and simply has been consolidated. Some other elements of the project include updating outdated terminology and providing a more accessible Zoning By-law. The purpose of the Consolidated Zoning By-law Review project is not to rezone individual properties. The process for rezoning includes an application, specific supporting studies, and a public meeting. And, in the case of the adjacent neighbor, further resolution via the OLT. Furthermore, the lands south of your lot were formerly zoned for Agricultural uses (ORM-A). The applicant went through a formal process to rezone the lands including supporting studies and public consultation. Resident/Landowner General Provisions Can there be consideration for driveway size relative to vehicle size? To provide you with some context, I live in zone R4 and my driveway can accommodate 8-10 cars and my home is 5600 square feet in size so one vehicle that measures 1.5 car lengths should be considered as permissible. Oversized vehicles are regulated under Section 5.12 (Parking and Storage of Vehicles) of the second draft Consolidated Zoning By-law. Please refer to this section of the By-law which will regulate vehicles in residential zones. - 95 - Responses to Public and Agency Comments Resident or Organization / Address Comment(s) Response Toronto and Region Conservation Authority (TRCA) 2001 Clements Road Requested that a portion of this lot be zoned Environmental Protection - EP to reflect its natural heritage features. The Consolidated Zoning By-law Review is a consolidation effort to bring existing parent Zoning By-laws into one consolidated by-law. This site is zoned M2S and M1 by existing parent Zoning By- law 2511. Rezoning a portion of this property to the appropriate environmental protection zone will be further studied in a future comprehensive zoning review following the adoption of a new Official Plan. Resident/Landowner 5269 Brock Road Please advise whether properties in existence before the Consolidated Zoning By- Law is completed and enacted, be required to meet all Consolidated Zoning By-Law requirements, or will the Clergy Principle apply to those properties? Properties and uses in existence prior to the Consolidated Zoning By-law coming into force that do not comply with the Consolidated By-law may be considered legal non-conforming and enjoy certain permissions as long as the properties and uses were incompliance with zoning that existed prior to the Consolidated Zoning By-law. Kohn Architects 2055 Brock Road Concerned that the following provision works for flat grade scenarios but not for sloping rows of townhouses: 7. Special Provisions (“RMI-7” Zone) (1)(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. The subject site is zoned "RH/MU-3" and "OS-HL" under exception By-law 7085-10. There is no provision within this exception for By-law 3036, which amends, which regulates the interior space of the garage. As part of the draft Consolidated Zoning By-law, we have amended Section 5.6 (Size of Parking Spaces and Aisles) which regulates the size of parking spaces within private garages to remove discussion - 96 - Responses to Public and Agency Comments Resident or Organization / Address Comment(s) Response regarding the number of steps and instead regulate by a maximum encroachment permitted for steps. Resident/Landowner 375 Kingston Road Within and around 100 buildings nearing different stages of approval in the City of Pickering, there should be thought on where applications are approved for height, trying to keep it near the Go Station and/or Kingston Road/Liverpool area, and maybe near Brock Road and Pickering Parkway. What doesn't make sense is to award considerable height in areas like Altona and Kingston Road, or specifically what is known as Bruno’s Plaza at Rougemount and Kingston Road. Focus on development in and around the Pickering Town Centre and Brock/401 corridors, where we have the Go Station and other transit more readily available. This site is located within the Kingston Road Corridor. This area is excluded from the Consolidated Zoning By-law project and will be reviewed as part of a separate City initiated zoning by-law amendment. For more information about this project, please visit: https://www.pickering.ca/en/city- hall/kingston-road-corridor- intensification.aspx Resident/Landowner Kingston Road Corridor For property located inside Kingston Road Corridor and Specialty Retail Area Study, how will exceptions be addressed within this area while the CZBL leaves space for a new KRCSR by-law? For the Kingston Road Corridor and Specialty Retail Area Study (KRCSR) Area, until the new study area By-law is adopted and in force, City of Pickering parent zoning by-laws will apply. For developments in this area will go through the application process as usual. The study is complete but currently before the OLT. Existing exceptions are being carried forward (maintained) and will be reviewed as the KRCSR By-law is developed. Resident/Landowner On the project review website, it is noted that For the Kingston Road Corridor and - 97 - Responses to Public and Agency Comments Resident or Organization / Address Comment(s) Response 1899 Brock Road exceptions and on-going applications would be blank, but I am still unclear as to how these would be incorporated in the final CZBL. Can you clarify? Specialty Retail Area Study (KRCSR) Area, until the new study area By-law is adopted and in force, City of Pickering parent zoning by-laws will apply. For developments in this area will go through the application process as usual. The study is complete but currently before the OLT. Existing exceptions are being kept and will be reviewed as the KRCSR By-law is developed. Resident/Landowner 1734 Bayly Street This zoning only applies to the lands with the municipal address 1750 Bayly Street. The correct amending By-law is 4989/97 and is zoned CA(A)-1 not CA(F)-1. By-law 4989/97 was repealed by By-law 5971/02, which has been carried forward, and applies the CA(F)-1 zone to 1734 and 1742 Bayly. This is reflected on the interactive mapped. McDermott & Associates Limited Lots 6 And 7. Registered Plan 424, 1930 Durham Road No.5, Part Lot 16, Concession 9, City of Pickering Request that the site-specific provisions implemented by By-law No. 6640/06 be brought forward under the proposed comprehensive zoning by-law. The Consolidated Zoning By-law Project is a consolidation of the various By-laws, including site-specific exceptions, into one City-wide By- law. Therefore, most site- specific zoning will not change, and simply be consolidated. This will maintain aspects of previous prevailing zoning by-laws. The exception zones have been consolidated and are available online. Richard Vink, Consultant Seaton The issue is with lane based product and the maximum front yard and minimum rear yard requirements. In regards to the Zone provision charts -Section 4, Table 4; The chart is somewhat confusing, as it notes the, Minimum Rear Yard as NR (no Thank you for noting this potential conflict between the general provisions in 14.2.18 regarding attached private garages on lanes and the lot and building requirements in Section 14.4. As part of the development of the draft of the Consolidated Zoning By- - 98 - Responses to Public and Agency Comments Resident or Organization / Address Comment(s) Response requirement). However, section 2.18, in regards to ‘Standard for Attached Private Garages on Lots Accessed by Lanes’ also applies and sets a minimum and maximum setback to the rear lot line. This confusion on this has led to a number of home builders to seek minor variances in regard to the maximum building setback to the rear yard lot line. Adding a note to the chart, to refer to section 2.18, would be helpful to avoid this confusion. The other concern in regard to applying both a maximum front yard setback and also a maximum rear yard setback to a dwelling. These maximum setbacks dictate the building depth, which directly affects the square footage of the dwellings and garage depths. The townhouse blocks on a plan of subdivision are often not the same depth and may vary from block to block, resulting in the dwellings being custom designed to suit the various block depths. law the changes were considered. The requirement for the maximum rear yard setback has been removed to create more flexibility. We have not added the requested notation, as it may take away from the general intent that all provisions of the By-law will always apply and there are various aspects of Section 14.2 which will be applicable in most circumstances. ASE+J Inc Architect 1605 Deerbrook Drive Please advise regarding the zoning by-law requirement for a second dwelling unit in the basement. The City has reviewed its policies and zoning provisions for Additional Dwelling Units (which would include a basement dwelling unit in a single-detached dwelling) based on recent Provincial policy changes through the More Homes Built Faster Act (Bill 23). This has been incorporated into the draft Consolidated Zoning By-law. - 99 - Responses to Public and Agency Comments Resident or Organization / Address Comment(s) Response Resident/Landowner 1335 Kingston Road A site-specific exception was approved for the City Centre. The site-specific exception and related changes to the Schedules of By-law 7553/17 are integrated into the Draft Consolidated Zoning By- law (Noting that this is the Pickering City Centre site, for which an exception by-law was enacted by Council on January 23, 2023, for the easterly portion of the site.). Resident/Landowner 1355 Kingston Road The subject lands are zoned City Centre One Mixed Use 1 (CC1). However, the site- specific exceptions (A 15/21) have not been included in the text. We respectfully request that the approved site-specific zoning exceptions for the subject lands be included to ensure that the future development remains compliant when the By-law comes into full force and effect. The second Draft of the Consolidated Zoning By-law has been updated to incorporate the exceptions from the City Centre Zoning By-law including amendments. The intent is to fulsomely consolidate the City Centre Zoning By-law so that it may be repealed. Resident/Landowner Natural Heritage Commented about the legislative changes in setbacks for Provincially Significant Wetlands, from 120 metres to 30 metres, and the potential for irreversible loss of wetland function within the city. Requests that a standard 120 m setback be adopted by the City of Pickering for all wetlands in the CZBL review. These setback provisions come from amendments to the City's existing Zoning By-laws to protect various natural heritage features the Oak Ridges Moraine Conservation Plan area. The AOI (or the Minimum Area of Influence, as described in Policies 16.42 and 16.51 of the City's Official Plan), should not be confused with setbacks. The change by the Province implies that the Minimum Area of Influence for wetlands in urban areas would now change from 120 metres to 30 metres. The scope of the area - 100 - Responses to Public and Agency Comments Resident or Organization / Address Comment(s) Response to be studied re potential impacts has been reduced from 120 metres to 30 metres. However, the actual setback will be determined throught the results of an environmental impact study. The Official Plan contains policies regarding distances from natural heritage features, which trigger additional required studies and/or protections, the outcomes of which are implemented through the development application process. As the Zoning By-law Review project is a consolidation exercise, these requirements have not been updated. The City will undertake a review of these provisions and the associated policies in the future. Resident/Landowner 1875 Clements Road 1) The E1 - Employment General Zone no longer allows outdoor storage as a principal use, compared to M2S zone of By-law 2511. It is the intention of the property owner to develop the property for open storage use. 2) Transition Provisions: in reference to staff report PLN-09- 23, the submission notes that there will be an extended period between the pre-submission stage and the time an application is formally submitted. Request for removal of "deemed complete" in section 1.9.2 transition provisions. Request also to add a provision to allow for the filing of an application for a minor variance from the Within the draft E1 zone, outdoor storage will be permitted through the use of a Contractor's Yard or accessory Outdoor Storage. Outdoor storage as the principal permitted use is not contemplated in any new zones in the second Draft Consolidated Zoning By-law. It should be noted that the Consolidated Zoning By-law Project is a consolidation of the various By-laws, including site-specific exceptions, into one City-wide By-law. Therefore, most site-specific zoning will not change, and simply be consolidated. This - 101 - Responses to Public and Agency Comments Resident or Organization / Address Comment(s) Response prevailing zoning by-law. will maintain aspects of previous prevailing zoning by-laws and any minor variances could continue to vary provisions of the site-specific regulations. In addition, transition provisions proposed are valid for 5 years from the effective date of this By-law which in our opinion is sufficient time to accommodate any extended period between the pre- submission stage and when an application is deemed complete by the City. Minor variances will be allowed by the City following the passing of the new Zoning By-law. Resident/Landowner Whitevale Road Quarry land appears to be missing the Highly Vulnerability Aquifer layer as illustrated in OP Schedules. Please check. The Highly Vulnerable Aquifer Areas have been updated in the draft Consolidated Zoning By-law, (see Schedule 8), to incorporate only those areas which are subject to the Oak Ridges Moraine Conservation Plan. The mapping of these areas and the associated provisions are required to implement the Oak Ridges Moraine Conservation Plan. However, it is also noted that other source water policies from the City's Official Plan will apply and be considered through development review processes. Resident/Landowner 711 Krosno Boulevard Are the new proposed zoning changes affecting my property changes done in 2002 This property is zoned C2 in the draft Consolidated Zoning By-law and permits a range of uses related to automobile service - 102 - Responses to Public and Agency Comments Resident or Organization / Address Comment(s) Response for the restaurant and severance. stations, including a restaurant. Resident/Landowner 615 Liverpool Road Both sides of Liverpool, south of Wharf are Live-work freehold townhouses. It needs to be maintained as a mixed-use area. This property and adjacent properties on Liverpool Road are subject to site-specific exceptions which permit a mix of uses. These exceptions are now included in the draft of the Consolidated Zoning By-law. Resident/Landowner 640 Liverpool Road Your building housing why?, this is the perfect sport for small park maybe even outdoor food truck court. built out this area as a destination. The Consolidated Zoning By-law Project is a consolidation of the various By-laws, including site-specific exceptions, into one City-wide By-law. Therefore, most site- specific zoning will not change, and simply be consolidated. This property is zoned Open Space Waterfront in the draft Consolidated Zoning By-law, which does not permit residential uses. Any change in these permitted uses will be subject to a zoning by-law amendment application. Resident/Landowner Staxton Glen Estate When Draft #2 is released, it will contain revised and updated Exceptions? To answer your exceptions question, we aim to post an exceptions table on Let’s Talk Pickering so you will receive another email when it’s posted. This will allow the public to review the exceptions prior to their addition to the third draft. Regarding applications that are before a committee or approval by Council, those are separate processes, and they will be added to the CZBL after approval. Resident/Landowner Concerned that the site’s 40 percent lot The site has an exception which will be - 103 - Responses to Public and Agency Comments Resident or Organization / Address Comment(s) Response 1645 Pickering Pkwy coverage is not recognized. Will this be included in the zoning by-law prior to it being finalized by Council? carried over into the new CZBL. Resident/Landowner 1246 Gloucester Square This is currently zoned S3, not SD Thank you for noting this. The correct zoning has been applied through the carrying forward of exception by-law 2864/88. Resident/Landowner 485 Whitevale Road This is currently zoned HMC8, this should become a CH zone. This property is subject to exception by-law 2677/88, which applies the HMC8 zone, and will be carried forward in the draft of the Consolidated Zoning By-law. Resident/Landowner 2130 Dixie Road Zoning should be residential as all other areas surrounding the property are residential, this could make for a great place to add much-needed housing in the Liverpool area. The Consolidated Zoning By-law Project is a consolidation of the various By-laws, including site-specific exceptions, into one City-wide By- law. Therefore, most site-specific zoning will not change, and simply be consolidated. Resident/Landowner 2097 Liverpool Road This should be higher density residential. The Consolidated Zoning By-law Project is a consolidation of the various By-laws, including site-specific exceptions, into one City-wide By- law. Therefore, most site-specific zoning will not change, and simply be consolidated. Resident/Landowner 911 Begley Street This is currently Zoned PU - Public Utility. Why change it to RM? Thank you for noting this. The correct zoning has been applied through the carrying forward of by-law 1299/81. Resident/Landowner 1910 Altona Road Should be zoned residential, increase housing in this area The Consolidated Zoning By-law Project is a consolidation of the various By-laws, including site-specific exceptions, into one City-wide By- law. Therefore, most - 104 - Responses to Public and Agency Comments Resident or Organization / Address Comment(s) Response site-specific zoning will not change, and simply be consolidated. Resident/Landowner 1415 Major Oaks Road These lots should be zoned S1 and not S2, refer to By-law 4183/93 schedule. Thank you for noting this. The correct zoning has been applied through the carrying forward of by-law 4183/93 Resident/Landowner 825 Jomar Avenue Please confirm the zone and advise the following: (1) Permitted use with conditions (2) The maximum building height This property was zoned R1D in this draft of the Consolidated Zoning By-law, which permits a single-detached dwelling, a rooming home, and a home occupation, at a maximum building height of 9 metres. Resident/Landowner 501 Marksbury Road This property is owned by the TRCA, within a hazard zone and should be designated parkland. The zoning of the property has been changed to Open Space, in accordance with TRCA’s request. Resident/Landowner 1855 Ninth Concession Road Oddly shaped sliver overlapping. Thank you for noting this. Overlaps and other legacy instances of data inaccuracies have been cleaned up.. Resident/Landowner 425 Whitevale Road The Community Hamlet zone is not listed in the draft comprehensive by-law document. What is permitted in this zone? This property is subject to an exception by- law as amended, which has been carried forward in the draft Consolidated Zoning By-law. The exception zone applicable to the property is HMC9, which permits the following uses: •bed & breakfast establishment; •day spa; •dwelling unit; •professional office; •restaurant – type A •retail store; and •small implement repair shop. - 105 - Responses to Public and Agency Comments Resident or Organization / Address Comment(s) Response Resident/Landowner 431 Sheppard Avenue A duplex zoning should be allowed in the area given it's close a proximity to highway 401 and big lots. The subject property is zoned R1E and allows up to two additional dwelling units on the lot, subject to zoning regulations for Additional Dwelling Units. Resident/Landowner 648 Foxwood Trail I can find no reference to X225 (S SD-SA). What is it and what are the uses permitted. Exception 225 can be found in the By-law 3036 Part 2 Document online. The S-SD-SA zone permits a single detached dwelling, semi- detached dwelling, and single attached dwelling residential uses. Please see Exception 225 for further details. Resident/Landowner 5229 Brock Road On the interactive map for my property, you show a pond in the middle of my land. This doesn't exist so please remove it. There is a cluster of trees and bushes but not a pond. Noted. Resident/Landowner 1851 Sandstone Manor Properties, such as this should, permit private school use. There are limited opportunities for private schools, and the draft uses in this zone permit a daycare and commercial school, however not a private school. A location such as this should be considered, where the provincial D series guidelines can be met. Noted. 1851 Sandstone Manor is subject to Exception 71 (by By-law 789/78) and permits the following uses: business offices; food preparation plants; light manufacturing plants; public uses; scientific or medical laboratories; and warehouses. Resident/Landowner 857 Liverpool Road More flexibility should be provided for commercial uses where properties abut major streets. This comment is not necessarily pertinent to this site, however properties along Liverpool Road should be encouraged to allow for future land use flexibility; no Noted. Under Section 4.17 of the CZBL allows for Home Occupation uses including: Art Gallery, Personal Services Shop, Private Home Daycare, Office, Medical Office, and Instructional Business uses. - 106 - Responses to Public and Agency Comments Resident or Organization / Address Comment(s) Response parking should be required. Resident/Landowner 1404 Rougemount Drive Can the Zoning Maps include the character overlay zones? The Infill Precinct Layer will be available in the Interactive Zone Mapping. Resident/Landowner 395 Kingston Road What are the allowable uses / zoning on the property. This is located within the Kingston Road Corridor and is subject to a future By-law amendment (Official Plan Amendment 38, currently before the Ontario Land Tribunal). Miller Thomson LLP representing GFL Environmental Services Inc. 1070 Toy Avenue This site and sites surrounding reference the former zones as proposed zones. Is this not proposed to be an Employment zone (E1 - E3) in the future? Please see Section 15 of the draft Zoning By-law for how to apply exceptions. Where the exception zone refers to the Former Zoning By- laws (e.g., 2511), the zone symbol shall refer to the corresponding zone, and the associated provisions as may be contained in the Former Zoning By- laws (e.g., 2511). The requirements of the exception zone, and all other applicable zone requirements under the Former Zoning By-law, shall apply except as may be otherwise stated in the exception zone. The site will remain zoned per the Exceptions, and not rezoned to E1 to E3 in the future. Miller Thomson LLP representing GFL Environmental Services Inc. 1034 Toy Avenue We have an exception but how are we supposed to know the underlying zone code? Please see Section 15 of the draft Zoning By-law for how to apply exceptions. Where the exception zone refers to the Former Zoning By- laws (e.g., 2511), the zone symbol shall refer to the corresponding zone, and the associated provisions as may be contained in the Former Zoning By- laws (e.g., 2511). The requirements of the - 107 - Responses to Public and Agency Comments Resident or Organization / Address Comment(s) Response exception zone, and all other applicable zone requirements under the Former Zoning By-law shall apply except as may be otherwise stated in the exception zone. Resident/Landowner 1675 Montgomery Park Road 1. Refer to By-law 6090/03 (Exception 6). Not all lands to the east form part of this Exception. 2. These lands were initially zoned O1, they do not form part of Exception 6. This portion has been rezoned to Open Space (OS) and is not subject to Exception 6. Resident/Landowner 1899 Brock Road and Seaton (SPEG and SPEHL - site specific) 1. Clarification requested regarding incorporation of 1899 Brock Rd., Kingston Road corridor and special retail node into CBL especially regarding OPA 20– 003/P, ZBAA07/20, SPA 06/20 through by law 7945/22 and 0720–22. 2. Request to add additional uses to table 14.20 (SPEG Zone) for restaurant, bake shop, Café, convenience store. 3. Request provisions of Table 14.6.2, for ancillary retail sales, be applied to the total area of the lot, versus the current per building policies. 4. Request removal of retail stores from Section 14.6.3 prohibited uses. The Kingston Road Corridor site is out of scope of the new ZBL as indicated in the submission. The Kingston Road Corridor OPA 38 is currently before the Ontario Land Tribunal. Provisions related to the Kingston Road Corridor will not be integrated into the city-wide Consolidation. With respect to the Seaton request, the Seaton zoning is carried forward and intended to implement the previously approved plans. The permission of new uses in the Prestige Employment zone would need to be evaluated against the policies. Generally, there is a limit to the types of non-employment uses allowed in employment lands. A Zoning By-law Amendment application is required to change the use. Resident/Landowner Duffins Rouge Agricultural Regarding revoked Central Pickering Development Plan (CPDP) and O. Reg. According to Bill 136, the Duffins Rouge Agricultural Preserve easements and - 108 - Responses to Public and Agency Comments Resident or Organization / Address Comment(s) Response Preserve 154/03 (Agricultural Preserve MZO) - put back the agricultural preserve MZO protective easements. covenants are valid and held by the province. The City does not have the authority to remove them, and this is not a municipal matter. Further, a lapsing contract on previous agreements or removals is regarded as null and void at this point. An administrative consideration for Council is to direct Staff to update AMANDA to reflect the properties where Bill 136 continues to hold the easements. Resident/Landowner 1470 Finch Ave Concerns with permitted uses such as conservation use, park, and passive recreation use in the Urban Reserve zone. Concerns were raised as conflicting with identifying the land for future development. Requests that lands be designated ‘residential’ subject to the required studies as may be required by staff within a formal planning application. The Pickering Official Plan designates 1470 Finch Avenue as Urban Residential Area – Low Density Area and the existing parent Zoning By-law 3036 zones the property Agriculture – A. The property is in the urban area of the City in a mixed area that has been developed for low density residential uses through plans of subdivision and larger lots having a potential for future low density residential redevelopment. The current A zoning is out of date for an urban area and does not reflect the potential for future residential development. The draft consolidated Zoning By-law proposes to zone 1470 Finch Avenue as Urban Reserve – UR recognize the potential for future urban redevelopment, and that agriculture zoning is no longer appropriate. Permitted uses in the Urban - 109 - Responses to Public and Agency Comments Resident or Organization / Address Comment(s) Response Reserve zone include conservation use, park, and passive recreation use. Staff reviewed definitions and permitted uses of Urban Reserve and Future Development at the municipalities of London, Guelph, Ottawa, Vaughan, Stratford, and Clarington. Except for Stratford and Clarington, all municipalities included uses such as passive recreation, conservation, recreation, and park. Respectively, London and Ottawa include a preamble and a purpose for the UR zone clarifying the intention to protect land from premature development, and recognize the land for future development, while recognizing the existing uses. Regarding the request to designate the lands ‘residential’ subject to a formal planning application, it is noted that the lands are designated by the Pickering Official Plan as Urban Residential Area – Low Density Area. There is no intention through the Consolidated Zoning By-law Review to change the residential designation of the property. This is to confirm that the existing Urban Residential Area – Low Density Area designation, and both the existing Agriculture – A and proposed Urban Reserve -UR zoning would permit the submission of a Zoning By-law Amendment Application for - 110 - Responses to Public and Agency Comments Resident or Organization / Address Comment(s) Response Council’s consideration. The purpose of the Consolidated Zoning By-law Review is Not to bring properties into compliance with the existing Official Plan designations. That will be a subsequent exercise, following the completion of a new Pickering Official Plan. Resident/Landowner 2465 Sixth Concession Road RC5 is from the First Draft and was consolidated for the Second Draft CZBL. Please correct this zone category. These lands have been rezoned to R1B. Resident/Landowner 2505 Brock Road North Exception to recognize the permitted uses including the proposed funeral centre, parking along one side of internal cemetery roads, as accepted by the City, either as associated uses to the operation of the cemetery or explicitly identified as permitted uses on the cemetery Clarify S. 1.9.2 to specifically recognize what has been interpreted as a permitted use - for clear, transparent, and unambiguous expression of the permission on the property. 3) X303 (CEM-1, 1927/84 F) amended to permit continuous use of the funeral centre and allowance of existing internal roads for parking purposes (provided min. width of 6 m) 4) X303 should not preclude the expansion of the cemetery in the future. Permissions of X303 and Pre-Consultation SPA S 03/92 (R22) were reviewed. The City is satisfied that the requested funeral home was previously permitted. SPA S03/92 (R22) has also been circulated and is therefore complete according to prior requirements for circulation. X303 has been modified to clarify that a cemetery and funeral home are permitted uses to not preclude expansion in the future. However, if parking amendments are required, the property owner can proceed with a minor variance. Resident/Landowner 1875 Clements Road 1) S. 1.9.2 requiring applications to be deemed complete by the City be removed and that this transition policy apply to any Transition provisions (Section 1.9.2.2) are clarified with the addition of a provision to specify that where pre-submission - 111 - Responses to Public and Agency Comments Resident or Organization / Address Comment(s) Response application for which a Pre-Consultation meeting request has been submitted and held with the City prior to the enactment of the CZBL or 2) That either a site-specific exception be implemented for the subject property in order to maintain existing land use permissions for outdoor storage or that the property not be subject to the proposed By-law such that By- law 2511 continue to apply to the subject property; 3) that minor variances be subject to the prevailing by-law (reference to 2511 in March 2023) to allow variances from provisions of the previous zoning by-law in the event of a minor variance, where the permission sought by the minor variance is more desirable than the condition required by the new zoning by- law from the perspective of safety, urban design, or efficient use of lands. - please explain, does this mean whichever provision best meets these criteria should prevail? consultation was held and recorded by the City, and meets the required revisions as recorded, the application would be deemed a complete application, provided it is in accordance with all prior zoning by-laws. Section 1.9.2 is clarified to list types of planning applications, including minor variances. In combination with Section 1.9.2.2. provisions are further clarified to include minor variances related to transitioned planning applications, to be considered under transition provisions. Staff reviewed the pre-consultation minutes, met with the landowner, and agreed that prior to the adoption of the CZBL, the landowner would submit a rezoning application based on the pre- consultation minutes. Resident/Landowner 1400 Church St (proposed E1 and E2); 1792 Liverpool Rd (proposed CC1 - H, X382, X404; 020017302000000); 1900 Dixie Rd (proposed LCA- 2, 3036 X223; Former by- 1. The existing site-specific exception (E1) for 1792 Liverpool Road permits Outdoor Storage associated with a Garden Centre Use as an additional use, and further, it is suggested that the site-specific exception X382 be modified to specify that Outdoor Storage is not subject to the provisions of With respect to Outdoor storage/display (1792 Liverpool), it appears the Exception contains a specific set of requirements for the outdoor storage (seasonal garden centre). Exception X382 has been modified to specify that Outdoor Storage is not subject to the provisions of S 4.26 as every year they receive a site plan approval (see - 112 - Responses to Public and Agency Comments Resident or Organization / Address Comment(s) Response laws 1494/82, 6104/03 and under first Draft "LN"); 1725 Kingston Rd (proposed LCA- 1, 3036 X275; Former by- laws 1895/84, 4468/94) Section 4.27. 2. The site-specific exception (E1) for 1792 Liverpool Road appears to generally be accurately carried through by site specific exception X382, except for subsection 3d): • Subsection 3d) states: Section 9.3.1, related to Floor Space Index and related to Building Height, shall not apply to any additions or expansions to existing buildings and structures as legally existed on the effective date of this By-law. • The existing site-specific provision directs the exemption to both the parent by-law section, and other provisions of the site- specific exception related to height and FSI. • We suggest the following revision: Sections 9.3.1 and 15.382.2a), related to Floor Space Index and related to Building Height, shall not apply to any additions or expansions to existing buildings and structures as legally existed on the effective date of this By-law; According to the Interactive C-ZBL Map, 1900 Dixie Road and 1725 Kingston Road are proposed to be rezoned to LCA-2 and LCA-1 respectively, and subject to site-specific provisions. The draft C-ZBL does not establish the LCA zone as a zone (Section 2), and there are no other references to the LCA Section 15.382.3f). The Exception addresses the use already. For clarity, in the parent zoning by-law, the new Outdoor Storage provisions are intended to relate to industrial storage, and the Outdoor Display Area/Seasonal Display Provisions are more relevant. Minor modification was made to Section 3d) as indicated in the letter. With respect to 1900 Dixie and 1725 Kingston, the Exception would apply with respect to permitted uses and standards, in addition to the general provisions of the parent zoning by-law. It is correct the parent by-law does not otherwise address LCA zones. By-law 6104/03 permits an Outdoor Garden Centre. The LCA-1 and LCA-2 zones are only referenced in the Exception. Some properties in the Parent By- laws have unique site-specific zone codes and this may be one such case. Moving forward, the LCA-1 and LCA-2 will be maintained until further consolidation allows these specific provisions to be amalgamated into an overarching zone code. The Second Draft by-law required a 1.5 m minimum height for any landscape strip requirement, but this is not always desirable (e.g., where the landscape strip is - 113 - Responses to Public and Agency Comments Resident or Organization / Address Comment(s) Response zone. It is noted that in the initial draft of the Consolidated Zoning By-law, these sites were proposed to be zoned Mixed Use Local Node (LN). We seek clarification as to the implementation of this new zoning. The M1 and M2S zones applicable to 1400 Church Street S under By-law 2511 are proposed to be replaced by the E1 and E2 zones. The E1 and E2 zones contain numerous performance standards, which are not currently applicable to the M1 and M2S zones, and which may create instances of legal non-conformity. We are concerned with the proposed new landscape strip requirements for the E1 and E2 zones found in Table 10.3 of the draft CZBL, which require a minimum width to any street line and any other lot line of 3.0 metres and 4.5 metres. required abutting a street). In the Third Draft, this height is removed from the definition and moved into the general provisions to apply to certain circumstances. Further modifications include Section 5.9.1 b) A minimum 3.0 m wide landscape strip shall be required and permanently maintained between any street line, daylight triangle or existing residential developme,nt and the parking spaces or aisles. Where a landscape strip is provided between existing residential development and the parking spaces or aisles, the landscape strip shall also have a minimum height of 1.5 m to provide visual screening. The minimum landscaped strip abutting any other lot line is also changed to 1.5 m from 4.5 m in Table 10.3: Lot and Building Requirements for the Employment Zones. Resident/Landowner 1355 Kingston Road Transition policies should be expanded to include lands that are subject to a complete application for ZBA or Draft Plan of Subdivision applications OR subject lands be exempt from the CZBL and existing ZBL provisions continue to apply. Concern is regarding a change in the amenity space requirements for future SPA applications despite being part of a broader master plan. CZBL Shared Amenity Space minimum increased rate from 4 sq m to 8 sq m for Amenity area requirements are updated and reverted to the prior requirements, consistent with the Integrated Sustainable Design Standards. If there is an application with the City that meets the transition requirements, the new General Provisions will not apply to disrupt the process. Transition provisions are clarified and discussed in the Report to the Planning and Development Committee. - 114 - Responses to Public and Agency Comments Resident or Organization / Address Comment(s) Response developments of more than 20 units. Questioning the minimum rate for indoor amenities. Request to maintain existing provisions of min 2.0 sq m per unit for indoor and outdoor amenity areas (4 sq m combined). Clarification is requested on Section 15 (Exception Zones) and Section 16 (Enactment) of the Second Draft of the Consolidated Zoning Bylaw. Our interpretation of Section 15(c) is that for exception zones that reference former zoning bylaws, the requirements of the exception zone and former zoning bylaw still apply to those lands. However, 15(b) defines former zoning by-laws to exclude those by-laws that have been repealed and not superseded. This would mean for1355 Kingston Road (Exception zone 400) the zone exception and the former by-law permissions may not apply, given that zone exception amended By-law 7553/17, which is now repealed. The provisions of the two zoning by-laws that have been repealed (Seaton By-law 7364/14 and City Centre By-law 7553/17) have been carried forward in the new Consolidated Zoning By-law. Thus, any exception zone referring to By-law 7553/17 now relates to the City Centre zoning provisions in Chapter 9 of the new CZBL. Section 15.c) has been revised in the Final Draft to clarify this. Resident/Landowner 1786-1790 Liverpool Road (S08/23 - Makimono); 1460 & 1430 Celebration Drive (S02/22 - UC 4-5); 1475 Celebration Drive (S06/22 - UC 7) Clarification about scenarios where previously approved site-specific zoning by-laws conformed with applicable ZBL at the time of approval and omitted development standards in the CZBL. Confirmation that the existing 4.0 sq m per dwelling unit rate continues to apply. The transition provisions have been updated in Section 1.9 of the draft Zoning By-law. If there is an application with the City that meets the transition requirements, the new General Provisions will not apply to disrupt the process. Transition provisions are clarified and discussed in the Report to - 115 - Responses to Public and Agency Comments Resident or Organization / Address Comment(s) Response Confirmation of the proposed transition clauses and their effect on the previously secured rezoning approvals and that no regulations of the CZBL will prevent the implementation and SPA of the existing active applications (that nothing shall prevent the SPA or building permits of the mentioned applications so long as they comply with the regulations of their site-specific ZBL and CC By-law 7553/17 in effect at the time of their approval.) Proposed shared amenity areas are unreasonable. Request the requirement remain as regulated in By-law 7553/17 2.0 sq m per dwelling for indoor and outdoor amenity areas (4.0 sq m combined total). Suggest differentiating rates between locations i.e. CC vs. areas of lower intensity/lower land cost. the Planning and Development Committee. Amenity area requirements have been updated and have reverted to the prior requirements, consistent with the Integrated Sustainable Design Standards. Malone Given Parsons on behalf of North-East Pickering Landowners Group (NEPLOG) NEPLOG Area-Specific Zoning: Agree with the proposed approach to the zoning of the NEPLOG lands concurrent with the secondary plan process. However, continue to re-iterate comments that the preferred zoning approach to creating complete residential communities is to permit a range of built forms and typologies (from single detached dwellings to higher density townhouse units such as stacked and back- to-back units) within the same general This CZBL initiative consolidates parent by- laws and modernization is in the form of language, added provisions that reflect standard practice and adds a limited range of updated standards such as parking. Additional work will be considered under the Official Plan Review that started May 27, 2024. Form-based zoning, significantly increased permissions, and MZO requests to the province are not within the scope of this initiative. - 116 - Responses to Public and Agency Comments Resident or Organization / Address Comment(s) Response residential zone. Pickering Airport MZO: Urge the City to consider applying to the Province to remove the portion of the existing Pickering Airport MZO (O.Reg 102/72) applicable to the NEPLOG lands to facilitate urban development as part of the zoning by-law review and consolidation process. Mixed Use Zones: Concerns that only the MU1 zone permits residential uses out of the 3 mixed use zones. Request that the City consider increased maximum building height in the MU1 zone, and more flexibility with the FSI. Parking Space Requirements: Concerns that the parking requirements for residential uses are overly restrictive in the Draft ZBL at a minimum of 2 parking spaces for all residential building types except stacked townhouses and apartment dwellings. These should require a lower parking rate of 1 parking space per unit. Parking Space and Driveway Dimensions and Landscaped Open Space: Request that Table 5.3 be amended so that the categories are ‘Lot Frontage Less than 11.0 m’ and ‘Lot Frontage Greater than 11.0 m’. Request clarification if the calculation of the minimum 30/45 percent required landscaped open space in each yard is inclusive of the There have been no changes to the Mixed- Use Zones. In large part zones for future intensification should be driven by other processes such as the Kingston Road Corridor and will also be informed by the OP Review. The proposed MU1 zone is more of a stopgap until that work takes place and is intended to function as a starting point to introduce some terminology and an approach to mixed- use zones. The CZBL maintains 2 parking spaces per dwelling as proposed in the draft, as this is driven by the consolidation and continues to be a practice similar to other municipalities for ground-related housing. The City is supportive of using 11 m as the threshold and has updated Table 5.3. The new zoning by-law does not currently restrict number of garage doors. Further, the intent of the language, used for a driveway or parking, is to state which yards are subject to the requirements (i.e., since a driveway could be located in the front or the exterior side yard). The requirements would not apply to any yard where there is no part of a driveway. We do not support reduction in the percentages as they appear to work well. A townhouse will have a front yard of 6x6 m in the R3A zone for - 117 - Responses to Public and Agency Comments Resident or Organization / Address Comment(s) Response minimum driveway width on the lot required by the first row of Table 5.3 or if it is calculated separately. Clarification on intention of provision. Concerned with new provision introduced under Section 14.3.12 Residential Building Standards: recommendations on more modern and flexible building standards in the Residential Second and Third Density zones (e.g., reduced minimum rear yard setback, increased maximum. example, and the driveway would be limited to 50 percent of this area as it is limited to a 3 m width. If any existing lots do not comply, they would be considered legal non-complying. With respect to requested revisions to the residential zones, this may be considered in a next phase of zoning review. The current proposed standards represent a consolidation at this time. It is anticipated that any new development that deviates from these standards apply for a zoning by law amendment. No lands have been pre-zoned with the proposed zones. With respect to modifying the temporary sales office, the City uses a Standard Operating Procedure to exempt sales offices from the Site Plan approval so the process has already been expedited on behalf of applicants. Fairport Beach Neighbourhood Association Seaton, City-wide Request that natural heritage lands within the Seaton Area (By-law 7364/14) be rezoned to recognize their existing natural heritage designation. City Staff contacted the landowner, Infrastructure Ontario. This review process does not have the authority to rezone property without landowner approval. City-wide, TRCA regulatory lands will be recognized in an attachment to the consolidated Zoning By-law. These maps are updated annually by the TRCA. Resident/Landowner Duffins Rouge Agricultural Request to reinstate agricultural easements that were removed by the Duffins Rouge In 2023, the Duffins Rouge Agricultural Preserve Act (Bill 136) repealed the Duffins - 118 - Responses to Public and Agency Comments Resident or Organization / Address Comment(s) Response Preserve Agricultural Preserve Repeal Act of 2022. Rouge Agricultural Preserve Repeal Act of 2022, thereby reinstating the easements and covenants. This is not a municipal matter. Further, a lapsing contract on previous agreements or removals are regarded as null and void at this point. Macaulay Shiomi Howson Ltd representing Seaton Landowners Group Identified minor administrative corrections in the Second Draft CZBL. The minor corrections have been made in response to the comments. Resident/Landowner Taunton/Brock Road Seaton Neighbourhood Please review the deck/balcony zoning restrictions for this property/SLD1. Due to the lot sizes, these backyards are already very small and quite close to the neighbouring houses. Due to the grading elevation, there is a chance that owners with a walk-out basement will build a balcony/raised deck from the second floor into their backyards. This will reduce privacy for adjacent neighbours even further. Section 14.2.5 Yard Encroachments of Seaton By-law integrated into the CZBL allows a porch or deck to encroach 2.0 metres into the required rear yard. There are no height limits. Resident/Landowner 2080 Lynn Heights Drive Is a public speaking and a tutoring service, as part of a professional office permitted. This site is zoned S1 under X301. A Home Based Business would allow a tutoring business subject to the Home Occupation Zoning regulations under 4.17 of the CZBL. Toronto and Region Conservation Authority (TRCA) 501, 503 and 520 Marksbury Crescent, and Requested that all or a portion of these properties be zoned Open Space – OS to facilitate the completion of the Waterfront Trail. As requested by TRCA, 501, 503 and 520 Marksbury Crescent, and 509 Park Crescent are zoned Open Space - OS in the draft Consolidated Zoning By-law. - 119 - Responses to Public and Agency Comments Resident or Organization / Address Comment(s) Response 509 Park Crescent Resident/Landowner 1855 Ninth Concession Road Oddly shaped sliver overlapping Mapping correction completed Resident/Landowner 3430 Seventh Concession Road Mapping correction needed Mapping correction completed Miller Thomson LLP representing GFL Environmental Services Inc. 1034 Toy Avenue: Exception X48(M2-2) 1048 Toy Avenue: Exception X73 (MC-16) 1060 and 1070 Toy Avenue: Exception X21 (MC-6) In principle, we asked that all of these properties be zoned to an Employment Industrial zone in recognition of the long established use and that the continuation of that use be clearly recognized. Rezone to E1 all lots (now under one ownership) to permit as-of-right existing operations - All the Exceptions for these properties are carried forward and permit the current waste management uses. The second draft of the text of the by-law and interactive zoning map would zone the GFL properties as follows: 1034 Toy Avenue: Exception X48(M2-2) 1048 Toy Avenue: Exception X73 (MC-16) 1060 and 1070 Toy Avenue: Exception X21 (MC-6) In each case, an old Zone (MC06, MC-16 and M2-2) established by older by-laws would be the underlying zone for these properties. The draft by-law text does not appear to re- establish these zones going forward. All the Exceptions for these properties are carried forward and permit the current waste management uses. As long as the Exceptions exist, GFLs' existing uses are maintained. These zone codes are from the Parent By- laws and provisions in the Exceptions are to be interpreted alongside provisions in the Parent By-laws. In reference to prior concerns that 1070 Toy is not underutilized land and not a “high exposure location” for redevelopment purposes (refers to Durham Region OP). Documentation exists noting that Durham Region refers to the City of Pickering for implementation. City Staff also confirm there is no intention to encourage redevelopment of these properties. The municipality cannot rezone property without the owners' consent to do so. The consolidated Zoning By-law review does not include confirming the legality of existing uses. To be explicitly recognized - 120 - Responses to Public and Agency Comments Resident or Organization / Address Comment(s) Response Would you review the interactive zoning map and Schedule 1 in accordance with our request that the new zoning by-law zone these properties within a heavy industry zone (is this the current use of each lot and how does each lot differentiate from each other in their use, i.e. level of environmental regulation)? Furthermore, given the Waste Processing Station and Waste Transfer Station uses are being carried out on all of these properties, that those uses are permitted only in the E1 zone and even in that E1 zone are subject to a footnote which provides “Only legally existing uses shall be permitted”, we would ask that the site specific provisions for each of these properties explicitly permit both the Waste Processing Station and Waste Transfer Station uses without that limitation. That would recognize the reality of the well- established use of these lands, which are crucial for the continued economic well-being and safety of the City and the Region. requires Zoning By-law Amendment Application where all the required studies are undertaken. The new outdoor storage provisions in the consolidated By-law would apply, save and except for any specific statements in the exception zones. If GFL finds the new provisions unreasonable, more specific input is needed. City Staff believe another meeting with GFL to explain how Exceptions relate to superseded Parent By-laws may be helpful, and have reached out to set up that meeting. TransCanada Pipelines, Enbridge, TransNorthern Pipelines, CN Rail City-wide Utility corporations 1) TransCanada Pipelines; 2) Enbridge 3) TransNorthern Pipelines, and 4) CN Rail requested mapping and/or provisions to be added to the consolidated Zoning By-law. TransCanada Pipelines a) General Regulations of the CZBL a) A minimum The City chose a consistent approach for utility regulation in the Consolidated Zoning By-law, based on the following. The Federal CER Act requires utility companies to monitor and regulate development for public safety. Both the Provincial Planning Statement, and the - 121 - Responses to Public and Agency Comments Resident or Organization / Address Comment(s) Response setback of 7.0 m shall be required from any part of a principal building or structure from the edge of the TransCanada pipeline right- of-way. b) A minimum setback of 3.0 m shall be required from any part of an accessory structure from the edge of the TransCanada pipeline right-of-way. c) A minimum setback of 7.0 m from the nearest portion of a TransCanada pipeline right-of-way shall also apply to any parking area or loading area, including any parking spaces, loading spaces, stacking spaces, bicycle parking spaces, and any associated aisle or driveway. Enbridge requested their pipelines and facilities be indicated on one or more maps of the Zoning By-law. TransNorthern Pipelines requested a meeting to discuss their regulatory framework. CN Rail Requested a) to add definitions from the PPS into the CZBL. (Sensitive Land Uses definition included in the 2nd draft CZBL) b) to add areas of influence for sensitive land uses (300 m to railway, 1km to rail yard) identified in a Schedule. Official Plan support protecting infrastructure corridors. However, Section 92(10) of the Constitution Act speaks to “heads of power”. Provinces and municipalities do not have jurisdiction over areas of Federal regulation. Within Pickering, there are areas where utilities overlap, and conditions for approval may need flexibility to negotiate between utilities, i.e., CN rail and TransCanada Pipelines. Detailed provisions would be too prescriptive. Further, operationally, Pickering's' capacity to support and enforce provisions (such as setbacks) for Federally regulated utilities is limited. In light of these constraints, the City of Pickering will meet the core interests of utilities by flagging applications in the planning process. Further, the CZBL includes sections 4.29 Public Uses Permitted in All Zones and 14.2.5 Permitted Public uses in All zones. Resident/Landowner 2130 Dixie Road Zoning should be residential as all other areas surrounding the property are residential. This property is located in the urban area of Pickering, It was previously zoned agriculture, yet has a small size, generally unsuited to accommodate long term - 122 - Responses to Public and Agency Comments Resident or Organization / Address Comment(s) Response agricultural use. The consolidation review rezones remnant agricultural parcels not anticipated to remain as agricultural to an Urban Reserve zone. This property has been rezoned to Urban Reserve. Lehman Plan on behalf of the Archdiocese of Toronto Holy Redeemer Parish 796 Eyer Drive St. Isaac Jogues Parish 1148 Finch Avenue Requesting that exceptions be created for these properties to recognize existing place of worship uses held as-of-right under parent Zoning By-laws 2511 and 2520. The current by-law permits both the church and school to the south of the property in all residential zones. The proposed R3 zone does not permit either the church or school. Also please confirm the place of worship minimum parking requirement of 10 spaces per 100 square metres proposed in the draft Consolidated Zoning By-law is correct. Holy Redeemer Parish located at 796 Eyer Drive is zoned R3 by Zoning By-law 2511, as amended by By-law 7610/18. A site-specific exception will be created for this property to permit a place of worship in the proposed draft Consolidated By-law to be presented to Council in December for adoption. St. Isaac Jogues Parish located at 1148 Finch Avenue is zoned I(C)-ES by Zoning By-law 3036, as amended by By-law 4091/92. Exception X196 carries forward By-law 4091/92 for 1148 Finch Avenue. - 123 - Report to Planning & Development Committee Report Number: PLN 28-24 Date: November 4, 2024 From: Kyle Bentley Director, City Development & CBO Subject: Teranet Sublicensing Agreement Renewal – Ontario Parcel Mapping Data Contract Extension with the Region of Durham -File: D-9000-022 Recommendation: 1.That Council approve entering into a sublicensing agreement with the Region of Durhamto extend the delivery of digital parcel mapping data to the City of Pickering, for a five-yearperiod, at an annual cost of $12,910.00 per year (net HST), beginning in 2025. 2.That the appropriate officials of the City of Pickering be authorized to give effect thereto. Executive Summary: The purpose of this report is to obtain Council approval to enter into a sublicensing agreement with the Region of Durham, to extend the delivery of the digital parcel mapping data to the City of Pickering for the next five years (December 19, 2024 to December 19, 2029), at a fixed annual rate of $12,910.00 (net HST). The City is currently nearing the end of a five-year contract with the Region of Durham for the supply of digital parcel mapping data obtained from Teranet Inc., and thus, the need to renew the sublicensing agreement. 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: The proposed new sublicensing agreement with the Region will ensure the continued supply of the product at a five-year cost totaling $64,552.00 (including net HST). Although the City will be committing to a full five-year contract term for the acquisition of digital parcel mapping, funding will continue to be done on an annual basis in City Development Departments Current (operating) Budget. Payment frequency for the new contract will occur on an annual basis at a cost of $12,910.00. - 124 - PLN 28-24 November 4, 2024 Subject: Teranet Sublicensing Agreement Renewal – Ontario Parcel Mapping Data Contract Extension with the Region of Durham Page 2 1.Total Project Cost for Pickering’s 5-Year Sublicensing Agreement 5 Year Sub-License Agreement Extension HST (13%) Total Gross Project Costs HST Rebate (11.24%) Total Net Project Costs $63,435.00 8,247.00 $71,682.00 (7,130.00) $64,552.00 Annual Costs (Years 2025 to 2029) Pickering Costs (excl. taxes) HST (13%) Gross Project Costs HST Rebate (11.24%) Net Project Cost to City (incl. 1.76%) $12,687.00 1,649.00 $14,336.00 (1,426.00) $12,910.00 2.Source of Funds – (Proposed 2025 Current Budget) Account Code Budget Required 10100.502410.0000 $12,915.00 $12,910.00 3.Funds Required (2026 to 2029) For Years 2026 to 2029 $51,640.00 Discussion: The purpose of this report is to obtain Council approval to enter into a sublicensing agreement with the Region of Durham to extend the delivery of the digital parcel mapping data to the City of Pickering for the next five years. The City is currently nearing the end of a five year sublicensing agreement with the Region of Durham for the supply of digital parcel mapping data, obtained from Teranet Inc. Digital mapping of Pickering lands is a required and essential element of many City operations. The integrity of this digital mapping helps ensure the City will continue using up to date mapping data, and to make informed decisions where land-based data is required. The Region of Durham has received a proposal from Teranet Inc., with whom it has an Ontario Parcel Master Agreement, to renew the contract for delivering digital parcel mapping data with another 5-year term (to December 19, 2029) at a total gross cost of $903,120.00 or - 125 - PLN 28-24 November 4, 2024 Subject: Teranet Sublicensing Agreement Renewal – Ontario Parcel Mapping Data Contract Extension with the Region of Durham Page 3 $180,624.00 annually. The Region will continue to pay 50% of the fee, with the remaining portion divided by the eight local municipalities in Durham, which is based on the percent parcel count from August 2024, to determine the proportion of fees. The Region confirmed that the products delivered through the sublicensing agreement will remain unchanged from the 2019 agreement. They include: the Ownership and Assessment Mapping; the Ownership Property Report, Easement Report, PIN-Plan Index; and the Registered Plan Image Subscription. Further details are included in the attached letter from Teranet Inc. (see Attachment 1). The City’s cost for digital parcel mapping over the last five years of the present contract the Region of Durham has with Teranet Inc. totals $50,732.45, and it was collected from the City at a fixed annual cost of $10,146.49 (including applicable taxes). The proposed new contract with the Region will supply the product to the City for the next five years at a net project cost totaling $64,552.00, to be collected at a fixed net annual rate of $12,910.00. It is recommended that Council approve entering into a sublicensing agreement with the Region of Durham to extend the delivery of digital parcel mapping data to the City of Pickering for a five-year period (December 19, 2024 to December 19, 2029), to be paid to the Region at a fixed net annual rate noted in bold above, and that the appropriate officials of the City of Pickering be authorized to give effect thereto. Attachment: 1.Letter from Teranet Inc. to the Region of Durham - 126 - PLN 28-24 November 4, 2024 Subject: Teranet Sublicensing Agreement Renewal – Ontario Parcel Mapping Data Contract Extension with the Region of Durham Page 4 Prepared By: Original Signed By Déan Jacobs, MCIP, RPP Manager, Policy & Geomatics Approved/Endorsed By: Original Signed By Catherine Rose, MCIP, RPP Chief Planner Original Signed By Kyle Bentley, P. Eng. Director, City Development & CBO DJ:ld Recommended for the consideration of Pickering City Council Original Signed By Marisa Carpino, M.A. Chief Administrative Officer - 127 - Attachment 1 to Report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eport to Planning & Development Committee Report Number: PLN 29-24 Date: November 4, 2024 From: Kyle Bentley Director, City Development & CBO Subject: 5113 Brock Road (Claremont) Notice of Intention to Designate a Property under Part IV, Section 29 of the Ontario Heritage Act -File: A-3300-089 Recommendation: 1.That Council endorse the recommendations of the Heritage Pickering Advisory Committee,dated February 28, 2024, to designate 5113 Brock Road (Claremont) 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 5113 Brock Road (Claremont), known as the G.M. Forsyth House, as a property ofcultural heritage value or interest, pursuant to Section 29 of the Ontario Heritage Act,included as Attachments 4 and 5 to Report PLN 29-24; 3.That, should no Notice of Objection be received by the City Clerk within 30 days of the publication of the Notice of Intention to Designate, the Designation By-law for 5113 Brock Road (Claremont), included as Attachment 6 to Report PLN 29-24, be forwarded toCouncil for enactment, and that staff be directed to carry out the notice requirements asprescribed 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. Executive Summary: The purpose of this report is to obtain Council’s approval to designate 5113 Brock Road (Claremont) under Section 29 of the Ontario Heritage Act (see Location Map, Attachment 1). At the meeting held on February 28, 2024, the Heritage Pickering Advisory Committee (HPAC) passed a motion recommending that City Council designate 5113 Brock Road (Claremont) under Part IV of the Ontario Heritage Act and to serve the property owner with a Notice of Intention to Designate. Through the application of Ontario Regulation 9/06, Criteria for Determining Cultural Heritage Value or Interest, the property was determined to have design value as a representative example of a historic Ontario farmstead, including a representative early-20th-century American Foursquare farmhouse. The property was found to have associative value for its connection with G.M. Forsyth, a prominent municipal leader and farmer. The property was also found to define and maintain the rural character of Brock Road in Claremont. - 129 - PLN 29-24 November 4, 2024 Subject: 5113 Brock Road (Claremont) – Notice of Intention to Designate a Property under Part IV, Section 29 of the Ontario Heritage Act Page 2 Relationship to the Pickering Strategic Plan: The recommendations in this report respond to the Pickering Strategic Plan Priorities of Champion Economic Leadership and Innovation; Advocate for an Inclusive, Welcoming, Safe & Healthy Community; and Strengthen Existing & Build New Partnerships. Financial Implications: No direct financial implications for the City are associated with the recommended action to designate. Discussion: The purpose of this report is to obtain Council’s approval to designate 5113 Brock Road (Claremont) under Section 29 of the Ontario Heritage Act. The original property was located on the east side of Brock Road, north of William Street/Lane Street, at the northeast edge of Claremont (see Location Map, Attachment 1). The property covered approximately 36.6 hectares, and historically included the G.M. Forsyth House, a barn, silos and surrounding agricultural fields. The G.M. Forsyth House is a two-storey American Foursquare Farmhouse, setback about 37 metres from Brock Road, with its façade facing the road. The property is accessed via a semi-circular driveway (see Photograph 1 on page 5 of this report). The property is not currently recognized for its heritage value, as it is neither listed nor designated on the City of Pickering’s Municipal Heritage Register. 1.Background In August 2022, the Ontario Land Tribunal (OLT) approved a Zoning By-LawAmendment and Draft Plan of Subdivision, submitted by Geranium Homes, for thedevelopment of 5113 Brock Road (Claremont) into a residential subdivision consisting of 71 lots for detached dwellings (see Location Map, Attachment 1). The Draft Plan of Subdivision is subject to the conditions of draft approval outlined in the OLT Decision.The OLT approved the Zoning By-law Amendment to rezone the property to OakRidges Moraine – Hamlet Residential Six (ORM-R6) to facilitate a residentialsubdivision. The proposed development includes retaining the existing farmhouse in situ on a newly created lot, identified as Lot 71 in the plan of subdivision (see Draft Plan of Subdivision,Attachment 2). The development will also include new public roads, a public park, openspace buffers, and two stormwater management facilities. Franklin Street will beextended north to Lane Street through the property, and a new street (Samarillo Place) is planned north of the farmhouse to provide vehicular and pedestrian access to the subdivision from Brock Road. The centrally located public park will feature a sportscourt, playground, soccer field, and a network of paths, accessible from Franklin Streetand Lane Street via Samarillo Place. - 130 - PLN 29-24 November 4, 2024 Subject: 5113 Brock Road (Claremont) – Notice of Intention to Designate a Property under Part IV, Section 29 of the Ontario Heritage Act Page 3 To make way for the development, the existing barn and silos have been demolished, with select building materials salvaged for use on or off-site. The farmhouse on Lot 71 will be surrounded by generous front, rear and side yards, with a proposed lot size of 0.51 of a hectare. Minimal re-grading along the north lot line, and the installation of a replacement septic bed to the south are planned. The existing 37 metre setback from Brock Road, along with the semi-circular driveway, mature trees, and retaining wall, will remain unchanged. A new driveway entrance from Samarillo Place will connect to the existing driveway north of the farmhouse, replacing the current north entrance from Brock Road. However, the existing south entrance from Brock Road will be retained. A new detached garage is proposed for the northeast corner of the lot. As per the sale agreement, Lot 71 will remain under the ownership of the property’s previous landowner. Although the property has no formal heritage designation, the OLT Decision outlined four cultural heritage requirements. Condition 18 required that a Heritage Impact Assessment (HIA) must be provided as a condition of Draft Plan Approval. To satisfy this condition, an HIA was prepared by ERA Architects Inc. (ERA, 2022), detailing the heritage attributes and features of the property. 2.The City has determined the G.M. Forsyth House has Cultural Heritage Value orInterest As noted above, Geranium Homes has submitted an HIA, prepared by ERA, datedDecember 9, 2022 (see Heritage Impact Assessment, Attachment 2, and Heritage Impact Assessment Addendum, Attachment 3). The HIA determined that the G.M. Forsyth House meets the criteria for designation as set out in Ontario Regulation9/06 and qualifies for designation under Part IV of the Ontario Heritage Act, as it metfive of the nine criteria. The 9/06 evaluation is outlined in Table 1 below. The property at 5113 Brock Road (Claremont) is valued as an excellent representative example of an early-twentieth-century American Foursquare farmhouse. Its distinctive features include a square plan, a two-storey scale, a hipped roof, and design elements such as a wrap-around verandah and a two-storey frontispiece. The property also has historical and associative significance due to its direct association with G.M. Forsyth, a prominent municipal leader and farmer in Claremont. Forsyth held many important offices in Pickering Township and the Village of Claremont during his political career, culminating in his appointment as Warden of Ontario County in 1923. As Reeve of Pickering Township, he played a key role in bringing hydroelectric power to Claremont. This association is reflected in the grandeur of the farmhouse and its estate-style landscape. In addition, 5113 Brock Road (Claremont) has contextual value for defining, maintaining, and supporting the rural character of Brock Road in Claremont. Located at the northern edge of the village, its agricultural landscape provides a backdrop to the late-nineteenth-century village fabric. Lastly, the property is considered a local landmark within Claremont. - 131 - PLN 29-24 November 4, 2024 Subject: 5113 Brock Road (Claremont) – Notice of Intention to Designate a Property under Part IV, Section 29 of the Ontario Heritage Act Page 4 Table 1: Evaluation of 5113 Brock Road (Claremont) as per Ontario Regulation 9/06 Criteria O. Reg. 9/06 Criteria Y/N Comments 1.The property has design valueor physical value because it is arare, unique, representative, orearly example of a style, type, expression, material, or construction method. Y The property is a representative example of a historic Ontario farmstead, evidenced by its farmhouse, barn, and silos, which form part of an agricultural landscape of open fields and mature (front-yard) trees. As an individual component of the farmstead, the farmhouse is a fine representative example of an early-twentieth-century American Foursquare farmhouse. 2.The property has design valueor physical value because itdisplays a high degree ofcraftsmanship or artistic merit. N The property does not display a high degree of craftsmanship or artistic merit. The farmhouse displays craftsmanship that is typical of the early twentieth-century period. 3.The property has design valueor physical value because itdemonstrates a high degree of technical or scientificachievement. N The property does not demonstrate a high degree of technical or scientific achievement. 4.The property has historicalvalue or associative valuebecause it has direct associationswith a theme, event, belief,person, activity, organization, or institution that is significant to acommunity. Y The property has a direct association with G.M. Forsyth, a prominent municipal leader and farmer who is historically significant to the community. Forsyth held many major offices in both the Township of Pickering and the Village of Claremont throughout his political career. 5.The property has historical value or associative valuebecause it yields, or has thepotential to yield, information thatcontributes to an understanding of a community or culture. N The property does not offer new knowledge or a greater understanding of particular aspects of the community’s history or culture. 6.The property has historicalvalue or associative value because it demonstrates orreflects the work or ideas of anarchitect, artist, builder, designeror theorist who is significant to acommunity. N The architect or builder of the farmhouse is not documented in the historical record. There is no evidence that the mason, C.H. Found, or landscape gardener, James Douce, are significant to the community. - 132 - PLN 29-24 November 4, 2024 Subject: 5113 Brock Road (Claremont) – Notice of Intention to Designate a Property under Part IV, Section 29 of the Ontario Heritage Act Page 5 O. Reg. 9/06 Criteria Y/N Comments 7.The property has contextual value because it is important in defining, maintaining, orsupporting the character of anarea. Y The property is important in defining, maintaining and supporting the rural character of Brock Road in Claremont, a historic village in the former Township of Pickering. Brock Road, north of Lane Street, can be characterized by its agricultural landscape on the east side of the road (i.e. the Site), which forms the backdrop to the late- nineteenth-century village fabric. The area contains a concentration of late-nineteenth-century houses near the railway, built in a variety of vernacular styles, with mature front-yard trees creating a green edge along the road. 8.The property has contextualvalue because it is physically, functionally, visually, orhistorically linked to itssurroundings. Y The property has a relationship to its broader context, and it is physically and historically linked to its rural surroundings. 9.The property has contextualvalue because it is a landmark.Y The property is considered a local landmark in Claremont. Photograph 1: View of G.M. Forsyth house (ERA, 2022) - 133 - PLN 29-24 November 4, 2024 Subject: 5113 Brock Road (Claremont) – Notice of Intention to Designate a Property under Part IV, Section 29 of the Ontario Heritage Act Page 6 3.The HIA recommended property-specific mitigation measures The HIA recommended retaining the G.M. Forsyth house in situ with a green buffer zone and proposed rehabilitating the structure. The report concluded that the proposedsetbacks would preserve the farmhouse’s historical relationship to Brock Road,mitigating the impact of the reduced lot size. Regarding the impact of the development on the barn and silos, the HIA recommended salvaging the barn’s wood materials for future reuse, either in an on-site installation or as a contribution to other local historic barn structures. The specific use will bedetermined as the design and development process continues. 4.The Heritage Pickering Advisory Committee and the property owner have beenconsulted On February 28, 2024, City Development staff consulted with the Heritage Pickering Advisory Committee. The committee passed a motion recommending that Councildesignate the property under Section 29 of the Ontario Heritage Act. 5.The designation of the property aligns with the City of Pickering Official Planpolicies Chapter 8 of the Official Plan outlines the City’s cultural heritage goal, which is for City Council to respect and conserve important cultural heritage resources from all timeperiods and integrate them into the community. In consultation with its heritagecommittee, where warranted, City Council shall implement the provisions of the OntarioHeritage Act, including the designation of heritage sites. When considering the use and reuse of heritage resources, City Council shall maintain, if possible, the original use of heritage structures and sites, and if possible, retain theiroriginal location and orientation. City Council shall work to prevent the demolition, destruction, or inappropriate alterationof important cultural heritage resources to the extent possible. Additionally, where possible, Council shall restore, rehabilitate, maintain, and enhance heritage resources owned by the City, and encourage private owners to do the same. 6.Notice of Intention to Designate The Notice of Intention to Designate has been prepared in accordance with therequirements of the Ontario Heritage Act and, subject to Council’s approval, will be published on the City’s website (see Attachment 4). A copy of the notice will also be sent to the Ontario Heritage Trust and the property owner (see Attachment 5). If no objection is received by the City Clerk within the 30-day timeframe, staffrecommends that Council enact the draft designation by-law as set out in Attachment 6of this report, and serve a Notice of Passing in accordance with Section 29(8) of the Ontario Heritage Act. - 134 - PLN 29-24 November 4, 2024 Subject: 5113 Brock Road (Claremont) – Notice of Intention to Designate a Property under Part IV, Section 29 of the Ontario Heritage Act Page 7 7.Conclusion The designation of a property under Part IV or Part V of the Ontario Heritage Act gives Council the authority to prevent the demolition of a building or structure on a heritageproperty. The owner of a designated property must obtain written consent from Councilbefore demolishing any building on a heritage property. Additionally, owners ofproperties designated under Part IV of the Ontario Heritage Act must acquire a Heritage Permit for most alterations, the construction of new buildings, and hard landscaping. To ensure its conservation, and to enable the City to provide resources to the ownerthrough the heritage permitting process, City staff recommend proceeding with servinga Notice of Intention to Designate the property. It is recommended that Councildesignate 5113 Brock Road (Claremont) under Section 29, Part IV of the Ontario Heritage Act, in accordance with the Draft Designation By-law. Attachments: 1.Location Map 2.Heritage Impact Assessment, prepared by ERA Inc., dated December 29, 2022 3.Heritage Impact Assessment Addendum, prepared by ERA Inc., dated June 14, 20234.Notice of Intention to Designate to be published on the City’s Website5.Notice of Intention to Designate for the Ontario Heritage Trust and property owner6.Draft Designation By-law for the G.M. Forsyth House at 5113 Brock Road (Claremont) - 135 - PLN 29-24 November 4, 2024 Subject: 5113 Brock Road (Claremont) – Notice of Intention to Designate a Property under Part IV, Section 29 of the Ontario Heritage Act Page 8 Prepared By: Approved/Endorsed By: Nilesh Surti, MCIP, RPP Catherine Rose, MCIP, RPP Division Head, Development Review Chief Planner & Urban Design Kyle Bentley, P. Eng. Director, City Development & CBO NS:ld 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 - 136 - Cla r e mon t Stre e t Bund y S t r e e t Fr a n k l i n S t r e e t Lane Street Bro c k R o a d Tom T h o m s o n C o u r t Wi l l i a m S t r e e t To m T h o m s o n C o u r t Wi x s o n S t r e e t Location Map Municipal Address: Date: Oct. 01, 2024© The Corporation of the City of Pickering Produced (in part) under license from: © Queens Printer, Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources. All rights reserved.; © Her Majesty the Queen inRight of Canada, Department of Natural Resources. All rights reserved.; © Teranet Enterprises Inc. and its suppliers. All rights reserved.; © Municipal Property Assessment Corporation and its suppliers. All rights reserved.SCALE: 1:4,000THIS IS NOT A PLAN OF SURVEY. L:\PLANNING\01-MapFiles\01-City Development\01-PLN Reports\2024\PLN xx-24 - 5113 Brock Road\5133 Brock Rd.aprx City Development Department 5113 Brock Road (Claremont) Subject Lands Attachment 1 to Report PLN 29-24 - 137 - Heritage impact assessment 5113 Old Brock Road Claremont, Pickering, ON December 9, 2022 Attachment 2 to Report PLN 29-24 - 138 - PREPARED FOR:PREPARED BY: ii HERITAGE IMPACT ASSESSMENT | 5113 OLD BROCK ROAD, CLAREMONT ERA Architects Inc. #600-625 Church St Toronto ON, M4Y 2G1 416-963-4497 Claremont Development Inc. #300-3190 Steeles Ave E Markham ON, L3R 1G9 905-477-1177 Project #21-332-01 Prepared by PE / SI / EA / JG - 139 - iiiISSuED: 9 DECEMBER 2022 CONTENTS EXECUTIVE SUMMARY IV 1 INTRODUCTION 5 1.1 Report Scope 5 1.2 Present Owner Contact Information 5 1.3 Site Description and Context 7 1.4 Heritage Status 10 2 BACKGROUND RESEARCH AND ANALYSIS 11 2.1 Historical Context 11 2.2 Site Evolution 17 3 CULTURAL HERITAGE VALUE 21 3.1 Ontario Regulation 9/06 Analysis 21 3.2 Draft Statement of Significance 24 4 ASSESSMENT OF EXISTING CONDITION 26 5 DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT 39 6 IMPACT ASSESSMENT 42 7 CONSIDERED ALTERNATIVES AND MITIGATION STRATEGIES 44 8 RECOMMENDED CONSERVATION STRATEGY 47 9 CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS 48 APPENDIX A: PROJECT PERSONNEL 49 APPENDIX B: LIST OF SOURCES 50 APPENDIX C: HERITAGE POLICY REVIEW 51 APPENDIX D: CLAREMONT SECONDARY PLAN STUDY HERITAGE INVENTORY (1978) 54 - 140 - iv HERITAGE IMPACT ASSESSMENT | 5113 OLD BROCK ROAD, CLAREMONT ExEcutivE Summary Impact of Proposed Development The proposed development anticipates the following impacts to the Site’s cultural heritage value, based on ERA’s draft Statement of Significance: •Removal of the barn and silos to accommo- date new residential lots; •Isolation of the farmhouse from its agri- cultural context on the Site, including the reduction of the farmstead lot size to 0.51 hectares; •New construction in the immediate vicin- ity of the farmhouse, including new houses on estate size lots, a detached garage, a replacement septic bed, and a new road; and •Alteration of the Site’s existing rural land- scape and topography along Old Brock Road, through the introduction of four new residential lots flanking Old Brock Road and a 1.8 metre wood privacy fence and contin- uous hedgerow. Mitigation and Conservation Strategy The potential impacts of the proposed development are proposed to be partially mitigated through a recommended design and landscape strategy, which would interpret the Site’s rural character. This would include design guidelines for the new houses along Old Brock Road, and an interpretive rural landscape strategy. A buffer zone is proposed around the farmhouse, with generous setbacks from the north, east, and south properties lines (24 metres, 19 metres, and 36 metres, respectively). The existing setback from Old Brock Road will be maintained, along with the front-yard mature trees and semi-circular driveway. Although a minimal change in grade is proposed (up to 0.60m) with an upward slope to the north lot line, it will not impact any heritage landscape features. Background ERA Architects Inc. (“ERA”) was retained by Claremont Development Inc. to prepare a Heritage Impact Assessment (“HIA”) for the proposed redevelopment of 5113 Old Brock Road, Claremont (the “Site”). The Site comprises a large farmstead property, including a farmhouse (1916), barn, and four silos. Heritage Status The Site is not listed on the City of Pickering’s Heritage Register, or designated under Section 29, Part IV of the Ontario Heritage Act (“OHA”). It is not located within a designated Heritage Conservation District (“HCD”). The Site is not considered adjacent to any listed or designated properties. ERA has evaluated the Site in accordance with Ontario Regulation 9/06 (“O. Reg. 9/06”). We find that the Site meets the criteria for design/physical, historical/associative, and contextual value. As such, the property is a candidate for designation under Part IV, Section 29 of the OHA. •It has design value as a representative example of an historic Ontario farmstead, including a representative early-20th centu- ry American Foursquare farmhouse. •It has historical/associative value for its direct association with G.M. Forsyth, a prominent municipal leader and farmer. •It has contextual value for defining, main- taining, and supporting a rural character along Old Brock Road in Claremont. Proposed Development The proposed development involves the full in-situ retention of the existing farmhouse within a new residential subdivision, including 71 lots for detached dwellings, new public roads, a new public park, open space buffers, and two stormwater management facilities. - 141 - 5ISSuED: 9 DECEMBER 2022 1 introduction ERA Architects Inc. (“ERA”) was retained by Claremont Development Inc. to prepare a Heritage Impact Assessment (“HIA”) for the proposed redevelopment of 5113 Old Brock Road, Claremont (the “Site”). ERA was retained in accordance with the Minutes of Settlement for the Site (OLT Case Number OLT-22-002250), which stipulates that an HIA be provided as a condition of Draft Plan Approval. The purpose of an HIA, according to the City’s Terms of Reference (2022), is to “determine if any cultural heritage resources may be adversely impacted by a specific proposed development or site alteration, and to recommend an overall approach to conserve the resource(s)” (City of Pickering, 2022). This report was prepared with reference to the following documents: • Parks Canada Standards and Guidelines for the Conservation of Historic Places in Canada (2010); • Provincial Policy Statement (2020); • O. Reg. 9/06; • Ontario Heritage Toolkit; • Durham Regional Official Plan (consolidated 2020); and • City of Pickering Official Plan, Edition 9 (consolidated 2022); and • City of Pickering Terms of Reference for Heritage Impact Assessments (April, 2022). 1.1 Report Scope 1.2 Present Owner Contact Information Claremont Development Inc. #300-3190 Steeles Ave E Markham ON, L3R 1G9 905-477-1177 - 142 - 6 HERITAGE IMPACT ASSESSMENT | 5113 OLD BROCK ROAD, CLAREMONT View of the farmhouse on the Site from the driveway entrance (ERA, 2022). West and south elevations of the farmhouse (ERA, 2022). - 143 - 7ISSuED: 9 DECEMBER 2022 1.3 Site Description and Context The Site comprises a large farmstead property, known municipally as 5113 Old Brock Road. Located at the northeastern edge of Claremont, in Pickering, the Site’s principal frontage extends along Old Brock Road north of Lane Street. The Site also has a large frontage on Brock Road extending between Central Street and the railway corridor. The Site contains the following buildings and structures, which are set against an agricultural landscape of open fields and mature trees: •A two-storey brick farmhouse, set back from Old Brock Road. It is estimated to have been built by G.M. Forsyth in 1916. The front yard features a semi-circular driveway lined with mature trees. •A frame barn with a concrete foundation, located immediate- ly north of the farmhouse. It is estimated to have been built during the early-to-mid-20th century. •Four silos, with one located beside the barn, and the remain- ing three clustered near centre of the Site at the end of a drive lane. Old Brock Road transects the village of Claremont, an historic rural settlement in the City of Pickering. The area north of Lane Street is defined by its rural context, which includes a collection of late- 19th century houses near the railway, and an agricultural landscape (i.e. the Site) on the east side of Old Brock Road. Developed as a northern extension of the village following the arrival of the railway, the area contains notable examples of late-19th century residential architecture, including the Tobias Castor House (5230 Old Brock Road), built circa 1890. To the west of the site is a natural area along Mitchell Creek, a tributary of the East Duffins Creek. There is also some infill development along its edge, on the west side of Old Brock Road, mostly in the form of mid-to-late 20th century bungalow-style houses. To the south of the Site is the main village of Claremont, which is centred on the “four corners” intersection at Old Brock Road and Central Street. The 19th-century village, which is laid out on a grid pattern, has been encircled by contemporary (post-1980) residential subdivisions. Farmhouse (ERA, 2022). Barn (ERA, 2022). Silo, beside barn (ERA, 2022). Silos, near centre of the Site (ERA, 2022). - 144 - 8 HERITAGE IMPACT ASSESSMENT | 5113 OLD BROCK ROAD, CLAREMONT Aerial photograph showing the Site, shaded blue (Google Maps, 2022; annotated by ERA). Ol d B r o c k R d Central St Br o c k R d Railwa y - 145 - 9ISSuED: 9 DECEMBER 2022 Preliminary servicing plan for the Site, showing the proposed layout of the subdivision (SCS Consulting Group; annotated by ERA). - 146 - 10 HERITAGE IMPACT ASSESSMENT | 5113 OLD BROCK ROAD, CLAREMONT 1.4 Heritage Status On-Site Heritage Resources The Site is not listed on the City’s Heritage Register, or designated under Section 29, Part IV of the Ontario Heritage Act (“OHA”). It is not located within a designated Heritage Conservation District (“HCD”). The Site is not included on the City’s Inventory of Historic Properties (2002), however it was identified in the Claremont Secondary Plan Study Heritage Inventory (1978), attached in Appendix D. Adjacent Heritage Resources The Site is not considered adjacent to any properties that are listed on the City’s Heritage Register, or designated under Section 29, Part IV of the OHA. - 147 - 11ISSuED: 9 DECEMBER 2022 2 Background rESEarch and analySiS 2.1 Historical Context Indigenous History (Pre-1800s) The Site forms part of the territory of the Wendat, Haudenosaunee, and Mississaugas (part of the Anishinaabe Nation). For each of these nations, rivers and waterways were central to traditional ways of life before the arrival of European settlers. The Site is located just east of Mitchell Creek, a tributary of the East Duffins Creek. Within the Duffins Creek Watershed, there are approximately seventeen registered archaeological sites from the Late Woodland Period (AD 700-1651), a period associated with the emergence of horticulture and semi-permanent villages in Southern Ontario. The Draper Site (AlGt-2), an ancestral Wendat village, is the largest known village site in the Duffins Creek Watershed. Located near Highway 7 approximately eight kilometers southwest of Claremont, it was excavated in the mid-1970s in anticipation of the new Toronto Airport in Pickering. Following the northward dispersal of the Wendat, the Seneca established a village known as Ganatsekwyagon at the mouth of the Rouge River in the mid-to-late 1600s, at the foot of the Toronto Carrying Place Trail (east branch); an important portage route which connected Lake Ontario with the upper Great Lakes. Towards the end of the 17th-century, the Mississaugas arrived in southern Ontario, where they continued to follow a yearly cycle of movement and resource-harvesting along the rivers in the Greater Toronto Area, including the Credit, Humber, Don and Rouge. The mouth of Duffins Creek would have been used by the Mississaugas as a seasonal hunting and fishing grounds. After the British conquest of New France in 1763, the British Crown issued a royal proclamation, which established guidelines for the colonization of Indigenous territories in North America. The proclamation stated that Indigenous peoples held title to their territory until it was ceded by a treaty. Despite this, the Site was not subject to a treaty until 1923, after the area had been settled by Euro-Canadians. In 1923, the Williams Treaties were signed between seven Anishinaabe First Nations and the Crown. In 2018, the Williams Treaties First Nations negotiated an out-of-court settlement with the Provincial and Federal govern- ments, contending that the Crown did not provide proper compensation and unjustly denied harvesting rights. 1688 French map of Lake Ontario, show- ing the village of Ganatsekwyagon and the Carrying Place trail. The approximate location of the Site is indicated with a blue arrow (university of Toronto Map and Data Library). - 148 - 12 HERITAGE IMPACT ASSESSMENT | 5113 OLD BROCK ROAD, CLAREMONT Pickering Township The Constitutional Act of 1791 established the new colony of upper Canada (today’s Ontario), and set in place a British colonial administration. Shortly thereafter, the government began to survey the province’s first counties and townships, with the townships divided into a grid of 200-acre lots organized by concession lines and sideroads. The Site was located in Pickering Township, which was originally part of York County before being partitioned off to the newly-formed Ontario County in 1852. The grid pattern superimposed a colonial understanding of land over the seasonal and resource-dependent relationship held by the Mississaugas, who were displaced from their territory and left with small reserves. In 1806, Joseph Wixson patented Lot 18 in the Ninth Concession of Pickering Township, a 200-acre farm lot which included the Site. The Wixson brothers, Joseph and Joshua, were among the first European settlers in the northern part of Pickering Township, having arrived from New York towards the end of the 18th century. The Wixons settled on either side of Brock Road, north of the 9th Concession, where Joseph is said to have cleared approximately 400 acres. Writing in 1973, local historian Robert A. Miller noted that “Joseph took up land and built his house just where the road deviates between Claremont and the C.P.R. Station, close to the big elm tree on the west side of Brock Road. Joshua settled on the east side of Brock Road and built his house south east of the C.P.R” (Miller, 1973, pg.158). In the 1830s, a number of English families settled on the Seventh, Eighth and Ninth Concessions of Pickering Township, including the Tracys, Gosticks, Palmers, Bennetts and Winters. Brock Road and Kingston Road were the only main roads in the township at this time. By the mid-19th century, the northern part of Pickering Township was emerging as a productive agricultural landscape, as described by local historian Lillian Gauslin in 1974: “houses and barns were built. Pigs, cows and horses were found on almost every farm, and large clearings were to be seen almost everywhere. The log houses were giving way to brick and then to stone” (Gauslin, 1974, pg.20). It was during this period that crossroads hamlets, such as Claremont, were established as rural centres for religion, education and commerce. Historical sketch of Pickering Township, showing the crossroads settlements along Brock Road during the early-to- mid-19th century. The Site is indicated with a blue arrow (Pickering Library). - 149 - 13ISSuED: 9 DECEMBER 2022 1860 Tremaine’s Map of Ontario County. Lot 18 in the Ninth Concession is shaded blue. The location of the Site is indicated with a blue circle (university of Toronto; annotated by ERA). - 150 - 14 HERITAGE IMPACT ASSESSMENT | 5113 OLD BROCK ROAD, CLAREMONT Historic Ontario Farmstead Typology (ERA). Historic Ontario Farmsteads Farms of this era in the Site’s vicinity, and elsewhere in Ontario, were typically characterized by a combination of built and landscape features that today we recognize as the Ontario Farmstead. Farmhouses formed only one central component of the interrelated features of these productive agricultural landscapes. Other typological features of the Ontario Farmstead included barns, fields, tree-lined driveways, and orchards. - 151 - 15ISSuED: 9 DECEMBER 2022 The Village of Claremont The origins of Claremont can be traced back to the 1840s, when the first businesses were established at the “four corners” (Old Brock Road and the Ninth Concession). In 1844, John C. Michell opened a general store on the east side of Brock Road, approximately half a mile south of the present village. Not long after, in 1847, a stone store was erected by John Hamilton on the southwest corner of the intersection, which was leased to Thomas Noble. Originally known as Noble’s Corners, by the 1850s the village featured several stores and a tavern, along with a number of cottage industries, including: two blacksmiths, a saw mill, a wagon-maker, a cooper, a tanner and several grist mills. Change came in 1884 with the arrival of the Canadian Pacific Railway just north of the village,transforming Claremont from “an insignificant little settlement to a thriving village” (Gauslin, 1974, pg.27). The railway allowed for increased settlement in the northern part of the township, while facilitating the shipment of grain and livestock. Two grain elevators, along with coal and lime sheds, were constructed near the station. As detailed in the Claremont Secondary Plan Study Heritage Inventory, “a proportionately high number of the hamlet’s buildings date from around this [railway] period, especially in the northern sector near the tracks, when a noticeable increase in population took place” (Ian MacPherson Associates, 1978, pg.6). Old Brock Road in Claremont, no date (Pickering Library). 1877 Map of the Village of Claremont, from the Ontario County Atlas. The loca- tion of the Site is indicated with a blue arrow (Gauslin, 1974, pg.22; annotated by ERA). - 152 - 16 HERITAGE IMPACT ASSESSMENT | 5113 OLD BROCK ROAD, CLAREMONT Looking south on Old Brock Road in Claremont, early-20th century. Likely at the bend in the road just south of the Site (Pick- ering Library). Looking south on Old Brock Road from just south of the railway, early-20th century (Pickering Library). - 153 - 17ISSuED: 9 DECEMBER 2022 2.2 Site Evolution Based on the historical research outlined below, it is estimated that the existing farmhouse on the Site was built in 1916 by G.M. Forsyth, a prominent municipal leader and farmer. It is estimated that the barn and silo were built during the early-to-mid 20th century, followed by the three silos at the centre of the Site post-1954. The following section includes a detailed chronological summary of the Site’s history of ownership and development. The existing farmhouse and outbuildings are located on Lot 18 in the Ninth Concession of Pickering Township, which was patented by Joseph Wixson in 1806. A review of secondary sources suggests that Joshua Wixson, Joseph’s brother, settled on the east side of Old Brock Road (on or near the Site) towards the end of the 18th century. By the 1860s, as illustrated by Tremaine’s Map of Ontario County, the 200-acre farm lot had been subdivided into a number of smaller parcels, with the area southeast of Old Brock Road (including the Site) owned by Joseph Wixson. Although many of the land registry records are illegible, it is estimated that Joseph Wixson sold the property in 1871 to John Reid, who was recorded as the owner in the 1877 County Atlas. The Tweedsmuir History provides further insight, indicating that John Reid “lived on the old, Joseph Wixson property, just north of the bend on the Brock Road” (Claremont Women’s Institute, pg.113). According to the 1901 census, the Reid farmstead included a composite (i.e. wood/frame) farmhouse with ten rooms, along with four barns, stables or other outbuildings. Several years earlier, in 1896, the Pickering News reported that “John Reid has the stonework of his barn about completed and the frame work started. The old barn will be torn down” (Pickering News, 26 June 1896). In 1903, John Reid placed the farm on the market, with an advertisement in the Pickering News reading “[...] purchase of that valuable farm, known as the Old Wixon Homestead, containing about 60 acres more or less, and situated between Claremont Village and C.P.R. station” (Pickering News, 10 July 1903). In March of the following year, it was reported that Daniel Forsyth had purchased the John Reid farm, although tax assessment rolls indicate that he would have granted the lot to his son, George Malcolm (G.M.) Forsyth, shortly after. In 1905, tax assessors recorded 163 acres of land on the southern half of Lots 17 and 18 under G.M. Forsyth’s ownership. The value of buildings on this property was assessed at $1,300. 1860 Tremaine’s Map of Ontario County. The Site is shaded blue (university of Toronto; annotated by ERA). 1877 Ontario County Atlas. The Site is indicated with a blue circle (McGill uni- versity; annotated by ERA). Advertisement for the sale of John Reid’s farm (Pickering News, 10 Jul 1903). - 154 - 18 HERITAGE IMPACT ASSESSMENT | 5113 OLD BROCK ROAD, CLAREMONT In May of 1916, the Pickering News announced that G.M. Forsyth was “making preparations for the erection of a fine new residence” on his farm (Pickering News, 19 May 1916). In October of the same year, it was reported that “the frame for G.M. Forsyth’s new residence is now up. When completed this will be one of the prettiest homes in Pickering Township” (Pickering News, 13 October 1916). The brickwork was laid by a local mason, C.H. Found, shortly after the frame was completed (Pickering News, 20 October 1916). C.H. Found was responsible for a number of other buildings in the Claremont area, including the village fire hall and library (Gauslin, 1974, pg.175). In June of 1917, G.M Forsyth moved into his new residence (Pickering News, 15 June 1917). Several months later, Forsyth commissioned a landscape gardener to lay out the grounds in front of his new house: “James Douce, landscape gardener, of Toronto, accompanied by James Stevens, of Toronto, was here one day last week, when he laid out G.M. Forsyth’s grounds in front of his beautiful residence” (Pickering News, 3 October 1917). According to the 1921 census, G.M. Forsyth lived in a seven-room brick house in Claremont along with Lillian Forsyth and their two daughters. While the exact location of G.M. Forsyth’s house is not documented in the available historical record, it is estimated to be the extant farmhouse on the Site. This is supported by secondary sources, which note that “in 1916, G.M. Forsyth built a new home and operated the [former John Reid] farm located in north Claremont” (Gauslin, 1974, pg.262). A review of available Tax Assessment Rolls between 1912 and 1921 provides inconclusive data. In 1912, 1917 and 1921, tax assessors recorded 109 acres of land under Forsyth’s ownership on Lot 17, however the value of buildings declined from $500 to $250 during this period. This suggests that the farmhouse was built on Lot 18, despite the property being omitted from Forsyth’s assessment. There is no evidence that the house was built for Thomas Gregg, as documented in the Claremont Secondary Plan Study Heritage Inventory. The available Tax Assessment Rolls between 1905 and 1924 indicate that Gregg owned land on Lot 23 in the Eight Concession and Lot 26 in the Ninth Concession, west of Claremont. Further, there are no (legible) land transactions between G.M. Forsyth and Thomas Gregg, apart from the sale of a small quarter-acre parcel on Lot 18 in September, 1922, after Gregg had constructed his own residence. In June of 1922, it was reported that “Thos. Gregg has the excavating for his new residence Photograph of the farmhouse on the Site (Claremont Secondary Plan Heritage Inventory, 1978). 1922 topographical map showing the Site, indicated with a blue circle. Note the black square indicating the pres- ence of a building (Ontario Council of university Libraries; annotated by ERA). Newspaper brief announcing the con- struction of G.M. Forsyth’s new resi- dence (Pickering News, 19 May 1916). - 155 - 19ISSuED: 9 DECEMBER 2022 completed and the cement foundation constructed” (Pickering News, 8 June 1922). Of note, the cement foundation of Gregg’s house is inconsistent with the stone foundation found on the Site. In 1946, G.M. Forsyth sold his farm to Edgar Ward for $18,000. Following the sale, it was reported that “Edgar Ward of Balsam is moving into the Forsyth home” (Pickering News, 4 April 1947). The 1954 aerial photograph shows a barn and silo to the north of the farmhouse, however the three silos at the centre of the Site had not yet been constructed. Between 1969 and 1978, a series of land transactions involving the Wards and Toko Investments were recorded in the abstract index for Lot 18. In 1990, Toko Investments submitted a development application for 27 single-detached lots on the Site, however the plans never came to fruition. 1954 aerial photograph showing the barn and silo to the north of the farmhouse, indicated with a pink circle. The location of the three unbuilt silos is indicated with a dashed orange circle (McMaster university; annotated by ERA). Newspaper brief announcing the sale of the G.M. Forsyth farm to Edgar Ward (Pickering News, 1 February 1946). 1967 Map of Pickering Township showing the Site, shaded blue, on Edgar Ward’s 109-acre farm (Pickering Library). - 156 - 20 HERITAGE IMPACT ASSESSMENT | 5113 OLD BROCK ROAD, CLAREMONT George Malcolm (G.M.) Forsyth Below is the biography of G.M. Forsyth, as found in the Tweedsmuir History: Mr. Forsyth was one of Pickering Township’s most active and enthusiastic municipal leaders. During his colourful political career, which extended from 1901 until his death, Mr. Forsyth held almost every major office in both the Township of Pickering and the Police Village of Claremont. He was intensely proud of his municipal record. He was one of the Township’s most noted historians. His compact office-library carried records dating back to early pioneer life in the municipality. He was active in the South Ontario Liberal Association. Mr. Forsyth started at the bottom of the municipal ladder and climaxed his career by being chosen Warden of Ontario County in 1923. In 1901, he was elected to the Claremont Public School Board, an office he held off and on for thirty years. He was a board member when the Continuation School was established in Claremont. Other members at that time were Dr. Ralph Brodie and Albert Rawson. He was a charter member of the Claremont Cemetery Board from 1908 until his death. He was a member of the first board of Trustees when Claremont was declared a Police Village in 1908 and held that position until 1917. G.M. Forsyth was elected to Pickering Council in 1921. From 1923 to 1926, he was Deputy Reeve and in 1927 he became Reeve of Pickering Township holding the office for two years. He had been appointed the Claremont representative of the Hydro Commission and during his term as Reeve, he was instrumental in bringing hydro to Claremont. “Mac” was the son of Daniel Forsyth and Rachel Barry, who settled first around Glasgow, in Uxbridge Township and then in Claremont. He married Lillian Cooper of Claremont and they had four children: Viola, Mary (deceased in 1943), Georgina and Barry, who died in infancy. Viola and Georgina sold their home in 1973 and moved to Markham. Mr. Forsyth had many interests but farming was his livelihood. He specialized in breeding Shorthorn cattle and Clydesdale horses. He was a charter member of the Ontario Plowmen’s Association and was called on to judge cattle at many rural fairs. Mr. Edgar Ward purchased the Forsyth Farm in 1946 and Mr. Forsyth built a lovely red brick bungalow at the corner of Wixson Street and the Ninth Concession, where he spent his retirement years. He died in 1959. 1910 photograph of G.M. Forsyth, from a collage titled “the business men of Claremont” (Pickering Library). - 157 - 21ISSuED: 9 DECEMBER 2022 3 cultural hEritagE valuE 3.1 Ontario Regulation 9/06 Analysis The Site has been evaluated against the Ontario Regulation 9/06 (O.Reg 9/06) “Criteria for Determining Cultural Heritage Value or Interest” under the OHA. O. Reg. 9/06 was developed for the purpose of identifying and evaluating the cultural heritage value or interest of a property proposed for protection under Section 29 of the OHA. The purpose of the criteria is to provide a consistent approach for the evaluation of heritage properties. O. Reg. 9/06 states that “a property may be designated under section 29 of the Act if it meets one or more of the following criteria for determining whether it is of cultural heritage value or interest”. While meeting one or more of the criteria may be sufficient justification, in some cases, for protection of a property under the OHA, O. Reg 9/06 does not provide a clear threshold or automatic mandate for designation. Based on historical research, our evaluation finds that the Site meets the O. Reg. 9/06 criteria for design/physical, historical/associative and contextual value. As such, the property is a candidate for designation under Part IV, Section 29 of the OHA. • It has design value as a representative example of an historic Ontario farmstead, including a representative early-20th century American Foursquare farmhouse. • It has historical/associative value for its direct association with G.M. Forsyth, a prominent municipal leader and farmer who is historically significant to the community of Claremont. • It has contextual value for defining, maintaining, and support- ing a rural character along Old Brock Road in Claremont. - 158 - 22 HERITAGE IMPACT ASSESSMENT | 5113 OLD BROCK ROAD, CLAREMONT Value (quoted from Ontario Reg. 9/06)Y/N Assessment of 5113 Old Brock Road The property has design value or physical value because it, i. is a rare, unique, representative or early example of a style, type, expression, material or construction method,Y The property is a representative example of an historic Ontario farmstead, evidenced by its farmhouse, barn, and silos, which form part of an agricultural landscape of open fields and mature (front-yard) trees. As an individual component of the farmstead, the farmhouse is a fine representa- tive example of an early-20th century American Foursquare farmhouse. ii. displays a high degree of craftsmanship or artistic merit, or N The property does not display a high degree of craftsmanship or artistic merit. The farmhouse displays craftsmanship that is typical of the early- 20th century period. iii. demonstrates a high degree of technical or scientific achievement. N The property does not demonstrate a high degree of technical or scientific achievement. The property has historical value or associative value because it, i. has direct associations with a theme, event, belief, person, activity, organization or institution that is significant to a community, Y The property has a direct association with G.M. Forsyth, a prominent municipal leader and farmer who is historically significant to the commu- nity. Forsyth held many major offices in both the Township of Pickering and the Village of Claremont over the course of his political career. ii. yields, or has the potential to yield, information that contributes to an understanding of a commu- nity or culture, or N The property does not offer new knowledge or a greater understanding of particular aspects of the community’s history or culture. iii. demonstrates or reflects the work or ideas of an architect, artist, builder, designer or theorist who is significant to a community.N The architect or builder of the farmhouse is not documented in the historical record. There is no evidence that the mason, C.H. Found, or landscape gardener, James Douce, are significant to the com- munity. - 159 - 23ISSuED: 9 DECEMBER 2022 The property has contextual value because it, i. is important in defining, maintaining or supporting the character of an area, Y The property is important in defining, maintain- ing and supporting the rural character Old Brock Road in Claremont, an historic village in the former Township of Pickering. Old Brock Road, north of Lane Street, can be characterized by its agricultural landscape on the east side of the road (i.e. the Site), which forms the backdrop to the late-19th century village fabric. The area contains a concentration of late-19th century houses near the railway, built in a variety of vernacular styles, with mature front-yard trees creating a green edge along the road. ii. is physically, functionally, visually or historically linked to its surroundings, or N The property does not have a relationship to its broader context that is important to understand the meaning of the property and/or its context. iii. is a landmark. N The property is not a landmark. - 160 - 24 HERITAGE IMPACT ASSESSMENT | 5113 OLD BROCK ROAD, CLAREMONT 3.2 Draft Statement of Significance Description of Property – 5113 Old Brock Road 5113 Old Brock Road is a farmstead property located on the east side of Old Brock Road in the village of Claremont, Pickering. The property contains a two-storey brick farmhouse, a frame barn with a concrete foundation, and four silos. Statement of Cultural Heritage Value 5113 Old Brock Road has design value as a representative example of an historic Ontario farmstead, evidenced by its farmhouse, barn, and silos, which are set against an agricultural landscape of open fields. Built in 1916, the farmhouse is valued as a fine representative example of an early-20th century American Foursquare farmhouse. This is expressed through its square plan, two-storey scale, hipped roof, and varied design details, including the wrap-around verandah with its two-storey frontispiece. 5113 Old Brock Road has historical/associative value for its direct association with G.M. Forsyth, an historically significant municipal leader and farmer in Claremont. Forsyth held many major offices in Pickering Township and the Village of Claremont over the course of his political career, culminating in his appointment as Warden of Ontario County in 1923. During his term as Reeve of Pickering Township, he was instrumental in bringing hydro-electric power to Claremont. This association is expressed through the grandeur of the farmhouse and its estate-style landscape treatment. 5113 Old Brock Road has contextual value for defining, maintaining, and supporting a rural character along Old Brock Road in Claremont. Sited on the northern edge of the village, the property’s agricultural landscape forms the backdrop to the late-19th century village fabric. Description of Heritage Attributes Key attributes that express the property’s value as a representative example of an historic Ontario farmstead: • Farmhouse, set back from and oriented towards Old Brock Road, with front-yard mature trees; • Paired barn and silo, located to the north of the farmhouse; • Grouping of silos near the centre of the site, accessed by a drive lane; and - 161 - 25ISSuED: 9 DECEMBER 2022 • Rear fields. Key attributes that express the value of the farmhouse as a fine representative example of an early-20th century American Foursquare farmhouse, with eclectic architectural and landscape features: • Scale, form and massing of the two-storey house, with its square plan and flat-topped hipped roof; • Wrap-around verandah, including the two-storey frontispiece, pedimented roof, and Tuscan columns; • Five-sided single-storey bay window, covered by the veran- dah; • Varied segmental-arch window openings; • Dormer windows and chimneys protruding from the attic; • Brick materials, laid in a stretcher bond pattern; • Raised cut-stone foundation; Key attributes that express the property’s value for its direct association with G.M. Forsyth: • Grandeur and scale of the farmhouse, distinguished by its wrap-around verandah and two-storey pedimented frontis- piece. • Siting of the farmhouse atop a landscaped pedestal, marked by a retaining wall and split staircase. • Semi-circular front driveway lined with mature trees. Key attributes that express the property’s value in defining, maintaining, and supporting the rural character of Old Brock Road in Claremont: • Its location on the east side of Old Brock Road, just north of the village of Claremont; • Views of the farmhouse, barn, and silos across fields from Old Brock Road; and • Mature front-yard trees, fields, and scrub along the Old Brock Road frontage. - 162 - 26 HERITAGE IMPACT ASSESSMENT | 5113 OLD BROCK ROAD, CLAREMONT 4 aSSESSmEnt of ExiSting condition DEFINITION OF TERMS The building components were graded using the following assessment system: Excellent: Superior aging performance. Functioning as intended; no deterioration observed. Good: Normal Result. Functioning as in- tended; normal deterioration observed; no maintenance anticipated within the next five years. Fair: Functioning as intended. Normal deterioration and minor distress observed; maintenance will be required within the next three to five years to maintain func- tionality. Poor: Not functioning as intended; sig- nificant deterioration and distress ob- served; maintenance and some repair required within the next year to restore functionality. Defective: Not functioning as intended; significant deterioration and major dis- tress observed, possible damage to sup- port structure; may present a risk; must be dealt with immediately. ERA performed a visual inspection of the property in September 2022. All observations were carried out from grade. Inspections were limited to visible exterior envelope features such as the brick facade, brick piers, stone foundation, brick chimney, windows, doors, wood porch, wood dormers, wood soffits, asphalt shingles, flashings, rainwater management systems (gutters and downspouts), and the masonry retaining wall. The roof areas of the buildings were not accessible at the time of the inspection. The review does not include interior spaces, structural, mechanical, electrical or plumbing systems/elements. Farmhouse Overall, the exterior of the farmhouse appears to be in fair to poor condition. The exterior facade is clad in red brick (stretcher bond), which appears to be in fair condition, with some areas of poor condition showing step cracking, damaged bricks, mortar loss, efflorescence, and staining. The brick porch piers appear to be in fair condition with areas of poor condition showing efflorescence, mortar loss, step cracking, and brick delamination. The brick chimneys appear to be in fair condition with some efflorescence. The stone foundation appears to be in good condition. The ground and second floor wood porch appears to be in poor condition with areas of wood rot, damage, delaminated and missing floor boards and soffit boards, damaged fascia boards, paint flaking, and deformation of the second floor porch structure. The wood porch stairs appear to be poor condition with areas of defective condition showing wood rot, delaminated wood, deformation, and biological staining. The wood dormers appear to be in fair condition and have been overclad with vinyl siding. The windows and doors appear to be modern inserts which are in good condition. The black asphalt shingles appear to be in poor to fair condition, with areas of poor condition showing curling and missing shingles. The wood fascia and soffits appear to be in fair condition, with areas of poor condition showing paint flaking, wood cracks, and unsympathetic repairs. Farmhouse porch condition (ERA, 2022). - 163 - 27ISSuED: 9 DECEMBER 2022 The existing metal flashing, gutters, and downspouts appear to be in fair condition, with some areas of poor condition showing biological staining and vegetation growth in the gutters (requiring cleaning). The masonry retaining wall appears to be in poor condition, with areas of defective condition where the masonry has cracked, delaminated, and shifted. Barn Overall, the barn building exterior appears to be in poor condition. The concrete foundation appears to be in fair condition, with areas of poor condition showing step cracking and material delamination. The wood siding appears to be in poor to fair condition, with some areas of defective condition where there is missing and damaged siding. The existing window and door openings have been boarded up and were not reviewed. The existing metal roof appears to be in poor condition, with areas of rusting and deformed metal. The existing metal flashing, gutters, and downspouts appear to be in defective condition with areas of missing, damaged, and deformed gutters and downspouts. Retaining wall condition (ERA, 2022). Barn foundation condition (ERA, 2022). - 164 - 28 HERITAGE IMPACT ASSESSMENT | 5113 OLD BROCK ROAD, CLAREMONT Looking east towards the farmhouse from Old Brock Road. Note the semi-circular driveway, mature trees, and retaining wall (ERA, 2022). View of the farmhouse (ERA, 2022). - 165 - 29ISSuED: 9 DECEMBER 2022 Farmhouse, west elevation (ERA, 2022). Farmhouse, west elevation and retaining wall (ERA, 2022). - 166 - 30 HERITAGE IMPACT ASSESSMENT | 5113 OLD BROCK ROAD, CLAREMONT Farmhouse, north elevation (ERA, 2022). Farmhouse, south elevation (ERA, 2022). - 167 - 31ISSuED: 9 DECEMBER 2022 Farmhouse, east elevation (ERA, 2022). - 168 - 32 HERITAGE IMPACT ASSESSMENT | 5113 OLD BROCK ROAD, CLAREMONT Barn, south elevation (ERA, 2022). - 169 - 33ISSuED: 9 DECEMBER 2022 Barn, west elevation (ERA, 2022). Barn, east elevation (ERA, 2022). - 170 - 34 HERITAGE IMPACT ASSESSMENT | 5113 OLD BROCK ROAD, CLAREMONT Barn, north elevation (ERA, 2022). - 171 - 35ISSuED: 9 DECEMBER 2022 Silo, beside barn (ERA, 2022). - 172 - 36 HERITAGE IMPACT ASSESSMENT | 5113 OLD BROCK ROAD, CLAREMONT Silos, at centre of Site (ERA, 2022). - 173 - 37ISSuED: 9 DECEMBER 2022 View of the silos from Old Brock Road (ERA, 2022). Looking north on Old Brock Road from the Site (ERA, 2022). - 174 - 38 HERITAGE IMPACT ASSESSMENT | 5113 OLD BROCK ROAD, CLAREMONT Looking north on Old Brock Road from the Site (ERA, 2022). Looking south on Old Brock Road from the Site (ERA, 2022). - 175 - 39ISSuED: 9 DECEMBER 2022 5 dEScription of thE propoSEd dEvElopmEnt The proposed development involves the full retention of the existing farmhouse within a new residential subdivision, including 71 lots for detached dwellings, new public roads, a new public park, open space buffers, and two stormwater management facilities. Franklin Street, which currently terminates at the south property line, will be extended north to Lane Street through the Site. A new street (currently “Street A”) is proposed to the north of the farmhouse, providing vehicular and pedestrian access to the subdivision from Old Brock Road. To accommodate new residential lots (nos. 27, 29, and 30), the existing barn and silos are proposed to be removed. The farmhouse will be retained in-situ on a dedicated lot (no. 71), surrounded by green space, with minimal regrading along the north lot line and a replacement septic bed to the south of the farmhouse. It will be set back from its new north, east, and south property lines by 24 metres, 19 metres, and 36 metres, respectively. The existing 37-metre setback from Old Brock Road will be maintained, along with the semi-circular driveway, mature trees, and retaining wall in front of the farmhouse. The northernmost driveway access of the semi-circular driveway may be relocated to Street A, due to its close proximity to the new intersection, however the southernmost access will remain in its existing location. At the northeast corner of the lot, a new detached garage is proposed. Per the terms of the Site’s sale agreement, Lot 71 will remain in the ownership of the previous owner of the full development site. North of Lot 71, three new proposed residential lots will have frontage onto Old Brock Road (lots 30, 11 and 1). Per the terms of a mediated settlement with the City of Pickering, these lots are proposed to be separated and sheltered from Old Brock Road via a 1.8-metre wood privacy fence and continuous white spruce hedgerow. Further, these new houses will be subject to specific architectural control guidelines, which are currently being developed by the proponent’s architectural team. - 176 - 40 HERITAGE IMPACT ASSESSMENT | 5113 OLD BROCK ROAD, CLAREMONT Preliminary servicing plan for the Site, showing the location of the farmhouse, to be retained, and barn/silos, to be removed (SCS Consulting Group). Farmhouse (to be retained)Barn (to be removed)Silos (to be removed) - 177 - 41ISSuED: 9 DECEMBER 2022 Preliminary servicing plan for the Site, showing the proposed layout of the subdivision. The farmhouse lot, Lot 71, is highlighted in blue (SCS Consulting Group; annotated by ERA). - 178 - 42 HERITAGE IMPACT ASSESSMENT | 5113 OLD BROCK ROAD, CLAREMONT 6 impact aSSESSmEnt Below is the framework provided by the Province for assessing negative impacts to a cultural heritage resource. Negative impact on a cultural heritage resource include, but are not limited to: Destruction of any, or part of any, sig- nificant heritage attributes or features; Alteration that is not sympathetic, or is incompatible, with the historic fabric and appearance; Shadows created that alter the appear- ance of a heritage attribute or change the viability of a natural feature or plantings, such as a garden; Isolation of a heritage attribute from its surrounding environment, context or a significant relationship; Direct or indirect obstruction of signifi- cant views or vistas within, from, or of built and natural features; A change in land use such as rezoning a battlefield from open space to residential use, allowing new development or site al- teration to fill in the formerly open spaces; Land disturbances such as a change in grade that alters soils, and drainage patterns that adversely affect an archaeo- logical resource. (Ontario Heritage Toolkit). The Site is not listed on the City’s Heritage Register, or designated under Section 29, Part IV of the OHA. Based on historical research, our evaluation finds that the Site meets the O. Reg. 9/06 Criteria for design/physical, historical/associative, and contextual value. ERA has thus prepared a draft Statement of Significance to accompany the Site’s recommended designation under Part IV of the OHA. The proposed development anticipates the following impacts to the Site’s cultural heritage value, as identified in ERA’s draft Statement of Significance: • Removal of the barn and silos to accommodate new resi- dential lots: the barn and silos, both of which contribute to the Site’s value as a representative historic Ontario farmstead and are identified as heritage attributes, are both proposed to be removed in service of the proposed new subdivision neighbourhood; • Isolation of the farmhouse from its agricultural context on the Site: the proposed development anticipates the erection of a suburban community on the historic farm, which repre- sents the disconnection of the farmhouse building from its historic rural context, and the reduction of its lot size to 0.51 hectares; • New construction in the immediate vicinity of the farm- house, including new houses on estate size lots, a detached garage, a replacement septic bed, and a new road: the influx of new development presents an impact on the extant resource’s legibility as an historic farmhouse and its promi- nence as an historic resource; and • Alteration of the Site’s existing rural landscape and topog- raphy along Old Brock Road: the Site’s cultural heritage value as a representative Ontario farmstead is communicated in part by the expansive rural landscape along the east side of Old Brock Road. Alterations to this landscape are proposed, including the addition of four new residential lots fronting Old Brock Road, the development of the expansive land- scape beyond them, and the installation of a suburban-style 1.8-metre wood privacy fence and continuous hedgerow along the Old Brock Road Site boundary. - 179 - 43ISSuED: 9 DECEMBER 2022 The potential impacts identified on the previous page are proposed to be partially mitigated through the strategy recommended in Section 7 of this report, which includes various landscape and design measures. As an individual heritage resource, the farmhouse will not be adversely impacted by the proposed development. All of its draft heritage attributes will be conserved, including the existing front-yard setback and views of the farmhouse from Old Brock Road. Although a minimal change in grade is proposed (up to 0.60m) – with an upward slope towards the north lot line and a gradual decline as it nears the west lot line – it is not anticipated that any landscape features will be impacted. The realignment of the semi-circular driveway’s northernmost entrance constitutes a neutral impact to the Site’s cultural heritage value. With respect to the proposed septic bed south of the farmhouse, the size and geometry will be confirmed at the building permit application stage, at which point efforts will be made to retain any trees within its vicinity, and in particular to retain trees that obscure views of the septic bed from the front lawn and from Old Brock Road. Any trees requiring removal will be replaced. - 180 - 44 HERITAGE IMPACT ASSESSMENT | 5113 OLD BROCK ROAD, CLAREMONT 7 conSidErEd altErnativES and mitigation StratEgiES The potential impacts of the proposed development on the Site’s cultural heritage value are proposed to be partially mitigated through the implementation of a buffer zone around the retained farmhouse, and a recommended design and landscape strategy for new development, which would interpret the Site’s rural character. It is recommended that the mitigation strategies be incorporated and finalized through the Detailed Design stage. Impact: removal of the barn and silos The barn and silos are proposed to be removed to accommodate new residential lots. To mitigate this impact, it is recommended that the barn’s wood materials be salvaged for future reuse, either as part of an on-site installation or as an off-site contribution to other local historic barn structures, to be determined as the design/development process advances. Impact: isolation of the farmhouse from its agricultural context To mitigate the impact of the farmhouse’s isolation from its sprawling agricultural context, a green buffer zone has been maintained around the farmhouse. The farmhouse will be retained in-situ on a dedicated lot, with generous setbacks from the north, east, and south properties lines (24 metres, 19 metres, and 36 metres). The existing setback from Old Brock Road will be conserved, along with the semi-circular driveway and mature front-yard trees. The northernmost driveway access of the semi-circular driveway may be relocated to Street A, due to its close proximity to the new intersection, however the southernmost access will remain in its existing location. In addition to creating a buffer zone around the retained heritage building, the setbacks will conserve the farmhouse’s historical relationship to Old Brock Road, in order to mitigate the impact of reducing the farmstead lot size. This is consistent with the policy direction set out in the City of Pickering’s Official Plan, which states “retain the original location and orientation of such [heritage] structures” (8.9 (a)). Impact: new construction in the immediate vicinity of the farmhouse To mitigate the impact of new neighbourhood construction in the immediate vicinity of the farmhouse, a set of specific architectural control guidelines are currently being developed for the new estate - 181 - 45ISSuED: 9 DECEMBER 2022 lots along Old Brock Road, which are proposed to incorporate a mix of traditional and contemporary styles, and materials like siding, stone and brick. It is ERA’s recommendation that the architectural control guidelines be expressly crafted to interpret and communicate rural / agricultural built character - particularly for the four houses flanking Old Brock Road north of the farmhouse, and for any other houses that would be considered adjacent to the farmhouse. This contemporary interpretation of rural built character might include simple box forms and gabled roof pitches, and siding as the predominant material, with contemporary masonry employed as an accent. It is recommended that the houses flanking Old Brock Road and any others adjacent to the farmhouse be designed to be contemporary in style, so that they reflect their own architectural era and allow the farmhouse to remain prominent and distinct as an historic resource. The new garage on the farmhouse lot is currently proposed to embody this approach, with a contemporary design and siting northeast of the house that references and interprets the historic barns on the farmstead (including the extant one currently proposed to be removed). ERA recommends interpretive design elements that may include wood double-doors for any garage bays, vertical board siding and a simple gabled roof pitch, as well as a colour palette that complements the farmhouse. With respect to the new road north of the farmhouse, it is anticipated that the entrance will be designed as a semi-urbanized right-of-way cross-section for the portion of Street A adjacent to the existing lot, which includes a narrowed pavement width (7m from 8.5m) and a ditch only on the south side of the roadway, to conserve its rural character. Other recommended strategies include alternatives to asphalt (e.g. interlocking paving), non-manicured green landscaping at the edges (e.g. bioswales), and trees (3-4) on either side of the street as it enters the subdivision. The proposed stormwater management pond on the north side of the new road, which provides landscaped buffer space between the farmhouse and its developed surroundings, is recommended to be designed with an explicitly rural character. Existing condition along the east side of Old Brock Road (ERA, 2022). - 182 - 46 HERITAGE IMPACT ASSESSMENT | 5113 OLD BROCK ROAD, CLAREMONT Impact: alteration of the Site’s existing rural landscape and topography along Old Brock Road The introduction of four new residential lots with flankage onto Old Brock Road (one south and three north of the farmhouse) will present an impact to the current expansive rural landscape context on the east side of Old Brock Road. There is a history of contemporary infill of the rural landscapes along Old Brock Road, for example in the mid-20th century when several new houses were built fronting onto the west side of the street, across from the Site. unlike the precedents along the west side, in this instance the redevelopment of the street’s east side is characterized by a suburban subdivision approach, which includes the orientation of houses flanking Old Brock Road to internal streets instead, and a 1.8-metre-high wood privacy fence and continuous white spruce hedgerow along the extent of Old Brock Road to screen the development from the street. In order to address the impact of the conversion of Old Brock Road’s east side from a rural streetscape to a suburban neighbourhood, it is ERA’s recommendation that a mitigation strategy could include: • The location of the continuous white spruce hedgerow along the west side of the fence, to screen views of the suburban wood privacy fence from Old Brock Road; • Retention of the existing landscape character along Old Brock Road, including existing landscape features like random/ irregular scrub, tall fallow-field grasses, and existing trees where possible; • Low, wood, rural-style fencing framing or marking the entrances into the subdivision streets; and • Contemporary interpretation of rural character for the build- ings flanking Old Brock Road, which might include simple box forms and gabled roof pitches, and siding as the predomi- nant material, with contemporary masonry employed as an accent. - 183 - 47ISSuED: 9 DECEMBER 2022 8 rEcommEndEd conSErvation StratEgy The proposed conservation approach is rehabilitation, including the introduction of 71 new residential lots to the Site, and the full retention of the 1916 farmhouse in-situ. A buffer zone is proposed around the farmhouse, with generous setbacks from the north, east, and south properties lines (24 metres, 19 metres, and 36 metres). The existing setback from Old Brock Road will be maintained, along with the front- yard mature trees, semi-circular driveway, and retaining wall. The farmhouse itself is proposed for preservation, maintaining its existing materials, form, and integrity while conserving its heritage value. The conservation approach is supported by a broader design and landscape strategy, which includes a recommended interpretive rural landscape strategy, and recommended design guidelines for the new houses along Old Brock Road. These strategies, which are informed by the historic Ontario Farmstead typology, are intended to respond to the Site’s rural character, while making new work “physically and visually compatible with, subordinate to and distinguishable from the historic place” (Standards and Guidelines, pg.23). Given that the farmhouse lot will be retained by the previous landowner, it is recommended that the property owner address the following baseline conservation scope, identified in the condition assessment in Section 4, as part of normal maintenance and repairs on an ongoing basis: • Repair of wrap-around verandah; • Repair and replacement of exterior stairs and retaining wall; • Repair and replacement of roof materials, where necessary; • Replacement of windows to match original profiles; and • Masonry and stone cleaning, repair, and replacement where necessary. Rehabilitation: the action or process of making possible a continuing or com- patible contemporary use of an historic place, or an individual component, while protecting its heritage value. Restoration: the action or process of ac- curately revealing, recovering or repre- senting the state of an historic place, or of an individual component, as it appeared at a particular period in its history, while protecting its heritage value. Preservation: the action or process of protecting, maintaining, and/or stabi- lizing the existing materials, form, and integrity of a historic place or of an indi- vidual component, while protecting its heritage value. (Standards and Guidelines for the Con- servation of Historic Places in Canada) - 184 - 48 HERITAGE IMPACT ASSESSMENT | 5113 OLD BROCK ROAD, CLAREMONT 9 concluSion and rEcommEndationS The Site is comprised of a farmstead property, including a farmhouse, barn, and four silos. Based on historical research, it is estimated that the farmhouse was built in 1916 by G.M. Forsyth, a prominent municipal leader and farmer in Claremont. Our evaluation finds that the property meets the O. Reg. 9/06 Criteria for design/physical, historical/associative, and contextual value. As such, the property is a candidate for designation under Part IV, Section 29 of the OHA. The proposed development involves the full retention of the farmhouse in-situ within a new residential subdivision, including 71 lots for detached dwellings. A buffer zone is proposed around the retained farmhouse, with generous setbacks from the north, east, and south properties lines. The existing setback from Old Brock Road will be maintained, along with the front-yard mature trees and semi-circular driveway. All of the identified heritage attributes relating to the farmhouse, as an individual component of the farmstead, will be conserved. The potential negative impacts of the proposed development are proposed to be partially mitigated through the implementation of a buffer zone around the retained farmhouse, and a recommended design and landscape strategy for new development, which would interpret the Site’s rural character. This would include design guidelines for the new houses along Old Brock Road, and an interpretive rural landscape strategy. Overall, the proposed development balances the planning and heritage objectives for the Site, in accordance with relevant provincial and municipal heritage policies, and the recognized professional standards in the field of heritage conservation in Canada. - 185 - 49ISSuED: 9 DECEMBER 2022 appEndix a: projEct pErSonnEl Philip Evans OAA, MRAIC, ICOMOS, CAHP is a Principal at ERA and the founder of Culture of Outports and small. Over the course of 17 years working in the field of heritage conservation, he has led a wide range of conservation, adaptive reuse, design, and feasibility planning projects. Samantha Irvine JD, ICOMOS, CAHP is a Senior Associate with the heritage planning team at ERA, where she has overseen projects that impact culturally significant buildings, neighbourhoods and landscapes since 2015. She holds a BA in History and Sociology from McGill university (Great Distinction); MA degrees in Historical & Sustainable Architecture (NYu) and Sustainable urbanism (Wales); and a JD from Queen’s university. She is a member of the Ontario Bar Association and a former Fellow of Sustainable urbanism with the Prince’s Foundation in London, England. Emma Abramowicz CAHP is a Planner and Senior Project Manager at ERA Architects. She holds a BAH in History from Queen’s university, and a Master of Planning from Ryerson university. Her prior experience includes public-sector heritage work in Ontario and Alberta, including heritage planning and urban design in the Town of Banff, AB. Jamie Glasspool is a Heritage Planner at ERA Architects, specializing in historical research and analysis. He holds a Bachelor of Arts in urban Studies from McGill university, where he also completed a semester abroad at the university of Manchester. - 186 - 50 HERITAGE IMPACT ASSESSMENT | 5113 OLD BROCK ROAD, CLAREMONT appEndix B: liSt of SourcES Archives of Ontario. (n.d.). Assessment rolls 1901-1924 for Pickering Township. Claremont past and present. (1938). https://corporate.pickering.ca/PLHCWebLink/ElectronicFile.aspx?docid=171071&dbid=0 Claremont Women’s Institute. (n.d.). Tweedsmuir history. https://corporate.pickering.ca/PLHCWebLink/ElectronicFile.aspx?docid=171298&dbid=0 Gauslin, L. M. (1974). From paths to planes: a story of the Claremont area. https://corporate.pickering.ca/PLHCWebLink/ElectronicFile.aspx?docid=171275&dbid=0 Ian Macpherson Associates. (1978). Claremont secondary plan study heritage inventory. https://corporate.pickering.ca/PLHCWebLink/ElectronicFile.aspx?docid=171187&dbid=0 Library and Archives Canada. (n.d.). Census 1901, 1911, 1921. https://www.bac-lac.gc.ca/eng/census/Pages/census.aspx McGill university. (2001). Canadian county atlas digital project. https://digital.library.mcgill.ca/countyatlas/ Miller, R. A. (1973). The Ontario village of Brougham. The Alger Press Limited. https://corporate.pickering.ca/PLHCWebLink/ElectronicFile.aspx?docid=169099&dbid=0 Ontario Land Registry. (n.d.). Abstract index for concession 9 lot 18, Pickering Township. https://www.onland.ca/ui/40/books/search. https://www.onland.ca/ui/40/books/search Pickering Library. (n.d.). Local history collection digital archive. https://corporate.pickering.ca/PLHCWebLink/Welcome.aspx university of Toronto. (n.d.). Ontario historical county map project. https://utoronto.maps.arcgis.com/apps/webappviewer/index.html? - 187 - 51ISSuED: 9 DECEMBER 2022 appEndix c: hEritagE policy rEviEw The following policy documents were reviewed in the preparation of this report: • Parks Canada Standards and Guidelines for the Conservation of Historic Places in Canada (Second Edition); • The Ontario Heritage Tool Kit; • Provincial Policy Statement (2020); • A Place to Grow: Growth Plan for the Greater Golden Horse- shoe (2019); • Ontario Heritage Act (R.S.O. 1990); • Durham Regional Official Plan (consolidated 2020); and • City of Pickering Official Plan, Edition 9 (consolidated 2022). Provincial Policy Statement (2020) The PPS guides the creation and implementation of planning policy across Ontario municipalities, and provides a framework for the conservation of heritage resources, including the following relevant policies: 2.6.1 Significant built heritage resources and significant cultural heritage landscapes shall be conserved. 2.6.3 Planning authorities shall not permit development and site alteration on adjacent lands to protected heritage property except where the proposed development and site alteration has been evaluated and it has been demonstrated that the heritage attributes of the protected heritage property will be conserved. A Place to Grow: Growth Plan for the Greater Golden Horseshoe (2020) The Growth Plan, 2019 is the Province of Ontario’s initiative to plan for growth and development in a way that supports economic prosperity, protects the environment, and helps communities achieve a high quality of life. Section 1.2.1 of Guiding Principles includes: Conserve and promote cultural heritage resources to support the social, economic, and cultural well-being of all communities, including First Nations and Métis communities. 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 conserva- tion 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 can be included in these plans and as- sessments (PPS, 2020). - 188 - 52 HERITAGE IMPACT ASSESSMENT | 5113 OLD BROCK ROAD, CLAREMONT With the objective of “protecting what is valuable”, Section 4.2.7 of the Growth Plan (2020) states: 1. Cultural heritage resources will be conserved in order to foster a sense of place and benefit communities, particularly in strategic growth areas. Durham Regional Official Plan (2020) Section 2 of the Durham Regional Official Plan relates to the environment and provides the goal “to preserve and foster the attributes of communities and the historic and cultural heritage of the Region”. Cultural heritage policies include: 2.2.11 The conservation, protection and/or enhancement of Durham’s built and cultural heritage resources is encouraged. 2.3.49 Regional Council shall encourage Councils of the area municipalities to utilize the Ontario Heritage Act to conserve, protect and enhance the built and cultural heritage resources of the municipality, to establish Municipal Heritage Committees to consult regarding matters relating to built and cultural heritage resources planning and, the designation of heritage conservation districts and properties as provided for in the Ontario Heritage Act. City of Pickering Official Plan (2022) Chapter 8 of the Pickering Official Plan addresses cultural heritage, stating that “City Council shall respect its cultural heritage, and conserve and integrate important cultural heritage resources from all time periods into the community” (Policy 8.1). The following heritage policies are relevant to the Site: 8.8 City Council, in consultation with its heritage committee, shall: (c) discourage or prevent the demolition or inappropriate alteration of a heritage resource, but where demolition or inappropriate alteration is unavoidable: (i) consider the acquisition and conservation of the resource; and (ii) if acquisition is not possible, conduct a thorough review and documentation of the resource for archival purposes; - 189 - 53ISSuED: 9 DECEMBER 2022 8.9 City Council shall consider the following guidelines on the use and reuse of heritage resources: (a) maintain, if possible, the original use of heritage structures and sites, and if possible, retain the original location and orientation of such structures; (b) where original uses cannot be maintained, support the adaptive reuse of heritage structures and sites to encourage resource conservation; Although not directly applicable to the Site, it should be noted that the Site borders the Hamlet of Claremont, a Rural Settlement identified in Chapter 13 of the Official Plan. Cultural heritage policies include: 13.12 City Council shall: (a) encourage opportunities for enhancing the historic village of Claremont through general or site specific zoning that allows the introduction of arts and craft studios, custom workshops and small-scale commercial enterprises on suitable sites, providing the historic character of the village and the interests of neighbouring residents are respected; - 190 - 54 HERITAGE IMPACT ASSESSMENT | 5113 OLD BROCK ROAD, CLAREMONT appEndix d: clarEmont SEcondary plan Study hEritagE invEntory (1978) - 191 - PAGE 1 OF 11 ERA Architects Inc. #600-625 Church St Toronto ON, M4Y 2G1 Subject:HERITAGE IMPACT ASSESSMENT ADDENDUM Issued To:City of Pickering (Development Department) 1 The Esplanade, Pickering, ON L1V 6K7 tel: 905-420-4660 ext. 2035 Memo #:2 Project:5113 Old Brock Road, Claremont Project #: 21-332-02 Prepared By:Emma Abramowicz, Jamie Glasspool Date Issued: June 14, 2023 5113 OLD BROCK ROAD HIA ADDENDUM This Heritage Impact Assessment (“HIA”) Addendum has been prepared by ERA Architects Inc. (“ERA”), on behalf of Geranium Claremont Inc. (“Geranium”), to supplement the HIA for the proposed development at 5113 Old Brock Road (the “Site”). The proposed development includes 71 lots for detached dwellings (including one lot for the retained farmhouse), new public roads, a new public park, open space buffers, and two stormwater management facilities. A Zoning By-Law Amendment application and Draft Plan of Subdivision application were made by Geranium and approved at the Ontario Land Tribunal (“OLT”) in August, 2022, subject to the conditions of the Draft Plan of Subdivision approval outlined in the Minutes of Settlement, which required an HIA as a condition of approval. An HIA was prepared by ERA and submitted to the City of Pickering (the “City”) on December 9, 2022. The City’s peer reviewer, Heritage Studio, provided comments on the HIA to Geranium Claremont Inc. on March 3, 2023. In accordance with the recommendations of the peer review, this addendum supplements the HIA to include: • The identification of negative impacts to views/vistas in accordance with the Ontario Heritage Tool Kit; and • A discussion of considered alternatives as explained in Section 2.5 of this letter and/or an acknowledgment of why considered alternatives were not included or dismissed. Additionally, this addendum provides recommendations for the interpretive rural landscape strategy and architectural control guidelines, as requested by the City of Pickering. Background Research and Analysis The peer review includes the following comments on the background research and analysis section: • The property description in Section 1.3 dates the barn’s construction from early to mid-20th century. Based on the property research provided, it seems more plausible that the existing barn dates to approximately 1896. The HIA notes that the foundation is cement but given that no interior inspection of the barn was completed, it is possible that the foundation is stonework that has been parged with a cement-based mortar. ERA has since conducted an interior site visit at the barn on March 14, 2023. Based on the findings of our site visit, it is unlikely that the barn dates to approximately 1896. While some lumber may have been salvaged from an earlier barn Attachment 3 to Report PLN 29-24 - 192 - PAGE 2 OF 11 ERA Architects Inc. #600-625 Church St Toronto ON, M4Y 2G1 structure, the foundation in the interior of the barn was found to be cement. This is supported by our discovery of an earlier stone foundation immediately east of the existing structure, which is more likely associated with the c. 1896 (or another earlier) barn structure. Cultural Heritage Value The peer review includes the following comments on the cultural heritage value section: • I agree with the identified cultural heritage values but would consider the inclusion of two additional contextual values. The property has contextual value because it: ii. is physically, functionally, visually or historically linked to its surroundings. iii. is a landmark. Upon further review, ERA concurs that the property meets the criteria identified in the peer review. Below is a summary of the Site’s cultural heritage value, updating the Ontario Regulation 9/06 Analysis on page 21 of the HIA to include two additional elements of value: • It has design value as a representative example of an historic Ontario farmstead, including a representative early- 20th century American Foursquare farmhouse. • It has historical/associative value for its direct association with G.M. Forsyth, a prominent municipal leader and farmer who is historically significant to the community of Claremont. • It has contextual value for defining, maintaining, and supporting a rural character along Old Brock Road in Claremont; for its physical, functional, visual, and historical links to its rural surroundings; and as a local landmark in Claremont. The additional contextual values are already expressed through the following draft heritage attributes included in the original HIA: • Its location on the east side of Old Brock Road, just north of the village of Claremont; • Views of the farmhouse, barn, and silos across fields from Old Brock Road. Cement foundation in barn interior (ERA, 14 March 2023). Earlier stone foundation to the east of the existing barn (ERA, 14 March 2023). - 193 - PAGE 3 OF 11 ERA Architects Inc. #600-625 Church St Toronto ON, M4Y 2G1 Proposed Development Although the proposed development remains substantially in accordance with the HIA submitted on December 9, 2022, the approach to the driveway alteration has been confirmed. This includes the creation of a new driveway entrance from Street A, connecting to the existing driveway north of the farmhouse, with the removal of the existing north entrance from Old Brock Road. The existing south entrance from Old Brock Road will be retained. Landscape plan showing the proposed driveway alteration (Schollen & Company, 2022; annotated by ERA). New driveway.Retained driveway.Removed driveway. - 194 - PAGE 4 OF 11 ERA Architects Inc. #600-625 Church St Toronto ON, M4Y 2G1 Impact Assessment The peer review includes the following comments on the impact assessment section: • The impact assessment identifies potential negative impacts to the property’s cultural heritage value as identified in the draft Statement of Significance. For the sake of clarity, this section should include “negative” as a descriptor for “impact”. • I agree with the identified negative impacts, which are succinctly described and, in some instances, would benefit from additional explanation/analysis. For example, the fourth impact notes that the Site’s cultural heritage value as a representative Ontario farmstead is communicated in part by the expansive rural landscape along the east side of Old Brock Road. I would argue that one of the most important elements of the Ontario farmstead is the expansive views and rural landscape character and that the change in land use (Ontario Heritage Tool Kit impact #7) is less of an “alteration” and more of an absolute negative impact. • Lastly, they have not identified the following potential negative impact from the Ontario Heritage Tool Kit: Direct or indirect obstruction of significant views or vistas within, from, or of built and natural features [...] An analysis of potential adverse impacts to identified views/vistas in the draft Statement of Significance should be included in the HIA report. Accordingly, it is anticipated that the proposed development will have the following negative impacts on the Site’s cultural heritage value and attributes: • Removal of the barn and silos to accommodate new residential lots: the barn and silos, both of which contribute to the Site’s value as a representative historic Ontario farmstead and are identified as heritage attributes, are both proposed to be removed in service of the proposed new subdivision neighbourhood; • Isolation of the farmhouse from its agricultural context on the Site: the proposed development anticipates the erection of a suburban community on the historic farm, which represents the disconnection of the farmhouse building from its historic rural context, and the reduction of its lot size to 0.51 hectares; • New construction in the immediate vicinity of the farmhouse, including new houses on estate size lots, a detached garage, a replacement septic bed, and a new road: the influx of new development presents a negative impact on the extant resource’s legibility as an historic farmhouse and its prominence as an historic resource; and • Change in land use allowing the redevelopment of the Site’s rural landscape along Old Brock Road: the Site’s cultural heritage value as a representative Ontario farmstead is communicated in part by the expansive rural landscape along the east side of Old Brock Road. This landscape will be transformed through the addition of four new residential lots fronting Old Brock Road, the development of the expansive landscape beyond them, and the installation of a suburban-style 1.8-metre wood privacy fence and continuous hedgerow along the Old Brock Road Site boundary. • Direct obstruction of significant views of the farmhouse, barn, and silos across fields from Old Brock Road: while the farmhouse will remain visible from Old Brock Road, the introduction of new houses and a 1.8 metre wood privacy fence directly obstructs the view of the farmhouse looking southeast across fields from Old Brock Road (see photo on following page). The removal of the barn and silos will also alter these significant views and constitutes a negative impact to these views. - 195 - PAGE 5 OF 11 ERA Architects Inc. #600-625 Church St Toronto ON, M4Y 2G1 View of the farmhouse and barn, looking southeast across fields from Old Brock Road; a future residential lot with a subdivision fence (ERA, 14 March 2023). View of the barn and silos, looking west across fields from Old Brock Road; a future residential lot with a subdivision fence (ERA, 14 March 2023). - 196 - PAGE 6 OF 11 ERA Architects Inc. #600-625 Church St Toronto ON, M4Y 2G1 Mitigation Strategies The peer review includes the following comments on the mitigation strategies: • The HIA report recommends either reuse of the wood material as part of an on-site installation or off-site as a contribution to other local historic barn structures. On-site installation is recommended as this would provide an opportunity to reinterpret the property’s agricultural history either at one of the entrances to the subdivision or within the public park space. Furthermore, how and where the salvaged wood will be stored for the future reinstallation as part of landscape strategy should be identified. • The property (farmhouse, barn, silos and setting) should be photographically documented prior to development, including earth works, and the photographs and ERA’s HIA report should be deposited at the Pickering Public Library archives. ERA visited to the Site on March 14, 2023 to document the barn, silos, and earthworks (i.e. earlier stone foundation) prior to the issuance of a demolition permit for these structures. A documentation and salvage strategy was issued to the City of Pickering on March 22, 2023, which provides documentation photographs and the recommended strategy for salvaging materials for future reuse on-Site, including how and where the salvaged wood will be stored. The documentation photographs (dated March 14, 2023) are complemented by the photographs taken as part of the HIA. The peer review includes the following additional recommendations: View of the silos, looking west across fields from Old Brock Road (ERA, 21 September 2022). - 197 - PAGE 7 OF 11 ERA Architects Inc. #600-625 Church St Toronto ON, M4Y 2G1 I recommend that as part of the ongoing development approvals process, the heritage consultant prepare and submit a scoped Conservation Plan to City Heritage Staff that further develops and details: • The interpretive rural landscape strategy (including on-site installation and interpretation of the salvaged barn, trees and plantings, fencing, street naming, etc.). • ERA’s recommended architectural guidelines for houses constructed on lots adjacent to the historic farmhouse. As these recommendations constitute impact mitigation measures, rather than technical conservation scope, they have been included instead in this HIA Addendum. A scoped Conservation Plan is recommended to follow to address the technical conservation scope for the farmhouse property. ERA has prepared a set of recommendations to (i) facilitate the conservation of the remaining farmhouse and landscape on Lot 71; and (ii) conserve (as far as possible), reference and interpret the historic rural landscape character along Old Brock Road, at Claremont’s north end. The recommendations are organized into three directive areas: a. Building Design b. Landscape Design c. Additional Heritage Interpretation Building Design While the following Building Design recommendations could be appropriate to the full subdivision, they are only recommended for the lots (a) along Old Brock Road and (b) adjacent to Lot 71. This includes Lots 1, 11, 29, 30, 31, 32. These recommendations should also be applied to any new construction on Lot 71, e.g. a garage. The recommendations are based on the direction in the Standards and Guidelines for the Conservation of Historic Places in Canada, notably Standard 11, which speaks to new construction on or adjacent to a heritage property. 1. Retain the farmhouse’s prominence and legibility as a distinct historic resource. • Avoid red brick as a building material. • Avoid hipped roofs, or mansard roofs. The farmhouse’s hipped roof should be allowed to remain prominent, with the use of gabled roofs elsewhere. • Consider lower-scaled buildings on lots adjacent to Lot 71. • Use simple architectural expression, with classic gabled roof forms and limited ornamentation, particularly on lots adjacent to Lot 71. 2. Convey the historic character of Old Brock Road through buildings that reference the site’s history as a farm and the area’s history as a rural village. • Convey estate-style character and luxury through substantial living space and high-quality design materials, rather than through expressions of “traditional style” or excessive ornamentation. • Use gabled roofs throughout the neighbourhood, a typical farmstead roof form with an established tradition of contemporary architectural interpretation on rural properties. Avoid hipped roofs and mansard roofs. - 198 - PAGE 8 OF 11 ERA Architects Inc. #600-625 Church St Toronto ON, M4Y 2G1 • Design buildings with simple forms, including simple rectilinear windows with limited mullions and restrained sills and lintels. • Use natural materials to reference the site’s history as a farmstead, including siding, wood cladding, and clay brick. High-quality stone masonry is recommended to be used primarily as an accent material. Use of stucco should be limited. 3. Distinguish new buildings from the historic farmhouse by designing them to be contemporary, in the architecture of their own time. • Avoid “traditional styles” that reflect earlier eras of architectural design. • Avoid expressive architectural ornamentation or detailing. • Contribute to the streetscape of buildings of various eras along Old Brock Road, rather than trying to reference or replicate an earlier era or style. Landscape Design The following Landscape Design recommendations are intended to support the conservation and legibility of the house on Lot 71 as an historic farmhouse, and to conserve the historic valued rural character along Old Brock Road as far as will be possible, given the forthcoming subdivision development. 1. Retain all extant landscape character on Lot 71, and replace in kind if required. Elements include: • Semi-circular driveway lined with regular coniferous trees; driveway entrance may be altered for access off Street A as long as the semi-circular shape is retained; • Retaining wall; • Green buffers at the south and east edges of the lot, on the boundaries with what will become Lots 31 and 32; • Green lawns; • Gravel paving where driveways or car parking are required. 2. Establish a rural character at the entrance to Street A off Old Brock Road, with naturalized landscape elements including swales, trees, and informally arranged plants. 3. The proponent and the City of Pickering are encouraged to collaborate to ensure an irregular, rural-style landscape design character along the full edge of Old Brock Road, through some combination of the following strategies: • Retain as much of the existing scrub, trees and plants along Old Brock Road as possible. • Select a series of native plants to use in the new landscape along Old Brock Road. • Avoid a polished character when designing the initial subdivision landscape along Old Brock Road. Use irregular plantings of varying scales, rather than green lawns. • Use grasses, plants and trees to screen and frame views of new houses along Old Brock Road, on Lots 1, 11, 30 and 31. • Distinguish the treatment in Old Brock Road flankage of Lots 1, 11, 30 and 31 from the front-yard treatment of the - 199 - PAGE 9 OF 11 ERA Architects Inc. #600-625 Church St Toronto ON, M4Y 2G1 extant farmhouse on Lot 71. The new residential lots should be less street-facing, more screened, and read as less prominent along Old Brock Road. • Diversify the fencing where it is required on properties along Old Brock Road. Fencing should employ different styles, different stains or paints, and slightly different scales to convey the appearance of a neighbourhood developed over time. The City of Pickering is recommended to permit flexibility in the design of fencing to facilitate this approach. 4. Support the conservation on Lot 71 through an interpretive rural landscape treatment on Lots 29, 30, 32 and 73 (SWM Pond) on their Street A frontage. • Employ native plants of varying scales along the Street A edge; • Use informal permeable paving (e.g. gravel if possible) for driveways and car parking; • Consider using hedgerows or landscaping to screen the chain-linked fence at the edge of the SWM Pond on Lot 73. Additional Heritage Interpretation The Building Design and Landscape Design strategies above are recommended to be supported by the following heritage interpretation interventions which will help to communicate the history of the farmstead at 5113 Old Brock Road. 1. Employ the salvaged stone and wood from the former barns on site in the design of outdoor furniture structures in the neighbourhood park. Furniture structures may include seating, open-air shelters, or others. Designs should be subject to heritage consultant review. The City of Pickering is recommended to permit flexibility in its street furniture standards to facilitate this reuse of salvaged farmstead materials. 2. Consider opportunities for the design of an interpretive public-art installation using the salvaged stone and wood from the former barns on site. 3. Integrate the salvaged agricultural artifacts from the former barn / silos on site into an interpretive installation, likely in the neighbourhood park. Designs should be subject to heritage consultant review. 4. A heritage plaque is recommended to be installed in the neighbourhood park, or elsewhere within the neighbourhood’s public realm. The plaque should speak to the site’s history as a farmstead in the rural village north of Claremont’s core, it should identify the remnant farmhouse on Lot 71, and should identify the salvaged and reused materials. - 200 - PAGE 10 OF 11 ERA Architects Inc. #600-625 Church St Toronto ON, M4Y 2G1 Considered Alternatives The peer review includes the following comments on considered alternatives: • The HIA does not provide a description of considered alternatives. Given the report’s emphasis on the cultural heritage value of the historic Ontario farmstead landscape, one would expect to see recommendations regarding alternative site layouts that would better conserve the identified cultural heritage values and attributes. The following alternative site layouts were considered to better conserve the Site’s cultural heritage value, but determined to be unfeasible in the context of the proposed development and other planning objectives for the Site. Option A (SWM pond along Old Brock Road): As part of an earlier subdivision layout, the location of the stormwater management (“SWM”) pond was considered along Old Brock Road adjacent to the retained farmhouse. In addition to providing the farmhouse with the greatest possible natural buffer, this would have helped to conserve the rural character of the Site’s Old Brock Road frontage, including the sense of openness and permeability. Ultimately, this option was assessed but determined to present drainage challenges that would impact properties on the west side of Old Brock Road, given the area’s topography. Option B (Park along Old Brock Road): Under a similar subdivision layout, the location of the park along Old Brock Road was explored. Like Option A, this would have provided additional natural buffer for the farmhouse, while helping to conserve the rural character of Old Brock Road. The current proposed location at the centre of the subdivision was selected for its proximity within the new neighbourhood, connections to the existing street network in Claremont (i.e. Franklin Street and Lane Street), and adjacency to small residential streets (as opposed to a major road). Option C (Lower Subdivision Fence): A lower subdivision fence could have been considered along Old Brock Road to reduce the negative impacts on the Site’s cultural heritage value, in particular the impact on the rural character of Old Brock Road. A subdivision fence adjacent to the west property line of Lots 1, 11, and 30 (i.e. on Old Brock Road), is required as a condition of draft plan approval. While the conditions do not specify a required fence height, the proposed 1.8 metres is consistent with the required height for fencing on other lots in the subdivision. The 1.8 metre height is also intended to provide privacy for the homeowners. To offset this impact, the proponent is exploring options to break up the fence and provide additional permeability, as opposed to an uninterrupted barrier. Option A: SWM pond along Old Brock Road, hightlighted in blue (Malone Given Parsons, 2018; annotated by ERA). - 201 - PAGE 11 OF 11 ERA Architects Inc. #600-625 Church St Toronto ON, M4Y 2G1 Recommended Conservation Strategy The peer review includes the following comments on the recommended conservation strategy section: • Given the number of negative impacts to the cultural heritage values and attributes (described in the draft Statement of Significance), the use of rehabilitation as a conservation approach is a misnomer. • This baseline conservation scope should not be considered “normal maintenance and repairs” as it includes relatively large-scale repair and restoration works. It is recommended that the existing owner (i.e., Claremont Development Inc.) undertake this scope of work as part of the development process. At this time, the primary conservation treatment is preservation of the 1916 farmhouse in-situ on a dedicated lot, with generous setbacks from the north, east, and south properties lines. This involves protecting and maintaining the existing materials, form, and integrity of the farmhouse, while conserving its heritage value. The conservation scope of work will be detailed in a future scoped Conservation Plan, with the work undertaken by Claremont Development Inc. as part of the development process. Please do not hesitate to contact the undersigned should you have any further questions regarding the contents of this HIA Addendum. Sincerely, Emma Abramowicz, Senior Project Manager ERA Architects Inc. - 202 - -City’s Website Version- Attachment 4 to Report PLN 29-24 Notice of Intent to Designate Property Of Cultural Heritage Value or Interest Take Notice that the Council of the City of Pickering intends to designate the following property as a property of cultural heritage value or interest under Part IV of the Ontario Heritage Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. 0.18 5113 Brock Road (Claremont) 40M2774 Pickering, Ontario Description of Property: 5113 Brock Road (Claremont) is located on the east side of Brock Road. The property is located at the northeastern edge of the former Village of Claremont, Pickering. Reason for Designation: Built in 1916, 5113 Brock Road (Claremont) is valued as a fine representative example of an early-twentieth century American Foursquare farmhouse. This is expressed through its square plan, two-storey scale, hipped roof, and varied design details, including the wrap-around verandah with its two-storey frontispiece. 5113 Brock Road (Claremont) has historical and associative value for its direct association with G.M. Forsyth, a historically significant municipal leader and farmer in Claremont. Forsyth held many major offices in Pickering Township and the Village of Claremont throughout his political career, culminating in his appointment as Warden of Ontario County in 1923. During his term as Reeve of Pickering Township, he was instrumental in bringing hydroelectric power to Claremont. This association is expressed through the grandeur of the farmhouse and its estate-style landscape treatment. 5113 Brock Road (Claremont) has contextual value for defining, maintaining, and supporting a rural character along Brock Road in Claremont. Sited on the northern edge of the village, the property’s agricultural landscape forms the backdrop to the late-nineteenth-century village fabric. Additionally, the property is considered a local landmark in Claremont. Any person may, within 30 days of the publication of this Notice, send by mail or deliver to the City Clerk, a notice of their objection to the proposed designation, together with a statement of reasons for the objection and all relevant facts. A copy of the Historical/Architectural Designation Report PLN 29-24 is available in the Clerks Division, Pickering Civic Complex, One The Esplanade, Monday to Friday, 8:30 am to 4:30 pm or by calling 905.420.4611 or by email at clerks@pickering.ca. DATED at the City of Pickering this XX day of XXXX, 2024 Susan Cassel, City Clerk City of Pickering One The Esplanade Pickering, ON L1V 6K7 - 203 - -Ontario Heritage Trust / Property Owner Version Attachment 5 to Report PLN 29-24 Notice of Intent to Designate Property Of Cultural Heritage Value or Interest Take Notice that the Council of the City of Pickering intends to designate the following property as a property of cultural heritage value or interest under Part IV of the Ontario Heritage Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. 0.18 5113 Brock Road (Claremont) 40M2774 Pickering, Ontario Description of Property: 5113 Brock Road (Claremont) is located on the east side of Brock Road. The property is located at the northeastern edge of the former Village of Claremont, Pickering. Reason for Designation: Built in 1916, 5113 Brock Road (Claremont) is valued as a fine representative example of an early-twentieth century American Foursquare farmhouse. This is expressed through its square plan, two-storey scale, hipped roof, and varied design details, including the wrap-around verandah with its two-storey frontispiece. 5113 Brock Road (Claremont) has historical and associative value for its direct association with G.M. Forsyth, a historically significant municipal leader and farmer in Claremont. Forsyth held many major offices in Pickering Township and the Village of Claremont throughout his political career, culminating in his appointment as Warden of Ontario County in 1923. During his term as Reeve of Pickering Township, he was instrumental in bringing hydroelectric power to Claremont. This association is expressed through the grandeur of the farmhouse and its estate-style landscape treatment. 5113 Brock Road (Claremont) has contextual value for defining, maintaining, and supporting a rural character along Brock Road in Claremont. Sited on the northern edge of the village, the property’s agricultural landscape forms the backdrop to the late-nineteenth-century village fabric. Additionally, the property is considered a local landmark in Claremont. Summary of Attributes for Designation: Key attributes that express the value of the farmhouse as a fine representative example of an early-twentieth century American Foursquare farmhouse, with eclectic architectural and landscape features are: •Scale, form and massing of the two-storey house, with its square plan and flat-topped hipped roof; •Wrap-around verandah, including the two-storey frontispiece, pedimented roof, andTuscan columns; •Five-sided single-storey bay window, covered by the verandah; •Varied segmental-arch window openings; •Dormer windows and chimneys protruding from the attic; - 204 - -Ontario Heritage Trust / Property Owner Version •Brick materials, laid in a stretcher bond pattern; •Semi-circular front driveway lined with mature trees; •Raised cut-stone foundation; •Its location on the east side of Brock Road, just north of the village of Claremont; •Farmhouse, set back from and oriented towards Brock Road, with front-yard maturetrees; •Siting of the farmhouse atop a landscaped pedestal, marked by a retaining wall andsplit staircase; and •Scrub along the Brock Road frontage. Any person may, within 30 days of the publication of this Notice, send by mail or deliver to the City Clerk, a notice of their objection to the proposed designation, together with a statement of reasons for the objection and all relevant facts. A copy of the Historical/Architectural Designation Report PLN 29-24 is available in the Clerks Division, Pickering Civic Complex, One The Esplanade, Monday to Friday, 8:30 am to 4:30 pm or by calling 905.420.4611 or by email at clerks@pickering.ca. DATED at the City of Pickering this XX day of XXXX, 2024 Susan Cassel, City Clerk City of Pickering One The Esplanade Pickering, ON L1V 6K7 - 205 - Attachment 6 to Report PLN 29-24 The Corporation of the City of Pickering By-law No. XXXX/24 Being a by-law that designates the lands legally described as Lot 17, Plan 40M-2774 (the “Forsyth House”) and municipally known as 5113 Brock Road (Claremont), Pickering, as being cultural heritage value or interest. Whereas the Ontario Heritage Act authorizes the Council of a municipality to enact a by-law to designate real property, including all buildings and structures thereon, to be of cultural heritage value or interest; and Whereas on XXXX XX, 2024, Council endorsed the recommendations of its Heritage Advisory Committee to designate 5113 Brock Road (Claremont) as being of cultural heritage value or interest; and Whereas the Reasons for Designation are set out in Schedule “A” to this by-law; and Whereas the Council of The Corporation of the City of Pickering has caused to be served on the owners of 5113 Brock Road (Claremont) and upon the Ontario Heritage Trust, Notice of Intention to designate the property and has caused the Notice of Intention to be published in a newspaper having general circulation in the municipality as requested by the Ontario Heritage Act; and Now therefore the Council of The Corporation of the City of Pickering enacts as follows: 1. The Forsyth House, known municipally as 5113 Brock Road (Claremont) is designated asbeing of cultural heritage value or interest for reasons set out in Schedule “A” attachedhereto. 2.The City Solicitor is hereby authorized to cause a copy of this by-law to be registered on title to 5113 Brock Road (Claremont) (the Forsyth House). 3.The City Clerk is authorized to cause a copy of this by-law to be served upon the ownersof 5113 Brock Road (Claremont) (the Forsyth House) and the Ontario Heritage Trust andto publish notice of this by-law on the City’s website, in accordance with City ofPickering’s Public Notice Policy ADM100. By-law passed on this XX of XXXX, 2024. ________________________________ Kevin Ashe, Mayor ________________________________ Susan Cassel, City Clerk - 206 - Schedule “A” By-law No. XXXX/24 Reasons for Designation Description of Property 5113 Brock Road (Claremont) is located on the east side of Brock Road. The property is located at the northeastern edge of the former Village of Claremont, Pickering. Reason for Designation Built in 1916, 5113 Brock Road (Claremont) is valued as a fine representative example of an early-twentieth century American Foursquare farmhouse. This is expressed through its square plan, two-storey scale, hipped roof, and varied design details, including the wrap-around verandah with its two-storey frontispiece. 5113 Brock Road (Claremont) has historical and associative value for its direct association with G.M. Forsyth, a historically significant municipal leader and farmer in Claremont. Forsyth held many major offices in Pickering Township and the Village of Claremont throughout his political career, culminating in his appointment as Warden of Ontario County in 1923. During his term as Reeve of Pickering Township, he was instrumental in bringing hydroelectric power to Claremont. This association is expressed through the grandeur of the farmhouse and its estate-style landscape treatment. 5113 Brock Road (Claremont) has contextual value for defining, maintaining, and supporting a rural character along Brock Road in Claremont. Sited on the northern edge of the village, the property’s agricultural landscape forms the backdrop to the late-nineteenth-century village fabric. Additionally, the property is considered a local landmark in Claremont. Description of Heritage Attributes Key attributes that highlight the value of the farmhouse as a fine representative example of an early-twentieth century American Foursquare farmhouse, featuring eclectic architectural and landscape elements, including: •Scale, form and massing of the two-storey house, with its square plan and flat-toppedhipped roof; •Wrap-around verandah, including the two-storey frontispiece, pedimented roof, andTuscan columns; •Five-sided single-storey bay window, covered by the verandah; •Varied segmental-arch window openings; •Dormer windows and chimneys protruding from the attic; •Brick materials, laid in a stretcher bond pattern; •Semi-circular front driveway lined with mature trees; •Raised cut-stone foundation; •Its location on the east side of Brock Road, just north of the village of Claremont; •Farmhouse, set back from and oriented towards Brock Road, with front-yard maturetrees; •Siting of the farmhouse atop a landscaped pedestal, marked by a retaining wall and splitstaircase; and •Scrub along the Brock Road frontage. - 207 -