Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMay 11, 2026  Statutory Public Meeting  under the Planning Act  Minutes  Electronic Meeting May 11, 2026 - 07:00 PM Chair: Councillor Cook Present: Councillor Cook C. Rose – Chief Planner N. Surti – Division Head, Development Review & Urban Design C. Celebre - Principal Planner, Strategic Initiatives A. Dunn - Principal Planner, Development ReviewI. Lima - Principal Planner, Development Review R. Perera - Deputy Clerk Call to Order   Councillor Cook, Chair, called the meeting to order and gave an overview of the requirements for a Statutory Public Meeting under the Planning Act. Councillor Cook outlined the order of matters under the Statutory Public Meeting section, as well as the notification process procedures and noted that if a specified person or public body as defined by the Planning Act, or the owner of land to which the Proposed Official Plan Amendment or Zoning By-law Amendment would apply, does not make oral or written submissions to the City before the By-law is passed, that person, public body, or owner of land would not be entitled to appeal the decision of City Council to the Ontario Land Tribunal (OLT). Councillor Cook acknowledged that Councillor Brenner, Councillor Nagy, and Mayor Ashe were viewing the meeting livestream. Information Reports   Information Report 05-26   Zoning By-law Amendment Application A 04/26  City Initiated Seaton Recreation Complex and Library Alexander Knox Road and Burkholder Drive 1. 2. 2.1 1 Seaton Community C. Celebre, Principal Planner, Strategic Initiatives, appeared via electronic connection and through the aid of a PowerPoint presentation, provided a preliminary overview of a City-initiated, site-specific Zoning By-law Amendment to support the future construction of the Seaton Recreation Complex and Library. C. Celebre summarized the location and context of the subject lands, noting that the lands formed part of an approved draft plan of subdivision and were intended to be transferred to the City. C. Celebre advised that Council had endorsed the preferred schematic design concept in September 2025 and directed staff to bring forward a zoning amendment to address three zoning non-compliances related to building setback, parking supply, and the location of parking between the building and the public street. C. Celebre noted that following the statutory public meeting, City Development staff would continue their review and bring forward a future report to the Planning and Development Committee with staff’s recommendation. There were no delegations. Information Report 06-26   Zoning By-law Amendment A 03/26 Draft Plan of Condominium CP-2026-02 Liverpool Road Limited Partnership 640 Liverpool Road 607 and 609 Annland Street 1276, 1280, 1282, 1288, 1290, 1292 and 1294 Wharf Street Councillor Cook acknowledged that Councillor Pickles and Councillor Robinson were also viewing the meeting livestream. I. Lima, Principal Planner, Development Review, appeared via electronic connection and through the aid of a PowerPoint presentation, provided a preliminary overview of Zoning By-law Amendment and Draft Plan of Condominium applications submitted by Liverpool Road Limited Partnership. I. Lima summarized the subject lands, including site background, surrounding land uses, and the evolution of the proposal from a previously approved 51-unit townhouse development to a revised proposal consisting of 91 residential units and one commercial unit. I. Lima outlined the proposed development form, access, parking supply, amenity spaces, and applicable Official Plan designations and zoning, noting that a site-specific Zoning By-law Amendment was required. I. Lima summarized comments received from area residents and advised that next steps would include City staff preparing a recommendation report for the consideration of the Planning and Development Committee. 2.2 Statutory Public Meeting under the Planning Act Minutes May 11, 2026 2 Brian Moss, Principal, Brian Moss and Associates Ltd.  B. Moss, Principal, Brian Moss and Associates Ltd., appeared via electronic connection, on behalf of the applicant, and through the aid of a PowerPoint presentation provided a brief overview of the revised development proposal. B. Moss reviewed the site context and renderings, highlighting the proposed built form, streetscape, open space at the corner of Liverpool Road and Wharf Street, and the mixed-use building with commercial space at grade and residential units above. B. Moss explained that the proposal had been revised following the summer 2024 approval, noting that market conditions for traditional townhomes had changed, resulting in a shift to smaller unit sizes, a mix of back-to-back and stacked townhouses. B. Moss advised that, despite the increase in units, the overall built form was approximately 20 percent greater than the original proposal due to smaller unit sizes. B. Moss noted that parking supply had increased with unit count, though not proportionally, due to lower parking requirements for stacked and back-to-back townhouses. B. Moss highlighted additional community benefits, including a larger publicly accessible open space and a larger commercial unit than previously proposed, providing flexibility for a wider range of potential tenants. B. Moss concluded by advising that parking concerns would be addressed further in response to delegations and staff comments. Information Report 07-26   Official Plan Amendment OPA 25-005 Zoning By-law Amendment A 09/25 375 Kingston Road Corporation and 401 Kingston Road Corporation 375, 395, 401, 409, 413 and 417 Kingston Road and 4 Evelyn Avenue A. Dunn, Principal Planner, Development Review, appeared via electronic connection and, through the aid of a PowerPoint presentation, provided a preliminary overview of the Official Plan Amendment and Zoning By-law Amendment applications submitted by 375 and 401 Kingston Road Corporation. A. Dunn summarized the subject lands, including site background, surrounding land uses, and the proposed two-phase mixed-use high-density residential development consisting of residential towers, commercial space, and a public park. A. Dunn outlined the applicable Official Plan designations and zoning framework, noting that a site-specific Zoning By-law Amendment was required to establish development standards. A. Dunn summarized the results of the public open house, written submissions, and a petition received, including concerns related to density, height, built form, traffic, parking, infrastructure capacity, environmental impacts, 2.2.1 2.3 Statutory Public Meeting under the Planning Act Minutes May 11, 2026 3 and neighbourhood compatibility. A. Dunn advised that staff would continue their technical review and that next steps would include City staff preparing a recommendation report for the consideration of the Planning and Development Committee. David McKay, MHBC Planning   D. McKay, MHBC Planning, appeared via electronic connection, on behalf of the applicant, and through the aid of a PowerPoint presentation, provided an overview of the revised development proposal. D. McKay advised that the application had originally been submitted in 2021 and had since been modified following discussions with City staff and public feedback, including the incorporation of additional green space, a public park, increased retail space, and additional housing opportunities. D. McKay explained that the proposal had been revised in response to market conditions following the 2024 approvals, resulting in a shift away from traditional townhouses toward back-to-back and stacked townhouse units with smaller unit sizes, while increasing the overall unit count across four towers. D. McKay noted that the built form included a three-storey podium, retail at grade, rooftop terraces, and a phased development approach, with Phase 1 delivering the public park and signalized intersection at Evelyn Avenue, and Phase 2 addressing redevelopment of the existing plaza. D. McKay advised that parking supply increased with the unit count, though not proportionally due to lower parking requirements for certain unit types, and noted that the proposal included approximately 3,000 square metres of commercial space, enhanced streetscaping and landscaping, and pedestrian connectivity. D. McKay concluded by stating that the proposal represented good planning, utilized existing infrastructure, and was consistent with the Provincial Planning Statement, Regional Plan, City of Pickering Official Plan, and OPA 38, with any required infrastructure upgrades to be undertaken at the applicant’s expense. Tabraiz Viceer, Pickering Resident   T. Viceer, Pickering Resident, appeared via electronic connection and advised that they were a homeowner south of Highway 401 and were opposed to the proposed development, stating that they were directly impacted. T. Viceer noted that they had attended the town hall meeting and that concerns raised by residents had not been addressed in the revised proposal. T. Viceer expressed concerns regarding traffic 2.3.1 2.3.2 Statutory Public Meeting under the Planning Act Minutes May 11, 2026 4 congestion and safety at Kingston Road and Rougemont Drive, noting recent installation of left-turn signals and stating that the proposed four towers would result in a significant increase in traffic volumes. T. Viceer stated that the scale of development was unacceptable and hazardous, particularly given existing congestion and nearby development and questioned why high-density development was continuing along the Highway 401 corridor, rather than being directed to northern areas of the City. T. Viceer also raised concerns about the natural environment, noting the presence of ravine lands and wildlife, and expressed the view that the proposed towers were incompatible with the natural layout of the area. T. Viceer further expressed concerns regarding privacy impacts, stating that the height and proximity of the towers would negatively affect adjacent residences and urged the City to take a closer look at the cumulative impact of development at this intersection and to address residents’ concerns before proceeding further. James Blair, Pickering Resident   J. Blair, Pickering Resident, appeared via electronic connection and through the aid of a PowerPoint presentation, stated that residents were not opposed to development in principle, but emphasized the need for responsible development that considered the best interests of existing taxpayers and community safety, particularly for residents south of Rougemount Drive. J. Blair raised concerns regarding the scale of excavation and depth of construction required to support the proposed four towers and questioned the anticipated construction timeline, asking when build-out would occur. J. Blair expressed concern about the volume of excavation and material movement, and the resulting impact on traffic and surrounding neighbourhoods. J. Blair expressed concern regarding construction truck routing and safety, asking where material would be transported, which streets would be used, and whether trucks would be travelling through residential areas, including routes near elementary and secondary schools. J. Blair noted that residents south of the site were concerned about being blocked in during emergencies due to limited access routes and raised questions regarding construction phasing, asking whether Phase 1 and Phase 2 would be constructed concurrently or sequentially based on unit sales. J. Blair expressed concern about frequent truck movements every six to ten minutes over an extended period, noting that the site lacked space for on-site material storage. J. Blair asked that these concerns be taken into consideration by City staff during ongoing discussions with the applicant. 2.3.3 Statutory Public Meeting under the Planning Act Minutes May 11, 2026 5 Heather Allan-Robertson, Ajax Resident   H. Allan-Robertson, Ajax Resident, appeared via electronic connection to speak in opposition to the proposed development. H. Allan-Robertson referenced a November 2025 study linking urban heat islands to tornado activity, and expressed concern that the proposed four towers would contribute to urban heat impacts. H. Allan-Robertson noted that presentation materials did not show the Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) corridor on Kingston Road, and raised concerns regarding traffic disruptions and construction impacts if development were to proceed concurrently with BRT works. H. Allan-Robertson suggested that Members of Council observe existing traffic conditions along Kingston Road, noting frequent lane shifts and congestion, and expressed concern regarding market impacts, stating that unit prices in nearby developments had been reduced and that purchasers could face financial loss. H. Allan-Robertson questioned the long-term viability of condominium investments and referenced examples of residents unable to sell existing units in Pickering and raised concerns regarding the loss of local retail, including specialty and organic food options, and expressed further concern that redevelopment could reduce access to such services. H. Allan-Robertson also questioned the availability of on-site recreational amenities for future residents, noting the absence of information regarding gyms or similar facilities and that existing recreation facilities were overcrowded, particularly in the Rougemount area. H. Allan-Robertson urged that these concerns be considered as part of the development review and concluded by emphasizing the importance of prioritizing resident concerns, stating that residents were the taxpayers funding City services, and expressed the view that greater weight should be given to community input than to developer interests. Dana Saccoccio, Pickering Resident   D. Saccoccio, Pickering Resident, appeared via electronic connection to speak in opposition to the proposed development and advised that they resided in the Rosebank neighbourhood and had previously provided comments on the original proposal at a public meeting held in May 2022. D. Saccoccio stated that they had previously raised concerns that the applicant’s site statistics incorrectly included lands designated as Highway 401 easements, resulting in non-compliant floor space index (FSI) and coverage calculations, and noted that the earlier application was subsequently withdrawn. D. Saccoccio advised that, despite community 2.3.4 2.3.5 Statutory Public Meeting under the Planning Act Minutes May 11, 2026 6 input, the revised proposal had increased in scale to four towers ranging from 31 to 34 storeys, with a higher overall density. D. Saccoccio referenced the Ontario Land Tribunal approval of OPA 38 on December 19, 2024, noting that while it allowed increased FSI through site-specific zoning amendments, it also required compatibility with adjacent land uses, particularly stable residential neighbourhoods, in terms of massing, height, and transition. D. Saccoccio expressed concern that the proposed development exceeded the 20-storey height and was inconsistent with nearby neighbourhoods. D. Saccoccio raised concerns that the current proposal relied on the inclusion of surplus Ministry of Transportation lands that had not yet been acquired by the applicant and stated that the application was based on assumed land ownership, which they believed rendered the site statistics inaccurate and the application incomplete. D. Saccoccio questioned how the application could proceed to public consultation under those circumstances and referenced OPA 40, noting that it had recently reduced lot coverage limits in adjacent neighbourhoods such as Rosebank and Rougemont, and expressed concern that approving four towers of up to 34 storeys adjacent to these areas would be inconsistent, particularly with respect to shadowing, overlook, and neighbourhood compatibility. D. Saccoccio encouraged Council and City staff to closely review the coverage, density, and height statistics of the proposal and to compare them with nearby developments, noting the difference in tower heights and site context. D. Saccoccio concluded by urging careful consideration of the cumulative impacts of the proposed development on established neighbourhoods. A question and answer period ensued between the Chair, City staff, and D. McKay regarding: traffic congestion and safety, with the applicant advising that a traffic report had been submitted and was under review by the Ministry of Transportation, City staff, and the Region, and that comments were expected shortly, after which the applicant would continue to work with staff to address concerns; • wildlife impacts, with the applicant advising that there were no environmental areas on the subject property and noting that the lands to the south were approximately 125 metres across Highway 401, and therefore wildlife impacts such as deer and foxes were not anticipated; • construction loads and truck traffic, with the applicant advising that • Statutory Public Meeting under the Planning Act Minutes May 11, 2026 7 construction management plans were standard practice on projects of this scale and would address truck routes, timing, dust, and noise, noting that this type of construction activity was not unusual within the GTA; construction timing and phasing, with the applicant advising that Phase 2 redevelopment was several years away due to long-term leases on the existing plaza, and that construction of towers could take approximately three to four years, with phasing and sequencing to be determined through the construction management process; • urban heat and climate concerns, with the applicant advising that mitigation measures such as green roofs and rooftop spaces were included in the proposal and would be further detailed through the site plan approval process; • amenities, with the applicant advising that both indoor and outdoor amenities were proposed within each building and phase, including a new public park on the east end of the site; • housing tenure, with the applicant advising that tenure had not yet been determined and that the development could proceed as condominium or rental housing depending on market conditions; • inclusion of Ministry of Transportation lands, with the applicant advising that ownership of lands was not required at the application stage, that negotiations to acquire surplus MTO lands had been ongoing for approximately two years, and that if acquisition did not proceed, the proposal would be revised accordingly without undermining the processing of the application; • debris removal and off-site hauling, with the applicant advising that debris would be transported to an appropriate receiving facility and that truck timing and access would be addressed through a construction management plan developed with City staff and the Region; • application completeness and technical review, with staff advising that they were aware the MTO lands were not currently owned, that discussions with the Ministry of Transportation were ongoing, and that the proposal would not proceed to Planning and Development Committee if the lands were not secured; • status of agency comments, with staff advising that technical comments were still being received from agencies including the Toronto and Region Conservation Authority, the Region of Durham, and internal departments, and that the review process was ongoing; • Statutory Public Meeting under the Planning Act Minutes May 11, 2026 8 and, that the proposal remained at a preliminary stage, was not a finalized proposal, and that further information and a future staff report would be brought forward following completion of the review. • Adjournment   The meeting adjourned at 8:22 p.m. Dated this 11th day of May, 2026. 3. Statutory Public Meeting under the Planning Act Minutes May 11, 2026 9