Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutSeptember 11 Planning & Development Committee Agenda Tuesday, September 11, 2018 Council Chambers 7:00 pm Chair: Councillor Ashe For information related to accessibility requirements please contact : Linda Roberts 905.420.4660 extension 2928 lroberts@pickering.ca Anything highlighted denotes an attachment or link. By clicking the links on the agenda page, you can jump directly to that section of the agenda. To manoeuver back to the agenda page use the Ctrl + Home keys simultaneously, or use the “bookmark” icon to the left of your screen to navigate from one report to the next. -Cd:Jof- p](KERJNG --C:4Ja/--p](KER]NG Planning & Development Committee Agenda Tuesday, September 11, 2018 Council Chambers -7:00 pm Chair: Councillor Ashe (I) Part 'A' Information Reports Pages Subject: Information Report No. 11-18 1--8 Subject: Zoning By-law Amendment Application A 05/18 King Mushroom Investments Part of Lot 18, Range 3, Now Parts 1 to 7, Plan 40R-7994 985 Brock Road Information Report No._12-18 9-23 Zoning By-law Amendment Application A 09/16(R) Draft Plan of Subdivision Application SP-2016-01 (R) Draft Plan of Condominium Application -CP-2016-03(R) 702153 Ontario Limited North Part Lot 32, Con. 1; Lots 1 to 4, Plan 566; Part 1, Plan 40R-2545; and Part 1, Plan 40R-2549 1985 & 1999 Altona Road and 323, 327 & 331 Finch Avenue (II) Part 'B' Planning & Development Reports 1. Director, City Development & CBO, Report PLN 23-18 24-38 Zoning By-law Amendment Application A 04/18 Request for Red-Line Revision of Draft Approved Plan of Subdivision SP-2009-11 (R) Mattamy (Seaton) Limited Part of Lots 21 & 22, Concession 4, Part of Lots 21, 22 & 23, Concession 5 Seaton Community, City of Pickering Recommendation For information related to accessibility requirements please contact: Linda Roberts 905.420.4660 extension 2928 lroberts@pickering.ca --C.lflof--p](KERJNG Planning & Development Committee Agenda Tuesday, September 11, 2018 Council Chambers -7:00 pm Chair: Councillor Ashe 2. 1. That Revision to Draft Plan of Subdivision SP-2009-11 (R) submitted by Mattamy (Seaton) Limited, to permit a red-line revision to a draft approved plan of subdivision on lands being Part of Lots 21 & 22 Concession 4, Part of Lots 21, 22 & 23 Concession 5, as shown on the Applicant's Revised Plan Attachment #2 to Report PLN 23-18, be endorsed; 2. That the proposed amendments to the conditions of draft plan of subdivision approval to implement Draft Plan of Subdivision SP-2009-11 (R) as set out in Appendix I to Report PLN 23-18 be endorsed; 3. That the Local Planning Appeal Tribunal (formally known as the Ontario Municipal Board) be advised of City Council's decision on the request for a red-line revision to Draft Plan of Subdivision SP-2009-11 (R) and that the City Solicitor be authorized to attend any Local Planning Appeal Tribunal/Ontario Municipal Board hearing on the requested red-line revision; 4. That Zoning By-law Amendment Application A 04/18, submitted by Mattamy (Seaton) Limited, to implement the red-line revision to Draft Approved Plan of Subdivision SP-2009-11 (R), be approved, and the draft zoning by-law contained in Appendix II to Report PLN 23-18 be forwarded to Council for enactment. Director, City Development & CBO, Report PLN 24-18 Delegation of Council Authority under the Ontario Heritage Act Recommendation 39-49 1. That Council approve and enact a Delegation of Council Authority By-law to consent/grant heritage permits for the alteration of designated properties as set out in Appendix I to Report PLN 24-18; 2. That the appropriate City of Pickering officials be authorized to take the necessary actions as indicated in this report. (Ill) Other Business (IV) Adjournment -Ct40/-PJCKER]NG ' Information Report to · Planning & Development Committee From: Catherine Rose, MCIP, RPP Chief Planner Report Number: 11-18 Date: September 11, 2018 Subject: Zoning By-law Amendment Application A 05/18 King Mushroom Investments · Part of Lot 18, Range 3, Now Parts 1 to 7, Plan 40R-7994 (985 Brock Road) 1. Purpose of this Report The purpose of this report is to provide preliminary information ·regarding an application for Zoning By-law Amendment, submitted by Ki.ng Mushroom Investments, to expand the list of· permitted uses on the subject lands. This report contains general information on the applicable Official Plan and other related policies, and identifies matters raised to date. This report is intended to assist members of the public and other interested stakeholders to understand the proposal. The Planning & Development Committee will hear public deiegations on the application, ask questions of clarification, and identify any planning issues. This report is for information and no decision is being made at this time. Staff will bring forward a recommendation report for consideration by the Planning & Development Committee upon completion of a comprehensive evaluation of the proposal. 2. Property Location and Description The subject property is located at the southeast corner of Brock Road and Bayly Street within the Brock Industrial Neighbourhood (see Location Map, Attachment #1). The property has an area of approximately 0.4 of a hectare with approximately 53 metres of frontage along Brock Road and 77 metres of frontage along Bayly Street. The property is occupied by a single storey multi-tenant building having a gross floor area of 895 square metres (see Existing Conditions Plan, Attachment #2). Current uses within the existing building include a restaurant, a flooring establishment, a computer store and a cash outlet. A total of 33 parking spaces are provided on-site and vehicular access is provided from Bayly Street. Surrounding land uses include (see Air Photo Map, Attachment #3): North: across Bayly Street, an outdoor boat storage facility with accessory East& South: West: buildings and structures · .single storey multi-tenant buildings with a range of industrial, limited . commercial and personal service uses across Brock Road, vacant lands that were previously occupied by an automobile service station and car wash, and further west is an automobile dealership fronting Bayly Street 1 2 Information Report No. 11-18 Page 2 3. Applicant's Proposal The applicant is requesting to amend the existing site-specific zoning for the subject lands to add commercial-recreational establishment, office-associated commercial establishment, personal service shop, printing establishment, and vehicle repair shop. Although the existing building is fully leased, the applicant has requested this amendment to allow further flexibility in leasing the spaces to a wider range of businesses. · No exterior changes to the existing building, grading, vehicular access or parking area are proposed at this time. Should this change, a Site Plan Application will be required. 4. Policy Framework 4.1 Durham Region Official Plan The Region of Durham Official Plan (ROP) designates the subject lands as "Employment Areas" in the Urban System, with a "Regional Corridor" overlay along Bayly Street. Along · Regional Corridors, Employment Areas permits a range of employment uses such as office buildings and business parks. Limited personal service and retail uses, serving the immediate designated employment area may be permitted as a minor component (e.g. 10 percent) of the aggregate gross floor area of the uses in Employment Areas, and no single use shall exceed 500 square metres. Retail sales as a minor ancillary component of an industrial operation may also be permitted, subject to the inclusion of appropriate provisions in the Pickering Official Plan and/or Zoning By-law. Nursing and retirement homes, elementary and secondary schools, and places of worship are not permitted in Employment Areas. 4.2 Pickering Official Plan The subject property is designated as "Employment Areas -_Mixed Employment", which provides. for a range of employment uses that includes: light manufacturing; assembly and processing of goods; light service industries; offices; corporate office business parks; limited personal service uses; restaurants; hotels; financial institutions; community, cultural and recreational uses; and limited retailing of goods and services serving the area. The proposed additional uses generally comply with the policies and provisions of the City's Official Plan. However the ROP is more current and restrictive, and any amendments shall be in conformity with the ROP. · 4.3 Zoning By-law 2511, as amended The. subject lands are currently zoned "MC" within Zoning By-law 2511, as amended by By.:.law 2642/88, which permits an accessory dwelling unit, assembly hall, business offices, dry cleaning depots, dry cleaning establishments, food preparation plants, light manufacturing plants, merchandise service shops, professional offices, restaurants, sales · outlets, scientific or medical laboratories, and warehouses. The applicant is requesting to rezone the subject property to add additional uses that are currently permitted on the adjacent property to the south. The existing site specific zoning for the subject property contains restrictions to_ limit the maximum gross floor area for certain uses including restaurants, sales outlets and dry cleaning depots. The intent of these provisions is to ensure that the primary use of the subject lands remains industrial. Information Report No. 11-18 Page 3 5. Comments Received 5.1 Residents Comments As of the writing of this report, no comments or concerns have been received from the public. 5.2 Agency Comments 5.2.1 Region of Durham -Planning Department The following is a summary of key concerns/issues or matters of importance identified by the Region of Durham: • the proposed amendment should include a cap on the amount of floor space permitted for the retail and personal service uses • the proposed commercial-recreational establishment use could be considered a sensitive use and as such is recommended that the proposed zoning by-law amendment omit commercial-recreational establishment as a permitted use, or request that a land use compatibility study be required prior to issuance of a building permit • the current zoning by-law permits an accessory dwelling unit and an assembly hall, which may include places of worship, both of which are considered sensitive land uses. • it is recommended that the proposed zoning by-law amendment omit accessory dwelling unit and assembly halls as permitted uses, as they are not permitted in "Employment Areas" in the ROP • the Region will not object to the proposed zoning by-law amendment, if the proposed zoning by-law amendment does not encourage the longevity of or permits the introduction of new sensitive land uses · 5.3 City Departments Comments 5.3.1 Engineering Services • no concerns or objections with the Zoning By-law Amendment application . 6. Planning & Design Section Comments The following is a summary of key concerns/issues or matters of importance raised to date. These matters, and other identified through the circulation and detailed review of the proposal, are required to be addressed by the applicant prior to a final recommendation report to Planning & Development Committee: • ensuring that the additional requested uses and the existing permitted uses are consistent with the policies and provisions of the Regional Official Plan • ensuring that proposed retail and personal service uses are capped by including appropriate provisions in the Zoning By-law to restrict gross floor area to no more than 10 percent of the aggregate gross floor area, and individual uses to not exceed 500 square metres • should the applicant continue to pursue potentially sensitive land uses, a Land Use Compatibility Study may be required 3 4 Information Report No. 11-18 • assessing whether the existing parking supply is sufficient to accommodate the proposed additional uses and existing uses Page 4 • further issues may be identified following receipt and review of comments from the circulated departments, agencies and public The City Development Depa.rtment will conclude its positon on the application after it has received and assessed comments from the circulated departments, agencies and public. 7. Information Received Full scale copies of the plans and studies listed below are available for on line viewing at pickering.ca/devapp or in person at the office of the City of Pickering, City Development Department: • Application form to Amend Zoning By-law completed by the applicant, dated March 14, 2018 • Planning Justification Report, prepared by Martindale Planning Services, dated March 2018 • Parking/Traffic Assessment Study, prepared by Tranplan Associates, dated December 2017 •. Existing Conditions Plan, prepared by Martindale Planning Services, dated October 23, 2017 · 8. Procedural Information 8.1 General • written comments regarding this proposal should be directed to the City Development Department • oral comments may be made at the Public Information Meeting • . all comments received will be noted and used as input to a Planning Report prepared by the City Development Department for a subsequent meeting of Council or a Committee of Council • any member of the public who wishes to reserve the option to appeal Council's decision must provide comments to the City before Council adopts any by-law for this proposal or makes a decision on the Draft Plan of Subdivision· • any member of the public who wishes to be notified of Council's decision regarding this proposal must request such in writing to the City Clerk 9. Owner/Applicant Information The owner of the property is King Mushroom Investment and is represented by Martindale Planning Services. Information Report No. 11-18 Attachments 1. Location Map 2. Existing Conditions Plan 3. Air Photo Map urti, . GIP, RPP Manager, Development Review & Urban Design · RM:NS:ld Date of Report: August 23, 2018 Approved/Endorsed By: !~k-Catherine Rose, MCIP, RPP Chief Planner Page 5 5 -Cdt;t,/-PlCKERlNG City Development Department r -0 <ll 0 .~j I al. Q)' ril i'~ Orangebrook Court .------(/) ~l J_ --J====!o:'..Quigley Street f----l~ .c OJ 1---....... ~ .rt::==o ~~_,.__ _ __, Location Ma File: A 05/18 · Mushroom Investments Clements Road --r----r----, he orpornbon o e it)' o ckertng reduce (Ill part) under bcense om: ueens nnter, nlano lfy o Natural esoUTees. 1\1! rights reseNed.;© Her Majesty the Queen In Righi of Canada, Oepartmen!ofNalural Resources. All rights reserved.; Teranet Enterprises Im:. and !Is suppfiera artrlghts reseived.:e Munlclpal Property ).ssessmenl CotporaUon and its sup piers all rights 1eserved.; THIS IS t:OT APLAU OF SURVEY. -C~of-p](KERJNG City Development Department Attachment# d to Information Reoort# II-IA Existing l Storey Building ±895m' (±9,633.711') #981 Existing I Storey Building Other Lands Owned by Appricant Submitted Existing Conditions Plan File No: A 05/18 Applicant: King Mushroom Investments 1735 ~ \ \ \ \ I \ \ \ \ I \ \ \ \ \ \ I \ \ \ \ I 1' N Property Description: Part of Lot 18, Range 3, now Parts 1 to 7, 40R7994 (985 Brock Road) FULL SCALE COPIES OF THIS PLAN ARE AVAILABLE FOR VIEWING AT THE CITY OF PICKERING CITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT. . DATE: July 27, 2018 7 -Cdt;o/-P1CKER1NG City Development Department Mushroom Investments Date: Jul. 27, 2018 --C4Jof--p](KER]NG Information Report to Planning & Development Committee From: Catherine Rose, MCIP, RPP Chief Planner Report Number: 12-18 Date; September 11, 2018 Subject: Zoning By-law Amendment Application A 09/16(R) Draft Plan of Subdivision Application SP-2016-01 (R) Draft Plan of Condominium Application CP-2016-03(R) 702153 Ontario Limited North Part Lot 32, Cor,i. 1; Lots 1 to 4, Plan 566; Part 1, Plan 40R-2545; and Part 1, Plan 40R-2549 (1985 & 1999 Altona Road, and 323, 327 & 331 Finch Avenue) 1. Purpose of this Report The purpose of this report is to provide preliminary information regarding revised applications for Zoning By-law Amendment, Draft Plan of Su_bdivision, and Draft Plan of Condominium, submitted by 702153 Ontario Limited, to permit a residential common -element condominium development in the Rouge Park Neighbourhood. This report contains general information on the applicable Official Plan, Zoning By-law and other related policies, and identifies matters raised to date. This report is intended to assist members of the public and .other interested stakeholders to understand the proposal.-Planning & Development Committee will hear public delegations on the applications, ask questions of clarification and identify any planning issues, This report is for information and no decision on these applications are being made at this time. Staff will bring forward a recommendation report for consideration by the Planning & Development Committee upon completion of a comprehensive evaluation of the proposal. 2. Property Location and Description The subject lands are located at the southeast corner of Altona Road and Finch Avenue, within the Rouge Park Neighbourhood (see Location Map, Attachment #1). The subject -lands comprise 5 properties having a combined area of approximately 1 .48 hectares with approximately 81 metres of frontage along Altona Road and 133 metres of frontage along Finch Avenue. . The larger parcel at 1999 Altona Road is presently vacant with the exception of an unused paved parking lot remaining from a previous sales office that occupied the site. The property at 1985 Altona Road contains a vacant dwelling and an accessory building. The properties at 323, 327 and 331 Finch Avenue each contain a detached dwelling with hedgerows generally along the property lines (see Air Photo Map, Attachment #2). 9 10 Information Report No. 12-18 Page 2 The surrounding land uses include: North: East: South: West: 3. Background Across Finch Avenue is a woodlot owned by Infrastructure Ontario, and further east of the woodlot is a residential development consisting of detached dwellings fronting onto Mapleview Court. Immediately to the east are detached dwellings fronting onto Finch Avenue, and environmentally sensitive lands owned by the Toronto and Region Conservation Authority (TRCA). Immediately to the south is a recently constructed residential common element condominium development consisting of 40 townhouse units and environmentally sensitive lands owned by TRCA. At the southwest corner of Finch Avenue and Altona Road is a residential common element condominium development consisting of 23 townhouse units and a mix of semi-detached and townhouse dwellings fronting Shadow Place. In 2016, 702153 Ontario Limited submitted applications for zoning by-law amendment, draft plan of subdivision and draft plan of condominium to permit a residential common element condominium development consisting of 40 townhouse units and 8 back-to-back semi-detached dwellings on 1985 and 1999 Altona Road. Following the Statutory Public · Information meeting held on October 11, 2016, the applicant acquired additional lands at 323, 327 and 331 Finch Avenue. In 2018, the applicant submitted a revised proposal. 4. Applicant's Proposal . The current proposal is for a common element condominium development for a total of 85 units consisting of a mix of rear lane townhouses and semi-detached dwellings, back-to-back townhouses, and traditional townhouses. All of the units will be accessed through an internal private road (see Submitted Concept Plan, Attachment #3). The concept plan illustrates 4 blocks consisting of 36 rear lane townhouse units fronting onto Altona Road and Finch Avenue and 2 semi-detached dwellings fronting onto Finch Avenue. The dwelling LJnits fronting Altona Road and Finch Avenue propose parking at the rear of the dwelling units. Internal to the site are 2 blocks consisting of 24 back-to-back townhouse units. At the south limit of the site are 3 blocks consisting of 23 traditional townhouse units with parking at the front of the dwelling units and each unit will have a private rear yard amenity area. The minimum lot frontages for the rear lane and traditional townhouse dwellings and semi-detached dwellings range between 4.58 metres and 5.98 metres. The minimum lot frontage for the back-to-back townhouse dwellings is 7.2. metres. All buildings are proposed to be 3-storeys, approximately 12.0 metres in height (see Submitted Conceptual Rendering, Attachment #4). Information Report No. 12-18 Page 3 Vehicular access to the development is from Altona Road. Resident parking for all dwellings is provided at a ratio of 2 parking spaces per dwelling unit (1 parking space within a private garage and 1 space on the driveway). Visitor parking is provided at a rate of 0.27 spaces per unit for a total of 23 parking spaces. The concept plan also includes a community mailbox area, a water meter room, internal sidewalks and pedestrian connections to Altona Road and Finch Avenue, and a centrally. located outdoor common amenity area having an area of approximately 196 square metres. The applicant has submitted a Draft Plan of Subdivision to create a single development block. This is a technical requirement to allow the applicant to create the privately owned parcels through a process called "lifting part lot control". The draft plan of subdivision will also create a 0.23 of a hectare open space block for the environmental sensitive lands and associated buffers to be conveyed to TRCA, and 3 road widening blocks along Altona Road and Finch Avenue to be conveyed to th~ Region of Durham (see Submitted Draft Plan of Subdivision, Attachment #5). The applicant has also submitted a Draft Plan of Condominium Application to create tenure of the parcels in the development. The commori element features include, but are not limited to, the internal private road, internal sidewalks, pedestrian connections, visitor parking areas, outdoor amenity area, community mailboxes, and the water meter room (see Submitted Draft Plan of Condominium, Attachment #6). The development will be subject to site plan approval. 5. Policy Framework 5.1 Durham Regional Official Plan The Regional Official Plan (RQP) designates the subject lands as "Living Areas". The "Living Areas" designation shall be used predominantly for housing purposes. The plan also states that lands within the Living Areas designation shall be developed in compact form through higher densities and by intensifying and redeveloping existing areas, particularly along arterial roads. Altona Road and Finch Avenue, east of Altona Road, are designated as Type 'B' Arterial Roads. Type 'B' Arterial Roads generally have a right-of-way width ranging from 36 to 50 metres. The proposal generally conforms to the Durham Regional Official Plan. 5.2 Pickering Official Plan The subject lands municipally known as 1985 and 1999 Altona Road are designated "Mixed Use Areas -Local Nodes". The Mixed Use Areas -Local Nodes designation provides for the widest variety of uses and highest levels of activities in the City at a scale and extent intended to serve the local community. The remaining lands, 323, 327 and 331 Finch . Avenue, are designated "Urban Residential Areas -Low Density", which provides for a range of residential uses; home occupations; limited offices; limited retailing of goods and services; community, cultural and recreational uses; and compatible employment and special purpose commercial uses serving the area. 11 1 2 Information Report No. 12-18 Page 4 · The following table details the maximum permitted density and the maximum permitted number of units within net developable lands that are designated Mixed Use Areas -Local Nodes and Urban Residential Areas -Low Density · 1985 & 1999 Altona Road 323, 327 & 331 Finch Avenue (0.627 ha) (0.547 ha)· Land Use Designation Mixed Use Areas -Local Urban Residential Areas -Low Nodes Density Maximum Permitted 80 units per net hectare 30 units per net hectare Density Maximum Permitted 50 units 16units· Number of Units Proposed Number of 44 units 41 units Units Total Permitted Number 67 units of Units Based on the maximum permitted densities within the respective land use designations, the · maximum ·number of units allowed is 67 units, whereas the applicant is proposing a total of '85 units, which is 18 units above the permitted densities. The City of Pickering Official Plan establishes broad goals and objectives related to housing. A key goal of Council is to encourage a broad diversity of housing form, location, size, tenure and costwithin the City, so that the housing needs of existing and future residents can be met as they evolve over time. The Rouge Park Neighbourhood Policies: discourage reverse frontages, berms and significant noise attenuation fencing adjacent to Altona Road; require new development to have regard for the Rouge Park Management Plan; and encourage the retention of environmentally sensitive lands. TRCA has identified the lands to the south as environmentally significant lands containing provincially significant wetlands. Official Plan Amendment 27 (OPA 27) (Environmental and Countryside policies) came-into effect on December 20, 2017. An Environmental Impact Study is required for lands within 120 metres of an identified wetland. The policies also require a minimum vegetation protection buffer of 30 metres adjacent to wetlands. However, within the South Pickering urban area, the minimum vegetation bwffer could be reduced where the conservation authority determines it to be appropriate and where it can be demonstrated there is no increase in risk to life or property, no impact to the control of flooding, erosion, or pollution, and where a net environmental benefit can be established on the property. · Information Report No. 12-18 Page 5 5.3 Roug~ Park Neighbourhood Development Guidelines The Rouge Park Neighbourhood Development Guidelines establish goals to ensure lands are developed in a cohesive, well-designed neighbourhood. In review of development proposals, the following broad goals of the guidelines are to be considered: • develop strong visual and physical relatior:iship with Finch Avenue • maintain visual and physical connections with surrounding natural areas • through high-quality building, landscape design and the provision of a mix of uses, the intersection of Finch Avenue and Altona Road will be the central focus of the Neighbourhood • residential areas are to feature a variety of housing types of high-quality design arranged on efficient street patterns The four corners of the intersection of Altona Road and Finch Avenue are identified as a "neighbhourhood focus", which require a strong presence at this intersection to define the area as a centre. This can be accomplished by building close to the street, providing outdoor public space (squares, plazas), and the use of hard and soft,landscaping. In reviewing development proposals in this area, the Guidelines require the following: • building heights will preferably range from 8.5 metres to 15.0 metres in height (generally 3 to 5 storeys.) • redevelopment of the southeast corner of Altona Road and Finch Avenue is strongly encouraged to accommodate a range of uses, including: medium density residential; retailing; offices; restaurants; and community, cultural and recreation uses, as well as accommodate as much as 1,000 square metres of non-residential space • access to the blocks of land at the four corners of the Altona Road and Finch Avenue intersection will be dependent on the type of uses proposed and residential development will be encouraged to make use of new, internal roads The applicant's proposal will be reviewed in detail to ensure compliance with the requirements of the Rouge Park Neighbourhood Development and Design Guidelines. 5.4 Zoning By~law 3036 The larger parcel at 1999 Altona Road is currently zoned as "C1" -Local Commercial Zone and the remaining parcels are zoned as "A" -Rural Agricultural Zone, within Zoning By-law 3036, as amended. The "C1" Zone permits various commercial, office and restaurant uses. The "A" Zone permits various agricultural uses including one detached dwelling on a lot having a minimum lot frontage of 60 metres and a minimum lot area of 0.8 of a hectare. · The applicant has requested that the developable portion of the subject lands be rezoned to an appropriate residential zone category in order to permit the proposal. The open space lands to be conveyed to TRCA will be rezoned to an appropriate open space zone category. An amendment to the zoning by-law is required to implement the applicant's proposal. 13 14 Information Report No. 12-18 Page 6 6. Comments Received 6.1 Resident Comments The following is a summary of written comments received to date: • disagreed with any proposed rezoning of the subject lands to a residential use; preferring that these lands be developed for local commercial uses serving the growing residential community and promoting a walkable neighbourhood • concerned that Altona Road and Finch Avenue will become ov·erly congested if another residential development is constructed • concerned that there is an influx of townhouses and semi-detached dwellings in the Finch and Altona area • concerned with the maintenance of the front yards fronting onto Altona Road and Finch Avenue; there doesn't appear to be proper landscaping • requested that the City consider adequate areas for children to play safely and an outdoor space for seniors to go to close by the houses such as a parkette be provided • concerned that adequate visitor parking areas be provided to reduce street parking • commented that more sidewalks, more frequent public transportation, and proper bus stops, connections between Durham Transit and the Toronto Transit Commission in order to travel to the Rouge Hill GO Station be provided 6.2 Agency Comments 6.2.1 Durham District School Board • no objection to the development proposal • approximately 43 elementary students could be generated from the proposed development • any students generated by the proposal will attend existing schools • • the proposed development is within the boundary area of Altona Forest Public School and Dunbarton High School • the Owner is required to post the standard Durham District School Board approved "Notice to Parents" in all sales representation centres 6.2.2 Region of Durham • as of the writing ofthis report, no comments on the revised applications have been received 6.2.3 Toronto and Region Conservation Authority • as of the writing of this report, no comments on the revised applications have been received 6.2.4 Canadian Pacific Railway • the updated noise report is satisfactory • a warning clause, advising that a railway right-of-way is located within 300 metres of the subject lands and that there may be alterations/expansions which may affect the living environment of the residents, is to be inserted in all agreements of Purchase and Sale and/or Lease and in the title deed or lease of each dwelling as a condition of approval Information Report No. 12-18 Page 7 6.3 City Departments Comments As of the writing of this report, no comments or concerns on the revised applications have been received. 7. Planning & Design Section Comments The following matters have been identified by staff for further review and consideraUon: • ensuring whether the proposal is conformity with policies of the Provincial Plans • r~quiring that the maximum permitted densities and allowable number of units conforms with the City's Official Plan • exploring opportunities to incorporate non-residential uses within the proposed development to provide local commercial uses to service the immediate neighbourhood • ensuring that the limit of development is further refined to the satisfaction of the TRCA, and the required minimum vegetation buffers are provided to the satisfaction of the TRCA and the City • requiring a greater mix of housing types and forms to be provided that are not townhouse units, such as semi-detached and single detached dwellings • reviewing site design matters to ensure that the subject lands are not over developed, including but not limited to: • requiring traditional townhouse units to have a minimum lot frontage of 6.0 metres to ensure that the dwelling units provide for a front entry and habitable ground floor space, rather than the garage being the dominate features of front facades • requiring a private road to have a minimum width of 6.5 metres • requiring adequate building setbacks from Altona Road and Finch Avenue and the internal private roads to enable suitable areas for soft landscaping • requiring the front yards alon_g Altona Road and Finch Avenue to be.maintained by the condominium corporation to ensure a high quality streetscape is maintained along these roads _ • requiring the proposed outdoor common amenity area to front directly on the private streets (not onto parking spaces) and to provide greater visibility and access • evaluating the size of the outdoor common amenity area to accommodate play structures, landscaping and seating • evaluating the design and geometry of the private road network to ensure turning· movements can accommodate municipal garbage collections and fire trucks • ensuring that the common spaces proposed are adequate to support snow storage areas, water meter rooms and community mail box areas • ensuring that adequate private outdoor amenity area is provided for the rear lane townhouse units and back-to-back townhouse units • ensuririg that the interior garage dimensions are adequate to accommodate a vehicle and storage • ensuring that adequate resident and visitor parking is provided to support this development 15 1 6 Information Report No. 12-18 Page 8 • reviewing·traffic and operational impacts on adjacent roads and the intersection of Altona Road and Finch Avenue, and assessing whether a second vehicular access to the site from Finch Avenue is required • ensuring that the proposed road widenings are acceptable to the Region of Durham • requiring the municipal boulevards along Altona Road and Finch Avenue be urbanized within municipal sidewalks and appropriate pedestrian connections be provided between the dwelling units and the municipal sidewalks • ensuring the landowner pays its proportionate share of the cost of the Rouge Park Neighbourhood Study and the cost of the stormwater management pond to the south • ensuring that the required technical submissions and reports meet city standards The City Development Department will conclude its position on the applications after it has received and assessed comm~nts from the circulated departments, agencies and public. 8. Information Received Full scale copies of the plans and studies listed below are available for on line viewing at pickering.ca/devapp or in person at the· office of the City of Pickering, City Development Department: • Arborist Report and Tree Inventory Plan Revised, prepared by Cosburn Nauboris Ltd., dated February 6, 2018 • Bioretention and Buffer Restoration Plan, prepared by Casburn Naubori$ Ltd., dated March 27, 2018 • Draft Plan of Common Elements Condominium, prepared by GHD, dated February 2018 • Draft Plan of Subdivision, prepared by GHD, dated February 2018 • Environmental Impact Study, prepared by Beacon Environmental, dated January 2018 • Functional Servicing and Stormwater Management Report, prepared by Sabourin Kimble & Associates Ltd., dated December 2017 • Geotechnical Investigation, prepared by Canada Engineering Services Inc., dated November 25, 2016 • Hydrogeological Assessment, prepared by Soil Engineers Ltd., dated July 2017 • Noise Impact Study, prepared by J.E. Coulter Associates Limited, dated February 12, 2018 • Phase One Environmental Site Assessment, prepared by Canada Engineering Services Inc., dated December 20, 2016 • Planning Rationale Report, prepared by GHD, dated February 2018 • Site Plan, prepared by SRN Architects Inc., dated January 17, 2017 • Stages 1 and 2 Archaeological Assessment, prepared by The Archaeologists Inc., dated July 3, 2017 • Sustainable Development Brief, prepared by GHD, dated February 2018 · • Transportation Impact Assessment Addendum, prepared by AECOM, dated April 2017 Information Report No. 12-18 Page 9 9. Procedural Information 9.1 General • written comments regarding this proposal should be directed to the City Development Department • oral comments may be made at the Public Information Meeting • all comments received will be noted and used as input to a Planning Report prepared by the City Development Department for a subsequent meeting of Council or a Committee of Council • any member of the public who wishes to reserve the option to appeal Council's decision must provide comments to the City before Council adopts any by-law for this proposal or makes a decision on the draft plan of subdivision and draft plan of condominium • 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 the property is 702153 Ontario Limited and is represented by Steve Edwards, GHD Limited. Attachments 1. Location Map 2. Aerial Photo 3. Submitted Concept Plan 4. Submitted Conceptual Rendering 5. Submitted Draft Plan of Subdivision 6: Submitted Draft Plan of Condominium Prepared By: , MCIP, RPP ner, Development Review \ Nilesh S rti, MCIP, RPP Manager, Development Review & Urban Design DW:ld Date of Report: August 24, 2018 Approved/Endorsed By: !!~Jli:---Catherine Rose, MCIP, RPP Chief Planner 17 -Cdt;o/-P1CKER1NG City Development . 8 Department Attachment# I to lnforn,~tion Reoort# /J-/f3 Location Map -0 co 0 a:: co C: 0 ~ File: SP-2016-01 (R), CP-2016-03(R), A09-16(R) Applicant: 702153 Ontario Limited Property Description: N Pt Lt 32, Con 1; Us 1-4, Plan 566; Pt 1, 40R-2545; & Pt 1, 40R-2549 (1985 & 1999 Altona Rd & 323, 327 & 331 Finch Ave) Date: AuQ. 23, 2018 tie 1,.;orporalion o the t..1ty o 1ci(enng 1-'roduced (1n part) under I cense om: 1;1uueens J-'nnter, untano MITUslry 01 Natural ttesources. SCALE: 1 :5,000 I A!! righb reserved.1{;) Her Ma}!!sty the Oueenln Right of Canada, Department of Natura! Resources. AU rights reserved.; ©Teranel Enlerprise5 Jne. and !ts supp!ier.i all rights reseNed.; e Mun!t!pal Property Asussment Cotporation and as suppliers al! rlgh!s reseNed.; THIS IS NOT A PLAN OF SURVEY. -aft;o/-P1CKER1NG City Development Department Attachment# c!) to n ()rt"fl!:\ti"ri Qeoort# 1()-/ $ Air Photo Ma File: SP-2016-01 R CP-2016-03 R A09-16 R ' . ' Applicant: 702153 Ontario Limited Property Description: N Pt Lt 32, Con 1; Lts 1-4, Plan 566; Pt 1, 40R~2545; & Pt 1, 40R-2549 (1985 & 1999 Altona Rd & 323, 327 & 331 Finch Ave) Date: Au . 23, 2018 lr~hls~~:~b:; ~r IA~)ltsty :ea:e~n ';:~ht(~l~a~a~a.~,;=~~eent0:,:tlalu~t;:$0~::~.;~;~s ::~:d/<Jltxa. eso\Htes. SCALE: 1 :5,QQQ g ~Tuanel Enterprises Inc. and its ,upp!len: a!l rlghls rese1Ved.; Cl t,IW'lklpal Prnperty AssenmenlCorporation and ls sup piers all rights reserved_; THIS IS NOT A PLAN OF SURVEY. L..;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;==;;;;;;;:;;============;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;..J 1' Cl <( 0 er. <( z 0 ~ <( -O~of- p](KERJNG City Development Department FINCH AVENUE Submitted Concept Plan File No: SP-2016-01 (R), CP-2016-03(R)_,_A 09/16(R) Applicant 702153 Ontario Limited Property Description: N Pt Lt 32 , Con 1; Us 1-4, Plan 566; Pt 1, 40R-2545; & Pt 1, 40R-2549 (1985 & 1999 Altona Road, and 323, 327 & 331 Finch Avenue) FULL SCALE COPIES OF THIS PLAN ARE AVAILABLE FOR VIEWING AT THE CITY OF PICKERING I DATE: Aug ust 22, 20 18 CITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT. I g. .. 3 -~<D 0 ::s ::, -:u =It I~ =It -0 , ......... ~ -1m -· Of:j of- p](KERlNG City Development Department L:\Planning\Corel\Planning\Apps\PCA\2018 Submitted Conceptual Rendering File No: SP-2016-0l(R), CP-2016-03(R) and A 09 /16(R) Applicant: 702153 Ontario Limited Property Description: North Pt 32 , Con 1; Lots 1-4, Plan 566; Part 1, Plan 40R2545; & Part 1 Plan 40R2549 (1985 & 1999 Altona Road, and 323, 327 & 331 Finch Avenue) FULL SCALE COPIES OF THIS PLAN ARE AVAILABLE FOR VIEWING AT THE CITY OF PICKERING CITY DEV ELOPMENT DEPARTMENT. DATE: August 22, 2018 i g. 3 • (I) :::J -t' 0 = ~. ROAD.Yil1/ENING . . ~I lO BLOCK 3 , ,__ ~·1 o.~ ac.) . . \ '" \ IVT ~ un· . 1 --Ci~o/-- PJ(KERJNG City Development Department L:\Planning\Corel~Planning\Apps\PCA\2018 \ ii\. Submitted Draft Plan of Subdivision File No: SP-2016-01 (R), CP-2016-03(R) and A 09/16(R) Applicant: 702153 Ontario Limited Property Description: North Pt 32, Con 1; Lots 1-4, Plan 566; Part 1, Plan 40R2545; & Part 1 Plan 40R2549 (1985 & 1999 Altona Road, and 323, 327 & 331 .Finch Avenue) FULL SCALE COPIES OF THIS PLAN ARE AVAILABLE FOR VIEWING AT THE CITY OF PICKERING CITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT. DATE: August 22, 2018 -Q~of- Pl(KERlNG City Development Department L:\Planning\Corel\Planning\Apps\PCA\2018 ---------------~ FINCH " AVENUE \-...,........ ---~ "---,: ,· ~ 1·• 10 ,r ✓r <( z 0 ~ <( C(IST!J,JC ?.f.SlD EJ•Hl 4.L n Submitted Draft Plan of Condominium 1&"6 N72'47'05-C: 22.tllJO File No: SP-2016-01 (R), CP-2016-03(R) and A 09/16(R) Applicant: 702153 Ontario Limited ..... Property Description: North Pt 32, Con 1; Lots 1 -A, Plan 566; Part 1, Plan 40R2545; & Part 1 Plan 40R2549 (1985 & 1999Altona Road, and 323, 327 & 331 Finch Avenue) FULL SCALE COPIES OF THIS PLAN ARE AVA ILABLE FOR VIEWING AT THE CITY OF PICKERING CITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT. . DATE: August 22, 2018 24 --C4Jof--Pl(KER1NG From: Kyle Bentley Report to Planning & Development Committee Report Number: PLN 23.-18 Date: September 11, 2018 Director, City Development & CBO Subject: Zoning By-law Amendment Application A 04/18 Request for Red-Line Revision of Draft Approved Plan of Subdivision SP-2009-11 (R) Mattamy (Seaton) Limited Part of Lots 21 & 22 Concession 4, Part of Lots 21, 22 & 23 Concession 5 · Seaton Community City of Pickering Recommendation: 1. That Revision to Draft Plan of Subdivision SP-2009-11 (R) submitted by Mattamy (Seaton). Limite9, to permit a red-line revision to a draft approved plan of subdivision on lands being Part of Lots 21 & 22 co·ncession 4, Part of Lots 21, 22 & 23 Concession 5, as shown on the Applicant's Revised Plan Attachment #2 to Report PLN 23-18, be endorsed; 2. That the proposed amendments to the conditions of draft plan of subdivision approval to implement Draft Plan of Subdivision SP-2009-11 (R) as set out in Appendix I to Report PLN 23-18 be endorsed; 3. That the Local Planning Appeal Tribunal (formally known as the Ontario Municipal Board) be advised of City Council's decision on the request for a red-line revision to Draft Plan of Subdivision SP-2009-11 (R) and that the City Solicitor be authorized to attend any Local Planning Appeal Tribunal/Ontario Municipal Board hearing on the requested red-line revision; 4. That Zoning By-law Amendment Application A 04/18, submitted by Mattamy (Seaton) Limited, to implement the red-line revision to Draft Approved Plan of Subdivision SP-2009-11 (R), be approved, and the draft zoning by-law contained in Appendix II to Report PLN 23-18 be forwarded to Council for enactment. Executive Summary: Mattamy (Seaton) Limited has requested a revision to a portion of the draft approved plan of subdivision in the Wilson Meadows Neighbourhood, in the Seaton Community. · This draft plan of subdivision was approved by the Ontario Municipal Board (0MB) (see Location Map, Attachment #1 ). The applicant has requested a zoning by-law amendment in order to implement the proposed revisions to the draft approved plan of subdivision. The proposed revisions to the draft plan ofsubdivision are appropriate and conform to the Central Pickering Development Plan, the Pickering Official Plan and the Wilson Meadows Neighbourhood policies. The revisions to the draft plan do not alter the overall plan's design and the inclusion of additional lands to the draft plan of subdivision completes the development. Report PLN 23-18 Subject: Mattamy (Seaton) Limited (SP-2009-11 (R), A 04/18) September 11, 2018 Page 2 Staff recommend that Council approve a red-line revision to a draft approved plan of subdivision, endorse the amended conditions of approval as set out in Appendix I, approve the Zoning By-law Amendment Application A 04/18, endorse the implementing zoning provisions contained in Appendix II, and authorize staff to finalize and forward an implementing Zoning By-law to Council for enactment. Financial Implications: No direct costs to the City are anticipated as a result of the proposed applications. 1. Background 1.1 Property Description The subject lands are located north and south of Whitevale Road, west of Mulberry Lane within the Wilson Meadows Neighbourhood, which is part of the Seaton Community (see Location Map, Attachment #1 ). The lands covered by the approved Draft Plan of Subdivision SP-2009-11 (R) have a land area of approximately 54 hectares. A remnant parcel located at 1415 Whitevale Road, which is proposed to be added to the plan of subdivision, has an area of approximately 0.8 of a hectare. The surrounding lands are all owned by the Province and are designated Seaton Natural Heritage System. Beyond the Seaton Natural Heritage lands are privately owned lands subject to other draft plans of subdivisions. 1.2 .. Applicant's Proposal The original Plan of Subdivision SP-2009-11 was draft approved by the 0MB in December 2013. The related z~ming that implements the subdivision, being the Seaton Zoning By-law 7364/14, was confirmed by the Province through an Order in Council in March 2014. Since these approvals, the landowner has commenced detailed design for the draft plan of subdivision. This has resulted in engineering and urban design modifications to certain roads and the lotting fabric of the approved draft plan of subdivision. The majority of the draft plan of subdivision and zoning remains unchanged as the revisions mostly affect the area in the central portion of the draft plan (see Attachment #2, Submitted Revised Draft Plan of Subdivision and Attachment #3, Submitted Revised Draft Plan of Subdivision with Proposed Zoning). The major change is to convert the back-to-back townhouses to lane based townhouses along the east.side of the north-south spine to enhance the urban design for this area. This change will eliminate the driveways on the east side of the spine collector road. The other significant change is the incorporation of the remnant parcel on the south side of Whitevale Road into the draft plan of subdivision. Thi's land is proposed for 17 detached dwellings ahd extensions of proposed roads. Including this parcel in the subdivision allows for the completion of an integrated development for the neighbourhood. 25 26 Report PLN 23-18 Subject: Mattamy (Seaton) Limited (SP-2009-11 (R), A 04/18) 2. Comments Received 2.1. April 3, 2018 Public.Information Meeting and Written Comments September 11, 2018 Page 3 No members of the public who attended the meeting voiced comments regarding the proposed applications. No comments have been received from the public as a result of circulation of the public notice of the applications. 2.2 City Departments & Agency Comments 2.2.1 Region of Durham • the proposed amendment to the draft approval is minor in nature and will contribute to a safer community with less driveways accessed along the main collector road • no objection to the proposed amendment to the draft plan and the existing Regional conditions of approval are appropriate with the change to reflect the revised plan 2.2.2 Toronto and Region Conservation Authority • no objections to the approval of the zoning by-law amendment or the revision to the draft approved plan of subdivision and the existing conditions of approval are appropriate with the change to reflect the revised plan • technical matters can be addressed through the implementation of the conditions of approval 2.2.3 City of Pickering Engineering Services Department· • no objection; technical matters can be addressed through the implementation of the conditions of approval 2.2.4 Durham District School Board • no objections to the proposal • the existing conditions of approval as approved by the 0MB are appropriate 2.2.5 Durham Catholic District School Board • no objections to the proposal • the existing conditions of approval as approved by the 0MB are appropriate 2.2.6 Other Agencies • no other agency that. provided comments on the applications expressed any concern . with the proposed land use • detailed design matters can be addressed in the fulfillment of the conditions of approval Report PLN 23-18 Subject: Mattamy (Seaton) Limited (SP-2009-11 (R), A 04/18) September 11, 2018_ Page 4 3. Planning Analysis 3.1 The revised draft plan of subdivision ~onforms to the Central Pickering Development Plan, the Pickering Official Plan and is consistent with the policies fo(the Wilson Meadows Neighbourhood The original applications, as approved by the 0MB, were in conformity with the policies and provisions of the Central Pickering Development Plan, the Pickering Official Plan and the Wilson Meadows Neighbourhood Plan. The revisions to the draft plan of subdivision are considered minor in nature. Matters such as land use, density, natural heritage preservation, sustainable development, servicing, and urban design have not been impacted by the revisions. 3.2 The revised draft plan of subdivision will improve the urban design of the core area of the draft plan The revised draft plan reinforces the pedestrian supportive urban design by removing driveways on the east side of the collector road,. This revision will create ari improved pedestrian oriented spine road through the subdivision. This proposal is consistent with the City's urban design goals and objectives in the Seaton Sustainable Placemaking Guidelines. 3.3 The addition of the remnant parcel into the revised draft plan of subdivision will complete the area in terms of urban design The revised draft plan adds to the plan the one remaining parcel of land not included in the original plan of subdivision. The inclusion of this 0.8 of a hectare parcel will allow that parcel to be appropriately integrated within the surrounding development with respect to land use, street layout and lotting. The addition of this parcel will allow the urban design envisioned in the Neighbourhood Plan to be achieved. The rezoning of this parcel will complete the zoning for this area of Seaton. · 3.4 Technical matters will be addressed as conditions of subdivision approval Detailed design issues will be dealt with through the subdivision agreement process. The draft plan conditions of approval ensure that all of the City's technical, financial, and other matters will be addressed prior to the finalization of the draft plan of subdivision. 4. Conclusion The applicant's proposal satisfies the applicable Pickering Official Plan policies for the Wilson Meadows Neighborhood and also addresses the appropriate urban design requirements as established in the Seaton Sustainable Placemaking Guidelines. _The applicant has worked with City staff and external agencies to address various technical requirements. It is recommended that Condition A-1 of the Conditions of Approval for Draft Plan of Subdivision SP-2009-11 (R), be endorsed by Council, as set out in Appendix L to this Report. Condition A-1 is the condition that identifies the actual plan being approved. All of the other existing draft plan conditions will remain the same. 27 28 Report PLN 23-18 Subject: Mattamy (Seaton) Limited (SP-2009-11 (R), A 04/18) September 11, 2018 Page 5 Staff supports the rezoning application and recommends that the draft implementing by-law provided as Appendix II to this Report be finalized and brought before Council for enactment. The by-law will not come into effect until the Local Planning Appeal Tribunal (LPAT)/OMB has made an approval decision on the revision to the draft plan of subdivision. The proposed revision to the draft approved plan of subdivision and application to amend the zoning by-law are considered to be minor modifications to the development that was previously approved by the 0MB and therefore continues to represent good planning. These applications are: • consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement, 2014 • in _conformity with the Growth Plan for the greater Golden Horseshoe, 2017 • in conformity with the Central Pickering Development Plan. • in conformity with the Durham Region Official Plan • in conformity with the City of Pickering Official Plan 4.1 Local Planning Appeal Tribunal/Ontario Municipal Board is the Approval Authority for this Revision to the Draft Plan of Subdivision As the subject draft plan of subdivision was approved by the 0MB, the LPAT/OMB is also the approval authority for the· requested revision. If Council supports the requested revision, it is anticipated that the owner and the City will approach the LPAT/OMB to approve the requested revision. 4.2 Applicant's Comments The applicant supports the recommendations of this report. Appendices Appendix I Recommended Conditions of Approval for Draft Plan of Subdivision SP-2009-11 (R) Appendix II Recommended Zoning By-law Amendment Application A 04/18 Attachments 1. Location Map 2. Submitted Revised Draft Plan of Subdivision 3. Submitted Revised Draft Plan of Subdivision with Proposed Zoning Report PLN 23-18 . Subject: Mattamy (Seaton) Limited (SP-2009-11 (R), A 04/18) September 11, 2018 Pa~e 6 Prepared By: ~-P--Ross Pym, MClf:( RPP , Principal Planrier, Strategic Initiatives RP:ld Recommended for the consideration of Pickering City Council Approved/Endorsed By: Catherine Rose, MCIP; RPP Chief Planner ~/JA. Kyle Bentley, P.Eng, Director, City Development & CBO ~ .Jlf {J[r~ -½. 27, 2016 Tony Prevedel, P.Eng, Chief Administrative Officer 29 30 Appendix I to Report No. PLN 23-18 Recommended Revised Condition of Approval for Draft Plan of Subdivision SP-2009-11 (R) Original Ontario Municipal Board approved draft plan Condition A-1 for Draft Plan of Subdivision SP-2008-11: Section A -General 1. The Owner shall prepare the final plan generally on the basis of the draft plan of subdivision prepared by Macaulay Shiomi Howson Limited, revised and dated August 16, 2013 which illustrates 79 blocks for 600 detached dwelling units, 36 blocks for 398 townhouse dwelling units, future residential development blocks, a park block, 2 village green blocks, a trail head block, a school block, 5 stormwater management facility blocks, a servicing access block, open space blocks, roadways and road widening blocks. · Revised draft plan Condition A-1: Section A -General 1. The Owner shall prepare the final plan generally on the basis of the draft. plan of subdivision prepared by Macaulay Shiomi Howson Limited, revised and dated November 9, 2017 which illustrates 79 blocks for 606 detached dwelling units, 24 blocks for 256 townhouse dwelling units, 4 blocks for 136 back-to-back dwelling units, future residential development blocks, a park block, 2 village green blocks, a trail head block, a school block, 5 stormwater management facility blocks, a servicing access block, open space blocks, roadways and road widening blocks. , 31 32 Appendix II to Report No. PLN 23-18 Draft Zoning By-law Amendment A 04/18 Being a By-law to amend Restricted Area (Zoning) By-law 7364/14, to implement the Official Plan of the City of Pickering, Region of Durham, for land at Part of Lot 21 & 22 Concession 4, and Part of . Lots 21, 22 & 23 Concession 5 City of Pickering (A 04/18) Whereas the Council of The Corporation of the City of Pickering received an application to rezone portions of the subject lands being Part of Lot 21 & 22 Concession 4, and Part of Lots 21, 22 & 23 Concession 5, in the City of Pickering to permit revisions to a draft app'roved plan of subdivision; And whereas an amendment to Zoning By-law 7364/14, is deemed necessary to permit the requested revisions. · Now therefore the Council of The Corporation of the City of Pickering hereby enacts as follows: 1. Schedule I Schedule I attached hereto with notations and references shown thereon are hereby declared to be part of this By-law. 2. Area Restricted The provisions of this By-law shall apply to those lands in Part of Lot 21 & 22 Concession 4, and Part of Lots 21, 22 & ?3 Concession 5, in the City of Pickering, designated "LD1, !-D1-T, LD2, MD-OS" on Schedule I attached hereto. 3. General Provisions No building, structure; land or part thereof shall hereafter be used, occupied, erected, moved or structurally altered except in conformity with the provisions of this By-law. · 4. By-law 7364/14 · By-law 7364/14, is hereby further amended only to the extent necessary to give effect to the provisions of this By-law as it applie~ to the area set out in Schedule I to this By~law. Definitions and subject matters not specifically dealt with in this By-law shall be governed by relevant provisions of By-law 7364/14. 33 34 By-law No. XXXX/18 Page 2 5. Effective Date This By-law shall come into force in accordance with the provisions of the Planning Act, upon the approval by the Local Planning Appeal Tribunal/Ontario Municipal Board of the red-line revisions to Draft Approved Plan of Subdivision SP-2009~11. By-law passed this XXth day of XXXX, 2018. F David Ryan, Mayor -, Debbie Shields, City Clerk 1 I I / \\ I ) 1 ' . I I I l SWM ' I I I ,.., I \\ -L-,,1' I r--I Cf) ~ r, 0::::: n . ~,1 I _! I --------] r L --I 1-~ \ \ 1or:::::: I ,· I \ I \ I \ I \ I \\ I I I \\\ I I I ~~ ~~ I \ I / l ------I 0 ~ 0 LUL-IVI :J ~ -------------------------------------WHITEVALE ROAQ ------------------------------------... "'""!~""""!-.-"'!'!!'-.-~..-~-..,..~-""'"" .... -----------------------------'1 ( (J) ' I 0 MP-bS o I I 2 LD1 I N 0 _J . ___ .) !_ ____ _ L ( I I ---' SWM SCHEDULE I TO BY-LAW ____ _ PASSED THIS ____ _ DAY OF ______ 20i 8 MAYOR CLERK 35 j -Cd;Jo/-PJ(KERJNG City Development Department ATTACHMEI\IT # / TO Rl:POR1 # Pl.N '93-·JS Location Ma Subject Lands J ? ( File: A04/18 & SP-2009-11 R \ ) he orporaliono the 1lyo 1ekermg rt1d~ed(npat1)underlieense om: Queens nrter, no l"lslrfo ahr.1 esoU"Ces. !l rlghls rese1Ved.;© Her Majesty the Queen In Righi of Canada, Oepartmert of Natt.rat Resouces. AD rigH:s reser.-ed.; '-( \ D Teranet Enterprises lne. and !b supp!\ar.; aU rfghls ruer.-ed.; © Mun!clpa! Property Assessmert Coipora,lionard Its S4)p5ero all rig!i:s reserved..; THIS JS NOT A PLAN OF SURVEY. \ I City Development Department ATTACHMENT# oJ TO REPORI # FU~ ~3-/g NAlURAl. HERITAGE SYSTEM . HATURALHEl~ffAGE SYSTEM Submitted Revised Draft Pian of Subdivision File No: A04/18 & SP-2009-11 R Applicant: Mattamy (Seaton) Limited NAllJRAI.. HERITAGE SYSTEM Property Description: Pt Lots 21 & 22 Con 4 & Pt Lots 21, 22 & 23 Con 5 FULL SCALE COPIES OF THIS PLAN ARE AVAILABLE FOR VIEWING AT THE CITY OF PICKERING CITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT. DATE: March 14, 2018 37 38 City Development Department Ii.TT ACHMEl\!T # 3 TO Hl:PORT # f?L/\\ ,;l3,._-__ i g __ _ . NAl\JRAl HERITAGE SYSTEM t<Al\JRAI. HERITAGE SYSTEM 1' Submitted Revised Draft Plan of Subdivision with Proposed Zoning File No: A04/18 & SP-2009-11 R Applicant: Mattamy (Seaton) Limited Property Description: Pt Lots 21 & 22 Con 4 & Pt Lots 21, 22 & 23 Con 5 FULL SCALE COPIES OF THIS PLAN ARE AVAILABLE FOR VIEWING AT THE CITY OF PICKERING CITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT. DATE: March 14, 2018 --,--~Cdy(>f--p](KERlNG Report to Planning & Development Committee Report Number: PLN 24-18 Date: September 11, 2018 From: Subject: Kyle Bentley Director, City Development & CBO Delegation of Council Authority under the Ontario Heritage Act File: A-3300-060 Recommendation: 1. That Council approve and enact a Delegation of Council Authority By-law to consenUgrant heritage permits for the alteration of designated properties as set out in Appendix I to Report PLN 24-18; 2. That the appropriate City of Pickering officials be authorized to take the necessary actions as indicated in this report. Executive Summary: The purpose of this report is to obtain Council's approval to delegate Council's approval authority to consenUgrant heritage permits for the alterations of designated properties under the Ontario Heritage Act to the Director, City Development & CBO or designate. The Ontario Heritage Act gives municipalities the authority to delegate by by-law, the power to consent to alterations to designated properties to municipal staff. In order to implement this policy in accordance with the Ontario Heritage Act, Council must pass a by-law outlining the scope of the delegated authority. Prior to passing the by-law, Council must consult with the municipal heritage committee. The draft by-law is attached as Appendix I and is recommended for Council enactment. Financial Implications: The recommendations of this report do not present any financial implications. 1. Discussion Alterations to heritage properties designated under Part IV (individual designation) or Part V (Heritage Conservation District designation) of the Ontario Heritage Act require a heritage permit application. The Ontario Heritage Act requires that all alterations affecting designated properties require Council approval and consultation with the Heritage Pickering Advisory Committee ("Heritage Pickering") within 90 days. Notwithstanding, the Ontario Heritage Act does give municipalities the authority to delegate by by-law, the power to consent to alterations to designated properties to municipal staff 39 40 Report PLN 24-18 Subject: Delegation of Council Authority under the Ontario Heritage Act September 11, 2018 Page 2 The Whitevale Heritage Conservation District Plan ("HCD Plan") and HCD Guide, endorsed by Council, provides sample permit approval processes for different types works for properties located in the HCD. For minor works that meets the HCD Plan and Guide, such as roofing and window replacement and construction of garages in the rear yard, the HCD Guide recommends that approval is given at a staff level for a faster, more streamlined approval process with an estimated processing time of 1 to 2 weeks. For major works, such as constructing a new building or an addition to a heritage building, the HCD Guide recommends that the application is presented to Heritage Pickering and if there are no concerns, approval is given within 2 to 4 weeks. In instances where planning staff, in consultation with Heritage Pickerin·g, have been unable to resolve concerns with the application, it is referred to Council for consideration. In accordance with the Ontario Heritage Act, Council has 90 days to make a decision. Notwithstanding the sample permit approval processes in the HCD Guide, the current practice is that all heritage permit applications are presented to Heritage Pickering. The application is reviewed by staff in consultation with the City's heritage consultant and a memo is prepared including a recommendation to Heritage Pickering. The application is presented to the Committee at the earliest available meeting, which is generally 4 to 8 weeks after submission. Certain types of applications are referred to Council in accordance with the Ontario Heritage Act, and in consultation with Heritage Pickering: • for individually designated properties, applications for demolition or removal of a building .and applications that negatively impact identified heritage attributes of a property · • for properties located in the HCD, applications for the erection, demolition or removal of a building or structure and applications that are not consistent with the HCD Plan and Guide Staff recommend that the City formalize authorizing the power to consent/grant heritage permit applications for alterations of properties that are consistent with the HCD Plan and Guide and for the approval of heritage permits for the alterations that are positive or have a neutral i.1')1pact to individually designated properties. 2. Benefits of a Delegation By-law As noted, the City does not have a by-law that delegates power to consent to alterations to properties designated under the Ontario Heritage Act to municipal staff. The Ontario Heritage Act gives municipalities the authority to delegate the approval of alterations to municipal staff. Given the benefits, many municipalities across Ontario have passed delegation by-laws. The benefits include: · • Improved customer service by streamlining the heritage permit application process: A delegation by-law allows staff to approve heritage permits within a reduced time frame to designated properties found to have a positive or neutral impact, and in the case of a heritage conservation district, comply with the HCD Plan and Guide. Report PLN 24-18 Subject: Delegation of Council Authority under the Ontario Heritage Act September 11, 2018 Page 3 • Improved heritage conservation: Streamlining the heritage permit application processing time encourages property owners to submit applications for work that is not typically triggered by a building permit or development application. The current 90 day approval timeline can discourage applicants who are 'shovel ready' and increase unsympathetic 'weekend' alterations. • Makes more efficient use of staff and committee resources: A delegation by-law reduces staff time spent on report preparation, meetings and processing and it frees up time for staff and the Heritage Committee to undertake other heritage initiatives. 3. Consultation with Heritage Pickering Prior to Council passing a by-law outlining the scope of the delegated authority, consultation with the municipal heritage committee is required by the Ontario Heritage Act. Staff and the City's heritage consultant met with Heritage Pickering on two occasions (September 27, 2017 and March 28, 2018) to present the topic of implementing a heritage permit delegation by-law. Heritage Pickering reviewed the benefits of a delegation by-law, discussed processes in other municipalities and the different types of applications that may be delegated to staff for approval. Heritage Pickering supports a by-law to delegate the authority to grant heritage permits for the alterations of designated heritage properties to staff. Staff and Heritage Pickering created a proposed heritage permit review process, as shown in Attachment #1, and a detailed list of heritage permit types (minor heritage permits) that will be delegated to staff was created. This list may be updated over time. Minor heritage permits are small changes to a property that will have a positive or neutral impact on a cultural heritage resource or district as guided by the HCD Plan and Guide. These chang~s may or may not require a building permit. Examples of minor heritage permits include: • repair, alteration or replacement of exterior building elements, including but not limited to: windows, .storm windows, doors, roof finishes, skylights/solar panels, cladding, cornices, decorative. architectural features, porches etc. • new signage or the alteration, repair and or removal of existin9 signage • new lighting or the alteration, repair and or removal of existing lighting • additions to a residential/commercial building (rear, side or dormer) • new garages or secondary structures in the rear yard • new built elements in the landscape including fences or hard landscaping (walkways; driveways, parking pads) • new windows and storm windows • minor revisions to previously approved permits 41 Report PLN 24-18 Subject: Delegation of Council Authority under the Ontario Heritage Act September 11, 2018 Page 4 • work in situations which require emergency repair and/or considered to be Health and Safety issues by the Chief Building Official Major Heritage Permits, as deemed significant by the Director, are defined as larger scale exterior alterations and/or additions to a property that may be a major impact on the cultural heritage value of the property or District, and other works requiring a building permit or Council approval under the Planning Act or the Ontario Heritage Act. These applications will be forwarded to Heritage Pickering for consultation and referred to Council for consideration. Examples of major heritage permits include:. • construction of a new building or structure (primary building) • removal (relocation) of a building • demolition of a building • large additions visible from the street and additions to street facing facades (deemed significant by the Director) Staff will advise Heritage Pickering monthly on any heritage permit applications that have been issued. 4. Staff recommend that the Delegation By-law be enacted by Council It is recommended that the Director, City Development & CBO (or designate) be delegated certain Council authorities respecting the granting of approvals for alterations to designated properties (see Draft By-law, Appendix I). The by-law allows staff the ability to provide approvals of heritage permit applications for minor works within a reduced time frame, which will improve customer service by streamlining the heritage permit application process and encourage property owners to submit applications for work that is not typically trig_gered by a building. Staff's discretion would be called upon to identify the significance of the heritage permit application: Staff will continue to consult with Heritage Pickering on matters including new development, and any alterations that are not consistent with the HCD or negatively impact identified heritage attributes of a property. Furthermore, major heritage permit applications would require Council approval as directed in the Ontario Heritage Act (demolitions, removal or new buildings) or non-compliant applications and applications deemed significant by staff. Appendix Appendix I Draft By-law to Delegate Council Authority under the Ontario Heritage Act Attachment 1. Proposed Heritage Permit Review Process 42 Report PLN 24-18 Subject: Delegation of Council Authority under the qntario Heritage Act September 11,-2018 Page 5 Prepared By: . Cristina elebre, MCIP, RPP Principa Planner, Development Review MI\pp Manager, D velopment Review & Urban Design CC:ld Recommended for the consideration of Picke?i);l]I . ½· l1, zo/g Tony Prevedel, P.Eng. Chief Administrative Officer Approved/Endorsed By: Catherine Rose, MCIP, RPP Chief Planner K£l;f1ng Director, City Development & CBO 43 44 Appendix I to Report No. PLN 24-18 Draft By-law to Delegate Council Authority Under the Ontario Heritage Act of Pickering Being a By-law to delegate the authority to consent/grant heritage permits for the alteration of designated heritage properties to the Director, City Develo'pment, or designate. Whereas Subsection 8(1) of the Municipal Act, 2001, S.O. 2001, c. 25, as amended ("Municipal Acf'), provides that the powers of a municipality under any Act shall be interpreted broadly so as to confer broad authority on the municipality to enable the municipality to govern its affairs as it considers appropriate, and to enhance the municipality's ability to respond to municipal issues; Whereas Section 9 of the Municipal Act provides that a municipality has the capacity, rights, powers and privileges of a natural person for the purpose of exercising its authority under the Municipal Act or any other Act; Whereas Paragraph 5 of Subsection 11 (3) of the Municipal Act provides that a municipality may pass by-laws within the following sphere of jurisdiction: Culture, parks, .·. recreation and heritage; Whereas Sections 23.1 and 23.2 of the Municipal Act authorize a municipality to delegate its powers and duties under the Municipal Act, subject to certain restrictions, to an individual who is an officer, employee or agent of the municipality; Whereas Section 227 of the Municipal Act provides that it is the role of officers and employees of the municipality to implement decisions of the council of a_ municipality and establish practices and procedures to implement those decisions; Whereas Subsection 33(1) of the Ontario Heritage Act, R.S.O. 19~0, c. 0.18, as amended ("Ontario Heritage Acf'), authorizes the council of a municipality to make decisions in respect to the consent of alterations of property designated under Part IV of the Ontario Heritage Act; Whereas Subsections 33(15) and 33(16) of the Ontario Heritage Act, authorizes the council of a municipality to delegate by by-law the power to consent to alterations to property designated under Part IV of the Ontario Heritage Act to an employee or official of the municipality after having consulted with its municipal heritage committee; Whereas Subsections 42(1) and 42(4) of the Ontario.Heritage Act, provides that the council of a municipality may grant permits for the alteration of property located in a heritage conservation district designated under Part V of the Ontario Heritage Act; Whereas Subsections 42(16) and 42(17) of the Ontario Heritage Act, authorizes the council of a municipality to delegate by by-law the power to grant permits for the alteration of property situated in a heritage conservation district designated under Part V of the Ontario Heritage Act to an employee or official of the municipality after having consulted with its municipal heritage committee; 45 4·6 Page 2 And whereas in accordance with Subsections 33(15) and 42(16) of the Ontario Heritage Act, the Council of The Corporation of the City of Pickering has consulted with its municipal heritage committee; Now therefore the Counc;;il of The Corporation of the City of Pickering hereby enacts as follows: Part 1 ~ Definitions For the purposes of this By-law: "Act" means the Ontario Heritage Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. 0.18, as amended from time to time; "Alter" means to change in any manner and includes to restore, renovate, repair, erect or disturb and "alteration" and "altering" have corresponding meanings; "City" means The Corporation of the City of Pickering; "Director" means the person who holds the position of Director, City Development or any successor thereto for the City, or designate; "Council" means the elected Council of the City; "Designated Heritage Property" means a specific property designated by the City to be of cultural heritage value or interest under Part IV or Part V of the Act; "Heritage Conservation District" means a heritage conservation district established under Part V of the Act; "Heritage Permit" means a heritage permit issued by the Director, or designate, under this By-law; "Heritage Pickering Advisory Committee" means the City's municipal heritage committee established pursuant to the Act; "Information" means any information requested by the Director, or designate, and includes, plans, reports or any other docu·mentation requested; "Owner" means the person registered on title in the proper land registry office as owner of the Property; "Part IV Property" means a specific property designat~d under Part IV of the Act; "Part V Property" means a specific property designated under Part V of the Act; "Property" means real property and includes all buildings and structures thereon and includes a cultural heritage landscape. X Page 3 Part II ~ Application for Heritage Permit 1. An Owner wishing to obtain a consent to alter a Designated Heritage Property shall submit an application for a Heritage Permit on a form prescribed by the Director and accompanied by the information required therein. Part Ill -Nature and Scope of Delegation ' 1. Council hereby delegates to the Director, or his/her designate, all power and authority to: a) grant a Heritage Permit to c;1lter a Designated Heritage Property; and b) refer an application for a Heritage Permit to alter a Designated Heritage Property to the Heritage Pickering Advisory Committee for review. 2. The delegated authority does not include the power and authority to:· a) refuse or deny an application for a Heritage Permit. Where the Director would refuse or deny an application for a Heritage Permit, the Director shall advise Council to retain all authority in regards to that application; b) consent to the demolition or removal of a building(s) on a Part IV Property; and c) consent to the erection, demolition or removai a building(s) on a Part V Property. · . 3. The Director is authorized to undertake all acts necessary to carry out the authority vested.in the Director pursuant to this By-law, including affixing his/her signature as required to all documents. 4. Any and all decisions made by the Director regarding applications for a Heritage Permit will be reported to the Heritage Pickering Advi~ory Committee at the meeting that directly follows the issuance of a Heritage Permit. 5. The Director may request such information as required from the Owner relating to a Heritage Permit.. 6. Council retains the authority to request information that it considers necessary that may not have been requested by the Director. 7. The Director has all of the powers that Council has to process Heritage Permits in accordance with the terms of this By-law and to establish any policies, guidelines, practices or procedures necessary to enact the Heritage Permit system in accordance with the terms and intent of this by-law and any decision made by Council pursuant of this by-law. 47 48 By-law No. XXXX Page 4 8. In situations which require emergency repair and/or are considered to be a health and safety issue by the Chief Building Official, the Director may approve alterations · to a Designated Heritage Property without a recommendation from the Heritage Pickering Advisory Committee; however, in doing so, the Director will make the best effort to consult with the Heritage Pickering Advisory Committee Chair and/or Vice Chair prior to the approval of alterations. By-law passed this XX day of XXXX. FT David Ryan, Mayor Debbie Shields, City Clerk Heritage _ Permit Review Process Minor Alteration (Part V Property) · No Heritage Permit required Applicant Consults with Staff Notice of Receipt to Applicant Minor Heritage Permit ' Consult with Heritage : Pickering As required by the Director Notice of Decision to Applicant ,J Yes! Start work Non-rompliant, application proceeds to Council ••• • • • • •,. Major Heritage Permit As required under the Ontario Heritage · Act or applications deemed significant by the Director Consult with Heritage Pickering Committee Council Decision Notice of Decision to Applicant