HomeMy WebLinkAboutMay 6, 2019fly evi'
DICKERING
Planning & Development
Committee Agenda
Monday, May 6, 2019
Council Chambers
7:00 pm
Chair: Councillor Cumming
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.
For information related to accessibility requirements please contact:
Linda Roberts
905.420.4660 extension 2928
Iroberts@pickering.ca
CJS ad
DICKERING
Planning & Development
Committee Agenda
Monday, May 6, 2019
Council Chambers - 7:00 pm
Chair: Councillor Cumming
1. Disclosure of Interest
2. Delegations
3. Information Reports Pages
3.1 Information Report No. 08-19 1
Zoning By-law Amendment Application A 01/19
Draft Plan of Subdivision Application SP -2019-01
Draft Plan of Condominium Application CP -2019-01
Marshall Homes (Finch) Ltd.
Part of Lots 31 and 32, Concession 2 South, Now Parts
2 to 4 and 6, 40R-29566 and Part 2, 40R-29965
(On Finch Avenue, west of Rosebank Road)
4. Planning & Development Reports
4.1 Director, City Development & CBO, Report PLN 08-19
Kingston Road Corridor and Specialty, Retailing Node
Intensification Study
-Status Update and Recommended Vision and
Intensification Scenario
(Phase 2 of the South Pickering Intensification Study)
Recommendation
14
1. That Council endorse the Recommended Vision for the Kingston
Road Corridor and Specialty Retailing Node, contained in Appendix I;
2. That Council endorse the Recommended Intensification Scenario for
the Kingston Road Corridor and Specialty Retailing Node, contained
in Appendix 11;
For information related to accessibility requirements please contact:
Linda Roberts
905.420.4660 extension 2928
I robe rts� p icke ri nq. ca
C4 o0/
DICKERING
Planning & Development
Committee Agenda
Monday, May 6, 2019
Council Chambers - 7:00 pm
Chair: Councillor Cumming
3. That staff be authorized to initiate Phase 3 of the Kingston Road
Corridor and Specialty Retailing Node Study; and
4. That a copy of Report PLN 08-19 be forwarded to the Region of
Durham, the Toronto and Region Conservation Authority, the
Ministry of Transportation, and Parks Canada.
4.2 Director, City Development & CBO, Report PLN 09-19 40
Update to the Municipal Heritage Register
Recommendation
1. That the City of Pickering Municipal Heritage Register, dated May
2019, as set out in Appendix I to report PLN 09-19, be approved;
and
2. That the City Development Department be directed to update the
City of Pickering Municipal Heritage Register every two years.
4.3 Director, City Development & CBO, Report PLN 10-19
Heritage Permit Application HP 02/19
Request for removal of cattle barn at 1860 Seventh Concession Road
Recommendation
That the Heritage Permit Application HP 02/19 to remove a cattle barn
located at 1870 Seventh Concession be approved.
4.4 Director, City Development & CBO, Report PLN 11-19
Official Plan Amendment OPA 18-001/P
Zoning By-law Amendment Application A 02/18
Draft Plan of Subdivision Application SP -2018-02
Draft Plan of Condominium Application CP -2018-01
Icon Forest District Limited
Northwest corner of Finch Avenue and Altona Road
(2024 and 2026 Altana Road, and 200 Finch Avenue) - REVISED
Recommendation
59
81
DICKERING
04
Planning & Development
Committee Agenda
Monday, May 6, 2019
Council Chambers - 7:00 pm
Chair: Councillor Cumming
1. That Official Plan Amendment Application OPA 18-001/P,
submitted by Icon Forest District Limited, to re -designate the lands
located on the northwest corner of Finch Avenue and Altona Road
from "Urban Residential Areas — Low Density Areas" to "Urban
Residential Areas — Medium Density Areas" to allow a residential
common element condominium development be approved, and that
the draft by-law to adopt Amendment 34 to the Pickering Official
Plan as set out in Appendix I to Report PLN 11-19 be forwarded to
Council for enactment;
2. That Zoning By-law Amendment Application A 02/18, submitted by
Icon Forest District Limited, to facilitate a residential common �
element condominium development Consisting of 40 semi-detached
and 68 townhouse units on the lands located at the northwest
corner of Finch Avenue and Altona Road, be endorsed subject to
the provisions contained in Appendix II to Report PLN 11-19, and
that staff be authorized to finalize and forward an implementing
Zoning By-law to Council for enactment;
3. That Draft Plan of Subdivision Application SP -2018-02, submitted
by Icon Forest District Limited, to establish a single development
block to facilitate a common element condominium, as shown on
Attachment #4 to Report PLN 11-19, and the implementing
conditions of approval, as set out in Appendix III, be endorsed;
4. That Informational Revision 23 to the Pickering Official Plan Rouge
Park Neighbourhood Map 24 to delete the symbols for a "Proposed
Separate Elementary School" and "Proposed Park", as set out in
Appendix IV, be approved; and
5. That the changes to the Rouge Park Neighbourhood Development
Guideline Figure A — Tertiary Plan, as shown on Appendix V to
Report PLN 11-19, to delete the "Future Elementary School",
"Neighbourhood Park", "Potential Access Location" and "Potential
Heritage Home", be approved.
4.5 Director, City Development & CBO, Report PLN 13-19 121
The Municipal Comprehensive Review of the Durham
Regional Official Plan: Agricultural and Rural System
Discussion Paper, March 2019
ate
DICKERING
Planning & Development
Committee Agenda
Monday, May 6, 2019
Council Chambers - 7:00 pm
Chair: Councillor Cumming
Recommendation
1. That the Region maintain the current goals and directions for the
Agricultural/Rural System, and expand the goals and directions for
the Agricultural/Rural System in Durham to:
• support the diversification of agricultural uses and value-
added agriculture;
• support edge planning that will protect farm operations and
improve land use compatibility between agricultural and
urban land uses;
• plan for climate change impacts;
• acknowledge the important relationship between the Prime
Agricultural Areas and the Agri -Food Network, and
• support the provision of reliable fiber optic services to the
rural area;
2. That the Region retain its current approach to referencing the MDS,
as amended from time to time, and allow area municipalities the
flexibility to implement and interpret the MDS formulae at the local
level;
3. That the Region require local official plans to incorporate buffer
areas along the urban/agricultural interface as a mechanisms to
address land use conflicts arising between urban and real land
uses;
4. That the Region provide high level policy support for, and
recognition of, urban agriculture as part of the Region's Agricultural
System, while also encouraging area municipalities to support
urban agriculture though policies and zoning;
That the Region update any technical matters that may have
occurred within the Duffins/Rouge Agricultural Preserve and Seaton
Specific Policy Area lands since their designation in the Regional
Plan;
6. That the Region broaden its policies to recognize "new" types of
agriculture -related and "on-farm" diversified; enable area
DICKERING
Planning & Development
Committee Agenda
Monday, May 6, 2019
Council Chambers - 7:00 pm
Chair: Councillor Cumming
municipalities to consider these types of uses through zoning
by-law amendments and/or site plan approval, and to detail criteria
for these uses in local official plans; and further that the Region
include in its new Official Plan "caps" for certain scales of
agricultural -related and on-farm diversified use operations that
would trigger a more comprehensive planning review process;
7 That the Region acknowledge and address the concerns identified
by staff related to the Provincial Agricultural System Mapping —
Prime Agricultural Area designation as it affects the City of
Pickering, as discussed in section 2.6.3 of this Report (PLN 13-19);
8. That the Region revise its lot creation policy permitting severance
of a farm dwelling rendered surplus by farm consolidations, to only
those circumstances when a farmer acquires an immediately
abutting farm in Prime Agricultural Areas within the Agricultural
System;
9. That the Region maintain the "Major Open Space" designation on
non -prime agricultural lands in the new Regional Official Plan rather
the change to the Province's preference for Durham to use a "Rural
Lands" designation;
10. That the Region introduce policies to restrict large solar farms from
locating on prime agricultural lands;
11. That the Region recognize the Rouge National Urban Park and its
management objectives in the new Regional Official Plan;
12. That the Region update its aggregate resources policies in
accordance with the Provincial Policy Statement 2014 and the
Growth Plan 2017; and further the Region remove the designations
of High Potential Aggregate Resource Areas on lands within the
limits of Settlement Areas (e.g., Barclay Estates);
13. That the Region enable area municipalities to allow accessory uses
on golf courses, subject to criteria controlling the scale of the
accessory use; and,
14. That the Region acknowledge the exception for a cemetery use on
lands located northeast of the Hamlet of Greenwood, between
Ct o�
DICKERING
Planning & Development
Committee Agenda
Monday, May 6, 2019
Council Chambers - 7:00 pm
Chair: Councillor Cumming
Highway 407 and Highway 7, reflected as "E3" on Schedule I of the
Land Use Structure in the Pickering Official Plan, by including a
policy exception in the Regional Official Plan.
5. Other Business
6. Adjournment
Information Report to
Planning & Development Committee
Report Number: 08-19
Date: May 6, 2019
From: Catherine Rose, MCIP, RPP
Chief Planner
Subject: Zoning By-law Amendment Application A 01/19
Draft Plan of Subdivision Application SP -2019-01
Draft Plan of Condominium Application CP -2019-01
Marshall `Homes (Finch) Ltd.
Part of Lots 31 and 32, Concession 2 South, Now Parts 2 to 4 and 6, 40R-29566 and
Part 2, 40R-29965
(On Finch Avenue, west of Rosebank Road)
1. Purpose of this Report
The purpose of this report is to provide preliminary information regarding applications for
Zoning By-law Amendment, Draft Plan of Subdivision, and Draft Plan of Condominium,
submitted by Marshall Homes (Finch) Ltd. to facilitate a residential condominium
development. This report contains general information on the applicable Official Plan and
other related policies, and identifies matters raised to date.
This report is intended to assist members of the public and other interested stakeholders to
understand the proposal. The Planning & Development. Committee will hear public
delegations on the applications, ask questions of clarification, and identify any planning
issues. This report is for information and no decision is to be made at this time. Staff will
bring forward a recommendation report for consideration by the Planning & Development
Committee upon completion of a comprehensive evaluation of the proposal.
2. Property Location and Description
The subject lands are located on the north side of Finch Avenue, west of Rosebank Road
and south of the Canadian Pacific Railway (CPR) corridor within the Rouge Park
Neighbourhood (see Location Map, Attachment #1). The subject lands comprise four
properties having a combined area of approximately 1.95 hectares with approximately
102 metres of frontage along Finch Avenue.
The subject lands are currently occupied by two detached dwellings and two accessory
structures, which are proposed to be demolished. The remaining lands are vacant with a
cluster of trees within the northwest corner of the site that are also proposed to be removed
to accommodate the development (see Air Photo, Attachment #2).
Surrounding land uses include:
North: Immediately to the north is the York/Durham truck sanitary sewer, and further
north is the Canadian Pacific Railway corridor and the Enbridge Pipeline.
East: Immediately to the east is a detached dwelling on a large lot. Further east is an
established residential subdivision consisting of single and semi-detached
dwellings fronting onto Rougewalk Drive and Mahogany Court.
1
Information Report No. 08-19 Page 2
South: Across Finch Avenue are Targe residential lots fronting onto Finch Avenue that
support detached dwellings, and further south is the Hydro Corridor.
West Immediately to the west are lands owned by Infrastructure Ontario (10) that
contain a woodlot. Further west is a property owned by the Region of Durham
containing a water -tower, and, a large woodlot owned by 10.
3. Applicant's Proposal
The applicant has submitted applications for Zoning By-law Amendment, Draft Plan of
Subdivision, and Draft Plan of Condominium to facilitate a residential common element
condominium development consisting of 38 lots for detached dwellings accessed through
an internal private road (see Submitted Conceptual Site Plan, Attachment #3).
Vehicular access to the internal private road is to be provided through two full -move
accesses from Finch Avenue. One access will be provided on the easterly portion of the
lands while the other on the westerly portion. A 1.5 metre wide pedestrian walkway is
proposed along one side of the private road.
The table below summarizes the key details of the proposal and the requested zoning
development standards:
Net Residential Density
18 units per net hectare
Lot Frontages
Ranging between 11.3 metres and 16.1 metres
Lot Area
Minimum 320 square metres
Building Height
3 storeys (11.5 metres approximately from the established
grade to the mid -point of the peaked roof)
Front Yard Setback
Setback to building: 4.5 metres
Setback to garage: 6.5 metres
Side Yard Setbacks
Interior Side Yard: 1.2 metres on one side & 0.6 of a metre
on the other side
Flankage Side Yard: 2.5 metres
Rear Yard Setback
Minimum 6.5 metres
Coverage
50 percent
Vehicular Parking
Resident: 4 spaces per unit (2 spaces within a garage and
2 spaces on the driveway)
Visitor: 11 spaces at a minimum rate of 0.25 spaces per unit
Common outdoor
Amenity Area
252 square metres
2
Information Report No. 08-19 Page 3
The application for Draft Plan of Subdivision is to create a single block (see Submitted Draft
Plan of Subdivision, Attachment #4). This is a technical requirement to allow the applicant
to create the privately owned parcels of tied land through a process called "lifting part lot
control". The application for Draft Plan of Condominium will establish the common elements
of the proposal (see Submitted Draft Plan of Condominium, Attachment #5). The common
element features include the community mailbox, the private amenity space, the water
meter room, visitor parking areas, the private road, and the internal pedestrian walkway.
The development will be subject to site plan approval.
4. Policy Framework
4.1 Durham Regional Official Plan
The Regional Official Plan designates the subject lands as "Living Areas". The "Living
Areas" designation shall be used predominately for housing purposes. The Plan also
states that lands within the Living Area designation shall be‘developed in compact urban
form through higher densities and by intensifying and redeveloping existing areas,
particularly along an arterial road.
Finch Avenue is designated as a Type 'B' Arterial Road. Type 'B' Arterial Roads are
designed to carry large volumes of traffic at moderate to high speeds, have some access
restrictions and generally have a right-of-way width ranging from 30 to 36 metres. Type `B3
Arterial Roads generally permit private access located a minimum of 80 metres apart in
Urban Areas.
The proposal generally conforms to the Durham Regional Official Plan.
4.2 Pickering Official Plan
The subject lands are located within the Rouge Park Neighbourhood and are designated
"Urban Residential Areas — Low Density Area". This designation primarily provides for
residential or related uses at a maximum net residential density of up to an including
30 units per net hectare. The proposal will result in a net residential density of
approximately 18 units per net hectare, which falls within the permitted density range.
Portions of the subject lands along the north and west boundary are designated "Open
Space System — Natural Areas". The Natural Areas land use designation is further
identified as "Significant Woodlands" and "Rouge-Duffins Wildlife Corridor". An
Environmental Impact Study is required for proposals within 120 metres of a natural
heritage or hydrologic feature.
The Rouge Park Neighbourhood Policies discourage designs which require the use of.
reverse frontages, berms and significant noise attenuation fencing adjacent to Finch Road.
The policies also require new developments to have regard for the Rouge Park
Management Plan, and encourage the retention of environmentally sensitive lands.
3
Information Report No. 08-19 Page 4
4.3 Rouge Park Neighbourhood Development Guidelines
The Rouge Park Neighbourhood. Development Guidelines are intended to ensure lands
within the neighbourhood 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 a strong visual and physical relationship with Finch Avenue through enhanced
flankage elevations featuring ample glazing, entrances and architectural detailing;
• maintain a connection with surrounding natural areas and existing neighbourhood,
which can be accomplished through careful design and placement of internal road,
walkways and siting of buildings; and
• residential areas to feature a variety of housing types of high-quality design arranged on
efficient street patterns.
The Rouge Park Neighbourhood Map and the Rouge Park Neighbourhood Development
Guideline — Tertiary Plan identifies the future westerly extension of Rougewalk Drive
connecting to Finch Avenue. The future extension is shown crossing east -west through
450 Finch Avenue (which is immediately east of the subject lands) and continuing through
into the subject lands.
The Guidelines recognize that a network of both public and private roads will be required
within the developable area of the neighbourhood to provide for permeability and to
facilitate efficient vehicular and pedestrian circulation. For ground -rented dwellings
(detached, semi-detached, and townhouses), attention to a dwelling's relationship with the
street is important. Accordingly, their design should consider the following principals:
• homes should feature prominent main entrances that are easily identifiable and visible
from street;
• homes should provide windows and doorways at the front face of the house to provide
"eyes on the street";
• homes should offer an amenity area that accommodates opportunity for street -side
interaction; and
• garages should be scaled and integrated with the design of a house such that it is not
the dominant aspect of the home.
The proposed development will be reviewed in detail to ensure the requirements of the
Rough Park Neighbourhood policies and the applicable Rouge Park Neighbourhood
Development Guidelines have been maintained.
4.4 Zoning By-law 3036
The subject lands are currently zoned "A" — Rural Agriculture Zone within Zoning
By-law 3036, as amended, which permits one detached dwelling per lot, home occupations
and various agricultural and related uses. The applicant is requesting to rezone the subject
lands to an appropriate residential zone category with site-specific performance standards
to facilitate the proposal.
4
Information Report No. 08-19 Page 5
5. Comments Received
5.1 Resident Comments
As of the writing of this report, no comments or concerns have been received.
5.2 Agency Comments
Region of Durham • no comments received at the time of writing this report.
Canadian Pacific • support the recommendations of the Environmental Noise
Railway (CP) Assessment, prepared by YCA Engineering Ltd., dated May 2018
• require a warning clause to be inserted in all offers to purchase,
agreements of purchase and sale or lease and in the title deed or
lease of each dwelling within 300 metres of the railway
right-of-way, warning prospective purchasers or tenants of the
existence of the Railway's operating right-of-way; the possibility of
alterations including the possibility that the Railway may expand
its operations
• a vibration analysis is not required due to the distance to the CP
track
• should the proposed dwellings be located within 75 metres of the
CP property line, a berm will be required to be constructed to the
technical standards of CP
• CP Railway requires dwellings to be setback a minimum of
30 metres from the railway right-of-way; the proposed dwellings
will maintain the required setback
• any proposed utilities under or over railway property to serve the
development must be approved prior to their installation and be
covered by the Railway's standard agreement
Metrolinx
• the subject lands are located greater than 300 metres from a
GO Transit rail corridor and/or facility
• no comments or concerns
Durham District • approximately 19 elementary could be generated through the
School Board proposed development
• pupils generated through this development will attend existing
school facilities'
Durham Catholic • no objections to the proposed development
School Board • students from this development will attend St. Elizabeth Seton
Catholic Elementary School and St. Mary's Secondary Catholic
School
5
Information Report No. 08-19 Page 6
6. City Department Comments
6.1 Engineering Services Department
At the time of writing, no comments have been received.
6.2. 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 address by the applicant prior to a final recommendation report
to Planning & Development Committee:
• ensuring conformity with all applicable statutory policies of the Provincial Policy
Statement (2014), the Growth Plan for the Greater Golden Horseshoe (2017), and the
Durham Regional Official Plan
• ensuring conformity with the City's Official Plan and Neighbourhood policies and
Development Guidelines
• ensuring an Environmental Impact Study is submitted to the satisfaction for the City and
the Toronto and Region Conservation Authority (TRCA)
• ensuring that the future extension of Rougewalk Drive can be accommodated without
traversing through the subject lands
• ensuring the minimum separation distance between the proposed accesses along
Finch Avenue meets the Region's minimum private access spacing requirements
• evaluating the appropriateness of the proposed site layout, building setbacks, building
heights, and landscaping to ensure the City's urban design objectives are achieved
• assessing if the proposed amenity space is of sufficient size to accommodate amenity
features such as a children's play structure, landscaping and seating area
• expanding the boundaries of the draft plan of subdivision, draft plan of condominium
and zoning by-law amendment to include other lands owned by the applicant:
• the 0.12 of a hectare parcel of land located adjacent to the west boundary draft plan
•. the 0.145 of a hectare parcel of land located at the northeast boundary of the draft
plan
• ensuring appropriate supporting studies are completed should the boundary of the
applications be expanded to include these additional lands
• ensuring the landowner pays its proportionate share of the cost of the Rouge Park
Neighbourhood Study and the cost of the stormwater management pond
• further issues may be identified following receipt and review of comments from the
circulated departments, agencies and public
The City Development Department will conclude its position on the application after it has
received and assessed comments from the circulated departments, agencies, and public.
7. Information Received
Copies of the plans and studies listed below are available for viewing on the City's website
at pickering.ca/devapp or in person at the office of the City of Pickering, City Development
Department:
6
Information Report No. 08-19 Page 7
• Draft Plan of Subdivision, prepared by Design Plan Services, dated December 6, 2018
• Draft Plan of Condominium, prepared by Design Plan Services, dated December 5, 2018
• Planning Rationale, prepared by Design Plan Services, dated December 2018
• Sustainable Development Report, prepared by Design Plan Services, dated
December 2018
• Draft. Zoning By-law
• Site Plan, prepared by Hunt Design Associates, dated March 23, 2018
• Traffic Brief, prepared by Trans -Plan, dated January 2018
• Site Screening Questionnaire (402 Finch Ave.), prepared by Terrapex Environmental
Ltd., dated August 14, 2017
• Phase One ESA (390 & 398 Finch Ave.), Terrapex Environmental Ltd., dated
January 16, 2018
• Phase One ESA (414 Finch Ave.), prepared by Terrapex Environmental Ltd., dated
January 9, 2018
• Phase One ESA (422 Finch Ave.), prepared by Terrapex Environmental Ltd., dated
January 8, 2018
• Phase Two ESA (390 & 398 Finch Ave.), Terrapex Environmental Ltd., dated
January 24, 2018
• Phase Two ESA (414 & 422 Finch Ave.), .prepared by Terrapex Environmental Ltd.,
dated January 10, 2018
• Geotechnical Investigation Report (390 & 398 Finch Ave.), prepared by Alston
Associates, dated November 28, 2017
• Geotechnical Investigation Report (414 & 422 Finch Ave.), prepared by Alston
Associates, dated April 7, 2017
• Supplementary Geotechnical Investigation (402 Finch Ave.), prepared by Alston
Associates, dated August 9, 2017
• Stage 1 & 2 Archaeological Assessment (390 & 398 Finch Ave.), prepared by ASI,
dated December 27, 2017
• Stage 1 & 2 Archaeological Assessment (402 Finch Ave.), prepared by dated
September 27, 2017
• Stage 1 & 2 Archaeological Assessment (414 & 422 Finch Ave.), prepared by ASI,
dated July 20, 2017
• Functional Servicing & Stormwater Management Report, prepared by Candevcon Ltd.,
dated December 2018
• Environmental Noise Assessment, prepared by YCA Engineering Ltd., dated May 2018
• Landscape Plan, prepared by Cosburn Nauboris Ltd., dated November 21, 2018
• Tree Assessment & Preservation Plan (TP1 & TP2), prepared by Cosburn Nauboris
Ltd., dated November 20, 2018
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
7
Information Report No, 08-19 Page 8
• 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 bylaw for this proposal
• any member of the public who wishes to be notified of Council's decision regarding this
proposal must request such in writing to the City Clerk
9. Owner/Applicant Information
The owner of this property is Marshall (Finch) Ltd. and is represented by Design Plan
Services Inc.
Attachments
1. Location Map
2. Air Photo
3. Submitted Conceptual Site Pian
4. Submitted Draft Plan of Subdivision
5, Submitted Draft Plan of Condominium
Prepared By:
Cody Morrison/
Plann r II
Nilesh S rti
Manager, Development Review &
Urban Design
CM:NS:Id
Date of Report: April 18, 2019
8
Approved/Endorsed By:
Catherine Rose, MCIP, RPP
Chief Planner
Attachment # I to
tnfnrmAtion Report # 0c y f
11
C4
Location Map
File: SP -2019-01, CP -2019-01 & A01/19
PICKERING
City Development
Department
Applicant: Marshall Homes (Finch) Ltd
Property Description: Part of Lots 31 & 32 Concession 2 South Now Parts
2-4 and 6, 40R-29566 and Part 2, 40R-29965
Date: Feb. 08, 2019
Z The Corporaaonoi Me City of PRIcenng Pm doted En pert) under &ense bem:OOueans Primer, Onteda 1.111/11A+of Ileum! Resources,
A)1 Alias meryed.lb Her ElekaH the quemkt Right of Canada, Oepadmeri of Halual Raeoumes, A6 dglds msarved.;
OTera net Enterydses lat. and fp supp@rs allrights reserved.;® Alunldpal Prop city Assessment Corporation and Is supp5ers all Rohl%reserved.;
SCALE: 1:5,000 I
THIS IS ROT API -Ala OF SURVEY
9
Attachmeflt #_to
infnrmat ion Renort# �l
in
cc�
Air Photo
File: SP -2019-01, CP -2019-01 & A01/19
of
DICKERING
City DepartmentDevrt
Applicant: Marshall Homes (Finch) Ltd
Property Description: Part of Lots 31 & 32 Concession 2 South Now Parts
40R -2956640R-29965
2-4 and 6, and Part 2,
Date: Apr. 12 2019
O NU Cop.nMn.I1M C.y.i Pkbdn/endue. lnP.AduN.rlk.nu bone 00u..n. Pdnly. Odor" M.eAW el N.iurJ P..a.a.a
All here. 'e.t.d.ldlN..MO* IM W..nIn d11eM.1Gn.do.D.p.dnrM of N.lonl il...un:... A! d/1'l mom.:
0Ar.ml Mel.. Ina. and In wpppn.lrpM.mow., ONluidp.l Pnp.dyA......n.nl OoapnNI.n .nd 1..upp/.n Yl eels. ,.anal.;
SCALE: 1.5,000
yere Ie Nee/dY�A(i Op away.
PRDP4SED
co PC
1
iiii0:ACGC5
F 0=05['.
I•.
D M1-1.:
1
till!). 11.1"114Dj
1 „
I i
. .11/11114. so
r
•i
IV
AP
SIM Ill'il
4
-'
IOW'•
ME
•
111
_
I
"
. .
tit
die
Niir
a
D
. NV
II
31
s
COglIN
.
FOEgl
•
lila •• 4 • I .3.3.1
y..e
-
;
`NOMPiiR.;.1 -
FINCH AVENUE -
Submitted Conceptual Site Plan
C4 4
File No: SP -2019-01, CP -2019-01 & A01/19
PICKERING
Applicant: Marshall Homes (Finch) Ltd
City Development
Property Description: Part of Lots 31 & 32 Concession 2 South Now Parts 2-4 and 6, 40R-29566 and
Department
Part 2, 40R-29965
FULL SCALE COPIES OF THIS PLAN ARE AVAILABLE FOR VIEWING AT THE CRY OF PICKERING
CITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT.
DATE:Apr. 4, 2019
CANADIAN PACIFIC
RAILWAY LANDS
R.90371
A.29.99
C•29.99
104'01'55E
—
1
5,37
r.7
0.7
2,0
nal r p R-888.49
A.31.34
42.8B$49
31
34
NA7-25188 1,159-5.72.. POT
u,
aWr
'473'06'30"E
41.11
939 30•E
T-1 I
BIoCk 1 x
Cc�PJnE���§�tl 1
L�;� Con`�tmn�um
1 33u
k 1.80 h. I I
s ,
z
o.j
aQ
m .1z
Additional
Land Held
by the
Applican
0
0.%2 hal.-;
n,r
mffine)
e3n,nv)
18.9
N72+135'E
ILr
"42—
Finch Avefnue
:eU, ia....:, .YID 2)
PICKERING
City Development
Department
Submitted Draft Plan of Subdivision
File No: SP -2019-01, CP -2019-01 & A01/19
Applicant: Marshall Homes (Finch) Ltd
Property Description: Part of Lots 31 & 32 Concession 2 South Now Parts 2-4 and 6, 40R-29566 and
Part 2, 40R-29965
FULL SCALE COPIES OF THIS PLAN ARE AVAILABLE FOR VIEWING AT THE CITY OF PICKERING
CITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT.
DATE: Apr. 4, 2019
Attachment # 5 to
Information Report #: 08- i 9 ,
CANADIAN PACIFIC
RAIL IWA Y LANDS
r —
R.888.411
A -31,r Nb9C-I,1.34
Ili
arn• }
-`I N7396'301*
vel) wie
4117 "
A pi
lir 9
X22
8
32.0
g1.
10 31
Pass
>e Dever°
—
G
31.0
w1,...4wwr
via"
q
32,3 I.
Finch AO �i�61 g� '� ntM)ri ns xc rorltti tm�[rxawoPrap-
I
J �
�Fn
I 1
PICKERING
City Development
Department
Submitted Draft Plan of Condominium
File No
: SP -2019-01, CP -2019-01 & A01/19
A. • licant: Marshall Homes (Finch) Ltd
Pro
erty Description: Part of Lots 31 & 32 Concession 2 South Now
Parts 2-4 and 6, 40R-29566 and Part 2, 40R-29965
FULL SCALE COPIES OF THIS PLAN ARE AVAILABLE FOR VIEWING AT THE CITY OF PICKERING
CI • VE IPMENT DEPARTMENT.
DATE: Apr. 12, 2019
13
P1CKERI NG
001
Report to
Planning & Development Committee
Report Number: PLN 08-19.
Date: May 6, 2019
From: Kyle Bentley
Director, City Development & CBO
Subject: Kingston.Road Corridor and Specialty Retailing Node Intensification Study — Status
Update and Recommended Vision and Intensification Scenario
(Phase 2 of the South Pickering Intensification Study)
File: D-2000-016
Recommendation:
1. That Council endorse the Recommended Vision for the Kingston Road Corridor and Specialty
Retailing Node, contained in Appendix I;
2. That Council endorse the Recommended Intensification Scenario for the Kingston Road
Corridor and Specialty Retailing Node, contained in Appendix II;
3. That staff be authorized to initiate Phase 3 of the Kingston Road Corridor and Specialty
Retailing Node Study; and
4. That a copy of Report PLN 08-19 be forwarded to the Region of Durham, the Toronto and
Region Conservation Authority, the Ministry of Transportation, and Parks Canada.
Executive Summary: This report provides an update on the status of the second phase of
the Kingston Road Corridor and Specialty Retailing Node Intensification Study, focusing on the
release of the Recommended Intensification Scenario Report, dated March 20, 2019, prepared by
SvN Architects + Planners Inc. The Recommended Intensification Scenario Report is available
online at https://www.kingstonroadstudy.com/. Moving forward, staff recommend that the
Recommended Vision and the Recommended Intensification Scenario be endorsed, and that the
study proceed to Phase 3. Phase 3 will concentrate on the preparation of an Intensification Plan
and draft Urban Design Guidelines.
Financial Implications: In October 2017, Council approved the project funding of $223,399.00
and the financing as 27 percent from property taxes and 73 percent from Development Charges.
Funds to complete the Study have been carried over in the 2019 Council approved Current
Budget for the City Development Department, Consulting and Professional (Account
2611.2392.0000).
14
PLN 08-19 May 6, 2019
Subject: Kingston Road Corridor and Specialty Retailing Node Intensification Study Page 2
1.0 Initiating the Study
In October 2017, City Council approved the proposal submitted by SvN Architects +
Planners Inc., in association with AECOM and 360 Collective, to undertake an
Intensification Study for the Kingston Road Corridor and Specialty Retailing Node (see Map
p
of Study Area, Attachment #1). The study is being undertaken over a period of
approximately two years through a highly collaborative process involving City staff; public
agencies, key stakeholders and members of the public, and will conclude the preparation of
an Intensification Plan and draft Urban Design Guidelines.
2.0 Public and Agency Engagement and Key Deliverables
The following is a summary of the public and agency engagement process and key
deliverables to date:
Phase 1:
• February and March 2018: Three Focus Group Sessions were held with the public
(including major landowners, developers and local residents), and a meeting was held
with key public agencies, to share an analysis of existing conditions within the study
area, and to seek feedback regarding existing conditions and a future vision for the
Corridor and Node. The first focus group session targeted major land owners, business
owners and developers within the study area, and groups two and three focused on
residents and the public at Targe. The meeting with the key public agencies included
representatives from the Region of Durham, Toronto and Region Conservation Authority
(TRCA), Ministry of Transportation, Parks Canada, Town of Ajax, City of Toronto, and
staff from the City's Engineering Services Department. The comments/inputs from
these engagement sessions have been captured in the Background Report, and helped
with formulating a proposed vision for the Corridor and Node.
• August 30, 2018: The consultant released the Kingston Road Corridor and Specialty
Retailing Node Intensification Study Background Report, dated July 31, 2018.
Members of Council and the Chief Administrative Officer received an update on the ,
study via a staff memorandum on August 30, 2018, which included an executive
summary of the Background Report as well as a hyperlink to where it has been posted
on the project website. The Background Report concluded the first phase of the study,
and provided an overview of existing conditions, an analysis of issues and opportunities
within four distinct precincts in the study area, and a proposed vision for the Corridor
and Node. A map reflecting the four precincts in the study area is attached (see Map of
Study Area Precincts, Attachment #2).
15
PLN 08-19 May 6, 2019
Subject: Kingston Road Corridor and Specialty Retailing Node Intensification Study Page 3
Phase 2:
• September 19, 2018: Phase 2 of the study kicked -off with a Community Workshop, to
develop alternative intensification scenarios for the study area, and to obtain final
comments on the proposed vision for the Corridor and Node. The workshop drew
15 participants, and included a presentation from the consultant regarding the proposed
vision for the Corridor and Node, the approach to develop alternative intensification
scenarios, and roundtable discussions where participants provided comments and
suggestions on different ways to improve connectivity, place -making and land use/built
form within the four precincts of the study area.
• November 16, 2018: Based on the input from the community workshop, the consultants
evaluated the alternative intensification scenarios and shared their results with key
public agencies, including staff from the City's Engineering Services Department.
Comments received from the key public agencies were used. to further refine the
alternative intensification scenarios and to develop a preferred intensification scenario.
• December 6, 2018: A Public Open House was held to share the consultant's
recommendations regarding a recommended vision and a preferred intensification
scenario for the study area. The Open House drew 23 participants and included a
presentation from the consultant, followed by aroundtable discussion where
participants provided comments regarding the preferred intensification scenario. In
addition to the Open House, there were a number of individual meetings with
representatives from various major land owners within the study area to consider
challenges, opportunities and design concepts that could potentially enhance the future
development of their lands.
• March 2019: Following the completion of the Phase 2 consultation, the consultant
prepared a Recommended Intensification Scenario Report. The Recommended
Intensification Scenario Report addresses the study purpose and process, the
refinement of the vision, the development and evaluation of the alternative intensification
scenarios, the recommended intensification scenario, and the associated public
engagement processes. A copy of the Recommended Intensification Scenario Report
has been circulated to Members of Council under separate cover, and the document
has also been posted on the City's project website. An executive summary of the
Recommended Intensification Scenario Report is provided as Attachment #3 to this
Report.
3.0 Developing the Recommended Vision
During Phase 1 of the study, a proposed vision was developed for the Kingston Road
Corridor and Specialty Retailing Node. The proposed vision and its refinement into a
Recommended Vision was informed by:
• the Provincial Policy Statement under the Planning Act (2014) and the Growth Plan for
the Greater Golden Horseshoe (2017);
• the Region of Durham Official Plan (Consolidated 2017);
16
PLN 08-19 May 6, 2019
Subject: Kingston Road Corridor and Specialty Retailing Node Intensification Study Page 4
• the Kingston Road Corridor Development Guidelines (1997), and the Specialty Retailing
Node Development Guidelines(1999, revised 2011).;
• an analysis of existing conditions, issues and opportunities; and
• feedback received during the course of the study.
The Recommended Vision for the Corridor and Node can be summarized as follows:
By 2041, the Kingston Road Corridor' and Specialty Retailing Node will be:
• A sustainable place that embraces its significant natural heritage assets;
• A walkable place in all four precincts;
• An urban, livable, transit -supportive community, with a higher density mix of uses;
• A place that continues to serve as both a destination for shopping and a place of
employment, with retail, commercial services and offices; and
• A regional and local multi -modal connector.
The complete Recommended Vision Statement is contained in Appendix I.
4.0 Testing Alternative Intensification Scenarios
Building on the Recommended Vision, two alternative intensification scenarios (A & B)
were developed for each of the four precincts in the corridor (Rougemount, Whites,
Dubarton/Liverpool, and Brock precincts), using the following inputs:
• A set of key assumptions that are consistently applied to each of the Alternative
intensification Scenarios; '
• The identification of sites with redevelopment potential; and
• Feedback from members of the public provided at a Community Workshop and public
agency consultation.
In general:
• Alternative A provided more open space than Alternative B in all precincts except Brock;
• Alternative A provided a higher number of residential units per hectare than Alternative B
in all precincts;
• Alternative A produced more retail and office gross floor area than Alternative B in all
precincts;
• Alternative A had a more balanced ratio of people to jobs than Alternative B in all
precincts;
• Alternative A concentrated a greater amount of gross floor area on sites adjacent to
Durham Region Transit Pulse stops than Alternative B in all precincts;
• Alternative B had fewer access points off Kingston Road than Alternative A in the
Whites and Brock precincts.
17
PLN 08-19 May 6, 2019
Subject: Kingston Road Corridor and Specialty Retailing Node Intensification Study Page 5
The assessment. of the alternative intensification scenarios (A & B) for each precinct used
an evaluation framework that contained criteria derived from the vision, goals and
objectives of the study, focusing on:
• Connectivity — creating new connections or improving existing connections in terms of
all modes of transport;
• Placemaking — providing new public open spaces and improving the quality of existing
public open spaces, including the public realm and "street experience"; and
• Land Use/Built Form — identifying different types of uses and ways higher densities
can be attained over time.
Further details regarding the scenario development process are contained in Appendix A to
the Recommended Intensification Scenario Report.
5.0 Selecting a Recommended Intensification Scenario
In each precinct, the alternative intensification scenario that better performed in terms of
the evaluation criteria was carried forward for consultation, feedback and further
refinement. Collectively, the refined Scenario A's became the Recommended Intensification
Scenario for the corridor and node as a whole.
The Recommended Intensification Scenario:
• is consistent with the growth management policies of the Growth Plan for the Greater
Golden Horseshoe, in that it provides direction for future development in a strategic
growth area that will: support achievement of the intensification targets of the Growth
Plan; optimize infrastructure along transit and transportation corridors; and support the
achievement of complete communities through a diverse mix of land uses within a more
compact built form;
• recognizes and builds upon the character and strengths of each individual precinct;
• introduces an appropriate transition of built form and height to adjacent established
neighbourhoods;
• reflects an improved and more robust mobility network for alt modes of transport,
improving connectivity to, from, and within the study area;
• reinforces the natural heritage assets in each precinct through proposed trail
connections, linear parks and lookout points, as well as the introduction of additional
publicly accessible open spaces to serve the future employment and residential
population, while making the corridor and node "greener";
• proposes a greater mix and density of uses, in order to create a greater live -work
balance locally; and
• re -imagines a public realm that are more vibrant and focused on community identity and
peacemaking.
18
PLN 08-19 May 6, 2019
Subject: Kingston Road Corridor and Specialty Retailing Node Intensification Study Page 6
The Recommended Intensification Scenario, as depicted in Appendix II, articulates the
Recommended Vision for the study area and creates a conceptual framework for how the
study area can be redeveloped and intensified over time in terms of connectivity,
placemaking, and land use/built form.
6.0 Moving Forward with Phase 3 of the Study
With the completion of the Vision and a corresponding Intensification Scenario, Phase 3 of
the study is set to commence. This next phase will include the development of an
Intensification Plan and Urban Design Guidelines.
The Intensification Plan will consist of the following:
• A Land Use Framework that includes recommendedland use categories, land use mix
and transitions;
• Built Form and Streetscape Principles and Objectives, addressing building massing
and orientation, height, built form transition, street orientation and sustainable design;
• Transportation/Mobility recommendations that will address proposed streets and
blocks, pedestrian connectivity, site access, parking standards and accessibility;
• Public Open Spaces and Natural Heritage recommendations addressing active and
passive recreation opportunities, and improving connectivity to and the protection of
natural heritage features;
• Infrastructure recommendations regarding water, sewage, and stormwater
management to support the recommended land use framework; and
• Implementation Tool recommendations regarding potential Official Plan policies,
Zoning By-law regulations, Site Plan Control, development incentives, and the
identification of priority areas for strategic capital investment and public realm
improvements.
The Urban Design Guidelines will further articulate the design vision for the Intensification
Plan, emphasizing place -making and sustainability through guidelines regarding built form,
including green design, public realm and streetscapes, mobility and complete streets.
7.0 Conclusion
The completion of Phase 2 of the study sets the stage for the preparation of an Intensification
Plan and draft Urban Design Guidelines (Phase 3). The third and final phase of the study
will include further consultation sessions with the public agencies, key stakeholders and
members of the public, with a report back to Council in late Fall 2019.
Staff recommend that Council endorse the Recommended Vision and the Recommended
Intensification Scenario, as set out respectively in Appendices I and II to this report, and
that staff be authorized to initiate Phase 3 of the study.
19
PLN 08-19
May 6, 2019
Subject: Kingston Road Corridor and Specialty Retailing Node Intensification Study Page 7
Appendices
AppendixI Recommended Vision for the Kingston Road Corridor and Specialty Retailing Node
Appendix II Recommended Intensification Scenario for the Kingston Road Corridor and
Specialty Retailing Node
Attachments
1. Map of Study Area
2. Map of Study Area Precincts
3. Executive Summary: Kingston Road Corridor and Specialty Retailing Node Intensification
Study, Recommended Intensification Scenario Report
Prepared By:
20
Jacobs, MCIP, RPP Catherine Rose, MCIP, RPP
Approved/Endorsed By:
rincipal Planner, Policy
Jeff Brooks, MCIP, RPP, AMCT
Manager, Policy & Geomatics
DJ:Id
Chief Planner
t,J7
Kyle.Bentley, P. Eng.
Director, City Development & CBO
Recommended for the consideration
of Pickering Cit Council
Tony Prevedel, P.Eng.
Chief Administrative Officer
2017
Appendix No. 1 to
Report No. PLN 08-19
Recommended Vision for the Kingston Road Corridor
and Specialty Retailing Node
21
The Recommended Vision for the Kingston Road Corridor and Specialty Retailing Node
"By 2041, the Kingston Road Corridor and Specialty Retailing Node will be:
• A sustainable place that embraces its significant natural heritage assets, connecting to
the valleys and creeks that the corridor crosses, including the Rouge National Urban Park,
mitigating greenhouse gas emissions and adapting to climate change, and building
communities centered on new public open spaces in both the corridor and node.
• A walkable place in all four precincts, with safe, comfortable and "green" sidewalks and
pedestrian connections on both sides of Kingston Road, and within larger parcels that are
likely to redevelop with an internal street network, particularly within the node.
• An urban, liveable, transit -supportive community, with a higher density mix of uses,
located in buildings that are pedestrian oriented, and that transition in height and mass to the
scale of adjacent established neighbourhoods, particularly to the north of the corridor and to
the east of the node.
• A place that continues to serve as both a destination for shopping and a place of
employment, with retail, commercial services and offices within mixed use buildings or on
mixed use sites, and generally fronting directly onto Kingston Road, Whites Road, Brock Road,
and onto new internal streets on larger parcels, to provide active uses at grade that encourage
pedestrian traffic.
• A regional and local multi -modal connector, with regional gateways at Altona Road and
Brock Road, with Altona Road acting also as a gateway to Rouge National Urban Park, and
with gateways to the neighbourhoods north and south of the corridor at Rougemount Drive,
Whites Road and Fairport Road, and at the Brock Road and Pickering Parkway intersection".
22
Appendix No. II to
Report No. PLN 08-19
Recommended Intensification Scenario for the
Kingston Road Corridor and Specialty Retailing Node
23
4.2 The Recommended Intensification Scenario
4.2.1 Rougemount Precinct
Cuailectivity
To better align with the planned 45m
right of way and the ultimate centre
median Bus Rapid Transit along Kingston
Road, and to make this precinct truly
pedestrian and cycle friendly, the Recommended
Intensification Scenario is seeking to minimize and
consolidate the multiple accesses off Kingston Road
and to increase the permeability of the precinct
by the introduction of two rear public laneways on
properties south of Kingston Road. The first of these
potential public laneways runs from the southern
end of Altona Road, east across the southern limit
of properties with frontage on Kingston Road, and
then turns back up to Kingston Road two properties
west of Rougemount Drive. The second commences
at Evelyn Avenue, running west to reconnect with
Kington Road closer to Rougemount Drive.
To improve connectivity between the properties
south of Kingston Road and east of Rougemount
Drive, and to create a better pedestrian connection
between the existing Library and Petticoat Creek
to the "Main Street" retail , it is recommended that a
controlled intersection be explored at Evelyn Avenue.
In addition, since Rougemount Drive is one of the key
roads crossing the highway and thus connecting the
southern neighbourhoods, a new cycling connection
is proposed south of Kingston Road on Rougemount
Drive
2B
Place-Making
The Rougemount Precinct is
characterized by several smaller parcels
that give it a more quaint character
than other districts. This attribute is
maintained by encouraging primary frontages across
nearly the full length of Kingston Road between
Altana Road and the Petticoat Creek. Providing
opportunity for more street oriented development
would contribute to a high level of pedestrian activity
and animation of the public realm, and strengthen the
connection to the Rouge National Urban Park.
The Recommended Scenario also features a
potential urban square fronting the north side of
Kingston Road, just east of Altana Road, to provide
a space of respite for pedestrians and residents.
Also, a proposed green space fronts the east side
Rougemount Drive to the north of Kingston Road,
to provide a stronger "green" linkage between the
natural heritage area west of Rougemount Drive and
natural heritage area associated with the Petticoat
Creek to the east
To reinforce the precinct's natural heritage assets,
including the proximity to the Rouge National
Urban Park, an Exploration Trail is proposed along
the southern limits of the precinct. This trail has
two purposes. One is to encourage walking and
exploring the neighbourhood, and the other is to take
advantage of the non -buildable areas within the 14m
setback from highway 401. This Exploration Trail can
include heritage plaques, directional signage and
moments to pause and rest. In addition, although
the Study Area of the Rougemount Precinct stops
at the Rouge River Valley, it is recommended that
the sidewalk on the north side of Kingston Road
extending to Rouge National Urban Park form part
of this Exploration Trail to strengthen the connection
between the entrance to the park and this precinct
Land Use/ Built Form
The Recommended Scenario
concentrates a greater mix of uses
around the intersections of Kingston
Road and Rougemount Drive and
Kingston Road and Altana Road, with Mixed Use B -
residential with retail on the ground level- proposed
on those parcels in closest proximity to the two
gateway intersections and the Rouge National
Urban Park. This will maintain and reinforce the
main street character of this stretch of Kingston
Road and encourage movement between Rouge
National Urban Park and the Rougemount Precinct
It also contains an overall greater level of density as
represented through the notional maximum building
heights, with the greatest levels of density located
to the south of Kingston Road, away from the stable
residential neighbourhoods to the north of the Study
Area. The potential mix of uses and densities would
result in a total of 1,991 residents and 236 jobs on
potential redevelopment sites within this precinct, for
a combined 101 people and jobs per hectare and 45
residential units per hectare.
PP pSIER?IN• ELiGN ,<y�
Rougemount - Recommended Intensification Scenario
EXISTING
Total People
Total Jobs
People + Jobs./ ha
Residential Units / ha
1,991
236
101
45
• Study Area Boundary
rz' Valleylands and Stream Corridors
Regional Stormwater Flood Plain
Existing Park
Area SubJe t to Further Assessment
— Lot Lines
i Developable Lots
(.11
Existing Maul Road
Existing Rued/ Lanawaya
Existing Cycling Network
Planned Cyckng Network
+ascnH GO Railway
4'"4 Retire f Piannea Connection
Subboct to EA
▪ Buildings To Remain
Properties of Heritage Significance
se Lot Identify
o Existing Controlled Intersection
• Bus Stops
PROPOSED
CONNECTIVITY
Proposed Pedestrian Connection
Proposed Public Road
Proposed Private Road
Proposed CydIng Network
Potentia Controlled Intersection
Location Sub1oct to hither review
PLACE MAKING
LJ
U
i_•`t
(Ittl
Primary Retail Frontage
Secondarykantege
Potential Gateway
0
0
C
Potential Community Facd ty
Exploration Trail •
• Reposed Access to Open
Space and Trade
Potential Urban Suuare
Potential Green Space
Feterniel Linear Park
Potential Lookout
Proposed Enhanced
0oukward
LANG USE / eUItT FORM
Mixed Use A• Residential /P earl/Ogice
HE Mixed Use B - ResldenNal Metall
Mead Use C - Residential / Retail
Residential
Retail /Office
Potential Lung Lease
Maximum Haight (Storms)
Kingston Road Corridor and Specialty Retailing Node Intensification Study Recommended Scenario Report 29
4.2 The Recommended Intensification Scenario
4.2.2 Whites Precinct
Connectivity
0
The Whites Precinct is typified by
relatively larger parcels with greater
depths than those found in the
Rougemount Precinct. As a result, a
number of opportunities for new connections within
and through these larger parcels are proposed,
featuring strategies to provide consolidated access,
internal routes of circulation, and additional frontage
opportunities through new connections.
The Recommended Scenario features a mid -block
public road connection south of Kingston Road with
access points off Kingston Road at the eastern edge
of Petticoat.Creek and the intersection of Kingston
Road and Steeple Hill Road. It also features a
potential public road connection on the south side of
Kingston Road, east of Whites Road with the access
aligning with Delta Boulevard. This configuration
would reduce the number of individual access points
from Kingston Road while improving connectivity and
additional access points within the block.
Lastly, rear private laneways are proposed on the
north side of Kingston Road, west and east of Whites
Road, with connections to Steeple Hill Road and Delta
Boulevard respectively, connecting with Kingston
Road at existing controlled intersections. These
configurations improve connectivity between the
properties on the north -side of Kingston Road, and
reduces the number of individual access points on
Kingston Road.
30
Place -Making
The combination of relatively larger
parcels and the intersection of two
planned Transit Spines Cas per the City
of Pickering Official Plan) on Kingston
Road and Whites Road set the framework for
accommodating a generally higher density of mixed
uses within the Whites Precinct To support the
future residential and employment population that
would result from this higher density, and to provide
moments of respite within this intensified cluster, the
Recommended Scenario proposes the distribution of
open spaces that vary in size and function to ensure
ease of access to open spaces.
In addition, a linear open space connection is
provided from the existing school site to the north
of the precinct and Kingston Road to provide a safe
pedestrian link to the existing controlled intersection
at Steeple Hill Road and Kingston Road, and to future
developments south of Kingston Road.
In terms of primary and secondary street frontages,
the Whites Precinct generally concentrates primary
retail frontages within close proximity to the major
intersection at Kingston Road and Whites Road,
with secondary frontages on Kingston Road at
the western and eastern limits of the Precinct.
This recommendation allows fora more compact
connection of activity in an area that is likely to
feature tighter foot traffic as a result of the proposed
uses and densities.
Land Use/ Built Form
The distribution of higher densities and
higher intensities of uses in the Preferred
Scenario are intertwined in the Whites
District. The greatest densities expressed
through the notional maximum heights are clustered
in close proximity to the intersection of Kingston
Road and Whites Road, with additional concentrations
within the southern portions of the parcels to the
south of Kingston Road, extending east and west of
the central cluster at Kingston Road and Whites Road.
Similarly. the greatest mix of uses are located within
proximity of this major intersection, with provisions
for higher density employment uses in the form of
Mixed Use A areas (a combination of residential, retail
and office uses in mixed use buildings, or in separate
buildings on mixed use sites) and office/retail uses.
The identification of retaiVoffice uses at this major
intersection stems from the convergence of two rapid
transit corridors, creating greater opportunities for
local jobs and a stronger live -work balance.
The potential mix of uses and densities results in a
total of 7,622 residents and 2,536 jobs on potential
redevelopment sites within this precinct, for a
combined 199 people and jobs per hectare and
75 residential units per hectare. In terms of the
projected growth for all the precincts within the study
area, the White Precinct would be the second highest
contributor.
rr[Kew ► ►Li
Whites - Recommended Intensification Scenario
EXISTING
Total People 7,622
Total Jobs 7 2,5-36
People + Jobs / ha 199
Residential Units / ha 75
•1levedclpFs4Nry
44ryp� �e��nera15a
erde.�u Poen
OPreremnetlr
pyq eq apt her
Sheppard Ave.
•
Study Ares Boundary
VeYeyiendsand Stream Corridors
,..--.r Regional SWmwrata Flood Plein
TS Emstng Parc
>—J Area Subject to Further Assessment
Lot uses
ia-1 Developable Lots
N
= Existing Main Rood
6datklg Road / Lenaways
Existing Cycling Network
Planned Cycling Network
H4«r. CO Railway
4.4 kiln & P ned Connection
Slabject to EA
PROPOSED
CONNECTIVITY
• Buildings To Remein �...�
ff Properties of Hostage Significance
r r Las identifier
o Existing Controlled intersection
• Bus Stops
Proposed Pedestrian Connection
Proposed Pudic Road
Proposed Private Road
Proposed (yang Metiwrk
cattial �outreieL tonScb)ecttftherrevw
PLACE MAILING
�J Primary Resit Frontage ;�j, Potential Urban Square
U Secondary Frontage Potential Green Spice
Potential Gateway 0 Potential Linear Pork
(Gi) Potential cormstrity Facility 0 Potential Lookout
Exploration Tnaa •Ftnoaaad Enhsxed
Borievord
tProposedSpaoe se-elhorse to open
SOOm
LAND USE / BUILT FORM
Miffed Use A - Residential(eta/Office
Mixed Use 8 - Residential /Ratan
Mixed Use C • Residential/ Rema
Residentiei
Retail / Office
PolarhalLong Lease
Maximum Height (storeys)
Kingston Road Corridor and Specialty Retailing Node Intensification Study Recommended Scenario Report 31
4.2 The Recommended
4.23 Dunbarton / Liverpool
ConnecLivity
Intensification Scenario
Precinct
The Dunbarton/Liverpool Precinct is
typified by relatively large parcels with
even greater depths than those found
in the Whites Precinct As a result,
opportunities for new connections within and
through these larger parcels are proposed, featuring
a strategy to provide consolidated access, internal
multi- modal routes of circulation and additional
frontage opportunities through new connections.
In addition, it introduces a new internal public road
running parallel to Kingston Road, connecting
Walnut Lane to Dixie Road. ft is intended to create
e more pedestrian friendly east -west connection,
and opportunities for potential redevelopment with
active frontages through the core of the Precinct
The Recommended Scenario also incorporates the
planned extension of Walnut Lane across Pine Creek,
of which the exact alignment is to be determined
through a municipal class environmental assessment
All proposed publicroads within the Dunbarton/
Liverpool Precinct are encouraged to be multi -modal.
32
Place -Making
The combination of relatively larger
parcels, that are not closely located to
existing residential development, set
the framework for accommodating a
generally higher density of mixed uses south of
Kingston Road and east of Dixie Road. To support
the future residential and employment population
within this precinct, that would result from this higher
density and to provide moments of respite within
this intensified cluster, the Recommended Scenario
contemplates a collection of open spaces that vary
in size and function. They are distributed along the_
proposed internal road running east -west parallel to
Kingston Road, and at the precinct gateway at the
intersection of Kingston Road and Dixie Road. The
open spaces internal to the precinct were seen as
having the potential to act as multi -use spaces for
events or weekend farmers markets.
A large potential green space is proposed at Fairport
Road and Kingston Road as a result of the limited
redevelopment potential of the property due to
underground utilities running east west across its
southern porton.
In terms of primary retail frontages, the
Recommended Scenario focuses these internally
along the new east west public road and Walnut Lane,
creating opportunity for more active uses et grade
that would contribute to a more vibrant public realm
within the centre of the precinct.
La.nd Use jr Built Form
The greatest densities expressed
through the notional maximum heights
are clustered in close proximity to the
intersection of Kingston Road and Dixie
Road along the highway 401 edge, with additional
concentrations between Merritton Road and
Dunbarton Creek. Medium building heights (up to
a notional height of 12 storeys) are located on the
southern portions of Kingston Road between Dixie
Road and Walnut Lane, creating a gradual transition
between the established residential neighbourhoods
to the north and the southern portions of the
precinct
The greatest mix of uses are located within proximity
of the potential gateway at the Kingston Road and
Dixie Road intersection, including higher density
employment uses in the form of Mixed Use A -
residential/ retail/ office uses. The potential mix of
uses and densities results in a total of 6,036 residents
and 1,274 jobs on potential redevelopment sites within
this precinct, for a combined 203 people and jabs per
hectare and 84 residential units per hectare.
PoCifR1H N Ax !y
Dunbarton/Liverpool - Recommended Intensification Scenario
EXISTING
Notal People
k Total Jobs
People + Jobs/ ha
Residential Units / ha
Se
Ave
6
ttv
6,036
1274
203
84
•MwSbiatb
6wherwrrwl
• Madill/ring
`\liit111f117Trl
`
I
KINGSTON BD,
--7-• Study Area Boundary
valeylands and Strewn Corridors
_.._.... Regional Stormwsler Flood Plain
Existing Park
j Atte Subject to Further Assessment
---- Lot Lines
kk Developable Lou
Existing Main Road
Existing Reed! Laneweya
EXdting Lyding Network
Planned Cram Network 0
patrth GO Railway
4.4 F tum& Pknned Connection
Subject to EA
rr
•
Buildings Tb Remain
Properties of Heritage Significance
Lot Identifier
Existing Controlled Intersection
Bus Slops
PROPOSED
CONNECTIVITY
.
gyp! P,eraeaa Nelneun
Proposed Pedestrian Connection
Proposed Public Road
Proposed Pfiwate Road
Proposed Cycling Network
Potential Controlled IMersaction
Location Subject to further review
PLACE MAKING
t_J Plenty Retail Frontage
- Secondary Frontage
tan)
Potential Gateway
0
0
Potential Community Fealty +S+
Exploration TreiL •
• pace AAs m OpenTraits
Potential Urban Square
Potential Green Space
Fluent/8i Liner Park
Potential Lockout
Proposed Enhanced
Boulevard
100m
LAND USE /BUILT FORM
77 Mixed Use A - Residential / Retell / OIRce
= Mixed Use B - Residential /Retail
Mixed Use C - Residential / Retail
Residential
Retail / OfRce •
Potential Long Lease
R Maximum Height (Storeys)
Kingston Road Corridor and Specialty Retailing Node intensification Study Recommended Scenario Report 33
4.2 The Recommended Intensification Scenario
4.2.4 Brock Precinct
Corineciivity
The Brock Precinct is typified by a
mixture in size of parcels along Kingston
Road and very large parcels off Pickering
Parkway and Brock Road. There are
three main landowners within the Specialty Retailing
Node Area, and as a result, a number of opportunities
for new connections and. public roads within and
through these very large parcels are proposed.
These feature strategies to provide better access,
more internal routes of circulation and multi- modal
routes, and additional street frontage and activity hub
opportunities through new connections.
The Recommended Scenario features a public
loop road passing through the existing mid -block
intersection east of the Brock Road'on Pickering
Parkway, extending northwards to connect to
Bainbridge Drive on the eastern edge of the node,
then back down to Pickering Parkway, from where
it extends further south to loop back to the existing
mid -block intersection on Pickering Parkway. The
proposed public loop road would become a "precinct
collector", forming the back -bone of a more strongly
defined internal road network and improving
walkability through the node.
A new controlled intersection is proposed where the
loop meets Pickering Parkway at the eastern edge of
the study area, to improve traffic access and safety.
Two additional controlled intersections, which could
take the form of stop signs or round -abouts with
cross -walks, are located in the northern area of the
34
precinct, allowing for pedestrians to make their way
from Kingston Road via a pedestrian connection and
following the internal street network all the way to the
southernmost lots along Highway 401.
Place -Making
To support the future residential and
employment population that would
result from the higher density proposed
in the Recommended Scenario, and to
provide moments of respite, larger areas of open
space are contemplated to ensure a sufficient
amount of open space for the increased resident
population. In addition, a series of linear open
spaces, acting as connectors between larger open
spaces, were envisioned. One such linear park
connects pedestrians from Brock Street to the
new internal public park and to Beechlawn Park,
located immediately east of the node. Furthermore,
a potential community fecility is envisioned in close
proximity to this chain of open spaces. South of
Pickering Parkway open spaces are organized along
the main public road as places of respite from the
retail activity, and to further the vision for a more
sustainable "greener" community.
In terms of primary and secondary frontages,
Brock Precinct includes two distinct areas, with
the first concentrating primary frontages within
close proximity to Kingston Road, and the second
concentrating there along the public bop road
running south of Pickering Parkway.
Brock precinct features two gateways: one is located
at Kingston Road and Brock Road, serving as an
eastern gateway to the Kingston Corridor, while the
other is located at Brock Road and Pickering Parkway,
taking on the role of a localized gateway into the
precinct and its related hubs.
Land Use/ guilt Form
The greatest densities expressed
through the notional maximum heights
are clustered in close proximity to the
intersection of Brock Road and Pickering
Parkway, with additional concentrations within the
southern portions near highway 401. The greatest mix
of uses are located within proximity of the Kingston
Road and Brock Road intersection, encouraging the
development of office uses in proximity to higher
order transit A secondary office hub is located near
the Brock Road and Pickering Parkway intersection,
to take advantage of the easy access from/to
highway401 and Pickering GO and to create greater
opportunities for local }obs and a stronger live -work
balance. In terms of the projected growth for all the
precincts within the study area, the Brock Precinct
would be the highest contributor. The potential
mix of uses and densities results in a total of 6208
residents and 3580 jobs on potential redevelopment
sites within this precinct, for a combined 218 people
and jobs per hectare and 69 residential units per
hectare.
rrr r 'd VMS, fiver
Brock - Recommended Intensification Scenario
EXISTING
Total People
Total Jobs
People + Jobs / ha
Residential Units:/ ha_
6,208.....
3,580
.218
69
StudyArea thundery Existing Mein Road
Valkykinds and Stream Corridors Extsting Road l Leneweys
----- - Regional Smrthwet r Flood Plain Edsting Cycling Network
Existing Perk - Planned Cycling Network
= Area Subject to Further Assessment rnr++rt GO gamy
Lot Lines Q•^+ Subject Future &XPinned Connection
EA
Developable Lae
Buildings To Remain
Properties of Heritage Significance
r -r Lot Identifier
• Existing Contrdlad Intersection
• Bus Slops
PROPOSED
CONNECTIVITY
( $. Proposed Pedestrian Connection
= Proposed Pudic Road
= Proposed Private Road
Proposed s?/ting Network
Potential
Intersection Controlled ocionSubjectto further
PLACE MAKING
l_1 Primary Retail Frontage
LJ Secondary Frontage
r,l Potential Gateway
(ice Potential Community Facility
a�
Exploration Trail
• Proposed Access to Open
Space end True
0
0
•
Potential Urban Square
Potential Green Specie
Potential tins, Park
Potential Lookout
Prroposed Enhenoed
IOOm
LANO USE BUILT FORM
Mixed Use A- Residential f Retell F Office
IME Mixed Use B - Residential /Retell
Meted Use C- ReeId ntial f Retell
Residential
Relne /Office
Potential Long Lease
a Mummy, NOM (Storeys}
Kingston Road Corridor and Specialty Retailing Node Intensifie tion Study Recommended Scenario Report 35
Lake Ontario
Location Map
File-. D-2000-016
PICKERjNG
City Development
Department
•
n Kingston Corridor & Specialty Retailing Node Intensification Study Area
Date: Apr. 01, 2019
SCALE: 1:30,000
TEM IS HOT A PLAN OF SURVEY.
pompon e IY • no'meuce. ,Pr 4Pna0.. m::•.nano' rper, eptatiq> 'Uy 0 'atlRa"000wee,
All ry tor0oorved,P Her MaleoIy Me Ooenln Rfp M of CPoodo, IIPointment of Hatuml RePoaue, AS dpl+b mwrvod;
Of Teranet Enterpriseo Me. and Its w0Pper00ll 11ph10 roamed. MunlelpPl ProwityAssesernent Cmpo Ol10n and Us suppliers Mirtphla mowed.
Legend
-•-•-- Study Area Boundary
Parks / Open Space
- Rail Corridor
Sheppard Ave
Rougemaunt Dr
Rosebank Rd
Finch Ave
rx
0
a
Q1 0
O.
IL
Rougemount
Precinct
114
Whites
Precinct
W Shan -8111d
Du n Barton/Liverpool
Precinct
et
et
o i
o
`Y
43
fl�
Bayly St
Sandy Beach Rd
4
X
v
U
63
e
m
37
Brock
Precinct
0/
PICKERING
City Development
Department
Kingston Road Corridor & Speciality Retailing Node Study Area Precincts
File No: D-2000-016
FULL SCALE COPIES OF THIS PLAN ARE AVAILABLE FOR VIEWING AT THE CIN OF PICKERING
CITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT.
DATE: Mar. 27, 2019
C
C)
r
m
nk
154
1
1.0 Exocutivo Summary
1
Study Purpose and Process
The Kingston Road Corridor and Specialty
Retailing Node Intensification Study (the Study)
has examined opportunities for intensification and
supporting connections and public amenities within
the approximately 152 hectare Study Area centred
on Kingston Road and within the Specialty Retailing
Node. It will result in urban design guidelines and
recommendations that will be used to update City of
Pickering Official Plan policies and zoning within the
corridor and node.
The need to explore intensification opportunities
within the corridor and node,was identified
through the South Pickering Intensification Study
and the city-wide Growth Management Program.
These "parent" studies have been undertaken to
implement the strategic growth area objectives
of the Provincial Growth Plan and the corridor
objectives of the Durham Regional Official Plan
within the South' Pickering Urban Area, of which the
corridor and node are a core component.
The Study Area has been divided into four study
area segments of precincts. These include the
Rougemount Precinct, Whites Precinct, Dunbarton/
Liverpool Precinct, and Brock Precinct.
The Study is guided by a number of strategic goals
that have been identified by the City of Pickering.
These strategic goals speak to coordinating and
complementing intensification with a broad array
of city -building outcomes, including placemaking,
community health, sustainability, economic
development, housing choice, connectivity,
infrastructure optimization and natural heritage
restoration. The strategic goalsare broadly
consistent with the planning policy framework
contained within the Provincial Growth Plan, the
Durham Regional Official Plan and the City of
Pickering Official Plan.
The Study is being undertaken in a three-phase
process taking place over a 2 year period from
November 2017 to November 2019. The three
phases of the Study include Phase 1: Develop a
Vision, Phase 2: Develop a Recommended Scenario,
and Phase 3: Recommended Design.
Phase 1 of the Study involved undertaking a review
of existing conditions, an analysis of issues and
opportunities, and the development of a vision
and associated goals and objectives. The vision,
goals and objectives will be used as the basis for
developing arid assessing alternative intensification
scenarios in Phase 2 and the Recommended
design in Phase 3, ultimately producing a planning
framework to redevelop and intensify the Corridor
and the Node. Phase 1.concluded with the release of
the Background Report on July 31, 2018.
This Recommended Intensification Scenario report
summarizes the results of Phase 2. Further details
regarding the study purpose and process are
available in section 2 of this report.
Developing Alternative Scenarios
The development of Alternative Intensification •
Scenarios involved four inputs. The first input
was Phase 1 of the Study which included the
draft recommended vision, goals and objectives.
These foundational elements were used to provide
a framework for modelling change and growth ��
within the four precincts, providing direction on
how connectivity, place making, and land use and
built form interventions should be contemplated
in the Alternative Intensification Scenarios. The
vision, goals and objectives were also used to guide
the different arrangements of these elements,
to ultimately test if and how these foundational
elements could be achieved in one or more
configurations.
Kingston Road Corridor and Specialty Retailing Node Intensification Study Recommended Scenario Report 5
The second input was a series of key assumptions
that set consistent parameters that would hold
across all of the Alternative Intensification
Scenarios. These key assumptions were grouped
into four categories that were informed by
the existing conditions review and issues and
opportunities analysis: overall growth, natural
environment, transportation, and land use / built
form.
The third input was the identification of sites with
redevelopment potential. These are sites that
generally are under performing relative to the draft
recommended vision, goals and objectives for the
corridor and node. They were identified as such
based on a site -by -site analysis that applied a series
of criteria related to existing use / built form, site
dimensions, site location, and development interest.,
The fourth and final input into the development
of the Alternative Intensification Scenarios
was feedback from key public agencies, and
comments from members of the public provided
at a Community Workshop. At this workshop,
participants were asked to identify different ways
that connectivity, place making, and land use / built
form could be improved within each of the four
precincts. Further details regarding the Community
Workshop are available in Section A.4 of this Report.
6
Review of Alternative Scenarios
Drawing on the high-level guidance of the vision,
goals and objectives and the key assumptions,
the base layer of potential redevelopment sites,
and feedback provided by members of the public,
two Alternative Intensification Scenarios (A and
B) were developed for each precinct, with each
scenario featuring slightly different arrangements of
connectivity, place making, and land use / built form
interventions.
These Alternative Intensification Scenarios allowed
for the testing of different configurations of public
and private streets, different sizes and distributions
of parks and open space, different mixes of uses,
and different distributions of height and density. The
Alternative Intensification.Scenarios were assessed
using an evaluation framework that contained
criteria derived from the study goals and objectives.
In each precinct, the Alternative intensification
Scenario that better performed was carried
forward for further refinement. Collectively, these
better performing scenarios constituted the
emerging Preferred Intensification Scenario for
the corridor and node as a whole. This emerging
Preferred Intensification Scenario was then
further revised following feedback from City of
Pickering stakeholders, the Public Agency Advisory
Committee, and members of the public. Through
this process of revision, in some cases a better
performing precinct scenario adopted elements of
the lesser performing precinct scenario, essentially
becoming a hybrid of the two alternatives for that
precinct. In other cases, further revisionswere
made that were not contemplated by either of the
alternative scenarios.
As a result of the above-mentioned consultation,
a Recommended Intensification Scenario was
developed along with a slightly refined vision to
better reflect the outcomes of the consultation
input and analysis undertaken in Phase 2. The
Recommended Intensification Scenario is further
detailed in Section 4of this report.
PICKEIING
PICKERG
The Recommended Intensification Scenario
Based on the overall assessment of the Alternative
Intensification Scenarios, Alternative A generally
performed better and was selected as a base to
develop a Preferred Intensification Scenario for the
whole of the corridor and node. Feedback provided
by members of the public, the Technical Working
Group (TWG) and the Public Agency Advisory
Forum (PAAF) helped inform the preparation of
the Preferred Scenario and its refinement into the
Recommended Intensification Scenario.
The draft vision for the corridor and node was also
revisited based on feedback received in Phase 2.
It was slightly refined to better reflect both this
feedback and to strengthen certain components
that were tested and augmented through the
development of the alternatives and preparation of
the Recommended Intensification Scenario.
Further details and the Recommended •
Intensification Scenario are available in Section 4 of
this report
Next Steps
In Phase 3 of the study, the Recommended
Intensification Scenario will form the basis for
preparing an Intensification Plan and Urban Design
Guidelines. The Intensification Plan will consist of
the following components;
• A Land Use Framework
• Built form and Streetscape Principles and
Objectives
• Transportation / Mobility
• Public Open Spaces and Natural
• Infrastructure
Implementation
The Urban Design Guidelines will further articulate
the design vision for the Intensification Plan,
emphasizing place making and sustainability
through guidelines regarding:
• Built Form
• Public Realm
• Mobility
Kingston Road Corridor and Specialty Retailing Node Intensification Study Recommended Scenario Report
Further consultation will be undertaken in Phase
3 on the draft Intensification Plan and draft Urban
Design Guidelines with the TWG, PAAF and
members of the public. Further detail regarding next
steps are available in section 5 of this report.
7
CO
Co
Recommended Intensification Scenario
EXISTING
-----' Study Area Boundary
ValieMards and Stream Corridors
---- Region! Stormweter Flood Plein
Existing Perk
- As Sub ea to Further Assessment
--- Lot Lines
Developable Lots
A Buildings To Rennin
• Properties of Heritage Sgnificance
ea Lot Identifier
.0 Existing Controlled Intersection
• Bus Stops
PROPOSED
CONNECTIVITY
F•••3
0
Proposed Pedestrian Connection
Proposed Public Road
Proposed PrNate Road
Proposed Cycling Network
Potential Controlled Intersection
Location subject to further review
PLACE MAKING
�J Primary Retail Frontage
�J SecrxxfaryFrontage
Potential Gateway
t J Potential Cammrmhy Fao'lity
�• Exploration Trail •
' * ProposSAocc4se to Open
Existing Mein Road
Edging Road / lanewairs
Existing Cycling Network
Plated Cycling Network
GO Railway
Future & Planned Connection
Potential UrbanSgrere
Potential Green Space
Potential Una: Park
Potential Lookout
BBooulevardFrnhrnced
I ANO LSE / BUILT FORM
Mixed Use A- Residential / Retail (Office
Mixed Use B - Resktendal /RetaN
Mixed Use C - Residential / Retail
Residential
Retail /OQRce
Potential Long Leese
Maximum Height (Storeys)
rr
8
0
D 100 m 300 m 500 m
Figure 1 Recommended
Intensification Scenario
Study Area Wide Plan
• ae�.ary
Nam EA ".'46
OP recernmenckddro
;the eyeekhre
Podmernmed
Repkw
•f+rieSa.rae�
a 6.0% abr Soak
ahra
r _- Rou-temount?Precinct W ,-i.teSJ ,recmc,
-N AaCOMtq;
P IXEFIiJG
n+ —1
qes
r
wM
•Ana i.14eaa
foNortEremal
Read Review
y01
Dun ' arton Liver • oo Precinct
1
6iSrvY ij
Broc Precinct
CO
Kingston Road Corridor and Specialty Retailing Node Intensification Study Recommended Scenario Report 9
r
Z
Report to
Planning & Development Committee
Report Number: PLN 09-19
Date: May 6, 2019
From: Kyle Bentley
Director, City Development & CBO
Subject: Update to the Municipal Heritage Register
File: A-3300-060
Recommendation:
1. That the City of Pickering Municipal Heritage Register, dated May 2019, as set out in
Appendix I to report PLN 09-19, be approved; and
2. That the City Development Department be directed to update the City of Pickering Municipal
Heritage Register every two years.
Executive Summary: Section 27 of the Ontario Heritage Act indicates that a municipality shall
keep a register of properties situated in the municipality that are of cultural heritage value or
interest. The Municipal Heritage Register is the official list of cultural heritage properties identified
as being important to the City, and includes designated and non -designated buildings. The City of
Pickering Municipal Heritage Register was last updated in 2008. Since that time, there have been
demolitions to one or more buildings on Federal and Provincial lands.
An updated Municipal Heritage Register is an important source of information for City staff, the
public, consultants, landowners, and agencies. It also helps the City keep track of heritage
resources that have been identified as being important to the City.
The purpose of this report is to seek Council's approval of the updated City of Pickering Municipal
Heritage Register, dated May 2019, as set out in Appendix I to this report, and to ensure that the
Register is updated at a minimum of every two years.
Financial Implications: The recommendations of this report do not present any financial
implications.
40
Report PLN 09-19 May 6, 2019
Subject: Update to the Municipal Heritage Register Page 2
1. Background
1.1 What is a Municipal Heritage Register?
Under the Ontario Heritage Act ("the Act"), municipalities are responsible for identifying,
evaluating and conserving heritage properties. Section 27 of the Act indicates that a
municipality shall keep a register of properties situated in the municipality that are of
cultural heritage value or interest. The Municipal Heritage Register ("the register") must
include all properties in the municipality that are designated under Part IV (individual
designation) and Part V (district designation) of the Act. The register may also include
properties that have not been designated, that Council believes may have cultural heritage
value or interest. These are commonly known as "listed" properties. Council must consult
with its municipal heritage committee before including a property on the register or
removing the reference to such a property from the register.
A register is a living document and is updated through the tools provided by the Act. If a
property owner wishes to add their property to the register or to demolish a structure on
their listed or designated property, a process is followed whereby Council will make a
decision after consulting its municipal heritage committee, and then will direct staff to
update the register to reflect the changes.
The key features of a register are:
• recognizes properties of cultural heritage value in the community
• promotes knowledge and enhances an understanding of the community's cultural
heritage
• provides a planning resource that should be referred to by municipal decision makers
when reviewing development proposals or permit applications
• provides easily accessible information for land use planners, property owners,
developers, tourism industry, educators and the general public
In addition to the above -noted features, the Act provides interim protection for
non -designated properties that are included in the municipal register. Owners of such
properties must give the Council of the municipality at least 60 days notice in writing of their
intention to demolish or remove a building or structure on the property or to permit the
demolition or removal of the building or structure. This allows time for the municipality to
decide whether to begin the designation process.
The City of Pickering has a Municipal Heritage Register that was last updated in 2008. It is
organized by designated properties (under Part IV of the Act), properties designated within
the Whitevale Heritage Conservation District (under Part V of the Act), non -designated
properties ("Listed"), non -designated properties on Federal Lands and non -designated
properties on Provincial Lands.
41
Report PLN 09-19 May 6, 2019
Subject: Update to the Municipal Heritage Register Page 3
1.2 City of Pickering Official Plan Policies
The City of Pickering Official Plan sets out goals and objectives related to cultural heritage
resources. A key objective of Council is to identify important heritage resources from all
time periods, so that they can be appropriately conserved and integrated into the
community fabric. The Plan states that City Council, in association with its Municipal
Heritage Committee, shall maintain an inventory of heritage resources designated or worthy
of designation under the Ontario Heritage Act.
2. Update to the Municipal Heritage Register
An update to the heritage register is required due to the demolition of structures on Federal
and Provincial properties, and to include designations and additions of listed properties
approved by Council since the last update. Staff identified that structures on properties
owned by the Federal and Provincial Governments were demolished since the 2008 update
to the register. Under the Act, the Federal and Provincial Governments are not required to
provide notice to a municipality prior to demolition of a listed property. Though demolition
permits are also not required, staff have verified that permits were obtained for all of the
demolished structures.
Further, Council has designated four properties in the Seaton area, one property on Park
Crescent, and has added two non -designated properties to the Register since the last
update. Therefore those changes have also been incorporated into the updated register.
The updated City of Pickering Municipal Heritage Register (see Appendix 1) includes the
following changes:
• removal of 32 properties due to demolition by the Federal Government (noted with a
demolition permit number)
• removal of 1 property due to demolition by the Provincial Government (noted with a
demolition permit number)
• addition of 4 individually designated properties in the Seaton Area, approved by Council
• addition of 560 Park Crescent as an individually designated property, approved by
Council
• addition of 2 listed, non -designated properties: 1027-1031 Dunbarton Road and
4993 Brock Road, approved by Council
• addition of a note to the property at 1860 Seventh Concession Road, that it is a National
Historic Site and is protected by a heritage conservation easement agreement with the
Ontario Heritage Trust
It is important to keep an updated heritage register. it is a source of information for City
staff, the public, landowners, consultants and agencies such as conservation authorities. It
is also important to keep an up-to-date document that is readily accessible by any member
of the public.
42
Report PLN 09-19 May 6, 2019
Subject: Update to the Municipal Heritage Register Page 4
3. Heritage Pickering recommends approval of the updated Register ,
On March 27, 2019, City Development staff provided Heritage Pickering Advisory
Committee with a brief overview of the importance of keeping a register up-to-date and the
changes to the register. Heritage Pickering approved following motions:
1. Heritage Pickering Advisory Committee recommends that Council approve the City of
Pickering Municipal Heritage Register, dated May, 2019; and
2. That the Municipal Heritage Register be updated every two years.
4. Staff recommend that the updated Municipal Heritage Register be approved
In keeping with the'recommendations of Heritage Pickering, staff recommend that Council
approve the updated City of Pickering Municipal Heritage Register, dated May 2019, as set
out in Appendix I to this report, and establish a regular update of the register of at least
every two years.
Appendix
Appendix I City of Pickering Municipal Heritage Register, dated May 2019
Prepared By:
,fit -(at t
4
Approved/Endorsed By:
Elizabeth Martelluzzi Catherine Rose, MCIP, RPP
Chief Planner
Planer 1 , E�jertage
Mesh urti, MCIP, RPP
Manager, Development Review &
Urban Design
EM:NS:Id
///VK'
Kyle Bentley, P. Eng.
Director, City Development & CBO
Recommended for the consideration
of Pickering City Council
Tony Prevedel, P.Eng.
Chief Administrative Officer
4ed
43
Appendix No. I to
Report No. PLN 09-19
City of Pickering Municipal Heritage Register
dated May 2019
44
cdy °G
DICKERING
Municipal Heritage Register
Official list of properties of cultural heritage
value or interest of the City of Pickering
May 2019
pickering.ca
City of Pickering 2019 Municipal Heritage Register
Properties Designated Under Part IV and Part V of the Ontario Heritage Act
Properties Designated Under Part IV, Section 29 of the Ontario Heritage Act
Property Name
Municipal Address
By-law
Date Passed
Heritage Value
Altona Mennonite
Church & Cemetery
5475 Sideline 30
Hamlet of Altona
2123/85
December 16, 1985
3461/90
May 7, 1990
Present brick building was constructed in 1852.
Bricks for the church were hauled from the
Cherrywood brickyard. Church remains today as
a reminder of the hard work and influence of the
Mennonite congregation in the development of
the community. In 1990, the interior of the
building and cemetery were further designated as
being of heritage significance.
Phillips Residence
2595 6th Concession
Hamlet of Greenwood
2238/86
June 2, 1986
The house was built circa 1850 and is a storey
and a half with dormers constructed of stone and
timber which appear to be sourced locally. Use of
hand forged nails are prominent throughout the
house.
Thistle Ha'
1860 Seventh
Concession Road
2140/86
February 3, 1986
House is circa 1860 and construction commenced
in 1855 to replace a log house originally on the
property. East Wing was completed in 1875 and
contained a large ballroom, brick oven and a
masonry ash pit. In addition to architectural
interest, property is of historical significance of the
Miller family and introduction of shorthorn cattle.
The property has been designated as a National
Historic Site since 1973 and protected by a
heritage conservation easement agreement
with the Ontario Heritage Trust since 1977.
Post Manor
1970 Brock Road
2570/87
September 21, 1987
Stone farmhouse commonly known as Post
Manor was built in 1841. The home is a stone
foundation and cut fieldstone exterior, shake and
metal roofs and verandah with gingerbread trim.
Unique hardware, mortar brackets, shutters and
windows compliment this century building.
Thompson Residence
4810 Brock Road
(Old Brock Road)
3633/91
January 21, 1991
Constructed between 1845-1855 in a very unusual
method. It is of vertical plan construction with no
framework or support posts. Clapboard siding
was applied to the front half of the house. The
back addition is circa 1870 and signifies a more
prosperous era. One original window and
The Walkey House
2390 Rosebank Road
Hamlet of Cherrywood
3634/91
January 21, 1991
The house is dated 1869 and is one of the few
remaining residences in the Hamlet of Cherrywood
from earlier times. House is painted board and
batten, 1-1/2 storey, 'L' plan structure on a rubble
foundation.
/Municipal Heritage Register, May 2019
Page 2 of 14
Properties Designated Under Part IV, Section 29 of the Ontario Heritage Act
Property Name
Municipal Address
By-law
Date Passed
Heritage Value
Palmer -Voss House
2319 Wildwood
Crescent
(previously 2101
Valley Farm Road)
5573/99
November 1, 1999
Stone house was built in two stages, the first part
during the 1850's and the second part approx.
1870. The house is a vernacular structure of the
Gothic Revival architectural style with a centre
gable, pointed arch window and decorative gable
finials, pendants and curvilinear vergeboard.
Cleve Horne House
1940 8th Concession
Road
5763/00
October 16; 2000.
House was constructed in 1958 and was the first
house in Canada to be built of thin -shell,
reinforced concrete and to dispense with bearing
wall supports.
Dillingham-Lamorie
House
1636 Arathorn Court
5763/00
October 16, 2000
The house is built circa 1850, possibly in the
1840's, and is an important example of an early to
mid nineteenth century rural residential building.
Woodruff -Mackenzie
House
2935 Brock Road
5966/02
March 18, 2002
House has beendesignated for being of
architectural and historical value.
Willson House
1505 Whitevale Road
6691/06
July 24, 2006
One of the earliest surviving farmhouses in
Pickering. The building dates to 1861 and is a
classic example of an Ontario vernacular
farmhouse. The exterior is Georgian in form,
while the interior is representative of the mid 19th
century, with a Greek revival sensibility.
Glen House
1690 Whitevale Road
6692/06
July 24, 2006
The house, barn and property are designated as
a heritage site for the historical value related to
the significance of the political activities that took
place at the house. The house is circa 1840 and
still contains the basement and its old enormous
apple and vegetable bins. The house is a 1 1/2
storey house with a large rear addition with
gables perpendicular to the original and a further
shed roofed addition to the rear.
Greenwood
Schoolhouse
3540 Westney Road
6984/09
September 21, .2009
Built in 1860, the Greenwood Schoolhouse is one
of the best preserved of the old one -room
schoolhouses in Pickering. Its classical
proportions and fine workmanship combined with
local variations and local materials. Historically,
the schoolhouse has been associated with a
number of persons of note, especially "the Chief",
John George Diefenbaker, the 13th Prime Minister
of Canada.
Municipal Heritage Register, May 2019
Page 3 of 4
Properties Designated Under Part IV, Section 29 of the Ontario Heritage Act
Property Name
Municipal Address
By-law
Date Passed
Heritage Value
The Nesbit -Newman.
House
560 Park Crescent
7290/13
July 8, 2013
The Newman House a 1 1/2 storey, three -bay
fieldstone farmhouse built in the mid -1850s in
a modified Georgian style. The property is
recognized for its design, historical, and
contextual value.
Walter Percy House
2865 Sideline 16
7346/14
April 22, 2014
The property is located in the Seaton Brock -
Taunton Neighbourhood. It was first owned by
D. McBrady in 1877, and later by the Percy
family, including Walter Percy. The 1 1/2 storey
farmhouse on the property was built between
1875 and 1885 and the patterning of its
masonry is unique in its execution.
William Major House
940 Whitevale Road
7594/17
December 11, 2017
The property displays design and physical
value, historical associative value, and
contextual value. The William Major House is
a stone Georgian style dwelling with Gothic
Revival features, reflecting the transition
between the two styles in the mid -19th century.
It is associated with the early settlement of the
area and is important in maintaining and
supporting the rural 19th century landscape
along the Whitevale Road corridor.
Henry Major House
615"Whitevale Road
7649/18
September 17, 2018
The property displays design and physical
value, historical associative value, and
contextual value. The Henry Major House is a
rare and representative style of the Georgian
Classical Style. The house was constructed
for Henry Major in the 1830s and is a 1 1/2
storey timber -frame house is rare in the area.
It is associated with the early settlement of the
area and is important in maintaining and
supporting the rural 19th century landscape
along the Whitevale Road corridor.
William Brignal
House
1200 Whitevale
Road
7650/18
September 17, 2018
The property displays design and physical
value, historical associative value, and
contextual value. The William Brignal House is
an example of an Ontario cottage dwelling
type. It is a 1 '/Z storey, T-shaped brick house
with a one -storey kitchen tail at the rear. It is
associated with the early settlement of the
area and is important in maintaining and
supporting the rural 19th century landscape
along the Whitevale Road corridor. i
Municipal Heritage Register, May 2019
Page 4 of 14
Under Part V of the Ontario Heritage Act
Property. Name
By-law
Heritage Value .
Municipal Address
Date Passed
September 19, 2016
Hamlet of Whitevale
4074/92
The Whitevale Heritage Conservation District was
District as outlined in
June 7, 1993
established to ensure the preservation and
Schedule 1 to the
enhancement of the special character of
by-law
Whitevale. It is dominated by its rural setting and
modest vernacular buildings, the hamlet has not
changed significantly in character since the late
19th century. The building style in Whitevale is a
mixture of typical rural Ontario vernacular
architecture combined with Victorian influences
and materials in common usage at the time of
construction. The overall nineteenth century
village character has been retained.
Properties Listed under Part IV, Section 27 of the Ontario Heritage Act
Municipal Address
Heritage Value
Date added
1027-1031
Dunbarton Road
Built c.1886. Victorian style brick building
made up of a house (east) and storefront
(west).
September 19, 2016
4993 Brock Road
Built c. 1850. 1 1/2 storey detached
dwelling fronting Brock Road constructed
circa 1850 and a 2 storey coach house
located in the rear yard.
May 14, 2018
Conservation Easement Agreements under Part IV, Section 37 of the Ontario Heritage Act
Property Name
Municipal Address
By-law
Date Passed
Heritage Value
Brougham Union
Masonic Lodge
4953 Brock Road
Claremont
Easement Agreement
October 5, 1981
Ontario Heritage Foundation determined that the
Brougham Masonic Lodge, located on the
property is of regional architectural significance.
Municipal Heritage Register, May 2019
Page 5 of46
Cultural Heritage Value — Federal Lands
City of Pickering 2019 Municipal Heritage Register
Properties of Cultural Heritage Value or Interest — Federal Lands
Approved. by Council February 21, 2005 (Res#29105)
Properties Listed under Part IV, Section 27 of the Ontario Heritage Act
Municipal Address
Heritage Value
Notes
3795 Brock Road
Built 1901 1940
Demolished
18-10051.6
Ex Pridmore
2 storey brick house, vernacular barn
3730 Brock Road
Built 1860-1900
Ex-Vanderligt
1 1/2 storey brick house, vernacular
3970 Brock Road
Built 185/1
Demolished
12-101927
Ever Green Villa
1 1/2 frame, board & batten
storey, wood
house, vernacular
(Barclay)
1705 Concession 7
Road
Tullis. Cottage.
(Barclay Home)
Built 1840
1 storey, frame house
1608 Highway 7
Built c. 1850
Demolished
11-100813
Fine Art)
1 1/2 storey house, moved from Greenwood in
(Norman's
-1-950
1585 Concession 7
Road
Barn
1480 Highway 7
Built 1860-1900
1 1/2 storey brick (under vinyl)
centre gable
1503 Concession 7
Road
Built 1858
1 storey brick house, association with Bill
Lishman
.
1360 Highway 7
Built 1860-1900
1 1/2 storey — 2 storey red brick house
Notable barn
3720 Sideline 22
Built 1860-1900
1 1/2 storey frame house
Vernacular
3870 Sideline 22
Built 1860-1900
1 1/2 storey dichromatic brick house
Vernacular
61unicipal Heritage Register, May 2019
Page 6 of 14
Properties Listed under Part IV, Section 27 of the Ontario Heritage Act
Municipal Address
Heritage Value
Notes
1150 Highway 7
Built 1860-1900
1 % storey, white frame house with vertical
boards
Notable barn
1185 Concession 7
Road
Built 1901-1940
1 1/2 storey brick, gambrel roof
1050 Highway 7
Built 1901 1940
Demolished
18-100517
2 1/2 storeys, red brick home, hip roof
3750 Sideline 26
Built 1860-1900
1 1/2 storey frame, notable outbuildings
865 Concession 7
Road
Built 1860-1900
1 % storey frame, notable outbuildings
3815 Sideline 28
Built 1860-1900
1 1/2 storey frame, brick
680 Highway 7
Built 1901-1940
2 % storey, red brick house, gable front
3735 Sideline 32
Notable barns
3840-3885 Sideline
32
Built pre -1860
2 storey frame house
3915 Markham-
Pickering Townline
Built 1860-1900
1 1/2 storey frame house, central gable, metal
cladding
4235 Brock Road
Built 1901-1940
2 storey brick house, vernacular, four square
/1355 Brock
Built 1860 1900
Demolished
12-102031
-Road
1 1/ storey stone house
Vernacular, revival
classical
4040 Brock Road
Built 1860-1900
1 1 storey wood frame house
Vernacular
4185 Sideline 20
Built 1860-1900
1 1/2 storey wood frame house
Vernacular
4280 Brock Road
Built 1860-1900
1 1/2 storey stone house
Vernacular, classical revival
1540 Seventh
Concession Road
Built 1860-1900
1 1/2 storey brick, centre gable
Notable barn
Municipal Heritage Register, May 2019
Page 7 ofeit
Properties Listed under Part IV, Section 27 of the Ontario Heritage Act
Municipal Address
Heritage Value
Notes
1370 Seventh
Concession Road
Built 1901-1940
2 — 2 1/2 storey frame (insulbrick)
4475 & 4481 Sideline
22
Built 1860-1900
1 % storey frame, much altered
Address edit
1240 Seventh
Concession Road
Built 1858
1 1/2 storey, dichromatic brick
! e - -
Notable barn
Demolished
05-000086
- - _
Road
1180 Seventh
Concession Road
Built 1890
1 1/2 storey, dichromatic brick
850 Seventh
Concession Road
Built 1860-1900
1 '/2 - 2 storey brick house
Notable barn
4250 Sideline 28
Built 1860-1901
% storey frame house
- 4 _ - •_ -
Built 1860 1900
House demolished
11-100030
Barn demolished 07-1612
-
8 Road
1 I storey frame house
Notable barn
555 Eighth
Concession Road
Built 1865
1 storey brock house
440 Seventh
Concession Road
Built 1860-1900
1 % storey frame house
350 Concession 7
Built 1870
Destroyed by Fire
March 2011
Road
1 - - ' '
. . _
March, 2011
305 Eighth
Concession Road
Built 1860-1900
1 ' storey frame house (vinyl)
4445 Sideline 34
Built 1875
2 storey frame home with metal cladding
Notable barn
1,10 Concession 7
Built 1860 1900
Demolished
11-100034
Road
Perennial Gardens
1 • - - = -
. -
165 Concession 8
Road
Built 1860-1900
1 % storey frame house
4440 Sideline 34
Built 1860-1900
1 % storey frame house, centre gable
Notable outbuildings
511unicipal Heritage Register, May 2019
Page 8 of 14
Properties Listed under Part IV, Section 27 of the Ontario Heritage Act
Municipal Address
Heritage Value
Notes
4375 Markham-
Pickering Townline
1 1/2 storey house, wattle and daub
4585 Sideline 20
Built 1860-1900
1 1/2 storey brick house
Vernacular, gothic revival
4560 Sideline 22
Built 1860-1900
1 1/2 — 2 storey dichromatic brick
•
4535 Sideline 24
Built 1860-1900
1 1/2 storey frame house
Georgian, much altered
1095 Ninth
Concession Road
Built 1850
1 1/2 storey frame house
Notable outbuildings
975 Ninth Concession
Road
Built 1860-1900
1 '/2 storey brick house
Greek revival,- summer kitchen
840 Eighth
Concession Road
Stouffville Christian
Fellowship School
Built 1860-1900
1 1/2 storey frame house, fan window
835 Ninth Concession
Road
Built 1860-1900
1 1/2 storey frame house, much altered
575 Ninth Concession
Road
Built 1860-1900
1 1/2 storey frame house, centre gable
Porch with bellcast roof
4690 Sideline 30
Built 1850-1880
1 1/2 storey frame house, board and batten
4675 Sideline 32
Built 1850
2 — 2 1/2 storey house, dichromatic brick
Flemish bond
355 Ninth Concession
Road
Built 1860-1900
1 1/2 storey frame house
Notable barn
305 Eighth
Concession Road
Built 1860-1900
1 1/2 storey frame house
5165 Sideline 22
Built 1860-1900
1 1/2 storey frame house
Vernacular (house is empty) barn
Municipal Heritage Register, May 2019
Page 9 of51.
Properties Listed under Part IV, Section 27 of the Ontario Heritage Act
Municipal Address
Heritage Value
Notes
5070 Sideline 22
Transport Canada
Site Office
Built 1901-1940
2- storey brick house
5170 Sideline 22
Built 1860-1900
1 1/2 storey frame house with stucco cladding
Vernacular
1175 Uxbridge-
Pickering Townline
Built 1860-1900
1 1/2 storey frame house, centre gable
Notable barn
5050 Sideline 211
Built 1858 1859
Demolished
11-100028 & 12-101397
1 %2 storey stone house
5260 Sideline 24
Built 1860-1900
1 �/2 - 2 storey frame house
Notable outbuildings
,
1095 Uxbridge
Built 1860 1900
Demolished
11-100036
Pickering Townlinc
1- • - -
_ .
5395 Sideline 26
Built 1901-1940
2 storey house, painted brick, hip roof
5240 Sideline 26
Misty Meadows
Built 1860-1900
1 '/2 storey frame house, additions
Notable barn
52/15 Sideline 28
Built 1860 1900
Demolished
12-101876
1 1/2 storey frame house, insulbrick, Georgian
Notable barn
5305 Sideline 28
Built 1857
1 %/ storey stone house
625, 6 645
Built 1860-1900
1 1/ storey frame house, stucco
635 Demolished
11-100031
Uxbridge -Pickering
Townline
6-, 685, 695
Uxbridge -Pickering
Townline
Built 1860-1900
1 �/2 storey frame house, metal
675, 695 Demolished
12-100142
12-100138
565 Uxbridge
Built 1875
Demolished
12-100144
Pickcring Townlinc
Altona Christian
Mi. ionary Church
5111 Sideline 30
Built 1901 1940
Demolished
12-100139
Road)
1 1/2 brick house,
(North
storey circular porch
30
Built 1860 1900
Demolished
11-100035
-5443-Sideline
(North Road)
1 1/2 storey frame house, board and batten
54unicipal Heritage Register, May 2019
Page 10 of 1.4
Properties Listed under Part IV, Section 27 of the Ontario Heritage Act
Municipal Address
Heritage Value
Notes
5435 Sideline 30
Built 1901 1910
Demolished
06-005361
Road)
1_ - e ' - e -, • e e e
(North
. _
5415 Sideline 30
(North Road).
Built before 1877
2 storey brick stucco. house
5250 Sideline 30
(North Road)
Built 1860-1900
1 1/2 storey frame house
5160 Sideline 30
Built 1911
Demolished
12-102034
(North Road)
SS tt17 (Altona), 1 storey brick
385 Uxbridge-
Pickering Townline
Built 1872
1 2/2 storey brick house, original fence
5070 Sideline 32
Built '1860-1900
1 1/2 storey frame house, metal
5095 Markham-
Pickering Townline
Built 1945
(original house burned down in 1944)
1 1/2 storey brick
3515 Brock Road
e -- - - - e -
Demolished
03-000172
__ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
Notable barn
1725 Highway 7
Built 1860 1900
Demolished
12-100203
2 storey brick house
1709 Highway 7
Built 1870
Brick, commercial ,house
1689 Highway 7
Notable barn
Demolished
16-101360
3595 Mowbray Street
The Standard Church
(St. John's United
Church)
Built 1890
Brick
3575 Mowbray Street
Built 1860-1900
1 -1 1/2 storey frame house, centre cable
1689 Spring Gate
Built 1860 1900
Demolished
12-100145
-13421-
1 % brick house, fence
storey original
3545 Mowbray Street
Brougham Community
Hall
Built 1854
Ex -Township of Pickering
3535 Mowbray Street
Built 1860
1 % storey house, dichromatic brick,
Georgian
3590 Mowbray Street
Built 1860-1900
2 storey brick house
Municipal Heritage Register, May 2019
Page 11 of gi
Properties Listed under Part IV, Section 27 of the Ontario Heritage Act
Municipal Address
Heritage Value
Notes
3570 Mowbray Street
Built 1920 1940
Demolished
12-102033
- - •• - : - : -
3530 Mowbray Street
Built 1860 1900
Demolished
18-100518
' - -. -
_ _ _.
1637 Highway 7
- :: - ::. '- - e
Demolished
12-100198
_ _
1631 Highway 7
i, - : • e
Demolished
12-100201
Notable outbuilding
1619 Highway 7
1 1/2 storey house, vinyl siding
Demolished
18-100519
Notable. outbuilding
1607 Highway 7
1 -: e ' -, - - - -
Demolished
12-101928
_ _ _ _
1613 Highway 7
Gallery Brougham
Built 1859
Red Brick, SS #10
3629 & 3633
Brougham Road
1 '/ storey house
3629 Demolished
12-102191
3656 Brougham Road
2 1/2
Demolished
12-101929
storey house
3652 Brougham Road
Built 1835
1 1/2 storey house, original outbuilding
: - -• .*-=
1 fr - - vinyl siding
Demolished
12-100205
_ _ -= -
/2 storey •use,
Original
porch
1688 Highway 7
(Becker's store)
[no description provided]
1686 Highway 7
Temperance Hall
Built 1880
Architect AA Post
1670 Highway 7
A • -' : - - -e
Demolished
05-00080
, . -
1622 Highway 7
Built 1880
2 storey house, dichromatic brick
1115 Eighth
Concession Road
Gostick Cemetery
Built pre -1860
1450 Seventh
Concession Road
St. John's Cemetery
Built pre -1860
3850 Sideline 20
Sharrard Cemetery
Built .pre -1860
5
unicipal Heritage Register, May 2019
Page 12 of 14
Cultural Heritage Value — Provincial Lands
City of Pickering 2019 Municipal Heritage Register
Properties of Cultural Heritage Value or Interest — Seaton Lands
Properties Listed under Part IV, Section 27 of the Ontario Heritage Act
Municipal Address
Heritage Value
Notes
750 Whitevale Road
Samuel Major House
Built 1861
Farmstead, fine stone dwelling, large stone
voussoirs at the window arches of the front
and ground storey
825 Whitevale Road
The Grange
Built 1855
Farmstead, 1 1/2 storey frame house
Built on granite fieldstone foundation with
shiplap siding
1050 Whitevale Road
Clergy Reserve
Built 1861
Farmstead, 1 1/2 storey house, three bay
centre gable structure
1125 Whitevale Road
King's College/Splatt
House
Built 1845
Farmstead, 2 1/2 storey redbrick farmhouse
Queen Anne style
1130 Whitevale Road
Nathaniel Hastings
House
Built 1835-1840
Farmstead, 1 1/2 storey stone house with one
storey stone kitchen tail with verandah, frame
summer kitchen, frame woodshed and
English barn
1255 Whitevale Road
Built 1854-1859
Farmstead, 1 1/2 storey stone house, hipped
roof design, two barns in close proximity,
example of a cottage ornee dwelling
Now owned by
Lebovic Enterprises
1390 Whitevale Road
Asher Willson/Joseph
Willson House
Built 1851-1861 •
Farmstead, 1 1/2 storey house, 3 bay
structure, saltbox roof, gambrel roofed hay
barn and carriage shed on the property
1450 Whitevale Road
Asher. Willson/Francis
Linton
Built 1857-1861
Farmstead, main house with kitchen tail,
sheds, two English barns and remains of a
silo
1690 Whitevale Road
Glen House
Built 1840
Farmstead, 1 % storey residence with gabled
roof, large rear addition, heavy timber and
frame, English barn
575 Highway 7
Vardon Family Home
Built 1853
Farmstead, Gothic Revival cottage
Municipal Heritage Register, May 2019
Page 13 of51'
Properties Listed under Part IV, Section 27 of the Ontario Heritage Act
Municipal Address
Heritage Value
Notes
815 Highway 7
Percy Family Home
Built 1853
Farmstead, brick house with kitchen tail with
side verandah, 2 large gambrel barns with
attached silos
1015 Highway 7
William Major Home
Built 1851
Farmstead, 1 %2 storey house with frame
kitchen tail, a gambrel roofed barn, small
shed
1335 Highway 7
John Pride Phillips
House
Built between 1851-1861
Farmstead, gabled frame structure, board
and batten
2630 Brock Road
Built between 1861 1877
Demolished
11-100375
° •• - - •• - .: - - . ° - = -e =
Mary Elmslcy
,
structure
3440 Elsa Storry Ave
Thomas Hubbard
House
Built 1870
Farmstead, "T" plan framed dwelling, front
verandah, clad in weatherboard
3215 Sideline Road
SS #8 (Whitevale)
Built 1864--1865 '
Greek Revival school building, gable end,
heavily moulded pediment, buff brick
3250 Sideline 28
William Turner House
Pre -1850
Farmstead, stone and frame dwelling, major
addition to the west
3185 Sideline 26
Pennybank farmstead
Built 1851
Farmstead, 1 % storey frame dwelling, brick
addition to the north end
1130 Taunton Road
Robert Smith House
Built between 1860-1877
House including centre -gabled front section
grafted on to the original structure
ftunicipal Heritage Register, May 2019 Page 14 of 14
1N13
Report to.
Planning & Development Committee
Report Number: PLN 10-19
Date: May 6, 2019
From: Kyle Bentley
Director, City Development & CBO
Subject: Heritage Permit Application HP 02/19
Request for removal of cattle barn at 1860 Seventh Concession Road
(Thistle Ha')
Recommendation:
1. That the Heritage Permit Application HP 02/19 to remove a cattle barn located at
1870 Seventh Concession be approved.
Executive Summary: The purpose of this report is to obtain Council's consent to remove a cattle
barn located at 1870 Seventh Concession Road. The owner of the property has submitted a
heritage permit application seeking permission to dismantle the cattle barn, which has been
purchased to be reassembled in Clarington, Ontario.
The subject property is individually designated under Part IV, Section 29 of the Ontario Heritage
Act by By-law 2140/86 and is known as "Thistle Ham. The property is actively farmed and includes
a stone farmhouse, a cattle barn and other outbuildings. The farm has historic associations with
John Miller, a Scottish farmer who was an importer and breeder of pedigree livestock in Canada.
The cattle barn has a.granite fieldstone foundation and timber frame, and has leaned outward
towards the south wall since the 1960s. The owner was quoted over $100,000.00 to repair the
barn and there is no available funding from Provincial or Federal Governments to contribute to the
repair costs. The owner has not been successful in leasing or reusing the barn, until recently
selling the cattle barn to a buyer willing to move the barn to a farm in Clarington.
Under the provisions of the Ontario Heritage Act, an owner of a designated property is required to
obtain Council's permission to demolish or remove a building or structure. After consulting with its
municipal heritage committee, Council may consent to the application, consent with conditions or
refuse the application.
Heritage Pickering has recommended approval of the heritage permit application to remove the
cattle barn with conditions. Further, the owner has received approval from the Ontario Heritage
Trust to remove the cattle barn from the property. Staff consulted Parks Canada which
communicated that no permissions are required from the Federal Government with respect to
work or interventions at national historic sites.
After consultation with the City's heritage consultant, staff find that the removal of the cattle barn
will not negatively affect the heritage attributes of the subject property, and that the property would
still maintain its cultural heritage value with the retention of the stone farmhouse and the farm.
Staff recommends that the heritage permit to remove the cattle barn at 1870 Seventh Concession
Road be approved.
59
Report PLN 10-19 May 6, 2019
Subject: Request to remove a cattle barn at 1860 Seventh Concession Road Page 2
Financial implications: The recommendations of this report do not present any financial
implications.
Background
The subject property is located on the north side of Seventh Concession Road and
east of Brock Road, municipally known as 1860 Seventh Concession Road (see Air
Photo Map, Attachment #1). The property is approximately 80 hectares in size and is
currently occupied by a stone farmhouse (c. 1855-1875), a cattle barn (c. 1919) and other.
outbuildings (see Site Area, Attachment #2).
1.1 Heritage Permit Application
In February 2019, a Heritage Permit application was submitted for 1860 Seventh
Concession Road to remove the cattle barn from the property and reassemble it on a
separate farm property in Durham Region (see Request for Removal, Attachment #3).
The cattle barn was constructed on a granite fieldstone foundation in 1919 to replace the
previous barn, built in 1914 that was destroyed by fire in 1918. The building is timber frame
and much of the wood used to construct the barn was salvaged from other outbuildings of.
that time. The exterior was clad in wood tongue -and -groove board, and the existing red
sheet metal cladding is a more recent addition. The lower level of the barn once housed
cattle and the upper level is a hay loft with a grain bin. The silo on the north side of the barn
is constructed of stacked precast concrete pieces.
Jim Miller, the owner and applicant, has sold the cattle barn and is requesting approval to
dismantle the barn and move it to its new location in Clarington, Ontario. The owner has
indicated that the cattle barn is in poor condition and it is economically unviable to repair
and reuse the cattle barn. Since the 1960s, the south stone wall of the cattle barn has
leaned outward. Repairs were made in the past. However, in recent years the building has
exhibited more active movement. The owner was quoted .$100,000.00 by a local barn
restoration specialist to repair the barn, which would involve extensive work as detailed in
his application. Numerous attempts to lease the cattle barn have been unsuccessful.
The owner has stated that funding support for maintenance of heritage infrastructure is
non-existent. The Federal Government does not fund privately owned heritage properties.
The Ontario Heritage Trust (the Trust), which holds a heritage conservation easement on
the property, has previously funded repairs to the stone farmhouse on the property. The
Trust is currently not able to fund owners of easement properties in the province. When
balancing funding priorities, the owner has indicated that the stone farmhouse is the higher
priority for restoration and repair work.
After attempts to lease, repair and offer the barn to prospective buyers in the past
(including the City of Pickering), the owner now has a buyer willing to disassemble the barn
and reassemble it on a farm in Clarington, Ontario.
60
Report PLN 10-19 May 6, 2019
Subject: Request to remove a cattle barn at 1860 Seventh Concession Road Page 3
1.2 The Ontario Heritage Act
Section 34(1) of the Ontario Heritage Act states that no owner of property designated
under Part IV, Section 29 shall demolish or remove a building or structure on the property
unless the owner applies to the Council of the municipality in which the property is situated
and receives consent in writing to the demolition or removal. Within 90 days after the notice
of receipt is served on the applicant, the Council, after consultation with its municipal
heritage committee, may consent to the application, consent to the application subject to
such terms and conditions as may be specified by the Council, or refuse the application. If
the Council fails to notify the owner of its decision within the 90 day time period, Council
shall be deemed to have consented to the application.
If Council refuses the application, or if Council consents to the application with terms and
conditions, then the owner of the property may appeal to the Local Planning Appeal Tribunal
within 30 days of the owner receiving notice of Council's decision.
1.3 Thistle Ha' Farm is a designated property
The subject property is individually designated under Part IV, Section 29 of the Ontario
Heritage Act by By-law 2140/86, and is known as "Thistle Ha"' (see Designation By-law,
Attachment #4). The by-law states the Reasons for Designation as being the architectural
interest of the stone farmhouse, and the historical significance of the site in relation to its
occupants and the important role they played in the development of the community and the
nation. The by-law does not state the cattle barn or other outbuildings as reasons for
designation.
Thistle Ha' Farm is known for its historic associations with John Miller; a pioneer, importer
and breeder of pedigree livestock in Canada. Miller's example played an important role in
improving stock breeding throughout North and South America in the 19th Century. The
Miller family still owns the property, which continues to be farmed by a neighbouring crop
farmer. John Ashenhurst of Goodwood built the original cattle barn (destroyed by fire in
1918), the current cattle barn and the sheep barn.
1.4 Ontario Heritage Trust Heritage Conservation Easement
Thistle Ha' is also protected by a heritage conservation easement agreement held by the
Ontario Heritage Trust. The Ontario Heritage Trust is an agency of the Ministry of Tourism,
Culture and Sport. A heritage conservation easement is a voluntary legal agreement
between the heritage property owner and the Trust: It establishes mutually accepted
conditions that will ensure the preservation of a heritage property in perpetuity. The
heritage easement was registered in 1977 as Instrument No. D55073. Under the easement,
the owner must obtain the written approval of the Trust prior to removing any structures
from the lands.
The owner of Thistle Ha' previously received matching grants from the Ontario Heritage
Trust for restoration work on the stone farmhouse, but since 2006 the Trust is no longer
able to fund privately owned properties.
61
Report PLN 10-19 May 6, 2019
Subject: Request to remove a cattle barn at 1860 Seventh Concession Road Page 4
1.5 Thistle Ha's property is identified as a National Historic Site by Parks Canada
Thistle Ha' is also designated a National Historic Site under the National Program
of Commemoration by Parks Canada. The designation took place in 1973 and is honorary in
nature. The Parks Canada recognition makes reference to the farm as a whole and
includes both the stone farmhouse and the cattle barn as character -defining elements.
Staff have spoken to Parks Canada and they have indicated that no permissions are
required from the Federal Government with respect to work or interventions at national
historic sites as these matters are the responsibility of the provinces and territories under
their respective heritage legislation. If the integrity of a national historic site is lost, then
there is the possibility that the site will be removed from the list of designated sites.
2. Analysis
2.1 Heritage Pickering Advisory Committee supports the removal of the cattle barn
On March 27, 2019, the request for removal was presented to Heritage Pickering Advisory
Committee (Heritage Pickering). The Committee expressed interest in exploring opportunities
for commemoration of the cattle barn, whether through documentationor a plaque at the
new site. Staff agreed to seek opportunities to work with the current and new owner or
possibly the Municipality of Clarington to commemorate the cattle barn. Heritage Pickering
recommended that the request be approved subject to the following conditions:
1. That a copy of the signed sale agreement for the cattle barn is submitted to the City
Development Department, which identifies the new location of the cattle barn; and
2. That the City investigate opportunities for commemoration of the barn.
2.2 Ontario Heritage Trust supports the removal of the cattle barn
The owner had asked permission from the Trust in 2018 to remove the cattle barn. The
Trust is in support of removal due to funding required to repair the barn. The Trust
recognized that the owner has committed funds to restore the farmhouse and would prefer
to see funds directed towards the house. The Trust stipulated conditions of the approval,
which included submission of the copy of the signed sale agreement of the cattle barn
identifying the new location of the'barn, and the request for the Trust staff to document the
barn prior to removal and relocation (see Ontario Heritage Trust Letter, Attachment #5).
2.3 Removal of the cattle barn will not negatively affect the heritage attributes of
Thistle Ha'
Staff visited the subject property on March 21, 2019 with the City's heritage consultant of
Branch Architecture, to assist in review of the heritage permit application (see Site Photos,
Attachment #6). The consultant recommends that the proposal to dismantle and rebuild the
cattle barn is acceptable, especially as it is planned for reconstruction at an alternate farm.
(see Heritage Consultant Review Letter, Attachment #7).
62
Report PLN 10-19 May 6, 2019
Subject: Request to remove a cattle barn at 1860 Seventh Concession Road Page 5
The consultant noted the evolution and modernization of today's farming practices, which
has been evident on the subject property where outbuildings that were no longer needed
were dismantled and reused in the repair or construction of a new required structure either
on site or at a neighbouring farm. The consultant further noted that removal of the cattle
barn will not impact maintaining the site's cultural heritage value, however, its removal will
impact on the vista looking east from the house over the rolling farmed fields. Lastly, the
consultant noted that while the cattle barn is a representative example of this type of barn
in Pickering, the exception is the masonry treatment to the granite fieldstone foundation
(the house and street -facing foundation walls of the cattle barn were constructed to match
the stone farmhouse).
In review of Designation By-law 2140/86, it states the Reasons for Designation as being
the architectural interest of the stone farmhouse, and the historical significance of the site in
relation to its occupants and the important role they played in the development of the
community and the nation. The barn and outbuildings contribute to the cultural heritage
value of the site and indeed the cattle barn itself is a symbol of the contributions of the
Miller family to the cattle industry in Canada. The cattle barn and outbuildings were not
included in the Reasons for Designation in the municipal heritage by-law.
The Ontario Heritage Act does not include structural integrity or price of restoration as
a reason for Criteria for Determining Cultural Heritage Value or Interest (Ontario
Regulation 9/06). Further, it is typically best practice to leave a structure in place -to repair
and reuse. This particular Heritage. Permit application brings into question, however, the
ability of this current or future owner to upkeep and repair both the stone farmhouse
(currently inhabited) and the large cattle barn, which is unused and vacant, and with limited
potential for reuse. The current situation to remove the barn from the site and from
Pickering is not the preferred option, however the owner has presented a unique
opportunity to have it rebuilt and maintained on another property within Durham Region.
2.4 Staff recommend that the request to remove the cattle barn located at 1860 Seventh
Concession Road is approved
The removal of the cattle barn will not negatively affect the heritage attributes of the subject
property and that the property would still maintain its cultural heritage value with the
retention of the stone farmhouse and the farm.
Staff, in consultation with the heritage consultant, will examine opportunities to
commemorate and document the site as recommended by Heritage Pickering.
It is recommended that the request to remove the cattle barn located at 1860 Seventh
Concession Road (Thistle Ha') be approved.
63
Report PLN 10-19 May 6, 2019
Subject: Request to remove a cattle barn at 1860 Seventh Concession Road Page 6
Attachments
1. Air Photo Map
2. Site Area
3. Request for Removal
4. Designation By-law 2140/86
5. Ontario Heritage Trust Letter
6. Site Photos, March 21, 2019
7. Heritage Consultant Review Letter
Prepared By:
Elizabeth Marteliuzzi
Plan -r ll, Heritage
Nil- urti, MCIP, RPP
Manager, Development Review &
Urban Design
EM:NS:Id
Approved/Endorsed By:
Catherine Rose, MCIP, i PP
Chief Planner
XFY4
Kyle Bentley, P. Eng.
Director, City Development & CBO
Recommended for the consideration
of Pickering City Council
Tony Prevedel, P.Eng.
Chief Administrative Officer
!B 12_017
64
ATTACHMENT # 1 TO
REPORT # _PLN 10-Igi
0414
Air Photo Map
File: HP 02/19
PICKEERING
City Development
Department•
Applicant: Jim Miller
Property Description: Pt Lot 16-18 and Pt of Road Allowance between Lots
16 & 17, Con 7 (1860 Seventh Concession Rd)
Date: Mar. 22, 2019
blh. CUpor.l.n.11in C10 o1 Plan Ore Produced On pallu114019M.horn 0 O own PnM.,, OM.d. Mh0 uy.9141.l Mammal M M
M Nine remad de Hai MPIIy UWrenn ..nn RI I,I Canada, O.p MIwl.nl.1 l.lunReiman .u,. . d.. nomad
0Tln.lI Morin. Maand 1.aunts n.111iM,monad 10 Municipal toad dyN..Mn.nl CoIpeIN4n ..11..upp4n al 004 Iowan!.
ting 11Had APlNI 01 tuna/.
65
ATTACHMENT # TO
REPORT 1/ PLN 10 -vi
Im Iement,Shed
(c.11974)j
ii
SheepJBarn,
'(0935))
•
..fid • . jdYC �.
r
Seventh Concession Road
'
Site Area
File: HP 02/19 •
qt"
PICKRING
City Development
Department
Applicant: Jim Miller
Property Description:Pt Lot 16-18 and Pt of Road Allowance between Lots
16 & 17, Con 7 (1860 Seventh Concession Rd)
Date: Mar. 22, 2019
0TMaynr.Mnan.Ory.lPhk.rwwrnw..4Onp.rpundffrI*nr.Pram • Wren. Malec uni.n.nw.gaWm! n...w..., N
All r1/411114r1/411114nH
ree.iI.erWh.ly IM M?Wt.,N Owen h III&a/ C.n.d,, Off 'Arm a ?Wt., MI...� rnomadhl. nomad
4,TM.nd[M. W..• In..rd l4 wppin MI rphtg toff. r.(OMwwINI Rped),A...r•In.nlC.rprel4n and..wPWn.IIrNM+ I...rn1;
SCALE: 1'1,000
TN171l NOT Apmor 2MAY
Established 1839
ATTACHMENT # 3 TO
REPORT # PL iV 10—
THISTLE
—
THISTLE HA'
A NATIONAL HISTORIC FARM
National Historic Site since 1973 Ontario Heritage Property since 1977
March.4, 2019
Heritage Pickering
One The Esplanade
Pickering, ON
L1V 6K7
The cattle barn at Thistle Ha' farm has been sold, conditional upon heritage approvals to remove the
barn from the site. The following timeline summarizes the background and reasons why we are seeking
heritage approval to relocate this barn to a farm near Bowmanville, ON.
Prior to 2000 Timeline
1973: Thistle Ha' farm commemorated as a National Historic Site of Canada (Designation File No.
1973-D June) in the historic economic development food supply -- farm category for the Millers'
"important role in improving stock breeding throughout North and South America in the 19th
century" Although the architecture of the farmhouse and other farm infrastructure were considered
relatively common and not particularly noteworthy, they contribute to the heritage value of an intact
pioneer working farm. Currently, Thistle Ha' is the only privately -owned working farm designated as
a National Historic Site in Canada.
1977: Thistle Ha' farm protected by an easement agreement with the Ontario Heritage Foundation
(Instrument No. D55073). Heiitage preservation focus is the farmyard and its buildings, induding
farmhouse and outbuildings.
1985: Farmhouse largely destroyed by fire. With technical assistance of, the Ontario Heritage
Foundation and help from the local community, house was rebuilt with some rooms unfinished.
Installation of interior millwork in these rooms to match original is ongoing.
1986: Thistle Ha' farm, owned by Hugh Miller, was designated for its architectural and historic interest
by Town of Pickering (Bylaws -2140/86, 2140/86(2)). Included are all buildings and structures on the
farm, and farmhouse features such as the ballroom, arched stone lintels and specific elements in the
woodshed.
Recent Major Infrastructure Repair Timeline
2005 — 2007: With dollar -for -dollar matching financial assistance from the Ontario Heritage Trust, the
farm house Western red cedar shingle roof was completely replaced, and two chimneys rebuilt. Our
cost was approximately $55k.
2010: Meeting with Thomas Wicks df Ontario Heritage Trust and renowned heritage architect Philip
Goldsmith to review priority of farm infrastructure repairs, costs and funding support.
1860 SEVENTH CONCESSION ROAD
R.R. 5, CLAREMONT, ONTARIO L1Y 1A2
67
ATTACHMENT #TO
REPORT # Pt_N 1o�1cl
—2
MARCH 22, 2019
Mr Wicks said that Ontario Heritage Trust project funding was no longer reliable; they would
let us know if funds were available on a yearly basis. Mr Goldsmith argued that the farmhouse
projects were the priority, since its purpose will never change, whereas to meet business needs,
farm building utility might change. I raised my concern that given the repair priorities, our
finances were unlikely to permit repair to the cattle barn, and unless there was funding support,
it might have to be torn down.
2013 — current: Toronto stone mason Leigh Bamford is in the midst of a multi-year project
to repair the tuck pointing on the house stone walls entirely at our cost estimated at $100k.
Concurrently, to minimize our costs, we are replacing rotted windowsills; repairing, re -puttying
and repainting all windows, exterior doors and trim ourselves.
2016: Discussed future of the cattle barn (built by John Ashenhurst of Goodwood in 1919)
during meeting with Kiki Aravopoulos of the Ontario Heritage Trust. Since she could not
promise repair funding, I said I would explore other options, including barn removal.
2016: I asked Claremont barn contractor Lorne Britton to inspect the barn and estimate repair
costs. Saying the barn was becoming unsafe to use, he recommended jacking the barn,
removing the stone foundation, then resetting the barn on new reinforced concrete footings
and wall, at an estimated cost of $100k.
2016: Cattle barn unsuccessfully offered to City of Pickering (Vince Plouffe, Katrine Pyke) for
$1 if the City would move it to the Pickering Museum Village in Greenwood, ON as part of
their early 20th century heritage collection, to be used as a storage building for Museum
artifacts.
REMOVAL TERMS. Without disturbing the surrounding working farm soil, all
infrastructure at the barn site was to be removed by the City to a depth of 2 feet below
final grade, and the site graded to be compatible with the surrounding farm yard
contours. We would then remediate the site by seeding it with grass/trees to match
the appearance of the surrounding natural farmyard landscape.
2016: To salvage barn materials for reuse in heritage restoration projects, preliminary inquiries
made with demolition companies for salvage of timbers; none willing to remediate the site to
a natural state. Paul Goldsmith (Heritage Restoration Inc.) was not interested in salvaging the
stone foundation.
2016: Matt Setzkorn (Ontario Farmland Trust) inspected the cattle barn and couldn't identify
a source for repair funding
Cattle Barn Removal Proposal
2017: I was approached by Toronto stonemason and restoration builder Gus Butterfield. He
had a client who proposed buying the Thistle Ha' cattle barn, intending to reassemble it to
preserve its heritage character, including the granite stone foundation wall, on a farm near
Bowmanville, ON, starting in the 2018 building season. The buyer verbally agreed to pay for
removal and site remediation, as outlined above. The intended proposal will not proceed until
68
ATTACHMENT # �? i0
REPORT # PLN 10�iG
— 3 — MARCH 22, 2019
all heritage approvals are obtained for removal of the cattle barn and removal obligations
included in a written, signed sales contract.
2018: Kiki Aravopoulos of Ontario Heritage Trust approved removal of cattle barn.
Conditions indude a written sales contract and municipal heritage approval. Completed barn
documentation for their records.
2019: Notified Parks Canada of intended proposal to remove barn. Permission to alter of
remove infrastructure from a National Historic Site is not needed. When completed, the
National Historic Sites and Monuments Board either amends the infrastructure description,
or reassesses the impact of the removal to the heritage contribution of the site.
Current Situation
• Future masonry repairs to three chimneys, stone gate posts and minor repointing of sheep
barn stone foundation estimated at $50k, entirely at our cost.
• Retired, land leased to local farm family, barns no longer provide income. No-one willing to
lease barns for livestock; farmers want to live on the same site as their animals, and no-one
willing to insure farm outbuildings.
• Recent city dwellers interested in buying Thistle Ha' prefer to eliminate all heritage
protectionsand the working farm. Sale. to a young farmer would be at a substantial discount
below farmland market prices due to the additional costs of maintaining heritage
infrastructure.
Sincerely,
WJ.Miller
tel (905) 649-5940
.email millerwj@gmail.com
69
70
ATTACHMENT # `/. TO
REPOR1 #
•
THE CORPORATION OF THE TOWN OF PIC[ERING.
BY-LAW NUMBER 2140/86
'Being.a by-law to designate property'owned
by Hugh Miller as being of architectural
and historical value or interest
WHEREAS pursuant to paragraph (a) of•secti'on 29'.6 of the Ontario Heritage Act, R.S.O.
1980, c. 337 the council.of,a municipality is authorized to ehact by-laws to'designate
real property, including all buildings and structures thereon, to'be of architectural•
and historic value or interest; and
WHEREAS the Council. of the Corporation of the 'Down of Pickeririg.has.caused to be serv-
ed on the owner of the lands and•premises known as Thistle Ha' and. upon the Ontario
Heritage Foundation, notice of intention to so designate the aforesaid real property
and has caused such notice of intention to be published in the same newspaper having
general-ci'rculation in the municipality once for each of three consecutive weeks; and
WHEREAS no notice'of objection to the proposed designation has been served on the
clerk•of the municipality;
NOW THEREFORE'.the Council of the Corporation of the Town of Pickering HEREBY,ENACPS•as
follows: •
1. There is designated as being of architectural and historical value or interest
the real property. owned.by Hugh Miller, more particularly described•in Schedule
"A". attahced hereto.
•2. The municipal solicitor is hereby authorized to'cause a copy of this by-law to be
registered against the property described in'Schedule:"B" hereto in the proper
land registry office,
The Clerk is hereby authorized to cause a copy of this by-law to be served on•ttie
owner of the aforesaid property and on the Ontario Heritage Foundation and to
cause notice of the passing of this by-law to be published in the same newspaper
having *general circulation in the municipality once'for each of three consecutive
weeks.
BY-LAW READ a first, second and third time and finally PASSED this 3rd day of
February, 1986.
(-
`
Clerk
•
ATTACHMENT # q TO
REPORT # , it -
IN THE MATTER OF
THE ONTARIO HERITAGE ACT
R.S.O. 1980, CHAPTER 337
AND
I•N THE MATTER OF
THE LANDS AND PREMISES
KNOWN MUNICIPALLY AS
LOTS 16, 17 AND 18,'CONCESSION 7
IN THE TOWN OF PICKERING
IN THE PROVINCE OF ONTARIO
AND.
IN THE MATTER OF
TOWN OF'PICKERING
BY-LAW NUMBER 2140/86
REASON FOR DESIGNATION
Construction on the house on Lots 16; 17 and 18 in Concession 7 known as
Thistle Ha' commenced in 1855 to replace a log house that was inadequate to
accommodate the' large family of John Miller, the original settler of the
property.
The many stone.piles in'the fields provided the building material.
Limestone was set aside to be burned to make building lime 'for mortar. The
stone masons were Pearson Brothers of Ashburn.
The building continued over a period of years.as new supplies of stone were
r� gouged from the .fields and dragged by stone boat to the building site. The
.east wing was completed in 1875 and contained a large ballroom, a brick oven
capable of baking 22 loaves of bread at a time and a masonry ash pit.
Although damaged by fire in 1984, Thistle Ha' stands'as one of the' finest
examples of the stonemason's art with its arched lintels locked with a
central key stone and walls two feet -thick.
In addition to.being of architectural interest, Thistle Ha' and'its
occupants, have played. an important roll in the development of the community
and indeed the nation. .In 1849, John Miller brought•Shorthorn cattle to his
property from' Kentucky.• These cattle formed the -nucleus of the Thistle Ha'
herd that continues to this day and is -now the oldest in the world.
Later in the 1860's, John Miller realized the beef producing potential of
the American mid.we.t and the less desirable.agricultural areas of Canada
and he set about the task of adapting his cattle to a beefier and easier
feeding type suitable for the North American beef industry.
A major breakthrough for the Thistle Ha' herd was the importation of the
Shorthorn bull Vice Consul from'Amos Cruickshank of Aberdeenshire, a Quaker
with an immense genius for'improving livestock. Later came the outstanding
cows Cherry Bloom and Rose of Strathallan. The latter became a by -word of
proliferacy and easy husbandry.
r•`
•
ATTACHMENT►-_�_,_„'�0
REPORT
®E- ONTARIO
--. ��, . HERITAGE
Iii : ,+ TRUST
An agency of the Government of Ontario
SENT BY MAIL AND EMAIL
May 16, 2018
Mr. Jim Miller
1860 Concession 7
Claremont, Ontario
LIY 1A2
Re: Thistle Ha' — 1860 Concession 7, Pickering
Ontario Heritage Trust— Conservation Easement Agreement
Approval for Barn Removal
Dear Mr. Miller:
10 Adelaide 5ireel E051
Tioronlo. Ontario MSC 1J3
Telephone : 416-325-5000
Fax 416-325-5071
www.heritagetrusl.an.ca
On February 23, 2018 the Ontario Heritage Trust (Trust) received an alteration request
from you to remove the cattle barn at Thistle Ha'. As you are aware the property known
as Thistle Ha' is protected by a heritage conservation easement agreement (HCEA)
held by the Trust and registered on September 14, 1977 as Instrument No. D55073.
Under Section 1.10 the owner must obtain the written approval of the Trust prior to
removing any structures from the lands subject to the terms of the HCEA.
The current proposal involves removing the cattle barn located on the property and
relocating it to a farm in Clarington. The cattle barn suffers from structural issues and
while repairs were attempted in the past they have not been successful in stabilizing the
barn. Repair estimates far outweigh available funds for such a project and what financial
resources are available will continue to go towards the maintenance and repair of the
main dwelling house.
In support of the current application the Trust received the following items in addition to
the alteration request form:
• Rationale for removal of cattle barn from Thistle Ha' (received February 23,
2018);
• Description of previous conservation projects at Thistle Ha' along with associated
costs as well as description and associated costs of future projects (received
February 23, 2018);
• Financial resources available to undertake work at Thistle Ha' (received February
23, 2018);
▪ List of options for conserving the cattle barn (received February 23, 2018); and
• Estimated costs to repair/stabilize the cattle barn (received April 30, 2018).
Page 1 of 2
72
ATTACHMENT # 5TO
WOW
Trust staff have reviewed the documentation associated with this request. The Trust's
preference would be to leave the cattle barn in situ and have it stabilized. However, the
financial resources needed to maintain and repair the identified heritage attributes on
site (i.e. the main dwelling) and the financial resources required to stabilize the cattle
barn exceed the resources available to you as the property owner. The Trust recognizes
the financial investments you have made to date and will continue to make to conserve
Thistle Ha', its heritage attributes and agricultural lands. We also recognize the lack of
heritage funding available to private property owners. Given the financial implications
and your obligations under the terms of the HCEA to maintain the heritage attributes the
Trust understands your request and will allow you to relocate the cattle barn to another
farm. The Trust therefore approves the work subject to the following conditions:
• A copy of the signed sale agreement for the cattle barn is submitted to the Trust
which identifies the new location of the cattle barn.
• The cattle barn is documented prior to its removal and relocation. Trust staff will
undertake this work and ask that you provide us with sufficient notice in order to
thoroughly document the barn in its current location.
• An alteration completion form is submitted to the Trust once the work has been
completed.
Because your property is also designated by the Municipality of Pickering under Part IV
of the Ontario Heritage Act (Bylaw No. 2140/88), I advise you to contact the Municipality
in order to secure any local approvals that may be necessary under the terms of the
designation. The Trust's approval is separate and distinct from any municipal approval
you may require.
Should you have any questions regarding this approval or the scope of work changes
please contact me by telephone at 416-314-1751 or by email at
kiki.aravopoulos@heritagetrust.on.ca.
Sirlcerely,yours,
Kik' Aravopdulos
Easements Program Coordinator
Page 2of2
73
ATTACHMENT # tr, TO
REPORT #
Site Visit Photos — March 21, 2019
Cattle Barn, looking South East from farmhouse (south wall not in view)
Stone farmhouse, looking west from cattle barn
74
ATTACHMENT #`6 TO
REPORT # N S
i' / `► 1;1 •aria V,y
-107111116
• Above: Southwest corner and wall of the cattle barn, bowing outward
Lower level of cattle barn — beams leaning outward toward the south wall.
75
ATTACHMENT # TO
REPORT # P to "fid!
County ounty Road 10, 2T0 BRI1'J C 1-1
P5 Co Ontario, OK 2T0
613-438-5355
infoebranch-architeclure.corn
www.branch-architeclure.com ARCHITECTUPE
March 22, 2019
Elizabeth Martelluzzi, Planner II Heritage
City Development Department
City of Pickering
One The Esplanade
Pickering, ON L1V 6K7
T: 905.420.4660 ext.2169
E: emartelluzzi@pickering.ca
RE: 1860 Seventh Concession Road ("Thistle Ha")
Heritage Permit Review Letter
Dear Elizabeth,
The purpose of this letter is to comment on the Heritage Permit submission to relocate the cattle
barn at Thistle Ha, The review finds that the proposal to dismantle and rebuild the barn at another
Ontario farm is acceptable.
The findings of this letter are based on: review of the heritage permit application and supporting
submission material (background history, information from the Ontario Heritage Trust including
measured drawings); review of heritage protections (municipal, provincial and federal); a site
review undertaken with City Staff and the Owner on March 21, 2019; and photos provided by staff.
This heritage permit application has been reviewed in relation to the Parks Canada Standards and
Guidelines for the Conservation of Historic Properties in Canada, the Eight Guiding Principles
in the Conservation of Built Heritage Properties as well as other accepted heritage guidelines
and, charters. It is not intended to preclude other required approvals related to the application.
BACKGROUND INFORMATION
The property at 1860 Seventh Concession Road is designated under Part IV of the Ontario
Heritage Act under by-law 2140/86 Being a by-law to designate property owned by Hugh Miller
as being of architectural and historical value or interest. The Reason for Designation speaks to
the historic associations with John Miller - original settler and breeder - and the architectural
value of the house.
Page 1
76
ATTACHMENT #
REPORT # P Q !
The property is also protected under an easement with the Ontario Heritage Trust (OHT). The OHT
has provided a letter allowing for the relocation of the barn. As part of the OHT's site investiga-
tion architectural drawings and photo documentation of the existing cattle barn were completed.
Finally, the property has national historic site status. As per the Statement of Significance (update
in 2008), the property has cultural heritage value related to its historic associations with John
Miller and the property's "identity as a farm originating in the 19th century." The description
notes the agricultural fields, stone house and large wooden barn, and other vernacular outbuild-
ings. The cattle barn description read:
... its rectangular massing under a gambrel roof, local fieldstone foundation, wood -frame
construction with board sheathing, metal roofing, functional plan for livestock shelter
including door and window openings on ground level and surviving evidence of silo;
At the site visit the owner provided, access to review the barn (both interior and exterior) and
provided an oral history of the structure.
According to the owner, the cattle barn was constructed in 1919 after the previous barn was
destroyed by fire. A new barn was constructed on a granite fieldstone foundation. The street
and house facing elevations were more finely constructed in a squared rubblestone pattern with
quoined corners and white tuck pointed mortar joints (similar to the house). In contrast the rear
walls (partially banked to provide direct access to the loft) were smaller stones laid in a random
pattern and finished with flush mortar joints. Set within the stone foundation are wood windows
and doors; the greatest number are found on the south -facing elevation.
The building is timber frame. Much of the wood used to construct the barn was salvaged from
other outbuildings of that time. This is seen in the timbers with existing (unused) beam pockets,
notably in the shorter lengths. The longer timbers and wood elements, such as the tall posts
and roof rafters, were new as evident by the milled finish of these elements (in contrast to the
hand hewned finish of salvaged pieces). The exterior was clad in wood tongue -and -groove board
which the owners painted red. The existing red sheet metal cladding is a more recent addition.
The roof is also sheet. metal.
The lower level of the barn once housed cattle. The wood stalls / pens remain as well as an open
coral area. The upper level is a hay loft with a grain bin. To the north is a silo constructed of
stacked precast concrete pieces.
The barn generally follows the construction methods and layout of an "English" heavy timber
barn (as described in Building with Wood by John I. Rempel). Of note, the loft has an expansive
central bay, typical of a hay barn, that is likely over 40 feet in height.
The owner recalls that the barn first exhibited signs of movement in the 1960s. At that time, a
concrete buttress and base was provided at the south wall as well as a metal tie at the cracked
south-west corner. Later, wood boards were fastened to the existing cladding to reduce the risk
of racking. In more recent years, the building has exhibited active movement - the south wall of
the stone foundation has tipped out significantly, the interior posts on the lower level are leaning
Page 2
77
ATTACHMENT # -7 TO
REPORT # ' FLf Ip-iq
to the south, and a number of purlin braces have come loose. The owner has been advised by
a contractor that to repair the barn in situ would require: securing the timber structure together
with metal ties; dismantling the south stone wall and building a new wall on a concrete founda-
tionand footing; as well as general repairs to the shifted wood structure (as needed).
With respect to the house, the owner has dutifully conserved this building and is currently under-
taking a multi-year repointing program.
HERITAGE PERMIT APPLICATION
The Heritage Permit application for 1860 Seventh Concession Road provides for the dismantling
of the existing cattle barn and relocating it to another farm property.
COMMENTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
While the preferred approach to conserving heritage properties is to maintain all contributing
built elements in situ, this application brings forward a conversation about continuing to allow for
a rural cultural heritage landscape to evolve in order to maintain their long-term agricultural use.
With the modernization of farming practice, family farms of today are also evolving to stay viable.
This may require changing their focus to serve additional, new or specialized markets. This is in
keeping with traditional practice, as seen on site, where outbuildings that were no longer needed
due to a, change in livestock were dismantled and reused in the repair or construction of a new
required structure either on site or at a neighbouring farm. The removal of this structure will not
impact maintaining the site's cultural heritage value as farm, however, it should be noted that
its removal will impact on the vista looking east from the house over the rolling farmed fields.
Further, the structure is, in general, a representative example of this type of barn in Pickering.
The exception is the masonry treatment on the street and house -facing elevations with quoins
and tuck -pointing to match the house.
Given the above, the proposal to dismantle and rebuild the cattle barn is acceptable, especially
as it is planned for reconstruction at an alternate farm.
In keeping with heritage practice, the owner and. the OHT have provided photos and measured
architectural drawings of the cattle barn for record purposes.
Please let me know if there are questions or comments.
Sincerely,
Lindsay Reid OAA, CAH P, LEED
Principal, Branch Architecture
78
Page 3
ATTACHMENT s� '7 TO
REPORT # VLN - tq
APPENDIX: Select site photos '
1. South west corner, showing metal tie and bowing at south stone foundation wall.
2. Bowing at south wall (left) and 1960s concrete buttress (right).
Page 4
79
ATTACHMENT #TO
REPORT # 10 -11_
3. Lower level, evidence of interior movement at stalls (left) and through wall cracking at south-west corner,
4. Upper level, bracing boards added at exterior walls (left) and partial view of loft with mix of salvaged and 'new'
timbers.
Page. 5
80
04
PICKERING
Revised
Report to
Planning & Dev.eloprnent Committee
Report Number: PLN 11-19
Date: May 6, 2019
From: Kyle Bentley
Director, City Development & CBO
Subject: Official Plan Amendment OPA 18-001/P
Zoning By-law Amendment Application A 02/18
Draft Plan of Subdivision Application SP -2018-02
Draft Plan of Condominium Application CP -2018-01
Icon Forest District Limited
Northwest corner of Finch Avenue and Altona Road
(2024 and 2026 Altona Road, and 200 Finch Avenue)
Recommendation:
1. That Official Plan Amendment Application OPA 18-001/P, submitted by Icon Forest District
Limited, to re -designate the lands located an the northwest corner of Finch Avenue, and
Altona Road from "Urban Residential Areas — Low Density Areas" to "Urban Residential
Areas -- Medium Density Areas" to allow a residential common element condominium
development be approved, and that the,draft by-law to adopt Amendment 34 to.the
Pickering Official Plan as set out in Appendix I to Report PLN 11-19 be forwarded to
Council for enactment;
2. That Zoning By-law Amendment Application A 02/18, submitted by Icon Forest District
Limited, to facilitate a residential common element condominium development consisting of
40 semi-detached and 68 townhouse units on the lands located at the northwest corner of
Finch Avenue and Altona Road, be endorsed subject to the provisions contained in
Appendix II to Report PLN 11-19, and that staff be authorized to finalize and forward an
implementing Zoning By-law to Council for enactment;
3. That Draft Plan.of Subdivision Application SP -2018-02, submitted by Icon Forest District
Limited, to establish a single development block to facilitate a common element
condominium, as.shown on Attachment #4 to Report PLN 11-19, and the implementing
conditions of approval, as set out in Appendix III, be endorsed;
4. • That Informational Revision 23 to the Pickering Official Plan Rouge Park Neighbourhood.
Map 24 to delete the symbols for a "Proposed. Separate Elementary School" and "Proposed
Park", as set out in Appendix IV, be approved; and
5. That the changes to the Rouge Park Neighbourhood Development Guideline Figure A —
Tertiary Plan, as shown on Appendix V to Report PLN 11-19, to delete the "Future
Elementary School", "Neighbourhood Park", "Potential Access Location" and "Potential •
Heritage Home", be approved.
81
Report PLN 11-19
Subject: Icon Forest District Limited
(OPA 18-001/P, SP -2018-02, CP -2018-01, A 02/18)
. May 6, 2019
Page 2
Executive Summary: The subject lands are located on the northwest corner of Finch Avenue
and Altona Road within the Rouge Park Neighbourhood (see Location Map and Air Photo Map,
Attachments #1 and #2).
Icon Forest District Limited has submitted applications for an Official Plan Amendment, Zoning
By-law Amendment, Draft Plan of Subdivision and Draft Plan of Condominium (common element)
to facilitate a medium density residential condominium development consisting 109 townhouse
and semi-detached units, accessed through an internal private road (see Original Conceptual
Plan, Attachment #3).
The proposal was revised to increase the overall size of the outdoor amenity areas, locate the two
amenity areas in close proximity to each other, adjust the length of some of the blocks of
townhomes and increase the space between the blocks, improve the internal pedestrian
connections, and increase the number of visitor parking spaces. These changes have resulted in
the elimination of one of the rear lane townhouse unit (see Revised Conceptual Plan,
Attachment #6; Revised Draft Plan of Subdivision, Attachment #4; and Revised Draft Plan of
Condominium, Attachment #5).
The proposed site layout and design represents a logical and orderly development, and is in
keeping with other recently constructed residential condominium developments within this
neighbourhood. The farmhouse located northwest of the site on Infrastructure Ontario lands was
identified as a potential heritage resource. The applicant has agreed to use materials salvaged
from the farmhouse in the creation of the private amenity area located at the intersection of Finch
Avenue and Altona Road and will install an interpretive plaque that speaks to the heritage of the
site.
City Development staff are in support of the revised plan; The revised proposal is consistent with
Provincial Plans and conforms to the Durham Regional Official Plan. While the current Pickering
Official Plan designation does not permit the requested number of units, the request can be
supported based on the relatively small development area, the mix of semi-detached and
townhouse units, the inclusion of appropriate private amenity space, and other design
modifications.
The City has determined that these lands are not required for school or park purposes. The
development complies with urban design and other relevant policies of the Pickering Official Plan
and the Rouge Park Neighbourhood Guidelines.
Accordingly, staff recommends that Council approve Official Plan Amendment Application
OPA 18-001/P, Zoning By-law Amendment Application A 02/18, and Draft Plan of Subdivision
Application SP -2018-02 and the related conditions of approval. Additionally, staff recommends
approval of the housekeeping changes to the Rouge Park Neighbourhood Map 24 of the Pickering
Official Plan, and the Rouge Park Neighbourhood Tertiary Plan of the Neighbourhood
Development Guidelines.
Financial Implications: No direct costs to the City are anticipated as a result of the proposed
development.
82
Report PLN 11-19
Subject: lcon Forest District Limited
(OPA 18-001/P, SP -2018-02, CP -2018-01, A 02/18)
May 6, 2019
Page 3
1. Background
1.1 Property Description
The subject lands comprise three properties having a combined area of approximately
2.2 hectares with approximately 172 metres of frontage along Finch Avenue. and .
approximately 107 metres of frontage along Altona Road (see Location Map, Attachment #1).
The subject lands are currently occupied by a detached dwelling with accessory building,
which are proposed to be removed. The remaining lands are vacant (see Air Photo Map,
Attachment #2).
Surrounding land uses include:
North and Immediately north and west are environmentally sensitive lands, forming part
West: of the Petticoat Creek watershed. The lands to the north are owned by
Infrastructure Ontario (10) and the lands to the west have been recently
transferred from 10 to the Toronto and Region Conservation Authority (TRCA).
An existing detached dwelling is located northwest of the subject lands on 10
lands with a driveway access from Altona Road. Further north is the Canadian
Pacific Railway corridor and the Enbridge Pipeline.
East: Across Altona Road are two detached dwellings fronting onto Altona Road,
and a woodlot at the northeast corner of Altona Road and Finch Avenue.
Further east is a residential development consisting of detached dwellings
fronting onto Mapleview Court.
South: At the southwest corner of Finch Avenue and Altona Road is a residential
common element condominium development consisting of 23 3 -storey
townhouses, and a residential subdivisionconsisting of semi-detached
dwellings fronting Shadow Place. At the southeast corner of Finch Avenue
and Altona Road, the City has received revised applications, submitted by
702153 Ontario Limited, for a residential common element condominium
development consisting of 2 semi-detached dwellings and 83 townhouse units.
1.2 Applicant's Original and Revised Proposal
The applicant has submitted applications for Official Plan Amendment, Zoning By-law
Amendment, Draft Plan of Subdivision, and Draft Plan of Condominium (common element),
to facilitate a residential condominium development accessed through a private road.
The Original Conceptual Plan, as shown on Attachment #3, illustrates 35 rear lane
townhouse units fronting Finch Avenue and Altona Road, and 34 street townhouse units
and 40 semi-detached units fronting an internal private road. Two private outdoor amenity
areas are shown: one at the centre of the site; and the other at the corner of Finch Avenue
and. Altona Road.
83
Report PLN 11-19
Subject: Icon Forest District Limited
(OPA 18-001/P, SP -2018-02, CP -2018-01, A 02/18)
Revised
May 6, 2019
Page 4
Through collaboration between City staff and the applicant, the proposal was revised (see
Revised Conceptual Plan, Attachment #0)'. The following key changes have been made to
the original proposal:
• the number of visitor parking spaces was increased to provide 0.25 spaces per unit,
resulting. in the loss of one rear -lane townhouse (reducing total number of units from
109 units to 108 units consisting of 33 rear lane townhouse units, 35 street townhouse
units and 40 semi-detached)
• the townhouse blocks fronting Finch Avenue have been reduced from 3 blocks to
2 blocks, and the building separation has increased from 3.0 metres to 4.0 metres
+ the total outdoor amenity area has increased from 717 square metres to 770 square
metres
• the outdoor amenity area at the centre of the site has been relocated to abut an inside
corner of the private street in order to improve the visibility and access
• access to the amenity space was improved by removing visitor parking from the
frontage of the amenity space
• internal pedestrian pathways have been revised to provide improved connections
within the site and abutting public streets
• the entry feature amenity area at the corner of Altona Road and Finch Avenue
proposes to use salvaged materials from the farmhouse located at 2026 Altona Road,
which is planned to be demolished, and the installment of an interpretive plaque
• road widenings have been provided along Finch Avenue and Altona Road
2. Comments Received
2.1 June 18, 2018 Public Information Meeting and Written Comments
No members of the public attended the meeting and no comments have been received
from the public in response to the circulation of the application.
Key concerns raised by staff and members of Planning & Development Committee at the
Public Information Meeting included: investigating the requirements for emergency access
from Altona Road; ensuring that the size of the private amenity area is appropriate, and
ensuring that the development provides for a sufficient number of resident and visitor
parking to serve the development.
2.2 City Departments S. Agency Comments
2.2.1 Region of Durham
• no objection to the proposal subject to the conditions of draft approval of the plan of
subdivision and plan of condominium (common element) provided
• the Official Plan Amendment application is exempt from Regional approval
• the proposed development is consistent with Provincial Policy Statement policies that
encourage the efficient use of land, infrastructure and planned public service facilities
• the applications are generally in conformity with the objectives of the Growth Plan for
the Greater Golden Horseshoe
84
Report PLN 11-19
Subject: Icon Forest District Limited
(OPA 18-001/P, SP -2018-02, CP -2018-01, A 02/18)
May 6, 2019
Page 5
• the Regional Official Plan designates the subject lands as "Living Areas", which are
intended to be used predominantly for housing purposes with a mix of housing types,
sizes, and tenure
• municipal water supply can be provided from the existing watermain on Finch Avenue
and sanitary sewer servicing is available to the subject site from the existing sanitary
sewer on Finch Avenue
• as a condition of approval, the Region requires the applicant to include all
recommended noise and vibration control measures of the Noise and Vibration Impact
Study in the subdivision agreement
• as a condition of approval the Region requires that the applicant convey a road
allowance widening from the centerline of Altona Road and the site triangle at the
intersection Finch Avenue and Altona Road
• as a condition of approval, the Region requires the Ministry of Tourism, Culture and
Sport's clearance letter indicating all cultural heritage resource requirements at the site
have been met
2.2.2 City of Pickering Engineering Services Department
• no objection to the proposal subject to the conditions of draft approval provided
• the owner shall satisfy all requirements, financial and otherwise of the City of Pickering
including, among other matters, the execution of a subdivision agreement between the
owner and -the City concerning the provision and installation of roads, services, grading,
drainage, utilities, tree compensation, construction management, cash -in -lieu of
parkland, noise attenuation and any other matters
2.2.3 Toronto and Region Conservation Authority
• the subject lands are within a TRCA Regulated Area of the Petticoat Creek Watershed;
a permit is required from the TRCA prior to any development taking place within the
Regulated Area limits
• TRCA has no objections to the proposal subject to the conditions of draft approval of the
plan of subdivision provided
• TRCA has reviewed the proposal and provided technical comments on the hydrology,
stormwater management, flood proofing and drainage
• a restrictive covenant shall be placed over the rear yards of lots abut TRCA_ lands and
shall have the effect of prohibiting the removal of fences and the installation of gates or
other access through the fences along the lot line where it abuts TRCA owned lands
2.2.4 Durham District School Board
• no objections to the proposal
• students from this development will be accommodated within existing neighbourhood
schools
2.2.5 Durham Catholic District School Board
• no objections to the proposal
85
Report PLN 11-19
Subject: Icon Forest District Limited
(OPA 18-001/P, SP -2018-02, CP -2018-01, A 02/18)
May 6, 2019
Page 6
• students from this development will attend St. Monica Catholic Elementary School
located at 275 Twyn Rivers Drive and St. Mary Catholic School located at 1918 Whites
Road
2.2.6 Canadian Pacific Railway (CPR)
• no objections to the proposal
• as a condition of approval, CPR requires a warning clause be inserted in all offers of
purchase/lease agreements advising potential purchasers: of the existence of the
Railway's operating right-of-way; of the possibility of alterations to the Railway line
including Railway expansion; and that expansions may affect the living environment of
residents notwithstanding the inclusion of noise and vibration attenuating measures in
the design of the subdivision and individual units and that the Railway will not be
responsible for complaints or claims arising from the use of its facilities and or
operations
3. Planning Analysis
3.1 The proposal is consistent and conforms with the Provincial Policy Statement and
the Growth Plan for the Greater Golden Horseshoe
The Provincial Policy Statement (PPS) provides provincial policy direction on land use
planning. The PPS provides for appropriate development while protecting resources of
provincial interest, public health and safety, and the quality of the natural and built
environment. The PPS supports improved land use planning and management, which
contributes to a more effective and efficient land use planning system.
The PPS indicates that healthy, livable and safe communities are to be sustained by,
among other matters, promoting efficient development and, land use patterns and
accommodating an appropriate range and mix of residential. The proposed development
promotes residential intensification and provides appropriate density where existing
infrastructure and public service facilities are available. The proposed development is
consistent with the PPS policies that encourage the efficient use of land, infrastructure and
planned public service facilities.
The Growth Plan for the Greater Golden Horseshoe (Growth Plan) sets out a planking
vision for growth throughout the Greater Golden. Horseshoe. The subject lands are located
within the "built up area" of the City of Pickering. The proposed development provides for a
compact form of development that is consistent with the Plan.
3.2 An amendment to the Pickering Official Plan to increase the density on the subject
lands is appropriate
The subject lands are within the Rouge Park Neighbourhood and are designated "Urban
Residential Areas — Low Density Areas". The Low Density designation provides for
housing at a residential density of up to and including 30 units per net hectare. The policies
of the Official Plan state that the City Council shall encourage a broad diversity of housing
by form, location, size, tenure arid cost within the neighbourhoods and villages of the City,
so that the housing needs of existing and future residents can be met as they evolve over
time.
86
Report PLN 11-19
Subject: Icon Forest District Limited
(OPA 18-001/P, SP -2018-02, CP -2018-01, A 02/18)
May 6, 2019
Page 7
The proposal results in a density of 49 units per net hectare. The "Urban Residential Areas
-- Medium Density Areas" designation provides for housing at a net residential density of
over 30 units and up to and including 80 units per net hectare. The City's Official Plan
requires that density be calculated on the basis of net residential density, which excludes
all lands to be conveyed to public ownership such as valley lands, public roads and road
widening.
The proposed residential development, consisting of semi-detached, street townhouses
and rear lane townhouse units, is appropriate and desirable and in keeping with the current
and evolving Rouge Park Neighbourhood. The proposal provides for a mix of housing
forms and tenure, and will assist the City in achieving its intensification targets.
3.3 The proposal is consistent with the design objectives of the Rouge Park
Neighbourhood Policies and Development Guidelines
The Rouge Park Neighbourhood Development Guidelines establish goals to ensure lands
are developed in a cohesive, well-designed neighbourhood. The proposal has been
reviewed against both the neighbourhood polices and the Development Guidelines.
The four corners of the intersection of Altona Road and Finch Avenue are identified as a
"neighbourhood focus" that requires a strong presence at this intersection to define the
area as a centre. The proposed development supports the neighbourhood focus through
the orientation of the buildings fronting Finch Avenue and Altona Road. The development
proposes 3 -storey massing, which helps establish a strong visual relationship with the
intersection. (see Submitted Preliminary Building Elevations - Rear Lane Townhouses and
Street Townhouses, Attachments #7 and #8). The proposed outdoor private amenity space
at the intersection will be designed with hard and soft landscaping, including an area
dedicated to commemorate the heritage farmhouse.
Through the site plan approval process, staff will continue to work with the applicant to
further review detailed'urban design and architectural matters in accordance with the
Rouge Park Neighbourhood Development Guidelines including: detailed building location
and siting; internal pedestrian circulation and connections; internal landscaping and final
design of the private amenity areas; architectural design and materials; and the location of
community mailboxes, water meter room, hydro transformers, gas meters and other utilities.
3.4 Heritage Commemoration in Private Amenity Area
The Rouge Park Neighbourhood Development Guidelines identified a potential heritage
home located northwest of the subject lands. The farmhouse is located on lands that are
within the Petticoat Creek watershed and are owned by Infrastructure Ontario (10). The
farmhouse does not have heritage status. However, given that the Guidelines identify the
farmhouse as being of potential heritage significance, the City prepared a Cultural Heritage
Evaluation.
87
Report PLN 11--19
Subject: Icon Forest District Limited
(OPA 18-001/P, SP -2018-02, CP -2018-01, A 02/18)
May Gr 2019
Page 8
Gates family early 20th century (Source, Time Present and Time Past, John Sabean)
Based on the findings, the property was found to have cultural heritage value related to its
context, associations and architecture, The farmhouse is an intact example of a rural stone
farmhouse built in the 1850s and exhibits a fine degree of craftsmanship including the
quality of masonry. The farmhouse has direct associations with earlier settlers: Thomas
Bernard, a farmer and Councillor closely tied to the Church in Cherrywood; John Pearce, a
farmer and mason local to Cherrywood; and John Henderson, farmer and local school
Trustee. John Henderson sold the farm to George Gates in 1909 and the family lived there
into the 1970s when it was expropriated. The farmhouse has contextual value related to the
village of Cherrywood as found in the direct historical associations of residents and
supporting the agricultural traditions of the area.
a
Farmhouse today, 2018 (Source, A€tuna Road Heritage Commemoration, Stantec)
The farmhouse is currently located outside of the floodplain-, but within areas of "spill over"
from Petticoat Creek. In order to flood proof the proposed development, Icon Homes is
proposing to build up the north boundary of the development in order to redirect overland
flows westerly towards Petticoat Creek and thus, as a result, the farmhouse will become
uninhabitable.
88
Report PLN 11-19
Subject: Icon Forest District Limited
(OPA 18-001/P, SP -2018-02, CP -2018-01, A 02/18)
May 6, 2019
Page 9
Staff's preferred option is to conserve the existing farmhouse in its original location or
alternatively relocate the farmhouse to a separate parcel within the proposed development.
Icon advised that it is not economically feasible to relocate the farmhouse within their
development. Therefore, Icon and 10 have agreed to commemorate the farmhouse by
means of re -using the main structural materials (Le., stone) in the proposed amenity space
area entry feature located at the corner of Finch Avenue and Altona Road.
At the March 27, 2019 Heritage Pickering Advisory Committee meeting, the Committee
reviewed and discussed the recommendations to commemorate the farmhouse in the
private outdoor amenity area. The Committee expressed regret that the farmhouse could
not be protected and remain in its current location as a habitable building. Notwithstanding,
the Committee supports the commemoration of the farmhouse and requests that a
significant amount of salvageable material be incorporated into the commemoration plan.
The Committee adopted,the following motion:
1) That Heritage Pickering Advisory Committee support Icon Forest District Limited
development and commemorating the farmhouse located at 2026 Altona Road;
2) That the following condition is included in the Recommended Conditions of Draft Plan
Approval for Draft Plan of Subdivision SP -2018-02:
The condition of Draft Plan of Subdivision approval contain a condition that the Owner
prepare and implement a Commemoration Plan, which addresses such aspects as, but
not limited to, the landscape drawings for the new park/entry feature identifying the
salvaged materials to be re -used, an explanation of the interpretive aspect of the park
design (the cultural heritage themes being commemorated), information on the plaque
(text and graphic design, display design, and placement in the park), and other related
commemorative aspects of the design;
3) That historic references be considered in the naming of streets and park names,
including the Gates family;
4) That Icon Forest District Limited incorporate a significant amount of salvaged materials
from the farmhouse into the Commemoration Plan; and
5) That prior to the issuance of site plan approval, the final landscape plans implementing
the recommendation of the Commemoration Plan be forwarded to Heritage Pickering
Advisory Committee for comment.
3.5 Response to Key Concerns raised at the June 18, 2018 Public Meeting
The table below summarizes the key concerns raised at the June 18, 2018 Planning &
Development Committee meeting and staffs response..
89
Report PLN 11-19
Subject: Icon Forest District Limited
(OPA 18-001/P, SP -2018-02, CP -2018-01, A 02/18)
May 6,2019
Page 10
Concerns
Staff's Response
Ensuring
Sufficient number of parking spaces are available to accommodate
sufficient
the proposal
resident and
The applicant is providing resident parking at a ratio of 2 parking
visitor parking
spaces per dwelling unit:
• Semi-detached dwellings and street townhouse units: 1 space
within a private garage and 1 space in the driveway
• Rear Lane townhouse units: 2 spaces within a private garage
Visitor parking is provided at a rate of 0.25 spaces unit for a total of
27 parking spaces. In addition, the applicant has agreed to provide,
wherever possible, a dedicated storage room and/or storage shelves
within the garage to ensure there is sufficient space to accommodate
the parking of a vehicle and the storage of household items.
Ensuring
The proposal will be well served by private rear yards, deck
appropriate
amenity space and two private amenity areas
amenity areas
Outdoor amenity space requirements are sufficiently addressed by
providing private rear yards for the street townhouse units and
semi-detached units, and private amenity space areas above garages
for the rear lane townhouse units. In addition, two private outdoor
amenity areas are proposed having a total area of approximately
770 square metres.
An outdoor amenity area is proposed between Blocks 1 and.2 abutting
the intersection of Finch Avenue and Altona Road. The size of this
amenity area is approximately 469 square metres, coupled with
treatment commemorating the farmhouse, will act as a gateway to the
development from the abutting street network.
A second outdoor amenity area is located diagonally from the first one,
on the inside corner of the internal road. It is approximately 301 square
metres. The applicant has provided a preliminary plan demonstrating
that the size and configuration of this amenity area can support a
children's play area, landscaping, walkways and seating.
The conditions of draft plan of subdivision approval contain a condition
for the payment by the owner of cash -in -lieu of parkland.
90
Report PLN 11-19
Subject: Icon Forest District Limited
(OPA 18-001/P, SP -2018-02, CP -2018-01, A 02/18)
May 6, 2019
Page 11
Concerns
Staffs Response
Investigate the
Vehicular access from Altona Road not required
requirements
A second access proposed to/from Altona Road is not supported by the
for access /
Region of Durham given that the access would be within the functional
emergency
area of Finch/Altona intersection. Considering both safety and volume
access from
Altona Road
of traffic, an access to Altona Road is not required.
Maintenance of
Front Yards Along Altona Road and Finch Avenue will be
Front Yards
maintained by the Condominium Corporation
The maintenance of front yards, including the repair and/or
replacement of fencing and landscaping elements in front of dwelling
units that front Finch Avenue and Altona Road will be the responsibility
of the condominium. This requirement will be included in the
Condominium Declaration.
3.6 Housekeeping amendments to the Rouge Park Neighbourhood Map and the Rouge
Park Neighbourhood Development Guidelines is appropriate
The Rouge Park Neighbourhood Development Guideline Figure A — Tertiary Plan illustrates
symbols for a "Future Elementary School" and "Neighbourhood Park" on the subject lands,
and a symbol for a "Potential Access Location" to Altona Road. Also, a "Potential Heritage
Home" symbol is located northwest of the subject lands. "Proposed Separate Elementary
School" and "Proposed Park" symbols also appear on the Map 24: Rouge Park
Neighbourhood Map of the Pickering Official Plan.
Since the preparation of the Guidelines in 2000 (as amended in 2003), new environmental
studies identified additional wetlands in the Neighbourhood. As a result, the amount of
developable land in the Neighbourhood is considerably reduced from that anticipated in
2000. With the reduced size of the developable area, there is no longer sufficient area for
these proposed uses. Further, the City has received written confirmation from the Durham
Catholic District School Board that a separate elementary school is no longer needed at
this location. Through the review of this development application and the inclusion of
private amenity areas in the overall development, the City has concluded a neighbourhood
park is not required at this location. The Region of Durham does not support the access
location along Altona Road, and it is not necessary to address safety or the volume of
traffic. The farmhouse is to be demolished.
Housekeeping changes to the Official Pian and Neighbourhood Guidelines are required.
Accordingly, staff recommend Council approve Informational Revision 23 to the Pickering
Official Plan Rouge Park Neighbourhood Map 24 to delete the symbols fora "Proposed
Separate Elementary School" and "Proposed Park", as set out in Appendix IV to Report
PLN 11-19, and approve the changes to the Rouge Park Neighbourhood Development
Guideline Figure A — Tertiary Plan to delete the "Future Elementary School",
"Neighbourhood Park", "Potential Access Location" and "Potential Heritage Home", as
shown on Appendix V to this Report PLN 11-19.
91
Report PLN 11-19
Subject: Icon Forest District Limited
(OPA 18-001/P, SP -2018-02, CP -2018-01, A 02/18)
May 6, 2019
Page 12
3.7 Technical matters will be addressed as conditions of subdivision approval and
through site plan approval
Detailed design issues will be dealt with through the subdivision agreement and site plan
approval process. These requirements will address matters such as, but not limited to:
• Commemoration Plan in amenity area
• drainage and grading
• site servicing
• noise attenuation
• enhanced building design of townhouse units fronting Finch Avenue and Altona Road
• cash -in -lieu of parkland
• tree compensation
• requirements for Construction Management Plan_
• landscaping
• resident, visitor and accessible parking spaces
• emergency vehicle access
• waste management collection
• location of community mailboxes
• location of water meter room, hydro transformers, gas meters and other utilities
3.8 Draft Approval of the Draft Plan of Condominium is delegated to the Director, City
Development
Applications for standard and common element condominium are delegated to the
Director, City Development for final approval. No further approvals are required at this
time.
3.9 Conclusion
The applicant's proposal satisfies the applicable Official Plan policies for the Rouge Park
Neighborhood, and also addresses the applicable urban design requirements as established
in the Rouge Park Development Guidelines. The applicant has worked with City staff and
external agencies to address various technical requirements.
Staff supports the site specific Official Plan Amendment to re -designate the subject lands
from "Urban Residential Areas — Low Density Areas" to "Urban Residential Areas — Medium
Density Areas" (see Appendix I, Draft By-law to, Adopt Amendment 34) and recommends
that the By-law to adopt Amendment 34 be forwarded to Council for enactment. Staff
recommends Council endorse Draft Plan of Subdivision SP -2018-02 as shown on
Attachment #4 to the Report and the Conditions of Approval set out in Appendix 111 to this
Report. Furthermore, staff supports the Zoning By-law Amendment Application A 02/18
and recommends that the site specific implementing by-law, containing the standards set
out in Appendix 11 to this Report be finalized and brought before Council for enactment.
The housekeeping changes to the Pickering Official Plan and the Rouge Park
Neighbourhood Guidelines as set out in Appendices IV and V are also recommended for
approval.
92
Report PLN 11-19 May 6, 2019
Subject: Icon Forest District Limited
(OPA 18-001/P, SP -2018-02, CP -2018-01, A 02/18)
Page 13
3.10 Applicant's Comments
The applicant supports the recommendations of this report.
Appendices
Appendix I
Appendix II
Appendix III
Appendix IV
Appendix V
Draft By-law to Adopt Amendment 34 to the Pickering Official Plan
Recommended Zoning By-law Provisions for Zoning by-law Amendment
Application A 02/18
Recommended Conditions of Approval for Draft Plan of Subdivision SP -2018-02
Informational Revision 23 to the Pickering Official Plan
Rouge Park Neighbourhood Tertiary Plan
Attachments
1. ' Location Map
2. Air Photo Map
3. Original Conceptual Plan
4. Revised Draft Plan of Subdivision
5. Revised Draft Plan of Condominium
6. Revised Conceptual. Plan
7. Submitted Preliminary Building Elevation — Rear Lane Townhouses
8. Submitted Preliminary Building Elevation — Street Townhouses
Prep. ed
13
1
Cristiria elebre, MCIP, RPP
Prin Ale nal ner,.Development Review
Nilesh Lrrti, MCIP, RPP
Manage , Development Review
& Urban Design
• CC:Id
Approved/Endorsed By:
Catherine Rose, MCIP, RPP
Chief Planner
Kyle Bentley, P.Eng.
Director, City Development & CBO
Recommended for the consideration
of Pickering City Council
Tony Prevedel, P.Eng.
Chief Administrative Officer
Zit 2_01.1
93
Revised
Draft By-law to Adopt Amendment 34
to the Pickering Official Plan
94
Appendix 1 to
Report PLN 11-19
The Corporation of the City of Pickering
By-law No. XXXX/19
Being a By-law to adopt Amendment 34 to the
Official Plan for the City of Pickering (OPA 18-001/P)
Whereas pursuant to the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c.p. 13, subsections 17(22) and
21(1), the Council of The Corporation of the City of Pickering may, by bylaw, adopt
amendments to the Official Plan for the City of Pickering;
And whereas pursuant to Section 17(10) of the Planning Act, the Minister of Municipal
Affairs and Housing has by order authorized Regional Council to pass a by-law to
exempt proposed area municipal official plan amendments from its approval;
And whereas on February 23, 2000, Regional Council passed By-law 11/2000 which
allows the Region to exempt proposed area municipal official plan amendments from its
approval;
And whereas the Region has advised that Amendment 34 to the City of Pickering
Official Plan is exempt from Regional approval;
Now therefore the Council of The Corporation of the City of Pickering hereby enacts as
follows:
1. That Amendment 34 to the Official Plan for the City of Pickering, attached hereto as
Exhibit "A", is hereby adopted;
2. That the City Clerk is hereby authorized and directed to forward to the Regional
Municipality of Durham the documentation required by Procedure: Area Municipal
Official Plans and Amendments.
3. This By-law shall come into force and take effect on the day of the final passing
hereof.
By-law passed this XX day of XXXX, 2019.
David Ryan, Mayor
aRAFT
Susan Cassel, City Clerk
95
Exhibit "A" to By-law XXXX/I9
Amendment 34
to the City of Pickering Official Plan
96
Proposed Amendment 34 to the Pickering Official Plan
Purpose:
Location:
Basis:
The purpose of this amendment is to re -designate the lands located on the
northwest corner of Altona Road and Finch Avenue from "Urban
Residential Areas — Low Density Areas" to "Urban Residential Areas —
Medium Density Areas to facilitate a residential common element
condominium development.
The site specific amendment affects the lands located on the northwest
corner of Finch Avenue and Altona Road described as Part of Lot 33,
Concession 2, Part 1, 40R-2582, Parts 3, 6, 7 and 14, 40R-29767 and
Part 1, 40R-10888, City of Pickering.
Through the review of Official Plan Amendment Application 18-001/P,
Zoning By-law Amendment Application A 02/18, Draft Plan of Subdivision
SP -2018-02 and Draft Plan of Condominium CP -2018-01, City Council
determined that the Amendment facilitates a development that is
compatible with the surrounding community, and is an appropriate
intensification project in Pickering's urban area. The Amendment is
consistent with the policies of the Provincial Policy Statement 2014, and
conforms to the Growth Plan for the Greater Golden Horseshoe and the
Durham Regional Official Plan.
Actual
Amendment: The City of Pickering Official Plan is hereby amended by:
1. Amending Schedule 1— Land Use Structure by replacing the "Urban Residential
Areas — Low Density Areas" designation with "Urban Residential Areas - Medium
Density Areas" designation for lands located on the north west corner Finch Avenue
and Altona Road, as illustrated on Schedule `A' attached to this amendment.
Implementation:
Interpretation:
OPA 18-001/P
A 02/18
SP -2018-02
CP -2018-01
Icon Forest District Limited
The provisions set forth in the City of Pickering Official Plan, as amended,
regarding the implementation of the Plan shall apply in regard to this
Amendment.
The provisions set forth in the City of Pickering Official Plan, as amended,
regarding the interpretation of the Plan shall apply in regard to this
Amendment.
97
Schedule 'A' to Amendment 34
Existing Official Plan
Finch Avenue
ar
r Pii OWE 1■III i r
ilrAIWAPAni �rAPA I1
eorMarOkiltilet
Idrogrind mon. or
WPM ..irrArA
rrm .�..,
WAWA =
.,mans gra
od
rm
Ar4Erield 00
toe,/„Fr r !WV
4.1isarerolrAnCr.riFeW/
Redesignate from
"Urban Residential Areas
- Low Density Areas" to
"Urban Residential Areas
- Medium Density Areas"
V►nn
WilAg mg•
Edition 8
Cly
of
Pickering
Area
shown
inks Map
fi
of
*1
errIcbrba
aM gewbeerM 0eeerbiw
e,u/t.ae,e
7W Ili* Rani Put o} gam aN M PbLbaORM Nn W
Mal9e' Colartict rabew CON awete.ewumTam.
Extract of
Schedule I to the
Pickering
Official Plan
Open Space System
Natural Areas
Active RecreationalAreas
Land. Use Structure
Urban Residential Areas
Low Density Areas
Medium Density Areas
High Density Areas
rj.
Mixed Use Areas
Local Nodes
Freeways and Major Utilities
Controlled Access Areas
FA Potential Multi Use Areas
Other Designations
Greenbelt Boundary
Appendix!! to
Report PLN 11-19
Recommended Zoning By-Iaw Provisions
for. Zoning By-Iaw Amendment A 02/18
99
Recommended Zoning By-law Provisions for
Zoning By-law Amendment Application A 02/18
That the implementing zoning by-law permit residential condominium developments in accordance
with the following provisions:
A. Zoning Provisions
Permitted Uses
1. Permitted uses include Block Townhouse Building, Semi -Detached, Private Parks and
Water Meter Room.
Building Restrictions
100
Unit Type.
Block Townhouse with
integrated garage at the
rear of the dwelling
(Rear Lane Townhouse)
Block Townhouse
with integrated
garage at the front
of the dwelling
(Street Townhouse)
Semi-detached
1.
Number of
Dwelling Units
(maximum)
108
2.
Lot Frontage
(minimum)
3.9 metres
5.5 metres
6.0 metres
3.
Lot Area
(minimum)
90 square metres
140 square metres
175 square metres
4.
Front Yard
Depth
(minimum)
3.0 metres
6.0 metres to the
• garage
6.0 metres
(except Lot 12
4.8 metres)
5.
Side Yard
Depth
(minimum).
1.2 metres except where dwellings on abutting
lots share a common wall, no interior side yard
shall be required adjacent to that wall on either lot
0.75 metres
6.
Rear Yard
Depth
(minimum)
n/a
6.8 metres
7.0 metres
7.
Flankage Yard
Depth
(minimum)
1.0 metres
8.
Building Height
(maximum)
12.0 metres
9.
Driveway Width
(maximum)
3.7 metres
100
2. Private amenity area (Block Townhouse with integrated garage at the rear of the dwelling;
a. Minimum Area — 6.5 square metres
b. Shall be located above the garage at the rear of the dwelling unit and shall not be
enclosed
c. Accessory structures such as pergolas, sheds or other similar structures shall not be
permitted on the private amenity area above the garage at the rear of the dwelling
unit
Parking Requirements
3. Minimum 2.0 parking spaces per dwelling unit to be provided plus 0.25 of a parking space
per dwelling unit for visitors.
4. Garage requirements: minimum one private garage per lot attached to the main building,
the vehicular entrance of which shall be located a minimum of 6.0 metres from the
common element condominium street.
5. Interior garage size: a private garage shall have a minimum width of 3.0 metres and a
minimum depth of 6.0 metres; however, the width of a private garage may include one
interior step and the depth may include two interior steps.
6. The minimum right-of-way width for a private street shall be 6.5 metres.
Model Homes
7. A maximum of 2 blocks together with no fewer than 2 parking spaces per Model Home is
permitted.
General Provisions
8. Projections such as window sills, chimney breasts, fireplaces, belt courses, cornices,
pilasters, eaves, eave troughs and other similar architectural features may be permitted in
any required yard, provided that no such feature projects into the required yard more than
0.6 metres or half the distance of the required yard, whichever is less.
9. A porch, uncovered deck, or balcony, may encroach into any required front yard to a
maximum of 2.0 metres or half the distance of the required yard, whichever is less.
10. A porch, uncovered deck, or balcony, may encroach into any required flankage yard to a
maximum of 2.0 metres.
11. Stairs to a porch, uncovered deck or an entrance may encroach to within 0.3 metres of
the front lot line or flankage lot line; to within 1.0 metres of a rear lot line and to within
0.6 metres of a side lot line.
12. A bay, box window, with or without foundation, having a maximum width of 4.0 metres may
encroach into any required yard to a maximum of 0.6 metres or half the distance of the
required yard, whichever is less.
13. Air conditioners are permitted on a lot provided they are located in the rear yard or side
yard or on a balcony or roof. In addition, such units shall not be located any closer than
0.6 of a metre to a side lot line and shall not be located on any easement in favour of the
City.
101
Recommended Conditions of Approval for
Draft Plan of Subdivision SP -2018-02
102
Appendix III to
Report PLN 11-19
Recommended Conditions of Approval for
Draft Plan of Subdivision SP -2018-02
General Conditions
1. That the Owner shall prepare the final plan generally on the basis of the approved draft plan
of subdivision, prepared by Askan Piller Corporation Ltd., identified as project number
17-20-12655-01, for lands being Part of Lot 33, Concession 2, Now Part 1, 40R-2582, Now
Parts 3, 6, 7 and 14, 40R-29767 and Part 1, 40R-10888, dated January 30, 2018, which
illustrates one residential block and two blocks for road widening.
Subdivision Agreement
2. That the Owner enters into a subdivision agreement with and to the satisfaction of the City of
Pickering to ensure the fulfillment of the City's requirements, financial and otherwise, which
shall include, but not necessarily be limited to the conditions outlined in this document.
40M -Plan
3. That the Owner submits a 40M -Plan to the satisfaction of the City Development Department.
Zoning
4. That the implementing by-law for Zoning By-law Amendment Application A 02/18 becomes final
and binding.
Street Names and House Numbers
5. That street names and signage be provided to the satisfaction of the Region and the City.
6. That house numbers are assigned as per the City's addressing conventions.
Development Charges & Development Review Inspection Fee
7. That the Owner satisfies the City financially with respect to the Development Charges Act.
8. That the Owner satisfies the City with respect to payment for development review and
inspection fees.
Dedications/Transfers/Conveyances
9. That the Owner conveys to the City, at no cost:
i. A 5.1 metre road widening along Finch Avenuefrontage of Plan 40R-2582 and any other
easements as required; and
ii. 0.3 metre reserve(s) as required by the City.
103
Recommended Conditions of Approval (SP -2018-02) Page 2
Icon Forest District Limited
Stormwater
10. That the Owner satisfies the Director, Engineering Services respecting the stormwater drainage
and management system to service all the lands in the subdivision, and any provision regarding
easements.
11. That the Owner satisfies the Director, Engineering Services for contributions for stormwater
maintenance fees.
12. That the Owner satisfies the Director, Engineering Services for the design and implementation
of stormwater management facilities and easements for outfalls and access to the outfalls for
the development.
Grading
13. That the Owner satisfies the Director, Engineering Services respecting submission and
approval of a grading plan for the development.
14. That the Owner satisfies the Director; Engineering Services respecting authorization from
abutting landowners for all offsite grading.
Fill & Topsoil
15. That the Owner acknowledges that the City's Fill & Topsoil Disturbance By-law prohibits
vegetation or soil disturbance, vegetation or soil removal or importation to the site unless a
permit has been issued. No on-site works prior to draft plan approval is permitted. A Fill &
Topsoil. Disturbance Permit will be required should vegetation removal or grading works
proceed prior to the subdivision agreement being executed.
Construction/Installation of City Works & Services
16. That the Owner satisfies the Director, Engineering Services respecting the submission of
appropriate engineering drawings that detail, among other things, City services, construction of
roads with curbs, storm sewers, pedestrian walkways/sidewalks, boulevard design, lot grading,
streetlights, fencing and tree planting, and financially secure such works.
17. That the Owner satisfies the City respecting arrangements for the provision of all services
required by the City.
18. That the Owner satisfies the appropriate authorities respecting arrangements and/or the
conveyance of any easements to any utility to facilitate the installation of their services including
the provision of underground wiring, street lighting, cable television, natural gas and other
similar services for the development.
19. That the Owner agrees that the cost of any relocation, extension, alteration or extraordinary
maintenance of existing services necessitated by the developer -shall be the responsibility of the
Owner.
104
Recommended Conditions of Approval (SP -2018-02) Page 3
Icon Forest District Limited
'basing & Development Coordination
20. That if this subdivision is to be developed by more than one registration, the Owner will be
required to submit a plan showing the proposed phasing, all to the satisfaction of the Region of
Durham and the City.
Easements
21. That the Owner convey to the City, at no cost, any easements as required, and any reserves as
required by the City.
22. That the Owner conveys any easements to any utility provider to facilitate the installation of
their services in a location(s) to the satisfaction of the City and the utility provider.
23. That the Owner arrange at no cost to the City any easements required on third party lands for
servicing and such easements shall be in a location as determined by the City and/or the
Region and are to be granted upon request at any time after draft approval. That the Owner
satisfies the Director, Engineering Services with any required on-site or off-site easements for
works, facilities or use rights that are required by the City.
Construction Management Plan
24. That the Owner satisfies the City respecting the submission and approval of a Construction
Management/Erosion & Sediment Control Plan with such Plan to contain, among other matters:
i. details of erosion and sedimentation controls during all phases of construction and provide
maintenance requirements to maintain these controls as per the City's Erosion & Sediment
Control Guideline for Urban Construction;
ii. addressing the parking of vehicles and the storage of construction and building materials
during servicing and construction, and ensuring that such locations will not impede the
flow of traffic or emergency vehicles on existing streets;
iii. assurance that the City's Noise By-law will be adhered to and that all contractors, trades
and suppliers are advised of this By-law;
iv. the provision of mud and dust control on all roads within and adjacent to the site;
v. type and timing of construction fencing;
vi. location of construction trailers; and
vii. details of the temporary construction access.
Fencing
25. That the Owner satisfies the City with respect to -the provision of temporary fencing around the
entire perimeter of the subject lands during construction, prior to the commencement of any
works.
105
Recommended Conditions of Approval (SP -2018-02) Page 4
Icon Forest District Limited
Tree Compensation
26. • That the Owner agrees that prior to final approval of the draft plan, or any phase thereof,
compensation of the loss of tree canopy will be required either through replacement planting or
cash -in -lieu, to be paid to the City of Pickering. In accordance with the City of Pickering Tree
Inventory, Preservation and Removal Compensation requirements. Based on the City's Tree
Replacement Formula/Cash-in-lieu Calculations, 142 trees are required for compensation.
Replacement planting may be done on the development site or on other publicly owned lands in
proximity of the site that have been approved by the City of Pickering and with written
authorization of the subject landowner(s).
Should compensation panting take the form of naturalization planting in an open space area
where smaller sized plant material may be more suitable, the City will determine what the
appropriate total quantity/value of the plant material is that will be required. Reasonable effort
must be taken to compensate for tree loss through on-site and/or off-site plantings by the
developer. Compensation in the form of cash -in -lieu shall be provided for all treesthat cannot
be planted on or adjacent to the site at a rate per tree, established in the City's approved
Summary of Fees and Charges, to be paid prior to the issuance of any building permit.
Engineering Plans
27. That the Owner satisfies the City of Pickering respecting arrangements necessary to provide for
coordination of services and roads with adjacent lands.
28. That the Owner satisfies the City respecting the submission of appropriate engineering
drawings that detail, among other things: City services, roads, storm sewers, sidewalks, lot
grading, streetlights, fencing, tree planning and financially secure such works.
Parkland Dedication
29. That the Owner satisfies the City with respect to its obligation to provide parkland or payment of
cash -in -lieu on accordance with the parkland dedication requirements of the Planning Act.
Fire
30. That the Owner agrees that no development will proceed on any lands until adequate services
are available including adequate water pressure to the satisfaction of the City's Fire Services
Department.
Cost Recovery
31. That the Owner agrees to contribute their share of the Rouge Park Neighbourhood Study.
32. That the Owner agrees to contribute to shared service costs for stormwater management
purposes in in general conformity with the Rouge Park Master Environmental Servicing Plan.
106
Recommended Conditions of Approval (SP -2018-02) Page 5
Icon Forest District Limited
Heritage Commemoration Plan
33. That the Owner shall prepare to the satisfaction of the Director, City Development & CBO, a
Heritage Commemoration Plan that shall identify the salvage materials to be re -used within the
private open space/entry feature; an explanation of the cultural heritage building being
commemorated; information on the plaque (text and graphic design, display design and
placement in the private open space/entry feature); and any other related commemorative
aspects of the design.
Model Homes
34. That the Owner enters into a model home agreement with the City, if applicable for this draft
plana All model homes must be in compliance with the approved site plan drawings.
Other Approval Agencies
35. That any approvals which are required from the Region of Durham, the Ministry of
Transportation or any utility for the development of this plan be obtained by the Owner and
upon request written confirmation be provided to the City as verification of these approvals.
Plan Revisions
36. That the Owner acknowledges and agrees that the draft plan of subdivision and associated
conditions of approval may require revisions to the satisfaction of the City, to implement or
integrate any recommendation resulting from studies required as conditions of approval.
37. That the Owner revises the draft plan as necessary to the satisfaction of the City, to
accommodate any technical engineering issues which arise during the review of the final
engineering drawings. Required revisions may include revising the number of residential
building lots or reconfiguring the roads or lots to the City's satisfaction.
38. That the Owner agrees to implement the requirements of all studies that are required by the
City for the development of this draft plan of subdivision to the satisfaction of the City.
Notes to Draft Approval
39. This draft approval shall lapse three years from the date the draft approval has been granted if
the noted conditions have not been fulfilled, or if it has not been extended by the City of
Pickering.
107
Informational Revision 23
to the City of Pickering Official Plan
108
Appendix IV to
Report PLN 11-19
Revised
informational Revision 23 to the Pickering Official Plan
Purpose:
Location:
Basis:
Actual
Revision:
The purpose of this revision is to'change Map 24, Neighbourhood 14:
Rouge Park, to delete the symbols for a proposed separate elementary
school and proposed neighbourhood park. The existing road pattern is
also updated.
The subject lands are located at the northwest corner of Finch Avenue.
and Altona road, municipally known as 2024 and 2026 Altona Road, and
200 Finch Avenue.
The informational revision has been determined to be appropriate to keep
the Official Plan up to date with current environmental information and
current development approvals. Based on environmental information, the
total amount of developable land at the northwest corner of Altona Road
and Finch Avenue is significantly smaller than originally anticipated. As a
result, there is insufficient land for a school and park. The Durham
Catholic District School Board has advised it does not require an
elementary school site in this location, The City has determined it does
not require a neighbourhood park in this location.
The lands are to be developed as a residential common element
condominium consisting of 40 semi-detached and 68 townhouse units at
the northwest corner of Finch Avenue and Altona Road,
The City of Pickering Official Plan is hereby revised by:
Deleting the "Proposed Separate Elementary School" symbol and the "Proposed
Park" symbol from lands at the northwest corner of Finch Avenue and Altona Road, and
deleting the "Proposed Separate Elementary School" symbol from the Legend, as
illustrated on Schedule `A' attached to this Informational Revision; and
2. Updating the existing road pattern.
Implementation: The provisions set forth in the City of Pickering Official Plan, as amended,
regarding the implementation of the Plan shall apply in regard to this .
Revision.
interpretation: The provisions set forth in the City of Pickering Official Plan, as amended,
regarding the interpretation of the Plan shall apply in regard to this
Revision.
Crnas Reforuecu:
CPA 115-001/P
(Roloknd F@oa: 5P-2010.02; A 02!10; CP -2010.01) .
(Apptiaanl: Icon fareal I(slrict Lfmlled)
(holo; Moy fi, 2010)
109
Schedule 'A'
MAP 24
NEIGHBGURHUGD 14: ROUGE PARK
Delete Proposed
Separate Elementary
School
LEGEND
NEW ROAD CONNECTIONS (PROPOSED)
DETAILED REVIEW AREA
LANDS FOR WHICH COUNCIL HAS
ADOPTED DEVELOPMENT GUIDELINES
(REFER TO COMPENDIUM DOCUMENT)
CRY OF PICKCAINO
D DEVELOPMENT
Vfe PMCNT DEPARTMENT
A TMia YAP 'ONUS PAM Or arrow 5 0? THE AWa1Otlo
bM •]ON Nle 1Il1eT .55 Fn n 0NJUNCT1ON MTH TBS
c5 JPIf.116 AND M TOR,
SYMBOLS
NEIGHBOURHOOD
BOUNDARY
PUBLIC SCHOOL
PROPOSED SEPARATE
ELEMENTARY SCHOOL
•
SEPARATE ELEMENTARY
SCHOOL
PARK
PROPOSED PARK
Delete Proposed
Separate Elementary
School from Legend
NOTE: LAND USE DESIGNATIONS
APPEAR ON SCHEDULE 1
110
Appendix V to
Report PLN 11-19
Rouge Park Neighbourhood Tertiary Plan
O
lir
H
Delete Potential
Heritage Home
.Delete Future
Neighbourhood
Delete Future
Elementary School
/
Park
Delete Potential
x
a
Access Location
l.l.E,s.r..'
11111 "' 1"1111
alNPfi
33 .,
/co
1111111111 smile
�
►
«.! ��� �In
1�
IDS IU�•�•��`
����*
H
TA
—-��
HII!LI"!!'
1iiiIIF'...-
_...1��`�
AM1111lllllll
/R
-.'C
==a
__________
11111111111
= SRR
�
_s1
O
r—v-*
tiiiiiyllillllll
\��' /
1111
F
1111110
•••MOM
— `,Shy;
• • Revise
8
11111
11111
111 It
,11
n
==
_
_IIINN t
� .
Developable
Areas
==
_
BE
=an
III/I/ttit
•
Iii�:..00.....c.
11111
- =
_-
�
=
=
—..
::
Clllfl��
--
��R
�`
11111111
IIs.,===
i<•;
.
=�
�..
/
U
`
—■
/ /
Imola
!IIIIIIIflIUHUiC
-C
11111111111
ku,,�
/
f
Tom'
i1il
�pia
%IHI
roams
=
EW
:
non
.----
::*SPPi
11111
2
\sGil►��"��_�
all'
BE IIIf1IlIf11/1��j=
Milk
--L----
/
�
����
�=
�
//IIIIIIIIilllliltl1111
i Ilfl)
�111111��/�
=—I
uns
-E5-iv
l►IE►ti��
. `�11111111NIIIi
`
=LIIIJI/1/Ii1111ttI�
�1
fir' \IIIIIIIIIIIIIIl1111111
11
1111!1!11111101111)
��
11111#111111
TN
= �.►� �»
. ^�
°
��i.. ~
_. •:rrrrm:01.11
ROUGE
Tertiary
PARK NEIGHBOURHOOD
Plan
T
Q
FIGURE
DEVELOPABLE AREAS :-- :FUTURE ROADS C .SEE SECTION N1.9.1 SEE SECTION N1.9.3 =I =I BOUNDORRHOOD
,,,,,,:y,:
'; FUTURE ST°RMWATER
N NEIGHBOURHOOD FOCUS SMP 1 MANAGEMENT POND POTENTIAL TRWL'ACCESS POTENTIAL ACCESS LOCATION A f
SCALE """ Y
* POTENTIAL HERITAGE HOME NP FUTURE NEIGHBOURHOOD PARK ES FUTURE ELEMENTARY SCHOOL CITY OF PICKERING
metres PLANNING, & DEVELOPMENT DEP
Q Mereh 2D1 D T
ATTACHMENT # ( TO
REPCJR7 #
Petticoat Creek -�
Farmhouse
ca
0
0
0
Q
IISubject
a Lands _ ���
1111 1111111
ti 414: ►4••••j•••••••••••••4♦14 MaPiei,,
1.4 44 ** ►♦****r♦ C)
nC�
0
Finch Avenue
Petticoat Creek
N
SPa��OW Gs1=de
rrfl �_
64
Location Map
File: OPA 18-001/P, A 02/18, SP -2018-02, and CP -2018-01
of
PICKERING
City Development
Department
Applicant: Icon Forest District Limited
Property Description: Pt. of Lt. 33, Con. 2, Pt. 1, 40R-2582, Pt. 1,
40R-10888, Pts. 3, 6, 7 and 14, Plan 40R-29767
Date: Apr. 17, 2019
tTbeCo;,o,,onoftheClyniPickenngProdu«atanpan)underlKnsefram:6QueensPanler,°Mano(l istryaraturalResources,
Ali r9 his reserved.P Her Ma;esy the Magnin RIM of Canada, Oepanmonl of Nalurak Resaurtea_ Al lgMa Poserved.;
0Teranel Erecrpdsas Inc. 00410 supplgts all rigOls reserved.;0 AScrcipal Prope,tyAsscssment Corporaliort .od is suppEers alirghls reserved;
SCALE: 1:5,000
MIS 15 HOT A PLAN 00 SURVEY.
1
13
PL.N 1
REPURT � q
044
PICKERING
City Development
Department
14
Air Photo Map
File: OPA 18-001/P, A 02/18, SP -2018-02, and CP -2018-01
Applicant: Icon Forest District Limited
Property Description: Pt. of Lt. 33, Con. 2, Pt. 1, 40R-2582, Pt. 1,
40R-10888, Pts. 3, 6, 7 and 14, Plan 40R-29767
b TI, 001 .111•11 Nm. CII OI Picked/10 P 1 l dpn MN Wm Nemo pow II Ow•n• Pdmn,Ontnn htm117yN 1.I .I R...w...
Al AM* nl.n.O.O H.1 MOh•M IM Owen In Mahler Caned', MP.nmenl of H.lunl R.wun•a. AI light..5.1•114,;
CTN.n•1 (114010.1• Ina.M I •upplIon•IIdpNOn•xv.g.;o MuNdp•tPnp•MAu.•umN COlpOnlbn •M M..1,1"..)1, hl.nand;
Date: Apr. 17 `2019
SCALE: 1:5,000
THIS M NOT A PLAN OF SURVEY.
0e6i3
v
fl
ou-
ire
i, ''a °i i arpi'ei 'r
I E
r.
1
70k9MSCOE ROCK
6 UM
rowr/Cui l01 IQ
6 1./`+r3
I 1I
1 a I o
rOWN4O4ff SOC. 9
4u'.7;
rover E 1%.6C%e
alvalt Sf a ccr I -
f
arwrs
0
0
0
0
0
0
0.00r!
uvrr
WE a la 11920910/IMEMINALVE
I
1,1
rYa ergCK3
B W.r:
� I
�rwsE1lr,& h,r l+ ufr�7 urtie.0e. - i..0 O. r semajim00..0 0110 w.O 0.10
epri'u L J 1JI IF
LEGEND
semi-detached units n townhouse units
0
a
I\
ctril
PICKERING
City Development
Department
Original Conceptual Pian
File No: OPA 18-001/P A02/18, SP -2018-02 and CP -2018-01
Applicant: Icon Forest District Limited
Property Description: Pt. of Lt. 33, Con. 2, Pt. 1, 40R-2582, Pt. 1, 40R-10888, Pts. 3, 6, 7 and 14, Plan
40R-29767
FULL SCALE COPIES OF THIS PLAN ARE AVAILABLE FOR VIEWING AT THE CITY OF PICKERING
CITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT.
DATE: May 24, 2018
BLOCK 1
Residential
2.21ha (22054 ref 2)
C44
PICKERI NG
City Development
Department
Revised Draft Plan of Subdivision
File No: OPA 18-001/P, A02/18, SP -2018-
02 and CP -2018-01
Applicant: Icon Forest District. Limited
Property Description: Pt. of Lt. 33, Con. 2
, Pt. 1, 40R-2582, Pt, 1, 40R-10888, Pts. 3, 6, 7 and 14, Plan
40R-29767
FULL SCALE COPIES OF THIS PLAN ARE AVAILABLE FOR VIEWING AT THE CITY OF PICKERING
CITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT.
DATE: Mar. 21, 2019
OPEN `-"
_-SPACE
ROAD WIDENING
BLOCK 3, PLAN 40M -
.•a. �.F INCH AVENUE
MC" "LC. rte. .r.11.” eo•eR.azor• A •.. .�
CO
I— 0
0>
N 0
-Dm
rz
z0
0
PICKERING
City Development
Department
Revised Draft Plan of Condominium
File No: OPA 18-001/P, A02/18, SP -2018-02 and CP -2018-01
Applicant: Icon Forest District Limited
Property Description: Pt. of Lt. 33, Con. 2, Pt. 1, 40R-2582, Pt. 1, 40R-10888, Pts. 3, 6, 7 and 14, Plan
40 R-29767
FULL SCALE COPIES OF THIS PLAN ARE AVAILABLE FOR VIEWING AT THE CITY OF PICKERING.
CITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT.
DATE: Mar. 21, 2019
N77 `55'007E
71 6.29 , 8.29 6.29 , 6:
64.92
6,26 , 6.29 6.29 6.29
N72'0120"E
6.29 6.29 6.29
38.51 5/71.13'50.5 33.72
.29 6.29 6.20 , ,6.29 6.29 6.20 6.29
N71'57'20"E 5029 i 18.0
6,29 , 6.29 ; 6.29 ; 6.29 , 6,29 6.29. •6.75 i 7.86 1
7
8=13.0
STREET '9'
3 VISIIO
R=13.0 PARKIN
a
50 6.00
6F
6E
O E7
-
n n
9
650 5.50
6.65 , 5.50
00
5,
7E
76
33'0 Eo
50 5,50 6.70 5.5050 15,50 X550 17C
i0 . 65�y 5.50 5.50 X1,6.85 6.65,1 5.50 5.50 1 5.50
O 0
44130' 1.217 i1
44 G9
I4C
49
40 4F
46
.0i
" BAC
< 4
�....14:34i=1,
A
6F
0
rg n.
TOWN$ _
6E 8D 00
LANEWAY
8
Au( 150 N71'4820 -E
-7.2 15.0. ..OD
_.-
N71'49'20'E a 57.67
1 \ SITE PLAN
,59M-1/ 5 91E1309
59 3
.4 1.50 510E
00' 59.35
PH
REGIONAL ROAD 17
aS
„I
o
PICKERING
City Development
Department
Revised Conceptual Plan
File No: OPA 18-001/R A02/1.8, SP -2018-02 and CP -2018-01
Applicant: icon Forest District Limited
Property Description: Pt. of Lt. 33, Con. 2, Pt. 1, 40R-2582, Pt. 1, 40R-10888, Pts. 3, 6, 7 and 14, Plan
40R-29767
FULL SCALE COPIES OF THIS PLAN ARE AVAILABLE FOR VIEWING AT THE CITY OF PICKERING
CITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT.
DATE: Mar. 18, 2019
iii=�i�lii�ii�i�iil=ii�i�ii�=ii�liiiiipii�iiiii ��=ii�li�ii�ii�iil�ii=�■
ag
Milial ! ._ NSM: ME IeEN_E —
_ .M
It -n n purr _ 1111 1=n= Iarig. :MI
Rear Elevation
c4 4
PICKERING
City Development
Department
Finch Avenue Frontage
Submitted Preliminary Building Elevation - Rear Lane Townhouses
File No: OPA 18-001/P, A02/18, SP -2018-02 and CP -2018-01
Applicant: Icon Forest District Limited
Property Description: Pt. of Lt. 33, Con. 2, Pt. 1, 40R-2582, Pt. 1, 40R-10888, Pts. 3, 6, 7 and 14, Plan
40R-29767
FULL SCALE COPIES OF THIS PLAN ARE AVAILABLE FOR VIEWING AT THE CITY OF PICKERING
CITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT.
DATE: Mar. 21, 2019
Private Road Frontage
Private Road Frontage
1
PICKERING
City Development
Department
Submitted Preliminary Building Elevation - Street Townhouses
File No: OPA 18-001/P, A02/18, SP -2018-02 and CP -2018-01
Applicant: Icon Forest District Limited
Property Description: Pt. of Lt. 33, Con. 2, Pt. 1, 40R-2582, Pt. 1, 40R-10888, Pts. 3, 6, 7 and 14, Plan
40R-29767
FULL SCALE COPIES OF THIS PLAN ARE AVAILABLE FOR VIEWING AT THE CITY OF PICKERING
CITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT.
DATE: Mar, 21, 2019
Report to
Planning & Development Committee
Report Number: PLN 13-19
Date: May 6, 2019
From: Kyle Bentley
Director, City Development & CBO
Subject: The Municipal Comprehensive Review of the Durham Regional Official Plan:
Agricultural and Rural System Discussion Paper, March 2019
File: D-8000-046
Recommendation:
1. That the Region maintain the current goals and directions for the Agricultural/Rural System,
and expand the goals and directions for the Agricultural/Rural System in Durham to:
• support the diversification of agricultural uses and value-added agriculture;
• support edge planning that will protect farm operations and improve land use
compatibility between agricultural and urban land uses;
• plan for climate change impacts;
• acknowledge the important relationship between the Prime Agricultural Areas and the
Agri -Food Network, and
• support the provision of reliable fiber optic services to the rural area;
2. That the Region retain its current approach to referencing the MDS, as amended from time
to time, and allow area municipalities the flexibility to implement andinterpret the MDS
formulae at the local level;
That the Region require local official plans to incorporate buffer areas along the
urban/agriculturalinterface as a mechanisms to address land use conflicts arising between
urban and real land uses;
4. That the Region provide high level policy support for, and recognition of, urban agriculture
as part of the Region's Agricultural System, while also encouraging area municipalities to
support urban agriculture though policies and zoning;
5. That the Region update any technical matters that may have occurred within the
Duffins/Rouge Agricultural Preserve and Seaton Specific Policy Area lands since their
designation in the Regional Plan;
121
PLN 13-19 May 6, 2019
Subject: The Municipal Comprehensive Review of the Durham Regional Official Plan Page 2
6. That the Region broaden its policies to recognize "new" types of agriculture -related and
"on-farm" diversified; enable area municipalities to consider these types of uses through
zoning by-law amendments and/or site plan approval, and to detail criteria for these uses in
local official plans; and further that the Region include in its new Official Plan"caps" for
certain scales of agricultural -related and on-farm diversified use operations that would
trigger a more comprehensive planning review process;
7 That the Region acknowledge and address the concerns identified by staff related to the
Provincial Agricultural System Mapping — Prime Agricultural Area designation as it affects
the City of Pickering, as discussed in section 2.6.3 of this Report (PLN 13-19);
8. That the Region revise its lot creation policy permitting severance of a farm dwelling
rendered surplus by farm consolidations, to only those circumstances when a farmer
acquires an immediately abutting farm in Prime Agricultural Areas within the Agricultural
System;
9. That the Region maintain the "Major Open Space" designation on non -prime agricultural
lands in the new Regional Official Plan rather the change to the Province's preference for
Durham to use a "Rural Lands" designation;
10. That the Region introduce policies to restrict large solar farms from locating on prime
agricultural lands;
11. That the Region recognize the Rouge National Urban Park and its management objectives
in the new Regional Official Plan;
12. That the Region update its aggregate resources policies in accordance with the Provincial
Policy Statement 2014 and the Growth Plan 2017; and further the Region remove the
designations of High Potential Aggregate Resource Areas on lands within the limits of
Settlement Areas (e.g., Barclay Estates);
13. That the Region enable area municipalities to allow accessory uses on golf courses,
subject to criteria controlling the scale of the accessory use; and
14. That the Region acknowledge the exception for a cemetery use on lands located northeast
of the Hamlet of Greenwood, between Highway 407 and Highway 7, reflected as "E3" on
Schedule I of the Land Use Structure in the Pickering Official Plan, by including a policy
exception in the Regional Official Plan.
122
PLN 13-19 May 6, 2019
Subject: The Municipal Comprehensive Review of the Durham Regional Official Plan Page 3
Executive Summary: On March 5, 2019, the Regional Municipality of Durham released the
Agricultural and Rural System Discussion. Paper, the first in a series of discussions papers to be
released as part of "Envision Durham" — The Municipal Comprehensive Review of the Regional
Official Plan. The deadline for comments is June 3, 2019.
Financial Implications: The recommendations of this report do not present any financial
implications.
1. "Envision Durham" — The Municipal Comprehensive Review of the Durham Regional
Official Plan
An Official Plan provides a vision for the future orderly development of a municipality
through a set of policies and maps. The Planning Act, which is provincial legislation
governing land use planning in Ontario, requires that a municipality regularly review and
update its Official Plan. With this in mind, the Region is reviewing the Durham Region
Official Plan. Once the Region has completed its Official Plan review, the City will be in a
position to review the Pickering Official Plan.
The first stage of the Region's Official Plan Review focuses on public engagement, and
includes the preparation of a series of discussion papers. These discussion papers
address the following major areas: agriculture and rural systems; climate change and
sustainability; housing; growth management; the environment; and transportation.
2. The Agriculture and Rural System Discussion Paper
The Region has released the first of its discussion papers, Agriculture and Rural Systems.
The paper provides background of the current provincial policy context, and observations
about agriculture and rural areas in Durham. Further, the paper provides an overview of,
and discussion of, a long list of rural and agricultural land use planning and policy matters,
including: the protection and use of agricultural and open space lands; mapping of the
prime agricultural areas; the Duffins/Rouge Agricultural Preserve; lot creation in the
countryside; rural settlements; non-agricultural uses; and, aggregate extraction.
The paper can be found online at: https://www.durham.ca/en/regional-
government/resou rces/Documents/Council/Reports/2019-Committee-Reports/Planning-
Economic-Development/2019-P-12.pdf.
City Development staff has undertaken a detailed review of the Agriculture and Rural
Systems Discussion Paper (see Appendix 1), and the recommendations of this Report
reflect staff's review. Appendix I also provides additional background on the process the
Region is following to undertake its comprehensive review of its Official Plan.
Appendix
Appendix 1 Staff Review of the Agricultural and Rural System Discussion Paper
123
PLN 13-19
May 6, 2019
Subject: The Municipal Comprehensive Review of the Durham Regional Official Plan Page 4
Prepared By: ApprovedlEndorsed By:
Dean Jacobs, MCIP, RPP
Catherine Rose, MCIP, RPP
Principal Planner, Policy Chief Planner
Jeff Brooks, MCIP, RPP
Manager, Policy & Geomatics
DJ:Id
Kyle Bentley, P. Eng.
Director, City Development & CBO
Recommended for the consideration
of Pickering City t;puncil
66 2-3r Zoll
Tony Prevedel, P.Eng.
Chief Administrative Officer
124
Appendix I to
Report PLN 13-19
City Development Department's Staff Review of the
Agriculture and Rural System Discussion Paper
Prepared by the
Region of Durham Planning and Economic Development Department
March 2019
125
Staff Review of the Agricultural and Rural System Discussion Paper
1. Background
On May 2, 2018 the Council of the Regional Municipality of Durham authorized staff to
proceed with "Envision Durham The Municipal Comprehensive Review (MCR) of the
Regional Official Plan (ROP).
1.1 Why is the Regional Official Plan being reviewed?
The Planning Act requires that municipal official plans be reviewed every five years, to
ensure that the plans have regard to matters of Provincial interest, are consistent with
Provincial Policy Statements (PPS), and conform with Provincial Land Use Plans.
Since the last ROP update in 2013, the Province has approved a variety of land use policy
initiatives and plan updates, including:
• changes to the Planning Act through Bill 73, enacted 2015, and Bill 139, enacted 2017;
• a new Provincial Policy Statement introduced in 2014;
• a new Growth Plan for the Greater Golden Horseshoe approved in 2017;
• a new Greenbelt Plan approved in 2017;
• a new Oak Ridges Moraine Conservation Plan approved in 2017;
• new Source Water Protection Plans; and
• new Agricultural System and Natural Heritage System mapping.
In addition, the population of Durham is projected to increase from 650,000 in 2016 to
nearly 1.19 million in 2041, while associated employment growth is projected to jump from
260,000 to approximately 430,000. The significant growth and change anticipated will have
impacts on matters such as housing and land needs, infrastructure and service delivery,
the natural heritage system, agricultural sector, the local economy, and the overall quality
of life in Durham. It is therefore important that the ROP, the "compass" for long-term
growth and development in Durham, be kept up to date to guide decision-making in relation
to these opportunities and challenges.
The current ROP was approved in 1993 (almost 25 years ago) and has over 150 amendments
to keep it up to date with changing provincial plans and policies. "Envision Durham" offers
a strategic opportunity to create a whole new plan with an advanced planning vision for the
Region to 2041. The Region will "repeal" the existing plan in its entirety and "replace" it
with the new one, rather than process more amendments to the 1993 plan. By taking the
"repeal and replace" approach, a statutory review of the ROP would not be required under
the Planning Act until 10 years after the new ROP comes into effect (instead in 5 years).
1.2 What are the key components of the Region's MCR?
The MCR is structured around the following strategic planning themes:
• Growth Management — focusing principally on achieving conformity with the Growth
Plan for the Greater Golden Horseshoe, including matters such as population and
employment targets and associated land needs, intensification and designated
greenfield density targets;
126
Staff Review of the Agricultural and Rural System Discussion Paper Page 2 of 14
• Climate Change and Sustainability — focusing on provincial conformity, including
matters such as built form, air quality, tree cover, energy efficiency, and climate change
mitigation and adaptation;
• The Transportation System — aiming at implementing key recommendations from the
2017 Transportation Master Plan and additional policies on transit supportive
development and active transportation;
• Housing — centering around policies to implement the recommendations of the Region's
Housing Plan "At Home in Durham" and to support the provision of affordable housing;
• Environment and Greenlands System — focusing on Provincial Plan conformity,
watershed planning, and refinement and implementation of the Provincial Natural
Heritage System mapping; and
• The Agricultural and Rural System — focusing on Provincial conformity, including
matters such as agricultural land use permissions, urban agriculture, edge planning,
and refinement and implementation of the Provincial Agricultural System mapping.
Each of the above themes will be the subject of a Discussion Paper, wherein participants
will be asked to provide comments.
1.3 Timing of the MCR
To coordinate the timeframe for municipal implementation of the Growth Plan (2017), the
Greenbelt Plan (2017) and the Oak Ridges Moraine Conservation Plan (2017), the Minister
of Municipal Affairs and Housing has established July 1, 2022 as the alternative date for
upper -tier official plans to be brought into conformity with the Provincial Plans,
approximately 2 years.beyond the date mandated by the Places to Grow Act, 2005.
Since lower -tier officials plans rely on the policy direction in upper -tier official plans, the
Minister established an alternative date of July 1, 2023 for lower -tier municipal conformity,
which is one year after upper -tier official plan conformity.
The Region has indicated that, based on their work plan, the MCR is expected to be
completed by early 2022.
1.4 The MRC and Public Engagement
The public engagement program associated with the MCR consists of 4 stages: Discover
(2019), Discuss (2019), Direct (2020), and Draft (2021-2022).
On February 5, 2019, the Region initiated the first stage ("Discover") of the Envision
Durham public engagement program by launching the project website: durham.ca/Envision
Durham, as well as a public opinion survey, which closed on April 6, 2019. The Region also
created an introductory video on the project, which can be viewed on the project website.
In addition, the Region set up "pop-up" information kiosks in various locations, as part of
their public engagement launch.
In accordance with the public engagement program each. stage of the project will be
promoted through news releases, the project website, social media platforms, and public
service announcements.
127
Staff Review of the Agricultural and Rural System Discussion Paper Page 3 of 14
2. The Agricultural and Rural System Discussion Paper
On March 5, 2019, the Region launched the second stage ("Discuss") of the public
engagement program by releasing the Agricultural and Rural System Paper (the Paper),
the first in a series of discussions papers to be released as part of "Envision Durham".
The Paper provides an overview of the Region's rural area and associated ROP policies;
highlights provincial policy requirements and initiates since the last MCR; and, identifies
potential issues to address. The Paper also poses a number of questions to leverage
discussion and feedback, including:
1. Are the current goals and directions for the Agricultural/Rural System still
relevant/appropriate?
2. Are there aspects of Minimum Distance Separation that you would like to see
addressed in greater detail in the ROP?
3. In what ways do you believe the Region should address land use conflicts arising
between urban and rural land uses?
4. How can the Region support urban agriculture through policy in the ROP?
5. Are there additional areas we should consider identifying as Specific Policy Areas?
6. Is there criteria that should be considered when siting "new" types of agricultural -related
and on-farm diversified uses?
7. Are there any additional considerations the Region should have regard for in the
refinement of the Agricultural System Mapping?
8. Should the ROP be more or Tess restrictive in terms of lot creation in the Rural Area?
What criteria should be considered?
9. Is there value in continuing to identify Regional Nodes in the ROP? If so, what Regional
Nodes, (or areas exhibiting these characteristics), should be considered?
10. Have we missed any trends that you feel should be`reviewed and considered in the
agriculture/rural context as part of the MCR?
The following sections provide a high level overview of the Paper, and provide
recommendations (highlighted in bold) on matters which, in staff's opinion, should also be
addressed through the MCR.
2.1 Provincial Land Use Planning Policy Context
The Paper provides an outline of the Provincial Plans that apply to the agricultural lands
and the rural .system in Durham, and makes reference to the PPS (2014), other legislative
plans (e.g., Source Protection Plans) and Provincial Guidance documents (e.g., Guidelines
on Permitted Uses in Ontario's Prime Agricultural Areas; and the 2017 Minimum Distance
Separation Formulae and Guidelines) that will help shape the MCR in relation to the
agricultural/rural theme.
128
Staff Review of the Agricultural and Rural System Discussion Paper Page 4 of 14
2.2 Durham Region's Agricultural and Rural Focus
Since 2003, the Region and others have implemented a variety of strategies and plans that
are either directly focused on or related to the agricultural and rural sector. These
strategies and plans include:
• The. Region's Agricultural Strategy, endorsed by Regional Council in 2013. The
strategy is intended to guide agricultural economic development within Durham (an
update to the Strategy is currently underway).
• The Durham Region Food Charter, endorsed by Regional Council in November 2009.
The Charter focuses on food security; building a sustainable food system and protection
of agricultural lands.
•. The Durham Community Climate Adaptation Plan, endorsed by Regional Council in
2016. This Plan contains 18 programs to help the Region adapt to future climate
conditions, including a recommendation to develop climate adaptation strategies to
ensure food security and a vibrant agricultural sector.
The,City of Pickering has been activity involved in the development and implementation of
some of these plans and strategies, and welcomes continued collaboration with the Region
and other stakeholders to update, improve or expand these initiatives, where relevant.
Through the MCR, the results of the above plans and strategies will be considered and.
supporting policies will be recommended, where necessary.
2.3 Durham's Rural Area — Key characteristics and observations
The Paper highlights key characteristics and trends affecting the Region's rural and
agricultural areas.
Some of the key characteristics are:
• Based on the 2016 Census of Agriculture, there were 1,323 farms in Durham, which
represents a decrease of 29 percent in the number of farms since 2000.
• Durham's rural area comprises 84 percent of the Region's land base and houses
approximately 8 percent (58,000 residents) of the Region's population.
• Durham continues to lead the Greater Toronto Area (GTA) in the number of farms, the
amount of farmland,and farm production, behind only Niagara Region in the Greater
Golden Horseshoe (GGH).
• The average size of farms in Durham has increased over time with 35 percent over
53 hectares (130 acres) while the majority of farms (58 percent) are between 4 and
52 hectares.
• Durham is the leading producer of aggregates in the GTA.
• The potential for additional residential dwellings in the rural area is estimated at
approximately 2,245 dwellings, and the majority of vacant lots (almost 1,800) that could
accommodate a new dwelling are located outside rural settlements.
Some of the main trends include:
• More local post -secondary programming related to agriculture, horticulture and food are
being offered by institutions.
129
Staff Review of the Agricultural and Rural System Discussion Paper Page 5 of 14
• Farming is getting more diversified to take advantage of more market opportunities in
the GGH.
• Durham's rural area is experiencing growth in various sectors including agricultural
tourism, arts and culture, home-based businesses, but some rural businesses have had
certain challenges transitioning due to factors such as the lack of reliable broadband
and serviced employment lands.
• Since 2003, the amount of rural land in Durham has decreased with approximately
1 percent (2,080 hectares) due to urban boundary expansions.
2.4 The ROP — Current goals and directions for the Agricultural and Rural Areas
The ROP's current land use goals and directions for the agricultural and rural areas
address: the efficient use of land; protecting agricultural lands and resources; supporting
food security; limiting rural population growth; supporting agriculture and aggregate
extraction as key economic industries; and supporting existing rural settlements and their
functions to the residents and the surrounding area.
According to the MCR Public Opinion Survey, almost 53 percent of the respondents think
that supporting local food security is "extremely important". The Paper notes that through
the MCR, the Region will evaluate current goals and directions, and seek feedback on
policy approaches that lend more support for rural businesses.
Staff recommends that the Region expand the goals and directions with regard to
the Agricultural/Rural System in Durham to:
• support the diversification of agricultural uses.and value-added agriculture;
• support edge planning that will protect farm operations and improve land use
compatibility between agricultural and urban land uses;
• plan for climate change impacts;
• acknowledge the important relationship between the Prime Agricultural Areas
and the Agri -Food Network; and
• support the provision of reliable fiber optic services to the rural area.
2.5 Policy Considerations
The Paper provides information on some of the key policy considerations to be considered
through the MCR, as discussed below:
2.5.1 Updates to the Provincial Minimum Distance Separation (MDS) Formulae
The MDS Formulae was developed by the Province to separate uses and reduce
incompatibility concerns stemming from odour impacts from livestock facilities. Updates to
the MDS Formulae in 2017 included minor technical revisions that effect how the Formulae
is applied and distances are measured, as well as the release of implementation guidelines
for municipalities.
130
Staff Review of the Agricultural and Rural System Discussion Paper Page 6 of 14
In addition to updating definitions, the Region will, through the MCR, consider whether
existing policies in relation to the MDS Formulae need to be augmented. Since there are
MDS implementation Guidelines in place, staff recommends that the Region allow area
municipalities the flexibility to interpret and implement the MDS Formulae at a local
level.
2.5.2 The Urban/Rural Interface
The Paper acknowledges the challenges associated with land use conflicts along the
urban/rural interface and highlights the PPS (2014) emphasis on the promotion and
protection of farm practices. The Paper also alludes to the review of best practices by
other regions, such as Waterloo and other jurisdictions (e.g., British Columbia) to mitigate
adverse impacts of urban land uses on agricultural operations, and states that the Region,
through the MCR, will determine how best practices might be best applied at regional and
local level through policy. A best practice may include the development of "edge or buffer
planning" guidelines (similar to what is being developed in Peel and York Regions).
The Greenbelt Plan (2017) introduced a new policy in relation to Prime Agricultural Areas,
stating that where mitigation is required as a result of possible adverse impacts within the
agricultural use and non-agricultural use interface, such mitigation measures should be
incorporated as part of the non-agricultural uses, as appropriate, within the area being
developed.
When contemplating future urban expansions, conflicts can arise between rural and urban
residents: Buffers along the urban/agricultural interface could be created on private lands
through planning controls such as conditions tied to development approval, or establishing
building envelopes. Where a buffer is in public ownership, the buffer area could contain a
park, community garden, public open space or some other public use. Proper "buffer"
planning would minimize conflicts along the urban edge by ensuring adequate separation
from active farm operations that generate noise, dust, odour, smoke and ash, chemical
spray drift, and sediment and stormwater runoff to developing residential areas.
To address the Urban/Rural interface, staff recommends that the Region specify that
local official plans incorporate buffer areas along the urban/agricultural interface.•
2.5.3 Urban Agriculture
Since 2003, there has been an emergence of urban agriculture in Durham, consistent with
Province's land use plans. The Paper highlights that: food production can flourish in both
rural and urban areas; untapped food supply chains could be opened; sources from which
food products are grown and obtained could be diversified; and, access to local,
sustainable food could be increased. The Region will, through the MCR, consider the
creation of policies in support of urban agriculture, including defining urban agriculture and
expanding the agricultural focus of the ROP to recognize urban agriculture as a part of the
Region's Agricultural System, and incorporating permissions within appropriate land use
designations for the establishment of urban agricultural uses.
131
Staff Review of the Agricultural and Rural System Discussion Paper Page 7 of 14
Through the adoption of Official Plan Amendment 27 to the Pickering Official Plan in 2017,
the City has already taken progressive steps to acknowledge urban agriculture by including
community gardens as a permitted use within the Mixed Use Areas, Urban Residential
Areas, and Rural Residential designations of the Official Plan.
Staff supports the Region's planned approach to acknowledge and strengthen urban
agriculture in the ROP. In addition, staff recommends that the Region also encourage
area municipalities to support urban agriculture through policies and zoning.
2.5.4 Renewable Energy
The Region has become the home of numerous renewable energy projects since the
enactment of the Green Energy Act in 2009. Now that the Act has been repealed, many
farmers who made use of the former legislation to support the farm operations will have to
find other sources of revenue upon the expiry or cancellation of their renewable energy
contracts.
Under the former Green Energy Act, the provincial government made the determination of
where renewable energy projects could be sited, but since the Act has been repealed,
municipalities may now need to consider and develop criteria for the siting of renewable
energy projects. The Paper states that considerations could include mandating the
avoidance of prime agricultural lands as was previously required in the Province's siting
considerations, or that applications require an Agricultural Impact Assessment.
This section of the Paper concludes that these and other matters will be addressed in more
detail through the Region's Climate Change and Sustainability Discussion Paper, and the
development and implementation of the Durham Community Energy Plan.
Staff supports the suggestion that new policies be introduced in the ROP to prohibit
large solar farms from locating on prime agricultural areas in the Region. Instead,
these types of energy facilities should be directed to marginal agricultural lands.
2.5.5 Rouge National Urban Park (RNUP)
In early 2019, a draft Management Plan for the RNUP was finalized, providing guidance on
. how the lands are to be managed by Parks Canada over the next 10 years. The Region
will, through the MCR, update the ROP to recognize the RNUP, and consider whether
planning for the lands surrounding the RNUP should consider the Management Plan,
account for connections to and through the Park, and how it can support agriculture within.
and surrounding the RNUP.
Through the adoption of Official Plan Amendment 27 to the Pickering Official Plan in 2017,
policies and mapping on the RNUP were updated to conform to the Central Pickering
Development Plan and federal land transfers to expand the Park, and policies were
included on the Management Plan, and to assist and cooperate with Parks Canada to
further the objectives of the Management Plan. Staff supports the Region recognizing
the RNUP and the related management objectives in the new ROP Official Plan.
132
Staff Review of the Agricultural and Rural System Discussion Paper Page 8 of 14
2.5..6 Specific Policy Areas
The Paper highlights "Specific Policy Areas" in the ROP, including Specific Policy Area A —
the Duffins/Rouge Agricultural Preserve and Seaton, located in Pickering. It points out that
policies in the ROP on Special Policy Area A are intended to support the protection of the
Duffins/Rouge Agricultural Preserve in accordance with the Central Pickering Development
Plan, and that the Greenbelt Plan prohibits consideration of urban boundary expansion into
the Preserve. Although the Paper does not indicate an intention to update the
associated policies and mapping in the ROP in response to the completion of the
planning for the Seaton urban area, staff recommends such technical updates form
part of the MCR.
2.6 Planning Considerations
The Paper provides information on key policy considerations specific to Agricultural Areas
to be considered through the MCR, as further discussed below:
2.6.1 Prime Agricultural Areas (PAAs)
With the approval of new policies and terminology in the PPS (2014) and Provincial Land
Use Plans, revisions to current ROP policies for PAAs are required.
Matters to be addressed through the MCR include:
• broadening goals and policies to permit all types, sizes and intensities of agricultural
uses;
• addressing compatibility by requiring Agricultural Impact Assessments for certain
developments and infrastructure where necessary;
• eliminating the requirement for agricultural products to be sourced from the farm upon
which a farm stand is situated;
• including revised or new definitions for terms such as "Agriculture -related uses",
"On-farm diversified uses", and "Agri -tourism";
• considering whether criteria should be included in the ROP for the siting of "new" types
of agricultural -related and on-farm diversified uses; and
• addressing the challenges posed by cannabis production and operations.
Through the adoption of Official Plan Amendment 27 to the Pickering Official Plan in 2017,
the City has already incorporated revised terminology (e.g., "agricultural -related uses", and
"on-farm diversified uses"), consistent with the PPS (2014) and Provincial Plans.
In terms of proposed siting criteria for "new" types of agricultural -related and on-farm
diversified uses, staff recommends that the Region provide flexibility to area
municipalities to determine the means for considering proposed agricultural -related
and on-farm diversified uses through zoning by-law amendment and/or siteplan
approval, and to detail criteria for these uses in the local official plans.
133
Staff Review of the Agricultural and Rural System Discussion Paper Page 9 of 14
Additionally, staff recommends that the Region include in its new Official Plan "caps"
for certain scales of agricultural -related and on-farm diversified use operations that
would trigger a more comprehensive planning review process.
2.6.2 Major Open Space Areas
A large portion of the Region's Major Open Space Areas have been identified as Prime
Agricultural Lands in the Province's recently released Agricultural System Mapping.
Through initial discussions between the Region and the Province, the Province has
indicated a preference for lands within the Rural Area, that are not considered to be Prime
Agricultural lands, to be referred to as "rural lands". Through the MCR the Region will
consider whether to move forward with a "Rural Lands" designation.
The "Natural Areas" designation in the Pickering Official Plan is, for the most part,
consistent with the "Major Open Space" designation in the ROP. The Pickering Official
Plan reflects/recognizes both "Prime Agricultural Areas" and "Natural Areas", and the
"Natural Areas" includes agricultural ,use permissions. Staff recommends that the
Region maintain the "Major Open Space" designation on non -prime agricultural
lands, in the new ROP. A change to the "Major Open Space" designation would present
structural challenges to both the ROP and the Pickering Official Plan and make
interpretation of mapping in the Plans more complex.
2.6.3 Provincial Agricultural System
The Growth Plan for the GGH requires that the Provincial Agricultural System be
implemented by upper and lower tier municipalities. With this in mind, the Province
released a Provincial Agricultural System in 2018, The system consists of two
components:
• an Agricultural Land Base, comprising Prime Agricultural Lands, specialty crop areas,
and rural lands. The Agricultural Land Base map also identifies "candidate areas" for the
agricultural land base, based on certain evaluation criteria, including current agricultural
production; and
• an Agri -Food Network, which includes infrastructure, services and assets important to
the viability of the agri-food sector.
The Province indicated that the mapping may be reviewed and refined during the Region's
MCR process. The Province's implementation procedures suggest that the Agri -Food
Network mapping be included as an appendix to an official plan and/or as part of an
economic development strategy.
There are various differences between the Province's Agricultural Land Base Map and the
Prime Agricultural Areas designation in the current ROP. The Region will, through the
MCR, consider the incorporation of the agri-food network into the ROP; evaluate and refine
where appropriate, the Agricultural Land Base mapping, and evaluate "candidate areas" for
possible inclusion in Prime Agricultural Areas in consultation with area municipalities.
Staff, through a number of consultation periods during 2017 and 2018, provided preliminary
comments to the Ontario Growth Secretariat in response to the proposed Provincial
Agricultural System Map. Some of the concerns expressed by staff are:
134
Staff Review of the Agricultural and Rural System Discussion Paper Page 10 of 14
• It appears that the boundaries of Prime Agricultural Areas follow lot boundaries within
certain parts of Pickering. Is that a mere coincidence?
• Is it appropriate for the proposed Prime Agricultural Areas boundary to cut through
certain parts of rural estate developments, such as Barclay Estates?
• The proposed "Candidate Areas" reflected on the Agricultural Land Base map, located
south of the Hamlet of Kinsale and north of Concession 5, are designated "Major Open
Space" in the Durham Region Official Plan and covered by significant woodlands and
wetland complexes, forming part of an east/west wildlife corridor (linking to the
Greenwood Conservation Area) along the East Duffins Creek. These features, coupled
with a number of rural estate developments (Barclay Estates on Sideline 4 and Staxton
Glen on Salem Road) makes this area highly unlikely for agricultural purposes.
Staff recommends that the Region acknowledge and address these concerns related
to Prime Agricultural Area mapping within the City of Pickering.
2.6.4 Rural Lot Creation
The ability to create lots in the rural area is extremely limited. There has been a significant
decline in the number of rural Tots created since the Greenbelt Plan came into effect in
2005, given that the Greenbelt Plan (2017) and the Oak Ridges Moraine Conservation Plan
(ORMCP) of 2017 include language discouraging lot creation. In addition, the ROP
contains guiding principles related to lot creation in the rural area, in terms of aspects such
as the protection of agricultural lands, discouraging fragmentation of farm land, and
allowing limited infill in rural settlement areas. There are a number of concerns with rural
lot creation (e.g., smaller parcels can reduce the flexibility and viability of adequately sized
parcels for future farmers; and the long-term effectiveness of zoning retained parcels to
restrict the construction of new residential dwellings). However, there may also be certain
benefits to rural lot creation (e.g., using the revenue from the severance and sale of a
residential lot to purchase farm equipment or more suitable farmland, and having more
housing options in the rural area).
Staff supports a more restrictive approach to rural lot creation in order to minimize the
further fragmentation of agricultural land and the encroachment of non-farm uses into the
rural area (both of which are detrimental to long-term agricultural viability). Also, there is
already a variety of sizes of farm parcels in Durham to accommodate the various forms and
scales of agricultural uses. Non-farm residences in the agricultural area have the potential
to limit future opportunities for farm operations to construct or expand livestock facilities, or
other support structures given the Minimum Distance Separation formula. Therefore, staff
recommends that the Region permit the severance of a farm dwelling rendered
surplus in Prime Agricultural Areas within the Agricultural System, only when a
farmer acquires an abutting farm.
2.6.5 Rural Settlements
The ROP identifies several types of rural settlements, including: hamlets, country
residential subdivisions, and rural clusters. With the recent approval of the new provincial
land use plans in 2017, several key changes have been brought forward which further
restrict development in these settlements. Specifically:
135
Staff Review of the Agricultural and Rural System Discussion Paper Page 11 of 14
• hamlet boundaries are required to be delineated in upper -tier official plans;
• hamlets are not locations to which growth should be directed, since they are privately
serviced; and,
• the creation of additional lots within existing approved country residential subdivisions
are prohibited.
Accordingly, the Region will, through the MCR, review the Rural Settlement policies in light
of the recent changes to the provincial land use plans.
2.6.6 Regional Nodes
A Regional Node is intended to recognize existing regional scale areas of major
recreational activities within the Region's Rural System. Currently, the ROP identifies two
Regional Nodes in Durham: Kirby ski area and Mosport Park, both in the Municipality of
Clarington.
Pickering has no facility or lands designated as a Regional Node. The Region will, through
the MCR, consider whether Regional Nodes.should continue to be designated and/or
whether a new policy approach is needed.
2.6.7 Aggregate Resources
Aggregate licensing and regulation are governed by the Aggregate Resource Act and is
administered by the Ministry of Natural Resources and Forestry. The establishment of a
new pit or quarry operations, or expansion to an existing pit or quarry may only be
permitted through a ROP amendment. Aggregate -related industrial uses, outside
designated Employment Areas, such as asphalt plants and aggregate transfer stations,
may be considered through a ROP amendment, as exceptions, while portable asphalt
plants are permitted without amendment for a temporary period in most designations.
The majority of aggregate resources in Durham are concentrated in Uxbridge, Scugog,
Brock and north Clarington. It is estimated that the Region contains 35,000 hectares
(86,500 Acres) of land with significant aggregate resource potential, and there are currently
67 active licences for aggregate extraction in Durham, 86 Tess licences than 2003.
The ROP contains goals and a comprehensive set of policies aimed at: providing
opportunities to extract aggregates for local and regional needs, managing aggregate
extraction activities to minimize impacts on the natural heritage and socio -cultural
environments, and protecting high potential resource areas from incompatible uses.
The PPS (2014) included updated policies regulating aggregate resources, which need to
be addressed through the MCR. Some of these issues include identifying deposits of
mineral aggregates on ROP schedules, and adding policies on comprehensive
rehabilitation including requiring rehabilitation of extraction areas back to an agricultural
condition.
Through the MCR, the Region will also address conformity to the relevant Provincial Plans
by adding new policies including requirements for Agricultural Impact Studies and
incorporating aggregate policies from the Growth Plan (2017) into the ROP.
136
Staff Review of the Agricultural and Rural System Discussion Paper Page 12 of 14
Through the adoption of Official Plan Amendment 27 to the Pickering Official Plan in 2017,
the City incorporated aggregate policies to be consistent with the PPS (2014), including:
• wording requiring proponents for sites within Prime Agricultural Areas to demonstrate
that the lands will be rehabilitated back to an agricultural condition; and
• mapping of High Potential Aggregate Resources within an existing rural settlement
(Barclay Estates) at the insistence of the Province, even though the resource had been
extracted and the licence removed.
To rectify this situation, staff recommends that the Region not show High Potential
Aggregate Resource Areas within the limits of Settlement Areas (e.g., Barclay
Estates).
2.6.8 Non -Agricultural Uses
Key non-agricultural uses within the rural area include: golf courses, landscape industry
uses, commercial kennels, and cemeteries. The Paper provides an overview of the current
policy directions on 'these uses.
Golf courses:
There are currently 57 existing, approved or proposed golf courses in Durham, most of
which are in the rural area. Only 4 new golf courses have been proposed since 2003. Of
these, 2 have been approved while 1 has been built in rural Pickering. The ROP does not
permit new golf courses or expansions to courses in Prime Agricultural Areas.
Accessory uses on golf courses have the potential to create land use conflicts in the rural
area. For example, if a golf clubhouse facility in the rural area has a function and scale
similar to a banquet hall in the urban area, it may generate more traffic throughout the year,
which increases the potential for off-site impacts. The ROP does, however, limit the scale
of clubhouses and associated golf course uses to ensure they remain secondary.
The ability to continue with certain operations, such as weddings and banquets, provides
an important revenue stream to golf courses during the off-season, particularly since the
operating season only lasts 6 — 7 months. Staff recommends that the Region provide
area municipalities the flexibility to allow accessory uses on golf courses, subject to
criteria.
Landscape Industry uses:
The ROP encourages landscape industry uses to establish in Employment Areas, but it
also permits small scale operations in certain land use designations in the ROP, subject to
criteria related to scale, rural context and impacts on the ecological integrity of an area.
Large-scale operations, characterized by aspects such as on-site retailing and large
modification of terrain, may be considered by amendment to the ROP within the Major
Open space Areas designation. The landscape industry policies in the ROP appear to be
consistent with Provincial Guidelines on Permitted Uses in Ontario's Prime Agricultural
Areas.
137
Staff Review of the Agricultural and Rural System Discussion Paper Page 13 of 14
Through the adoption of Official Plan Amendment 27 to the Pickering. Official Plan in 2017,
the City brought the Pickering Official Plan into conformity with the ROP by introducing a
definition for the term "Landscape Industry", and permitting small-scale landscape
industries in the Natural Areas designation only through site site-specific zoning.
Commercials Kennels:
The ROP permits commercial kennels on existing lotsof record within the Major Open
Space Areas designation and in the Countryside Area of the Oak Ridges Moraine outside
Prime Agricultural Areas, subject to certain criteria. Since the Province's Guideline on
Permitted Uses in Ontario's Prime Agricultural Areas indicate kennels as an example of an
on-farm diversified use, this policy matter vvill require evaluation through the MCR.
Cemeteries:
The ROP recognizes cemeteries as necessary and essential community facilities. The ROP
stipulates that new cemeteries and expansions to existing cemeteries may be permitted by
amendment to the respective area municipal official plan, subject to criteria related to
matters such as traffic impacts, parking, land suitability, and environmental impacts.
However, the ROP prohibits the location of new cemeteries in Prime Agricultural Areas.
With the rising cost and decreased availability of lands in urban areas, there has been an
increased interest in establishing cemeteries in the rural area. The Paper also notes that
with designation of Prime Agricultural Areas expected to increase (in the light of the
Province's Agricultural System's mapping), less rural lands may be available in Durham for
the siting of new cemeteries or to expand existing ones: The PPS (2014) does not permit
new cemeteries within Prime Agricultural Areas, but the Greenbelt Pian and the ORMCP do
permit cemeteries within certain areas. Through the MCR, the Region will consider
whether any revisions to cemetery policies in the ROP are needed.
The Pickering Official Plan identifies an Exception (E3) Area for a future cemetery use on
lands north-east of the Hamlet of Greenwood, between Highway 407 and Highway 7. The
lands are located, for the most part, in the "Prime Agricultural Areas" designation in both
the Pickering and Regional Official Plans. Through initial discussions with Regional
Planning staff and staff from the Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing, it was
determined that the exception for a cemetery use on the subject lands could potentially be
grandfathered, given its exception status. These lands are strategically situated in relation
to Seaton and North-East Pickering, and with the population of Pickeringexpected to more
than double, these lands may prove very valuable in meeting the future needs for burial
space. Therefore, staff recommends that the Region acknowledge the exception for a
cemetery use on the lands located northeast of the Hamlet of Greenwood, between
Highway 407 and Highway 7, reflected as "E3" on Schedule I of the Land Use
Structure in the Pickering Official Plan, by including a policy exception in ROP.
Existing Non -Conforming Uses:
The ROP contains a policy that permits area municipalities, to zone lands at their sole
discretion to permit the continuation or expansion of an existing legal non -conforming use,
or the variations to similar uses, subject to criteria.
138
Staff Review of the Agricultural and Rural System Discussion Paper Page 14 of 14
Through the MCR, the Region will review current ROP policies against the Growth Plan
(2017), Greenbelt Plan (2017) and ORMCP (2017) and consider whether any changes
need to be considered.
3. Conclusion
The above review provides a synopsis of the Region's Agriculture and Rural System
Discussion Paper, and highlights additional key issues which, in the opinion of staff, should
also be considered through the MCR process.
139