Loading...
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