Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPLN 33-21 Report to Planning & Development Committee Report Number: PLN 33-21 Date: September 13, 2021 From: Kyle Bentley Director, City Development & CBO Subject: City Initiated: Official Plan and Zoning By-law Amendment Infill and Replacement Housing in Established Neighbourhoods Recommended Amendment 40 to the Pickering Official Plan Recommended Informational Revision 28 to the Pickering Official Plan Recommended Draft Zoning By-law Amendments Revised Urban Design Guidelines Files: OPA 20-006/P and A 11/20 Recommendation: 1. a) That Official Plan Amendment Application OPA 20-006/P, initiated by the City ofPickering, to add new policies to the Pickering Official Plan with regard to Infill and Replacement Housing in Established Neighbourhood Precinct areas, as set out in Appendix I to Report PLN 33-21, be approved; b)That the Draft By-law to adopt Official Plan Amendment 40 to the Pickering OfficialPlan, to add new policies to the Pickering Official Plan with regard to Infill andReplacement Housing in Established Neighbourhood Precinct areas, as set out inAppendix I to Report PLN 33-21, be finalized and forwarded to Council for enactment; 2.That Council adopt Informational Revision 28 to the Pickering Official Plan, to add a layer identifying the boundaries of Established Neighbourhood Precincts to theinformational neighbourhood maps contained within Chapter 12 – UrbanNeighbourhoods, of the Pickering Official Plan, as set out in Appendix Il to ReportPLN 33-21; 3.That Zoning By-law Amendment Application A 11/20, initiated by the City of Pickering, to implement Official Plan Amendment 40, be approved, and that the RecommendedDraft Zoning By-law Amendments as set out in Appendices lll, lV, and V to ReportPLN 33-21 be finalized and forwarded to Council for enactment; and 4.That Council adopt the Revised Urban Design Guidelines for Infill & ReplacementHousing in Established Neighbourhood Precincts, August 2021, as set out in Appendix Vl to Report PLN 33-21, which replaces the Urban Design Guidelines for Infill & ReplacementHousing in Established Neighbourhood Precincts dated August 2020, adopted byCouncil on September 28, 2020 through Resolution #428/20. Report PLN 33-21 September 13, 2021 Subject: City Initiated: Official Plan and Zoning By-law Amendment Page 2 Executive Summary: On September 28, 2020, Council endorsed the recommendations of the Infill and Replacement Housing in Established Neighbourhoods Study (the Infill Study) and adopted the Urban Design Guidelines for Infill & Replacement Housing in Established Neighbourhood Precincts, August 2020. The recommendations of the Infill Study provided direction for the preparation of appropriate planning implementation tools to facilitate a sensitive transition between existing houses and new construction occurring in certain parts of the City’s established neighbourhoods. The purpose of recommended Amendment 40 is to amend the City of Pickering Official Plan to add new policies that require that new development, within an Established Neighbourhood Precinct, complements and is compatible with the existing character of the neighbourhood, and to establish definitions for “infill dwelling” and “replacement dwelling”. The Amendment applies to lands within Established Neighbourhood Precincts to be identified on the Pickering Official Plan neighbourhood maps for Rosebank, West Shore, Bay Ridges, Rougemount, Woodlands, Dunbarton, Highbush, and Liverpool. These mapping changes are addressed through recommended Informational Revision 28 to the Pickering Official Plan. Durham Region has indicated that Amendment 40 is exempt from Regional approval. Recommended Amendment 40 and Informational Revision 28 are contained in Appendices I and II respectively, to this report. The recommended Zoning By-law Amendments for A 11/20 propose to rezone all of the lands within the Established Neighbourhood Precincts to an “Established Neighbourhood Precinct Overlay Zone” that will assist in managing new built form, so that it is compatible with the existing built form. The recommended amendments will not change the permitted uses, lot frontage or lot area within the zones. In response to comments received through the consultation process, staff have revised the Draft Zoning By-law Amendments to remove the originally proposed regulation for maximum garage width and the minimum side yard setback adjacent to a rear yard for an Infill Dwelling, and to amend the lot coverage regulation. The recommended Zoning By-law Amendments to By-laws 2511, 2520 and 3036 are contained in Appendices III, lV, and V respectively, to this report. The boundaries of, and lands within, the neighbourhood precincts affected by the Official Plan and Zoning By-law Amendments have been refined through further investigation and comments received at, and following, the January 4, 2021 Statutory Public Meeting and the June 24, 2021 Open House, the details of which are explained in Section 3 of this report. In response to comments received, staff are recommending certain changes to the Urban Design Guidelines to ensure that they do not dictate or prescribe architectural style, and are consistent with the recommended Amendment 40, Informational Revision 28, and Draft Zoning By-law Amendments. The recommended Revised Urban Design Guidelines for Infill & Replacement Housing in Established Neighbourhood Precincts, August 2021, are contained in Appendix Vl. Financial Implications: No direct costs to the City are anticipated as a result of the recommendations of this report. Report PLN 33-21 September 13, 2021 Subject: City Initiated: Official Plan and Zoning By-law Amendment Page 3 Discussion: 1. Background/Purpose On September 28, 2020, Council endorsed the recommendations of the Infill and Replacement Housing in Established Neighbourhoods Study (the Infill Study) prepared by SGL Planning & Design Inc. (SGL) as per Resolution #428/20. The Infill Study recommendations provided direction on the future evolution of the City’s proposed established neighbourhood precincts (Established Neighbourhood Precincts) so that neighbourhood precinct character is properly considered through the development and building approval processes for infill and replacement housing. Also, at that meeting, Council adopted Urban Design Guidelines for Infill & Replacement Housing in Established Neighbourhood Precincts, August 2020 to support and enhance established neighbourhood precinct characteristics and to assist staff, developers, and the public to evaluate and prepare development or redevelopment applications. The Infill Study was prompted by the construction of an increasing number of houses, either as the result of a demolition and rebuild, or larger lots being severed and new homes built, that were significantly larger than existing adjacent houses. Many of these new homes created impacts in terms of privacy, shadow, and overlook for the neighbouring homes, and altered the streetscape within these parts of established residential areas of the City. A robust engagement process was undertaken throughout the Infill Study with active participation and feedback received from members of the public, the building community, and advisory committees of Council. At the completion of each phase of the Infill Study, a staff report was presented at a public meeting of the Planning & Development Committee and Council: • Phase 1: The Existing Conditions and Preliminary Observations Report was presented in Report PLN 06-19 (dated April 1, 2019); • Phase 2: The Planning Options Report was presented in Report PLN 01-20 (dated January 13, 2020); and • Phase 3, which was also the completion of the Infill Study: The Planning Recommendations Report was presented in Report PLN 18-20 (dated September 14, 2020). In addition, a Public Open House was held during each phase of the Infill Study (Phase 1: held on March 5, 2019, Phase 2: held on October 29, 2019, and Phase 3: held on August 11, 2020). The Public Open Houses were advertised in the local newspaper for two consecutive weeks prior to the meetings, notices were sent to individuals on the interested parties list, and, for electronic Public Open House 3, notices were also delivered to all properties within the proposed Established Neighbourhood Precincts by postal walk. Report PLN 33-21 September 13, 2021 Subject: City Initiated: Official Plan and Zoning By-law Amendment Page 4 2. Consultation/Comments Received 2.1 Comments From the January 4, 2021, Statutory Public Meeting On January 4, 2021, the Statutory Public Meeting with regard to proposed Official Plan Amendment 40 and Zoning By-law Amendment A11/20 was held, and 19 individuals provided a delegation at the meeting. Additional comments were received via email and phone call prior to, and following, the January 4, 2021 meeting. The key concerns and comments received relate to: the protection of trees; compatibility of new construction within the existing neighbourhood; proposed Lot Coverage; how compatibility is being considered through recent major development applications; how the precinct boundaries have been determined; and potential impacts to property values. A complete summary of the staff responses to the comments and concerns associated with the January 4, 2021 Statutory Public Meeting was prepared for the June 24, 2021 open house. This Summary of Comments and Staff Responses Related to the January 4, 2021, Statutory Public Meeting is included in Attachment #1 to this report. 2.2 Comments From the June 24, 2021, Electronic Open House On June 24, 2021, staff hosted an Electronic Open House to present proposed revisions to the draft official plan and zoning by-law amendments, based on comments received at, and after, the January 4, 2021 Statutory Public Meeting. The staff presentation also addressed proposed changes to the Urban Design Guidelines for Infill and Replacement Housing in Established Neighbourhood Precincts. The key concerns and comments received relate to neighbourhood character and streetscape, lot coverage, front yard landscaping, urban design guidelines, and tree protection. A complete summary of the staff responses to the comments and concerns associated with the proposed revisions to the draft official plan and zoning by-law amendments presented at the June 24, 2021 Electronic Open House is included in Attachment #2, Summary of Comments and Staff Responses Related to the June 24, 2021, Electronic Open House, to this report. 2.3 Comments From Agency and City Departments Durham Region has indicated that, in accordance with Regional By-law 11-2000, this Official Plan amendment application is exempt from Regional approval. Other agencies and City departments have stated that they have no objection to the proposed amendments, and all other comments were of a minor technical nature and did not necessitate any revisions to the draft official plan and zoning by-law amendments. Report PLN 33-21 September 13, 2021 Subject: City Initiated: Official Plan and Zoning By-law Amendment Page 5 3. Lands affected by the recommended Official Plan and Zoning By-law Amendments The recommended Official Plan and Zoning By-law Amendments contain policies and regulations respectively that will apply to areas within the City identified as Established Neighbourhood Precincts. They are shown on the Location Map in Attachment #3 and on the recommended Established Neighbourhood Precinct Maps in Attachment #4. The recommended Established Neighbourhood Precincts and their associated boundaries were determined based on a combination of age of dwellings, existing lot coverage, areas within neighbourhoods with comparatively larger lots, and the prevalence of new construction. The proposed precinct boundaries were first presented to the public in Phase 2 of the Infill Study and have since been refined through this official plan and zoning by-law amendment process, by excluding recently developed plans of subdivision and condominium development, parkland and open space, as well as lands designated medium density residential areas in the Pickering Official Plan. The proposed changes to the Established Neighbourhood Precinct mapping, and associated rationale, are discussed below: • Rosebank Neighbourhood: The boundary of the recommended Established Neighbourhood Precincts shown in Attachment #4 excludes the recently approved development on the southwest corner of the southern branch of Gillmoss Road and west of the Canadian National Railway (CNR) line. The large lots on the north side of the southern branch of Gillmoss Road and west of the CNR line have been included in the recommended Established Neighbourhood Precinct. • Bay Ridges Neighbourhood: The boundary of the recommended Established Neighbourhood Precincts shown in Attachment #4 excludes: • properties that are within areas zoned as parks and open space; • properties that are within areas designated as an “Urban Residential Area, Medium Density Area” in the City’s Official Plan, including the properties south of Browning Avenue, west of Front Road, north of Waterpoint Street, that front onto Bayview Street, Fairview Avenue, Simpson Avenue, and Waterpoint Street; • properties that have recently been redeveloped through plans of subdivision or rezoning applications, including properties fronting onto Luna Court, Monica Cook Place and Gull Crossing (including the associated new development on Liverpool Road); and • the property associated with the common element condominium development at 1290 Old Orchard Avenue. • Rougemount Neighbourhood: The boundary of the recommended Established Neighbourhood Precincts shown in Attachment #4 includes the north side of Twyn Rivers Drive west of Altona Road to east of Woodview Avenue. The properties on the north and east side of Fiddler’s Court have been removed from the recommended Established Neighbourhood Precinct since they have recently been the subject of development and/or building permit approvals. Report PLN 33-21 September 13, 2021 Subject: City Initiated: Official Plan and Zoning By-law Amendment Page 6 • Dunbarton: The boundary of the recommended Established Neighbourhood Precinct shown in Attachment #4 excludes: • properties that are within areas zoned as parks and open space; • the cemetery on the north side of Finch Avenue at Fairport Road; • the property at the southeast corner of Finch Avenue and Fairport Road, which is currently zoned to permit a church, day nursery, and private non-residential school; • multiple properties north of Finch Avenue, including properties fronting onto Regal Crescent and Darwin Drive, since they have recently been the subject of development and/or building permit approvals; • multiple properties that have recently been the subject of development and/or building permit approvals, including, but not limited to: • certain properties fronting onto Fairport Road, south of Taplin Drive and North of Strouds Lane; • certain properties fronting onto the east side of Fairport Road; and • certain properties fronting onto Voyager Avenue, Greyabbey Court, Holbrook Court, Falconwood Way, Shademaster Drive, Wingarden Crescent, Goldenridge Road, Rushton Road, Welrus Street, and Dunbarton Road. • Liverpool Neighbourhood: The boundary of the recommended Established Neighbourhood Precincts shown in Attachment #4 excludes properties on the west side of Valley Farm Road, south of Fieldlight Boulevard that are within areas designated as “Urban Residential Area, Medium Density Area” in the City’s Official Plan. These changes are consistent with the established criteria for determining the boundaries of the Established Neighbourhood Precincts. 4. Recommended Amendments 4.1 Recommended Official Plan Amendment 40 Recommended Amendment 40 to the City of Pickering Official Plan is contained in Appendix l to this Report. It introduces new policies in Chapter 3 – Land Use and Chapter 9 – Community Design, and new definitions to Chapter 15 – Implementation, to provide direction on the requirements for development of infill and replacement housing in the recommended Established Neighbourhood Precincts. In response to comments received from agencies, City departments, and the public, staff have made a few changes to Proposed Amendment 40, where appropriate. The changes are minor in nature and do not detract from the original intent or purpose of Amendment 40. The changes include the following: • Change to the definition of “Infill Dwelling” to more accurately reflect that it refers to the development of a dwelling on a lot located “on an existing street” within an Established Neighbourhood Precinct; Report PLN 33-21 September 13, 2021 Subject: City Initiated: Official Plan and Zoning By-law Amendment Page 7 • Revise City Policy 3.9 to include reference to building height, massing and scale, overlook and privacy, lot coverage and streetscape, when considering matters related to urban residential areas and development of Infill and Replacement Dwellings; and • Revise City Policy 3.9 to remove the reference to “carports”. 4.2 Recommended Informational Revision 28 Recommended Informational Revision 28 to the City of Pickering Official Plan is contained in Appendix ll to this report. The purpose of Informational Revision 28 is to add a layer identifying the boundaries of Established Neighbouthood Precincts to the following neighbourhood maps contained within Chapter 12 – Urban Neighbourhoods, of the Pickering Official Plan: • Map 11: Neighbourhood 1: Rosebank; • Map 12: Neighbourhood 2: West Shore; • Map 13: Neighbourhood 3: Bay Ridges; • Map 15: Neighbourhood 5: Rougemount; • Map 16: Neighbourhood 6: Woodlands; • Map 17: Neighbourhood 7: Dunbarton; • Map 20: Neighbourhood 10: Highbush; and • Map 22: Neighbourhood 12: Liverpool. Revisions to Proposed Informational Revision 28 relate to the boundary changes associated with the recommended Established Neighbourhood Precinct maps as discussed in Section 3 above, and the change to the definition of “Infill Dwelling” as discussed in Subsection 4.1 above. 4.3 Recommended Zoning By-law Amendment Application A 11/20 The lands recommended to be rezoned by this amendment are subject to parent Zoning By-laws 2511, 2520 and 3036. Attachment #7 shows the current zoning within the recommended Established Neighbourhood Precincts. The majority of the subject lands within the identified Established Neighbourhood Precincts are currently zoned as “Detached Dwelling, Third Density Zone – R3”, “Detached Dwelling, Fourth Density Zone – R4”, or “Multiple Family Dwelling, First Density Zone – RMl” or a site-specific zone for residential dwellings including single detached dwellings, semi-detached dwellings, and single attached dwellings (street townhouse dwellings). Uses permitted in the “R3” and “R4” zones are single detached dwellings. Uses permitted in the “RM1” zone include single detached dwellings, semi-detached dwellings and duplex dwellings. The City Initiated Zoning By-law Amendment proposes to rezone all of the lands within the Established Neighbourhood Precincts to an “Established Neighbourhood Precinct Overlay Zone” category (see Recommended Draft Zoning By-law Amendments in Appendices lll, lV, and V) that will assist in managing new built form, so that it is compatible with the existing built form. The recommended amendments will not change the permitted uses within the zones. Report PLN 33-21 September 13, 2021 Subject: City Initiated: Official Plan and Zoning By-law Amendment Page 8 In response to comments received from agencies, City departments, and the public, staff have revised the Proposed Draft Zoning By-law Amendments where appropriate. The following summarizes the changes to the Proposed Draft Zoning By-law: • Removing the provisions for: • Garage or Carport (maximum width) to enable greater flexibility as it relates to architectural style; and • Side Yard Setback for Infill Dwelling (minimum). Upon further examination, staff have established that there are various examples of existing conditions within the recommended Established Neighbourhood Precincts where a lot may be flanked on one or both sides by a rear lot. The proposed zoning regulation, in conjunction with the size of the subject lots in these existing situations, would prohibit reasonable development of the property, and therefore the proposed zoning regulation has been removed; • Removing the reduction to maximum Lot Coverage for the West Shore Established Neighbourhood Precinct, so that it remains at the existing maximum of 33%; • Changing the provision for maximum Lot Coverage for the Established Neighbourhood Precincts within Dunbarton, Highbush, Rosebank, Rougemount and Woodlands neighbourhoods from the existing maximum of 33% to the following: a. For lots greater than or equal to 1,000 square metres in area: Maximum 25%; b. For lots less than 1,000 square metres in area: Maximum 33%; • Changing the provision for maximum Lot Coverage for the Liverpool Established Neighbourhood Precinct from a maximum of 33% to 25%; • Removing the definitions of “Infill Dwelling” and “Replacement Dwelling” since they will be defined in the Official Plan. This is noted in the pre-amble to the Recommended Draft Zoning By-law; • Revising the wording for the definitions of “Dwelling Height”, “Lot Coverage” and “Setback” so that they are in plain language; and • Revising the wording for the provisions for Front Entrance (maximum elevation), Front Yard Setback (maximum and minimum), and Transition Provisions so that they are in plain language. A detailed summary of the changes to the Proposed Draft Zoning By-law definitions is contained in Table 1 in Attachment #5. A detailed summary of the changes to the Proposed Draft Zoning By-law provisions is contained in Table 2 in Attachment #6. With respect to the recommended changes to maximum Lot Coverage, these recommended regulations are based on research performed through the Infill Study on existing lot coverages within each Established Neighbourhood Precinct, including original dwellings as well as infill and replacement dwellings. In addition, previous Committee of Adjustment decisions were reviewed and the data demonstrated that few requests were made to increase Lot Coverage beyond the permitted maximum of 33%. With the exception of the Bay Ridges and West Shore Established Neighbourhood Precincts, existing Lot Coverages in the recommended Established Neighbourhood Precincts are predominantly under 30% and in many cases below 20%. In addition, staff reviewed approved Building Permit data for new construction of detached dwellings Report PLN 33-21 September 13, 2021 Subject: City Initiated: Official Plan and Zoning By-law Amendment Page 9 over the last 5 years within the recommended Established Neighbourhoods Precincts, which demonstrated a correlation between existing lot coverage and lot area, and that the majority of these new dwellings would comply with the recommended Lot Coverage based on the condition associated with lot area. Existing zoning by-law provisions that deal with matters other than what are identified in the recommended Draft Zoning By-laws in Appendices lll, lV, and V, will continue to apply. There are three Neighbourhood Development Guidelines that apply to areas subject to the recommended Established Neighbourhood Precincts and their associated zoning by-law provisions. They are the Rosebank Neighbourhood Development Guidelines, the Liverpool Road Waterfront Node Development Guidelines, and the Dunbarton Neighbourhood Development Guidelines. The recommended Draft Zoning By-law Amendments do not conflict with these Neighbourhood Development Guidelines. 5. Planning Analysis Section 7 of Information Report 01-21 dated January 4, 2021, read together with Sections 3 and 4 of this report, provides the detail regarding the planning rationale in support of recommended Official Plan Amendment 40, Informational Revision 28, and Draft Zoning By-law Amendments for By-laws 2511, 2520 and 3036. The recommended amendments seek to manage new construction of dwellings within identified Established Neighbourhood Precincts. An objective of the City’s Official Plan is to protect and enhance the character of established neighbourhoods, and to have consideration for such matters as building height, yard setback, lot coverage, access to sunlight, parking provisions, and traffic implications in establishing performance standards. Recommended Amendment 40 is intended to further strengthen the current policies in the Plan that pertain to neighbourhood character protection and enhancement, and the associated recommended Draft Zoning By-law Amendments are intended to introduce provisions that conform with, and implement, Amendment 40 to the Pickering Official Plan. As such, the recommended Official Plan and Zoning By-law Amendments are consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement, 2020 and A Place to Grow, Growth Plan for the Greater Golden Horseshoe, 2020. In addition, the recommended Official Plan and Zoning By-law Amendments conform to the policies of the Durham Regional Official Plan. As noted in Subsection 2.3 above, Durham Region has indicated that, in accordance with Regional By-law 11-2000, this Official Plan Amendment application is exempt from Regional approval. Report PLN 33-21 September 13, 2021 Subject: City Initiated: Official Plan and Zoning By-law Amendment Page 10 6. Urban Design Guidelines for Infill and Replacement Housing in Established Neighbourhood Precincts On September 28, 2020, Council adopted the Urban Design Guidelines for Infill & Replacement Housing in Established Neighbourhood Precincts, August 2020, (Urban Design Guidelines). The Council-adopted Urban Design Guidelines are based on the recommendations contained in the Planning Recommendations Report of the Infill Study prepared by SGL. In response to comments received from agencies, City departments, and the public, staff are proposing certain changes to the Urban Design Guidelines that are consistent with recommended Amendment 40, Informational Revision 28 and Draft Zoning By-law Amendments to By-laws 2511, 2520, and 3036. The recommended Revised Urban Design Guidelines for Infill & Replacement Housing in Established Neighbourhood Precincts, August 2021, are contained in Appendix Vl. Some of the recommended key changes to the Urban Design Guidelines are as follows: • Definitions for Infill and Replacement Dwelling have been made consistent with Recommended Amendment 40; • Wording throughout the document has been reviewed and updated so that the guidelines do not dictate or prescribe architectural style; • Guideline 3.2.3 regarding the style of double car garages has been removed; • Appendix A: Urban Design Guideline Checklist has been reviewed and updated so that the guidelines do not dictate or prescribe architectural style. In particular, questions 1 (roof style), 6 (architectural style of the main entrance), 7 (front porch/weather protection), 13 (garage roof style), 14 (garage door style), 17 (sustainable design features), 19 (tree planting), and 20 (type of tree species) have been removed; and • Appendix B: Neighbourhood and Established Neighbourhood Precinct Maps have been updated to be consistent with recommended Amendment 40, Informational Revision 28, and the recommended Draft Zoning By-law Amendment. 7. Conclusion Council authorized staff to initiate Official Plan and Zoning By-law Amendments in accordance with Report PLN 18-20, so that new houses in certain parts of the City’s established neighbourhoods are compatible with the character of the neighbourhoods. Recommended Amendment 40, Recommended Informational Revision 28, Recommended Draft By-law Amendments, and Recommended Revised Urban Design Guidelines for Infill & Replacement Housing in Established Neighbourhood Precincts, August 2021, incorporate appropriate modifications to the Draft Amendments proposed in Information Report 01-21 and the Council-adopted Urban Design Guidelines for Infill & Replacement Housing in Established Neighbourhood Precincts (August 2020) that address comments received through the consultation process. Report PLN 33-21 September 13, 2021 Subject: City Initiated: Official Plan and Zoning By-law Amendment Page 11 Staff recommendations: (a) That Council approve Recommended Amendment 40 to the Pickering Official Plan by passing the by-law to adopt Amendment 40, as set out in Appendix I to Report PLN 33-21; (b) That Council adopt Recommended Informational Revision 28 to the Pickering Official Plan as set out in Appendix II to Report PLN 33-21; (c) That Recommended Draft Zoning By-law Amendment (2511) as set out in Appendix IIl to Report PLN 33-21 be finalized and forwarded to Council for enactment; (d) That Recommended Draft Zoning By-law Amendment (2520) as set out in Appendix IV to Report PLN 33-21 be finalized and forwarded to Council for enactment; (e) That Recommended Draft Zoning By-law Amendment (3036) as set out in Appendix V to Report PLN 33-21 be finalized and forwarded to Council for enactment; and (f) That Council adopt the Revised Urban Design Guidelines for Infill & Replacement Housing in Established Neighbourhood Precincts, August 2021, as set out in Appendix Vl to Report PLN 33-21, which replace the Urban Design Guidelines for Infill & Replacement Housing in Established Neighbourhood Precincts dated August 2020, adopted by Council on September 28, 2020. Appendices Appendix l Draft By-law to Adopt Amendment 40 to the Pickering Official Plan Appendix ll Recommended Informational Revision 28 to the City of Pickering Official Plan Appendix lll Recommended Draft Zoning By-law Amendment to By-law 2511 Appendix lV Recommended Draft Zoning By-law Amendment to By-law 2520 Appendix V Recommended Draft Zoning By-law Amendment to By-law 3036 Appendix Vl Revised Urban Design Guidelines for Infill & Replacement Housing in Established Neighbourhood Precincts, August 2021 Attachments: 1. Summary of Comments and Staff Responses Related to the January 4, 2021, Statutory Public Meeting 2. Summary of Comments and Staff Responses Related to the June 24, 2021, Electronic Open House 3. Location Map 4. Recommended Established Neighbourhood Precinct Maps 5. Table 1: Summary of Recommended Draft Zoning By-law Definitions 6. Table 2: Summary of Recommended Draft Zoning By-law Provisions 7. Current Zoning and Recommended Established Neighbourhood Precinct Overlay Zone Report PLN 33-21 September 13, 2021 Subject: City Initiated: Official Plan and Zoning By-law Amendment Page 12 Prepared By: Original Signed By Margaret Kish, MCIP, RPP Principal Planner, Policy Original Signed By Déan Jacobs, MCIP, RPP Manager, Policy & Geomatics Approved/Endorsed By: Original Signed By Catherine Rose, MCIP, RPP Chief Planner Original Signed By Kyle Bentley, P. Eng. Director, City Development & CBO MK:ld Recommended for the consideration of Pickering City Council Original Signed By Marisa Carpino, M.A. Chief Administrative Officer Appendix I to Report No. PLN 33-21 Draft By-law to Adopt Amendment 40 to the City of Pickering Official Plan The Corporation of the City of Pickering Draft By-law No. XXXX/21 Being a by-law to adopt Amendment 40 to the Official Plan for the City of Pickering (OPA 20-006/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 by-law adopt amendments to the Official Plan for the City of Pickering; 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; 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; Whereas the Region has advised that Amendment 40 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 40 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 XXXX day of XXXX, 2021. ________________________________ David Ryan, Mayor ________________________________ Susan Cassel, City Clerk Draft Draft Exhibit “A” to By-law XXXX/XX Amendment 40 to the City of Pickering Official Plan Recommended Amendment 40 to the Pickering Official Plan Purpose: The purpose of Amendment 40 is to amend the City of Pickering Official Plan to add new policies that require that new development that is within an Established Neighbourhood Precinct, complements, and is compatible with the existing character of the neighbourhood, and to establish definitions for “infill dwelling” and “replacement dwelling”. Location: The Amendment applies to lands within Established Neighbourhood Precincts to be identified on the following neighbourhood maps within the Pickering Official Plan: • Map 11: Neighbourhood 1: Rosebank; • Map 12: Neighbourhood 2: West Shore; • Map 13: Neighbourhood 3: Bay Ridges; • Map 15: Neighbourhood 5: Rougemount; • Map 16: Neighbourhood 6: Woodlands; • Map 17: Neighbourhood 7: Dunbarton; • Map 20: Neighbourhood 10: Highbush; and • Map 22: Neighbourhood 12: Liverpool. The Established Neighbourhood Precincts boundaries were determined through the Infill and Replacement Housing in Established Neighbourhoods Study and refined through this official plan amendment process, which included a robust and comprehensive consultation and engagement process. The precinct boundaries are primarily based on the characteristics of: lot size, age of dwellings, the ”footprint” of homes relative to the size of the lot, and areas within established neighbourhoods where an increased frequency of construction of infill and replacement housing was observed. Basis: On September 28, 2020 Council endorsed the recommendations of the Infill and Replacement Housing in Established Neighbourhoods Study (the Infill Study) and adopted the Urban Design Guidelines for Infill and Replacement Housing in Established Neighbourhood Precincts. The recommendations of the Infill Study provide direction for the preparation of appropriate planning implementation tools to facilitate a sensitive transition between existing houses and new construction occurring in certain parts of the City’s established neighbourhoods. The Infill Study was prompted by the construction of an increasing number of houses that were significantly larger than existing adjacent houses creating impacts to privacy, shadow, and overlook for the neighbouring homes and altering the streetscape within parts of established residential areas of the City. This Amendment, in concert with the Informational Revision, an implementing zoning by-law and the urban design guidelines, will guide the planning and design of infill and replacement housing to ensure this type of new development is compatible with the character within identified Established Neighourhood Precincts in the City. Recommended Amendment 40 to the Pickering Official Plan Page 2 Actual Amendment: The City of Pickering Official Plan is hereby amended by: (New text is shown as underlined text, deleted text is shown as strikeout text, and retained text is shown as unchanged text.) 1. Revising City Policy 3.9, Urban Residential Areas, in Chapter 3 – Land Use, by adding “, massing and scale” following “height” in subsection (c) (i), adding “overlook and privacy,” following “sunlight,” in (c) (i), adding a new subsection (c) (ii) and renumbering the existing (c) (ii) and (iii) appropriately, deleting “and” at the end of subsection (d); deleting the period “.”and adding “; and” at the end of subsection (e); and adding new subsection (f), as follows: “(c) in establishing performance standards, restrictions and provisions for Urban Residential Areas, shall have particular regard to the following: (i) protecting and enhancing the character of established neighbourhoods, considering such matters as building height, massing and scale, yard setback, lot coverage, access to sunlight, overlook and privacy, parking provisions and traffic implications; (ii) acknowledge that certain areas within the City may be more susceptible to the construction of Infill and Replacement Dwellings and may identify these areas as Established Neighbourhood Precincts on the Neighbourhood Maps in Chapter 12 – Urban Neighbourhoods, and establish zoning provisions to appropriately address matters such as building height, massing and scale, privacy, overlook and shadowing as they relate to the impact of the construction of Infill and Replacement Dwellings on the character of the streetscape and the existing neighbourhood; (iii) …; (iv) …; (d) …; and (e) ….; and (f) when considering applications for the development of Infill or Replacement Dwellings within an Established Neighbourhood Precinct, as identified on Maps 11, 12, 13, 15, 16, 17, 20 and 22 of this Plan, shall require that such development complements and is compatible with the character of the Established Neighbourhood Precinct with respect to: (i) minimizing the impacts associated with building height, massing and scale, privacy, overlook and shadowing on neighbouring properties, and promoting development of a compatible scale as observed from neighbouring properties and the street; Recommended Amendment 40 to the Pickering Official Plan Page 3 (ii) reinforcing the established pattern of existing side yard setbacks and separation distances between dwellings as observed from the street; (iii) reinforcing the established pattern of existing lot widths and lot coverage in the Established Neighbourhood Precinct; (iv) reinforcing the established pattern of front yard setbacks on the street; (v) promoting garages to be located flush with or behind the front main walls of dwellings, such that they do not dominate the façade of the dwelling; (vi) maximizing the front yard landscaping to the greatest extent possible; (vii) encouraging the preservation of existing mature trees to the greatest extent possible; and (viii) being consistent with the intent of the Urban Design Guidelines for Infill & Replacement Housing in Established Neighbourhood Precincts, which will prevail in the event of a conflict with any Development Guideline within the Compendium Document.” 2. Revising City Policy 9.2, Community Design Objectives, in Chapter 9 – Community Design, by renumbering subsection (e) into (e) (i), adding “and” at the end of subsection (e) (i), and adding a new subsection (e) (ii) as follows: “(e) encourage: (i) developments that are designed to fit their contexts by considering the mix of uses, and the massing, height, scale, architectural style and details of existing, adjacent buildings; and (ii) the development of compatible Infill and Replacement Dwellings within Established Neighbourhood Precincts as identified on Maps 11, 12, 13, 15, 16, 17, 20 and 22 of this Plan, to ensure that new development minimizes impacts related to building height, massing and scale, privacy, overlook, shadowing and loss of open space, particularly with respect to the matters identified in Policy 3.9 (f).” 3. Adding a definition for the term “Infill Dwelling” in alphabetic order to Section 15.15, Glossary, in Chapter 15 – Implementation, as follows: “Infill Dwelling(s), in relation to City Policies 3.9 and 9.2, means the development of one or more dwellings such as single detached, semi-detached or street townhouse dwellings through a consolidation of lots or the severance of a larger lot located on an existing street within an Established Neighbourhood Precinct as identified on Maps 11, 12, 13, 15, 16, 17, 20 and 22 of this Plan. Infill Dwelling does not include the development of stacked townhouses, stacked back-to-back townhouses, apartment buildings, or other forms of multi-unit housing resulting in a higher level of density.” Recommended Amendment 40 to the Pickering Official Plan Page 4 4. Adding a definition for the term “Replacement Dwelling” in alphabetic order to Section 15.15, Glossary, in Chapter 15 – Implementation, as follows: “Replacement Dwelling means the rebuild of a dwelling either through a substantial alteration, or demolition and replacement, and that is located within an Established Neighbourhood Precinct as identified on Maps 11, 12, 13, 15, 16, 17, 20 and 22 of this Plan.” 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 Amendment. 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 Amendment, except as revised by this amendment. OPA 20-006/P A 11/20 City Initiated: Infill and Replacement Housing Study Appendix II to Report No. PLN 33-21 Recommended Informational Revision 28 to the City of Pickering Official Plan Recommended Informational Revision 28 to the Pickering Official Plan Purpose: The purpose of this Recommended Informational Revision is to add a layer identifying the boundaries of Established Neighbourhood Precincts to the informational neighbourhood maps contained within Chapter 12 – Urban Neighbourhoods, within the Pickering Official Plan. In particular the following neighbourhood maps are proposed to be revised: • Map 11: Neighbourhood 1: Rosebank; • Map 12: Neighbourhood 2: West Shore; • Map 13: Neighbourhood 3: Bay Ridges; • Map 15: Neighbourhood 5: Rougemount; • Map 16: Neighbourhood 6: Woodlands; • Map 17: Neighbourhood 7: Dunbarton; • Map 20: Neighbourhood 10: Highbush; and • Map 22: Neighbourhood 12: Liverpool. Location: The Informational Revision applies to lands within Established Neighbourhood Precincts to be identified on the following neighbourhood maps within the Pickering Official Plan: • Map 11: Neighbourhood 1: Rosebank; • Map 12: Neighbourhood 2: West Shore; • Map 13: Neighbourhood 3: Bay Ridges; • Map 15: Neighbourhood 5: Rougemount; • Map 16: Neighbourhood 6: Woodlands; • Map 17: Neighbourhood 7: Dunbarton; • Map 20: Neighbourhood 10: Highbush; and • Map 22: Neighbourhood 12: Liverpool. The location and boundaries of Established Neighbourhood Precincts were determined through the Infill and Replacement in Established Neighbourhoods Study and refined through this official plan amendment process, which included a robust and comprehensive consultation and engagement process. The precinct boundaries are primarily based on the characteristics of: lot size, age of dwellings, the “footprint” of homes relative to the size of the lot, and areas within established neighbourhoods where an increased frequency of construction of infill and replacement housing was observed. Basis: In reviewing the informational text contained in the Official Plan, various technical revisions have been determined to be necessary and appropriate to assist users with understanding the changes to the Official Plan text implemented through the associated Official Plan Amendment. Proposed Revision: The City of Pickering Official Plan is hereby revised by: 1. Adding Established Neighbourhood Precincts and their associated boundaries to the following Neighbourhood Maps in Chapter 12 – Urban Neighbourhoods, as illustrated on Schedule “A”, attached to this Informational Revision: Recommended Informational Revision 28 to the Pickering Official Plan Page 2 (a) Map 11: Neighbourhood 1: Rosebank; (b) Map 12: Neighbourhood 2: West Shore; (c) Map 13: Neighbourhood 3: Bay Ridges; (d) Map 15: Neighbourhood 5: Rougemount; (e) Map 16: Neighbourhood 6: Woodlands; (f) Map 17: Neighbourhood 7: Dunbarton; (g) Map 20: Neighbourhood 10: Highbush; and (h) Map 22: Neighbourhood 12: Liverpool. 2. On page 178, under Chapter 12 – Urban Neighbourhoods, General Information, adding the following as a last bullet point: • “indicate the boundaries of Established Neighbourhood Precincts” 3. Adding the following informational sidebar adjacent to Section 3.9 (f): Infill Dwelling(s), in relation to City Policy 3.9, means the development of one or more dwellings such as single detached, semi-detached or street townhouse dwellings through a consolidation of lots or the severance of a larger lot located on an existing street within an Established Neighbourhood Precinct as identified on Maps 11, 12, 13, 15, 16, 17, 20 and 22 of this Plan. Infill Dwelling does not include the development of stacked townhouses, stacked back-to-back townhouses, apartment buildings, or other forms of multi-unit housing resulting in a higher level of density. Infill Dwelling(s) is defined in Section 15.15, Glossary, in Chapter 15 – Implementation. 4. Adding the following informational sidebar adjacent to Section 3.9 (f): Replacement Dwelling, in relation to City Policy 3.9, means the rebuild of a dwelling either through a substantial alteration, or demolition and replacement, and that is located within an Established Neighbourhood Precinct as identified on Maps 11, 12, 13, 15, 16, 17, 20 and 22 of this Plan.” Replacement Dwelling is defined in Section 15.15, Glossary, in Chapter 15 – Implementation. Recommended Informational Revision 28 to the Pickering Official Plan Page 3 5. Adding the following informational sidebar adjacent to Section 9.2 (e): Infill Dwelling(s), in relation to City Policy 9.2, means the development of one or more dwellings such as single detached, semi-detached or street townhouse dwellings through a consolidation of lots or the severance of a larger lot located on an existing street within an Established Neighbourhood Precinct as identified on Maps 11, 12, 13, 15, 16, 17, 20 and 22 of this Plan. Infill Dwelling does not include the development of stacked townhouses, stacked back-to-back townhouses, apartment buildings, or other forms of multi-unit housing resulting in a higher level of density. Infill Dwelling(s) is defined in Section 15.15, Glossary, in Chapter 15 – Implementation. 6. Adding the following informational sidebar adjacent to Section 9.2 (e): Replacement Dwelling, in relation to City Policy 9.2, means the rebuild of a dwelling either through a substantial alteration, or demolition and replacement, and that is located within an Established Neighbourhood Precinct as identified on Maps 11, 12, 13, 15, 16, 17, 20 and 22 of this Plan.” Replacement Dwelling is defined in Section 15.15, Glossary, in Chapter 15 – Implementation. Cross Reference: OPA 20-006/P City Initiated Schedule "A"Rosebank RoadAltona RoadRougemount DriveKingston R o a d Whites RoadGranite Court Bayly StreetHighway 4 0 1 City of TorontoRou g emo u n t D r iv e Dunn CrescentRodd A v enue Toynevale Road Petticoat CreekCowan CircleGillmoss RoadChantilly RoadRosebank RoadOakwood DriveStaghorn RoadMountainAshDriveLekaniCourt WhitesRoadLytton CourtDyson RoadMcleod CrescentBellaVistaDriveDahlia CrescentPi n e R i d g e R o a d Moorelands CrescentMap 11: Neighbourhood 1: Rosebank City of PickeringCity Development Department© September, 2020This Map Forms Part of Edition ? of the Pickering Official Plan and Must BeRead in Conjunction with the Other Schedules and the Text. Note: Land Use Designations Appear on Schedule I & Schedule XIV Legend Neighbourhood Boundary Regional Storm Flood Line Detailed Review Area Kingston Mixed Corridor Intensification Area (Refer to Chapter 11A) Lands for which Councilhas adopted DevelopmentGuidelines (Refer toCompendium Document) Established Neighbourhood Precincts New Road Connections(Proposed) Community Centre Fire Station Library Senior's Centre Cemetery Place Of Worship Elementary Public School Elementary Separate School Park Dixie Road Toynevale Road Whites RoadKingston R o a d Fairport RoadWest Shore BoulevardBayly Stree t Sheppard Avenue Rosebank RoadGranite Court Highway 4 0 1 Whites RoadCreekview CirclePark CrescentWest Shore BoulevardTimmins G a rdens Br eezy Dr i veVicki Drive Sanok D r iv eHillcrestRoadBatory AvenueDownland D r i v eEyerDrive Broad green StreetOklahoma Drive Vistula Drive AtwoodCresce nt Lynx Avenue Breda Avenue Sunrise Avenue Surf Avenue B eac h poi nt P rom enadeVictory DriveHillviewCr esc entHamptonCourt Cecyli aCourtMarksbury RoadSandcastleCourt Moretta Avenue Leaside StreetGranite C o urt Yeremi StreetMink StreetOliva StreetSandst one M a n o r Sto nebridgeLaneCliffview Road Ma rin et Crescent Essa CrescentB ay ly Stre e tMap 12: Neighbourhood 2: West Shore City of PickeringCity Development Department© September, 2020This Map Forms Part of Edition ? of the Pickering Official Plan and Must BeRead in Conjunction with the Other Schedules and the Text. Note: Land Use Designations Appear on Schedule I & Schedule XIV Legend Neighbourhood Boundary Regional Storm Flood Line Detailed Review Area Kingston Mixed Corridor Intensification Area (Refer to Chapter 11A) EstablishedNeighbourhood Precincts Pedestrian/Bicycle Connection (Proposed) Community Centre Fire Station Library Senior's Centre Place Of Worship Elementary Public School Elementary Separate School Secondary Public School Swimming Pool Park Historical Village Liverpoo l RoadDix ie Roa d Kingston Road Sandy Beach RoadBayly Street Highway 401 Montgomery Park RoadSandy Beach RoadLiverpool RoadG ullCrossingBrowning A v e n u e Modlin RoadColmar AvenueIlona ParkRoad Balaton AvenueFairview AvenueDouglas AvenueBegley StreetAnnland Street TanzerCo urtAlyssum Street DravaStreet KrosnoBoulevardParkham CrescentReytanBoulevardGarvolin Avenue Fr on t Road Foxglove A venue Tatra Drive St Martins DriveBem AvenueNaroch BoulevardZator AvenueGrenoble BoulevardLublin AvenueHaller Avenue Bayly S treet RadomStreet Commerce Street Poprad Avenue ChapleauDriveHelenCrescent Pleasant StreetBayviewStreet Wharf Street Alliance Road OldOrchardAvenue Cortez AvenueKingfis her Drive FordonAvenue Broadview Street Mir iam RoadAntonio StreetMap 13: Neighbourhood 3: Bay Ridges City of PickeringCity Development Department© September, 2020This Map Forms Part of Edition ? of the Pickering Official Plan and Must BeRead in Conjunction with the Other Schedules and the Text. Note: Land Use Designations Appear on Schedule I & Schedule XIV Legend Neighbourhood Boundary Regional Storm Flood Line Detailed Review Area Kingston Mixed Corridor Intensification Area (Refer to Chapter 11A) Lands for which Councilhas adopted DevelopmentGuidelines (Refer toCompendium Document) Established Neighbourhood Precincts Pedestrian/Bicycle Connection (Existing) Pedestrian/BicycleConnection (Proposed) New Road Connections(Proposed) Arena Community Centre Fire Station Senior's Centre Cemetery Place Of Worship Elementary Public School GO Station Park Historical Village Toynevale RoadAltona RoadRougemount DriveKingston R oa d Sheppard Avenue Cit y o f T o r on to R o u g e N a t i o n a l U r b a n P a r k Rougemount DriveAshwoodGateValley Gate Littleford Street Altona RoadFiddlers CourtFawndal eRoadGwe n dolyn S treet Brookridge GateDal ew o o d D r i v e Twyn Rivers Drive BrimwoodCourt Kingston R o a d Rouge HillCourt RiverviewCrescentRichardsonStreet Hoover Drive Stover Crescent Sheppard Avenue Rouge Valley DriveHowellCrescentWoodview DriveMap 15: Neighbourhood 5: Rougemount City of PickeringCity Development Department© September, 2020This Map Forms Part of Edition ? of the Pickering Official Plan and Must BeRead in Conjunction with the Other Schedules and the Text. Note: Land Use Designations Appear on Schedule I & Schedule XIV Legend Neighbourhood Boundary Regional Storm Flood Line Detailed Review Area Kingston Mixed Corridor Intensification Area (Refer to Chapter 11A) EstablishedNeighbourhood Precincts Community Centre Library Senior's Centre Cemetery Place Of Worship Elementary Public School Elementary Separate School Park Highway 4 0 1 Toynevale Road Sheppard Avenue Kingston R o a d Whites RoadRosebank RoadGranite CourtRougemount DriveBayly StreetWhites RoadKingsto n R o a d Sheppard Avenue Barry Drive Rosebank RoadEdmundDri veOld Forest RoadDunfair Street Steeple Hill CattailCo urt Lightfoot Place DeltaBoule va rd Dayli ghtCourtRainy Day DriveSundown Crescent Highb us h T ra i l Map 16: Neighbourhood 6: Woodlands City of PickeringCity Development Department© September, 2020This Map Forms Part of Edition ? of the Pickering Official Plan and Must BeRead in Conjunction with the Other Schedules and the Text. Note: Land Use Designations Appear on Schedule I & Schedule XIV Legend Neighbourhood Boundary Regional Storm Flood Line Detailed Review Area Kingston Mixed Corridor Intensification Area (Refer to Chapter 11A) Lands for which Councilhas adopted DevelopmentGuidelines (Refer toCompendium Document) Established Neighbourhood Precincts New Road Connections (Proposed) Community Centre Fire Station Library Senior's Centre Place Of Worship Elementary Public School Elementary Separate School Secondary Public School Swimming Pool Park Proposed Park Highwa y 4 0 1 Kingst on Ro adGlenanna RoadDixie RoadFinch Avenue Whites RoadFairport RoadStrouds Lane Bayly Street Sheppard Avenue Glendale DriveSpruce H i l l Roa d Fairport RoadFinch Avenue Applevi ewRoadBonita Avenue Goldenri dgeRoadSparta nCourtStrouds Lane DarwinDrive Spruce Hill RoadDunbartonRoad Sheppard AvenueWingarden CrescentRushton Road Kingston R o ad VoyagerAvenue Welrus Street Falconwood WayMerrittonRoad Taplin Drive RegalCrescent Map 17: Neighbourhood 7: Dunbarton City of PickeringCity Development Department© September, 2020This Map Forms Part of Edition ? of the Pickering Official Plan and Must BeRead in Conjunction with the Other Schedules and the Text. Note: Land Use Designations Appear on Schedule I & Schedule XIV Legend Neighbourhood Boundary Regional Storm Flood Line Detailed Review Area Kingston Mixed Corridor Intensification Area (Refer to Chapter 11A) Lands for which Councilhas adopted DevelopmentGuidelines (Refer toCompendium Document) Established Neighbourhood Precincts Pedestrian/Bicycle Connection (Proposed) New Road Connections(Proposed) Community Centre Fire Station Senior's Centre Cemetery Place Of Worship Elementary Public School Elementary Separate School Secondary Public School Secondary SeparateSchool Swimming Pool Park Historical Village Strouds Lan eAltona RoadCity of TorontoValleyview DrivePine Grove Avenue Lawson Street Sta llionChaseSparrowCircleWaterford Gate Hogart h S treet Altona RoadWilcroftCourt Westcreek DriveValley Ridge CrescentThicket Crescent Forestview DriveSandhurst Crescent Tranquil Court Calving to n Dri veStrouds Lane Treetop W ayOakburnStreet CastleStreetHu m mingbirdCourtProhill Street West Lane Chickadee CourtSweetbriar C o u rt Woodview AvenueLancrestStreet Copley Street Secord Street Mel dronDrive Gr a nb y CourtRouge Fores tC rescent Sandcherry CourtRockwood DriveWhitePine Crescent SenatorStr eet Map 20: Neighbourhood 10: Highbush City of PickeringCity Development Department© September, 2020This Map Forms Part of Edition ? of the Pickering Official Plan and Must BeRead in Conjunction with the Other Schedules and the Text. Note: Land Use Designations Appear on Schedule I & Schedule XIV Legend Neighbourhood Boundary Regional Storm Flood Line Detailed Review Area Lands for which Council has adopted Development Guidelines (Refer to Compendium Document) Established Neighbourhood Precincts New Road Connections(Proposed) Elementary Public School Park Highway 401 Pickering Parkw a yDixie RoadSandy Beach RoadValley Farm RoadSheppard Avenue Gl e n a n n a R o a d Liverpool RoadRossland Road W Kingston R o a d Strouds Lane Fairport RoadFinch Avenue Brock RoadWhites RoadBayly Street Third Concession Road Glendale DriveSpruce Hill RoadCherrywoodTransformerStation ValleyFar mRoadKingsto n R o a d Parkdale Street Linwood Stre et Alanb uryCrescentMemoryLaneGlenanna R oadB owlerDriveLiverpool RoadMaple Gate RoadFieldlightBoulevard Maple Ridge Drive Ridgewoo dCourtDuncannonDrive KitleyA venue Rosefield RoadFinch AvenueH unts mill DriveGlendale DriveLynn Heights Drive Walnut LaneDixie RoadRawlingsDriveFairport RoadBushmill Street Rigby Drive L odgeRoadPoppyLaneAbb e y RoadLongbow DriveEagleviewDrive Gossamer D r i ve Fieldstone Circl eCa nborough CrescentMaldenCrescent HoneywoodCrescent RowntreeCrescent Pine Glen DriveStorringtonStre etPrimroseCourt Wildrose CrescentRedbirdC rescentBaylaw nDrive ListowellCrescentMountcastle Cr escentBro nteSquareBrookshire SquareA b beyRoad Map 22: Neighbourhood 12: Liverpool City of PickeringCity Development Department© September, 2020This Map Forms Part of Edition ? of the Pickering Official Plan and Must BeRead in Conjunction with the Other Schedules and the Text. Note: Land Use Designations Appear on Schedule I & Schedule XIV Legend Neighbourhood Boundary Regional Storm Flood Line Detailed Review Area Kingston Mixed Corridor Intensification Area (Refer to Chapter 11A) Brock Mixed NodeIntensification Area (Referto Chapter 11A) Lands for which Council has adopted Development Guidelines (Refer to Compendium Document) EstablishedNeighbourhood Precincts Pedestrian/Bicycle Connection (Existing) Pedestrian/BicycleConnection (Proposed) New Road Connections(Proposed) New Road Connections (Proposed) Arena City Hall Community Centre Fire Station Library Recreation Complex Senior's Centre Cemetery Place Of Worship Elementary Public School Elementary Separate School Secondary Public School Secondary Separate School Swimming Pool GO Station Park Historical Village Proposed Park Appendix III to Report No. PLN 33-21 Recommended Draft Zoning By-law Amendment (2511) for Zoning By-law Amendment Application A 11/20 The Corporation of the City of Pickering Draft By-law No. XXXX/XX Being a By-law to amend Restricted Area (Zoning) By-law2511, as amended, to implement the Official Plan of the City of Pickering, Region of Durham (A 11/20) Whereas the Corporation of the City of Pickering conducted the Infill and Replacement Housing in Established Neighbourhoods Study to provide direction for the preparation of appropriate planning implementation tools to facilitate a sensitive transition between existing houses and new construction occurring in certain parts of the City’s established neighbourhoods; Whereas a robust and comprehensive consultation and engagement process was undertaken throughout the Infill and Replacement Housing in Established Neighbourhoods Study; Whereas on September 28, 2020, Council endorsed the recommendations of the Infill and Replacement Housing in Established Neighbourhoods Study and adopted Urban Design Guidelines for Infill and Replacement Housing in Established Neighbourhood Precincts; Whereas the Council of the Corporation of the City of Pickering, in accordance with the recommendations of the Infill and Replacement Housing in Established Neighbourhoods Study, adopted an Official Plan amendment adding policies that require new development within an Established Neighbourhood Precinct to complement, and be compatible with the existing character of the neighbourhood, and that enables the implementation of zoning provisions to address matters relating to the impact of the construction of infill and replacement dwellings on the character of the existing neighbourhood; Whereas the Council of the Corporation of the City of Pickering, in accordance with the recommendations of the Infill and Replacement Housing in Established Neighbourhoods Study, initiated a zoning by-law amendment that introduces an “Established Neighbourhood Precinct Overlay Zone” and associated development standards and definitions to regulate Infill and Replacement Dwellings, as defined in the Official Plan, in specific Established Neighbourhood Precincts; Whereas it is appropriate to amend By-law 2511, as amended, to implement the recommendations of the Infill and Replacement Housing in Established Neighbourhoods Study; Now therefore the Council of The Corporation of the City of Pickering hereby enacts as follows: 1. Schedules I, ll and lll Schedules I, ll and lll, attached hereto with notations and references shown thereon are hereby declared to be part of this By-law. By-law No. XXXX/XX Page 2 Draft 2. Area Restricted The provisions of this By-law shall apply to those lands in the City of Pickering located within an “Established Neighbourhood Precinct Overlay Zone” on Schedules l, II and lll, inclusive, attached hereto. 3. General Provisions No building, structure, land or part thereof shall hereafter be used, occupied, erected, moved or structurally altered except in conformity with the provisions of this By-law. 4. Definitions In this By-law, (1) “Dwelling Depth” means the horizontal distance measured from the minimum Front Yard Setback to the rear wall of a dwelling, excluding any Obstruction of Yards. (2) “Dwelling Height” means the vertical distance between the average grade as measured along the front wall of the dwelling, and in the case of a flat roof, the highest point of the roof surface or parapet wall, or in the case of a mansard roof the deck line, or in the case of a gabled, hip or gambrel roof, the mean height between eaves and ridge. Ornamental fixtures such as a cupola or antenna shall not be included in calculating the height of a dwelling. Any other roof structure, such as to house the mechanical equipment of the dwelling or a penthouse, shall be included in calculating the height of the dwelling. (3) “Front Entrance” means the principal entrance oriented towards the front lot line, providing access to the interior of a dwelling from the exterior and does not include an access provided through an attached private garage. In the case of a corner lot, the principal entrance providing access to the interior of a dwelling from the exterior may be oriented towards the side lot line that is adjacent to the street, or abutting on a reserve on the opposite side of which is a street. (4) “Lot Coverage” means the total horizontal area on the lot of all above grade roofed structures and buildings, measured at the level of the first floor and expressed as a percentage of the lot area, including covered platforms such as covered decks and covered porches, but excluding eaves, belt courses, chimney breasts, sills or cornice projections to a maximum of 0.6 of a metre, and balconies. (5) “Setback” means the shortest horizontal distance between a building and a lot line. By-law No. XXXX/XX Page 3 Draft 5. Provisions (“Established Neighbourhood Precinct Overlay” Zone) (1) Zone Requirements (“Established Neighbourhood Precinct Overlay” Zone) Within any Residential Zone, no person shall use any building, structure or land, nor erect any building or structure within the lands designated “Established Neighbourhood Precinct Overlay Zone” on Schedules l, II and Ill, inclusive, attached hereto, except in accordance with the following provisions: (a) Dwelling Depth (maximum): The maximum Dwelling Depth, measured from the minimum front yard setback to the rear wall of a dwelling, shall be as follows: (i) For lots with depths up to and including 40 metres: 17 metres (ii) For lots with depths greater than 40 metres: 20 metres (b) Dwelling Height (maximum): 9.0 metres (c) Driveway Width (maximum): The maximum width of a driveway shall be 6.0 metres. However, for lots where the entrance of a garage or carport is wider than 6.0 metres, the maximum driveway width shall be no greater than the width of the entrance of a garage or carport. (d) Front Entrance (maximum elevation): The maximum elevation of the Front Entrance shall be 1.2 metres above the average grade, which is measured along the front wall of the dwelling, to the top of the platform (covered or uncovered) immediately outside of the Front Entrance. (e) Front Yard Setback (maximum): The maximum front yard setback shall not be more than 1.0 metre beyond the average of the existing front yard setback of the dwellings on the immediately abutting lots located along the same side of the street and within the same block. The maximum Front Yard Setback applies to only 80% of the Dwelling Width including any attached garage. For the purpose of this regulation, “Dwelling Width” means the width of the front wall or main wall of the dwelling. By-law No. XXXX/XX Page 4 Draft (f) Front Yard Setback (minimum): Despite any other provision in this by-law, for lots within any Established Neighbourhood Precinct Overlay Zone, the minimum front yard setback shall be equal to the shortest existing front yard setback of the dwellings on the immediately abutting lots located along the same side of the street and within the same block. For corner lots, the minimum front yard setback shall be equal to the shortest existing front yard setback of the dwellings on the nearest two lots located along the same side of the street and within the same block. (g) Interior Garage Size (minimum): Each parking space within a private garage shall have a minimum width of 3.0 metres and a minimum depth of 6.0 metres. However, the width may include one interior step and the depth may include two interior steps. (h) Lot Coverage: Despite any other provision in this By-law, for lots within any Established Neighbourhood Precinct Overlay Zone, the following maximum lot coverage provisions shall apply within the applicable Neighbourhood Precinct, as shown on Schedules I, II and lll of this By-law: (i) Dunbarton Established Neighbourhood Precinct: a. For lots greater than or equal to 1,000 square metres in area: Maximum 25%; b. For lots less than 1,000 square metres in area: Maximum 33%; (ii) Highbush Established Neighbourhood Precinct: a. For lots greater than or equal to 1,000 square metres in area: Maximum 25%; b. For lots less than 1,000 square metres in area: Maximum 33%; (iii) Liverpool Established Neighbourhood Precinct: Maximum 25%; (iv) Rosebank Established Neighbourhood Precinct: a. For lots greater than or equal to 1,000 square metres in area: Maximum 25%; b. For lots less than 1,000 square metres in area: Maximum 33%; By-law No. XXXX/XX Page 5 Draft (v) Rougemount Established Neighbourhood Precinct: a. For lots greater than or equal to 1,000 square metres in area: Maximum 25%; b. For lots less than 1,000 square metres in area: Maximum 33%; (vi) Woodlands Established Neighbourhood Precinct: a. For lots greater than or equal to 1,000 square metres in area: Maximum 25%; b. For lots less than 1,000 square metres in area: Maximum 33%; (2) Transition Provisions (a) Existing Building Permits: Nothing in this By-law prevents the erection of a building or structure in accordance with a building permit application submitted prior to the date of passing of this By-law, provided the building permit is in accordance with all prior zoning by-laws that affected the lot before this By-law came into effect. (b) Existing Planning Applications: Nothing in this By-law prevents the erection of a building or structure in accordance with any minor variance that has been submitted and deemed complete by the City, or approved or conditionally approved by the relevant approval authority before the passing of this By-law, provided the application complies with all prior zoning by-laws that affected the lot before this By-law came into effect. (c) Lapse of Transition Provisions: (i) Once a permit or approval referred to under Sections (2) (a) or (2) (b) has been granted, all provisions of this By-law shall apply to the subject property. (ii) The provisions of Section (2) shall be deemed repealed five years from the effective date of this By-law. This provision shall not require an amendment to this By-law to take effect. 6. By-law 2511 By-law 2511, as amended, is hereby further amended only to the extent necessary to give effect to the provisions of this By-law as it applies to the areas set out in Schedules I, II and lll, inclusive, attached hereto. Definitions and subject matters not specifically dealt with in this By-law shall be governed by relevant provisions of By-law 2511, as amended. By-law No. XXXX/XX Page 6 Draft 7. Effective Date This By-law shall come into force in accordance with the provisions of the Planning Act. By-law passed this XX day of XXXX, 20XX. Draft ___________________________________ David Ryan, Mayor ___________________________________ Susan Cassel, City Clerk Draft RougemountDriveGra n iteCourtRoddAvenue Ki n gs ton R o a d Toynevale Road Foster Court H i gh way 401 Co wanCircleGillmos s RoadChantilly RoadPetticoatCreekRosebank RoadOakwood DriveMountainAshDriveLytton CourtDysonRoadWhitesRoadSandstoneM a n o r Mcleod CrescentBella V is taDriveDahlia CrescentPi n e R i d g e R o a d Moorelands CrescentR4 (H)S4-19 R4 S2-16 R4 R3 R4 R4 S4-19 R4 R3 R4 R4R3 S2-16 R4 R3 R4 R3 S4-18 R4 R3 R4 OS-HL R4 R3 R3 R3R3 S2-16 R4 R4 R4 S4-19 R4 S R4 S2-16 R4 S Clerk Mayor Schedule I to By-Law Passed This Day of NXXXX/XX ___ ________ 20XX Established Neighbourhood Precinct Overlay Zone Broadgreen StreetDownlandDrive Hillcrest RoadEyer DriveWest Shore BoulevardCreekview CirclePark Crescent Vicki Drive Vic t or CourtBreezyDriveOklahoma Drive Chipmunk StreetBrianC ourt Sunrise Avenue Carm ello CourtTullo Street Surf Avenue Beach p o int Pr o m e n a d e Petticoat Lane Marksbury RoadVictory DriveHil lvi ewCrescent Abingdon Court Hampton Court Marksbury RoadSandcastleCourt Yeremi StreetLeaside StreetMink StreetStonebridge Lane Cliffview Road R4 R4 R4 RM1 S R4 R4 SD R4 R4 S R4 C17-R R4 R4 R4 R4 R4 R4 R3 R4 R4 R4 Clerk Mayor Schedule II to By-Law Passed This Day of NXXXX/XX ___ ________ 20XX Established Neighbourhood Precinct Overlay Zone Krosno Boulevard Balaton AvenueZator Avenue Bem AvenueGull Crossing Browning Avenue Modlin RoadFairview AvenueDouglas AvenueChapleauDriveAnnland S t r eet Colmar Avenue Tr e l lis C o u r t Brixton L a n e Fron t RoadGrenoble BoulevardFoxglove Avenue Shearer Lane Haller Avenue St MartinsD r i v e Naroch BoulevardMonica Cook Place Commerce Street AntonioStreet HelenC resc e nt Pleasant StreetBayview Street Miriam Road Wharf Street Ilona Park Road KingfisherDri veHewson DriveOld Orchard Avenue Broadview Street R4 R4 R4 RM1 C1 R4-21 RM1 RM1 R4 R4 R4 R4 R4 RM2 R4 R4 RM1 R4 RM1 R4 RM1 R4 R4 RM1 A36 R4 R4R4-11 (H)O3B R4 R4 RM1 RM1 R4 RM1 Clerk Mayor Schedule III to By-Law Passed This Day of NXXXX/XX ___ ________ 20XX Established Neighbourhood Precinct Overlay Zone Appendix IV to Report No. PLN 33-21 Recommended Draft Zoning By-law Amendment (2520) for Zoning By-law Amendment Application A 11/20 The Corporation of the City of Pickering Draft By-law No. XXXX/XX Being a By-law to amend Restricted Area (Zoning) By-law 2520, as amended, to implement the Official Plan of the City of Pickering, Region of Durham (A 11/20) Whereas the Corporation of the City of Pickering conducted the Infill and Replacement Housing in Established Neighbourhoods Study to provide direction for the preparation of appropriate planning implementation tools to facilitate a sensitive transition between existing houses and new construction occurring in certain parts of the City’s established neighbourhoods; Whereas a robust and comprehensive consultation and engagement process was undertaken throughout the Infill and Replacement Housing in Established Neighbourhoods Study; Whereas on September 28, 2020, Council endorsed the recommendations of the Infill and Replacement Housing in Established Neighbourhoods Study and adopted Urban Design Guidelines for Infill and Replacement Housing in Established Neighbourhood Precincts; Whereas the Council of the Corporation of the City of Pickering, in accordance with the recommendations of the Infill and Replacement Housing in Established Neighbourhoods Study, adopted an Official Plan amendment adding policies that require new development within an Established Neighbourhood Precinct to complement, and be compatible with the existing character of the neighbourhood, and that enables the implementation of zoning provisions to address matters relating to the impact of the construction of infill and replacement dwellings on the character of the existing neighbourhood; Whereas the Council of the Corporation of the City of Pickering, in accordance with the recommendations of the Infill and Replacement Housing in Established Neighbourhoods Study, initiated a zoning by-law amendment that introduces an “Established Neighbourhood Precinct Overlay Zone” and associated development standards and definitions to regulate Infill and Replacement Dwellings, as defined in the Official Plan, in specific Established Neighbourhood Precincts; Whereas it is appropriate to amend By-law 2520, as amended, to implement the recommendations of the Infill and Replacement Housing in Established Neighbourhoods Study; Now therefore the Council of The Corporation of the City of Pickering hereby enacts as follows: 1. Schedules I and ll Schedules I and ll, attached hereto with notations and references shown thereon are hereby declared to be part of this By-law. By-law No. XXXX/XX Page 2 Draft 2. Area Restricted The provisions of this By-law shall apply to those lands in the City of Pickering located within an “Established Neighbourhood Precinct Overlay Zone” on Schedules l and II, inclusive, attached hereto. 3. General Provisions No building, structure, land or part thereof shall hereafter be used, occupied, erected, moved or structurally altered except in conformity with the provisions of this By-law. 4. Definitions In this By-law, (1) “Dwelling Depth” means the horizontal distance measured from the minimum Front Yard Setback to the rear wall of a dwelling, excluding any Obstruction of Yards. (2) “Dwelling Height” means the vertical distance between the average grade as measured along the front wall of the dwelling, and in the case of a flat roof, the highest point of the roof surface or parapet wall, or in the case of a mansard roof the deck line, or in the case of a gabled, hip or gambrel roof, the mean height between eaves and ridge. Ornamental fixtures such as a cupola or antenna shall not be included in calculating the height of a dwelling. Any other roof structure, such as to house the mechanical equipment of the dwelling or a penthouse, shall be included in calculating the height of the dwelling. (3) “Front Entrance” means the principal entrance oriented towards the front lot line, providing access to the interior of a dwelling from the exterior and does not include an access provided through an attached private garage. In the case of a corner lot, the principal entrance providing access to the interior of a dwelling from the exterior may be oriented towards the side lot line that is adjacent to the street, or abutting on a reserve on the opposite side of which is a street. (4) “Lot Coverage” means the total horizontal area on the lot of all above grade roofed structures and buildings, measured at the level of the first floor and expressed as a percentage of the lot area, including covered platforms such as covered decks and covered porches, but excluding eaves, belt courses, chimney breasts, sills or cornice projections to a maximum of 0.6 of a metre, and balconies. (5) “Setback” means the shortest horizontal distance between a building and a lot line. By-law No. XXXX/XX Page 3 Draft 5. Provisions (“Established Neighbourhood Precinct Overlay” Zone) (1) Zone Requirements (“Established Neighbourhood Precinct Overlay” Zone) Within any Residential Zone, no person shall use any building, structure or land, nor erect any building or structure within the lands designated “Established Neighbourhood Precinct Overlay Zone” on Schedules l and II, inclusive, attached hereto, except in accordance with the following provisions: (a) Dwelling Depth (maximum): The maximum Dwelling Depth, measured from the minimum front yard setback to the rear wall of a dwelling, shall be as follows: (i) For lots with depths up to and including 40 metres: 17 metres (ii) For lots with depths greater than 40 metres: 20 metres (b) Dwelling Height (maximum): 9.0 metres (c) Driveway Width (maximum): The maximum width of a driveway shall be 6.0 metres. However, for lots where the entrance of a garage or carport is wider than 6.0 metres, the maximum driveway width shall be no greater than the width of the entrance of a garage or carport. (d) Front Entrance (maximum elevation): The maximum elevation of the Front Entrance shall be 1.2 metres above the average grade, which is measured along the front wall of the dwelling, to the top of the platform (covered or uncovered) immediately outside of the Front Entrance. (e) Front Yard Setback (maximum): The maximum front yard setback shall not be more than 1.0 metre beyond the average of the existing front yard setback of the dwellings on the immediately abutting lots located along the same side of the street and within the same block. The maximum Front Yard Setback applies to only 80% of the Dwelling Width including any attached garage. For the purpose of this regulation, “Dwelling Width” means the width of the front wall or main wall of the dwelling. By-law No. XXXX/XX Page 4 Draft (f) Front Yard Setback (minimum): Despite any other provision in this by-law, for lots within any Established Neighbourhood Precinct Overlay Zone, the minimum front yard setback shall be equal to the shortest existing front yard setback of the dwellings on the immediately abutting lots located along the same side of the street and within the same block. For corner lots, the minimum front yard setback shall be equal to the shortest existing front yard setback of the dwellings on the nearest two lots located along the same side of the street and within the same block. (g) Interior Garage Size (minimum): Each parking space within a private garage shall have a minimum width of 3.0 metres and a minimum depth of 6.0 metres. However, the width may include one interior step and the depth may include two interior steps. (h) Lot Coverage: Despite any other provision in this By-law, for lots within any Established Neighbourhood Precinct Overlay Zone, the following maximum lot coverage provisions shall apply within the applicable Neighbourhood Precinct, as shown on Schedules I and II of this By law: (i) Dunbarton Established Neighbourhood Precinct: a. For lots greater than or equal to 1,000 square metres in area: Maximum 25%; b. For lots less than 1,000 square metres in area: Maximum 33%; (ii) Highbush Established Neighbourhood Precinct: a. For lots greater than or equal to 1,000 square metres in area: Maximum 25%; b. For lots less than 1,000 square metres in area: Maximum 33%; (iii) Liverpool Established Neighbourhood Precinct: Maximum 25%; (iv) Rosebank Established Neighbourhood Precinct: a. For lots greater than or equal to 1,000 square metres in area: Maximum 25%; b. For lots less than 1,000 square metres in area: Maximum 33%; By-law No. XXXX/XX Page 5 Draft (v) Rougemount Established Neighbourhood Precinct: a. For lots greater than or equal to 1,000 square metres in area: Maximum 25%; b. For lots less than 1,000 square metres in area: Maximum 33%; (vi) Woodlands Established Neighbourhood Precinct: a. For lots greater than or equal to 1,000 square metres in area: Maximum 25%; b. For lots less than 1,000 square metres in area: Maximum 33%; (2) Transition Provisions (a) Existing Building Permits: Nothing in this By-law prevents the erection of a building or structure in accordance with a building permit application submitted prior to the date of passing of this By-law, provided the building permit is in accordance with all prior zoning by-laws that affected the lot before this By-law came into effect. (b) Existing Planning Applications: Nothing in this By-law prevents the erection of a building or structure in accordance with any minor variance that has been submitted and deemed complete by the City, or approved or conditionally approved by the relevant approval authority before the passing of this By-law, provided the application complies with all prior zoning by-laws that affected the lot before this By-law came into effect. (c) Lapse of Transition Provisions: (i) Once a permit or approval referred to under Sections (2) (a) or (2) (b) has been granted, all provisions of this By-law shall apply to the subject property. (ii) The provisions of Section (2) shall be deemed repealed five years from the effective date of this By-law. This provision shall not require an amendment to this By-law to take effect. 6. By-law 2520 By-law 2520, as amended, is hereby further amended only to the extent necessary to give effect to the provisions of this By-law as it applies to the areas set out in Schedules I and II, inclusive, attached hereto. Definitions and subject matters not specifically dealt with in this By-law shall be governed by relevant provisions of By-law 2520, as amended. By-law No. XXXX/XX Page 6 Draft 7. Effective Date This By-law shall come into force in accordance with the provisions of the Planning Act. By-law passed this XX day of XXXX, 20XX. Draft ___________________________________ David Ryan, Mayor ___________________________________ Susan Cassel, City Clerk Draft Broadgreen StreetDownlandDrive Hillcrest RoadEyer DriveWest Shore BoulevardCreekview CirclePark Crescent Vicki Drive Vic t or CourtBreezyDriveOklahoma Drive Chipmunk StreetBrianC ourt Sunrise Avenue Carm ello CourtTullo Street Surf Avenue Beach p o int Pr o m e n a d e Petticoat Lane Marksbury RoadVictory DriveHil lvi ewCrescent Abingdon Court Hampton Court Marksbury RoadSandcastleCourt Yeremi StreetLeaside StreetMink StreetStonebridge Lane Cliffview Road R4 R4 R4 RM1 S R4 R4 SD R4 R4 S R4 C17-R R4 R4 R4 R4 R4 R4 R3 R4 R4 R4 Clerk Mayor Schedule I to By-Law Passed This Day of NXXXX/XX ___ ________ 20XX Established Neighbourhood Precinct Overlay Zone Krosno Boulevard Balaton AvenueZator Avenue Bem AvenueGull Crossing Browning Avenue Modlin RoadFairview AvenueDouglas AvenueChapleauDriveAnnland S t r eet Colmar Avenue Tr e l lis C o u r t Brixton L a n e Fron t RoadGrenoble BoulevardFoxglove Avenue Shearer Lane Haller Avenue St MartinsD r i v e Naroch BoulevardMonica Cook Place Commerce Street AntonioStreet HelenC resc e nt Pleasant StreetBayview Street Miriam Road Wharf Street Ilona Park Road KingfisherDri veHewson DriveOld Orchard Avenue Broadview Street R4 R4 R4 RM1 C1 R4-21 RM1 RM1 R4 R4 R4 R4 R4 RM2 R4 R4 RM1 R4 RM1 R4 RM1 R4 R4 RM1 A36 R4 R4R4-11 (H)O3B R4 R4 RM1 RM1 R4 RM1 Clerk Mayor Schedule II to By-Law Passed This Day of NXXXX/XX ___ ________ 20XX Established Neighbourhood Precinct Overlay Zone Appendix V to Report No. PLN 33-21 Recommended Draft Zoning By-law Amendment (3036) for Zoning By-law Amendment Application A 11/20 The Corporation of the City of Pickering Draft By-law No. XXXX/XX Being a by-law to amend Restricted Area (Zoning) By-law 3036, as amended, to implement the Official Plan of the City of Pickering, Region of Durham (A 11/20) Whereas the Corporation of the City of Pickering conducted the Infill and Replacement Housing in Established Neighbourhoods Study to provide direction for the preparation of appropriate planning implementation tools to facilitate a sensitive transition between existing houses and new construction occurring in certain parts of the City’s established neighbourhoods; Whereas a robust and comprehensive consultation and engagement process was undertaken throughout the Infill and Replacement Housing in Established Neighbourhoods Study; Whereas on September 28, 2020, Council endorsed the recommendations of the Infill and Replacement Housing in Established Neighbourhoods Study and adopted Urban Design Guidelines for Infill and Replacement Housing in Established Neighbourhood Precincts; Whereas the Council of the Corporation of the City of Pickering, in accordance with the recommendations of the Infill and Replacement Housing in Established Neighbourhoods Study, adopted an Official Plan amendment adding policies that require new development within an Established Neighbourhood Precinct to complement, and be compatible with the existing character of the neighbourhood, and that enables the implementation of zoning provisions to address matters relating to the impact of the construction of infill and replacement dwellings on the character of the existing neighbourhood; Whereas the Council of the Corporation of the City of Pickering, in accordance with the recommendations of the Infill and Replacement Housing in Established Neighbourhoods Study, initiated a zoning by-law amendment that introduces an “Established Neighbourhood Precinct Overlay Zone” and associated development standards and definitions to regulate Infill and Replacement Dwellings, as defined in the Official Plan, in specific Established Neighbourhood Precincts; Whereas it is appropriate to amend By-law 3036, as amended, to implement the recommendations of the Infill and Replacement Housing in Established Neighbourhoods Study; Now therefore the Council of The Corporation of the City of Pickering hereby enacts as follows: 1. Schedules I, ll, lll, lV and V Schedules I, ll, lll, lV and V, attached hereto with notations and references shown thereon are hereby declared to be part of this By-law. By-law No. XXXX/XX Page 2 Draft 2. Area Restricted The provisions of this By-law shall apply to those lands in the City of Pickering located within an “Established Neighbourhood Precinct Overlay Zone” on Schedules I, ll, lll, lV and V, inclusive, attached hereto. 3. General Provisions No building, structure, land or part thereof shall hereafter be used, occupied, erected, moved or structurally altered except in conformity with the provisions of this By-law. 4. Definitions In this By-law, (1) “Dwelling Depth” means the horizontal distance measured from the minimum Front Yard Setback to the rear wall of a dwelling, excluding any Obstruction of Yards. (2) “Dwelling Height” means the vertical distance between the average grade as measured along the front wall of the dwelling, and in the case of a flat roof, the highest point of the roof surface or parapet wall, or in the case of a mansard roof the deck line, or in the case of a gabled, hip or gambrel roof, the mean height between eaves and ridge. Ornamental fixtures such as a cupola or antenna shall not be included in calculating the height of a dwelling. Any other roof structure, such as to house the mechanical equipment of the dwelling or a penthouse, shall be included in calculating the height of the dwelling. (3) “Front Entrance” means the principal entrance oriented towards the front lot line, providing access to the interior of a dwelling from the exterior and does not include an access provided through an attached private garage. In the case of a corner lot, the principal entrance providing access to the interior of a dwelling from the exterior may be oriented towards the side lot line that is adjacent to the street, or abutting on a reserve on the opposite side of which is a street. (4) “Lot Coverage” means the total horizontal area on the lot of all above grade roofed structures and buildings, measured at the level of the first floor and expressed as a percentage of the lot area, including covered platforms such as covered decks and covered porches, but excluding eaves, belt courses, chimney breasts, sills or cornice projections to a maximum of 0.6 of a metre, and balconies. (5) “Setback” means the shortest horizontal distance between a building and a lot line. By-law No. XXXX/XX Page 3 Draft 5. Provisions (“Established Neighbourhood Precinct Overlay” Zone) (1) Zone Requirements (“Established Neighbourhood Precinct Overlay” Zone) Within any Residential Zone, no person shall use any building, structure or land, nor erect any building or structure within the lands designated “Established Neighbourhood Precinct Overlay Zone” on Schedules I, ll, lll, lV and V, inclusive, attached hereto, except in accordance with the following provisions: (a) Dwelling Depth (maximum): The maximum Dwelling Depth, measured from the minimum front yard setback to the rear wall of a dwelling, shall be as follows: (i) For lots with depths up to and including 40 metres: 17 metres (ii) For lots with depths greater than 40 metres: 20 metres (b) Dwelling Height (maximum): 9.0 metres (c) Driveway Width (maximum): The maximum width of a driveway shall be 6.0 metres. However, for lots where the entrance of a garage or carport is wider than 6.0 metres, the maximum driveway width shall be no greater than the width of the entrance of a garage or carport. (d) Front Entrance (maximum elevation): The maximum elevation of the Front Entrance shall be 1.2 metres above the average grade, which is measured along the front wall of the dwelling, to the top of the platform (covered or uncovered) immediately outside of the Front Entrance. (e) Front Yard Setback (maximum): The maximum front yard setback shall not be more than 1.0 metre beyond the average of the existing front yard setback of the dwellings on the immediately abutting lots located along the same side of the street and within the same block. The maximum Front Yard Setback applies to only 80% of the Dwelling Width including any attached garage. For the purpose of this regulation, “Dwelling Width” means the width of the front wall or main wall of the dwelling. By-law No. XXXX/XX Page 4 Draft (f) Front Yard Setback (minimum): Despite any other provision in this by-law, for lots within any Established Neighbourhood Precinct Overlay Zone, the minimum front yard setback shall be equal to the shortest existing front yard setback of the dwellings on the immediately abutting lots located along the same side of the street and within the same block. For corner lots, the minimum front yard setback shall be equal to the shortest existing front yard setback of the dwellings on the nearest two lots located along the same side of the street and within the same block. (g) Interior Garage Size (minimum): Each parking space within a private garage shall have a minimum width of 3.0 metres and a minimum depth of 6.0 metres. However, the width may include one interior step and the depth may include two interior steps. (h) Lot Coverage: Despite any other provision in this By-law, for lots within any Established Neighbourhood Precinct Overlay Zone, the following maximum lot coverage provisions shall apply within the applicable Neighbourhood Precinct, as shown on Schedules I, ll, lll, lV and V of this By-law: (i) Dunbarton Established Neighbourhood Precinct: a. For lots greater than or equal to 1,000 square metres in area: Maximum 25%; b. For lots less than 1,000 square metres in area: Maximum 33%; (ii) Highbush Established Neighbourhood Precinct: a. For lots greater than or equal to 1,000 square metres in area: Maximum 25%; b. For lots less than 1,000 square metres in area: Maximum 33%; (iii) Liverpool Established Neighbourhood Precinct: Maximum 25%; (iv) Rosebank Established Neighbourhood Precinct: a. For lots greater than or equal to 1,000 square metres in area: Maximum 25%; b. For lots less than 1,000 square metres in area: Maximum 33%; By-law No. XXXX/XX Page 5 Draft (v) Rougemount Established Neighbourhood Precinct: a. For lots greater than or equal to 1,000 square metres in area: Maximum 25%; b. For lots less than 1,000 square metres in area: Maximum 33%; (vi) Woodlands Established Neighbourhood Precinct: a. For lots greater than or equal to 1,000 square metres in area: Maximum 25%; b. For lots less than 1,000 square metres in area: Maximum 33%; (2) Transition Provisions (a) Existing Building Permits: Nothing in this By-law prevents the erection of a building or structure in accordance with a building permit application submitted prior to the date of passing of this By-law, provided the building permit is in accordance with all prior zoning by-laws that affected the lot before this By-law came into effect. (b) Existing Planning Applications: Nothing in this By-law prevents the erection of a building or structure in accordance with any minor variance that has been submitted and deemed complete by the City, or approved or conditionally approved by the relevant approval authority before the passing of this By-law, provided the application complies with all prior zoning by-laws that affected the lot before this By-law came into effect. (c) Lapse of Transition Provisions: (i) Once a permit or approval referred to under Sections (2) (a) or (2) (b) has been granted, all provisions of this By-law shall apply to the subject property. (ii) The provisions of Section (2) shall be deemed repealed five years from the effective date of this By-law. This provision shall not require an amendment to this By-law to take effect. 6. By-law 3036 By-law 3036, as amended, is hereby further amended only to the extent necessary to give effect to the provisions of this By-law as it applies to the areas set out in Schedules I, ll, lll, lV and V, inclusive, attached hereto. Definitions and subject matters not specifically dealt with in this By-law shall be governed by relevant provisions of By-law 3036, as amended. By-law No. XXXX/XX Page 6 Draft 7. Effective Date This By-law shall come into force in accordance with the provisions of the Planning Act. By-law passed this XX day of XXXX, 20XX. Draft ___________________________________ David Ryan, Mayor ___________________________________ Susan Cassel, City Clerk Draft Oakburn StreetAshwood GateAltona RoadLawson StreetPine Grove AvenueValley Gate Littleford Street Hogarth Street WilcroftCourt Forestview DriveFiddlers CourtFawndale RoadGwendolyn StreetWoodview AvenueRougemount Drive Tomlinson Court Brookridge G ate D a le w o odDrive Twyn Rivers DriveSweetbriar Court B r imwoodCourt RiverviewCr e s c ent Richardson Street Hoover DriveStoverCrescentValleyRidgeCrescent Gr anby CourtRo u g e V alle y DriveHowellCrescentWoodview DriveSheppard Avenue R3 R3 R4 R4 R4 R3 R3 R3 R4 R3 R3 R4 R3 R3 R4R4 R4 R4 R1-2 R3R3 R4 R4 R4 R3R4 R4 R3 R4 R1-1 R4 R3 R3 R4 R1-3 Clerk Mayor Schedule I to By-Law Passed This Day of NXXXX/XX ___ ________ 20XX Established Neighbourhood Precinct Overlay Zone Whites RoadSheppard Avenue Barry Drive Rosebank RoadWeyburn SquareEdmund DriveOld Forest RoadDunfair Street Steeple Hill Cattail C o u rtLightfoot PlaceDaylig ht CourtRouge Hill Court Pineview Lane Rainy Day DriveRosebank RoadSundownCrescent Amberwood C rescentHigh bush T ra il GardenviewSquareR3 R3 R4 R4 R4-18 R4 R3 R4 R4 R4 R4 R4 Clerk Mayor Schedule II to By-Law Passed This Day of NXXXX/XX ___ ________ 20XX Established Neighbourhood Precinct Overlay Zone Fairport RoadHighview Road Glenanna R oad AppleviewRoadBonita Avenue Goldenrid ge RoadBowlerDr iv eEastbank RoadShadybrook DrivePebble CourtRidgewood CourtEdgewood Road Kitley A ve n u e Rambleberry AvenueAspen RoadHuntsmillDriveWalnutLaneParksideDriv e New Street Deerbrook DriveDixie RoadRawlingsDriveFalconcrestDriv eSpruce Hill RoadStrouds Lane Crick e t LaneOrionCourt Dun b a rto n R oa dLongbow DriveKatesLane Cobblers Court MaldenCrescentEagleviewDrive BelindaCo u r t Glen EdenCourtHedgerowPlac e EchoPointCourtHeathside CrescentAdaCourt KelvinwayLaneShade Master DriveVoyager Avenue Monteagle L an e Wollaston C ourt Wi n g a rden CrescentC hartwellCourt Welrus Street Una Road FalconwoodWayMillbank Road Taplin Drive Woodruff Cres cen t RathmoreCrescent Storrington StreetSilver Spruce DriveLydia CrescentFoleyetCrescent MeadowviewAvenue Highway 40 1Listowell CrescentStonepath CircleMountcastle C rescent Brooks hir e SquareGloucester Square R4 R3 S3-8 R4-12 R4 R3 R4 R4 C2-2 R3 R3 R3 C.N.R. R3 R3 R4-19 S2 R3 S2 R4-15 R3 R3 R4 S3 R3 R4 R4-8 R4-19 R3 R4 R4 S1 R3 R3 R3 S3 S3-10 R4 R4 R3 R3 R3 S3-10 R4 R3 R3-DN S3-8 R3 R3 R3 R3 S1 R4 S1 S1 R4 S1 R3 Clerk Mayor Schedule III to By-Law Passed This Day of NXXXX/XX ___ ________ 20XX Established Neighbourhood Precinct Overlay Zone Woodview AvenueValleyview DrivePine Grove Avenue Lawson Street Waterford Gate Hogarth Street WilcroftCourtValley Ridge CrescentThicket CrescentForestview DriveButternut C ourtNordane DriveSandcherry CourtTranquil Court Oakburn StreetCastle StreetProhill Street West Lane Westcreek DriveSweetbriar Court Woodview AvenueLancrestStreet Copley Street Secord Street Sandhurst C rescent Mossbro ok SquareRougeForest Crescent Rockwood DriveWhite Pine Crescent Senator Street R4 R4 S4-1 R4 S1-14 S1-15 S1-13 R4 R4 R4 S1-14 A R4 R4 R4 R4 S1-13 R4 R4 R4 S1-13 S1-15 R4 S1-14 Clerk Mayor Schedule IV to By-Law Passed This Day of NXXXX/XX ___ ________ 20XX Established Neighbourhood Precinct Overlay Zone Bowler DriveGlenview Road Bo wle r DriveMemory LaneEverton Street Fieldlight BoulevardRosefield RoadGlendale DriveMulmur C our tLodge RoadPoppy Lane Bicroft CourtD i e fenbaker C o u r tAvonmoreSquare Brands CourtCanborough CrescentThe Esplan a d e S The Esplan a d e NGlengrove RoadFaylee CrescentMalden CrescentAntonSquareBronte SquareR3 R3 R3 R3 R4 R3 R3 R3 R3 Clerk Mayor Schedule V to By-Law Passed This Day of NXXXX/XX ___ ________ 20XX Established Neighbourhood Precinct Overlay Zone Appendix Vl to Report No. PLN 33-21 Recommended Revised Urban Design Guidelines for Infill & Replacement Housing in Established Neighbourhood Precincts, August 2021 Urban Design Guidelines forInfill & Replacement Housing in Established Neighbourhood Precincts Prepared by August 2021 Revised by Council Date TBD Prepared by SGL: August 2020Adopted by Council: September 28, 2020Revised: August 2021 Revisions Adopted by Council: TBD Table of Contents 1 Introduction 5 1.1 Why Were these Urban Design Guidelines Developed? 5 1.2 Where do these Guidelines Apply? 6 1.3 Vision 10 1.4 Objectives & Principles 11 1.5 How to use the document 12 2 Built Form 14 2.1 Dwelling Height and Roof Pitch 15 2.2 Height of Front Entrance 16 2.3 Dwelling Length, Width and Depth 18 3 Streetscape 20 3.1 Side Yard Setback and Separation Distance Between Dwellings 21 3.2 Garage or Carport Placement 22 3.3 Driveway Width 23 4 Neighbourhood Composition 25 4.1 Front Yard Landscaping 25 4.2 Street Trees 26 Appendix A: Urban Design Guideline Checklist A1 - A2Appendix B: Focus Neighbourhoods and Established Neighbourhood Precincts Map B1 - B9 The City’s distinctive landscape, history, location and settlement pattern are valuable assets. Properly nurtured, these assets can set Pickering apart from other municipalities. The City’s unique identity must be fostered and promoted. City of Pickering, Official Plan 1Introduction 1.1 Why Were These Urban Design Guidelines Developed? Throughout several of the City of Pickering’s established neighbourhoods, houses are being replaced with larger houses, existing houses are being renovated and new houses are being built. Faced with these development pressures, the City undertook the Infill and Replacement Housing in Established Neighbourhoods Study (IRHEN Study) to address a few key objectives: 1. To identify the City’s established neighbourhoods, or parts thereof, within the South Pickering Urban Area that may be susceptible to pressure for the development of infill and replacement housing; 2. To identify and evaluate the unique qualities and characteristics of the City’s established neighbourhoods, or parts thereof, and the key issues regarding infill and replacement housing that are of concern to residents; 3. To identify and/or develop tools the City can use, including Design Guidelines, that will allow neighbourhoods, or parts thereof, to evolve while respecting the character of the area; and 4. To provide an opportunity for full and meaningful engagement and consultation with residents, agencies and the development industry through the study process. These Urban Design Guidelines (Guidelines) were developed as part of the recommendations from the IRHEN Study prepared by SGL Planning and Design Inc. The IRHEN Study developed options, including making recommendations for an appropriate policy framework, regulations and/ or tools that may be implemented so that the City has a sensitive way to manage new construction in established residential neighbourhoods. UrbanDesignGuidelines Help to refine the sense of character of a place through Design Principles; Provide detailed design direction to help implement a municipality’s vision of a particular area or neighbourhood; Help implement policies in the official plan and provisions in the zoning by-law; and Are used by staff, developers and the public for evaluation and preparation of development or re-development applications. Urban Design Guidelines City of PickeringEstablishedNeighbourhoodPrecincts 5 The Urban Design Guidelines have been developed to support and enhance the following neighbourhood characteristics: Dwelling Height and Roof Pitch Height of the front entrance Dwelling length, width and depth Side yard setback and separation distance between dwellings Garage or carport placement Driveway width Front yard landscaping Street trees 6 1.2 Where do these Guidelines Apply? Within the South Pickering Urban Area there are fifteen neighbourhoods. Of these fifteen neighbourhoods, the IRHEN Study identified eight Focus Neighbourhoods (Figure 1) where most of the infill and replacement housing has been constructed over the last few years. These guidelines apply to the Established Neighbourhood Precincts within the eight Focus Neighbourhoods as delineated within the IRHEN Study (Figure 2). The detailed delineated boudaries of the Established Neighbourhood Precincts are found in Appendix B. FOCUS NEIGHBOURHOODS Brock RoadWhites RoadAltona RoadHighway 4 0 1 Third Concession Road Finch Avenue Bay Ridges1. Dunbarton2. Highbush3. Liverpool4. Rosebank5. Rougemount6. West Shore7. Woodlands8. 1 23 4 5 6 7 8 Lake Ontario 7 Urban Design Guidelines City of PickeringEstablishedNeighbourhoods Figure 1: City of Pickering Focus Neighbourhoods Established Neighbourhood Precincts These Established Neighbourhood Precincts are areas within a Focus Neighbourhood that have been delineated based on a combination of age of dwellings, existing lot coverage, and where there have been many observed changes related to infill and replacement housing. Lake Ontario Focus Neighbourhoods Established Neighbourhood Precincts Brock RoadWhites RoadAltona RoadHighway 4 0 1 Third Concession Road Finch Avenue 8 Figure 2: Map of Established Neighbourhood Precincts wthin Focus Neighbourhoods These Guidelines Use the Following Definitions: Infill Dwelling Infill Dwelling(s), means the development of one or more dwellings such as single detached, semi- detached or street townhouse dwellings through a consolidation of lots or the severance of a larger lot located on an existing street within an Established Neighbourhood Precinct. Infill Dwelling does not include the development of stacked townhouses, stacked back-to-back townhouses, apartment buildings, or other forms of multi-unit housing resulting in a higher level of density. Replacement Dwelling Replacement Dwelling means the rebuild of a dwelling either through a substantial alteration, or demolition and replacement, and that is located within an Established Neighbourhood Precinct. Note: Existing housing stock will not be affected by these guidelines unless subject to a development application. Urban Design Guidelines City of PickeringEstablishedNeighbourhoodPrecincts 9 1.3 Vision The vision for the City of Pickering’s Established Recognizing that change is occurring within Neighbourhood Precincts within the eight Focus the Established Neighbourhood Precincts, the Neighbourhoods is to support and enhance the Guidelines provide a way to manage new and infill character elements that collectively create a sense development to support the existing character of place, identity and enjoyment.rather than freezing neighbourhoods in time. 10 Figure 3: Images of infill and replacement housing that respects existing character through design elements ranging from height, garage placement, setback, landscaping, roof slope, and tree protection. 1.4 Objectives & Principles Objectives The objectives of the Urban Design Guidelines are informed by the City’s Official Plan Community Design goals and policies and the Official Plan’s Detailed Design Considerations, and support the intent of the IRHEN Study. The Guidelines have been developed to address design goals that include human scale, pedestrian comfort, permeability, context, legibility and natural heritage, as well as detailed design consideration for community image, development and subdivision design. Principles These Urban Design Guidelines intend to provide guidance and serve as an example of key principles and policies supported by the City of Pickering’s Official Plan. These Guidelines are based on the following design principles: Enhance and integrate new built form that 1 is compatible with the characteristics of the Established Neighbourhood Precinct. Encourage architectural diversity that 2 complements the character of the Established Neighbourhood Precinct. 3 Encourage pedestrian friendly neighbourhoods that foster a healthy and inclusive community. Enhance the character, identity and sense 4 of place of the Established Neighbourhood Precinct. Incorporate low impact design opportunities to 5 mitigate the potential increase in stormwater runoff related to an increase in impervious surface and to enhance the ecosystem health. 6 Encourage the greening of streetscapes and private property. Urban Design Guidelines City of PickeringEstablishedNeighbourhoodPrecincts 11 1.5 How to Use the Document Urban Design Guidelines are used to coordinate the various components of built form, streetscape and neighbourhood composition to create an attractive, appealing and functional urban environment. These Guidelines are one of the useful tools identified from the IRHEN Study to help ensure both a high quality public and private realm within the Established Neighbourhood Precincts. Urban Design Guidelines establish baseline standards to guide the development of Infill and Replacement Dwellings, providing for greater design rationale and detail. These Guidelines should be included in the Compendium Document to the Official Plan and are to be used in conjunction with the Official Plan, existing Development Guidelines, zoning by-laws and other planning tools. The Compendium Document of the City’s Official Plan includes Development Guidelines for certain neighbourhoods, or parts of certain neighbourhoods. There are three Development Guidelines that apply in the context of the Established Neighbourhood Precincts that must be read in conjunction with these Guidelines: • Dunbarton Neighbourhood: Dunbarton Neighbourhood Development Guidelines; • Bay Ridges Neighbourhood: Liverpool Road Waterfront Node Development Guidelines; and • Rosebank Neighbourhood: Rosebank Neighbourhood Development Guidelines. Each of these Development Guidelines provides a differing level of detail. The Dunbarton Neighbourhood Development Guidelines contains area specific guidelines within the neighbourhood, addressing matters such as permitted dwelling type, minimum lot frontage, minimum front and side yard setbacks, maximum building height, and various guidelines for the public realm including the provision of sidewalks and cycle paths, and connectivity to natural areas. The Liverpool Road Waterfront Node Development Guidelines address strategies for open space, development standards to implement an effective transportation network, preserving views and vistas, providing for adequate parking areas, and promoting appropriate built form in keeping with the Great Lakes Nautical Village ‘vision’ for the neighbourhood. The Rosebank Neighbourhood Development Guidelines establish guidelines for certain precincts within the neighbourhood, that address limited matters including permitted dwelling types, minimum lot size, and lot frontage. To aid in the application of these Guidelines a checklist is provided at the end of the document (Appendix A) that summarizes the key intentions of the guidelines. Urban Design Guidelines should be read in conjunction with the Development Guidelines, and in the case of a conflict the Urban Design Guidelines take precendence. 12 We shape our buildings; thereafter they shape us. Winston Churchill 14 2Built Form Built Form examines the design elements of building type and architectural form that contribute to the massing and appearance of buildings. The compatibility issues currently existing within the City of Pickering’s Established Neighbourhood Precincts (Figure 4) as they relate to the elements of Built Form result from new housing typically being taller and larger than the original homes on the street. New homes can have a higher elevation of the first floor, greater lot coverage, reduced separation distances between neighbouring dwellings and reduced landscaped open area in the front yards. The overall scale, massing and placement of the new homes can create an obvious contrast when located beside more modestly sized original homes. This contrast can sometimes lead to impacts such as shadowing, overlook, and privacy. This section provides guidelines to help address compatibility issues through these Built Form design elements: • Dwelling height and roof pitch; • Height of front entrance; and • Dwelling length, width and depth.Figure 4: Examples of existing Built Form seen in Pickering’s Established Neighbourhood Precincts. 2.1 Dwelling Height & Roof Pitch Dwelling height can be defined as the overall height of a dwelling, typically measured from the average established grade of the ground. The point of a dwelling to which height is measured varies depending on the type and pitch of roof that exists on a dwelling (Figure 5). Measured atHighest Point Measured atMidpoint Measured atMidpoint Measured atDeckline The following guidelines help to ensure a compatible building height and roof style along a street. 1. The height and roof pitch of a new home or addition should be compatible with the general scale and massing of surrounding houses (Figure 6); and 2. For a proposed new dwelling that is significantly taller than an existing adjacent house, the roof of the proposed new dwelling should be sloped away from the existing adjacent house. Flat Roof Gambrel Roof Gabled or Hip Roof Mansard Roof Figure 5: Examples of how building height is measured by the City of Pickering. Figure 6: Appropriate height transitions between buildings. Urban Design Guidelines City of PickeringEstablishedNeighbourhoodPrecincts 15 Figure 7: Examples showing preferred, maximum, and prohibited front entrance heights. 2.2 Height of Front Entrance The location of front entrances of dwellings along a street is a contributor to the character, comfort and safety of a neighbourhood. The height of the entrance ensures the front door of the dwelling is directly visible and easily accessible from the street. Figure 7 shows the preferred number of front steps for a front entrance. More than 6 steps (1.2 metres)6 steps (1.2 metres)3 Steps (0.6 metres) The following guidelines have been developed to promote compatibility of dwelling scale as perceived from the street. 1. The height of the front entrance of a dwelling should be located at a height that is compatible with the height of front entrances of neighbouring dwellings, and provide for no more than approximately six (6) steps to access the front door (Figure 8); 2. The main entrance to the dwelling should be directly visible from the street; 3. The design and detailing of the main entrance is encouraged to be consistent with the architectural style of the dwelling (Figure 9); Figure 9: Main entrance architecture is in keeping with the style of the dwelling. Figure 8: Front entrance with 6 steps or less. 16 Figure 10: Front entrance should have weather protection. Figure 11: Front entrance design that reduces the visual dominance of the garage. Figure 12: Additional steps may be permitted due to grade changes. 4. Weather protection at the main entrance should be provided through the use of covered porches, porticos, canopies, verandas or recesses (Figure 10); 5. Natural light at the entry is encouraged though the use of sidelights, transoms and door glazing. 6. Enhancements to emphasize the main entry area is encouraged and may include pilasters and masonry surrounds; 7. Stairs accessing the main entrance to the dwelling should be designed as an integral component of the dwelling’s façade; 8. Access routes should be provided for people with disabilities whenever possible; 9. The front entrance design and architectural elements should reduce the visual dominance of the garage and the front driveway (Figure 11); and 10. Subject to site grading conditions, additional sets of steps, separated by a pathway, may be permitted in order to promote a more comfortable pedestrian experience (Figure 12). Urban Design Guidelines City of PickeringEstablishedNeighbourhoodPrecincts 17 2.3 Dwelling Length, Width & Depth Dwelling Length is the distance measured between the front and rear main walls of a dwelling, and Dwelling Width is the distance measured between both side main walls of a dwelling (Figure 13). Dwelling Depth is the measurement of the distance between the minimum Front Yard Setback and the rear of the dwelling, which is a measure of how deep a dwelling protrudes into a lot, irrespective of the actual length of that same dwelling (Figure 14). The following guidelines help guide appropriate Dwelling Depths, Lengths and Widths that are compatible with other dwellings on the same street (Figure 13 & 14): 1. For new dwellings or dwelling additions, Dwelling Length and Width should be in keeping with the rhythm of the street. 2. Dwelling Depth should be generally in keeping with the existing dwellings along a street to avoid privacy and overshadow issues. Figure 13: Example of Dwelling Length, and Width. Figure 14: Example of similar Front and Rear Yard Setbacks, and Dwelling Depths. Front Yard Setback Property Line Dwelling Depth Property L i n e Right of W ay Rear yardSetback DwellingWidth DwellingLength Front Yard Setback SidewalkStreetCurb18 You can’t really say what is beautiful about a place, but the image of the place will remain vividly with you. Tadao Ando 3Streetscape Streetscape examines the relationship of buildings to the street and other buildings, as well as the other defining landscape characteristics of properties within the private realm. The following summarizes the compatibility issues that are currently associated with the key elements of Streetscape in Pickering’s Established Neighbourhood Precincts related to: • Side yard setback and separation distance between dwellings; • Garage or carport placement; • Driveway width; and • Front Yard Landscaping (see Section 4.1 for more details). It is common for larger replacement dwellings to be built much closer to the side property line than the original homes while still complying with the required zone standards. This affects the established consistency of larger separation distances between dwellings. The result changes the pattern of development and creates a sense of crowdedness along the street. The garages and/or carports of original houses are typically sized for one vehicle and are sometimes set back from the front façade and therefore do not dominate the front of the dwelling. New Infill and Replacement Dwellings typically have wider garages that are integral to the house to accommodate two or more vehicles. New Infill and Replacement Dwellings often have wider driveways than those of the original dwellings within an established neighbourhood, which reduce the amount of landscaping on the property and alter the open space character of a lot and streetscape. 20 3.1 Side Yard Setback & Separation Distance Between Dwellings Side Yard Setback refers to the distance between the side property line and the nearest exterior side wall of the dwelling on that property. Separation Distance Between Dwellings refers to the distance between the side wall of one dwelling to the nearest side wall of the adjacent dwelling (Figure 15). The Separation Distance Between Dwellings, whether large or small, has an impact on the perceived sense of open space in a neighbourhood. Typically, in Established Neighbourhood Precincts in Pickering, there is a larger separation distance between the original dwellings in that neighbourhood when compared to newer subdivisions in other parts of the city. A larger Separation Distance Between Dwellings has the effect of reducing the perceived massing of a dwelling and increasing the opportunity for providing landscaped open space. The following guidelines for Side Yard Setback and Separation Distance Between Dwellings have been developed to reinforce the open space patterns within Established Neighbourhood Precincts. 1. Adequate Separation Distance Between Dwellings should be maintained to reinforce open space patterns between dwellings on the same block (Figure 16); and 2. Where needed, greater Side Yard Setbacks should be used to mitigate shadowing associated with greater building mass. Figure 15: Examples of Separation Distance Between Dwellings and Side Yard Setback. Figure 16: Google map aerial of Cliffview Road and Park Crescent showing the Replacement Dwellings (yellow) differs in Side Yard Setback and Separation Distance Between Dwellings as compared to original dwellings (red). Property Line Separation Distance Between Dwellings Side Yard Setback Urban Design Guidelines City of PickeringEstablishedNeighbourhoodPrecincts 21 Figure 17: Examples of garage and carport placement in relation to the main front wall of the dwelling. Figure 19: Examples of multiple projecting garages. Figure 18: Garages recessed behind the front entrance minimize the appearance of garage doors. Flush Garage Recessed Garage 3.2 Garage or Carport Placement The location and placement of a garage or carport has an impact on the streetscape and overall character of a neighbourhood. In Pickering, Established Neighbourhood Precincts have an eclectic character with respect to garage and carport placement. The following garage or carport placement guidelines have been developed to minimize the impact of projecting garages. 1. Garage and parking configurations should minimize the appearance of garage doors from the street (Figure 17); 2. To minimize the massing impacts of projecting garages they should have sloped roofs; 3. Projecting garages are generally discouraged in Established Neighbourhood Precincts where there are a minimum or few pre- existing projecting garages on both sides of the street (Figures 17, 18 and 19); and 4. In Established Neighbourhood Precincts where projecting garages are not part of the neighbourhood character, all new Infill and Replacement Dwellings are encouraged to have the garages either flush with, or recessed behind, the front main wall of a dwelling (Figure 17). 22 Figure 20: The driveway width is no wider than the garage. 3.3 Driveway Width The width of a driveway can have a significant impact on the streetscape of a neighbourhood. New Infill and Replacement Dwellings with wider driveways to accommodate a greater number of vehicles, when compared to prevalent driveway widths, have the effect of reducing the amount of landscaping on a property, removing mature trees, limiting the space for street trees and impacting the character of the street. Driveway widths also have an impact on infiltration into the soil. The following guidelines have been developed to minimize driveway width and help minimize the impact to the streetscape, to support the character of the Established Neighbourhood Precincts. 1. Driveways are to be no wider than the width of the permitted garage (Figure 20); 2. To maximize water infiltration, consideration should be given to the use of permeable pavers and other technologies (Figure 21); and 3. To ensure that there is sufficient space for on-street parking and for planting street trees between driveways within the public right of way, tapering driveway widths to 6 metres is encouraged where appropriate. Figure 21: Example of a permeable paver system appropriate for driveways and pathways. Urban Design Guidelines City of PickeringEstablishedNeighbourhoodPrecincts 23 Cities have the capability of providing something for everybody, only because, and only when, they are created by everybody. Jane Jacobs Figure 23: Sustainable and resilient front yard landscaping. 4Neighbourhood Composition Neighbourhood Composition generally includes elements in the public realm that contribute to neighbourhood character. In the case of the City’s established neighbourhoods, private landscaping in front yards including mature trees, and street trees, contribute to the overall character of the neighbourhoods. In order to help maintain and enhance the character of the public realm, landscaping, preservation of existing trees, and tree planting is encouraged. 4.1 Front Yard Landscaping Front yards provide an opportunity to add to the neighbourhood composition by creating a great streetscape. As well, landscaping and trees play an important role in lowering summer temperatures and providing areas for rainwater to filter into the ground. The following guidelines have been developed to help ensure that front yard landscaping enhances the character of the streetscape: 1. Existing mature trees should be preserved whenever possible (Figure 22). 2. Native tree species should be chosen that are hardy for the location and that are drought and salt tolerant, and disease resistant (Figure 22). 3. Avoid landscaping that completely screens the view of the house from the sidewalk/ street. 4. Use ground cover or other low-growing plants to maintain visibility of the house. 5. Use drought-resistant native plant species to avoid having to continuously water. (Figure 23) 6. Limit paving in the front yard to walkways and small areas at the front door. Figure 22: Preserve mature trees wherever possible. Urban Design Guidelines City of PickeringEstablishedNeighbourhoodPrecincts 25 4.2 Street Trees Planting street trees as part of an infill or replacement project goes a long way to add to the character of the neighbourhood. The following guidelines have been prepared to ensure that street trees are provided as part of the infill or replacement dwelling: 1. Trees on all streets should be a diverse mixture of species to limit the ability for diseases to spread. If a uniform look is desired it can be achieved by focusing on matching the form of trees rather than using the same species (Figure 24). 2. Selection of trees should take into consideration mature tree size, proximity to power lines and setback to existing trees or structures. 3. Wherever possible large canopy shade trees should be planted adjacent to sidewalks to reduce the heat island effect and enhance pedestrian comfort and safety. 4. Adequate space should be provided for trunk expansion. 5. Native tree species should be chosen that are hardy for the location and that are drought and salt tolerant, and disease resistant (Figure 25). 6. Street trees should be spaced at 10 to 12 metres apart or seek to reflect the existing placement pattern of street trees (Figure 26). Figure 24: A mixture of tree species with the same form along a street add to the character and resiliency. Figure 26: Street Trees should be planted 10 to 12 metres apart. Figure 25: Several varieties of Maple Trees are native and provide fall colour. 26 YES NO Comments 1. Is the proposed dwelling height and roof pitch similar/compatible with the surrounding dwellings? (see Section 2.1: Guideline 1) 2. If the proposed new dwelling is significantly taller than an existing adjacent house, does the roof of the proposed new dwelling slope away from the existing adjacent house? (see Section 2.1: Guideline 2) 3. Is the maxiumum elevation of the Front Entrance 1.2 metres, or less, above grade?(see Section 2.2: Guideline 1) 4. Is the main entrance visible from the street? (see Section 2.2: Guideline 2) 5. Are the stairs to the main entrance designed as an integral component of the front façade? (see Section 2.2: Guideline 7) 6. Does the design of the front entrance reduce the visual dominance of the garage and driveway? (see Section 2.2: Guideline 9) 7. Does the proposed dwelling have a similar Dwelling Depth to the adjacent dwellings along the street? (see Section 2.3: Guideline 2) 8. Does the proposed dwelling have a similar Side Yard Setback to the adjacent dwellings along the street? (see Figure 15) Appendix A Urban Design Guideline Checklist City of Pickering Established Neighbourhood Precincts Urban Design Checklist Please note, if you mark “no” below please provide your rational in the adjacent “Comments” section either supporting, or not supporting the proposal. 27 City of PickeringEstablishedNeighbourhoodPrecincts Urban Design Guidelines A 1 A 2 YES NO Comments 9. Has shadow on adjacent dwellings been mitigated with greater Side Yard Setbacks?(see Section 3.1: Guideline 2) 10. Is the garage flush or recessed from the main front wall? (see Section 3.2: Guideline 5) 11. Is the proposed driveway width the same as the permitted garage width?(see Section 3.3: Guideline 1) 12. Does the plan preserve existing trees? (see Section 4.1: Guideline 1) Appendix AUrban Design Checklist Cont’d City of PickeringEstablishedNeighbourhoodPrecincts Urban Design Guidelines City of PickeringEstablishedNeighbourhoodPrecincts Urban Design Guidelines Appendix B Focus Neighbourhoods and Established NeighbourhoodPrecincts Map B 1 Focus Neighbourhoods Established Neighbourhood Precincts Brock RoadWhites RoadAltona RoadHighway 4 0 1 Third Concession Road Finch Avenue 1 23 4 5 6 7 8 FOCUS NEIGHBOURHOODS 1.Bay Ridges Dunbarton2. Highbush3. Liverpool4. Rosebank5. Rougemount6. West Shore7. Woodlands8. Liverpool RoadBayly Street Sandy Beach RoadHighway 401 Bay Ridges Established Neighbourhood Precincts Focus Neighbourhoods Liverpool Road Waterfront Node Lot Coverage 0 - 10% 10 - 20% 20 - 30% 30 - 40% 40 - 50% 50 - 100% Bay Ridges Appendix BFocus Neighbourhoods City of PickeringEstablishedNeighbourhoodPrecincts Urban Design Guidelines B 2 Finch Avenue Strouds Lane Fairport RoadSheppard Avenue Kingston R o a d Highway 4 0 1Spruce Hill RoadDunbarton Established Neighbourhood Precincts Focus Neighbourhoods Kingston Road Corridor Study Area Lot Coverage 0 - 10% 10 - 20% 20 - 30% 30 - 40% 40 - 50% 50 - 100% Dunbarton City of PickeringEstablishedNeighbourhoodPrecincts Urban Design Guidelines B 3 Altona RoadStrouds L a n e Highbush Established Neighbourhood Precincts Focus Neighbourhoods Lot Coverage 0 - 10% 10 - 20% 20 - 30% 30 - 40% 40 - 50% 50 - 100% B 4 Highbush Appendix BFocus Neighbourhoods City of PickeringEstablishedNeighbourhoodPrecincts Urban Design Guidelines Vall ey Farm Road K ingston R o a d Glenanna R o a dFairport RoadDixie RoadFinch Avenue Liverpool RoadGlendale DriveLiverpool Established Neighbourhood Precincts Focus Neighbourhoods Kingston Road Corridor Study Area Lot Coverage 0 - 10% 10 - 20% 20 - 30% 30 - 40% 40 - 50% 50 - 100% B 5 Liverpool City of PickeringEstablishedNeighbourhoodPrecincts Urban Design Guidelines Rosebank RoadToynevale Road RougemountDriveHighway 4 0 1 Rosebank Established Neighbourhood Precincts Focus Neighbourhoods Lot Coverage 0 - 10% 10 - 20% 20 - 30% 30 - 40% 40 - 50% 50 - 100% B 6 Rosebank Appendix BFocus Neighbourhoods City of PickeringEstablishedNeighbourhoodPrecincts Urban Design Guidelines Sheppard Avenue Altona RoadRougemount DriveTwyn Rivers Drive Kingsto n Road High w a y 4 0 1 Rougemount Established Neighbourhood Precincts Focus Neighbourhoods Kingston Road Corridor Study Area Lot Coverage 0 - 10% 10 - 20% 20 - 30% 30 - 40% 40 - 50% 50 - 100% B 7 Rougemount City of PickeringEstablishedNeighbourhoodPrecincts Urban Design Guidelines Whites RoadWest Shore BoulevardHi g h way 4 0 1GraniteCourt B a y ly S t ree t West Shore Established Neighbourhood Precincts Focus Neighbourhoods Lot Coverage 0 - 10% 10 - 20% 20 - 30% 30 - 40% 40 - 50% 50 - 100% B 8 West Shore Appendix BFocus Neighbourhoods City of PickeringEstablishedNeighbourhoodPrecincts Urban Design Guidelines B 9 Woodlands Whites Road Kingsto n R oa d Sheppard Avenue H ig h way 40 1 Rosebank RoadWoodlands Established Neighbourhood Precincts Focus Neighbourhoods Kingston Road Corridor Study Area Lot Coverage 0 - 10% 10 - 20% 20 - 30% 30 - 40% 40 - 50% 50 - 100% City of PickeringEstablishedNeighbourhoodPrecincts Urban Design Guidelines OPA 20-006/P and A 11/20: Infill Housing January 4, 2021 Statutory Public Meeting Summary of Comments and Staff Responses Page 1 of 35 Item Number Key Comments/Concerns Staff Response Prepared for June 24, 2021 Open House 1.Provincial PolicyStatement and A Placeto Grow Commented that the proposal does not align with Provincial Policy outlined in A Place to Grow, Growth Plan for the Greater Golden Horseshoe. Specifically that: 1.the subject communities are currentlyincomplete and in transition and thatdevelopment should be allowed tocontinue in accordance with existing by-laws (complete communities). 2.the restrictions being proposed will hurtthe economy by discouraging smallscale development and in particulardecrease property tax revenues and development fees (thriving economy). 3.the proposed By-Law and Official Planamendments are not socially equitablesince they apply to a property relativeto its surrounding areas rather than a set standard (social equity). Cities are constantly evolving and transforming. By the very nature of land use policies, permissions and restrictions, there will be inequities from one area to another. The planning tools granted to municipalities, such as official plan and zoning by-law documents, enable growth to be managed in scale and guided to appropriate locations. City staff have reviewed the proposal against the Provincial Policy Statement, 2020 (PPS) and A Place to Grow, Growth Plan for the Greater Golden Horseshoe, 2019 (A Place to Grow) (see PLN 01-21, subsections 7.1 and 7.2). Among other policies, the PPS establishes that healthy, livable and safe communities are sustained by promoting efficient development and land use patterns over the long-term (PPS 1.1.1 a), accommodating an appropriate range and mix of residential and other uses to meet long-term needs (PPS 1.1.1 b) and promoting cost-effective development patterns and standards to minimize land consumption and servicing costs (PPS 1.1.1 e). In addition, the PPS requires that planning authorities take into account existing building stock or areas when identifying appropriate locations to accommodate the supply and range of housing options through intensification and redevelopment (PPS 1.1.3.3). The PPS also promotes appropriate development standards that facilitate redevelopment while avoiding or mitigating risks to public health and safety (PPS 1.1.3.4) and directing the development of new housing towards locations where appropriate levels of infrastructure and public service facilities are or will be available to support current and projected needs (PPS 1.4.3 c). Attachment #1 to Report #PLN 33-21 OPA 20-006/P and A 11/20: Infill Housing January 4, 2021 Statutory Public Meeting Summary of Comments and Staff Responses Page 2 of 35 Item Number Key Comments/Concerns Staff Response Prepared for June 24, 2021 Open House A Place to Grow builds on the PPS and establishes a unique land use planning framework for the Greater Golden Horseshoe (GGH) that supports the achievement of complete communities, a thriving economy, a clean and healthy environment, and social equity. In particular, forecasted growth to the horizon of A Place to Grow is to be allocated based on, among other things, directing the vast majority of growth to settlement areas that have a delineated built boundary (policy 2.2.1.2 a) i)) and that intensification will be encouraged throughout the delineated built-up area (policy 2.2.2.3 c)) while considering the range and mix of housing options and densities of the existing housing stock (policy 2.2.6.2 c)). The proposed amendments enable small scale development/redevelopment and growth of the property tax base by acknowledging and recognizing current market demands and allowing for an increase in size and massing of new construction while respecting the size and massing of existing homes. The proposed amendments seek to manage new construction of dwellings within existing residential areas that occur through gentle intensification of established neighbourhood precincts. As such, the proposed Official Plan and Zoning By-law Amendments are consistent with the PPS and A Place to Grow. 2. Official Plan Policies Commented that proposed Official Plan Amendment (Sections 1 (f) (ii), (iv) and (vii)) refer to reinforcing the side and front yard setbacks that currently exist between houses. However, due to new development that has occurred in these areas, this will only create further inconsistencies in the streetscape. The City’s Official Plan policies lay the foundation for building an evolving, healthy, unique and connected community. Proposed policies in Item 1 (revised policy 3.9 (f)) enable the flexibility for new construction of houses to meet the current market demands for size while respecting their compatibility with existing houses and the neighbourhood streetscape specifically through OPA 20-006/P and A 11/20: Infill Housing January 4, 2021 Statutory Public Meeting Summary of Comments and Staff Responses Page 3 of 35 Item Number Key Comments/Concerns Staff Response Prepared for June 24, 2021 Open House consideration for matters such as side yard setbacks and separation distances between houses, front yard setbacks, and the preservation of existing trees (proposed policies 3.9 (f) (ii), (iv), and (vii)). 3. Neighbourhood Character Commented in support of the City's initiative to preserve the unique character of Pickering's early neighbourhoods. Commented in favour of the recommendations of the Infill Study. Commented that the 'character' of neighbourhoods is changing with the times as it should. Commented that they like their neighbourhood and the fact that all the houses are different is a delightful benefit and would prefer to not aim for uniformity. Commented that it appears that the proposal intends to ensure that the style of homes in specific neighbourhoods remains static and freezes development. Commented that how homes were used 40 to 60 years ago differs from how homes are used today and that the Study should not focus too much on the past. Commented that they would like to see an approach that respects the history, environmental needs, and some of the characteristics of what exists. The Infill and Replacement Housing in Established Neighbourhoods Study (the Study) was initiated as a result of concerns expressed by residents that new homes being built in their neighbourhoods were not compatible with the existing character of their neighbourhoods. In addition, there was no public consultation prior to the construction of the new homes since these homes were meeting all the existing zoning requirements. In some cases, there was a significant difference in certain characteristics of the newly built houses and the existing houses. These significant differences related to such things as height, lot coverage and setbacks, and impacted the compatibility between adjacent houses and the general character of the streetscape. Through a robust and extensive study of the key elements of neighbourhood character (based on the three themes of Built Form, Streetscape and Neighbourhood Composition), the Study concluded with recommendations that are meant to enable the flexibility for new construction to meet the market demands for house size, while continuing to allow for flexibility in terms of architectural style and simultaneously addressing the compatibility of scale and massing to adjacent houses and the character of the streetscape. The Council endorsed recommendations of the Study, and the proposed implementing official plan policies and zoning by-law amendments, do not limit new construction to what exists in the neighbourhood, but rather, enables new OPA 20-006/P and A 11/20: Infill Housing January 4, 2021 Statutory Public Meeting Summary of Comments and Staff Responses Page 4 of 35 Item Number Key Comments/Concerns Staff Response Prepared for June 24, 2021 Open House Commented that the character of neighbourhoods evolve over time based on societal needs and the wishes of people to better suit current lifestyles. Commented that the proposal recommends subjective criteria related to building size, design features and style that is relative to what already exists on neighbouring properties. construction to be larger than original dwellings, while being more compatible in terms of scale and massing with adjacent dwellings and the streetscape. 4. Streetscape Commented that the proposal: • would "freeze in time" this precinct and halt the building of dream homes; • is trying to preserve a 100 year old notion of Pickering as cottage country; • does not recognize that the neighbourhoods have already transitioned in character; • wants to protect bungalows and single storey homes Commented that the proposal will assist in avoiding massive homes on postage sized lots and maintaining pleasant streetscapes in existing neighbourhoods. The proposed amendments enable the flexibility for new construction to meet the market demands for house size, while continuing to allow for flexibility in terms of style and simultaneously addressing the compatibility of scale and massing to adjacent houses and the character of the streetscape. The amendments do not limit new construction to what exists in the neighbourhood, but rather, enables new construction to be larger than original dwellings, while at the same time as being compatible with adjacent dwellings and the streetscape. Questioned why existing housing that is being replaced is being used as the standard and scale for new development. Neighbourhoods are transitioning from small 1940-1950 dwellings to new larger The proposed provisions for minimum and maximum Front Yard Setback allows for the flexibility of 1 metre based on consideration of the neighbouring condition whether it’s a recent build or an original dwelling. OPA 20-006/P and A 11/20: Infill Housing January 4, 2021 Statutory Public Meeting Summary of Comments and Staff Responses Page 5 of 35 Item Number Key Comments/Concerns Staff Response Prepared for June 24, 2021 Open House family housing, which is a natural evolution that occurs when older buildings have reached their life expectancy. 5. Established Neighbourhood Precinct Boundaries Commented that there needs to be clarity on how streets were included, or excluded, from the precinct maps. Commented that precincts seem to have been arbitrarily selected. Questioned how the boundaries of the precincts changed from Phase 1 of the Study to Phase 3. Commented that there are few remaining homes that would be eligible for infill or replacement homes. Requested that the area along West Shore Blvd. south from Sunrise Avenue be removed from the West Shore Established Neighbourhood Precinct. Commented that Dunn Crescent should not be excluded from the Rosebank Established Neighbourhood Precinct, and that removing certain streets from the Established Neighbourhood Precincts is defeating the purpose of Infill Study initiated two years ago. Requested that all of the West Shore Neighbourhood south of Bayly Street be included in the precinct. The proposed Established Neighbourhood Precincts and their associated boundaries were determined based on a combination of age of dwellings, existing lot coverage, areas within neighbourhoods with comparatively larger lots, and the prevalence of new construction. Proposed precinct boundaries were first presented to the public in Phase 2 of the Infill Study and have since been refined through this implementation process (OPA 20-006, A 11/20). Specifically: Village East Neighbourhood: The area along Guild Road and Royal Road in the Village East Neighbourhood shown as a proposed Established Neighbourhood Precinct in the SGL Report, is designated as an Urban Residential Area, Medium Density Area in the City’s Official Plan. The provisions for infill and replacement housing are not intended to apply to areas of the City that are designated Medium Density, which have, or are intended to have, minimum and maximum net residential densities of over 30 and up to and including 80 dwellings per net hectare. As such, the originally proposed Established Neighbourhood Precinct in the Village East Neighbourhood has been removed. Rosebank Neighbourhood: The area south of Gillmoss Road and to the northeast of Dunn Crescent, is a recently approved plan of subdivision, does not fulfill the requirements of the criteria, and therefore has been removed from the proposed precinct. OPA 20-006/P and A 11/20: Infill Housing January 4, 2021 Statutory Public Meeting Summary of Comments and Staff Responses Page 6 of 35 Item Number Key Comments/Concerns Staff Response Prepared for June 24, 2021 Open House Rougemount Neighbourhood: Properties on the north side of Twyn Rivers Drive from east of Woodview Avenue to the west side of Altona Road have been added to the proposed precinct because they meet the established criteria. Properties fronting onto Fiddler’s Court, as well as 1415 Altona Road have been removed from the proposed precinct in accordance with the established criteria. Bay Ridges Neighbourhood: The area south of Browning Avenue, west of Front Road, north of Waterpoint Street, and east of Frenchman’s Bay is designated as an Urban Residential Area, Medium Density Area in the City’s Official Plan. The provisions for infill and replacement housing are not intended to apply to areas of the City that are designated Medium Density and therefore this area has been removed from the proposed precinct. Monica Cook Place, Luna Court, Gull Crossing, a series of properties on the east side of Liverpool Road that back onto Gull Crossing, the City park on the north side of Commerce Street, as well as the common element condominium on the north side of Old Orchard Avenue (1290 Old Orchard Avenue), have been removed from the proposed precinct since they do not fulfill the requirements of the criteria. Dunbarton Neighbourhood: Several properties, including the following, have been removed from the proposed precinct since they do not meet the requirements of the criteria (e.g. new subdivision development, recent Council approval, stable area): • Properties north of Finch Avenue in the Dunbarton Neighbourhood (Darwin Drive, Regal Circle, Erin Gate Blvd.); • Properties on the east side of Fairport Road south of Finch Avenue to north of Bonita Avenue; and OPA 20-006/P and A 11/20: Infill Housing January 4, 2021 Statutory Public Meeting Summary of Comments and Staff Responses Page 7 of 35 Item Number Key Comments/Concerns Staff Response Prepared for June 24, 2021 Open House • Certain properties along Fairport Road, Shademaster Drive, Voyager Ave, Bonita Ave, Grayabbey Crt, Helm Street, Wingarden Crescent, Goldenridge Road, Rushton Road, Welrus Street. In addition, lands associated with 1950 and 1952 Fairport Road were the subject of recent development applications (File numbers SP-2019-03, CP-2019-04, and A 13/19) that resulted in a rezoning, draft approved plan of subdivision and draft approved plan of condominium. As such, these lands do not meet the criteria and have been removed from the proposed precinct. Liverpool Neighbourhood: Properties fronting onto Valley Farm Road south of Feildlight Blvd. are designated as Urban Residential Area, Medium Density Area in the City’s Official Plan. The provisions for infill and replacement housing are not intended to apply to areas of the City that are designated Medium Density and therefore these properties have been removed from the precinct. Neighbourhood Boundaries: Minor corrections were made to the mapping to accurately reflect the existing Neighbourhood boundaries. 6. Lot Coverage Commented that Lot Coverage should be reconsidered. Commented that original homes in the area were built in the 1950s, are too small for today’s families, and that more room is needed in homes for people working from home, kids attending school longer and living at home longer, multi-generations living in homes because of the increased cost of owning homes, and having to care The proposed Lot Coverage is a reduction from the current maximum of 33% to between 25% and 30% for the Established Neighbourhood Precincts as shown below: (i) Dunbarton Neighbourhood Precinct: Maximum 25%. (ii) Highbush Neighbourhood Precinct: Maximum 25%. (iii) Liverpool Neighbourhood Precincts: Maximum 30%. (iv) Rosebank Neighbourhood Precincts: Maximum 30%. (v) Rougemount Neighbourhood Precincts: Maximum 30% (vi) West Shore Neighbourhood Precinct: Maximum 30%. (vii) Woodlands Neighbourhood Precinct: Maximum 25%. OPA 20-006/P and A 11/20: Infill Housing January 4, 2021 Statutory Public Meeting Summary of Comments and Staff Responses Page 8 of 35 Item Number Key Comments/Concerns Staff Response Prepared for June 24, 2021 Open House for elderly parents. Lot Coverage of 33% should be maintained. Commented that, although it may be a worthy goal to have large multi- generational families under one roof, one of the lessons from COVID is that many people have become sick and died due to this model. There should be an awareness that the COVID inspired claims on greater lot coverage and air rights, may not be as well thought out as they were impassioned. Commented that proposed Lot Coverage of 25%-30% does not make sense in today’s world. Lot Coverage of 40 to 45% seems a more reasonable balance in providing flexibility while keeping appropriate levels of green space. Commented that reducing the proposed Lot Coverage will reduce the value of the property. Commented that the proposed amendments are too restrictive and will not allow for current and common alterations to a home. For example: a reduced lot coverage will not permit a double driveway resulting in an unappealing property for resale. Questioned the rational for reducing lot coverage when it appears that there are few remaining undeveloped properties The maximum Lot Coverage for the Bay Ridges Established Neighbourhood Precint is proposed to remain at 33%. The proposed Lot Coverage regulations are based on research performed through the Infill Study on existing lot coverages within each Established Neighbourhood Precinct, including original dwellings as well as infill and replacement dwellings. In addition, previous Committee of Adjustment decisions were reviewed and the data demonstrated that few requests were made to increase Lot Coverage beyond the permitted maximum of 33%. With the exception of the proposed Bay Ridges Established Neighbourhood Precinct, existing Lot Coverages in the proposed Established Neighbourhood Precincts are predominantly under 30% and in many cases below 20%. In addition, staff reviewed approved Building Permit data for new construction of detached dwellings over the last five years within the proposed Established Neighbourhoods, which showed that many of these new dwellings would comply with the proposed Lot Coverage. The proposed definition of Lot Coverage is as follows: “Lot Coverage” means the total horizontal area of that part of the lot covered by all roofed structures and buildings above grade, including covered platforms (such as covered decks and covered porches) but excluding eaves, belt courses, chimney breasts, sills or cornices projections to a maximum of 0.6 metres and balconies. The proposal does not alter the existing method of calculating lot coverage. The proposed definition of OPA 20-006/P and A 11/20: Infill Housing January 4, 2021 Statutory Public Meeting Summary of Comments and Staff Responses Page 9 of 35 Item Number Key Comments/Concerns Staff Response Prepared for June 24, 2021 Open House which will now be surrounded by lots with higher lot coverages. Commented that the introduction of limited building depth, increased Side Yard Setbacks adjacent to a rear yard for Infill Dwellings in the identified precincts, would result in a lot coverage lower than the proposed reduced lot coverage. Commented that existing lot coverage and setbacks equitably addresses the potential size of house in relation to the size of each residential property. Commented that a Lot Coverage of 40% should be considered for the Woodlands Established Neighbourhood Precinct. Lot Coverage clarifies exclusions to the calculation such as eaves, belt courses, chimney breasts, sills or cornices projections to a maximum of 0.6 metres and balconies. 7. Size of Dwelling Commented that new larger homes provide the space and amenities needed for today's families including home offices for parents working remotely from home and accommodations for senior family members. Commented that the way the world works and lives has changed due to COVID. As an example, due to the shift to working from home, there is a need for space for home offices. Commented that it’s unrealistic to expect to run a corporation, school, and retirement and end of life care facility from a home and to increase the size of a dwelling to accommodate all these functions. There is no proposed by-law regulation that specifically regulates the maximum size or square footage of a dwelling. Also, there are currently no provisions within the City’s zoning by-laws that regulate the maximum gross floor area, or square footage, of a detached, semi-detached, or townhouse dwelling. Some of the comments received through the Infill Study engagement suggested that the size of dwellings should be restricted to a maximum size. For example, a suggestion was made that a replacement dwelling should be no larger than an additional 1,000 square feet of the existing dwelling on a property. The genesis of the Infill Study related to the size and mass of infill and replacement dwellings. Phases 1 and 2 of the Infill Study focused on gaining an understanding the key OPA 20-006/P and A 11/20: Infill Housing January 4, 2021 Statutory Public Meeting Summary of Comments and Staff Responses Page 10 of 35 Item Number Key Comments/Concerns Staff Response Prepared for June 24, 2021 Open House Commented that introducing restrictions on home sizes would be detrimental to the sale price and equity of the houses. elements that contribute to the character of neighbourhoods and exploring options to address and mitigate the impacts associated with development perceived to be incompatible. With respect to larger dwellings, impacts associated with shadow, privacy, and overlook onto neighbouring properties, were identified. While a dwelling may be perceived to be “large” on a smaller lot, that same dwelling located on a larger lot may be perceived as “fitting in” with the scale and massing of other dwellings in the neighbourhood. Taking this into consideration, the Infill Study explored options to address the size, and the perception of the size of a dwelling on a lot, based on the elements that contribute to defining the mass of the dwelling. These elements include: • dwelling height; • dwelling depth; • height of the front entrance; • garage width; and • yard setbacks and separation distance between dwellings. Although the proposal does not specifically limit the gross floor area of a dwelling, the proposal seeks to regulate the: • dwelling height; • dwelling depth; • height of the front entrance; and • front yard setback. To address the overall scale and massing of an infill or replacement dwelling. All of these regulations taken together can have an impact on a proposed new infill or replacement dwelling. OPA 20-006/P and A 11/20: Infill Housing January 4, 2021 Statutory Public Meeting Summary of Comments and Staff Responses Page 11 of 35 Item Number Key Comments/Concerns Staff Response Prepared for June 24, 2021 Open House 8. Dwelling Depth Commented that they may not be able to build their dream home based on the proposed provisions for setbacks and dwelling depth. Commented that prescribing building depths on ranges of lot depth discriminates according to the depth of the lot. For example, the property owner with the deepest lot is more adversely affected with respect to building footprint than the property owner of the shallowest property in the range. The proposed maximum Dwelling Depth aims to strike a balance between recognizing existing dwelling depths while also allowing for flexibility for the construction of new infill and replacement dwellings based on the overall depth of a lot. The Infill Study (Phase 2 Report) noted that replacement dwellings and infill dwellings are typically larger in mass than original homes within the established neighbourhoods, and this increase in mass can translate to dwellings that are wider and longer. Further, it stated that: “New, wider and longer dwellings located adjacent to original dwellings in established neighbourhoods can lead to compatibility issues related to the overall scale of dwellings, including privacy, overlook and shadowing issues.” The Infill Study identified that although, on a broad scale, the City’s zoning by-laws do not regulate the width or length of dwellings, there are some area-specific zones where dwelling length is regulated. The Infill Study found that the dwelling length of original bungalows range, on average, from approximately 7 to 10 metres. These homes are relatively smaller in dwelling length compared to many other homes in established neighbourhoods, both original and new, which range on average between approximately 12 and 19 metres in length. There are also many homes that exceed 20 metres in dwelling length. The Phase 2 Report concluded that regulating the maximum depth of a dwelling would control the maximum distance that the rear wall of a dwelling could be located in relation to the front yard setback, and that this will help to ensure that the siting and placement of new dwellings is compatible with existing dwellings and mitigate OPA 20-006/P and A 11/20: Infill Housing January 4, 2021 Statutory Public Meeting Summary of Comments and Staff Responses Page 12 of 35 Item Number Key Comments/Concerns Staff Response Prepared for June 24, 2021 Open House compatibility issues related to shadowing, overlook and privacy. The Infill Study recommended a new performance standard for maximum Dwelling Depth based on the overall depth of a lot. The proposed maximum Dwelling Depths are based on observations, within the proposed Established Neighbourhood Precincts. Within these areas, it has been observed that new dwellings typically have rear walls that extend further into the rear yard of properties than original dwellings, with ranging depths. Recognizing that original dwellings tend to have a shorter dwelling depth than newer dwellings, it is expected that there will continue to be variations in the depth of dwellings within a block. However, by limiting the Dwelling Depth, the goal is that the rear walls of new dwellings (or additions to existing dwellings) do not project too far beyond those of the adjacent dwellings, in order to mitigate potential impacts related to shadowing, privacy and overlook on adjacent rear yards. The proposed amendment includes a definition for Dwelling Depth as follows: “Dwelling Depth” means the horizontal distance measured from the minimum front yard setback to the rear wall of a dwelling, excluding any Obstruction of Yards. “Obstruction of Yards” is defined in parent zoning by-laws (2511, 2520 and 3036) as follows: “Obstruction of Yards” No person shall obstruct in any manner whatsoever any front yard, side yard or rear yard required to be provided by this By-law, but this provision shall not apply to: OPA 20-006/P and A 11/20: Infill Housing January 4, 2021 Statutory Public Meeting Summary of Comments and Staff Responses Page 13 of 35 Item Number Key Comments/Concerns Staff Response Prepared for June 24, 2021 Open House (a) main eaves, belt courses, chimney breasts, sills or cornices not projecting more than 0.5 of a metre into required yard; (b) uncovered steps or platforms not exceeding 1.0 metre in height above grade and not projecting more than 1.5 metres into any required front yard, not 1.0 metre into any required side yard; (c) awnings, clothes poles, recreational equipment, garden trellises, or similar accessories; (d) fire escapes projecting not more than l.5 metres into the side yard or rear yard; (e) fences in a side or rear yard; (f) hedges or ornamental fences of open construction not exceeding 1.0 metres in height in a front yard; and (g) accessory uses permitted by this By-law. The proposed provision for Dwelling Depth is as follows: Dwelling Depth (maximum): The maximum Dwelling Depth, measured from the minimum front yard setback to the rear wall of a dwelling, shall be as follows: (i) For lots with depths up to 40 metres: 17 metres (ii) For lots with depths greater than 40 metres: 20 metres The Infill Study (Phase 2 Report) noted that these maximum Dwelling Depths are consistent with observed characteristics within established neighbourhoods, and are not anticipated to generate any compliance issues with original dwellings within neighbourhoods. OPA 20-006/P and A 11/20: Infill Housing January 4, 2021 Statutory Public Meeting Summary of Comments and Staff Responses Page 14 of 35 Item Number Key Comments/Concerns Staff Response Prepared for June 24, 2021 Open House 9. Side Yard Setback Adjacent to a Rear Yard for Infill Dwelling Commented that Side Yard Setbacks from 1.5 to 4.5 should be reconsidered. Concerned that the restrictions being proposed with respect to Side Yard Setback for Infill Dwelling to existing infill and replacement lots will significantly impact the buildable area of these existing lots that were created based on the existing zoning by-law side yard setback of 1.5 metres. Commented that the proposed Side Yard Setbacks for Infill Dwelling should be taken into account when approving the width of any new lot, and not applied to existing lots that were created based on the current allowable side yard setbacks and minimum lot widths. An amendment to the draft by-law should be included to increase the minimum lot widths by 3.0 metres for newly created lots where the side yard abuts an existing rear yard and exclude the application of the 4.5 metres side yard setback for existing lots. The proposed zoning regulation for Side Yard Setback adjacent to a rear yard for Infill Dwelling has been removed. The Draft Zoning By-law proposed a minimum Side Yard Setback for an Infill Dwelling. The regulation stipulated that where the side lot line of a newly created lot for any Infill Dwelling abuts the rear lot line of an existing lot of record, the minimum side yard setback to the side lot line abutting the rear lot line of an existing lot of record shall be 4.5 metres. Upon further examination, staff have established that there are various examples of existing conditions within the Established Neighbourhood Precincts where a lot may be flanked on one or both sides by a rear lot. The proposed zoning regulation, in conjunction with the size of the subject lots in these existing situations, would prohibit reasonable development of the property, and therefore the proposed zoning regulation has been removed. 10. Side Yard Setback Commented that regulations should prevent the roof of a new house from overlapping an existing house (as it appears in the photo below). Concerned that Side Yard Setback is not specifically defined in the proposed by-law. Side Yard Setback refers to the distance between the side property line and the nearest exterior side wall of the dwelling on that property. “Separation distance between dwellings” refers to the distance between the side wall of one dwelling to the nearest side wall of the adjacent dwelling. OPA 20-006/P and A 11/20: Infill Housing January 4, 2021 Statutory Public Meeting Summary of Comments and Staff Responses Page 15 of 35 Item Number Key Comments/Concerns Staff Response Prepared for June 24, 2021 Open House The separation distance between dwellings, whether large or small, has an impact on the perceived sense of open space in a neighbourhood. Typically, in the proposed Established Neighbourhood Precincts, there is a larger separation distance between the original dwellings as compared to newer subdivisions in other parts of the City. This larger separation distance between dwellings has the effect of reducing the perceived massing of a dwelling and increasing the opportunity for providing landscaped open space. The separation distance between dwellings is closely related to other elements of neighbourhood character, including Lot Coverage and Side Yard Setback. The Infill Study concluded that adding a policy in the City’s Official Plan that speaks to infill and replacement dwellings reinforcing the established pattern of existing side yard setbacks and separation distances between dwellings would appropriately address potential compatibility issues. The Infill Study did not recommend any changes to the City’s by-laws on this matter. The proposed official plan amendment addresses reinforcing the established pattern of existing side yard setbacks and separation distances between dwellings asobserved from the street, and reinforcing the established front yard setbacks on the street (proposed official plan policy 3.9 (f) (ii) and (iv)). The proposed zoning by-law amendment does not propose any changes to the existing requirements for Side Yard Setbacks. 11. Lot Frontage and Lot Area Concerned that the lot frontage, and lot area is being reduced. The proposal does not alter the existing zoning by-law provisions for Lot Frontage or Lot Area. OPA 20-006/P and A 11/20: Infill Housing January 4, 2021 Statutory Public Meeting Summary of Comments and Staff Responses Page 16 of 35 Item Number Key Comments/Concerns Staff Response Prepared for June 24, 2021 Open House The Planning Options Report, December 2019 (the Phase 2 Report), stated that typically, Lot Frontages on lots within established neighbourhoods are fairly consistent. The introduction of infill and replacement housing into an established neighbourhood generally results in no change to the Lot Frontage and the Lot Area. However, it is possible that a severance or subdivision of land could result in smaller lots than what exist in the immediate neighbourhood. This situation may alter the rhythm and pattern of built form within an established neighbourhood, and can impact the look and feel of a neighbourhood which may result in compatibility issues. Following a review of the City’s official plan, zoning by-laws, and development guidelines, the Study determined that although the existing by-laws are sufficient with respect to Lot Frontages, it is appropriate to add policy to the City’s official plan to direct that the creation of new lots associated with infill housing should reinforce the established pattern of existing lot widths and lot coverage in the Established Neighbourhood Precincts. 12. Front Yard Setback Concerned that Front Yard Setback is not specifically defined in the proposed bylaw and that Front Yard Setback is based on the adjacent properties and not a set standard. The Draft Zoning By-law proposes new maximum and minimum Front Yard Setbacks, as well as a definition for “Setback”, as follows: Item 5.1 (e) Front Yard Setback (maximum): The maximum front yard setback shall not exceed the average of the existing front yard setback of the dwellings on the immediately abutting lots located along the same side of the street and within the same block by more than 1.0 metre. The maximum Front Yard Setback applies to only 80% of the Dwelling Width including any attached garage. OPA 20-006/P and A 11/20: Infill Housing January 4, 2021 Statutory Public Meeting Summary of Comments and Staff Responses Page 17 of 35 Item Number Key Comments/Concerns Staff Response Prepared for June 24, 2021 Open House Item 5.1 (f) Front Yard Setback (minimum): Despite any other provision in this by-law, for lots within any Established Neighbourhood Precinct Overlay Zone, the minimum front yard setback shall be equal to the smallest existing front yard setback of the dwellings on the immediately abutting lots located along the same side of the street and within the same block. For corner lots, the minimum front yard setback shall be equal to the smallest existing front yard setback of the dwellings on the nearest two lots located along the same side of the street and within the same block. Item 4.8 “Setback” means the shortest distance between a building and a lot line. In calculating the setback the horizontal distance from the respective lot line shall be used. The intent of the new performance standards for minimum and maximum front yard setbacks is to reinforce the open space characteristics of the neighbourhood, while at the same time allowing for flexibility of a range of 1 metre. This assists In avoiding a monotonous “wall” of front facades along the street which can add to the diversity of the streetscape. Parent By-laws (2511, 2520, 3036) define “yards” (side, front rear) and not “setbacks”. Current practice is to use the term “setback” and therefore a definition is provided in the proposed zoning by-law. 13. Dwelling Height Comments were received both in support and opposition to the proposed Dwelling Height of 9 metres. The Infill Study determined that there is a range of dwelling heights within the Established Neighbourhoods, and that the newer builds are generally taller than the original homes owing to a combination of factors including: taller ceiling heights on all floors including the basement, as well OPA 20-006/P and A 11/20: Infill Housing January 4, 2021 Statutory Public Meeting Summary of Comments and Staff Responses Page 18 of 35 Item Number Key Comments/Concerns Staff Response Prepared for June 24, 2021 Open House A comment in opposition suggested that a 9 metre height limit would result in limiting the ability to create ceiling heights of between 9 and 12 feet. The comment suggested that eight feet is no longer the standard ceiling height and that 9-12 foot ceilings are very common in new houses. A comment suggested that the 9 metre height limit is not required along Spruce Hill Rd, since the new builds along that street are large custom homes with trees, landscaping and appropriate space between homes. as steeper roof pitches. The Infill Study also determined that the majority of new builds in the Established Neighbourhoods had similar roof styles to that of the original homes: gable roofs. The difference being that the newer homes had steeper roof pitches. Research previously undertaken by staff, and reported in PLN 06-18 in support of By-law 7610/18 (Height By-law), indicated that a height of 9 metres is sufficient to accommodate the development of a two-storey home. Staff have confirmed that a two storey home with a 12 foot high main floor ceiling can be accommodated within a Dwelling Height limit of 9 metres. The proposed definition of Dwelling Height is as follows: Item 4.2 “Dwelling Height” means the vertical distance between the average grade as measured along the front wall of the dwelling, and in the case of a flat roof, the highest point of the roof surface or parapet wall, or in the case of a mansard roof the deck line, or in the case of a gabled, hip or gambrel roof, the mean height between eaves and ridge. A cupola, antenna, or other roof structure which is used only as an ornament shall be disregarded in calculating the height of such dwelling. 14. Garage Width Commented that based on a minimum Side Yard Setback requirement of 1.5 metres, residential lots less than 15 m (50 feet) wide could only have a single car garage. This could potentially lead to parking issues. The proposed zoning regulation for Garage Width and the proposed definition of Dwelling Width have been removed. The Draft Zoning By-law proposed a regulation to limit the width of a garage or carport to be no greater than 50% of the Dwelling Width. In addition, the Draft Zoning By-law proposed a definition for Dwelling Width to assist in determining the measurement for Garage Width. OPA 20-006/P and A 11/20: Infill Housing January 4, 2021 Statutory Public Meeting Summary of Comments and Staff Responses Page 19 of 35 Item Number Key Comments/Concerns Staff Response Prepared for June 24, 2021 Open House In order to allow for greater flexibility of design, the provision for maximum Garage Width has been removed from the Revised Draft By-law. As a result of the removal of maximum Garage Width provision, there is no need to include a definition of Dwelling Width in the Revised Draft By-law and therefore, it is also removed. 15. Driveway Width Commented that the proposed by-law is so restrictive it will not allow for current and common alterations to a home. An example being, that many properties will not be able to install a double driveway. This could leaving properties unappealing for resale. A 6.0 metre wide driveway is sufficient to accommodate two cars parked side-by-side. The proposed maximum Driveway Width is 6.0 metres. However, for lots where the entrance of a garage or carport is wider that 6.0 metres, the maximum driveway width is proposed to be no greater that the width of the entrance of a garage or carport. 16. Transition Provisions Commented that: • there should be more liberal transition rules; • the bylaw could be delayed for a year; • any applicant that has building permits already submitted should be grandfathered; and • any applicant who has started a planning process should be grandfathered The proposed zoning by-law amendment contains Transition Provisions which address how Planning Act applications will be reviewed and addressed through the transition period between the adoption of the proposed by-law amendment and any potential appeal process. In particular: • subject to conditions, a Building Permit applied for prior to the adoption of this by-law amendment is not subject to this by-law amendment; • the requirements of this by-law amendment do not apply to a lot where a minor variance was authorized by the Committee of Adjustment of the City or the Ontario Land Tribunal on or before the effective date of this by-law amendment and a building permit has not yet been issued; OPA 20-006/P and A 11/20: Infill Housing January 4, 2021 Statutory Public Meeting Summary of Comments and Staff Responses Page 20 of 35 Item Number Key Comments/Concerns Staff Response Prepared for June 24, 2021 Open House • subject to conditions, the requirements of this by-law amendment do not apply to a lot where an application for a minor variance has been filed on or before the effective date of this by-law amendment; and • the requirements of this by-law amendment do not apply to a lot where the Ontario Land Tribunal, on or before the passing of this by-law amendment, granted approval in principle for a zoning by-law amendment or minor variance, but has decided that the final Order shall come into force, or be issued, at a future fixed date and a building permit has not yet been issued. 17. Urban Design Guidelines: General Commented that the document proposes to control and restrict design choices. Commented in opposition to the proposed urban design guidelines and especially embedding them in the Official Plan. Commented that the definition of Infill Housing in the Urban Design Guidelines is not consistent with the definition of Infill in the Draft By-law. Urban Design Guidelines are created to provide guidance. The very nature of urban design guidelines is to “guide”, not “control” or “restrict” design choices. Zoning By-laws are the Planning tool used to “control and restrict” built form. In particular, the following principles established in the Urban Design Guidelines for Infill and Replacement Housing in Established Neighbourhood Precincts specifically address this (on page 11): Principle number 2 states: “Encourage architectural diversity that complements the character of the Neighbourhood Precinct.” And Principle number 4 states: “Enhance the character, identity and sense of place of the Neighbourhood Precinct.” Urban Design Guidelines: • Help to refine the sense of character of a place through Design Principles; OPA 20-006/P and A 11/20: Infill Housing January 4, 2021 Statutory Public Meeting Summary of Comments and Staff Responses Page 21 of 35 Item Number Key Comments/Concerns Staff Response Prepared for June 24, 2021 Open House • Provide detailed design direction to help implement a municipality’s vision of a particular area or neighbourhood; • Help implement policies in the official plan and provisions in the zoning by-law; and • Are used by staff, developers and the public for evaluation and preparation of development or re- development applications. The Urban Design Guidelines are not embedded in the official plan. Urban design guidelines are used to implement official plan policy. It is therefore appropriate to include policies in the official plan to enable the implementation of the Urban Design Guidelines. The UDGs have been reviewed and updated for consistency with the proposed revisions to the amendments. The definition of Infill Dwelling has been updated in the UDGs and the Revised Draft By-law. 18. Urban Design Guidelines: Garage Placement Commented that they are glad for the provisions regarding the location of garages. Often they hide the front door area and anyone doing something illegal at the front would not be observable (as in houses along Maple Ridge). Garages that hide front doors should also not be permitted in new construction. Commented that the Urban Design Guidelines do not allow for freestanding garages, which can sometimes be designed with the garage doors oriented away from the street. The Infill Study identified that the location and placement of a garage can lead to massing and streetscape compatibility issues. A garage that protrudes ahead of the front main wall of a dwelling, as compared to a garage that is located flush with or behind the front main wall, may appear larger and therefore out of scale with neighbouring properties. To address this matter, the Infill Study recommended Urban Design Guidelines that encourage minimizing the appearance and massing of garages. The UDGs do not eliminate the potential for freestanding garages. The UGDs regarding garage and carport placement were created to “minimize the impact of projecting garages” (see page 22 of the UDGs). OPA 20-006/P and A 11/20: Infill Housing January 4, 2021 Statutory Public Meeting Summary of Comments and Staff Responses Page 22 of 35 Item Number Key Comments/Concerns Staff Response Prepared for June 24, 2021 Open House Commented that within the Urban Design Guidelines, the proposal for a double garage to be separated into two individual doors is arbitrary and that this design feature should be decided by the homeowner. Commented that a separated garage is not a standard feature in the older homes within this community and that this guideline should be removed from the Urban Design Guidelines. The UDG regarding the style of double car garages has been removed. 19. Urban Design Guidelines: Checklist Commented that the Urban Design Guidelines Checklist requires property owners applying for a residential building permit to justify their particular preferences such as roof style (flat or pitched roof) and garage style (two door vs one double- door) which may sometimes may be the result of function over form and not just an aesthetic preference. Question 1 of the Checklist (related to roof slope) has been removed. Question 14 of the checklist (related to garage door style) has been removed. Commented that the Urban Design Guideline Checklist is subjective and has no set standard of empirical values for measurement. Questioned how the guidelines will be applied to redevelopment submissions. Questioned the specific questions in the Checklist and how they are to be interpreted. Commented that the Urban Design Guidelines are applying the site plan approval process to detached dwellings and that the Urban Design Guideline The purpose and intent of the UDG Checklist is to summarize the key intentions of the guidelines, and to act as a quick review for planning staff, Committee of Adjustment Members, and designers when reviewing Minor Variance applications. The UDG Checklist cannot be read in isolation and must be read in conjunction with the UDGs and the relevant guidelines are to be applied to each situation. The UDGs have been reviewed and updated for consistency with the proposed revisions to the amendments. In addition, staff is proposing to revise the UDG Checklist questions to remove questions 1, 6, 7, 13, 14, 17, 19, and 20. OPA 20-006/P and A 11/20: Infill Housing January 4, 2021 Statutory Public Meeting Summary of Comments and Staff Responses Page 23 of 35 Item Number Key Comments/Concerns Staff Response Prepared for June 24, 2021 Open House Checklist creates a new layer of municipal approval that will create delays and increase costs in obtaining approvals for redevelopment. Currently the City’s Site Plan Control By-law (By-law No. 7632/18) exempts residential development of one or two dwelling units per lot, except for within certain areas of the Oak Ridges Moraine. None of the areas subject to the proposed Established Neighbourhood Precincts are within the Oak Ridges Moraine. The Infill Study explored the possibility of using site plan control to manage change related to infill and replacement housing. The Infill Study explained that site plan control is a useful tool that can control certain facets of development while also being a time-intensive review process. Implementing site plan control for infill and replacement housing would likely lead to additional staff time and resources to process applications, longer timelines associated with development applications, and additional costs for applicants related to application fees and the creation of additional plans and other supporting materials. The Infill Study determined that other recommended tools, such as the Urban Design Guidelines in combination with Official Plan Policies and Zoning By-law provisions, could appropriately address matters of neighbourhood character and compatibility without the need to implement site plan control for infill and replacement housing. Through the use of UDGs and the other recommended tools, the City will be able to efficiently and appropriately manage compatibility issues currently associated with some infill and replacement housing. 20. Proposed Tree Protection By-law: Petition A petition was circulated among residents by residents. The petition indicated the City’s intent to amend it official plan policies and zoning by-laws to implement the results of the Infill and Replacement The City issued the following statement on February 2, 2021 to clarify the concern: Official Statement – Neighbourhood Petition Posted on Tuesday February 02, 2021 OPA 20-006/P and A 11/20: Infill Housing January 4, 2021 Statutory Public Meeting Summary of Comments and Staff Responses Page 24 of 35 Item Number Key Comments/Concerns Staff Response Prepared for June 24, 2021 Open House Housing in Established Neighbourhoods Study as endorsed by Council. Further, the petition stated support for the application amendments as well as requested the City to include: • A private tree by-law, which would protect all trees over a specified diameter on private property; and • a by-law to regulate driveway widths within the front yard, and within the public right-of-way. Commented that there is confusion among residents who are in support of this proposal that the proposed private tree protection by-law is part of the changes included in in the proposed Official Plan Amendment (OPA 20-006/P) and proposed Zoning By-law Amendment (A 11/20). Requested that this be clarified in a written notice to all residents. “The City of Pickering has received concerns about a recent neighbourhood petition, linking a recommended investigation of a Private Tree Protection By-law with a City-initiated Official Plan and Zoning By-law Amendment. We would like to clarify that the Planning Act process for the Official Plan and Zoning By-law Amendments related to Infill and Replacement Housing in Established Neighbourhoods is separate and distinct from staff’s investigation into the details and implications of a Private Tree Protection By-law. Further, the recommendation to consider the implementation of a Private Tree Protection By-law is not a Planning Act matter and is being addressed separately and concurrently with this process. View details in the Information Report to Planning & Development Committee (Report Number 01-21).” 21. Tree Protection Commented in favour of protecting the trees in these neighbourhoods, and in all of Pickering through the use of a "Private Tree Protection By-law". Commented that there appears to be no consequences (such as significant fines) when trees are removed, no enforcement if there are by-laws against removal of trees, and no process to enable appropriate removal of trees. Commented that plants and trees in the urban areas of the city need to share nutrition and information circulated by Staff will consider these comments through the ongoing process to investigate the details and implications of a Private Tree Protection By-law, in accordance with Council direction of September 28, 2020. OPA 20-006/P and A 11/20: Infill Housing January 4, 2021 Statutory Public Meeting Summary of Comments and Staff Responses Page 25 of 35 Item Number Key Comments/Concerns Staff Response Prepared for June 24, 2021 Open House underground connections found in copses and forests. Commented that highly individualized environments are unhealthy. Commented that certain insects (such as Emerald Ash Borer beetles) have done significant damage to ash trees, forcing the need to cut them down. Commented that otherwise tree canopies should be maintained. Commented that the Federal Government has recently budgeted significant funds to plant trees as part of their focus on reaching carbon neutral, since trees absorb carbon. Commented that the City of Pickering has a responsibility to protect the trees in the city and that healthy mature trees 20cm and greater in diameter should be protected during construction. Referred to the City of Vancouver “Protection of Trees Bylaw 9958” and the City of Toronto “Tree Protection Policy and Specifications for Construction near Trees” dated July 2016. Commented that immediate restrictions for tree protection should be implemented until the process is complete because trees in the West Shore and the Fairport Beach neighbourhoods are being cut down frequently. Commented that a tree preservation by-law be “implemented” rather than “considered”. OPA 20-006/P and A 11/20: Infill Housing January 4, 2021 Statutory Public Meeting Summary of Comments and Staff Responses Page 26 of 35 Item Number Key Comments/Concerns Staff Response Prepared for June 24, 2021 Open House 22. Property Values Commented that proposed changes will lead to a reduction in property values and that the effects of the proposal will negatively impact development potential in the identified precincts, which, in turn will impact property owners planning to sell to finance their retirement or otherwise positively benefit from their real estate investment. A petition which read “Oppose Pickering Proposal that will Decrease Property Values” was submitted and signed by 373 individuals. A correlation cannot be conclusively made between the initiation of establishing the proposed amendments related to infill and replacement housing and housing prices in proposed Established Neighbourhood Precincts. Other influences, such as market forces, interest rates, other government policies (federal and provincial), etc., may be contributing factors. 23. Property Tax Loss to the City Commented that the proposed amendments will affect the tax revenues of the City. Questioned where the City will get revenues when no more large family houses that pay property taxes are built, and the value of the smaller houses have been reduced along with their tax contribution. Commented that the proposed reduction of the permitted Lot Coverage from 33% to 25% on a lot size of 50x150 feet, will result in a house size that is approximately 1200 square feet less, leading to a loss of tax revenue of between $5000-$6000. Commented in opposition to proposed amendments since they will hinder the growth of the city A correlation cannot be conclusively made between the initiation of establishing the proposed amendments related to infill and replacement housing and housing prices in proposed Established Neighbourhood Precincts. Other influences, such as market forces, interest rates, other government policies (federal and provincial), etc., may be contributing factors. OPA 20-006/P and A 11/20: Infill Housing January 4, 2021 Statutory Public Meeting Summary of Comments and Staff Responses Page 27 of 35 Item Number Key Comments/Concerns Staff Response Prepared for June 24, 2021 Open House 24. Planning Process Commented in opposition to what appears to be different rules for individual property owners and developers, and that these amendments favour developers. Reference was made to recent development proposals that have approved Lot Coverage of 50%. Developers and individual property owners are required to comply with the same official plan policies, zoning by-law provisions and urban design guidelines. Anyone, developer or individual, may submit an application to amend official plan policies or zoning provisions. Each application will be considered through the Planning Act process based on its own merits and which includes public consultation. There is no separate process for individuals or developers. 25. Right to Appeal Commented that the amendments to the Official Plan will indirectly remove the right to submit a minor variance application to the Committee of Adjustment. The proposed amendments are to the City’s Official Plan and Zoning By-laws 2511, 2520 and 3036. In order to preserve the right to appeal these amendments to the Ontario Land Tribunal, a person or public body must make an oral submission at a public meeting or make written submissions to the City of Pickering before the proposed official plan and zoning by-law amendments are passed. In addition, if you wish to be notified of the decision regarding these amendments, you must make a written request to the City Clerk. Questioned whether the proposed amendments intend to restrict an individual’s right to appeal a decision of the Committee of Adjustment. Commented that if builders continue to apply to the Committee of Adjustment for minor variances and if the Committee continues to approve these variances then the work of the consultant (Infill Study recommendations prepared by SGL) will be defeated. The proposed amendments do not remove a person’s right to appeal a decision of the Committee of Adjustment, directly or indirectly. Concern noted. The Planning Act establishes the legal mechanism for minor variance applications to the Committee of Adjustment. However, the various policies and provisions being proposed through this official plan and zoning by-law amendment process, intend to provide stronger direction and standards to both builders and members of the Committee of Adjustment for new construction of infill and replacement housing. OPA 20-006/P and A 11/20: Infill Housing January 4, 2021 Statutory Public Meeting Summary of Comments and Staff Responses Page 28 of 35 Item Number Key Comments/Concerns Staff Response Prepared for June 24, 2021 Open House 26. Engagement Commented that electronic meetings for presentation and discussion of a proposal is inappropriate and that some residents may have technological roadblocks to attend electronic meetings. Commented that residents should be able to attend and speak at an in-person meeting. Concerned that the amendment is being proposed during the pandemic and does not allow all citizens the ability to voice their concerns. Commented that delegations had difficulty connecting to the meeting. Commented that changes to zoning bylaws should only be made when full consent of impacted residents has been received. Due to the current COVID-19 pandemic and the Premier’s Emergency Order to prohibit public events and limit gatherings, the City of Pickering has adopted electronic public meetings to continue with the business of the City during the pandemic. The Notice of the January 4, 2021 Electronic Planning & Development Committee Meeting provided detailed information on how to register as a delegate with the Clerk for the meeting. In addition, contact information for staff was provided in the Notice should anyone decide that they would prefer to email or speak directly with staff on the matter. The Clerk’s office has confirmed that, with the exception of two individuals, all parties that registered to be a delegate on this item, and wished to speak, were in fact connected by phone to the meeting. One of the delegates (Lisa-Lynn Robinson) advised Councillor Brenner prior to the start of the meeting that she was unable to connect and that she would submit written comments to Planning. Another registered delegate (Fred Traer) had registered in error for this item and advised staff of this when he was connected. The City also has a webpage devoted to this application with staff contact information as well as other relevant information. The Planning Act provides for a robust public engagement process so that Council can make informed decisions on behalf of its constituents. 27. Notice Commented that they were not aware that this application was being considered and that Notice was not received. Commented that the timing of the January 4, 2021 Planning and Development Committee Meeting and the meeting Notice of the January 4, 2021 Statutory Public Meeting, was placed on the Community Page in the December 10, 2020 and December 17, 2020 editions of the News Advertiser. Notice was also mailed to all land owners within the proposed Established Neighbourhood Precincts and to all land owners within 150 metres of the affected OPA 20-006/P and A 11/20: Infill Housing January 4, 2021 Statutory Public Meeting Summary of Comments and Staff Responses Page 29 of 35 Item Number Key Comments/Concerns Staff Response Prepared for June 24, 2021 Open House Notice of December 16, 2020, during a provincial COVID lockdown and over the Christmas holidays, is unacceptable. lands and was posted on the City’s website. In addition, all individuals and organizations listed on the Interested Parties List for the Infill Study were notified of this public meeting. 28. Shadowing, Overlook and Privacy Commented that overlook and privacy are not conditions that can be managed or controlled equitably. Commented that the Ontario Building Code (OBC) limits the amount of openings (i.e. windows) in the side walls of houses and other buildings based on a mathematical calculation for reasons of possible flame spread one building to another in the event of a fire. This OBC code requirement, indirectly contributes to minimizing the possibility of overlook when one house extends deeper than the adjacent houses. Houses will have more overlook possibility into neighbouring properties when the back walls of house are in line vs staggered. It is precisely because the conditions of privacy, overlook and shadowing are variable from property to property that the Council endorsed recommendations of the Infill Study included, official plan and zoning by-law amendments as well as urban design guidelines. It is the combination of these various tools that will help to manage the impacts of new built form on existing built form. The Urban Design Guidelines do not advocate for “lining up the back walls of houses”. Principles 1 and 2 on page 11 of the UDGs are as follows: 1. Enhance and integrate new built form that is compatible with the characteristics of the Established Neighbourhood Precinct. 2. Encourage architectural diversity that complements the character of the Established Neighbourhood Precinct. The UDGs specifically address the matter of Dwelling Depth in guideline 2.3.2 as follows: 2.3.2 Dwelling Depth should be generally in keeping with the existing dwellings along a street to avoid privacy and overshadow issues. The intent of the proposed Urban Design Guidelines is to provide guidance. It is the combination of the proposed official plan policies, zoning by-law amendments and these Urban Design Guidelines that will help to manage the impacts of new built form on existing built form. OPA 20-006/P and A 11/20: Infill Housing January 4, 2021 Statutory Public Meeting Summary of Comments and Staff Responses Page 30 of 35 Item Number Key Comments/Concerns Staff Response Prepared for June 24, 2021 Open House 29. “Missing Middle” / Intensification Commented that revising existing neighbourhood standards to allow for greater density does not preserve the character of the neighbourhood nor would it be in the best interest of the residents in that neighbourhood. Commented that it appears that the direction of the City of Pickering is to fill in every square inch of land in established neighbourhoods. Questioned whether or not the proposal will preclude opportunities for intensification in these areas. Are there opportunities for developing “missing middle” housing in these areas? The proposed amendments are not altering the current provisions for allowable density, permitted use, minimum Lot Frontage, and minimum Lot Area. The proposed amendments are not altering the current provision for allowable density. The term “missing middle” generally refers to multi-unit residential housing between 4 and 8 storeys in height, which is more dense than single and semi-detached dwellings, and less dense than high-rise apartment buildings. “Infill Dwelling”, in the context of these amendments, means the development of one or more dwellings such as single detached, semi-detached or street townhouse dwellings, through a consolidation of lots or the severance of a larger lot located on an existing street within an “Established Neighbourhood Precinct Overlay Zone”. Infill Dwelling does not include the development of stacked townhouses, stacked back-to-back townhouses, apartment buildings, or other forms of multi-unit housing resulting in a higher level of density. In this respect, this study addresses compatibility between infill (to the extent described above) and replacement housing in the context of Pickering’s established neighbourhoods. While in some cases there may certainly be opportunities to promote denser forms of housing (the “missing middle”) within and on the fringes of established residential neighbourhoods, these types of development OPA 20-006/P and A 11/20: Infill Housing January 4, 2021 Statutory Public Meeting Summary of Comments and Staff Responses Page 31 of 35 Item Number Key Comments/Concerns Staff Response Prepared for June 24, 2021 Open House would be considered in the context of a comprehensive development application, typically involving separate zoning by-law and/or official plan amendments. Such applications would be the subject of a thorough level of review through the City’s established development review processes including a decision of Council. In 2015 the City embarked on the South Pickering Intensification Study (SPIS) with a community engagement program regarding where and to what extent growth should occur in South Pickering. Phase 1 of the SPIS established that the primary areas for intensification are the City Centre and the Mixed Use Nodes and Corridors within the City. Phase 2 of the SPIS consisted of the recently completed Kingston Road Corridor and Specialty Retailing Node Intensification Study. In December 2019, Council endorsed the Kingston Road Corridor and Specialty Retailing Node Intensification Plan which confirms and guides how intensification should proceed along the Kingston Road corridor and within the Specialty Retailing Node (located to the south and east of Kingston Road and Brock Road, and north of Highway 401). It is intended that the “missing middle” will be predominantly accommodated, in addition to other forms of residential and mixed use development, in these areas. 30. Construction Debris and Dust Commented that new construction of houses is dusty, the sidewalk is not cleared, and this prevents one from walking on it. Now more than ever, due to COVID, we all need to get outside for a walk and fresh air. The City addresses matters related to debris and dust from construction, as well as general construction practices on building sites for infill and replacement housing, including concerns with property standards and maintenance, in the City’s brochure on Expectations for Construction Site Maintenance. This brochure is made available to all builders within the City. OPA 20-006/P and A 11/20: Infill Housing January 4, 2021 Statutory Public Meeting Summary of Comments and Staff Responses Page 32 of 35 Item Number Key Comments/Concerns Staff Response Prepared for June 24, 2021 Open House 31. General Commented that the city is evolving into something very beautiful and that the existing restrictions are fine the way they are. Commented that they support the proposed amendments. Commented that the words such as ‘Monster Home’ are misleading, emotional and inflammatory. Commented that it is sad that young professionals must compete against developers who will tear down a bungalow or cottage and build a monstrous house for 2 million dollars on the lot. Commented that there should be some more regulations and that they should be fair and should be applied to all of Pickering. Pickering residents should not have restrictions placed on them that are being dictated by one or two associations that are against the building of homes in their own neighbourhood. Commented that redevelopment should be permitted to in accordance with the existing zoning by-law and as supported by the marketplace. Commented that they would like to acknowledge the excellent work put into developing this study by the Consultant. Commented that while the study is not perfect, and is in need of adjustments, it is a step forward. Comments noted and considered. OPA 20-006/P and A 11/20: Infill Housing January 4, 2021 Statutory Public Meeting Summary of Comments and Staff Responses Page 33 of 35 Item Number Key Comments/Concerns Staff Response Prepared for June 24, 2021 Open House Commented that the amendments proposed for the City’s official plan and zoning by-laws does nothing for the quality of life for the citizens of Pickering. Commented that nothing but congestion and crime lay ahead for this city. Commented that the Pickering West Shore Community Association (P.W.S.C.A.) has 504 members active on their Facebook web site on a regular basis and who reside in the West Shore community. The P.W.S.C.A. fully supports the Infill Study with its recommendations for Pickering West Shore established Neighborhood Precincts. Questioned how much this study cost and who at the city was responsible for initiating this. Commented that as a resident of the Rosebank neighborhood, I'd like to register my strong support for the proposed amendments. We have been in the neighbourhood close to 10 years now, having bought in the area in part due to the 'look' of it. Commented that over the last few years, the approvals for monster homes and homes with less spacing are changing the neighbourhood, and not in a good way. It may be appropriate to provide exemptions to build affordable housing but that's not been the case. As such, the amendment is On June 25, 2018 Council authorized SGL Planning & Design Inc. (SGL) to undertake the Infill and Replacement Housing in Established Neighbourhoods Study in accordance with Report PLN 22-18 (Resolution #459/18), which stems from two previous resolutions of Council which addressed a community engagement process and pre-budget approval (Resolutions #236/16 and #345/17). The cost of the Study was just under $148,000. OPA 20-006/P and A 11/20: Infill Housing January 4, 2021 Statutory Public Meeting Summary of Comments and Staff Responses Page 34 of 35 Item Number Key Comments/Concerns Staff Response Prepared for June 24, 2021 Open House a positive development and I look forward to city council continuing to balance the needs of our communities. Commented that the recommendations of the Infill Study by SGL were not restrictive enough or ideal. 32. Nautical Village Commented that the Nautical Village study be completed so that any proposed development within the boundary of the Nautical Village be in keeping with the Nautical Village character. Questioned why the Nautical Village was not included in the Study. Commented that the Nautical Village study should be included in the final report before it is presented to Council. Commented that Information Report 01-21 does not reference the Nautical Village. Commented that a survey had been conducted within the Infill Study and requested a complete copy of the survey. Per Council’s direction staff is preparing a separate public engagement process. Public consultation for Phase 2 of the City’s Infill and Replacement Housing Study took place by means of an online survey as well as through a Public Open House held on October 29, 2019. Feedback from members of the public was received through different formats and platforms including an online survey. Approximately 154 participants took part in the survey, which consisted of a series of multiple choice questions. The survey also provided participants with the opportunity to provide comments on the majority of the questions. Approximately 100 people attended the Public Open House which was held on October 29, 2019 at the Chestnut Hill Developments Recreation Complex. The feedback received from both the online survey and the October 29, 2019 Public Open House are summarized within section 4 of the Planning Options Report, December 2019 (Phase 2 Report). A detailed summary of comments received from the online survey is contained within Appendix B of this report, and a detailed summary of comments received from the Public Open House is contained within Appendix C. The Planning Options Report, December 2019 (Phase 2 Report) is available on the City’s website. OPA 20-006/P and A 11/20: Infill Housing January 4, 2021 Statutory Public Meeting Summary of Comments and Staff Responses Page 35 of 35 Item Number Key Comments/Concerns Staff Response Prepared for June 24, 2021 Open House 33. 1868 Fairport Road Severance Andrew Simanovskis, 1868 Fairport Road, joined the electronic meeting via audio connection to discuss a land severance application he had submitted to the City. Chair Brenner requested that Staff follow up with Mr. Simanovskis after the meeting as the subject matter of the delegation was not directly related to Information Report 01-21. Comment is noted and the planner on the file has been notified. 34. 1924-1932 Valley Farm Road Commented that the property at 1924-1932 Valley Farm Road is not located within the proposed Established Neighbourhood Precinct, but is located directly east of the proposed boundary. The property owner agrees that these properties should not be within the proposed Established Neighbourhood Precinct. Comment noted. 35. Site Specific: Rosebank Neighbourhood Centreville Homes states that the proposed policies should not be applicable to the redevelopment of the property at 313 Toynevale Road. These properties were included because they meet the criteria of the study. The subject application is currently being processed by City staff and has not yet been considered by Council. OPA 20-006/P and A 11/20: Infill Housing June 24, 2021 Electronic Open House Summary of Comments and Staff Responses Page 1 of 19 Item Number Key Comments/Concerns Staff Responses Prepared for Report PLN 33-21 1.NeighbourhoodCharacter and Streetscape Commented that if it is the intention that these amendments will 'preserve' the character of the original neighbourhoods, it's too late. Also, questioned why the original small, single storey dwellings be the 'character' of these neighbourhoods when over half of the dwellings have been replaced with larger new homes. Questioned why these new homes are not being used to define the 'character' of these neighbourhoods. Commented that these precincts are in transition and the redevelopment needs to complete its cycle. Commented that the proposed amendments will not eliminate the existing large homes. Commented that imposing arbitrary restrictions on replacement and infill houses beyond the current zoning by-laws and processes will freeze development and the existing streetscape. Redevelopment should be permitted to continue to completion in compliance with the existing zoning by-law and as supported by the marketplace. Commented that the identified neighbourhoods have transitioned beyond the original now uncommon small bungalows or cottages. These smaller dwellings should not be the drivers of what a neighbouring property owner can build within the Zoning By-laws. Questioned why existing housing that is being replaced in these precincts being established as the standard and scale for new development when these houses that are being replaced have reached their useful life and no longer meet the needs of Pickering families. The recommended amendments do not “freeze development”, nor are they defined by the “original, small, single storey dwellings”. The recommended amendments enable the flexibility for new construction to meet the market demands for house size, while continuing to allow for flexibility in terms of style and simultaneously addressing the compatibility of scale and massing to adjacent houses and the character of the streetscape. The amendments do not limit new construction to what originally existed in the neighbourhood, but rather, enables new construction to be larger than original dwellings, while at the same time being compatible with adjacent dwellings and the streetscape. Attachment #2 to Report #PLN 33-21 OPA 20-006/P and A 11/20: Infill Housing June 24, 2021 Electronic Open House Summary of Comments and Staff Responses Page 2 of 19 Item Number Key Comments/Concerns Staff Responses Prepared for Report PLN 33-21 Commented that the City should look at setting dates to expand the precinct boundaries. Commented that it was suggested to City Staff that they explore the introduction of criteria that would trigger the automatic extension of Neighbourhood Precinct boundaries. It was suggested that these criteria could simplify the process in the future by avoiding a lengthy public process. To specifically avoid a future public process is shocking to us and is extremely problematic. Under no circumstances should this be condoned. Exploring options to include criteria to expand, or alter, boundaries to Established Neighbourhood Precincts in the future is not being considered as part of this process due to the complex and uncertain nature of future considerations. Redevelopment in Established Neighbourhoods, and their associated recommended Precincts, will be monitored for future consideration of boundary amendments. 2. Definitions of Infill and Replacement Dwelling Questioned why the definitions of Infill Dwelling and Replacement Dwelling been removed from the latest Draft Zoning By-law Amendment. The terms Infill Dwelling and Replacement Dwelling are defined in Recommended Official Plan Amendment 40. Since these terms are not directly referred to in any of the provisions in the Draft Zoning By-law Amendment, it is not necessary to define the terms in the by-law itself. These terms are referenced in the preamble to the Draft Zoning By-law Amendment, directing the reader to the definitions in the Official Plan. 3. Definition of ‘side yard setback’ Questioned why ‘side yard setback’ is not defined in the bylaw amendment or included in part 5 ‘Provisions’. Parent By-laws (2511, 2520, 3036) define “yards” (side, front and rear) and not “setbacks”. Current practice is to use the term “setback” and therefore a definition is provided in the Draft Zoning By-law Amendment. There is no recommended change to the side yard requirements as established in the parent zoning by- laws and therefore there is no provision for side yard setback included in the Draft Zoning By-law Amendment. 4. Lot Coverage Commented that the existing lot coverage not be reduced. Based on comments received, a review of recently approved Building Permits, and lot sizes within the Established Neighbourhood Precincts, staff have OPA 20-006/P and A 11/20: Infill Housing June 24, 2021 Electronic Open House Summary of Comments and Staff Responses Page 3 of 19 Item Number Key Comments/Concerns Staff Responses Prepared for Report PLN 33-21 Commented that lot coverage be increased to reflect established precedent within the community. Questioned what difference the reduction in lot coverages will make and why lot coverage reductions are being proposed in light of recent applications for coverage increases, many of which have been approved in 2021. Commented that lot coverage reductions will not contribute to streetscapes or the protection of established communities or any of the Objectives or Principles described on page 11 of the SGL report [Urban Design Guidelines for Infill & Replacement Housing in Established Neighbourhood Precincts, August 2020]. For example, lot coverage will not affect the allowable maximum width of the dwelling. The effect of a 3% lot coverage reduction will not be visible from the street. The effect will be 150 square feet less in building footprint [for a 50 foot by 100 foot lot]. Perhaps 150 square feet that could be used for a home office or other personal living space. Commented that reducing existing lot coverage is out of date with respect to societal changes, including, but not limited to, the impact of the [COVID-19] pandemic creating the need and the desire for larger homes to accommodate home offices and fitness areas, in home childcare, home schooling, in home care for elderly relatives, family members of empty nesters moving home for various reasons. Commented that lot coverage and maximum building footprint be determined by the subtraction of prescribed setbacks from property widths and depths. Questioned why the allowable Lot Coverage is being reduced when a review of the Committee of revised the proposed zoning by-law provision related to Lot Coverage to, in some cases, include a condition associated with Lot Area. The recommended Lot Coverage is a reduction from the current maximum of 33% to 25%, for lots with a Lot Area greater than or equal to 1,000 square metres, within the Established Neighbourhood Precincts, except in the case of the Liverpool Established Neighbourhood Precinct in which case the reduction to 25% applies to the whole precinct, as shown below: (i)Dunbarton Neighbourhood Precinct:a.For lots greater than or equal to 1,000 square metres in area: Maximum 25%; b.For lots less than 1000 square metres in area:Maximum 33%;(ii)Highbush Neighbourhood Precinct:a.For lots greater than or equal to 1,000 square metres in area: Maximum 25%; b.For lots less than 1,000 square metres in area:Maximum 33%;(iii)Liverpool Neighbourhood Precincts: Maximum25%; (iv)Rosebank Neighbourhood Precincts: a.For lots greater than or equal to 1,000 squaremetres in area: Maximum 25%;b.For lots less than 1,000 square metres in area:Maximum 33%; (v)Rougemount Neighbourhood Precincts: a.For lots greater than or equal to 1,000 squaremetres in area: Maximum 25%;b.For lots less than 1,000 square metres in area:Maximum 33%; (vi)Woodlands Neighbourhood Precinct: OPA 20-006/P and A 11/20: Infill Housing June 24, 2021 Electronic Open House Summary of Comments and Staff Responses Page 4 of 19 Item Number Key Comments/Concerns Staff Responses Prepared for Report PLN 33-21 Adjustment applications shows that lot coverages in excess of 40% are regularly being granted. This is now the character of these neighbourhoods. Commented that the proposed reductions in Lot Coverage will result in more applications to the Committee of Adjustment. Commented that a proposed maximum Lot Coverage of 30% for the West Shore Neighbourhood Precinct is acceptable. a. For lots greater than or equal to 1,000 square metres in area: Maximum 25%; b. For lots less than 1,000 square metres in area: Maximum 33%; The maximum Lot Coverage for the Bay Ridges and West Shore Established Neighbourhood Precincts is recommended to remain at 33%. The recommended Lot Coverage regulations are based on research performed through the Infill Study on existing lot coverages within each Established Neighbourhood Precinct, including original dwellings as well as infill and replacement dwellings. In addition, previous Committee of Adjustment decisions were reviewed and the data demonstrated that few requests were made to increase Lot Coverage beyond the permitted maximum of 33%. With the exception of the recommended Bay Ridges and West Shore Established Neighbourhood Precincts, existing Lot Coverages in the recommended Established Neighbourhood Precincts are predominantly under 30% and in many cases below 20%. In addition, staff reviewed approved Building Permit data for new construction of detached dwellings over the last five years within the recommended Established Neighbourhoods, which demonstrates that the majority of these new dwellings would comply with the recommended Lot Coverage. 5. Lot Coverage – Calculation Commented that covered front porches be excluded from the calculation of Lot Coverage, and be included as a permitted encroachment within the front yard within the proposed implementing Zoning By-law Amendments. The recommended definition of Lot Coverage is as follows: “Lot Coverage” means the total horizontal area on the lot of all above grade roofed structures and buildings, measured at the level of the first floor and expressed as a percentage of the lot area, including covered OPA 20-006/P and A 11/20: Infill Housing June 24, 2021 Electronic Open House Summary of Comments and Staff Responses Page 5 of 19 Item Number Key Comments/Concerns Staff Responses Prepared for Report PLN 33-21 platforms such as covered decks and covered porches, but excluding eaves, belt courses, chimney breasts, sills or cornice projections to a maximum of 0.6 of a metre, and balconies. The proposal does not alter the existing method of calculating lot coverage. The recommended definition of Lot Coverage clarifies exclusions to the calculation such as eaves, belt courses, chimney breasts, sills or cornices projections to a maximum of 0.6 metres and balconies. Excluding covered porches from the calculation of Lot Coverage could potentially be considered through the City’s Comprehensive Zoning By-law Review. 6. Lot Frontage Commented that Lot Frontage should not change. Lot Frontage is not being altered by these amendments. 7. Dwelling Depth Commented that the maximum Dwelling Depth should be removed from the proposal. Commented that it is not necessary to impose another layer of impact to lot coverage by adding a maximum Dwelling Depth. Imposing maximum dwelling depths may further reduce lot coverage to less than the proposed maximum lot coverage percentages. Commented that application of a maximum Dwelling Depth could restrict the buildable area of a lot to below the maximum Lot Coverage being proposed. The recommended maximum Dwelling Depth aims to strike a balance between recognizing existing dwelling depths while also allowing for flexibility for the construction of new infill and replacement dwellings based on the overall depth of a lot. The Infill Study (Phase 2 Report) noted that replacement dwellings and infill dwellings are typically larger in mass than original homes within the established neighbourhoods, and this increase in mass can translate to dwellings that are wider and longer. Further, it stated that: “New, wider and longer dwellings located adjacent to original dwellings in established neighbourhoods can lead to compatibility issues related to the overall scale of dwellings, including privacy, overlook and shadowing issues.” The Infill Study identified that although, on a broad scale, the City’s zoning by-laws do not regulate the OPA 20-006/P and A 11/20: Infill Housing June 24, 2021 Electronic Open House Summary of Comments and Staff Responses Page 6 of 19 Item Number Key Comments/Concerns Staff Responses Prepared for Report PLN 33-21 width or length of dwellings, there are some area-specific zones where dwelling length is regulated. The Infill Study found that the dwelling length of original bungalows range, on average, from approximately 7 to 10 metres. These homes are relatively smaller in dwelling length compared to many other homes in established neighbourhoods, both original and new, which range on average between approximately 12 and 19 metres in length. There are also many homes that exceed 20 metres in dwelling length. The Phase 2 Report concluded that regulating the maximum depth of a dwelling would control the maximum distance that the rear wall of a dwelling could be located in relation to the front yard setback, and that this will help to ensure that the siting and placement of new dwellings is compatible with existing dwellings and mitigate compatibility issues related to shadowing, overlook and privacy. The Infill Study recommended a new performance standard for maximum Dwelling Depth based on the overall depth of a lot. The proposed maximum Dwelling Depths are based on observations, within the proposed Established Neighbourhood Precincts. Within these areas, it has been observed that new dwellings typically have rear walls that extend further into the rear yard of properties than original dwellings, with ranging depths. Recognizing that original dwellings tend to have a shorter dwelling depth than newer dwellings, it is expected that there will continue to be variations in the depth of dwellings within a block. However, by limiting the Dwelling Depth, the goal is that the rear walls of new dwellings (or additions to existing dwellings) do not project too far beyond those OPA 20-006/P and A 11/20: Infill Housing June 24, 2021 Electronic Open House Summary of Comments and Staff Responses Page 7 of 19 Item Number Key Comments/Concerns Staff Responses Prepared for Report PLN 33-21 of the adjacent dwellings, in order to mitigate potential impacts related to shadowing, privacy and overlook on adjacent rear yards. The recommended amendment includes a definition for Dwelling Depth as follows: “Dwelling Depth” means the horizontal distance measured from the minimum front yard setback to the rear wall of a dwelling, excluding any Obstruction of Yards. “Obstruction of Yards” is defined in parent zoning by-laws (2511, 2520 and 3036) as follows: “Obstruction of Yards” No person shall obstruct in any manner whatsoever any front yard, side yard or rear yard required to be provided by this By-law, but this provision shall not apply to: (a) main eaves, belt courses, chimney breasts, sills or cornices not projecting more than 0.5 of a metre into required yard; (b) uncovered steps or platforms not exceeding 1.0 metre in height above grade and not projecting more than 1.5 metres into any required front yard, not 1.0 metre into any required side yard; (c) awnings, clothes poles, recreational equipment, garden trellises, or similar accessories; (d) fire escapes projecting not more than 1.5 metres into the side yard or rear yard; (e) fences in a side or rear yard; (f) hedges or ornamental fences of open construction not exceeding 1.0 metres in height in a front yard; and (g) accessory uses permitted by this By-law. OPA 20-006/P and A 11/20: Infill Housing June 24, 2021 Electronic Open House Summary of Comments and Staff Responses Page 8 of 19 Item Number Key Comments/Concerns Staff Responses Prepared for Report PLN 33-21 The recommended provision for Dwelling Depth is as follows: Dwelling Depth (maximum): The maximum Dwelling Depth, measured from the minimum front yard setback to the rear wall of a dwelling, shall be as follows: (i) For lots with depths up to and including 40 metres: 17 metres (ii) For lots with depths greater than 40 metres: 20 metres The Infill Study (Phase 2 Report) noted that these maximum Dwelling Depths are consistent with observed characteristics within established neighbourhoods, and are not anticipated to generate any compliance issues with original dwellings within neighbourhoods. 8. Dwelling Depth – Definition Commented that the proposed definition of ‘Building Depth’ be amended, to be measured from the actual main front wall of the inhabited portion of a building or structure, rather than from the minimum front yard setback. This approach will not penalize design which elects to employ a greater front yard for additional landscaping or building articulation. The amendments do not include a definition for Building Depth, but rather for Dwelling Depth. The recommended amendment includes the following definition for Dwelling Depth: “Dwelling Depth” means the horizontal distance measured from the minimum front yard setback to the rear wall of a dwelling, excluding any Obstruction of Yards. The recommended maximum Dwelling Depth aims to strike a balance between recognizing existing dwelling depths while also allowing for flexibility for the construction of new infill and replacement dwellings based on the overall depth of a lot. See Staff Response above (for Item Number 7: Dwelling Depth) for a full explanation. OPA 20-006/P and A 11/20: Infill Housing June 24, 2021 Electronic Open House Summary of Comments and Staff Responses Page 9 of 19 Item Number Key Comments/Concerns Staff Responses Prepared for Report PLN 33-21 9. Dwelling Height Commented that they support the regulation of Dwelling Height. Commented that the definition of Dwelling Height should include details regarding percentage of a roof that is sloped, and diagrams, as is done in the City of Toronto. Comment noted. 10. Side Yard Setback Adjacent to a Rear Yard for Infill Dwelling Commented that the 4.5 metre setback should, and must, be added back into the planning policy. The 4.5 metre setback originally agreed upon is not unreasonable considering the characteristic of the longstanding existing neighbourhoods. Commented in support of the removal of the provision requiring a 4.5 metre side yard for those lands where a side yard abuts an existing rear yard. The proposed zoning regulation for Side Yard Setback adjacent to a rear yard for Infill Dwelling has been removed. The Draft Zoning By-law proposed a minimum Side Yard Setback for an Infill Dwelling. The regulation stipulated that where the side lot line of a newly created lot for any Infill Dwelling abuts the rear lot line of an existing lot of record, the minimum side yard setback to the side lot line abutting the rear lot line of an existing lot of record shall be 4.5 metres. Upon further examination, staff have established that there are various examples of existing conditions within the Established Neighbourhood Precincts where a lot may be flanked on one or both sides by a rear lot. The proposed zoning regulation, in conjunction with the size of the subject lots in these existing situations, would prohibit reasonable development of the property, and therefore the proposed zoning regulation has been removed. 11. Front Yard Setback (minimum and maximum) Commented that the Front Yard Setback should not change. Commented that requirements that rely on a comparison to the existing condition on a neighbouring property must be removed from the proposal and that this creates inequity between The intent of the new performance standards for minimum and maximum front yard setbacks is to reinforce the open space characteristics of the neighbourhood, while at the same time allowing for flexibility of a range of 1.0 metre. This assists in avoiding a monotonous “wall” of front facades along the street, which can add to the diversity of the OPA 20-006/P and A 11/20: Infill Housing June 24, 2021 Electronic Open House Summary of Comments and Staff Responses Page 10 of 19 Item Number Key Comments/Concerns Staff Responses Prepared for Report PLN 33-21 property owners even within the same Established Neighbourhood Precinct. Commented that by-laws pertaining to private residential properties must contain only criteria that is quantifiable and measurable for building permit applicants. Commented that all setbacks be measured from the existing street, understanding that the setback is not the same in each subdivision. streetscape. City staff have considered and reviewed the logistics of using the recommended criteria, and are satisfied that it is quantifiable and measurable. Parent By-laws (2511, 2520, 3036) define “yards” (side, front and rear) and not “setbacks”. Current practice is to use the term “setback” and therefore a definition of “setback” is provided in the proposed zoning by-law. 12. Elevation of Front Entrance Commented that the zoning by-law provision related to front elevation steps be removed from document. The genesis of the Infill Study related to the size and mass of infill and replacement dwellings. Phases 1 and 2 of the Infill Study focused on gaining an understanding the key elements that contribute to the character of neighbourhoods and exploring options to address and mitigate the impacts associated with development perceived to be incompatible. With respect to larger dwellings, impacts associated with shadow, privacy, and overlook onto neighbouring properties, were identified. While a dwelling may be perceived to be “large” on a smaller lot, that same dwelling located on a larger lot may be perceived as “fitting in” with the scale and massing of other dwellings in the neighbourhood. Taking this into consideration, the Infill Study explored options to address the size, and the perception of the size of a dwelling on a lot, based on the elements that contribute to defining the mass of the dwelling. These elements include, among other things, the height of the front entrance. The Infill Study (Phase 2 Report) elaborates on the height of the front entrance to a dwelling and how it contributes to the overall height of a dwelling, and how that height is perceived from the street. OPA 20-006/P and A 11/20: Infill Housing June 24, 2021 Electronic Open House Summary of Comments and Staff Responses Page 11 of 19 Item Number Key Comments/Concerns Staff Responses Prepared for Report PLN 33-21 The height of the front entrance varies with infill and replacement housing and can be related to the height of the basement above grade, which in turn may be related to the level of the water table in some neighbourhoods. The stairs to the main level of the house may be located on the interior or exterior of the house. In some cases, when the stairs to the main entrance are provided entirely on the exterior of a dwelling, the elevation of the entrance may seem significantly higher when compared to other dwellings. In other cases where there is an elevated first floor, the stairs to the front entrance are located both outside and inside the dwelling. In these cases, the front entrance is lower than that of the previous example. The height of the front entrance contributes to the perception of the overall height of a dwelling as viewed from the street. Thus, the Infill Study recommended that a zoning by-law regulation and urban design guidelines that address this element of neighbourhood character be implemented. 13. Driveway Width Commented that it’s a problem to have a 6.0 metre standard driveway width, or as wide as a two-door garage, especially if the front and back yards are landscaped with heavy paving stones. Commented that they welcome the restrictions to driveway width. Commented that the regulation for Driveway Width should not be eliminated. City Engineering Services Design Criteria require a minimum driveway width of 3.5 metres for a single driveway and 6.0 metres for a shared driveway. The recommended Draft Zoning By-law contains the following provision for Driveway Width: Driveway Width (maximum): The maximum width of a driveway shall be 6.0 metres. However, for lots where the entrance of a garage or carport is wider than 6.0 metres, the maximum driveway width shall be no greater than the width of the entrance of a garage or carport. OPA 20-006/P and A 11/20: Infill Housing June 24, 2021 Electronic Open House Summary of Comments and Staff Responses Page 12 of 19 Item Number Key Comments/Concerns Staff Responses Prepared for Report PLN 33-21 14. Transition Provisions Commented that the Transition Provisions do not address Zoning By-law and Official Plan Amendment applications Zoning By-law and Official Plan amendment applications are not associated with Infill or Replacement Dwellings, but with applications for multiple dwellings, and therefore do not require transitional provisions in the draft zoning by-law. 15. Front Yard Landscaping Commented that when the new homes are occupied, landscapers are brought in to widen driveways another half the width of the house past the garages, and in one case noting that a homeowner has paved the complete front yard right to the curb. One concern is that there are now 3 cars parked, where there should only be two. Another concern is that these paving stones are then covered with a mixture that seals all the cracks so that no water can permeate them, which causes water to run off without a chance to soak into the ground and nourish trees and vegetation. Commented that the front, side, and rear garden should not to be paved over. Commented that Proposed Amendment 40 Item 1. (f) (vi) and (vii) is “wishy-washy” wording and that it doesn’t stop developers from coming in without permission to remove trees and that there should be enforcement for paving over more than the 6.0 metre driveway. The Infill Study (Phase 2 Report) elaborates on driveway widths and their impact on front yard landscaping. In order to promote a greater amount of landscaping in the front yard and reduce the impacts of water run-off from pavement, the recommended amendments include a zoning by-law provision for maximum Driveway Width as well as urban design guidelines that address the matters of driveway width and water infiltration into the soil. The zoning by-law provision is as follows: “Driveway Width (maximum): The maximum width of a driveway shall be 6.0 metres. However, for lots where the entrance of a garage or carport is wider than 6.0 metres, the maximum driveway width shall be no greater than the width of the entrance of a garage or carport.” Urban design guidelines related to Driveway Width and Front Yard Landscaping can be found in subsections 3.3 and 4.1 of the Urban Design Guidelines for Infill & Replacement Housing in Established Neighbourhood Precincts. 16. Urban Design Guidelines and Checklist Commented that the Design Guidelines and Checklists are not necessary and must not be imposed. Commented that City staff confirmed that the Urban Design Guidelines are ‘guidelines’ and not ‘regulations’ and yet the language of the proposed The recommended Urban Design Guidelines for Infill & Replacement Housing in Established Neighbourhood Precincts, August 2021, does not “regulate” or “require” standards to be met. OPA 20-006/P and A 11/20: Infill Housing June 24, 2021 Electronic Open House Summary of Comments and Staff Responses Page 13 of 19 Item Number Key Comments/Concerns Staff Responses Prepared for Report PLN 33-21 by-law amendment includes the phrases “policies that require new development…'' and “…standards and definitions to regulate…". Questioned whether the by-law language be corrected to remove the words ‘require’ and ‘regulate’. Questioned why the Urban Design Guidelines and checklist continue to be included when City staff confirmed that they do not need to be followed in order to secure a building permit. Commented about concern that the proposed design guidelines will lean towards uniformity rather than the diversity which is the character of the identified neighbourhoods. Commented that the ‘Urban Design Guideline Checklist’ is arbitrary, subjective and has no set standard of empirical values for measurement. Questioned who will evaluate a redevelopment submission for compliance to these guidelines. Urban Design Guidelines are created to provide guidance. The very nature of urban design guidelines is to “guide”, not “control” or “restrict” design choices. Zoning By-laws are the Planning tool used to “control and restrict” built form. Official Plan policies enable the enactment of zoning by-laws and may include language such as “require” and “regulate”. The phrases “…policies that require new development…'' and “…standards and definitions to regulate…" are used in recommended Official Plan policy Item 1 (f) and Draft Zoning By-law pre-amble (fifth paragraph) respectively. In both cases it is entirely appropriate to use this type of language given the type of planning document being used. There is value in using the recommended Revised Urban Design Guidelines, notwithstanding they are not an evaluation tool for a Building Permit application. The purpose and intent of the Urban Design Guidelines Checklist was, and is, to summarize the key intentions of the guidelines, and to act as a quick review for planning staff, Committee of Adjustment Members, and designers when reviewing or preparing Minor Variance applications. The Urban Design Guidelines Checklist cannot be read in isolation, and must be read in conjunction with all of the Urban Design Guidelines, and the relevant guidelines are to be applied to each situation. In addition, staff is proposing to revise the Urban Design Guideline Checklist questions to remove questions 1 (roof style), 6 (architectural style of the main entrance), 7 (front porch/weather protection), 13 (garage roof style), 14 (garage door style), OPA 20-006/P and A 11/20: Infill Housing June 24, 2021 Electronic Open House Summary of Comments and Staff Responses Page 14 of 19 Item Number Key Comments/Concerns Staff Responses Prepared for Report PLN 33-21 17 (sustainable design features), 19 (tree planting), and 20 (type of tree species). The Urban Design Guidelines establish guidelines to encourage the construction of new houses that support and enhance the character of the identified neighbourhood precincts rather than freezing neighbourhoods in time. The Urban Design Guidelines address the compatibility of scale and massing of new construction compared to adjacent houses and the character of the streetscape. 17. Tree Protection Commented that the City should protect its mature trees. Commented that they welcome the introduction of a tree by-law. Commented that there needs to be a by-law to regulate damage and destruction to trees. Commented that a tree preservation bylaw should be adopted as soon as possible and at the same time as the other by-laws. Commented that a tree by-law should apply all across the City of Pickering. Commented that they have seen heavy skids of masonry stacked around the base of a tree, heavy pruning/delimbing occurring and removal of mature trees. Commented that the Federal Government has recently budgeted significant funds to plant trees as part of their focus on reaching carbon neutral, since trees absorb carbon. Staff will consider these comments through the ongoing process to investigate the details and implications of a Private Tree Protection By-law, in accordance with Council direction of September 28, 2020. OPA 20-006/P and A 11/20: Infill Housing June 24, 2021 Electronic Open House Summary of Comments and Staff Responses Page 15 of 19 Item Number Key Comments/Concerns Staff Responses Prepared for Report PLN 33-21 Commented that they have previously sent copies of the by-laws from the Cities of Toronto and Vancouver, and that with minor modifications Pickering could use these as a template for a Pickering by-law. Commented that the Fairport Beach Neighbourhood Association had started requesting a by-law be put in place back in October 2018, and that its time to get beyond a potential by-law. 18. Property Values Commented that councilors should be risk averse to any proposal that has any potential to negatively impact property values. Commented that imposing standards on a property relative to its adjacent properties and surrounding areas rather than a set standard creates inconsistencies and inequitably impacts property owners where adjacent properties have not been redeveloped. Commented that the result is that property values in areas where redevelopment has not occurred will be adversely affected. A correlation cannot be conclusively made between the initiation of establishing the recommended amendments related to infill and replacement housing and housing prices in recommended Established Neighbourhood Precincts. Other influences, such as market forces, interest rates, other government policies (federal and provincial), etc., may also be contributing factors. Front Yard Setback, maximum and minimum, is the only recommended zoning provision that references the adjacent condition. This provision allows for a one metre flexibility. The purpose of the recommended Front Yard Setback provision is to address compatibility issues related to the massing of new dwellings with respect to potential shadowing, privacy and overlook relative to adjacent houses, as well as compatibility of the new construction within the overall character of the streetscape. 19. Right to Appeal Commented that the process or right of appeal for property owners must be maintained and must not be circumvented. The inclusion of the Design Guidelines, Checklist or any other criteria should not result in the removal of any property owner’s right to appeal. The recommended amendments, and the recommended Urban Design Guidelines (and Checklist), do not remove a person’s right to appeal a decision to the Ontario Land Tribunal. The recommended amendments are to the City’s Official Plan and Zoning By-laws 2511, 2520 and 3036. In order to preserve the right to appeal these OPA 20-006/P and A 11/20: Infill Housing June 24, 2021 Electronic Open House Summary of Comments and Staff Responses Page 16 of 19 Item Number Key Comments/Concerns Staff Responses Prepared for Report PLN 33-21 amendments to the Ontario Land Tribunal, a person or public body must make an oral submission at a public meeting or make written submissions to the City of Pickering before the recommended official plan and zoning by-law amendments are passed. 20. Engagement and Notice Questioned how would other than previous delegates be aware of this Open House [June 24, 2021 Electronic Public Open House]. Commented that it is disappointing that the [June 24, 2021 Electronic] Open House was online and not conducted at a time when more residents and ratepayers could attend in person and interact without formally registering as an online delegate. Commented that virtual meetings are unacceptable. Commented that every virtual meeting in this process has had technical difficulties. Call quality is inconsistent, delegations cannot be heard. The process can be intimidating to constituents who are not comfortable or adept with technology. The process discriminates against those constituents who do not have access to a computer or wi-fi at home and can't access services of the public library due to current public health restrictions. Notice of the June 24, 2021 Electronic Open House was placed on the Community Page in the June 10, 2021 and June 17, 2021 editions of the News Advertiser, and was posted on the City’s website. Also, all individuals and organizations listed on the Interested Parties List for the Infill Study and this initiative (OPA 20-006/P and A 11/20), were notified of the June 24, 2021 open house. Due to the current COVID-19 pandemic and the Premier’s Emergency Order to prohibit public events and limit gatherings, the City of Pickering has adopted electronic public meetings to continue with the business of the City during the pandemic. The Notice of the June 24, 2021 Electronic Open House provided detailed information on how to register as a delegate with City staff for the meeting. In addition, contact information for staff was provided in the Notice should anyone decide that they would prefer to email or speak directly with staff on the matter. The City also has a webpage devoted to this application with staff contact information as well as other relevant information. There were eight delegates pre-registered to speak at the June 24, 2021 Electronic Open House. Prior to the meeting, one delegate decided not to speak, and another was unavailable to connect during the meeting. When contacted by staff, both of these OPA 20-006/P and A 11/20: Infill Housing June 24, 2021 Electronic Open House Summary of Comments and Staff Responses Page 17 of 19 Item Number Key Comments/Concerns Staff Responses Prepared for Report PLN 33-21 delegates decided not to submit any comments. The final delegate who had technical difficulty connecting to the meeting, submitted written comments to the City for consideration. 21. Shadowing, Overlook and Privacy Commented that shadowing, overlook, privacy and access to sunlight or views are not quantifiable. These are variables which are affected by other variables, including, but not limited to orientation, time of year, landscaping and tree planting. To imply that property owners can be guaranteed protection from shadowing and overlook is misleading. It is accurate to state that conditions of privacy, overlook and shadowing are variable from property to property. The various recommended tools in no way can, or will, guarantee protection from shadowing and overlook. The combination of the recommended official plan and zoning by-law amendments, and Urban Design Guidelines will help to manage these impacts of new built form on existing built form. 22. Cost of Study Commented that the City has spent over $300,000.00 on consulting fees to SGL for the initial report and subsequent revisions, and that doesn't mean it can't be shelved. Questioned whether or not implementing the proposed amendments may be an attempt to have a tangible product to justify the almost $340,000 of public funds paid to SGL Consulting and that there is always the option in any project to maintain the status quo. The cost of the Infill Study was just under $148,000. On June 25, 20181 Council authorized SGL Planning & Design Inc. (SGL) to undertake the Infill and Replacement Housing in Established Neighbourhoods Study in accordance with Report PLN 22-18 (Resolution #459/18), which stems from two previous resolutions of Council which addressed a community engagement process and pre-budget approval (Resolutions #236/16 and #345/17). 23. Enforcement Commented on multiple complaints against a specific infill builder in the West Shore Neighbourhood and suggested that fines be applied to infractions. Questioned whether or not the City requires any type of performance bond for infill builders. The City requires a performance deposit and a grading deposit prior to the issuance of a building permit. The performance deposit relates to the Ontario Building Code and the grading deposit relates to engineering works (which covers damage to municipal property such as curb or roadway). 24. Neighbourhood Character/South Pickering Intensification Study Commented that through the City’s South Pickering Intensification Study consultation, many people indicated that they would need help to age in place because they did not believe they could afford moving to new places more appropriate to their health and Comment noted. OPA 20-006/P and A 11/20: Infill Housing June 24, 2021 Electronic Open House Summary of Comments and Staff Responses Page 18 of 19 Item Number Key Comments/Concerns Staff Responses Prepared for Report PLN 33-21 family size. Questioned what would be appropriate in the future when the current residents are no longer there. 25. General Commented in support the draft document as is written. Commented that the Committee of Adjustment must take site drainage, as it exists at the time of the meeting, into consideration, and that no water flow should be allowed to go over neighbouring properties. Commented that the Fairport Beach Neighbourhood Association does not represent all residents of Fairport Beach. Commented that some builders may be intimidated by these proposed changes and will leave the City as a result. Comments noted. Questioned why By-law 2511 hasn't been revised significantly since the 1960's, except for the recent revision for building height in the R3/R4 areas of 9.0 metres. Commented that the City must be more proactive in reviewing and upgrading all aspects of municipal responsibility especially as it relates to infill housing. Commented that builders know what they can take advantage of, with respect to pushing boundaries that aren't addressed by legislation and that many of these builders have come from Toronto because they see what can be done here without restrictions. The City has initiated a review of the six existing zoning by-laws. The purpose of this review is to: • create one consolidated zoning by-law; • update zoning to reflect Official Plan policies and associated development guidelines; • complete necessary research to ensure the new by-law is consistent with current legislation, policy and trends; and • post the by-law text and mapping on the City’s website. The review is currently in Phase 2 of three phases. 26. Site Specific: Rosebank Neighbourhood Centreville Homes commented that the proposed policies should not be applicable to the redevelopment of their property at 313 Toynevale Road. The property subject to the Centreville Homes application was included because it meets the criteria of the study. The subject application is currently being processed by City staff and has not yet been considered by Council. OPA 20-006/P and A 11/20: Infill Housing June 24, 2021 Electronic Open House Summary of Comments and Staff Responses Page 19 of 19 Item Number Key Comments/Concerns Staff Responses Prepared for Report PLN 33-21 27. Site Specific: Bay Ridges Neighbourhood (Annland Street) Questioned how the amendments will impact the homeowner’s Committee of Adjustment application specifically as it relates to their proposed maximum Dwelling Height. The question relates to a site specific Committee of Adjustment Application. Transition Provisions are included in the Recommended Draft Zoning By-law to address Committee of Adjustment applications, among other development applications. Attachment #3 to Report #PLN 33-21 Liverpool RoadHighway 401King stonR oadP ic k e r in g ParkwayAltona RoadDixieRoadBayly Street BrockRoadFairport RoadRosebankRoadRosebank West Shore BrockIndustrial Rougemount Woodlands Dunbarton Highbush Amberlea Brock Ridge Rouge Park DuffinHeights Bay Ridges City Centre Liverpool Village East © The Corporation of the City of Pickering Produced (in part) under license from: © Queens Printer, Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources. All rights reserved.;© Her Majesty the Queen in Right of Canada, Department of Natural Resources. All rights reserved.; © Teranet Enterprises Inc. and its suppliers all rights reserved.; © Municipal Property Assessment Corporation and its suppliers all rights reserved.; City DevelopmentDepartment Location Map Applicant: Date: Aug. 20, 2021 Lake Ontario L:\PLANNING\01-MapFiles\OPA\2020\OPA 20-006, A11-20 City Initiated Infill\OPA 20-006P_LocationMap.mxd 1:45,000 SCALE:THIS IS NOT A PLAN OF SURVEY. Legend Neighbourhood Boundaries Established Neighbourhood Precincts File: Property Description: OPA 20-006/P & A 11/20City of PickeringEstablished Neighbourhood Precincts Attachment #4 to Report #PLN 33-21 WhitesRoadHillcrest RoadRougemountDriveCreekview CircleOklahoma DriveHoover Drive RoddAvenueAltona RoadToynevale Road Littleford Street Pettico a tCreek K in g s ton R oa d Highway 4 0 1 DownlandDriveEyer DriveBroadgreen StreetCowan CircleFawndale RoadAtwoodCrescent Rosebank RoadOakwood DriveSteeple Hill MountainAsh DriveLightfoot PlaceD a l ew o o d D r i v e Dyson RoadRiverviewCr e s cent Granite CourtRouge Valley DriveOldForest RoadMcleod CrescentBella V i st aDriveDahlia CrescentCliffviewRoadHig hbushTr ail Pi n e R i d g e R o a d StonebridgeLaneMoorelands CrescentBaylyStreetEstablished Neighbourhood Precincts Sheet 1 of 8 - Rosebank Neighbourhood Legend Established Neighbourhood Precincts Whites RoadFairport RoadKingston Road Longbow DriveCreekviewCircleParkCrescentWest Shore BoulevardWalnutLaneSheppard Avenue RambleberryAvenueGoldenridgeRoadBreezyDrive Vicki Drive Rougemount Drive Fairview AvenueEastbank RoadStrouds Lane Shadybrook DriveRodd Avenue Toynevale Road SanokDriveHillcrest RoadPetticoat C r eek BatoryAvenueDownlandDrive Edgewood Road Eyer DriveFoxwood TrailBroadgreen StreetCowan CircleAutumnCrescentRawlingsDriveOklahoma Drive Vistula Drive AtwoodCrescent Spruce Hill RoadRosebank RoadLaurierCrescentWeyburn SquareDunbarton R o a d Edmund DriveDixieRoadCobblers Court Wingarden CrescentBayl y S tr eet Sunrise Avenue Bea c h p o in tP ro m e na deOldForest RoadOakwood DriveVictory DriveHil lv iew C re s c e nt Steeple Hill LightfootPlaceMarksbury RoadDysonRoadGraniteCourt StorringtonStreetBronteSquareMcleod CrescentAppleview RoadBellaVista DriveDahlia CrescentBraeburnCrescentSilver Maple DriveSundown CrescentWhite Cedar DriveFoleyetCrescentBeckworthSquareAmberwoodCr escentHig hbush T ra il MeadowviewAvenue ListowellCrescentStonebridge Lane Cliffview RoadM arine tC re s ce n t Essa CrescentMoorelandsCrescentHeathsideCrescentH i g h way 4 0 1Sul t a n aSq u a r e Established Neighbourhood Precincts Sheet 2 of 8 - West Shore Neighbourhood Legend Established Neighbourhood Precincts Liverpool RoadGull Crossing Modlin RoadColmar AvenueBalaton AvenueFairview AvenueDouglas AvenueAnnland S t r e etDi x i eRoadKrosnoBoulevardParkham CrescentReytanBoulevardGarvolin Avenue Sandy Beach RoadFron t Road Tatra Drive Bem AvenueNaroch BoulevardZator AvenueGrenoble BoulevardLublin AvenueRadom Street Commerce Street Poprad Avenue Bayly StreetKingstonRoad ChapleauDriveWharf Street Picke r in g Pa r k w a y Alliance RoadMiriam RoadAntonio StreetMontgomery Park Road Highway 40 1 Established Neighbourhood Precincts Sheet 3 of 8 - Bay Ridges Neighbourhood Legend Established Neighbourhood Precincts RougemountDrivePineGroveAvenueValleyviewDriveLawson Street Waterford GateOakburn StreetHooverDriveToynevale Road Littleford S t r e et Altona RoadHighway 4 0 1 S tro u d s LaneValley Ridge CrescentAutumnCrescentFawndaleRoadThicket CrescentCalvingtonD riv eT r e et o p Wa yOld Forest RoadOakwood DriveMountain Ash DriveWoodview AvenueDale wo o d D ri v e Twyn Rivers Drive Kingston Roa dRockwood DriveRiverviewCr e s c ent Sheppard Avenue Ro u g e V alley Driv e Howell Crescent Mcleod CrescentDahlia CrescentWhitePineCrescent Silver Maple DriveWoodview DriveWhite Cedar DrivePi n e R i d g e R o a dSenatorStreet Hi ghbushTr ail Established Neighbourhood Precincts Sheet 4 of 8 - Rougemount Neighbourhood Legend Established Neighbourhood Precincts Whites RoadRougemountDriveToynevale Road Kingst o n R o a d Creekview CircleStrouds Lane Park CrescentCowan CircleSheppard Avenue Hillcrest RoadHighwa y 4 0 1 Vicki DriveEastbank RoadShadybrook DriveOklahoma Drive Br oadgreenStreet Spruce Hill RoadSanokDriveDownlandDrive Edgewood Road Eyer DriveWingarden CrescentFoxwood Trail Autumn Crescent Atwo od Crescent Rosebank RoadLaurierCrescentWeyburn SquareEdmund Dr i veC a lv i ngtonDr iveCobblers Court Tr e e to p W a y Old Forest RoadOakwood DriveVictory DriveHillviewCr escent Steeple Hill MountainAsh DriveLightfoot PlaceMarksbury RoadGr an i t e C ourt Mcleod CrescentCliffviewRoadDahlia CrescentSultanaS q u ar eBraeburnCrescentSilver Maple DriveSundown CrescentWhite Cedar DriveBeckworth SquareAmber wood CrescentMeadowviewAvenueStonebridge Lane Marinet Cr es c e ntHighbush T ra i l Moorelands CrescentBaylyStre etGardenviewSquareEstablished Neighbourhood Precincts Sheet 5 of 8 - Woodlands Neighbourhood Legend Established Neighbourhood Precincts Whites RoadFairport RoadBowlerDriveGlenanna Road Maple Ridge Drive Kingston Road Finch Avenue Appleview RoadRambleberry AvenueGoldenridge RoadEastbank RoadShadybrook DrivePebble CourtEdgewood Road DuncannonDrive Erin Gate BoulevardAspen RoadDarwinDrive HuntsmillDriveLynn Heights DriveWalnutLaneGloucester Square Parkside Drive New Street Dixie RoadRawlingsDriveSpruce Hill RoadS tro u d s L an e D u n b a rto n R o a d Gablehurst Crescent Longbow DriveCobblers Court Wingarden CrescentEagleview DriveB a yly S tree t Sheppard Avenue Heathside CrescentSilver Spruce DriveLydia CrescentWeyburnSquareArcadia SquareFoleyet CrescentMeadowviewAvenueSilverthorn SquareListowellCrescentRedbi r d Cresc e n t Stonepath CircleBenton CrescentCedarcroft CrescentMountcastleCrescent Highway 40 1 Brookshir eSquareEstablished Neighbourhood Precincts Sheet 6 of 8 - Dunbarton Neighbourhood Legend Established Neighbourhood Precincts ValleyviewDrivePine Grove Avenue Lawson Street Sparrow Circle Waterford Gate SummerparkCrescentSheppard Avenue Littleford Street Stroud s LaneAltona RoadWestcreek DriveValley Ridge CrescentAutumnCrescentThicket CrescentHoover DriveS a n d h u r s t C r es cent Ca l v i ngtonDri veT ree t o p W a yOakburn StreetShadow Place Finch Avenue Twyn Rivers DriveWoodview AvenueNatureHaven C r e s cent WoodsmereCre scent HowellCrescent Hi ghbus hTrail Rouge Forest Crescent Rougemount Drive Sandcher ry CourtRockwood DriveWhite Pine Crescent Woodview DriveSenator StreetMossbrookSquareEstablished Neighbourhood Precincts Sheet 7 of 8 - Highbush Neighbourhood Legend Established Neighbourhood Precincts Kr osnoBoulevardWhites RoadFairport RoadLiverpoolRoadK in g s ton R o a d Finch Avenue Su ltanaS quareParkdale Street Appleview RoadGlenview RoadLinwood Street GrenobleBoulevardAlanbury CrescentRambleberryAvenueHighway 40 1 Goldenridge Road Maj orOaksRoadG lenanna RoadBowlerDrive Eastbank RoadShadybrook DrivePebble CourtWeybu rn SquareDuberryDri veMaple Gate RoadD e llbrook Av e nue St r ath mor eCres c e nt FieldlightBoulevard Maple Ridge Drive EdgewoodR o adWildwood Crescent DuncannonDrive Rosefield RoadAspen RoadReyt an BoulevardDarwin Drive Erin GateBoulevardHuntsmillDriveGarvo lin Avenue Lynn He ights Drive Sandy Beach RoadWalnut LaneValleyFarm RoadParkside Drive Tatra Drive Ne wStreetDixie RoadHollyhedgeDrive RawlingsDriveNaroch BoulevardModlin RoadSomergroveCres c e n tMiddletonStreetSpruce Hill RoadStrouds Lane Bushmill Street Dunbarton R o a d Pepperwoo dGate DouglasAvenueLodge RoadGablehurst Crescent Radom Street A b b e y R o a d Longbow DriveB lue R idg e Cres c en tGlendale DriveCobblers Court Wingarden CrescentDenvaleDrivePoprad Avenue Sherman Crescent EagleviewDriveG o s s amer Drive Bayly Stree t Meriadoc DriveSheppard Avenue Heathside CrescentC ra ighur s t Court Alliance RoadVistulaDrive FieldstoneCircleThird Concession Road CanboroughCrescentMaldenCrescent Pickering P a r k w a y The Esplanade N Bridle P ath Circ le Storrington StreetSilver SpruceDriveLydia CrescentPrimrose Court WildroseCrescentMeadowlaneCrescentGuild RoadPebblestone Crescent FoleyetCrescentMar inet C res ce ntAntonio StreetGlengroveRoadMeadowviewAvenue SilverthornSquareRed b i r d Cres c e n t Baylawn Drive M a u r y C rescent ListowellCrescentFaylee Crescent StonepathCircleBento n Cresce n t CedarcroftCrescentAnton SquareMountcastleCrescent Bronte SquareG loucester SquareErin GateBoulevard AbbeyRoadEstablished Neighbourhood Precincts Sheet 8 of 8 - Liverpool Neighbourhood Legend Established Neighbourhood Precincts Table 1: Summary of Draft Zoning By-law Definitions Zoning By-laws 2511, 2520, 3036 R3/R4 Proposed Draft By-law Amendment Recommended Draft By-law Amendment Adding new definitions for: •Dwelling Depth None “Dwelling Depth” means the horizontal distance measured from the minimum front yard setback to the rear wall of a dwelling, excluding any Obstruction of Yards. No change from the Proposed Draft By-law Amendment •Dwelling Height "Building Height" shall mean the vertical distance between the established grade, and in the case of a flat roof, the highest point of the roof surface or parapet wall, or in the case of a mansard roof the deck line, or in the case of a gabled, hip or gambrel roof, the mean height level between eaves and ridge. A penthouse, tower, cupola, steeple or other roof structure which is used only as an ornament upon or to house the mechanical equipment of any building shall be disregarded in calculating the height of such building. “Dwelling Height” means the vertical distance between the average grade as measured along the front wall of the dwelling, and in the case of a flat roof, the highest point of the roof surface or parapet wall, or in the case of a mansard roof the deck line, or in the case of a gabled, hip or gambrel roof, the mean height between eaves and ridge. A cupola, antenna, or other roof structure which is used only as an ornament shall be disregarded in calculating the height of such dwelling. “Dwelling Height” means the vertical distance between the average grade as measured along the front wall of the dwelling, and in the case of a flat roof, the highest point of the roof surface or parapet wall, or in the case of a mansard roof the deck line, or in the case of a gabled, hip or gambrel roof, the mean height between eaves and ridge. Ornamental fixtures such as a cupola, antenna or other roof structure shall not be included in calculating the height of a dwelling. Any other roof structure, such as to house the mechanical equipment of the dwelling or a penthouse, shall be included in calculating the height of the dwelling. •Dwelling Width None “Dwelling Width” means the width of the front wall or main wall of the dwelling. The definition for “Dwelling Width” has been removed from the Definitions section and placed in the Provisions section under “Front Yard Setback (maximum)” since it relates to this Provision only. The wording of the definition has not changed. Attachment #5 to Report #PLN 33-21 Zoning By-laws 2511, 2520, 3036 R3/R4 Proposed Draft By-law Amendment Recommended Draft By-law Amendment •Front Entrance None “Front Entrance” means the principal entrance oriented towards the front lot line providing access to the interior of a dwelling from the exterior and does not include an access provided through an attached private garage. In the case of a corner lot, the principal entrance providing access to the interior of a dwelling from the exterior may be oriented towards the side lot line that is adjacent to the street, or abutting on a reserve on the opposite side of which is a street. No change from the Proposed Draft By-law Amendment •Infill Dwelling None “Infill Dwelling” means the development of one or more dwellings such as single detached, semi-detached or street townhouse dwellings through a consolidation of lots or the severance of a larger lot located within an “Established Neighbourhood Precinct Overlay Zone”. Infill Dwelling does not include the development of stacked townhouses, stacked back-to-back townhouses, apartment buildings, or other forms of multi-unit housing resulting in a higher level of density. Removed The definition is removed from the Recommended Draft By-law since it will be defined in the Official Plan. This is noted in the pre-amble to the Draft Zoning By-law. Zoning By-laws 2511, 2520, 3036 R3/R4 Proposed Draft By-law Amendment Recommended Draft By-law Amendment •Lot Coverage "Lot Coverage" shall mean the combined areas of all the buildings on the lot measured at the level of the first floor and expressed as a percentage of the lot area. “Lot Coverage” means the total horizontal area of that part of the lot covered by all roofed structures and buildings above grade, including covered platforms (such as covered decks and covered porches) but excluding eaves, belt courses, chimney breasts, sills or cornices projections to a maximum of 0.6 metres and balconies. “Lot Coverage” means the total horizontal area on the lot of all above grade roofed structures and buildings, measured at the level of the first floor and expressed as a percentage of the lot area, including covered platforms (such as covered decks and covered porches) but excluding eaves, belt courses, chimney breasts, sills or cornices projections to a maximum of 0.6 of a metre, and balconies. •ReplacementDwelling None “Replacement Dwelling” means the rebuild of a dwelling either through a substantial alteration, or demolition and replacement, and that is located within an “Established Neighbourhood Precinct Overlay Zone”, as identified in the applicable zoning by-law. Removed The definition is removed from the Recommended Draft By-law since it will be defined in the Official Plan. This is noted in the pre-amble to the Draft Zoning By-law. •Setback None “Setback” means the shortest distance between a building and a lot line. In calculating the setback the horizontal distance from the respective lot line shall be used. “Setback” means the shortest horizontal distance between a building and a lot line. Table 2: Summary of Draft Zoning By-law Provisions Zoning By-law 2511 R3/R4 Zoning By-law 2520 R4 Zoning By-law 3036 R3/R4 Proposed Draft By-law Amendment Recommended Draft By-law Amendment Adding new provisions for: •DwellingDepth(maximum) None None None Dwelling Depth (maximum): The maximum Dwelling Depth, measured from the minimum front yard setback to the rear wall of a dwelling, shall be as follows: (i)For lots with depths up to 40 metres: 17 metres(ii)For lots with depths greater than40 metres: 20 metres Dwelling Depth (maximum): The maximum Dwelling Depth, measured from the minimum front yard setback to the rear wall of a dwelling, shall be as follows: (i)For lots with depths up to and including 40 metres: 17 metres(ii)For lots with depths greater than40 metres: 20 metres •Dwelling Height(maximum) Building Height: 9.0 metres Building Height: 10.5 metres Building Height: 18.0 metres 9.0 metres No change from the Proposed Draft By-law Amendment •DrivewayWidth (maximum) None None None 6.0 metres. However, for lots where the entrance of a garage or carport is wider than 6.0 metres, the maximum driveway width shall be no greater than the width of the entrance of a garage or carport. No change from the Proposed Draft By-law Amendment •Front Entrance (maximum elevation) None None None The maximum elevation of the Front Entrance shall be 1.2 metres above grade. The maximum elevation of the Front Entrance shall be 1.2 metres above the average grade, which is measured along the front wall of the dwelling, to the top of the platform (covered or uncovered) immediately outside of the Front Entrance. Attachment #6 to Report #PLN 33-21 Zoning By-law 2511 R3/R4 Zoning By-law 2520 R4 Zoning By-law 3036 R3/R4 Proposed Draft By-law Amendment Recommended Draft By-law Amendment • Front Yard Setback (maximum) None None None Maximum The maximum front yard setback shall not exceed the average of the existing front yard setback of the dwellings on the immediately abutting lots located along the same side of the street and within the same block by more than 1.0 metre. The maximum Front Yard Setback applies to only 80% of the Dwelling Width including any attached garage. Maximum The maximum front yard setback shall not be more than 1.0 metre beyond the average of the existing front yard setback of the dwellings on the immediately abutting lots located along the same side of the street and within the same block. The maximum Front Yard Setback applies to only 80% of the Dwelling Width including any attached garage. For the purpose of this regulation, “Dwelling Width” means the width of the front wall or main wall of the dwelling. • Front Yard Setback (minimum) 7.5 metres 7.5 metres 7.5 metres Minimum Despite any other provision in this by-law, for lots within any Established Neighbourhood Precinct Overlay Zone, the minimum front yard setback shall be equal to the smallest existing front yard setback of the dwellings on the immediately abutting lots located along the same side of the street and within the same block. For corner lots, the minimum front yard setback shall be equal to the smallest existing front yard setback of the dwellings on the nearest two lots located along the same side of the street and within the same block. Minimum Despite any other provision in this By-law, for lots within any Established Neighbourhood Precinct Overlay Zone, the minimum front yard setback shall be equal to the shortest existing front yard setback of the dwellings on the immediately abutting lots located along the same side of the street and within the same block. For corner lots, the minimum front yard setback shall be equal to the shortest existing front yard setback of the dwellings on the nearest two lots located along the same side of the street and within the same block. • Garage or Carport (maximum width) None None None The maximum width of an attached garage or carport shall be no greater than 50% of the dwelling width. Removed Zoning By-law 2511 R3/R4 Zoning By-law 2520 R4 Zoning By-law 3036 R3/R4 Proposed Draft By-law Amendment Recommended Draft By-law Amendment • Interior Garage Size (minimum) None None None Each parking space within a private garage shall have a minimum width of 3.0 metres and a minimum depth of 6.0 metres. However, the width may include one interior step and the depth may include two interior steps. No change from the Proposed Draft By-law Amendment • Lot Coverage (maximum) 33% 33% 33% Despite any other provision in this by-law, for lots within any Established Neighbourhood Precinct Overlay Zone, the following maximum lot coverage provisions shall apply within the applicable Neighbourhood Precinct, as shown on Schedules I, II and lll of this By-law: (i) Dunbarton Neighbourhood Precinct: Maximum 25% (ii) Highbush Neighbourhood Precinct: Maximum 25% (iii) Liverpool Neighbourhood Precincts: Maximum 30% (iv) Rosebank Neighbourhood Precincts: Maximum 30% (v) Rougemount Neighbourhood Precincts: Maximum 30% (vi) West Shore Neighbourhood Precinct: Maximum 30% (vii) Woodlands Neighbourhood Precinct: Maximum 25% Despite any other provision in this by-law, for lots within any Established Neighbourhood Precinct Overlay Zone, the following maximum lot coverage provisions shall apply within the applicable Established Neighbourhood Precinct, as shown on Schedules I, II and lll of this By-law: (i) Dunbarton Established Neighbourhood Precinct: a. For lots greater than or equal to 1,000 square metres in area: Maximum 25%; b. For lot s less than 1,000 square metres in area: Maximum 33%; (ii) Highbush Established Neighbourhood Precinct: a. For lots greater than or equal to 1,000 square metres in area: Maximum 25%; b. For lots less than 1,000 square metres in area: Maximum 33%; (iii) Liverpool Established Neighbourhood Precinct: Maximum 25%; (iv) Rosebank Established Neighbourhood Precinct: a. For lots greater than or equal to 1,000 square metres in area: Maximum 25%; b. For lots less than 1,000 square metres in area: Maximum 33%; (v) Rougemount Established Neighbourhood Precinct: Zoning By-law 2511 R3/R4 Zoning By-law 2520 R4 Zoning By-law 3036 R3/R4 Proposed Draft By-law Amendment Recommended Draft By-law Amendment a. For lots greater than or equal to 1,000 square metres in area: Maximum 25%; b. For lots less than 1,000 square metres in area: Maximum 33%; (vi) Woodlands Established Neighbourhood Precinct: a. For lots greater than or equal to 1,000 square metres in area: Maximum 25%; b. For lots less than 1,000 square metres in area: Maximum 33% • Side Yard Setback for Infill Dwelling (minimum) None None None Where the side lot line of a newly created lot for any Infill Dwelling abuts the rear lot line of an existing lot of record, the minimum side yard setback to the side lot line abutting the rear lot line of an existing lot of record shall be 4.5 metres. Removed Adding: Transition Provisions Not applicable Not applicable Not applicable Transition Provisions (a) Building Permit Applications: (i) Nothing in this By-law shall prevent the erection of a building or structure for which an application for a building permit was filed on or before the effective date of this By-law, provided that the building permit application satisfies the following requirements: a. The building permit application complies with the provisions of Zoning By-law 2511, as amended, as it read on the effective date of this By-law; Transition Provisions (a) Existing Building Permits Nothing in this By-law prevents the erection of a building or structure in accordance with a building permit application submitted prior to the date of passing of this By-law, provided the building permit is in accordance with all prior zoning by-laws that affected the lot before this By-law came into effect. (b) Existing Planning Applications Nothing in this By-law prevents the erection of a building or structure in accordance with any minor variance that has been Zoning By-law 2511 R3/R4 Zoning By-law 2520 R4 Zoning By-law 3036 R3/R4 Proposed Draft By-law Amendment Recommended Draft By-law Amendment b. All information is provided to allow for a zoning review to be undertaken; and c. All required planning approvals have been obtained. (b) Planning Act Approvals: (i) The requirements of this By-law do not apply on a lot where a minor variance to Zoning By-law 2511, as amended, was authorized by the Committee of Adjustment of the City or the Local Planning Appeal Tribunal on or after January 1, 2018 and on or before the effective date of this By-law and a building permit has not yet been issued. (c) Planning Applications in Process: (i) The requirements of this By-law do not apply to prevent the erection or use of a building or structure for which an application for a minor variance has been filed on or before the effective date of this By-law, provided: a. The minor variance application is deemed complete in accordance with the City of Pickering Official Plan, 1997; b. The minor variance application was in compliance with Zoning By-law 2511, as amended, except for the aspects of Zoning By-law 2511, as amended, that are subject to the minor variance application; submitted and deemed complete by the City, or approved or conditionally approved by the relevant approval authority before the passing of this By-law, provided the application complies with all prior zoning by-laws that affected the lot before this By-law came into effect. (c) Lapse of Transition Provisions: (i) Once a permit or approval referred to under Sections (2) (a) or (2) (b) has been granted, all provisions of this By-law shall apply to the subject property. (ii) The provisions of Section (2) shall be deemed repealed five years from the effective date of this By-law. This provision shall not require an amendment to this By-law to take effect. Zoning By-law 2511 R3/R4 Zoning By-law 2520 R4 Zoning By-law 3036 R3/R4 Proposed Draft By-law Amendment Recommended Draft By-law Amendment c. The minor variance approval is subject to Section 45 of the Planning Act and receives final approval in the context of Zoning By-law 2511, as amended; and d. Any building permit issued after final approval of the minor variance complies with the provisions of Zoning By-law 2511, as amended, as it read on the date the application was deemed complete and in accordance with the final approved minor variance. (ii) The requirements of this By-law do not apply to a lot where the Local Planning Appeal Tribunal has, on or after January 1, 2018 and on or before the passing of this By-law, granted approval in principle for a zoning by-law amendment or minor variance to Zoning By-law 2511, but has decided that the final Order shall come into force or be issued at a future fixed date or upon the performance of terms imposed by the Local Planning Appeal Tribunal and a building permit has not yet been issued, or the applicable easement or agreement has not yet been registered on title, as the case may be. (d) Lapse of Transition Provisions: (i) Once a permit or approval referred to under Sections 2 (a), (b), or (c) has Zoning By-law 2511 R3/R4 Zoning By-law 2520 R4 Zoning By-law 3036 R3/R4 Proposed Draft By-law Amendment Recommended Draft By-law Amendment been granted, all provisions of this By-law shall apply to the subject lands. (ii)The provisions of Section 2 shall berepealed five years from the effectivedate of this By-law. This provision shallnot require an amendment to thisBy-law to take effect. Attachment #7 to Report #PLN 33-21 WhitesRoadHillcrest RoadRougemountDriveCreekview CircleOklahoma DriveHoover Drive Rodd AvenueAltona RoadToynevale Road Littleford Street Pettico a tCreek K in g s ton R oa d Highway 4 0 1 DownlandDriveEyer DriveBroadgreen StreetC owanCircleFawndale RoadAtwoodCrescent Rosebank RoadOakwood DriveSteeple Hill MountainAsh DriveLightfoot PlaceD a l ew o o d D r i v e Dyson RoadRiverviewCr e s cent Granite CourtRouge Valley DriveOldForest RoadMcleod CrescentBella V i st aDriveDahlia CrescentCliffviewRoadHig hbushTr ail Pi n e R i d g e R o a d StonebridgeLaneMoore lands CrescentBaylyStreetSD-B SD-B R4-6 G R4 (H)S4-19 R4 R4(DN) S S2-16 S4-9 G R4 R4 SD-B SD-B R3 S R(RH) R4-10 G R3 R4 R4 R4 SD-B G R3 SD-B S R3 OS-HL R4 R4R3 R4 S2-16 O2 R4 CP SD-B SD-B S4-14 R4-6 R3 R3 R4 R3 S4-18 G R4 R3 S R4 OS NP R4 S R3 OS-HL R3 R4 O2 R4 S R3 R3 R4 S R4 R3 R4 OS-HL R4-6 S4-9 R3 S2-16 R4-13 S S SD-B G SR4 R4-10 R4 R4 R4 R4 R4-6 S O2 R4-13 R4 SD-B R4 S R4-10 R4 S S2-16 R4 R4 S R3 O1 Established Neighbourhood Precincts Sheet 1 of 8 - Rosebank Neighbourhood Legend Established Neighbourhood Precinct Overlay Zone Whites RoadFairport RoadKingston Road Longbow DriveParkCrescentWest Shore BoulevardWalnutLaneSheppard Avenue RambleberryAvenueGoldenridgeRoadBreezyDrive Vicki Drive Rougemount Drive Fairview AvenueEastbank RoadStrouds Lane Shadybrook DriveRodd Avenue Toynevale Road S a n o k D rive Hillcre st R oad Petticoat C r eek BatoryAvenueEdgewood Road Eyer DriveFoxwood TrailCowan CircleAutumnCrescentRawlingsDriveOklahoma Drive Vistula DriveAtwoodCrescentSpruce Hill RoadRosebank RoadLaurierCrescentWeyburn SquareDunbarton R o a d Edmund DriveDixieRoadCobblers Court Wingarden CrescentBayl y S tr eet Sunrise Avenue B each p o in tP rom en adeOldForest RoadOakwood DriveVictoryDriveHil lv iew Cre s c e nt Steeple Hill Creekvie w CircleLightfootPlaceMarksbury RoadDysonRoadGraniteCourt StorringtonStreetBronteSquareMcleod CrescentAppleview RoadBellaVista DriveDahlia CrescentBraeburnCrescentSilver Maple DriveSundown CrescentWhite Cedar DriveFoleyetCrescentBeckworthSquareAmberwoodCr escentHig hbush T ra il MeadowviewAvenue ListowellCrescentStonebridgeLaneCliffview RoadMarinet Cresc e nt Essa Crescent MoorelandsCrescentHeathsideCrescentH i g h way 4 0 1Sul t a n aSq u a r e R4 R4 R1 R4 R4 R4 O1 R4G M1-1(S)RM1 RM1 S SD OS-HL RM1 S2 R4 O2 S I(C)-DN(I) RM1 RM1 C1 S SD O1 S (H)R4-22 R4 S R4 RM1 S-SD-SA R4 M15 SD RM1 (H)LAC-11 S3 O2 SD R4 CP S1 R4 S1 R4 (H)O3B S R3 R4 R4 RM1 R3 G C17-RS3 RM1-4 G R4 S R3 R4 R4 R4 RM1 RM1 S1 C2/GS3 RM1 R3 SD RM2 O2 R4 RM1 M1 R4 S3 R4-HL OS R4 S S3 RM1 R4 (H)O3B (H)O3B M15 RM1 O2 R1 O1 RM1 M1-1 S4 R4RM1 S O3A S2 S1 RM1 RM1 R4 O1 R4 C1-1 O1 R3 R4(DN) S3 M1-1(S) O2 R4 O1 R3 SD R4 R4 R4 RM1 RM1 S-SD-SA O2 RM1 RM1 O1 M1-1 G RM1 SD R4 S4 SD R4-22 Established Neighbourhood Precincts Sheet 2 of 8 - West Shore Neighbourhood Legend Established Neighbourhood Precinct Overlay Zone Liverpool RoadModlin RoadColmar Avenue Balaton AvenueFairview AvenueDouglas AvenueAnnland S t r e etDi x i eRoadKrosno BoulevardParkham CrescentReytanBoulevardGarvolin Avenue Sandy Beach RoadFr ont Road Tatra Drive Bem AvenueNaroch BoulevardZator Avenue Lublin AvenueRadomStreet Commerce Street PopradA venueBayly StreetKingstonRoad ChapleauDriveWharf Street Picke r in g Pa r k w a y Alliance RoadMiri amRoadAntonio StreetMontgomery Park Road Highway 40 1 OS-HL-5 R4 NP RM2 RM1 O3B O3B R4 R4 RM1 SA-8 R4 M1 M1 R4 S1 RM1 RM1 M2 C3 (H)S-SD-1 C1 CA-1 S2-17 CO O2 RM1 R4-21 RM1 S4-7 RM1 O3B RM1 S RM1 C2-1 R4 RM1 RM1 RM1 RM1 O2 RM1 RH-MU-2 R4 O2 I(C)(DN)-R(S R(NH) MD-H6 R4 R4 O2 R4 RM1 R4 RM1 R4 RM1 RM1 R4 RM2 RM1 RM1 R4 M2 CA(G) RH-MU-2 O3B S-SD-1 SA O2-2 RM1/S R4 R4 RM1 MD-H12 PU M1 (H)O3B R4 R4 RM1 MR-1 R4 RM1 (H)OS-P RM1 R4 S RM1 R4 C2 S2-17 M2 S4-17 R4 O3B (H)O3B-2 LCA-10 RM1 CO-DS R4 RM1 R4 RM1 R4 RM2 RM1 O3B-1 R4 MD-S-SD O2 RM1 RM1 M2 RM1OS-HL RM1 RM2 A36 O2 OS R4 R4 M3 O2 SA MC R4 RM1 (H)O3B RM-1 RM1 R4-11OS-HL RM1 R4 R4 RM1 G R4 O3B R4 S-SD-1 MD-H13 C3 (H)O3B O1 R4 R4 M1S R4 G O1 RM2 MU-16 R4 RM1 RM1 RM1 RM1 R4 S RM1 MU-13 R4 R4 RM1 M4 (H)SA-22 SD R4 C8 R4 RM1O2 O2 RM1 R4 O1 O2 RM1 R4 RM1 SA-LW M1MU-14 RM1 M2S RM2 C3 RM1 Established Neighbourhood Precincts Sheet 3 of 8 - Bay Ridges Neighbourhood Legend Established Neighbourhood Precinct Overlay Zone RougemountDrivePineGroveAvenueValleyviewDriveLawson Street Waterford GateOakburn StreetHoover DriveToynevale Road Littleford Street Altona RoadHighway 4 0 1 S tro u d s LaneValley Ridge CrescentAutumnCrescentFawndaleRoadThicket CrescentCalvingtonD riv eT r e et o p Wa yOld Forest RoadOakwood DriveMountain Ash DriveWoodview AvenueDale wo o d D ri v e Twyn Rivers Drive Kingston Roa dRockwood DriveRivervi e w C r esce nt Sheppard Avenue Ro u g e V alley Driv e Howell Crescent Mcleod CrescentDahlia CrescentWhitePineCrescent Silver Maple DriveWoodview DriveWhite Cedar DrivePi n e R i d g e R o a dSenatorStreet Hi ghbushTr ail G S2 OS-HL G S1 S2 R3 R3 OS-HL-1 R3 S2 S1 S2-3 R3 R3 S3 R4 CO/(H)RM1 R3 S1 S1 CO/RM1(C15) S1 S1 R4 S2 R4 R3 R3 C.N.R. R3 ES RM3 M1-8 S2 R4 R3 S1 R4-14 MU-9 S3 R5-5 R3 M1-8(SC-14) OS-HL-1 MD-H4 S2-10 G G S2 NP S2 R1 R4 MU-12 S1 S3 R3 R3 C.N.R. G M1-8 S2 G C.N.R. R3 R3 S2 M1-8 R4R4 OS-HL-(MU) S2 S2 S2 S3 G SC-32 R4 S1 S3-9 S3 R4 S2-1R1-2 NP S1 M1-8(SC-29) S3 R3 G M1-8 S3 S1 OS-HL S3 S2-3 R3R3 R4 S2 S1 R4 R4 CO/RM1 S3 S2-10 S1 OS-HL S1 I(C)-DN(2) S3 R4 SC-9 M1-8(SC-15) G OS-HL-1 S2 LCA-5 S3 S2 S1 S2 R3 S2 S3 OS-HL R4-7 S3 MD-H15 S1 S1 S2 R3 RH2-1 R4 G S3 S1 R3 A R4 OS-HL R3 S1 R4 R1-1 S2 MU-17 S3 M1-8(SC-16) (H)MU-11 G S1 S3 S2-10 C.N.R. R4 R3 R3 CO/(II)RM1 R3 R3 S2 S2 S1 R4R3 S2 R1-3 MD-H14 Established Neighbourhood Precincts Sheet 4 of 8 - Rougemount Neighbourhood Legend Established Neighbourhood Precinct Overlay Zone Whites RoadRougemountDriveToynevale Road Kingst o n R o a d Creekview CircleStrouds Lane Park CrescentCowan CircleSheppard Avenue Hillcrest RoadHighwa y 4 0 1 Vicki DriveEastbank RoadShadybrook DriveOklahoma Drive Br oadgreenStreet Spruce Hill RoadSanokDriveDownlandDrive Edgewood Road Eyer DriveWingarden CrescentFoxwood Trail Autumn Crescent Atwo od Crescent Rosebank RoadLaurierCrescentWeyburn SquareEdmund Dr i veC a lv i ngtonDr iveCobblers Court Tr e e to p W a y Old Forest RoadOakwood DriveVictory DriveHillviewCr escent Steeple Hill MountainAsh DriveL ightfoot Place Marksbury RoadGr an i t e C ourt Mcleod CrescentCliffviewRoadDahlia CrescentSultanaS q u ar eBraeburnCrescentSilver Maple DriveSundown CrescentWhite Cedar DriveBeckworth SquareAmber wood CrescentMeadowviewAvenueStonebridge Lane Marinet Cr es c e ntHighbush T ra i l Moorelands CrescentBaylyStre etGardenviewSquareG G CA-1 MU-18 RMM4 C.N.R. MU-5 S1S1 S2 (H)MU-26 LCA-7 SA-10 S3 SC-5 MU-15 S2 R3 S2 S1 M1-8(I(C)-DN SC-28 R3 S3 C.N.R. R3 C3 S2 RH11-4 SC-22(GS3) SA-3 R4 S3 R3 S2 (H)OS-HL/SPC C1 MU-20 C.N.R. CA3-1 S2 C14/GS1 G R4 MU-10 R4 S2 I(C) S2 R4 C13 SC-2 RMM-5 R4-18 R4 R4 MU-4 S3 R4 S2 G OS-HLR3 SC-2 R4 S2 SPC-3 S3 MU-31 G S2 S1 S1 R4 SC-11NP S3 R3 S2 G SC-6 MU-1 R4 R4 S3 R4 R3 R3 S3 (H)SA-10 Established Neighbourhood Precincts Sheet 5 of 8 - Woodlands Neighbourhood Legend Established Neighbourhood Precinct Overlay Zone Whites RoadBowlerDriveGlenanna Road Maple Ridge Drive Kingston Road Finch Avenue Appleview RoadRambleberry AvenueGoldenridgeRoadEastbank RoadShadybrook DrivePebble CourtEdgewood Road DuncannonDrive Erin Gate BoulevardAspen RoadDarwinDrive HuntsmillDriveLynn Heights DriveWalnutLaneFairport RoadGloucester Square Parkside Drive New Street Dixie RoadRawlingsDriveSpruce Hill RoadS tro u d s L an e Dunbart o n R o a d Gablehurst Crescent Longbow DriveCobblers Court Eagleview DriveB a yly S tree t Sheppard Avenue Heathside CrescentSilver Spruce DriveLydia CrescentWeyburnSquareArcadia SquareFoleyet CrescentMeadowviewAvenueSilverthorn SquareListowellCrescentRedbi r d Cresc e n t Stonepath CircleBenton CrescentCedarcroft CrescentMountcastleCrescent Highway 40 1 Brookshir eSquareS1 OS-HL OS-HL S3-7 S2 S3-7 S3-13 R4 S3-17 SWM/S3 SC-35 OS-HL-3 S3-7 R3 S3-7 S3-8 R4-12 R4-9 R4 R3 R4 S2 OS-HL R4-9 R4 SC-12 C2-2 R3 S2 S2 R3 I(C)-DN R3 S2 C.N.R. R3 S3-7 R3 R3 R4-19 O2 S2 S2 R3 R4-23 S2 R4-9 S3-7 R4-15 C2 S2-15 RH-MU-6 S2 S2-11 R3 OS-HL S3-16 S3-7 OS-HL R3 S2 R4 S3-7 S3 R3 S3-7 R4 S2 S2 R4-8 S3-7 S2 S2 S4-3 R4-19 R3 (H)S3-7 R4 OS-HL S2-14 R4(DN) R4 S4 S4-5 R4 S1 R3 OS-HL S1-5 S4-5 R3 SC-26 R4 R3 NP OS-HL S3 C.N.R. S3-7 S3-10 S3-7 S4-9 R3 R4R4 R3 R3 S3-7 R3 OS-HL S3-10 S3-7 R4 I(C)-DN R3 R3-DN S3-8 S1S3 S4 R3 S2 S4-5R3 OS-HL R3S3-7 R3 S3-7 S1 S3-7 A S2 A S2-14 R4 S3-7 S2 OS-HL S2 S1 S1 OS-HL OS-HL S1 S3-7 R4-9 C2-DB R4 S3-7 NP R4 S1-5 R4-9 R4-9 (H)SC-36 S2 S4-3 S1 OS-HL OS-HL-4 S3-7 S2-15 S2-DB S3-7 S3-7 R3 S3-7 R3 Established Neighbourhood Precincts Sheet 6 of 8 - Dunbarton Neighbourhood Legend Established Neighbourhood Precinct Overlay Zone Valleyview DrivePine Grove Avenue Lawson Street Sparrow Circle Waterford Gate SummerparkCrescentSheppard Avenue Littleford Street Strou ds L a n eAltona RoadWestcreek DriveValley RidgeCrescent AutumnCrescentThicket CrescentHoover DriveS andhurstCres centOakburn StreetShadow Place Finch Avenue Twyn Rivers DriveWoodview AvenueNatureHaven C r e s cent WoodsmereCre scent HowellCrescent Hi ghbus hTrailRougeForest Crescent Rougemount Drive White Pine Crescent Woodview DriveSenator StreetMossbrookSquareS4 R4 G S2 S4 OS-HL S3 A S2 S2 R4 S4 S1 OS-HL OS-HL-1 NP S4 RM2-1 S2 RMM SD-A A OS-SWM S3 R4 OS-HL-1 S4-7 S3 SD-7 OS-HL S3 S4 S2-2 OS-HL R3-5 S1-10 S3 S4-1 RM2-1 S4 S3 S4 S4 ES S3 R4 S2 O2 RMM S3 SD-A C.N.R. S4 S2 G S3 S1 S3 S3 S1-14 G OS-HL S1-15 S1-13 S-SD-A-2 S4 S-1 S2 S-SD-A-1 S2 S2 S4 S4 S2 SD-7 R4 R3-5-ES S2 S4 S3 O2 OS-HL RMM-2 R4 SD-A S3 C.N.R. S1-14 S2 OS-HL-1 R3 R4 S4 OS-HL-1 C.N.R. SA-8 S1 SD-7 MD-Q OS-A R3-4 S4 S1 S3 S3 R3-4 S4 R4 SA-8 RMM A O2 SD-A R4-20 SD-A OS-HL S3 G OS-HL S3 S3 RM1-1 R3-5-ES S3 S3 SA-8 S2 MD-Q SD-A R4 S1 G S2 S2 S1 S3 SD-A OS-HL S3 RMM-2 R3-4 NP SD-7 R4 OS-HL OS-HL S2 NP R4 SD-7 NP A R4 S4 S1-13 SD-A G S3 SA-6 S1-15 S3 S3 S5 S3-5 S2 R3-5 R3 A S3 S3 SA-8 RMM-2 S1 S3-12R3-4 R4 SD-A S3 S3 R4 S3 R4 SD-7 S3-7 RM-MU S3 R3-5 S3 OS-HL OS-HL SA-8 S2 A S3 LCA-6 SA-8 S3 S4 SD-2 S3 R4 S1 S3 S3 SD-7 RM2-1 S1-5 S3 SD-A RM2-2 S1-13 S1 S3 S-5 S3 S-SD-A-2 RMM-2 SA-8 S4 S3 S3-1 S1 SD-A-1 S1 S4 S1-15 O2 A S3 SD-A S3 C.N.R. S3 OS-HL-2 S3 S2-10 OS-HL RM2-1 S4-4 RM1-5 R4 S4-1 R3-5-ES S1-14 S1 SD-A NP OS-HL OS-HL Established Neighbourhood Precincts Sheet 7 of 8 - Highbush Neighbourhood Legend Established Neighbourhood Precinct Overlay Zone Kr osnoBoulevardWhites RoadFairport RoadLiverpoolRoadKingston RoadFinch Avenue Su ltanaS quareAppleview RoadGrenobleBoulevardHighway 40 1 Goldenridge Road Maj orOaksRoadGlenannaR o a d Eastbank RoadShadybrook DrivePebble CourtWeybu rn SquareDuberryDri veD e llbrook Av e nue St r ath mor eCres c e nt EdgewoodR o adWildwood Crescent DuncannonDriveAspen RoadReyt an BoulevardDarwin Drive Erin GateBoulevardGarvo lin Avenue Sandy Beach RoadValleyFarm RoadParkside Drive Tatra Drive Ne wStreetDixie RoadHollyhedgeDrive Naroch BoulevardModlin RoadSomergroveCres c e n tMiddletonStreetSpruce Hill RoadStrouds Lane Dunbarton R o a d Pepperwoo dGate DouglasAvenueRadom Street A b b e yRo a d B lue R idg e Cres c en tGlendale DriveCobblers Court Wingarden CrescentDenvaleDrivePoprad Avenue Gossam er Drive Bayly Stree t Meriadoc DriveSheppard Avenue C ra ighur s t Court Alliance RoadVistulaDrive Third Concession Road Malden CrescentPickering P a r k w a y The Esplanade N Guild RoadMar inet C res ce ntAntonio StreetGlengroveRoadMeadowviewAvenue Ma ury Crescent StonepathCircleAvonmoreSquareErin GateBoulevard AbbeyRoadS3 R3 SPC-11 SD S1 SA SA-11 S1 S2 R3-1 OS-HL SD S3 S4 ES G S2 S3 S2 S-SD SD A SA S4 S2 S3 NP S2 R3 R3 S3 O2 S2 S1 A S2 S3 S1 SA R4S S3 S1 SA S4 SD S3 S4 SD-A S4 OS-HL SA S-SD SD-A S4 SA SD SD S3 SD R3-2 S1 S3 S2 S2 S2 SD LCA-2 S4 S3 S2 SD S3-3 S3 S2 SD S2 S2 SD-A G M16 SA O2 S2 SD S3 SD-SA S3 R4-2 S3 NP NP R3 S4 S1 S3 S-SD S4 S2 OS-HL S4 S4 S-SD M16 S4 S2 S1 G SA S2 S1 SD S4 S3 ES S3 MD-H3 S2 S2 S2 S4 A SD O1 R3 S3 SA S SA S4 SD-A S1 S2 S3 SD-SA A A36 R3 S3 A MU-21 SD S2-4 R3 SD OS-HL-2 S1 MU-(IN) S S4 OS-HL A S2 SD S2S2 A M12 S4 S2 SA S2 SD S-SD R4-3 M16 SA-AB I(R) G S2 S1 S S2 SD SD NP SD-A S1 SD S2 ES S3 S4 S4 S-SD S1 R3-3 SD S4 S2 S2 A R3 G SD-SA SD S3 S1 S4 S4 S4 S4 OS-HL CC 1 S2 S4 S3 S-SD A SA S1 SD-SA SD SA S3 R3-2 R3-3 SD S1 S4 SD A S1 S1 S2 MU-20 S G S-SD S1 S1 M16 A S4 S-SD S2 S2 S2 G O2 S1 MU-6 O2 S2 S4 S3 A G SD S2 SD SA-A S S1 S1 S4 S1 G S2 S1 S2 A S2 C3(S) A S2 SD G SA S1 NP S3 G S OC R3 S2 S2 S3 A S2 R3 S2 S4 S2 S2 S4 SA S4 R4 S S2 S3 S1 NP MD-H3 OS-HL S2 S1 S3 S2 SD-SA S-SD MU-27 SD S4 S3 R3 OS-HL S2 S5-1 S3 SD S1 OS-HL-2 S3 S-SD S2 S2 SD S-SD R3 S2 A S4-2 S1 S2 R3-2 SA S S2 S3 SD-A O2 G S2 G S2 S1 S-SD S3 SD I(C)-ES S-SD S4 SD AS1 S S4 S4 S-SD S4 SA S2 OS-HL S3 S4 S2 OS-HL S2 S3 S4 CP S2 S3 G SA S2 SD SD S2 S3 R3 S4 SA OS-HL-1 S1 A S2 S1 O2 NPS M1 S2 S1 S2-DN MD-H7 S4 S1 R3 S4 I(R) SD S3 S3 MU-22 SD S2 S2 S3 S3 SD-SA S2 R4-2 S4 G S-SD S2 S1 SA I(R) S4 R3 S2 A S1-19 SD SA S2 SA R3 SD S1 S3-10 S S4 S3 SD S4 S4 S-SD S-SD A SS2 S3 O2 S2 SD-SA S4 C4 SA NP S4 S1 S2 SD SD S4 S2 SA S4 S2 S1 S2 SD S-SD S2 M1-SC30 SA S2 S2 S2 S3-4 S2-8 SS2 S G R3-2 S2 S2 A R4-4 S4 S1 R3 S2 S2 S3-2 S1 S2 S1 SD-A SA SD SD S2 SD S4 S2 M12 S1 S1 S1 S2 S1 S1 C6 S-SD CO M16 SD-A S2 SA S4 SA S2 SD SD S4 S2 S3 S S2 S4 S2 S3 I(R) S3 OS-HL S2 S3 S1 S4 SA S1 SD SD S4 SA-11 OS-HL NP S1 SA S2 S-SD SA R3-2 S3-7 S2 SA S3 S S1 S1 S3 S6 S4 S2 S2 S3 S1 S3 S3 S OS-HL-1 S4 RL2 S1 SA-A G A S1 S1 S4 S2 S1 C1 CC 1 S2 R3-2 S1 S4 SD-A G SD-A S2 A G S-SD CC 1 S1 SSD S2 S-SD S4 S2 SD S-SD S4 S OS-HL S2 G R3 CP SD S2 CC Res 1 S3 S3 S2 SD-SA S2 S4 S S2 S2 S1S2 SD-SA S3 SA RM1-4 SA SA R3-2 S4 G SD S3 SA R3 S4 S2 S2 SD O2 O2 S2 SA-11 RM1-4 S2 S3 S2 S4 M16 SA-23 S2 S2 S2 SD-SA G S2 A S2-9 S4 S1 S2 R4-3 S1 S S3 S3 S-SD Established Neighbourhood Precincts Sheet 8 of 8 - Liverpool Neighbourhood Legend Established Neighbourhood Precinct Overlay Zone