Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
February 28, 2022
Council Meeting Agenda February 28, 2022 Electronic Meeting 7:00 pm For information related to accessibility requirements please contact: Committee Coordinator 905.420.4611 clerks@pickering.ca Due to COVID-19, the City of Pickering continues to hold electronic Council and Committee Meetings. Members of the public may observe the meeting proceedings by viewing the livestream. A recording of the meeting will also be available on the City’s website following the meeting. 5:30 pm In Camera Council Page 1.Roll Call 2.Invocation Mayor Ryan will call the meeting to order and lead Council in the saying of the Invocation. 3.Indigenous Land Acknowledgment Statement Mayor Ryan will read the Indigenous Land Acknowledgment Statement. 4.Disclosure of Interest 5.Adoption of Minutes Council Minutes, January 24, 2022 (Confidential In Camera Council Minutes, January 24, 2022, provided under separate cover) 1 Executive Committee Minutes, February 7, 2022 39 Special Council Minutes, February 7, 2022 (Confidential In Camera Council Minutes, February 7, 2022, provided under separate cover) 44 Planning & Development Committee Minutes, February 7, 2022 47 6.Presentations 7.Delegations Due to COVID-19, members of the public may provide a verbal delegation to Members of Council via electronic participation. To register as a delegate, visit www.pickering.ca/delegation, and complete the on-line delegation form or email clerks@pickering.ca. Delegation requests must be received by noon on the last business day before the scheduled meeting. All delegations for items not listed on the agenda shall register ten (10) days prior to the meeting date. Council Meeting Agenda February 28, 2022 Electronic Meeting 7:00 pm For information related to accessibility requirements please contact: Committee Coordinator 905.420.4611 clerks@pickering.ca The list of delegates who have registered to speak will be called upon one by one by the Chair and invited to join the meeting via audio connection. A maximum of 10 minutes shall be allotted for each delegation. Please ensure you provide the phone number that you wish to be contacted on. Please be advised that your name and address will appear in the public record and will be posted on the City’s website as part of the meeting minutes. 7.1 Sarah Sheehy, Chair, Pickering Public Library Board Re: Pickering Public Library 2021 Review 7.2 Clint Scott, PARA Marine Search & Rescue Re: Annual Update 7.3 Carion Fenn, Chair, Carion Fenn Foundation, Durham Black Network Re: Black History Month 8.Correspondence 8.1 Corr. 11-22 58 Henrik Villumsen, President, Amberlea Tennis Club Re: Proposal for a 3rd Court to Feature Tennis and Pickleball Recommendation: That Corr. 11-22, from Henrik Villumsen, President of Amberlea Tennis Club, dated January 23, 2022, regarding a Proposal for a 3rd Court to Feature Tennis and Pickleball, be received, and referred to Agenda Item 12.1, Amberlea Tennis Club Partnership with Pickleball. 8.2 Corr. 12-22 60 Becky Jamieson, Director of Corporate Services/Municipal Clerk Township of Scugog Re: iGaming Model Recommendation: 1.That Corr. 12-22, from Becky Jamieson, Director of Corporate Services/Municipal Clerk, Township of Scugog, dated February 3, 2022, regarding iGaming Model, be endorsed; and, Council Meeting Agenda February 28, 2022 Electronic Meeting 7:00 pm For information related to accessibility requirements please contact: Committee Coordinator 905.420.4611 clerks@pickering.ca 2.That a copy of this Resolution be forwarded to the The Honourable Doug Ford, Premier of Ontario, Mississaugas of Scugog Island First Nation, Lindsey Park, MPP, the Alcohol & Gaming Commission of Ontario (AGCO), Great Canadian Gaming Corporation, and all Durham Municipalities. 8.3 Corr. 13-22 62 Carolyn Morton, Chairperson, Durham District School Board Morgan Ste. Marie, Chairperson, Durham Catholic District School Board Re: Provincial Funding to Municipalities to Widen Dead-End Roads in Durham Region for the Safe Operation of School Buses Recommendation: That Corr. 13-22, from Carolyn Morton, Chairperson, Durham District School Board and Morgan Ste. Marie, Chairperson, Durham Catholic District School Board, dated February 3, 2022, regarding Provincial Funding to Municipalities to W iden Dead-End Roads in Durham Region for the Safe Operation of School Buses, be received and endorsed. 8.4 Corr. 14-22 64 Jake Lawrence, Chair, Housing Affordability Taskforce Re: Report of the Ontario Housing Affordability Taskforce Recommendation: 1.That Corr. 14-22, from Jake Lawrence, Chair, Housing Affordability Taskforce, regarding the Report of the Ontario Housing Affordability Taskforce, be received; and, 2.That Corr. 14-22 be referred to the Director, City Development & CBO for consideration as part of the Pickering Housing Strategy and Action Plan. 9.Report EC 02-22 of the Executive Committee held on February 7th, 2022 Refer to Executive Committee Agenda pages: 9.1 Director, Corporate Services & City Solicitor, Report CLK 01-22 1 Council Meeting Agenda February 28, 2022 Electronic Meeting 7:00 pm For information related to accessibility requirements please contact: Committee Coordinator 905.420.4611 clerks@pickering.ca Establishment of the 2022 Municipal Election Joint Compliance Audit Committee Recommendation: 1.That Report CLK 01-22 regarding the Establishment of the 2022 Municipal Election Joint Compliance Audit Committee be received; 2.That the draft Terms of Reference for the 2022 Municipal Election Joint Compliance Audit Committee, included as Attachment No. 1 to Report CLK 01-22, be approved; 3.That, in accordance with the Terms of Reference, the City Clerk be authorized to recruit and bring forward a by-law for the remuneration and appointment of a roster of individuals to serve on the 2022 Municipal Election Joint Compliance Audit Committee; 4.That, at such time as the above referenced by-law is enacted by Council, the 2022 Municipal Election Joint Compliance Audit Committee be deemed established in accordance with the Municipal Elections Act; and, 5.That the appropriate City of Pickering officials be authorized to take the necessary actions as indicated in this report. 9.2 Director, Community Services, Report CS 03-22 9 Pickering Museum Village Policy Update CUL 020 Artifact Conservation Policy MUS 010 Collections Development and Management Policy Recommendation: 1.That Council endorse CUL 020 Artifact Conservation Policy of the Pickering Museum Village as set out in Attachment 1 to this report, subject to minor revisions acceptable to the Director Community Services; 2.That Council endorse MUS 010 Collections Development and Management Policy of the Pickering Museum Village as set out in Attachment 2 to this report, subject to minor revisions acceptable to the Director Community Services; and, Council Meeting Agenda February 28, 2022 Electronic Meeting 7:00 pm For information related to accessibility requirements please contact: Committee Coordinator 905.420.4611 clerks@pickering.ca 3.That the appropriate City of Pickering officials be authorized to take the necessary actions as indicated in this report. 9.3 Director, Engineering Services, Report ENG 04-22 25 Tender for Streetlight Maintenance and Electrical Locates Tender No. T2021-27 Recommendation: 1.That Tender No. T2021-27 for Streetlight Maintenance and Electrical Locates as submitted by Alineutility Limited in the total tendered amount of $1,361,618.42 (HST included) with a net project cost of $1,226,179.00 (net of HST rebate) be approved for the 3 year period from the date of award to January 31, 2025 subject to the annual review of the contractor’s performance; 2.That the award for Year 1 with a net project cost of $393,821.00 (net of HST) be approved and funded from the 2022 Budget, Streetlights cost centre (10520.502380); 3.That upon satisfactory contractor performance review by City staff, that the Director, Engineering Services be authorized to renew the options for Year 2 and Year 3 with a net project cost of $408,620.00 and $423,738.00 (net of HST rebate) respectively, be approved; and, 4.That the appropriate officials of the City of Pickering be authorized to take the necessary actions as indicated in this report. 10.Report PD 02-22 of the Planning & Development Committee held on February 7th, 2022 Refer to Planning & Development Agenda pages: 10.1 Director, Corporate Services & City Solicitor, Report LEG 04-22 38 974582 Ontario Ltd. – Plan of Subdivision 40M-2149 Final Assumption of Plan of Subdivision Municipal works on Liverpool Road adjacent to Blocks 1, 2, 3, 4 and 7, Plan 40M-2149 (1295 Liverpool Road) Recommendation: Council Meeting Agenda February 28, 2022 Electronic Meeting 7:00 pm For information related to accessibility requirements please contact: Committee Coordinator 905.420.4611 clerks@pickering.ca 1.That works and services required by the Subdivision Agreement within Liverpool Road, adjacent to or outside Plan 40M-2149, which are constructed, installed or located on lands dedicated to, or owned by the City, or on lands lying immediately adjacent thereto, including lands that are subject to easements transferred to the City, be accepted and assumed for maintenance; 2.That 974582 Ontario Ltd. be released from the provisions of the Subdivision Agreement and any amendments thereto relating to the works on Liverpool Road outside of Plan 40M-2149; and, 3.That the appropriate City of Pickering officials be authorized to take the actions necessary to implement the recommendations in this report. 10.2 Director, City Development & CBO, Report PLN 07-22 41 Memorandum of Understanding between the City of Pickering and the Toronto and Region Conservation Authority regarding the administration and collection of fees and technical guidance in relation to the TRCA’s Guideline for Determining Ecosystem Compensation, June 2018 Recommendation: 1.That Council approve the draft Memorandum of Understanding, contained in Appendix I to Report PLN 07-22, between the City of Pickering and the Toronto and Region Conservation Authority (TRCA), for the administration and collection of fees, and technical guidance regarding the interpretation and calculation of compensation, in terms of the TRCA’s Guideline for Determining Ecosystem Compensation, dated June 2018, save and except that the word “or” be inserted at the end of Section 4. d. ii., and that the following be added as a new Item 4. d. iii: “where compensation for the loss of non-regulated features and/or ecosystem functions has previously been determined as part of Amendment 22 to the Pickering Official Plan and the Seaton Master Environmental Servicing Plan.” 2.That the draft Memorandum of Understanding be forwarded to the TRCA’s Board of Directors for endorsement, prior to its execution; Council Meeting Agenda February 28, 2022 Electronic Meeting 7:00 pm For information related to accessibility requirements please contact: Committee Coordinator 905.420.4611 clerks@pickering.ca 3.That the Mayor and the City Clerk be authorized to execute the Memorandum of Understanding; and, 4.That the appropriate City officials be authorized to take the necessary actions as indicated in this report. 10.3 Director, City Development & CBO, Report PLN 08-22 63 City Initiated Official Plan Amendment: Ecosystem Compensation Recommended Amendment 35 to the Pickering Official Plan File: OPA 19-003/P Recommendation: 1.That Official Plan Amendment Application OPA 19-003/P, initiated by the City of Pickering, to amend existing policies and introduce new policies to the Pickering Official Plan with regard to ecosystem loss and compensation, as set out in Exhibit ‘A’ to Appendix I to Report PLN 08-22 be approved, save and except that the word “or” be inserted at the end of Section 10.12 (g) (ii), and that the following be added as a new Item 10.12 (g) (iii): “where compensation for the loss of non-regulated features and/or ecosystem functions has previously been determined as part of Amendment 22 to the Pickering Official Plan and the Seaton Master Environmental Servicing Plan.” 2.That the Draft By-law to adopt Amendment 35 to the Pickering Official Plan, to amend existing policies and introduce new policies to the Pickering Official Plan with regard to ecosystem loss and compensation, as set out in Appendix I to Report PLN 08-22, be forwarded to Council for enactment; 3.That the City Clerk forward the Notice of Adoption to the Region of Durham and to each person or public body that provided written or verbal comments at the Open House, the Public Meeting, the Planning & Development Committee or the City Council meetings; and, 4.That the appropriate officials of the City of Pickering be authorized to take the necessary actions as indicated in this report. Council Meeting Agenda February 28, 2022 Electronic Meeting 7:00 pm For information related to accessibility requirements please contact: Committee Coordinator 905.420.4611 clerks@pickering.ca 10.4 Director, City Development & CBO, Report PLN 09-22 75 Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing - Site Plan Control Guide Recommendation: That Report PLN 09-22 of the Director, City Development & CBO, providing a review of the Site Plan Control Guide distributed by the Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing, be received for information. 10.5 Director, City Development & CBO, Report PLN 10-22 99 Revised Zoning By-law Amendment Application A 13/17 (R2) Avonmore Ventures Inc. Part of Lot 18, Concession 3 (North of William Jackson Drive, South of the Canadian Pacific Railway Corridor) Recommendation: That Zoning By-law Amendment Application A 13/17 (R2), submitted by Avonmore Ventures Inc., to permit a residential condominium development consisting of stacked townhouse units and an 8-storey apartment building, for the lands located east of Brock Road, north of William Jackson Drive and south of the Canadian Pacific Railway Corridor, be approved, subject to the proposed zoning provisions contained in Appendix I to Report PLN 10-22, and that staff be authorized to finalize and forward an implementing Zoning By-law to Council for enactment. 11.Reports – New and Unfinished Business 11.1 Director, Community Services, Report CS 05-22 97 2022 Community Events -Approval of 2022 Community Events in Esplanade Park Recommendation: 1.That Council authorize staff to issue a park permit for the use of Esplanade Park by House of Culture and Durham Carifest from Wednesday, July 20 to Tuesday, August 2, 2022 for Carnival City, on terms and conditions satisfactory to Director, Community Services and Chief Administrative Officer; Council Meeting Agenda February 28, 2022 Electronic Meeting 7:00 pm For information related to accessibility requirements please contact: Committee Coordinator 905.420.4611 clerks@pickering.ca 2.That the list of Community & City Events scheduled for Esplanade Park in 2022 be received for information; and, 3.That the appropriate officials of the City of Pickering be authorized to take the necessary actions as indicated in this report. 11.2 Director, Operations, Report OPS 02-22 103 Winter Maintenance on Frenchman’s Bay Lake Ontario Waterfront Recommendation: 1.That Report OPS 02-22 from the Director, Operations regarding winter maintenance on Frenchman’s Bay Lake Ontario Waterfront be received for information; and, 2.That the appropriate City of Pickering officials be authorized to take the necessary actions as indicated in this report. 11.3 Director, Operations, Report OPS 07-22 109 Civic Complex Boiler Replacement Recommendation: 1.That Tender No. T2021-14 submitted by S.I.G. Mechanical Services Limited in the amount of $395,385.87 (HST included) be accepted; 2.That Council grant pre-2022 Capital Budget approval for project 5700.2202.6500 (Backup Boiler Replacements) and authorize the Director, Finance & Treasurer to fund the sum of $300,000.00 from Federal Gas Tax (FGT) Reserve Fund; 3.That the total gross project cost of $544,546.00 (HST included), including the amount of the tender, contingency, and other associated costs, and the total net project cost of $490,381.00 (net of HST rebate), be approved; 4.That the Director, Finance & Treasurer be authorized to finance the total net project costs of $490,381.00 through a transfer from the Federal Gas Tax Reserve Fund; and, Council Meeting Agenda February 28, 2022 Electronic Meeting 7:00 pm For information related to accessibility requirements please contact: Committee Coordinator 905.420.4611 clerks@pickering.ca 5.That the appropriate City of Pickering officials be authorized to take the necessary action to give effect hereto. 11.4 Director, Operations, Report OPS 08-22 112 Tennis Court Lighting Revitalization Recommendation: 1.That Tender No. T2021-35 submitted by R.A. Graham Construction Ltd. in the amount of $202,631.54 (HST included) be accepted; 2.That the total gross project cost of $243,897.00 (HST included), including the amount of the tender, contingency, and other associated costs, and the total net project cost of $219,637.00 (net of HST rebate) be approved; 3.That the Director, Finance & Treasurer be authorized to finance the total net project costs of $219,637.00 through a transfer from the Federal Gas Tax Reserve Fund: a)That the budget available in project C10225.2102 in the amount of $162,000.00 be increased to $219,637.00; and, 4.That the appropriate City of Pickering officials be authorized to take the necessary action to give effect hereto. 11.5 Director, City Development & CBO, Report PLN 14-22 115 Zoning By-law Amendment Application A 01/22 City Initiated Lots 1 to 205 and Blocks 206 to 244, Plan 40M-2710 (North and south of Alexander Knox Drive) Recommendation: That City Initiated Zoning By-law Amendment Application A 01/22 to permit technical housekeeping amendments to Zoning By-law 7652/18, as amended, to correct zoning boundaries for lands located north and south of Alexander Knox Drive, west of Mulberry Lane within the Wilson Meadows Neighbourhood in the Seaton Community be approved, and that the draft implementing Zoning By-law Amendment as set out in Appendix I to Report PLN 14-22 be enacted by Council. Council Meeting Agenda February 28, 2022 Electronic Meeting 7:00 pm For information related to accessibility requirements please contact: Committee Coordinator 905.420.4611 clerks@pickering.ca 12.Motions and Notice of Motions 12.1 Amberlea Tennis Club Partnership with Pickleball Moved by Councillor Brenner Seconded by Councillor Ashe WHEREAS, the membership of the Amberlea Tennis Club has doubled from 150 in 2018 to 300 in 2021, creating the need for a third court to accommodate this continued growing sport; And Whereas, the Amberlea Tennis Club provides opportunities for casual playing, junior drop-ins, leagues (club and inter-city in Durham) and junior camps; And Whereas, the Amberlea Tennis Club recognizes the importance of building partnerships, and in particular how this can accommodate the rapid growth of pickleball and its need for more outdoor facilities; And Whereas, the president of the Amberlea Tennis Club on behalf of its membership, has put forward a proposal that will accommodate their club and that of the pickleball users, requesting a third court be constructed perpendicular to the existing courts in order to not disturb the residents. The third court would include lighting, an entrance separating it from the two existing courts, and would be constructed in a manner that would enable its shared use by pickleball users; Now therefore be it resolved that the Council of The Corporation for the City of Pickering directs: 1.That staff through the Office of the CAO reach out to the Amberlea Tennis Club to discuss their proposal for the construction of a third court to be shared with pickleball users; 2.That staff through the Office of the CAO conduct an engagement of the residents who reside in the Amberlea community near the Park where the proposal is being considered; 3.That staff through the Office of the CAO identify funding sources such as DCs, grants and other revenue streams that could enable Council Meeting Agenda February 28, 2022 Electronic Meeting 7:00 pm For information related to accessibility requirements please contact: Committee Coordinator 905.420.4611 clerks@pickering.ca consideration for construction as part of the 2023 Capital Budget; and, 4.That staff through the Office of the CAO report back to Council through the Executive Committee no later than the May 2, 2022 meeting. 13.By-laws 13.1 By-law 7907/22 135 Being a by-law to adopt Amendment 35 to the Official Plan for the City of Pickering. (OPA 19-003/P) [Refer to Item 10.3 Report PLN 08-22 of the Planning and Development Committee Agenda] 13.2 By-law 7908/22 118 Being a by-law to amend Restricted Area (Zoning) By-law 7364/14, as amended by By-law 7652/18, to implement the Official Plan of the City of Pickering, Region of Durham, for lands at Part of Lots 21 and 22, Concession 4, and Part of Lots 21, 22 and 23, Concession 5, City of Pickering (A 01/22) [Refer to Item 11.5 Report PLN 14-22] 13.3 By-law 7909/22 140 Being a By-law to amend Zoning By-law 7553/17, as amended, to implement the Official Plan of the City of Pickering, Region of Durham, Plan M998, Part of Blocks A and B, and Part of Lot 22, Concession 1, Now Parts 1 to 5, 12, 18 to 23, 40R-8184 in the City of Pickering, Plan M998, Part of Block B, Now Parts 9 to 12, 40R2526, and Part 1 and 5, 40R-7595 in the City of Pickering, and Concession 1, North Part of Lot 20, Now Parts 2 and 3, 40R-11306 in the City of Pickering. (A 08/20) 13.4 By-law 7910/22 150 Being a by-law to exempt Block 2, Plan 40M-2639, Pickering, from the part lot control provisions of the Planning Act. (Madison Brock Limited) 13.5 By-law 7911/22 154 Council Meeting Agenda February 28, 2022 Electronic Meeting 7:00 pm For information related to accessibility requirements please contact: Committee Coordinator 905.420.4611 clerks@pickering.ca Being a by-law to exempt Lots 24 to 26, 29, 36 to 44, 47 to 51, 59 to 62, 65, 68 to 70, 73 to 75, 80 to 82, 84, 90 to 92, 94, to 100, 104 to 106 and 128, and Blocks 154 to 186, Plan 40M-2671, from the part lot control provisions of the Planning Act. (1133373 Ontario Inc.) 14.Confidential Council – Public Report 15.Other Business 16.Confirmation By-law 17.Adjournment Council Meeting Minutes January 24, 2022 Electronic Meeting 7:00 pm 1 Present: Mayor David Ryan Councillors: D. Pickles Also Present: M. Carpino -Chief Administrative Officer K. Bentley -Director, City Development & CBO P. Bigioni -Director, Corporate Services & City Solicitor S. Douglas-Murray - Director, Community Services B. Duffield -Director, Operations J. Eddy -Director, Human Resources J. Hagg -Fire Chief J. Flowers -CEO & Director of Public Libraries, Pickering Public Library R. Holborn -Director, Engineering Services F. Jadoon -Director, Economic Development & Strategic Projects S. Karwowski -Director, Finance & Treasurer S. Cassel -City Clerk C. Rose -Chief Planner D. Jacobs -Manager, Policy & Geomatics K.Senior -Manager, Accounting Services N.Surti -Manager, Development Review & Urban Design R. Perera -Deputy Clerk M.Kish -Principal Planner, Policy C.Morrison -Principal Planner, Development Review K. Ashe M. Brenner S. Butt C. Doody-Hamilton B. McLean 1.Roll Call The City Clerk certified that all Members of Council were present and participating electronically in accordance with By-law 7771/20. 2.Invocation Mayor Ryan called the meeting to order and led Council in the saying of the Invocation. - 1 - Council Meeting Minutes January 24, 2022 Electronic Meeting 7:00 pm 2 3. Indigenous Land Acknowledgment Statement Mayor Ryan read the Indigenous Land Acknowledgment Statement. 4. Disclosure of Interest No disclosures of interest were noted. Resolution #762/22 Moved by Councillor McLean Seconded by Councillor Butt That the rules of procedure be suspended to allow one additional delegation, under Section 7 of the agenda regarding Corr. 08-22. Carried on a Two-Thirds Vote Resolution #763/22 Moved by Councillor Pickles Seconded by Councillor Brenner That the order of the agenda be changed to hear Item 11.1, Report FIN 03-22, as the next item of business. Carried 11.1 Director, Finance & Treasurer, Report FIN 03-22 2020 Year End Audit and Financial Statements Pina Colavecchia, Partner, Deloitte, and Lilian Cheung, Partner, Deloitte, joined the meeting via electronic connection to provide an overview of the 2020 Year End Audit. Ms. Cheung stated that there were no significant deficiencies to speak to and added that the City had a clean audit report for 2020. A brief question and answer period ensued between Members of Council, Staff, Ms. Colavecchia, and Ms. Cheung regarding: • the meaning of a clean audit report to indicate the City’s financial statements presenting fairly, in all material respects, and the auditor not finding any significant deficiencies; and, • whether the debt ratios for the City were considered during the audit. - 2 - Council Meeting Minutes January 24, 2022 Electronic Meeting 7:00 pm 3 Resolution #764/22 Moved by Councillor Pickles Seconded by Councillor Brenner 1. That the Report on the results of the 2020 Audit as submitted by Deloitte LLP (Deloitte) be received for information; and, 2. That the 2020 draft Audited Consolidated Financial Statements for the City of Pickering be approved. Carried 5. Adoption of Minutes Resolution #765/22 Moved by Councillor Pickles Seconded by Councillor Butt Council Meeting Minutes, December 13, 2021 Special Council Minutes, December 20, 2021 Confidential In-Camera Council Minutes, December 20, 2021 Executive Committee Minutes, January 10, 2022 Special Council Minutes, January 10, 2022 Confidential In-Camera Council Minutes, January 10, 2022 Planning & Development Committee Minutes, January 10, 2022 Special Council Minutes, January 13, 2022 Carried 6. Presentations There were no presentations. 7. Delegations 7.1 Bhupinder Bajwa Re: Corr. 07-22 Paul White OLT Appeals of Recent Committee of Adjustment Decisions - 3 - Council Meeting Minutes January 24, 2022 Electronic Meeting 7:00 pm 4 Bhupinder Bajwa, Pickering Resident, joined the electronic meeting via audio connection and spoke to community dissatisfaction regarding Council’s decision pertaining to not supporting recent Committee of Adjustment decisions that had been appealed to the Ontario Land Tribunal (OLT). Mr. Bajwa stated that the community considers the Committee of Adjustment to be part of Council and asked that Council defend the decisions of the Committee of Adjustment that are before the OLT. 7.2 Dan Raue Re: Corr. 07-22 Paul White OLT Appeals of Recent Committee of Adjustment Decisions Dan Raue, 1459 Rougemount Drive, joined the electronic meeting via audio connection to speak to the pending development at 1383 Rougemount Drive. He raised concerns regarding the proposed development and asked that Council defend the decision of the Committee of Adjustment at the February 24th OLT hearing. 7.3 Oliver Rohn Re: Corr. 07-22 Paul White OLT Appeals of Recent Committee of Adjustment Decisions Oliver Rohn, 1372 Rougemount Drive, joined the electronic meeting via audio connection to speak to Corr. 07-22. Mr. Rohn spoke to a recent decision of Council pertaining to Committee of Adjustment Appeals before the OLT. He discussed the need to defend the decisions of the Committee of Adjustment and the community’s disappointment in Council’s decision not to defend. Mr. Rohn further spoke to proposed development in the City and the need to better engage the Community. A question and answer period ensued between Members of Council and Mr. Rohn pertaining to the community’s belief that the City would be defending the decisions of the Committee of Adjustment, Council’s authority to discuss the matter in a closed meeting, and the accountability and transparency pertaining to voting in closed meetings as it relates to the community being unaware of the nature of the decisions being made. 7.4 Artur Gevorgyan Re: Corr. 07-22 Paul White OLT Appeals of Recent Committee of Adjustment Decisions - 4 - Council Meeting Minutes January 24, 2022 Electronic Meeting 7:00 pm 5 Artur Gevorgyan, 361 Rouge Hill Court, joined the electronic meeting via audio connection to speak to Corr. 07-22. Mr. Gevorgyan spoke to a recent decision of Council pertaining to recent Committee of Adjustment Appeals before the OLT and questioned the rationale of the decision. He requested clarification on the manner in which Council decisions could be appealed and discussed the Official Plan Amendment 38 and concerns regarding the lack of community engagement conducted on the proposed amendment. A question and answer period ensued between Members of Council and Mr. Gevorgyan regarding mechanisms to revisit the City defending Committee of Adjustment decisions at the OLT, assumptions that the City was defending Committee of Adjustment decisions, and public engagement pertaining to the Official Plan amendment 38. 7.5 Margaret Bowie Re: PLN 04-22 Zoning By-law Amendment Application A 08/20 Steele Valley Developments Ltd., 334979 Ontario Ltd., Pickering Square Inc., and Pickering Square (1986) Inc. (1300, 1360, 1450 and 1550 Kingston Road) Margaret Bowie, Pickering Resident, joined the electronic meeting via audio connection to speak to Zoning By-law Amendment Application A 08/20. Ms. Bowie spoke to her opposition to the proposed heights of the buildings and raised concerns regarding the impact to surrounding businesses, infrastructure, and traffic. A brief question and answer period between Members of Council and Ms. Bowie regarding the timelines of the development. 7.6 Paul White, Fairport Beach Neighbourhood Association Re: Corr. 07-22 Paul White OLT Appeals of Recent Committee of Adjustment Decisions Paul White, Fairport Beach Neighbourhood Association, joined the electronic meeting via audio connection to speak to a recent decision of Council pertaining to Committee of Adjustment Appeals before the OLT. Mr. White referenced case law and other examples related to closed meetings of councils and stated that there needs to be limited use of in-camera meetings to ensure openness to the public in the municipal decision making process. Mr. White concluded his delegation and asked that Council bring the discussion from the recent in-camera meeting - 5 - Council Meeting Minutes January 24, 2022 Electronic Meeting 7:00 pm 6 pertaining to OLT Appeals of recent Committee of Adjustment Decisions to the public realm. A brief question and answer period between Members of Council and Mr. White regarding the solicitor client privilege exceptions under the Municipal Act, and City support in the past for Committee of Adjustment decisions. 7.7 David Steele, Pickering West Shore Community Association Re: Corr. 07-22 Paul White OLT Appeals of Recent Committee of Adjustment Decisions David Steele, Pickering West Shore Community Association, joined the electronic meeting via audio connection to speak to OLT Appeals of recent Committee of Adjustment Decisions. He discussed rules pertaining to OLT hearings and the lack of experience and resources for community associations to act as experts to defend Committee of Adjustment decisions at OLT hearings. He stated that when the Committee of Adjustment decides against Staff recommendations, the minutes of the meeting should document the specific reasons for the Committee decision. He further discussed the nature of applications presented to Committee of Adjustment meetings. Mr. Steele concluded his delegation by noting that the community relies on the enforcement of zoning by-laws to maintain the existing character of their neighbourhoods. 7.8 David Steele, Pickering West Shore Community Association Re: PLN 04-22 Zoning By-law Amendment Application A 08/20 Steele Valley Developments Ltd., 334979 Ontario Ltd., Pickering Square Inc., and Pickering Square (1986) Inc. (1300, 1360, 1450 and 1550 Kingston Road) David Steele, Pickering West Shore Community Association, joined the electronic meeting via audio connection to speak to Zoning By-law Amendment Application A 08/20. Mr. Steele discussed concerns regarding parking, the need for infrastructure for development and height restrictions for the subject lands. He stated that there was a need to delay the implementation of the amendment until an accumulative cost of infrastructure is calculated, to calculate the businesses that would be affected by the plaza demolition, and to ensure that all residents are informed. Mr. Steele concluded his delegation with an inquiry about the location of the office spaces. 7.9 Karen Sloan, Pet Valu Re: PLN 04-22 Zoning By-law Amendment Application A 08/20 - 6 - Council Meeting Minutes January 24, 2022 Electronic Meeting 7:00 pm 7 Steele Valley Developments Ltd., 334979 Ontario Ltd., Pickering Square Inc., and Pickering Square (1986) Inc. (1300, 1360, 1450 and 1550 Kingston Road) Karen Sloan, Pet Valu, joined the electronic meeting via audio connection to speak to Zoning By-law Amendment Application A 08/20. Ms. Sloan discussed the negative impact to retail businesses and traffic, and asked for the timelines of the proposed development. She questioned the focus of the design being for commercial needs within walking distance and where all the other residents would go to shop. Ms. Sloan stated the need for better community engagement on development proposals of this nature and whether business really mattered to the City. A brief question and answer period between Members of Council and Ms. Sloan regarding the outreach to local businesses by the City’s Economic Development department, concerns regarding H-holding provisions, deferring the decision on the matter, discussions with the building owner, and information regarding infrastructure. 7.10 John Ferris Re: PLN 04-22 Zoning By-law Amendment Application A 08/20 Steele Valley Developments Ltd., 334979 Ontario Ltd., Pickering Square Inc., and Pickering Square (1986) Inc. (1300, 1360, 1450 and 1550 Kingston Road) John Ferris, Pickering Resident, joined the electronic meeting via audio connection to speak to Zoning By-law Amendment Application A 08/20. He raised concerns regarding the negative impact to businesses, parking, traffic, infrastructure, and the proposed building heights. He inquired whether there were plans to improve transit, the need to notify all residents of major development projects, and requested that Council defer Report PLN 04-22 to a future meeting date and the need to better engage the community. A question and answer period ensued between Members of Council and the delegate regarding the need for a future public meeting on the matter. 7.11 Al Norrie Re: Corr. 07-22 Paul White OLT Appeals of Recent Committee of Adjustment Decisions Al Norrie, Pickering Resident, joined the electronic meeting via audio connection to speak to OLT Appeals of Recent Committee of Adjustment Decisions. He stated that the Committee of Adjustment had rejected these variance requests and - 7 - Council Meeting Minutes January 24, 2022 Electronic Meeting 7:00 pm 8 asked that Council defend the decisions of the Committee of Adjustment at the OLT. 7.12 Ethan Holtzer, Dialysis Management Clinics Re: PLN 04-22 Zoning By-law Amendment Application A 08/20 Steele Valley Developments Ltd., 334979 Ontario Ltd., Pickering Square Inc., and Pickering Square (1986) Inc. (1300, 1360, 1450 and 1550 Kingston Road) Ethan Holtzer, Dialysis Management Clinics, joined the electronic meeting via audio connection to speak to Zoning By-law Amendment Application A 08/20. Mr. Holtzer noted that he was the Director of Dialysis Management Clinics, the only dialysis clinic in Pickering, located at 1550 Kingston Road. Through the aid of a PDF presentation he spoke to the negative impact to public funds, and the dangers and the difficulty in relocating critical healthcare services should the proposed development be approved. A question and answer period ensued between Members of Council and Mr. Holtzer, regarding: • the Clinic recently going through a redevelopment and expansion and being unaware of this proposed development along Kingston Road and the associated impacts of being displaced; • the costs of being displaced and how the costs would be funded; • the termination date of the current lease agreement; • the number of employees in the Dialysis Management Clinic; • whether the Clinic’s clients who reside in the region were aware of the redevelopment; • the number of storeys of the building and the vacancy rate of the plaza; • whether the City’s Economic Development department had connected with the Dialysis Management Clinic; • whether the owner of the building had communicated the future plans and next steps of the tenancy; • whether the Clinic had future plans to expand their dialysis clinics; • whether the delegate was associated with Lakeridge Health; and, • whether Lakeridge Health had communicated the possibility of upcoming clinic spaces in the future Jerry Coughlin Centre. 7.13 Sean Beauregard Re: PLN 04-22 Zoning By-law Amendment Application A 08/20 Steele Valley Developments Ltd., 334979 Ontario Ltd., Pickering Square Inc., and Pickering Square (1986) Inc. (1300, 1360, 1450 and 1550 Kingston Road) - 8 - Council Meeting Minutes January 24, 2022 Electronic Meeting 7:00 pm 9 Sean Beauregard, Pickering Resident, withdrew their delegation and did not join the electronic meeting. 7.14 Lisa Gaspar Re: PLN 04-22 Zoning By-law Amendment Application A 08/20 Steele Valley Developments Ltd., 334979 Ontario Ltd., Pickering Square Inc., and Pickering Square (1986) Inc. (1300, 1360, 1450 and 1550 Kingston Road) Lisa Gaspar, Pickering Resident, joined the electronic meeting via audio connection to speak to Zoning By-law Amendment Application A 08/20. Ms. Gaspar raised concerns regarding the lack of infrastructure, the need for public engagement, as well as the social, economic, and cultural impacts of the proposed development. She raised further concerns regarding the proposed height and the need for an infrastructure study. She asked that the matter be deferred to the next Council meeting. 7.15 Darshan Sritharan Re: PLN 04-22 Zoning By-law Amendment Application A 08/20 Steele Valley Developments Ltd., 334979 Ontario Ltd., Pickering Square Inc., and Pickering Square (1986) Inc. (1300, 1360, 1450 and 1550 Kingston Road) Darshan Sritharan, Pickering Resident, withdrew their delegation and did not connect to the electronic meeting. 7.16 Donna Bell Re: PLN 04-22 Zoning By-law Amendment Application A 08/20 Steele Valley Developments Ltd., 334979 Ontario Ltd., Pickering Square Inc., and Pickering Square (1986) Inc. (1300, 1360, 1450 and 1550 Kingston Road) Donna Bell, Pickering Resident, joined the electronic meeting via audio connection to speak to Zoning By-law Amendment Application A 08/20. Ms. Bell expressed opposition to the proposed development and noted concerns pertaining to traffic, pollution, bird migration, population, and the possibility of setting a precedent for future development. She stated that the usual format of communication was not working well, especially in times of COVID, and noted that the real estate video posted on line was a sudden awareness to the residents of what this development proposal would entail. Ms. Bell further inquired whether there was a manner in which residents could see the approved developments in the City and timelines for the projects. - 9 - Council Meeting Minutes January 24, 2022 Electronic Meeting 7:00 pm 10 7.17 Anthony Biglieri, The Biglieri Group Ltd. Michael Testaguzza, The Biglieri Group Ltd. Re: PLN 04-22 Zoning By-law Amendment Application A 08/20 Steele Valley Developments Ltd., 334979 Ontario Ltd., Pickering Square Inc., and Pickering Square (1986) Inc. (1300, 1360, 1450 and 1550 Kingston Road) Anthony Biglieri and Michael Testaguzza, The Biglieri Group Ltd., joined the electronic meeting via audio connection on behalf of the applicants. Mr. Biglieri spoke to the application and the timelines for the proposed development. A question and answer period ensued between Members of Council, Mr. Biglieri, and, Mr. Testaguzza, regarding: • provincial intensification expectations for municipalities such as Pickering; • commitment to retaining and relocating the existing tenants in the area; • the proposal including surface and underground parking for both residents and customers; • whether the owners of the buildings would be proactively engaging with the tenants; • timeframes of the proposal for demolition and redevelopment; • the percentage of long-term and short-term existing leases; • the process of the proposal and the number of public meetings held; • public engagement conducted with the business owners; • the possibility for rent increases once the development is completed; • the impacts in deferring the proposal; • whether the clients would be taking on the costs of relocating local businesses; and, • benefits of the redevelopment. 7.18 Rob Treml Re: Corr. 07-22 Paul White, Fairport Beach Neighbourhood Association Re: OLT Appeals of Recent Committee of Adjustment Decisions Rob Treml, Pickering Resident, withdrew his delegation and did not connect to the electronic meeting. 7.19 Rosi Vanderheijden Re: Winter Maintenance on Frenchman’s Bay/Lake Ontario Waterfront Rosi Vanderheijden, Pickering Resident, joined the electronic meeting via audio connection to speak to the Notice of Motion regarding Winter Maintenance on - 10 - Council Meeting Minutes January 24, 2022 Electronic Meeting 7:00 pm 11 Frenchman’s Bay/Lake Ontario Waterfront. Ms. Vanderheijden expressed support of the Motion and spoke to the need for the walkway maintenance noting the unevenness of the sidewalks and the number of seniors in the area that like to walk in the winter months. A question and answer period ensued between Members of the Council and Ms. Vanderheijden regarding the TRCA’s involvement on the lands. 7.20 Jeanine Soligo Re: Corr. 08-22 Jeanine Soligo 1383 Rougemount Drive Jeanine Soligo, Pickering Resident, joined the electronic meeting via audio connection to speak to the Committee of Adjustment Appeal at the OLT pertaining to 1383 Rougemount Drive. Ms. Soligo spoke to the proposal and the impact of the decision to not defend the decision of the Committee of Adjustment. Ms. Soligo asked that the City’s Solicitor represent the decision of the Committee of Adjustment at the OLT hearing. Resolution #766/22 Moved by Councillor Butt Seconded by Councillor McLean That Council take a short recess. Carried Council recessed at 10:29 p.m. and reconvened at 10:42 p.m. 8. Correspondence 8.1 Corr. 01-22 Patrick Brown, Mayor, City of Brampton Re: Letter to 100 Canadian Cities regarding Quebec’s Bill 21 Gary Collins, Office of the Mayor, City of Brampton Re: Brampton Mayor Patrick Brown Invites 100 Canadian Cities to Fight Bill 21 Ralph Walton, Regional Clerk/Director of Legislative Services The Regional Municipality of Durham Re: Discrimination of Freedom of Religion in Quebec’s Bill 21 - 11 - Council Meeting Minutes January 24, 2022 Electronic Meeting 7:00 pm 12 Discussion and a question and answer period ensued between Members of Council and Staff regarding: • contributing $10,000 towards the legal challenge and the City’s 2022 Grant Budget being able to accommodate the contribution; • where the money would be allocated should there be excess funds after the legal challenge was concluded; and, • the Region committing to contribute $50,000 towards the legal challenge. Resolution #777/22 Moved by Councillor Butt Seconded by Councillor McLean 1. That Corr. 01-22, from the City of Brampton, and the Regional Municipality of Durham, dated December 2021, regarding Quebec’s Bill 21, be received and endorsed; and, 2. That a copy of this Resolution be forwarded to The Honourable Justin Trudeau, Prime Minister of Canada, The Honourable Doug Ford, Premier of Ontario, Durham MP’s, Durham MPP’s, Patrick Brown, Mayor, City of Brampton, the Regional Municipality of Durham, and Durham Region Municipalities. Carried Later in the Meeting (See Following Motion) Resolution #778/22 Moved by Councillor Butt Seconded by Councillor Doody-Hamilton That Item 1 of the main motion be amended by adding the words “and that the City contribute $10,000 towards the legal challenge” after “endorsed”. Carried The Main Motion, as amended, was then Carried Unanimously on a Recorded Vote 8.2 Corr. 02-22 Brian Bridgeman, Commissioner of Planning and Economic Development The Regional Municipality of Durham Re: Monitoring of Growth Trends - 12 - Council Meeting Minutes January 24, 2022 Electronic Meeting 7:00 pm 13 A brief question and answer period ensued between Members of Council and Kyle Bentley, Director, City Development & CBO, regarding the City’s engagement with the Region on the item of correspondence. Resolution #779/22 Moved by Councillor Pickles Seconded by Councillor Butt That Corr. 02-22, from Brian Bridgeman, Commissioner of Planning and Economic Development, the Regional Municipality of Durham, dated December 17, 2021, regarding the Monitoring of Growth Trends, be received for information. Carried 8.3 Corr. 03-22 David Steele Re: City of Pickering MMM Storm Water Management Plan Brief discussion ensued between Members of Council and Staff regarding: • expectations for this matter to come forward to Council and coincide with the ratification of the budget; and, • the intention of the direction being to receive an update on the stormwater plan and the identification of any future funds needed for the next 5 years. Resolution #780/22 Moved by Councillor Brenner Seconded by Councillor McLean 1. That Corr. 03-22, from David Steele, dated December 31, 2021, regarding the City of Pickering MMM Storm Water Management Plan, be received; and, 2. That staff be directed, through the CAO, to report back to Council on the status of the City of Pickering Storm Water Management Plan no later than the March 28, 2022 Council meeting. Carried Unanimously on a Recorded Vote 8.4 Corr. 04-22 - 13 - Council Meeting Minutes January 24, 2022 Electronic Meeting 7:00 pm 14 Ralph Walton, Regional Clerk/Director of Legislative Services The Regional Municipality of Durham Re: Correspondence from the Municipality of Chatham-Kent dated November 10, 2021 regarding: Support Resolution from the Council of Huron County passed October 20th re: Homelessness Task Force A question and answer period ensued between Members of Council and Staff regarding: • an update on any temporary measures that the City was considering regarding emergency assistance for homeless individuals in the City; • the Region providing emergency housing during extreme weather conditions; and, • Oshawa and the Region attempting to gain more resources from the Provincial and the Federal governments to address mental health and homelessness. Resolution #781/22 Moved by Councillor McLean Seconded by Councillor Brenner That Corr. 04-22, from Ralph Walton, Regional Clerk/Director of Legislative Services, the Regional Municipality of Durham, dated December 22, 2021, regarding the Correspondence from the Municipality of Chatham-Kent dated November 10, 2021 regarding: Support Resolution from the Council of Huron County passed October 20th regarding: Homelessness Task Force, be received and endorsed. Carried 8.5 Corr. 05-22 Ralph Walton, Regional Clerk/Director of Legislative Services The Regional Municipality of Durham Re: Vision Zero – Increased Enforcement Resolution #782/22 Moved by Councillor McLean Seconded by Councillor Brenner That Corr. 05-22, from Ralph Walton, Regional Clerk/Director of Legislative Services, the Regional Municipality of Durham, dated January 4, 2022, regarding Vision Zero – Increased Enforcement, be received and endorsed. - 14 - Council Meeting Minutes January 24, 2022 Electronic Meeting 7:00 pm 15 Carried 8.6 Corr. 06-22 Kevin Arjoon, City Clerk, City of Burlington Re: Resolution for Measures to Support the Survival of Small Businesses during Modified Step 2 of the Roadmap to Reopen Resolution #783/22 Moved by Councillor McLean Seconded by Councillor Brenner 1. That Corr. 06-22, from Kevin Arjoon, City Clerk, City of Burlington, dated January 13, 2022, regarding the Resolution for Measures to Support the Survival of Small Businesses during Modified Step 2 of the Roadmap to Reopen, be received and endorsed; and, 2. That a copy of this Resolution be forwarded to the The Honourable Doug Ford, Premier of Ontario, and all Durham MPP’s. Carried 8.7 Corr. 07-22 Paul White, Fairport Beach Neighbourhood Association Re: OLT Appeals of Recent Committee of Adjustment Decisions 8.8 Corr. 08-22 Jeanine Soligo Re: 1383 Rougemount Drive Councillor Brenner stated that he had a motion pertaining to receiving Corr. 07-22 and Corr. 08-22, and to give direction to the City Solicitor to represent the City of Pickering. Discussion ensued regarding the proposed motion pertaining to a recent decision of Council on the subject matter and that to accomplish what the motion intended, a reconsideration of that previous Council decision would be required. The Chair ruled that the motion was out of order, and the Chair’s ruling was then challenged. Resolution #784/22 - 15 - Council Meeting Minutes January 24, 2022 Electronic Meeting 7:00 pm 16 Moved by Councillor McLean Seconded by Councillor Brenner That the Chair’s ruling be challenged. A recorded vote was taken on the question “do you support the Chair’s ruling?” as follows: Yes Councillor Ashe Councillor Butt Councillor Doody-Hamilton Councillor Pickles Mayor Ryan No Councillor Brenner Councillor McLean Item 8.7, Corr. 07.22, and Item 8.8, Corr. 08-22 were now before Council. Resolution #785/22 Moved by Councillor Brenner Seconded by Councillor McLean That Corr. 07-22 and Corr. 08-22 be received for information. Carried on a Recorded Vote as Follows: Yes Councillor Ashe Councillor Butt Councillor Doody-Hamilton Councillor Pickles Mayor Ryan No Councillor Brenner Councillor McLean 8.9 Corr. 09-22 The Honourable Peter Bethlenfalvy, Minister of Finance Re: High Automobile Insurance Costs for the Taxicab Industry during the COVID-19 Pandemic A brief question and answer period ensued between Members of Council and Paul Bigioni, Director, Corporate Services & City Solicitor, regarding bringing the matter forward at a future Vehicle of Hire Advisory Committee. - 16 - Council Meeting Minutes January 24, 2022 Electronic Meeting 7:00 pm 17 Resolution #786/22 Moved by Councillor Brenner Seconded by Councillor McLean 1. That Corr. 09-22, from The Honourable Peter Bethlenfalvy, Minister of Finance, dated January 18, 2022, regarding High Automobile Insurance Costs for the Taxicab Industry during the COVID-19 Pandemic, be received for information; and, 2. That Corr. 09-22 be referred to the Vehicle for Hire Advisory Committee. Carried 8.10 Corr. 10-22 The Honourable Steve Clark, Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing Re: Streamline Development Approval Fund Announcement and Application A brief question and answer period ensued between Members of Council and Kyle Bentley, Director, City Development & CBO, regarding: • the context of the streamlining and the intention not being to circumvent current planning processes; • whether the funds would enable staff to explore ways to better engage the community; and, • reporting back to Council on how the funds would be utilized through the budget process. Resolution #787/22 Moved by Councillor Butt Seconded by Councillor Doody-Hamilton That Corr. 10-22, from The Honourable Steve Clark, Minister of Municipal Housing and Affairs, dated January 19, 2022, regarding Streamline Development Approval Fund Announcement and Application, be received, and the Mayor’s signature be added and endorsed to confirm that the City of Pickering is interested in taking part in the Streamline Development Approval Fund. Carried - 17 - Council Meeting Minutes January 24, 2022 Electronic Meeting 7:00 pm 18 9. Report EC 01-22 of the Executive Committee held on January 10th 2022 9.1 Director, Community Services, Report CS 01-22 Community Association Lease Agreement - 856 Pickering Kinsmen Royal Canadian Air Cadet Squadron Council Decision: 1. That the Mayor and City Clerk be authorized to execute the Lease Agreement with 856 Pickering Kinsmen Royal Canadian Air Cadet Squadron set out in Attachment 1 to this report, subject to minor revisions as may be required by the Director, Community Services and the Director, Corporate Services & City Solicitor; and, 2. That the appropriate City officials be authorized to take the necessary actions as indicated in this report. 9.2 Director, Engineering Services, Report ENG 01-22 Rotary Frenchman’s Bay West Park - Lake Ontario Shoreline Restoration Council Decision: 1. That Report ENG 01-22 regarding the Rotary Frenchman’s Bay West Park, Lake Ontario Shoreline Restoration, be received; 2. That Council approve engaging the services of the Toronto and Region Conservation Authority (TRCA) as a sole source purchase for project management and construction services for the Lake Ontario shoreline restoration work in accordance with the City’s Purchasing Policy Items 09.04 and 09.09; 3. That Council authorize staff to execute a letter of agreement with the TRCA for the project management and construction services for the Lake Ontario shoreline restoration work, on such terms as are satisfactory to the Director, Engineering Services and the Director, Finance & Treasurer; 4. That Council authorize the Director, Finance & Treasurer, to finance the total net project cost of $472,377.00 as follows: a) The sum of $236,188.00 to be funded by a transfer from the Development Charges – City’s Share Reserve; - 18 - Council Meeting Minutes January 24, 2022 Electronic Meeting 7:00 pm 19 b) The sum of $236,189.00 to be funded by a transfer from the Development Charges – Parks & Recreation Services Reserve Fund; and, 5. That the appropriate officials of the City of Pickering be authorized to take the necessary actions as indicated in this report. 9.3 Director, Finance & Treasurer, Report FIN 01-22 2022 Interim Levy and Interim Tax Instalment Due Dates Council Decision: 1. That an interim property tax levy be adopted for all realty property classes for 2022; 2. That the interim property tax levy instalment due dates be February 25 and April 25, 2022; 3. That the attached draft by-law, providing for the imposition of the taxes, be enacted; and, 4. That the appropriate City of Pickering officials be authorized to take the necessary actions as indicated in this report. 9.4 Director, Finance & Treasurer, Report FIN 02-22 Request to Award the Contract to NTT Data Business Solutions Inc. for SAP Application Management Services Council Decision: 1. That the Proposal from NTT Data Business Solutions Inc., in the amount of $240,012.00 (HST included) be accepted for the initial term of one year; 2. That the total gross project cost of $240,012.00 (HST included) and other associated costs and that the net of HST project cost of $216,138.00 be funded over a one year period be approved; 3. That Council authorize the Director, Finance & Treasure to fund the net project cost of $216,138.00 from the 2018 Capital Budget Account (old 5203.1801.6174) or new account number is C10600.1801.90; and, - 19 - Council Meeting Minutes January 24, 2022 Electronic Meeting 7:00 pm 20 4. That the appropriate City of Pickering officials be authorized to take the necessary actions to give effect hereto. Resolution #788/22 Moved by Councillor Pickles Seconded by Councillor Ashe That Report EC 01-22, save and except Item 9.5, Report OPS 01-22, of the Executive Committee Meeting held on January 10th, 2022 be adopted. Carried 9.5 Director, Operations, Report OPS 01-22 Mechanical Harvesting of Eurasian Watermilfoil Weeds in Frenchman’s Bay - Review of Results of 2021 Pilot Project A brief question and answer period ensued between Members of Council and Paul Bigioni, Director, Corporate Services & City Solicitor, regarding whether the City’s property standards by-law could be enforced to obligate the landowner to bear the costs of the works. Mr. Bigioni advised that the rights of Pickering Harbour Company, to most of the bed of the Frenchman’s Bay, were given by pre- confederation charter and that Staff were currently looking into the matter. Resolution #789/22 Moved by Councillor Pickles Seconded by Councillor Ashe 1. That Council receive report OPS 01-22 from the Director, Operations regarding the mechanical harvesting of Eurasian watermilfoil weeds in Frenchman’s Bay 2021 pilot project for information; and, 2. That the appropriate City of Pickering officials be authorized to take the necessary actions to give effect hereto. Carried 10. Report PD 01-22 of the Planning & Development Committee held on January 10th, 2022 10.1 Director, Corporate Services & City Solicitor, Report LEG 01-22 - 20 - Council Meeting Minutes January 24, 2022 Electronic Meeting 7:00 pm 21 Marshall Homes (Village) Ltd. – Plan of Subdivision 40M-2177 - Final Assumption of Plan of Subdivision - Municipal works on Liverpool Road and Wharf Street adjacent to Block 1, Plan 40M-2177 - 1295 Wharf Street - File: 40M-2177 Council Decision: 1. That works and services required by the Subdivision Agreement within Liverpool Road and Wharf Street, adjacent to or outside Plan 40M-2177, which are constructed, installed or located on lands dedicated to, or owned by the City, or on lands lying immediately adjacent thereto, including lands that are subject to easements transferred to the City, be accepted and assumed for maintenance; 2. That Marshall Homes (Village) Ltd. be released from the provisions of the Subdivision Agreement and any amendments thereto relating to the works on Liverpool Road and Wharf Street outside of Plan 40M-2177; and, 3. That the appropriate City of Pickering officials be authorized to take the actions necessary to implement the recommendations in this report. 10.2 Director, Corporate Services & City Solicitor, Report LEG 02-22 Serenade Homes Inc. – Plan of Subdivision 40M-2153 - Final Assumption of Plan of Subdivision - Blocks 1 to 4, 40M-2153 and Block 11 and Part of Block 25, 40M-1231 being Parts 1, 2 & 3, 40R-21924 - 1775 and 1801 Valley Farm Road - File: 40M-2153 Council Decision: 1. That the portion of Valley Farm Road adjacent to Plan 40M-2557 be assumed for public use; 2. That works and services required by the Subdivision Agreement outside of/adjacent to Blocks 1, 2, 3 and 4, Plan 40M-2153 and Parts 1, 2 and 3, 40R-21924, which are constructed, installed or located on lands dedicated to, or owned by the City, or on lands lying immediately adjacent thereto, including lands that are subject to easements transferred to the City, be accepted and assumed for maintenance; - 21 - Council Meeting Minutes January 24, 2022 Electronic Meeting 7:00 pm 22 3. That Serenade Homes Inc. be released from the provisions of the Subdivision Agreement and any amendments thereto relating to the works outside of/adjacent to Blocks 1, 2, 3 and 4, Plan 40M-2153 and Parts 1, 2 and 3, 40R-21924; 4. That Council enact a by-law to dedicate Block 3, Plan 40M-2153 as a public highway; and, 5. That the appropriate City of Pickering officials be authorized to take the actions necessary to implement the recommendations in this report. 10.3 Director, Corporate Services & City Solicitor, Report LEG 03-22 388270 Ontario Limited – Plan of Subdivision 40M-1552 - Final Assumption of Plan of Subdivision - Lots 1 to 29, Blocks 35, 36, 41, 45 and 47, Plan 40M-1552 - Squires Beach Road/Clements Road - File: 40M-1552 Council Decision: 1. That works and services required by the Subdivision Agreement within Plan 40M-1552, which are constructed, installed or located on lands dedicated to, or owned by the City, or on lands lying immediately adjacent thereto, including lands that are subject to easements transferred to the City, be accepted and assumed for maintenance, except Blocks 30 to 34, 37 to 40, 42 to 44 and 46; 2. That 388270 Ontario Limited be released from the provisions of the Subdivision Agreement and any amendments thereto relating to Plan 40M- 1552; and, 3. That the appropriate City of Pickering officials be authorized to take the actions necessary to implement the recommendations in this report. 10.4 Director, City Development & CBO, Report PLN 01-22 City Initiated Zoning By-law Amendment Proposed Reduction of the Maximum Dwelling Height for Infill and Replacement Dwellings - File: A 12/21 Council Decision: - 22 - Council Meeting Minutes January 24, 2022 Electronic Meeting 7:00 pm 23 That Zoning By-law Amendment Application A 12/21, initiated by the City of Pickering to reduce the maximum permitted Dwelling Height for Infill and Replacement Dwellings from 10.0 to 9.0 metres in Established Neighbourhood Precinct Overlay Zones, be approved, and that the Draft Zoning By-law Amendments as set out in Appendices l, ll, and lll to Report PLN 01-22 be finalized and forwarded to Council for enactment. 10.5 Director, City Development & CBO, Report PLN 02-22 Pickering Housing Strategy Study Recommended Pickering Housing Strategy, Phase 3 Report Council Decision: 1. That Council approve the Phase 3: Recommended Housing Strategy & Action Plan, December 22, 2021, as the Pickering Housing Strategy & Action Plan 2021-2031, December 22, 2021, save and except that a new Action Item 3.8 be added as follows “To consider adding a dedicated function, similar to an Office of Affordability, within the City, the scope of work which would include being responsible for implementing the Pickering Housing Strategy & Action Plan 2021-2031, December 22, 2021”; and, 2. That the appropriate officials of the City of Pickering be authorized to take the necessary actions as indicated in the Pickering Housing Strategy & Action Plan 2021-2031, December 22, 2021 10.6 Director, City Development & CBO, Report PLN 03-22 Comprehensive Zoning By-law Review Phase 2, Status Update and First Draft of the Zoning By-law Council Decision: That Report PLN 03-22 of the Director, City Development & CBO, providing an update on the status of the City of Pickering Comprehensive Zoning By-law Review, be received for information. Resolution #790/22 Moved by Councillor Pickles Seconded by Councillor Ashe That Report PD 01-22, save and except Item 10.7, Report PLN 04-22, of the Planning & Development Committee Meeting held on January 10, 2022 be adopted. - 23 - Council Meeting Minutes January 24, 2022 Electronic Meeting 7:00 pm 24 Carried 10.7 Director, City Development & CBO, Report PLN 04-22 Zoning By-law Amendment Application A 08/20 Steele Valley Developments Ltd., 334979 Ontario Ltd., Pickering Square Inc., and Pickering Square (1986) Inc. (1300, 1360, 1450 and 1550 Kingston Road) A question and answer period ensued between Members of Council and Staff regarding: • the recommendation addressing provisions that would not typically be included in a zoning by-law and adding layers of protection for tenants and businesses; • number three of the recommendation ensuring Council’s authorization prior to approval; • 1450 Kingston Road being removed from the applicant’s proposal; • misinformation from a third-party video being circulated in the Community and there being only 6 buildings above four storeys currently under construction in the City, not 75; • the proposal not providing affordable housing, a variety of housing, or rental housing; • deferring the Report to the March Council meeting and the need to hold more public meetings on the proposal; • options for housing being sought through the multi residential development on the North Esplanade; and, • the City working with a number of organizations to bring affordable housing into the City. Resolution #791/22 Moved by Councillor Pickles Seconded by Councillor Ashe 1. That Zoning By-law Amendment A 08/20, submitted by Steele Valley Developments Ltd., 334979 Ontario Ltd., Pickering Square Inc., and Pickering Square (1986) Inc., to increase the maximum permitted building height on lands municipally known as 1300, 1360 and 1550 Kingston Road, be approved, subject to the proposed zoning provisions contained in Appendix I to Report PLN 04-22, and that staff be authorized to finalize and forward an implementing Zoning By-law to Council for enactment; - 24 - Council Meeting Minutes January 24, 2022 Electronic Meeting 7:00 pm 25 2. That prior to the implementing zoning by-law being forwarded to Council for enactment, staff be directed to include an additional site-specific zoning provision requiring a minimum gross leasable floor area of non-residential uses as follows: a) for lands located at 1300 Kingston Road: 3,700 sq. metres b) for lands located at 1360 Kingston Road: 1,500 sq. metres c) for lands located at 1550 Kingston Road: 2,300 sq. metres 3. That prior to the implementing zoning by-law being forwarded to Council for enactment, staff be directed to include an additional “H” Holding Symbol, applying to each site individually, which requires the landowner to satisfy the following conditions to the satisfaction of the City of Pickering: i. The submission a comprehensive phasing plan and construction management strategy, demonstrating how the demolition and construction of new development will be phased and sequenced, while minimizing the impact on the operation of the existing non- residential tenants located within the existing buildings not to be demolished in that phase; ii. The submission of a tenant relocation plan, for both interim and long- term, offering an option to the existing non-residential tenants to relocate their businesses into the new development; and, iii. The submission of a block plan and/or site plan illustrating adequate and appropriately located convenience surface parking spaces, and loading facilities, to support the non-residential uses. Carried Later in the Meeting (See Following Motion) Resolution #792/22 Moved by Councillor McLean Seconded by Councillor Brenner That Report PLN 04-22 be deferred to the March 28, 2022 Meeting of Council. Lost on a Recorded Vote as Follows: Yes Councillor Brenner Councillor Doody-Hamilton No Councillor Ashe Councillor Butt - 25 - Council Meeting Minutes January 24, 2022 Electronic Meeting 7:00 pm 26 Councillor McLean Councillor Pickles Mayor Ryan The Main Motion was then Carried on a Recorded Vote as Follows: Yes Councillor Ashe Councillor Butt Councillor Pickles Mayor Ryan No Councillor Brenner Councillor Doody-Hamilton Councillor McLean 11. Reports – New and Unfinished Business 11.2 Chief Administrative Officer, Report CAO 01-22 myDurham 311 Project Request to Modify the Agreement Revocation Clause Resolution #793/22 Moved by Councillor Pickles Seconded by Councillor Doody-Hamilton 1. That Report CAO 01-22 regarding a request to modify the myDurham 311 Project Agreement Revocation Clause be received; 2. That City Council authorize staff to modify the myDurham 311 Project Agreement revocation clause by changing the 311 call re-routing revocation clause from six months to a minimum of one year as part of the City of Pickering’s participation in the myDurham 311 project to meet the requirements of the Canadian Radio-Television Commission (CRTC); 3. That the appropriate City of Pickering officials be authorized to take the necessary actions as indicated in this report; and, 4. The City Clerk forward a copy of Report Number CAO 01-22 to The Regional Municipality of Durham. Carried 11.3 Director, Community Services, Report CS 02-22 Pickleball Update - 26 - Council Meeting Minutes January 24, 2022 Electronic Meeting 7:00 pm 27 A question and answer period ensued between Members of Council and Staff regarding: • alternative options available for Pickleball due to the loss of the soccer dome; • a grant application for new flooring for the banquet hall in the Recreation Complex and ensuring that the tender for the new flooring would be able to accommodate Pickleball; • an update on leasing commercial space for Pickleball; • timelines for providing access into the Chestnut Hill Development Recreation Complex to Pickleball players; and, • the possibility of installing markers on the flooring. Resolution #794/22 Moved by Councillor Brenner Seconded by Councillor Butt 1. That Report CS 02-22 regarding Pickleball Update be received for information; and, 2. That the appropriate City officials be authorized to take the necessary actions as indicated in this report. Carried 11.4 Director, Corporate Services & City Solicitor, Report LEG 07-22 Squires Beach Road Overpass Cost Contribution Agreement - Update on Status of Agreement Paul Bigioni, Director, Corporate Services & City Solicitor, provided clarification on the recommendation and advised that the intention of the recommendation being to continue to seek a letter of credit to secure the obligation to fund 40% of the Squires Beach Road Overpass Project. Resolution #795/22 Moved by Councillor Brenner Seconded by Councillor Butt 1. That staff continue to require that the casino landowners post a Letter of Credit to secure their obligation to fund 40% of the Squires Beach Road Overpass Project, and that the Letter of Credit be issued by a Canadian - 27 - Council Meeting Minutes January 24, 2022 Electronic Meeting 7:00 pm 28 chartered bank (with a Toronto office) listed under Schedule “A” of the Bank Act (Canada); and, 2. That, unless the casino landowners sign a cost contribution agreement on terms acceptable to the City, staff proceed to finalize the terms of an Agreement of Purchase and Sale (“APS”) with Metropia (Notion Road) Development Inc. for the purchase of 2.07 acres of land fronting on Notion Road, on the basis that the City will not sign the APS unless and until the casino landowners first pay to the City their 40% share of all costs of purchasing the Metropia parcel, inclusive of land transfer tax and registration fees, such payment to be made by wire transfer by March 4, 2022. Carried Unanimously on a Recorded Vote Resolution #796/22 Moved by Councillor Pickles Seconded by Councillor McLean That due to the remaining items of business on the agenda, the meeting be extended to allow Council to continue to meet beyond 12:00 a.m. Carried 11.5 Director, City Development & CBO, Report PLN 05-22 Two-year Period Exemption Request for Minor Variance Application P/CA 34/22 Metropia (Notion Road) Development Inc. 1865 Pickering Parkway Resolution #797/22 Moved by Councillor Pickles Seconded by Councillor Butt That Council grants an exemption in accordance with Section 45 (1.4) of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, P.13 as amended, and permits the Committee of Adjustment to consider Minor Variance Application P/CA 34/22, submitted by Metropia (Notion Road) Development Inc., for lands municipally known as 1865 Pickering Parkway, before the second anniversary of the day on which an applicant-initiated zoning by-law amendment was enacted for the subject lands. - 28 - Council Meeting Minutes January 24, 2022 Electronic Meeting 7:00 pm 29 Carried 11.6 Director, City Developments & CBO, Report PLN 06-22 City Initiated Official Plan Amendment 38 Kingston Mixed Corridor and Brock Mixed Node Intensification Areas Supplemental Information in relation to Council Resolution #730/21 File: OPA 20-004/P A question and answer period ensued between Members of Council and Staff regarding: • whether any consultation was conducted prior to the publication of the report; • the publication date of Report PLN 06-22 not providing sufficient time for the public to be consulted prior to the Report being considered by Council; • concerns regarding the Official Plan amendment paving the way for future development in W ard 1; • details regarding how the proposed Official Plan Amendment would affect the Rougemount Bruno plaza; • the maximum height permitted in the Rougemount precinct; • the study being a four year process which started in 2017; and, • the Region being the reviewing authority for the City’s Official Plan amendment. Resolution #798/22 Moved by Councillor Brenner Seconded by Councillor McLean That Report PLN 06-22 be deferred to the February 28, 2022 Meeting of Council. Lost on a Recorded Vote as Follows: Yes Councillor Ashe Councillor Brenner Councillor McLean No Councillor Butt Councillor Doody-Hamilton Councillor Pickles Mayor Ryan Resolution #799/22 Moved by Councillor Pickles Seconded by Councillor Butt - 29 - Council Meeting Minutes January 24, 2022 Electronic Meeting 7:00 pm 30 1. That Council adopt the By-law to enact Official Plan Amendment 38, provided as Exhibit ‘A’ to Appendix I to Report PLN 06-22, in accordance with Report PLN 41-21 and Council Resolution #730/21; 2. That the City Development Department be directed to provide an annual report to Council on the monitoring program and changes within Strategic Growth Areas in the City, including the Kingston Mixed Corridor and Brock Mixed Node Intensification Areas and the City Centre; 3. That the City Development Department be directed to work with the Economic Development & Strategic Projects Department, and the Public Affairs and Corporate Communications Division, to prepare an engagement strategy, for the City Initiated Zoning By-law Amendment process for the Kingston Mixed Corridor and Brock Node Intensification Areas, and for the City Centre, for endorsement by Council; and, 4. That the appropriate officials of the City of Pickering be authorized to take the necessary actions as indicated in this report. Carried on a Recorded Vote as Follows: Yes Councillor Ashe Councillor Butt Councillor Doody-Hamilton Councillor Pickles Mayor Ryan No Councillor Brenner Councillor McLean 12. Motions and Notice of Motions 12.1 Winter Maintenance on Frenchman’s Bay/Lake Ontario Waterfront Discussion and a question and answer period ensued between Members of Council and Staff regarding: • the subject area that the motion intends to address and the intention of the motion being to provide access to pedestrians to the area 12 months of the year; • the need to use best practices in regards to environmental standards consistent with the TRCA for salt alternatives; • the budget including the installation of permanent washrooms on both the East and the West side and the need to ensure that the washrooms were winterized; • the possible use of compost toilets; - 30 - Council Meeting Minutes January 24, 2022 Electronic Meeting 7:00 pm 31 • ensuring proper signage to address possible liability concerns; • concerns regarding the impact to the Frenchman’s Bay West Plan; • the subject area being owned by the TRCA and any maintenance requiring the TRCA’s approval; • the City clearing the snow on the pathways potentially creating the pathways to become icy; • Staff needing time to investigate and discuss with the TRCA on next steps; • allocating money in the budget to implement a pilot program for next winter season; and, • timelines for investigating and reporting back to Council. Resolution #800/22 Moved by Councillor Brenner Seconded by Councillor Doody-Hamilton WHEREAS, it is proven that outdoor physical activity is associated with all kinds of health benefits (both physical and mental health benefits), including improved cholesterol levels, blood pressure, bone density, and more; And Whereas, the consequences of COVID-19 have brought to light the importance of having outdoor year round accessible recreation to maintain physical and mental health; And Whereas, outdoor activities, such as hiking, are good for all ages while being great for brain health, improving cognition, brain function, mental health, improving deterioration of mobility and lowering stress levels; And Whereas, physical activity in fresh air is essential for healthy development, and getting outside is the best way to get moving while reducing the possibility of the transmission of viruses; And Whereas, winter transforms our Waterfront’s natural environment into a Winter Wonderland; And Whereas, the 12 km of the Pickering Lake Ontario/Frenchman’s Bay Waterfront Trail system referred to as the jewel of Pickering, is a destination point that is used by Pickering residents as well as others across the GTA; And Whereas, the City of Pickering currently does not maintain the 12 km of the Pickering Waterfront Trail system nor does it currently have available infrastructure to provide all season washrooms; - 31 - Council Meeting Minutes January 24, 2022 Electronic Meeting 7:00 pm 32 And Whereas, to address these matters will require some short-term service level enhancements as well as long-term infrastructure solutions; And Whereas, residents through various public social media platforms, letters, and petitions, have communicated their desire to see both immediate and long-term enhancements to Waterfront Trail. Now therefore be it resolved that the Council of The Corporation for the City of Pickering recommends: 1. That staff be directed through the Office of the CAO to implement, as a pilot project, immediate short-term measures pertaining to winter maintenance of the section of the Waterfront Trail from Millennium Square to the spit (East Shore of Frenchman’s Bay) and the paved path and gravel roadway to the spit (West Shore of Frenchman’s Bay), in a manner that will not compromise the environment, consistent with the requirements of the TRCA and best practices of other waterfront municipalities across the GTHA; and, 2. That staff be directed through the Office of the CAO to incorporate into the planning and construction of all future infrastructure along the Waterfront Trail, measures that will achieve full seasonal accessible use, but not limited to the construction of the approved permanent washrooms on both the east and west sides of the Frenchman’s Bay and all proposed reconstructions of the Waterfront Trail system. Carried Later in the Meeting (See Following Motions): Resolution #801/22 Moved by Councillor Doody-Hamilton Seconded by Councillor Pickles That Item 1 of the main motion be amended by replacing the word “implement” with “investigate”. Carried Later in the Meeting (See Following Motion): Resolution #802/22 Moved by Councillor Brenner Seconded by Councillor McLean - 32 - Council Meeting Minutes January 24, 2022 Electronic Meeting 7:00 pm 33 That the amendment be further amended to include “and that Staff report back to Council by the February 28, 2022 Council Meeting” after the word “GTHA”. Carried Resolution #803/22 Moved by Councillor McLean Seconded by Councillor Brenner That Item 1 of the main motion be further amended by adding the words “Progress Park Walkway” after “(West Shore of Frenchman’s Bay)”. Lost on a Recorded Vote as Follows: Yes Councillor Brenner Councillor Doody-Hamilton Councillor McLean No Councillor Ashe Councillor Butt Councillor Pickles Mayor Ryan The Main Motion, as amended, was then Carried 12.2 Winter Skating on Frenchman’s Bay Discussion and a question and answer period ensued between Members of Council and Staff regarding: • Lake Scugog not being comparable to Frenchman’s Bay as the Bay is much deeper; • the need to investigate waterbody conditions and liability concerns; • the possible risks to first responders and members of the public; and, • Staff investigating ways to expand the natural ice program. Resolution #804/22 Moved by Councillor Brenner Seconded by Councillor McLean WHEREAS, getting out on the ice in the Canadian winter is an opportunity to do something special that promotes physical and mental health; And Whereas, family skating is a Canadian treasured activity which has taken place on Frenchman’s Bay for decades; - 33 - Council Meeting Minutes January 24, 2022 Electronic Meeting 7:00 pm 34 And Whereas, municipalities such as The Township of Scugog recognize the important role that Municipal Government can play to support skating on natural ice; And Whereas, through a Council resolution, The Township of Scugog Council at its December 20, 2021 meeting, approved making funds available from its 2022 Operating Budget for the cost of insurance, and for the required testing and record keeping consistent with risk management guidelines as outlined in the Durham Municipal Insurance Pool. The guidelines outlines cover ice thickness (12-15 inches of ice required for maintenance); testing (test holes should be made with an auger and if there is water between the layers of ice, only the top level of ice should be measured); inspections (daily and whenever there is a significant rise in temperature or above 5 degrees Celsius); and signage, which will be provided by the Township; Now therefore be it resolved that the Council of The Corporation for the City of Pickering requests: 1. That staff be directed through the Office of the CAO to include for consideration in the 2022 and subsequent Current Budgets, funds that would enable the City of Pickering to fund the maintenance and testing requirements for public skating on a designated area(s) on Frenchman’s Bay for the periods from December 21, 2022 to March 2023, weather permitting; and, 2. That staff work with the community, local business partners, and Durham Region Tourism to assist with the costs of this initiative. Lost on a Recorded Vote as Follows: Yes Councillor Ashe Councillor Brenner Councillor McLean No Councillor Butt Councillor Doody-Hamilton Councillor Pickles Mayor Ryan 13. By-laws 13.1 By-law 7897/22 Being a by-law for the collection of taxes and to establish the instalment due dates for the Interim Levy 2022. - 34 - Council Meeting Minutes January 24, 2022 Electronic Meeting 7:00 pm 35 13.2 By-law 7898/22 Being a by-law to establish Block 3, Plan 40M-2153 as public highway. (1775 and 1801 Valley Farm Road) 13.4 By-law 7900/22 Being a By-law to amend Restricted Area (Zoning) By-law 2511, as amended, to implement the Official Plan of the City of Pickering, Region of Durham. (A 12/21) 13.5 By-law 7901/22 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 12/21) 13.6 By-law 7902/22 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 12/21) 13.7 By-law 7903/22 Being a by-law to establish Part Lot 6, RCP 819, being Part 7, 40R-22752 as public highway. (Helm Street) 13.8 By-law 7904/22 Being a by-law to exempt Lots 41, 44 to 46, 53 to 56, 63 to 66 and Blocks 67 to 74, Plan 40M-2664, from the part lot control provisions of the Planning Act. (Lebovic Enterprises Limited) Resolution #805/22 Moved by Councillor Pickles Seconded by Councillor Butt That By-law Numbers 7897/22 through 7904/22 be approved, save and except Item 13.3, By-law 7899/22. Carried 13.3 By-law 7899/22 - 35 - Council Meeting Minutes January 24, 2022 Electronic Meeting 7:00 pm 36 Resolution #806/22 Moved by Councillor Pickles Seconded by Councillor Butt Being a by-law to adopt Amendment 38 to the Official Plan for the City of Pickering. (OPA 20-004/P) Carried on a Recorded Vote as Follows: Yes Councillor Ashe Councillor Butt Councillor Doody-Hamilton Councillor Pickles Mayor Ryan No Councillor Brenner Councillor McLean 14. Confidential Council – Public Report Mayor Ryan stated that prior to the Regular Council Meeting, an In-camera session was held at 5:30 p.m. in accordance with the provisions of the Municipal Act, and Procedure By-law 7665/18, to consider matters relating to commercial information supplied in confidence to the City, a proposed acquisition of land, receipt of advice subject to solicitor-client privilege, and instructions to be applied to negotiations being carried out by the City. 14.1 Director, Engineering Services, Confidential Report ENG 02-22 Commercial Information Supplied in Confidence to the City Resolution #807/22 Moved by Councillor Butt Seconded by Councillor Brenner That the recommendations contained in Confidential Report ENG 02-22 from the Director, Engineering be adopted. Carried 14.2 Director, Corporate Services & City Solicitor, Confidential Report LEG 05-22 City of Pickering purchase from Zoltan Szinessy and Barbara Szinessy (PIN 26311-0822) being Part Lot 8 on Plan 270, as in P128440, City of Pickering - 36 - Council Meeting Minutes January 24, 2022 Electronic Meeting 7:00 pm 37 Resolution #808/22 Moved by Councillor Brenner Seconded by Councillor Doody-Hamilton 1. That Council approve the acquisition of (PIN 26311-0822) being Part Lot 8 on Plan 270, as in P128440, City of Pickering, municipally known as 501 Marksbury Road, Pickering, Ontario, L1W 2C6; 2. That the Chief Administrative Officer be authorized to execute the Agreement of Purchase and Sale between The Corporation of the City of Pickering, as purchaser, and Zoltan Szinessy and Barbara Szinessy, as vendor, set out in Attachment No. 1, subject to such minor revisions as are satisfactory to the Chief Administrative Officer and Director, Corporate Services & City Solicitor; 3. That the Director, Corporate Services & City Solicitor be authorized to waive any conditions contained within the said Agreement of Purchase and Sale, and to execute on the City’s behalf any documents, instruments, transfers and agreements as may be necessary to complete the transaction; 4. That Council authorize the purchase in the amount of $1,220,344.75 (net of HST rebate) and the cost be charged to account (504000- C10320.2103.01) and that the Director, Finance & Treasurer be authorized to finance this project based upon the completion of the DC Update Study; and, 5. That appropriate City of Pickering officials be authorized to take the actions necessary to give effect to this report. Carried 15. Other Business 15.1 Councillor Brenner gave notice that he would be bringing forward three Notices of Motion regarding expanding the natural ice program, a proposal by Amberlea Tennis Club for the expansion of their courts to include Pickleball, and a motion pertaining to dissolving the OLT at the February 28th Council meeting. 16. Confirmation By-law - 37 - Council Meeting Minutes January 24, 2022 Electronic Meeting 7:00 pm 38 By-law Number 7905/22 Councillor McLean, seconded by Councillor Doody-Hamilton moved for leave to introduce a By-law of the City of Pickering to confirm the proceedings of January 24, 2022. Carried 17. Adjournment Moved by Councillor Butt Seconded by Councillor McLean That the meeting be adjourned. Carried The meeting adjourned at 1:03 am. Dated this 24th of January, 2022. David Ryan, Mayor Susan Cassel, City Clerk - 38 - Executive Committee Meeting Minutes February 7, 2022 Electronic Meeting – 2:00 pm Chair: Councillor Ashe 1 Present: Mayor David Ryan Councillors: D. Pickles Also Present: M. Carpino -Chief Administrative Officer K. Bentley -Director, City Development & CBO P. Bigioni -Director, Corporate Services & City Solicitor S. Douglas-Murray - Director, Community Services B. Duffield -Director, Operations J. Eddy -Director, Human Resources J. Hagg -Fire Chief R. Holborn -Director, Engineering Services F. Jadoon -Director, Economic Development & Strategic Projects S. Karwowski -Director, Finance & Treasurer S. Cassel -City Clerk R. Perera -Deputy Clerk K. Ashe M. Brenner S. Butt C. Doody-Hamilton B. McLean 1.Roll Call The City Clerk certified that all Members of Council were present and participating electronically in accordance with By-law 7771/20. 2.Disclosure of Interest No disclosures of interest were noted. 3.Delegations 3.1 Sujen Sivagnanasundram Re: Safety Concerns on Valley Farm Road (South of Greenmount Street) Sujen Sivagnanasundram, Pickering Resident, joined the electronic meeting via audio connection to speak to safety concerns on Valley Farm Road between Finch - 39 - Executive Committee Meeting Minutes February 7, 2022 Electronic Meeting – 2:00 pm Chair: Councillor Ashe 2 Road and Concession Road 3. Mr. Sivagnanasundram noted that drivers were using excessive speed when driving along the bend, crossing over the lines into oncoming traffic lanes, and noted the blind spots along these sections of the road which could lead to head on collisions. He asked for the installation of bollards or barriers between the lanes as a safety measure and noted that painting the traffic lines would not be sufficient to prevent future head on collisions. A question and answer period ensued between Members of the Committee and Mr. Sivagnanasundram regarding the placement of bollards in between the lanes, the area being monitored for speeding by the Durham Regional Police Services, and following up with staff regarding the request to see if there were any viable solutions. 4. Matters for Consideration 4.1 Director, Corporate Services & City Solicitor, Report CLK 01-22 Establishment of the 2022 Municipal Election Joint Compliance Audit Committee A brief question and answer period ensued between Members of the Committee and Staff regarding the retainer fees for the Compliance Audit Committee and whether they were being shared amongst the participating bodies noted in the Report. Recommendation: Moved by Councillor Pickles Seconded by Councillor Butt 1. That Report CLK 01-22 regarding the Establishment of the 2022 Municipal Election Joint Compliance Audit Committee be received; 2. That the draft Terms of Reference for the 2022 Municipal Election Joint Compliance Audit Committee, included as Attachment No. 1 to Report CLK 01-22, be approved; 3. That, in accordance with the Terms of Reference, the City Clerk be authorized to recruit and bring forward a by-law for the remuneration and appointment of a roster of individuals to serve on the 2022 Municipal Election Joint Compliance Audit Committee; 4. That, at such time as the above referenced by-law is enacted by Council, the 2022 Municipal Election Joint Compliance Audit Committee be deemed established in accordance with the Municipal Elections Act; and, - 40 - Executive Committee Meeting Minutes February 7, 2022 Electronic Meeting – 2:00 pm Chair: Councillor Ashe 3 5. That the appropriate City of Pickering officials be authorized to take the necessary actions as indicated in this report. Carried 4.2 Director, Community Services, Report CS 03-22 Pickering Museum Village Policy Update CUL 020 Artifact Conservation Policy MUS 010 Collections Development and Management Policy Recommendation: Moved by Councillor Brenner Seconded by Councillor Butt 1. That Council endorse CUL 020 Artifact Conservation Policy of the Pickering Museum Village as set out in Attachment 1 to this report, subject to minor revisions acceptable to the Director Community Services; 2. That Council endorse MUS 010 Collections Development and Management Policy of the Pickering Museum Village as set out in Attachment 2 to this report, subject to minor revisions acceptable to the Director Community Services; and, 3. That the appropriate City of Pickering officials be authorized to take the necessary actions as indicated in this report. Carried 4.3 Director, Engineering Services, Report ENG 04-22 Tender for Streetlight Maintenance and Electrical Locates Tender No. T2021-27 A question and answer period ensued between Members of the Committee and Richard Holborn, Director, Engineering Services, regarding: • the bidding amount by Alineutility Limited being 50% less than the other bidders; • the contract including the maintenance of existing street lights and any required material components for replacement of streetlights; • whether Alineutility Limited was the same company that the contract is currently awarded to; - 41 - Executive Committee Meeting Minutes February 7, 2022 Electronic Meeting – 2:00 pm Chair: Councillor Ashe 4 • delays in completing maintenance work of street lights and ensuring that performance standards and tracking mechanisms are reviewed when awarding the new contract; • whether the contract would only cover the maintenance of streetlights on City of Pickering roads or whether it would also apply to Regional roads; • whether there were any additional charges for extra work above what was originally awarded in the contract; and, • pathway lighting or lighting within parks not being covered through this contract. Staff were requested to provide information pertaining to the performance standards prior to the report coming to the February 28, 2022 Council Meeting for ratification as well as any extra costs that have been accumulated outside of the original contract pricing. Recommendation: Moved by Councillor Butt Seconded by Councillor Pickles 1. That Tender No. T2021-27 for Streetlight Maintenance and Electrical Locates as submitted by Alineutility Limited in the total tendered amount of $1,361,618.42 (HST included) with a net project cost of $1,226,179.00 (net of HST rebate) be approved for the 3 year period from the date of award to January 31, 2025 subject to the annual review of the contractor’s performance; 2. That the award for Year 1 with a net project cost of $393,821.00 (net of HST) be approved and funded from the 2022 Budget, Streetlights cost centre (10520.502380); 3. That upon satisfactory contractor performance review by City staff, that the Director, Engineering Services be authorized to renew the options for Year 2 and Year 3 with a net project cost of $408,620.00 and $423,738.00 (net of HST rebate) respectively, be approved; and, 4. That the appropriate officials of the City of Pickering be authorized to take the necessary actions as indicated in this report. Carried 5. Other Business - 42 - Executive Committee Meeting Minutes February 7, 2022 Electronic Meeting – 2:00 pm Chair: Councillor Ashe 5 There was no other business. 6. Adjournment Moved by Councillor Pickles Seconded by Councillor Doody-Hamilton That the meeting be adjourned. Carried The meeting adjourned at 2:24 p.m. - 43 - Special Council Meeting Minutes In Camera February 7, 2022 Electronic Meeting Immediately Following the Executive Committee Meeting Present: Mayor David Ryan Councillors: D. Pickles Also Present: M. Carpino -Chief Administrative Officer K. Bentley -Director, City Development & CBO P. Bigioni -Director, Corporate Services & City Solicitor R. Holborn -Director, Engineering Services F. Jadoon -Director, Economic Development & Strategic Projects S. Cassel -City Clerk R. Perera -Deputy Clerk Q.Annibale -Loopstra Nixon LLP Due to the Executive Committee Meeting held at 2:00 p.m., the Special Council Meeting was called to order at 2:30 p.m. K. Ashe M. Brenner S. Butt C. Doody-Hamilton B. McLean – left at 2:50 p.m. 1.Roll Call The City Clerk certified that all Members of Council were present and participating electronically in accordance with By-law 7771/20. 2.Disclosure of Interest No disclosures of interest were noted. Resolution #809/22 Moved by Councillor Ashe Seconded by Councillor Butt That Council move into closed session in accordance with the provisions of Section 239 (2) of the Municipal Act and Procedural By-law 7665/18, in that the matters to be discussed relate to: - 44 - Special Council Meeting Minutes In Camera February 7, 2022 Electronic Meeting Immediately Following the Executive Committee Meeting e) litigation or potential litigation, including matters before administrative tribunals, affecting the municipality or local board; and, f) advice that is subject to solicitor-client privilege, including communications necessary for that purpose. Carried Council took a brief pause to allow the livestream of the Meeting to be severed. 3. In Camera Matters 3.1 Confidential Memorandum from the Director, City Development & CBO and Director, Corporate Services & City Solicitor - LPAT Appeal PL210028, Annandale Parks Development Limited, 221 Church Street South This portion of the meeting was closed to the public. Refer to the In Camera meeting minutes for further information. [City Clerk has custody and control of the In Camera minutes.] Resolution #810/22 Moved by Councillor Brenner Seconded by Councillor Pickles That Council rise and ratify the direction to staff from the closed session. Carried Council took a brief pause to allow the livestream of the Meeting to be resumed. Mayor Ryan stated that during the closed portion of the meeting, Council received a confidential Memorandum from staff pertaining to litigation, including matters before administrative tribunals, affecting the municipality, and received advice subject to solicitor-client privilege, as it pertains to OLT Appeal PL210028, Appeal of Ajax Zoning By-law 52-2020, Crestpoint Real Estate Investments Ltd., 221 Church Street, Ajax and provided direction to staff. 4. Confirmation By-law By-law Number 7906/22 - 45 - Special Council Meeting Minutes In Camera February 7, 2022 Electronic Meeting Immediately Following the Executive Committee Meeting Councillor Pickles, seconded by Councillor Doody-Hamilton moved for leave to introduce a by-law of the City of Pickering to confirm the proceedings of February 7, 2022. Carried 5. Adjournment Moved by Councillor Ashe Seconded by Councillor Butt That the meeting be adjourned. Carried The meeting adjourned at 2:56 p.m. Dated this 7th of February, 2022. David Ryan, Mayor Susan Cassel, City Clerk - 46 - Planning & Development Committee Meeting Minutes February 7, 2022 Electronic Meeting – 7:00 pm Chair: Councillor Brenner 1 Present: Mayor David Ryan Councillors: D. Pickles Also Present: M. Carpino -Chief Administrative Officer K. Bentley -Director, City Development & CBO P. Bigioni -Director, Corporate Services & City Solicitor F. Jadoon -Director, Economic Development & Strategic Projects S. Cassel -City Clerk C. Rose -Chief Planner N. Surti -Manager, Development Review & Urban Design D. Jacobs -Manager, Policy & Geomatics R. Perera -Deputy Clerk C. Celebre -Principal Planner, Strategic Initiatives C. Morrison -Principal Planner, Development Review I. Lima - (Acting) Planner ll K. Ashe M. Brenner S. Butt C. Doody-Hamilton B. McLean 1.Roll Call The City Clerk certified that all Members of Council were present and participating electronically in accordance with By-law 7771/20. 2.Disclosure of Interest No disclosures of interest were noted. 3.Statutory Public Meetings Councillor Brenner, Chair, gave an outline of the requirements for a Statutory Public Meeting under the Planning Act. He outlined the notification process procedures and also noted that if a person or public body does not make oral or written submissions to the City before the By-law is passed, that person or public body are not entitled to appeal the decision of City Council to the Ontario Land Tribunal (OLT), and may not be entitled to be - 47 - Planning & Development Committee Meeting Minutes February 7, 2022 Electronic Meeting – 7:00 pm Chair: Councillor Brenner 2 added as a party to the hearing unless, in the opinion of OLT, there are reasonable grounds to do so. Catherine Rose, Chief Planner, appeared before the Committee to act as facilitator for the Statutory Public Meeting portion of the meeting, explaining the process for discussion purposes as well as the order of speakers. 3.1 Information Report No. 03-22 Draft Plan of Subdivision Application SP-2021-02 Zoning By-law Amendment Application A 15/21 OPB Realty Inc. Easterly Portion of the Pickering Town Centre Lands, West of Glenanna Road City of Pickering Lands, South of The Esplanade South A statutory public meeting was held under the Planning Act, for the purpose of informing the public with respect to the above-noted application. Isabel Lima, (Acting) Planner II, provided the Committee with an overview of Zoning By-law Amendment Application A 15/21. Through the aid of a PowerPoint presentation, Ms. Lima outlined the subject lands, noting that the purpose of the amendment was to implement Phase 1 of the Pickering Town Centre (PTC) Master Plan. She further spoke to the draft plan of subdivision, requested zoning by-law amendments and additional minor variances, planning policy framework, site-specific amendments, public notice provided, planning and design comments, and the next steps in the application process. Moved by Councillor Pickles Seconded by Councillor Doody-Hamilton That the rules of procedure be suspended to allow one additional delegation, under Section 3.1 of the agenda regarding Information Report No. 03-22. Carried on a Two-Thirds Vote Jim Kotsopoluos, JKO Planning, joined the electronic meeting via audio connection to speak to Zoning By-law Amendment Application A 15/21. Mr. Kotsopoluos noted that he was present on behalf of the applicant and was available for questions. Bruno Bartel, Cushman & Wakefield, joined the electronic meeting via audio connection to speak to Zoning By-law Amendment Application A 15/21 on behalf - 48 - Planning & Development Committee Meeting Minutes February 7, 2022 Electronic Meeting – 7:00 pm Chair: Councillor Brenner 3 of the applicant. Mr. Bartel noted that he was in agreement with Staff’s presentation and was available for questions. A question and answer period ensued between Members of the Committee, Staff, Mr. Kotsopoluos, and Mr. Bartel, regarding: • whether the proposed development was consistent with Provincial Policy where greater density is being emphasized for areas in close proximity to major transportation stations; • whether the residential buildings included in the proposed development would be constructed through a phased in approach with the first phase beginning with Block 2; • the timeframe for the completion of the various phases of the development and elements that would affect the timeline of completion; • information on the planned traffic study, the area the study would cover, and whether the construction of the proposed development would be subject to the completion of the traffic study; • whether there had been testing conducted to confirm the number of levels that could be constructed for the underground parking; • the estimated construction costs and whether these costs had increased in the last few years; • whether Pickering Town Centre would remain on the subject lands and retail components that would be included on the lands; and, • whether the buildings would be energy efficient and encourage sustainable practices. 3.2 Information Report No. 04-22 Zoning By-law Amendment Application A 01/22 City Initiated Lots 1 to 205 and Blocks 206 to 244, Plan 40M-2710 (North and south of Alexander Knox Drive) A statutory public meeting was held under the Planning Act, for the purpose of informing the public with respect to the above-noted application. Cristina Celebre, Principal Planner, Strategic Initiatives, provided the Committee with an overview of Zoning By-law Amendment Application A 01/22. Through the aid of a PowerPoint presentation, Ms. Celebre outlined the subject lands, noting that the purpose of the amendment was to propose technical housekeeping amendments to site specific Zoning By-law 7652/18, as amended. She further spoke to the zoning by-law amendments and the next steps in the application process. - 49 - Planning & Development Committee Meeting Minutes February 7, 2022 Electronic Meeting – 7:00 pm Chair: Councillor Brenner 4 A question and answer period ensued between Members of the Committee and Staff regarding: • the boundaries of the subdivision in relation to the Seaton Natural Heritage System; and, • the amendment being a housekeeping amendment and not changing the spirit of the intention of the original Zoning By-law. 4. Delegations 4.1 Jo-Anne Shillingford Re: Infrastructure Development to Support Increased Residential Density Jo-Anne Shillingford, Pickering Resident, joined the electronic meeting via audio connection to speak to infrastructure development to support increased residential density in relation to Information Report 03-22, Item 3.1 on the Committee Agenda. Ms. Shillingford raised concerns related to density in relation to the 75 buildings being proposed over the next ten years. She inquired about road improvement considerations, easements to roads, and traffic light coordination adding the need for new roads in the area to alleviate traffic congestion. She further spoke to the height of the proposed towers and raised concerns relating to shadowing impacts for the residents of the low-rise buildings that would be adjacent to the development on the South Esplanade. She also spoke to the number of retirement community centres in the area, the limited park space, the future plans for the existing library and Esplanade park. She concluded her delegation by asking the Committee whether there would a reduction to property taxes with the increased residential components. A question and answer period ensued between Members of the Committee, Staff, and Ms. Shillingford regarding the use of the current library, Esplanade Park, placement of traffic signals, shadowing concerns, the size of the proposed new library, and property taxes. 4.2 Elizabeth Howson, Macaulay Shiomi Howson Ltd. on Behalf of the Seaton Landowners Group Re: Report PLN 07-22 Memorandum of Understanding between the City of Pickering and the Toronto and Region Conservation Authority regarding the administration and collection of fees and technical guidance in relation to the TRCA’s Guideline for Determining Ecosystem Compensation, June 2018 4.3 Re: Report PLN 08-22 City Initiated Official Plan Amendment: Ecosystem Compensation Recommended Amendment 35 to the Pickering Official Plan - 50 - Planning & Development Committee Meeting Minutes February 7, 2022 Electronic Meeting – 7:00 pm Chair: Councillor Brenner 5 File: OPA 19-003/P Elizabeth Howson, Macaulay Shiomi Howson Ltd., on behalf of the Seaton Landowners Group, joined the electronic meeting via audio connection to speak to Report PLN 07-22 and PLN 08-22. Ms. Howson referred to a letter dated February 4, 2022 which was submitted to the City and added that the purpose of the letter was to clarify that the compensation for the natural heritage program in Seaton should continue and remain applicable to all development in Seaton. A question and answer period ensued between Members of the Committee and Ms. Howson regarding the two proposed amendments to the Staff recommendation outlined in Report PLN 07-22 and PLN 08-22 adequately addressing the concerns raised, and the amendments being drafted in collaboration with Staff, TRCA, and the Seaton Landowners Group. 4.4 Brayden Libawski, The Biglieri Group Sean Syman, Aercoustics Re: Report PLN 10-22 Revised Zoning By-law Amendment Application A 13/17 (R2) Avonmore Ventures Inc. Part of Lot 18, Concession 3 (North of William Jackson Drive, South of the Canadian Pacific Railway Corridor) Brayden Libawski, the Biglieri Group, and Sean Syman, Aercoustics, joined the electronic meeting via audio connection to speak to the revised Zoning By-law Amendment application A 13/17 (R2). Mr. Libawski stated that he was in agreement with Staff Report PLN 10-22 and was available for questions. 4.5 Steve Heuchert, Toronto and Region Conservation Authority Re: Report PLN 07-22 Memorandum of Understanding between the City of Pickering and the Toronto and Region Conservation Authority regarding the administration and collection of fees and technical guidance in relation to the TRCA’s Guideline for Determining Ecosystem Compensation, June 2018 Re: Report PLN 08-22 City Initiated Official Plan Amendment: Ecosystem Compensation Recommended Amendment 35 to the Pickering Official Plan File: OPA 19-003/P Steve Heuchert, Toronto and Region Conservation Authority, joined the electronic meeting via audio connection and noted that he was available for questions pertaining to Reports PLN 07-22 and PLN 08-22. - 51 - Planning & Development Committee Meeting Minutes February 7, 2022 Electronic Meeting – 7:00 pm Chair: Councillor Brenner 6 A brief question and answer period ensued between Members of the Committee and Mr. Heuchert regarding the TRCA being in agreement with the two proposed amendments to the Staff recommendations noted in Reports PLN 07-22 and PLN 08-22. 5. Planning & Development Reports 5.1 Director, Corporate Services & City Solicitor, Report LEG 04-22 974582 Ontario Ltd. – Plan of Subdivision 40M-2149 Final Assumption of Plan of Subdivision Municipal works on Liverpool Road adjacent to Blocks 1, 2, 3, 4 and 7, Plan 40M- 2149 (1295 Liverpool Road) Paul Bigioni, Director, Corporate Services & City Solicitor, noted that the purpose of the Report was to proceed with assumption as all works and services required as a condition of subdivision approval had been completed and the two-year warranty period had passed. Recommendation: Moved by Councillor Doody-Hamilton Seconded by Councillor Pickles 1. That works and services required by the Subdivision Agreement within Liverpool Road, adjacent to or outside Plan 40M-2149, which are constructed, installed or located on lands dedicated to, or owned by the City, or on lands lying immediately adjacent thereto, including lands that are subject to easements transferred to the City, be accepted and assumed for maintenance; 2. That 974582 Ontario Ltd. be released from the provisions of the Subdivision Agreement and any amendments thereto relating to the works on Liverpool Road outside of Plan 40M-2149; and, 3. That the appropriate City of Pickering officials be authorized to take the actions necessary to implement the recommendations in this report. Carried 5.2 Director, Director, City Development & CBO, Report PLN 07-22 Memorandum of Understanding between the City of Pickering and the Toronto and Region Conservation Authority regarding the administration and collection of - 52 - Planning & Development Committee Meeting Minutes February 7, 2022 Electronic Meeting – 7:00 pm Chair: Councillor Brenner 7 fees and technical guidance in relation to the TRCA’s Guideline for Determining Ecosystem Compensation, June 2018 Kyle Bentley, Director, City Development & CBO, provided a brief overview of Report PLN 07-22 and PLN 08-22 noting that PLN 07-22 was to outline the Memorandum of Understanding between the City of Pickering and the Toronto and Region Conservation Authority (TRCA) with PLN 08-22 being to seek endorsement for Amendment 25 to the Pickering Official Plan. A question and answer period ensued between Members of the Committee and Staff regarding whether the revenue would be used to provide eco system services in Pickering and whether this was a line item in the TRCA or the City’s budget. Recommendation: Moved by Councillor Pickles Seconded by Councillor Butt 1. That Council approve the draft Memorandum of Understanding, contained in Appendix I to Report PLN 07-22, between the City of Pickering and the Toronto and Region Conservation Authority (TRCA), for the administration and collection of fees, and technical guidance regarding the interpretation and calculation of compensation, in terms of the TRCA’s Guideline for Determining Ecosystem Compensation, dated June 2018, save and except that the word “or” be inserted at the end of Section 4. d. ii., and that the following be added as a new Item 4. d. iii: “where compensation for the loss of non-regulated features and/or ecosystem functions has previously been determined as part of Amendment 22 to the Pickering Official Plan and the Seaton Master Environmental Servicing Plan.” 2. That the draft Memorandum of Understanding be forwarded to the TRCA’s Board of Directors for endorsement, prior to its execution; 3. That the Mayor and the City Clerk be authorized to execute the Memorandum of Understanding; and, 4. That the appropriate City officials be authorized to take the necessary actions as indicated in this report. Carried - 53 - Planning & Development Committee Meeting Minutes February 7, 2022 Electronic Meeting – 7:00 pm Chair: Councillor Brenner 8 5.3 Director, City Development & CBO, Report PLN 08-22 City Initiated Official Plan Amendment: Ecosystem Compensation Recommended Amendment 35 to the Pickering Official Plan File: OPA 19-003/P Recommendation: Moved by Councillor Pickles Seconded by Councillor Butt 1. That Official Plan Amendment Application OPA 19-003/P, initiated by the City of Pickering, to amend existing policies and introduce new policies to the Pickering Official Plan with regard to ecosystem loss and compensation, as set out in Exhibit ‘A’ to Appendix I to Report PLN 08-22 be approved, save and except that the word “or” be inserted at the end of Section 10.12 (g) (ii), and that the following be added as a new Item 10.12 (g) (iii): “where compensation for the loss of non-regulated features and/or ecosystem functions has previously been determined as part of Amendment 22 to the Pickering Official Plan and the Seaton Master Environmental Servicing Plan.” 2. That the Draft By-law to adopt Amendment 35 to the Pickering Official Plan, to amend existing policies and introduce new policies to the Pickering Official Plan with regard to ecosystem loss and compensation, as set out in Appendix I to Report PLN 08-22, be forwarded to Council for enactment; 3. That the City Clerk forward the Notice of Adoption to the Region of Durham and to each person or public body that provided written or verbal comments at the Open House, the Public Meeting, the Planning & Development Committee or the City Council meetings; and, 4. That the appropriate officials of the City of Pickering be authorized to take the necessary actions as indicated in this report. Carried 5.4 Director, City Development & CBO, Report PLN 09-22 Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing - Site Plan Control Guide - 54 - Planning & Development Committee Meeting Minutes February 7, 2022 Electronic Meeting – 7:00 pm Chair: Councillor Brenner 9 A question and answer period ensued between Members of the Committee and Staff regarding whether there was action that the City could take to streamline current processes while ensuring that balance is maintained between the protection of people’s rights to provide input and the timely adjudication of planning applications. Recommendation: Moved by Councillor Ashe Seconded by Mayor Ryan That Report PLN 09-22 of the Director, City Development & CBO, providing a review of the Site Plan Control Guide distributed by the Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing, be received for information. Carried 5.5 Director, City Development & CBO, Report PLN 10-22 Revised Zoning By-law Amendment Application A 13/17 (R2) Avonmore Ventures Inc. Part of Lot 18, Concession 3 (North of William Jackson Drive, South of the Canadian Pacific Railway Corridor) A question and answer period ensued between Members of the Committee and Staff regarding: • staff concerns noted in Report PLN 10-22 in relation to Buildings B and D being situated in close proximity to the curve of the internal private road; • whether it would be the City or the applicant who would be responsible for the waste management plan for the development; • whether the Village Green Project was tied to the completion of the proposed development and ensuring that the Village Green Project was not further delayed due to the proposed development; and, • there being a small development block that the City had attempted to acquire for the Village Green Project within the remnant parcel of Infrastructure Ontario land and whether there was any hope of gaining the additional parkland. Recommendation: Moved by Councillor McLean Seconded by Councillor Ashe - 55 - Planning & Development Committee Meeting Minutes February 7, 2022 Electronic Meeting – 7:00 pm Chair: Councillor Brenner 10 That Zoning By-law Amendment Application A 13/17 (R2), submitted by Avonmore Ventures Inc., to permit a residential condominium development consisting of stacked townhouse units and an 8-storey apartment building, for the lands located east of Brock Road, north of William Jackson Drive and south of the Canadian Pacific Railway Corridor, be approved, subject to the proposed zoning provisions contained in Appendix I to Report PLN 10-22, and that staff be authorized to finalize and forward an implementing Zoning By-law to Council for enactment. Carried 6. Other Business 6.1 Councillor Doody-Hamilton referred to a Motion pertaining to the Winter Maintenance on the Frenchman’s Bay Lake Ontario Waterfront that was part of the January 24, 2022, Council Meeting Agenda and added that through discussion with Staff, she had come to know of the Waterfront Revitalization Plan which called for the reconstruction of the boardwalk that was destroyed as a result of the upsurge from the lake. Councillor Doody-Hamilton spoke to the possibility of making the boardwalk four season accessible as part of the reconstruction and added that while Staff had confirmed the possibility from an operations perspective, there was concern pertaining to the water quality impact to the wetland. She further spoke to safe deicing options that could be explored and referred to a company named Mountain Organic Deicer. A discussion and question and answer period ensued between Members of Council and Marisa Carpino, Chief Administrative Officer, regarding: • staff working on a Report to bring forward to the February 28, 2022 Council Meeting pertaining to the maintenance of the gravel portions of the trails that were in question at the January 24, 2022 Council meeting; • the substantive report to be brought forward to the Committee considering the budget to allow for the consideration of maintenance and environmentally friendly deicing options; • primary consideration for the report being for the boardwalk that is being rebuilt with future consideration for the possibility of extending the boardwalk to Alex Robertson Park and going east and west, should the winterizing of the boardwalk be successful; • Council having recently approved the preferred design for the Frenchman’s Bay Lake Ontario Waterfront with construction not beginning until 2023; and, • ensuring that the walkway that is being rebuilt between Sandy Beach Road and Brock Road is wide enough to allow for winter maintenance. Moved by Councillor Doody-Hamilton - 56 - Planning & Development Committee Meeting Minutes February 7, 2022 Electronic Meeting – 7:00 pm Chair: Councillor Brenner 11 Seconded by Councillor McLean That the Director, Engineering Services and the Director, Operations, be directed to bring forward a substantive report, to the Executive Committee in March, on the possibility of making the new waterfront boardwalk, that is part of the Beachfront Park Revitalization Project, accessible for all four seasons and the options and costs associated with a safe deicing program, including the walkway from Sandy Beach to Brock Road to ensure it is wide enough for winter maintenance. Carried Unanimously on a Recorded Vote 6.2 Councillor Pickles gave notice that he would be bringing forward a Notice of Motion pertaining to the naming of streets after veterans. 7. Adjournment Moved by Councillor Butt Seconded by Councillor McLean That the meeting be adjourned. Carried The meeting adjourned at 8:40 pm. - 57 - Pickering, January 23, 2022 To Mr. Maurice Brenner City Councillor Ward 1 City of Pickering Dear Mr. Brenner: My name is Henrik Villumsen and I’m the new president of Amberlea Tennis Club (ATC), succeeding Rosemary Aiken who has decided to step down, after many years of successful volunteering. The courts are located in the Shadybrook Park in Amberlea. She and I were looking at your “New Year’s Message” in the January 2022 issue of Amberlea Living and noticed you mentioned a new pickleball feature this Spring. We understand that pickleball is an up-and-coming sport, with a growing demand for courts in our city. ATC’s membership has grown over the years and in 2021, we had over 300 members (this is in contrast to 150 members in 2018, so quite a significant jump). The outside courts are used for casual playing, junior drop-ins, leagues (both club and inter-city in Durham) and camps (mainly juniors) with the latter run by a pro and his team. However, we still only have 2 courts available to the members (and a practice court with a wall) for the above-mentioned activities and programs. As you can imagine, court availability has become a challenge. Corr. 11-22 - 58 - In the past, the club’s request for a 3rd court has not been approved by the city. However, we believe there is now the potential for a “win-win” situation and have the following proposal: add a 3rd court which would feature both tennis and pickleball •this court could be perpendicular to the 2 existing courts in order not to disturb the residential housing nearby •the court would have lighting to enable play at night •there would be a separate entrance •access to the court via a key lock on the gate The last 3 points are similar to what we currently have for the tennis courts. Our goal would be to develop and maintain a strong partnership with the pickleball members and ensuring that ample court time would always be available. We firmly believe this would be a massive boost for both sports in our community and have a positive impact on the area! Please contact me if you would like to discuss further. I’m reachable on e-mail and phone Best regards, Henrik Villumsen - 59 - Corr. 12-22•s TOWNSHIP OF cugog February 3, 2022 The Honourable Doug Ford sent via email: premier@ontario.ca Premier of Ontario Legislative Building, Queen's Park Toronto, ON M?A 1A1 Alcohol & Gaming Commission of Ontario sent via email: customer.service@agco.ca 90 Sheppard Avenue East Suite 200-300 Toronto, ON M2N 0A4 Re: iGaming Model At the last regular Council meeting of the Township of Scugog held January 31, 2022, the following resolution was passed: "THAT the Township of Scugog calls on the Provincial government to provide some certainty that the introduction of the iGaming model not have a negative impact on stakeholders in the land-based industry, like host communities and casino workers; THAT the Township of Scugog calls on the provincial government to demonstrate to stakeholders that the provincial government has considered risks to the land-based sector; and THAT the Township of Scugog stands with the MSIFN and Great Canadian Gaming in questioning the current rollout plan for iGaming. iGaming should be introduced without jeopardizing 2,500 jobs, $191 million less in municipal contributions, and $3 billion of provincial tax revenue over the next 5 years." Should you have any concerns, please do not hesitate to contact the undersigned. Yours truly, Becky Jamieson Director of Corporate Services/Municipal Clerk Township of Scugog, 181 Perry St., PO Box 780, Port Perry, ON L9L 1A7 Telephon e: 905-985-7346 Fax: 905-985-9914 www.scugog.ca- 60 - cc: Mississaugas of Scugog Island First Nation Great Canadian Gaming Corporation Lindsey Park, Conservative MPP N.Cooper, Clerk, Town of Ajax F.Lamanna, Clerk, Township of Brock J.Gallagher, Clerk, Municipality of Clarington M.Medeiros, Clerk, City of Oshawa S.Cassel, Clerk, City of Pickering 8.Jamieson, Clerk, Township of Scugog D.Leroux, Clerk, Township of Uxbridge C.Harris, Clerk, Town of Whitby - 61 - February 3, 2022 Honourable Caroline Mulroney Minister of Transportation 777 Bay Street, 5th Floor Toronto, ON M7A 1Z8 caroline.mulroney@pc.ola.org Re: Provincial funding to municipalities to widen dead-end roads in Durham Region for the safe operation of school buses Dear Minister Mulroney, We are writing to you on behalf of Durham Student Transportation Services (DSTS) as the Durham District School Board (DDSB) and Durham Catholic District School Board (DCDSB) representatives to request that provincial infrastructure funding be provided to municipalities to ensure they can appropriately construct areas for school bus vehicles to safely turn around on dead-end roads. Many dead-end roads, particularly in rural areas of the municipalities of Durham Region, do not currently have the appropriate conditions and turning radius for school bus vehicles to turn around safely. As you are no doubt aware, student transportation is complex, requiring careful attention to safety considerations, routing, vehicle size and student needs. It has been suggested that spotters be available on bus routes to facilitate safe turnarounds of school bus vehicles on dead-end roads, and that buses should make three-point turns utilizing private driveways. The significant shortage of school bus drivers, the cost prohibitive nature of adding a second driver on each bus route, the liability of using private property, and the increased risk of potential accident when attempting to turn around on existing dead- end roads where there is no certainty that private driveways will be maintained to an appropriate standard, mean this solution is simply not feasible. Unfortunately, there have been times in the past when buses have been stuck in ditches and on shoulders. Alternatively, the use of smaller school bus vehicles on routes where dead-end roads are present has been considered, but in many cases, the roads are still not wide enough to facilitate safe turnaround and the driver shortage and cost increase of running additional buses on single routes confirm this solution is also not feasible. In seeking ways to mitigate additional stress to school bus drivers who are already managing the significant responsibility of transporting students, we have worked with municipalities through their Public Works and Transportation departments to explore and determine feasibility of all available solutions. Unfortunately, municipalities have not been willing to make upgrades to their roadways and this issue has been a cause for many conflicts between DSTS and municipalities over the past few years. We do understand that municipalities may not have sufficient funding from the property tax base to do this and are unlikely to increase taxes to fund such an endeavour. Ultimately, dead-end roads need to be widened to accommodate an appropriate turning radius for school buses. Alternatively, student transportation providers are left with no choice but to find safe places for school buses to stop to pick- up passengers. As municipalities are responsible for the provision and maintenance of roadways that are safe for bus and all other vehicle travel, funding to complete these projects is essential and that is why Corr. 13-22 - 62 - we are reaching out directly to you to seek your support in providing funding for these types of turnarounds. In addition to seeking infrastructure funding, we are also advocating for proactive change. Going forward all municipalities should be required to construct subdivisions and roads where the design of any dead-end roads includes a wide enough radius for school bus vehicles to safely turn around. Thank you in advance for your time and attention to this matter. We look forward to your response. Sincerely, Carolyn Morton Morgan Ste. Marie Chairperson Chairperson Durham District School Board Durham Catholic District School Board Cc: Hon. Doug Ford, Premier of Ontario Hon. Kinga Surma, Minister of Infrastructure Hon. Peter Bethlenfalvy, Minister of Finance Hon. Stephen Lecce, Minister of Education M.P.P Lindsey Park, Durham M.P.P Laurie Scott, Haliburton – Kawartha Lakes – Brock Trustees, Durham District School Board Trustees, Durham Catholic District School Board Durham Regional Council Municipal Councils, Cities of Pickering and Oshawa, Towns of Ajax and Whitby, Townships of Brock, Scugog and Uxbridge - 63 - Report of the Ontario Housing Affordability Task Force Corr. 14-22 - 64 - Report of the Ontario Housing Affordability Task Force | 2 Contents Letter to Minister Clark .......................................................................3 Executive summary and recommendations ...............................4 Introduction ............................................................................................6 Focus on getting more homes built ..............................................9 Making land available to build .......................................................10 Cut the red tape so we can build faster and reduce costs ........................................................15 Reduce the costs to build, buy and rent ....................................18 Support and incentivize scaling up housing supply .............................................................22 Conclusion ..........................................................................................26 Appendix A: Biographies of Task Force Members ................27 Appendix B: Affordable Housing .................................................29 Appendix C: Government Surplus Land ....................................31 Appendix D: Surety Bonds ............................................................32 References ..........................................................................................33 - 65 - Report of the Ontario Housing Affordability Task Force | 3 Letter to Minister Clark Dear Minister Clark, Hard-working Ontarians are facing a housing crisis. For many years, the province has not built enough housing to meet the needs of our growing population. While the affordability crisis began in our large cities, it has now spread to smaller towns and rural communities. Efforts to cool the housing market have only provided temporary relief to home buyers. The long-term trend is clear: house prices are increasing much faster than Ontarian’s incomes. The time for action is now. When striking the Housing Affordability Task Force, you and Premier Ford were clear: you wanted actionable, concrete solutions to help Ontarians and there was no time to waste. You asked us to be bold and gave us the freedom and independence to develop our recommendations. In the past two months, we have met municipal leaders, planners, unions, developers and builders, the financial sector, academics, think tanks and housing advocates. Time was short, but solutions emerged consistently around these themes: •More housing density across the province •End exclusionary municipal rules that block or delay new housing •Depoliticize the housing approvals process •Prevent abuse of the housing appeals system •Financial support to municipalities that build more housing We present this report to you not as an “all or nothing” proposal, but rather as a list of options that the government has at its disposal to help address housing affordability for Ontarians and get more homes built. We propose an ambitious but achievable target: 1.5 million new homes built in the next ten years. Parents and grandparents are worried that their children will not be able to afford a home when they start working or decide to start a family. Too many Ontarians are unable to live in their preferred city or town because they cannot afford to buy or rent. The way housing is approved and built was designed for a different era when the province was less constrained by space and had fewer people. But it no longer meets the needs of Ontarians. The balance has swung too far in favour of lengthy consultations, bureaucratic red tape, and costly appeals. It is too easy to oppose new housing and too costly to build. We are in a housing crisis and that demands immediate and sweeping reforms. It has been an honour to serve as Chair, and I am proud to submit this report on behalf of the entire Task Force. Jake Lawrence Chair, Housing Affordability Task Force Chief Executive Officer and Group Head, Global Banking and Markets, Scotiabank - 66 - Report of the Ontario Housing Affordability Task Force | 4 Executive summary and recommendations House prices in Ontario have almost tripled in the past 10 years, growing much faster than incomes. This has home ownership beyond the reach of most first-time buyers across the province, even those with well-paying jobs. Housing has become too expensive for rental units and it has become too expensive in rural communities and small towns. The system is not working as it should. For too long, we have focused on solutions to “cool” the housing market. It is now clear that we do not have enough homes to meet the needs of Ontarians today, and we are not building enough to meet the needs of our growing population. If this problem is not fixed – by creating more housing to meet the growing demand – housing prices will continue to rise. We need to build more housing in Ontario. This report sets out recommendations that would set a bold goal and clear direction for the province, increase density, remove exclusionary rules that prevent housing growth, prevent abuse of the appeals process, and make sure municipalities are treated as partners in this process by incentivizing success. Setting bold targets and making new housing the planning priority Recommendations 1 and 2 urge Ontario to set a bold goal of adding 1.5 million homes over the next 10 years and update planning guidance to make this a priority. The task force then recommends actions in five main areas to increase supply: Require greater density Land is not being used efficiently across Ontario. In too many neighbourhoods, municipal rules only allow single-family homes – not even a granny suite. Taxpayers have invested heavily in subway, light rail, bus and rail lines and highways, and the streets nearby are ideally suited for more mid- and high-rise housing. Underused or redundant commercial and industrial buildings are ripe to be redeveloped into housing or mixed commercial and residential use. New housing on undeveloped land should also be higher density than traditional suburbs, especially close to highways. Adding density in all these locations makes better use of infrastructure and helps to save land outside urban boundaries. Implementing these recommendations will provide Ontarians with many more options for housing. Recommendations 3 through 11 address how Ontario can quickly create more housing supply by allowing more housing in more locations “as of right” (without the need for municipal approval) and make better use of transportation investments. Reduce and streamline urban design rules Municipalities require numerous studies and set all kinds of rules for adding housing, many of which go well beyond the requirements of the provincial Planning Act. While some of this guidance has value for urban design, some rules appear to be arbitrary and not supported by evidence – for example, requiring condo buildings to include costly parking stalls even though many go unsold. These rules and requirements result in delays and extra costs that make housing either impossible to build or very expensive for the eventual home buyer or renter. Recommendation 12 would set uniform provincial standards for urban design, including building shadows and setbacks, do away with rules that prioritize preservation of neighbourhood physical character over new housing, no longer require municipal approval of design matters like a building’s colour, texture, type of material or window details, and remove or reduce parking requirements in cities over 50,000 in population. - 67 - Report of the Ontario Housing Affordability Task Force | 5 Depoliticize the process and cut red tape NIMBYism (not in my backyard) is a major obstacle to building housing. It drags out the approval process, pushes up costs, and keeps out new residents. Because local councillors depend on the votes of residents who want to keep the status quo, the planning process has become politicized. Municipalities allow far more public consultation than is required, often using formats that make it hard for working people and families with young children to take part. Too few technical decisions are delegated to municipal staff. Pressure to designate buildings with little or no heritage value as “heritage” if development is proposed and bulk listings of properties with “heritage potential” are also standing in the way of getting homes built. Dysfunction throughout the system, risk aversion and needless bureaucracy have resulted in a situation where Ontario lags the rest of Canada and the developed world in approval times. Ontarians have waited long enough. Recommendations 13 through 25 would require municipalities to limit consultations to the legislated maximum, ensure people can take part digitally, mandate the delegation of technical decisions, prevent abuse of the heritage process and see property owners compensated for financial loss resulting from designation, restore the right of developers to appeal Official Plans and Municipal Comprehensive Reviews, legislate timelines for approvals and enact several other common sense changes that would allow housing to be built more quickly and affordably. Fix the Ontario Land Tribunal Largely because of the politicization of the planning process, many proponents look to the Tribunal, a quasi-judicial body, to give the go-ahead to projects that should have been approved by the municipality. Even when there is municipal approval, however, opponents appeal to the Tribunal – paying only a $400 fee – knowing that this may well succeed in delaying a project to the point where it might no longer make economic sense. As a result, the Tribunal faces a backlog of more than 1,000 cases and is seriously under-resourced. Recommendations 26 through 31 seek to weed out or prevent appeals aimed purely at delaying projects, allow adjudicators to award costs to proponents in more cases, including instances where a municipality has refused an approval to avoid missing a legislated deadline, reduce the time to issue decisions, increase funding, and encourage the Tribunal to prioritize cases that would increase housing supply quickly as it tackles the backlog. Support municipalities that commit to transforming the system Fixing the housing crisis needs everyone working together. Delivering 1.5 million homes will require the provincial and federal governments to invest in change. Municipalities that make the difficult but necessary choices to grow housing supply should be rewarded, and those that resist new housing should see funding reductions. Recommendations 49 and 50 call for Ontario government to create a large “Ontario Housing Delivery Fund” and encourage the federal government to match funding, and suggest how the province should reward municipalities that support change and reduce funding for municipalities that do not. This executive summary focuses on the actions that will get the most housing units approved and built in the shortest time. Other recommendations in the report deal with issues that are important but may take more time to resolve or may not directly increase supply (recommendation numbers are indicated in brackets): improving tax and municipal financing (32-37, 39, 42-44); encouraging new pathways to home ownership (38, 40, 41); and addressing labour shortages in the construction industry (45-47 ). This is not the first attempt to “fix the housing system”. There have been efforts for years to tackle increasing housing prices and find solutions. This time must be different. Recommendations 50-55 set out ways of helping to ensure real and concrete progress on providing the homes Ontarians need. - 68 - Report of the Ontario Housing Affordability Task Force | 6 Introduction Ontario is in a housing crisis. Prices are skyrocketing: the average price for a house across Ontario was $923,000 at the end of 2021.[1] Ten years ago, the average price was $329,000.[2] Over that period, average house prices have climbed 180% while average incomes have grown roughly 38%.[3] [4] Not long ago, hard-working Ontarians – teachers, construction workers, small business owners – could afford the home they wanted. In small towns, it was reasonable to expect that you could afford a home in the neighbourhood you grew up in. Today, home ownership or finding a quality rental is now out of reach for too many Ontarians. The system is not working as it should be. Housing has become too expensive for rental units and it has become too expensive in rural communities and small towns. While people who were able to buy a home a decade or more ago have built considerable personal equity, the benefits of having a home aren’t just financial. Having a place to call home connects people to their community, creates a gathering place for friends and family, and becomes a source of pride. Today, the reality for an ever-increasing number of Ontarians is quite different. Everyone in Ontario knows people who are living with the personal and financial stress of not being able to find housing they can afford. The young family who can’t buy a house within two hours of where they work. The tenant with a good job who worries about where she’ll find a new apartment she can afford if the owner decides to sell. The recent graduate who will have to stay at home for a few more years before he can afford to rent or buy. While the crisis is widespread, it weighs more heavily on some groups than on others. Young people starting a family who need a larger home find themselves priced out of the market. Black, Indigenous and marginalized people face even greater challenges. As Ontarians, we have only recently begun to understand and address the reality of decades of systemic racism that has resulted in lower household incomes, making the housing affordability gap wider than average. The high cost of housing has pushed minorities and lower income Ontarians further and further away from job markets. Black and Indigenous homeownership rates are less than half of the provincial average.[5] And homelessness rates among Indigenous Peoples are 11 times the national average. When housing prevents an individual from reaching their full potential, this represents a loss to every Ontarian: lost creativity, productivity, and revenue. Lost prosperity for individuals and for the entire Ontario economy. Average price for a house across Ontario 2021 $923,000 $329,000 2011 +180 %+38 % Over 10 Years average house prices have climbed while average incomes have grown - 69 - Report of the Ontario Housing Affordability Task Force | 7 As much as we read about housing affordability being a challenge in major cities around the world, the depth of the challenge has become greater in Ontario and Canada than almost anywhere in the developed world. How did we get here? Why do we have this problem? A major factor is that there just isn’t enough housing. A 2021 Scotiabank study showed that Canada has the fewest housing units per population of any G7 country – and, our per capita housing supply has dropped in the past five years.[6] An update to that study released in January 2022 found that two thirds of Canada’s housing shortage is in Ontario.[7] Today, Ontario is 1.2 million homes – rental or owned – short of the G7 average. With projected population growth, that huge gap is widening, and bridging it will take immediate, bold and purposeful effort. And to support population growth in the next decade, we will need one million more homes. While governments across Canada have taken steps to “cool down” the housing market or provide help to first-time buyers, these demand-side solutions only work if there is enough supply. Shortages of supply in any market have a direct impact on affordability. Scarcity breeds price increases. Simply put, if we want more Ontarians to have housing, we need to build more housing in Ontario. Ontario must build 1.5 million homes over the next 10 years to address the supply shortage The housing crisis impacts all Ontarians. The ripple effect of the crisis also holds back Ontario reaching its full potential. Economy Businesses of all sizes are facing problems finding and retaining workers. Even high-paying jobs in technology and manufacturing are hard to fill because there’s not enough housing nearby. This doesn’t just dampen the economic growth of cities, it makes them less vibrant, diverse, and creative, and strains their ability to provide essential services. Public services Hospitals, school boards and other public service providers across Ontario report challenges attracting and retaining staff because of housing costs. One town told us that it could no longer maintain a volunteer fire department, because volunteers couldn’t afford to live within 10 minutes drive of the firehall. Environment Long commutes contribute to air pollution and carbon emissions. An international survey of 74 cities in 16 countries found that Toronto, at 96 minutes both ways, had the longest commute times in North America and was essentially tied with Bogota, Colombia, for the longest commute time worldwide.[8] Increasing density in our cities and around major transit hubs helps reduce emissions to the benefit of everyone. Our mandate and approach Ontario’s Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing tasked us with recommending ways to accelerate our progress in closing the housing supply gap to improve housing affordability. Time is of the essence. Building housing now is exactly what our post-pandemic economy needs. Housing construction creates good-paying jobs that cannot be outsourced to other countries. Moreover, the pandemic gave rise to unprecedented levels of available capital that can be invested in housing – if we can just put it to work. We represent a wide range of experience and perspectives that includes developing, financing and building homes, delivering affordable housing, and researching housing market trends, challenges and solutions. Our detailed biographies appear as Appendix A. Canada has the lowest amount of housing per population of any G7 country. We acknowledge that every house in Ontario is built on the traditional territory of Indigenous Peoples. 1.5MOntario must build homes over the next 10 years to address the supply shortage. - 70 - Report of the Ontario Housing Affordability Task Force | 8 Our mandate was to focus on how to increase market housing supply and affordability. By market housing, we are referring to homes that can be purchased or rented without government support. Affordable housing (units provided at below-market rates with government support) was not part of our mandate. The Minister and his cabinet colleagues are working on that issue. Nonetheless, almost every stakeholder we spoke with had ideas that will help deliver market housing and also make it easier to deliver affordable housing. However, affordable housing is a societal responsibility and will require intentional investments and strategies to bridge the significant affordable housing gap in this province. We have included a number of recommendations aimed at affordable housing in the body of this report, but have also included further thoughts in Appendix B. We note that government-owned land was also outside our mandate. Many stakeholders, however, stressed the value of surplus or underused public land and land associated with major transit investments in finding housing solutions. We agree and have set out some thoughts on that issue in Appendix C. How we did our work Our Task Force was struck in December 2021 and mandated to deliver a final report to the Minister by the end of January 2022. We were able to work to that tight timeline because, in almost all cases, viewpoints and feasible solutions are well known. In addition, we benefited from insights gleaned from recent work to solve the problem in other jurisdictions. During our deliberations, we met with and talked to over 140 organizations and individuals, including industry associations representing builders and developers, planners, architects, realtors and others; labour unions; social justice advocates; elected officials at the municipal level; academics and research groups; and municipal planners. We also received written submissions from many of these participants. In addition, we drew on the myriad public reports and papers listed in the References. We thank everyone who took part in sessions that were uniformly helpful in giving us a deeper understanding of the housing crisis and the way out of it. We also thank the staff of the Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing who provided logistical and other support, including technical briefings and background. The way forward The single unifying theme across all participants over the course of the Task Force’s work has been the urgency to take decisive action. Today’s housing challenges are incredibly complex. Moreover, developing land, obtaining approvals, and building homes takes years. Some recommendations will produce immediate benefits, others will take years for the full impact. This is why there is no time to waste. We urge the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing and his cabinet colleagues to continue measures they have already taken to accelerate housing supply and to move quickly in turning the recommendations in this report into decisive new actions. The province must set an ambitious and bold goal to build 1.5 million homes over the next 10 years. If we build 1.5 million new homes over the next ten years, Ontario can fill the housing gap with more affordable choices, catch up to the rest of Canada and keep up with population growth. By working together, we can resolve Ontario’s housing crisis. In so doing, we can build a more prosperous future for everyone. The balance of this report lays out our recommendations. People in households that spend 30% or more of total household income on shelter expenses are defined as having a “housing affordability” problem. Shelter expenses include electricity, oil, gas, coal, wood or other fuels, water and other municipal services, monthly mortgage payments, property taxes, condominium fees, and rent. - 71 - Report of the Ontario Housing Affordability Task Force | 9 Focus on getting more homes built Resolving a crisis requires intense focus and a clear goal. The province is responsible for the legislation and policy that establishes the planning, land use, and home building goals, which guide municipalities, land tribunals, and courts. Municipalities are then responsible for implementing provincial policy in a way that works for their communities. The province is uniquely positioned to lead by shining a spotlight on this issue, setting the tone, and creating a single, galvanizing goal around which federal support, provincial legislation, municipal policy, and the housing market can be aligned. In 2020, Ontario built about 75,000 housing units.[9] For this report, we define a housing unit (home) as a single dwelling (detached, semi-detached, or attached), apartment, suite, condominium or mobile home. Since 2018, housing completions have grown every year as a result of positive measures that the province and some municipalities have implemented to encourage more home building. But we are still 1.2 million homes short when compared to other G7 countries and our population is growing. The goal of 1.5 million homes feels daunting – but reflects both the need and what is possible. In fact, throughout the 1970s Ontario built more housing units each year than we do today.[10] The second recommendation is designed to address the growing complexity and volume of rules in the legislation, policy, plans and by-laws, and their competing priorities, by providing clear direction to provincial agencies, municipalities, tribunals, and courts on the overriding priorities for housing. 1. Set a goal of building 1.5 million new homes in ten years. 2. Amend the Planning Act, Provincial Policy Statement, and Growth Plans to set “growth in the full spectrum of housing supply” and “intensification within existing built-up areas” of municipalities as the most important residential housing priorities in the mandate and purpose. The “missing middle” is often cited as an important part of the housing solution. We define the missing middle as mid-rise condo or rental housing, smaller houses on subdivided lots or in laneways and other additional units in existing houses. - 72 - Report of the Ontario Housing Affordability Task Force | 10 Making land available to build The Greater Toronto Area is bordered on one side by Lake Ontario and on the other by the protected Greenbelt. Similarly, the Ottawa River and another Greenbelt constrain land supply in Ottawa, the province’s second-largest city. But a shortage of land isn’t the cause of the problem. Land is available, both inside the existing built-up areas and on undeveloped land outside greenbelts. We need to make better use of land. Zoning defines what we can build and where we can build. If we want to make better use of land to create more housing, then we need to modernize our zoning rules. We heard from planners, municipal councillors, and developers that “as of right” zoning – the ability to by-pass long, drawn out consultations and zoning by-law amendments – is the most effective tool in the provincial toolkit. We agree. Stop using exclusionary zoning that restricts more housing Too much land inside cities is tied up by outdated rules. For example, it’s estimated that 70% of land zoned for housing in Toronto is restricted to single-detached or semi-detached homes.[11] This type of zoning prevents homeowners from adding additional suites to create housing for Ontarians and income for themselves. As one person said, “my neighbour can tear down what was there to build a monster home, but I’m not allowed to add a basement suite to my home.” While less analysis has been done in other Ontario communities, it’s estimated that about half of all residential land in Ottawa is zoned for single-detached housing, meaning nothing else may be built on a lot without public consultation and an amendment to the zoning by-law. In some suburbs around Toronto, single unit zoning dominates residential land use, even close to GO Transit stations and major highways. One result is that more growth is pushing past urban boundaries and turning farmland into housing. Undeveloped land inside and outside existing municipal boundaries must be part of the solution, particularly in northern and rural communities, but isn’t nearly enough on its own. Most of the solution must come from densification. Greenbelts and other environmentally sensitive areas must be protected, and farms provide food and food security. Relying too heavily on undeveloped land would whittle away too much of the already small share of land devoted to agriculture. Modernizing zoning would also open the door to more rental housing, which in turn would make communities more inclusive. Allowing more gentle density also makes better use of roads, water and wastewater systems, transit and other public services that are already in place and have capacity, instead of having to be built in new areas. The Ontario government took a positive step by allowing secondary suites (e.g., basement apartments) across the province in 2019. However, too many municipalities still place too many restrictions on implementation. For the last three years, the total number of secondary suites in Toronto has actually declined each year, as few units get permitted and owners convert two units into one.[12] These are the types of renovations and home construction performed by small businesses and local trades, providing them with a boost. 70 %It’s estimated that of land zoned for housing in Toronto is restricted to single-detached or semi-detached homes. - 73 - Report of the Ontario Housing Affordability Task Force | 11 Underused and vacant commercial and industrial properties are another potential source of land for housing. It was suggested to us that one area ripe for redevelopment into a mix of commercial and residential uses is the strip mall, a leftover from the 1950s that runs along major suburban streets in most large Ontario cities. “As of right” zoning allows more kinds of housing that are accessible to more kinds of people. It makes neighbourhoods stronger, richer, and fairer. And it will get more housing built in existing neighbourhoods more quickly than any other measure. 3.Limit exclusionary zoning in municipalities through binding provincial action: a) Allow “as of right” residential housing up to four units and up to four storeys on a single residential lot. b) Modernize the Building Code and other policies to remove any barriers to affordable construction and to ensure meaningful implementation (e.g., allow single-staircase construction for up to four storeys, allow single egress, etc.). 4.Permit “as of right” conversion of underutilized or redundant commercial properties to residential or mixed residential and commercial use. 5.Permit “as of right” secondary suites, garden suites, and laneway houses province-wide. 6.Permit “as of right” multi-tenant housing (renting rooms within a dwelling) province-wide. 7.Encourage and incentivize municipalities to increase density in areas with excess school capacity to benefit families with children. Align investments in roads and transit with growth Governments have invested billions of dollars in highways, light rail, buses, subways and trains in Ontario. But without ensuring more people can live close to those transit routes, we’re not getting the best return on those infrastructure investments. Access to transit is linked to making housing more affordable: when reliable transit options are nearby, people can get to work more easily. They can live further from the centre of the city in less expensive areas without the added cost of car ownership. The impacts of expanding public transit go far beyond serving riders. These investments also spur economic growth and reduce traffic congestion and emissions. We all pay for the cost of transit spending, and we should all share in the benefits. If municipalities achieve the right development near transit – a mix of housing at high- and medium-density, office space and retail – this would open the door to better ways of funding the costs. Other cities, like London, UK and Hong Kong, have captured the impacts of increased land value and business activity along new transit routes to help with their financing. Ontario recently created requirements (residents/hectare) for municipalities to zone for higher density in transit corridors and “major transit station areas”.[13] These are areas surrounding subway and other rapid transit stations and hubs. However, we heard troubling reports that local opposition is blocking access to these neighbourhoods and to critical public transit stations. City staff, councillors, and the province need to stand up to these tactics and speak up for the Ontarians who need housing. The Province is also building new highways in the Greater Golden Horseshoe, and it’s important to plan thoughtfully for the communities that will follow from these investments, to make sure they are compact and liveable. Population density (people per km2) Tokyo London New York Toronto 4,200 1,700 450 1,800 - 74 - Report of the Ontario Housing Affordability Task Force | 12 8.Allow “as of right” zoning up to unlimited height and unlimited density in the immediate proximity of individual major transit stations within two years if municipal zoning remains insufficient to meet provincial density targets. 9.Allow “as of right” zoning of six to 11 storeys with no minimum parking requirements on any streets utilized by public transit (including streets on bus and streetcar routes). 10.Designate or rezone as mixed commercial and residential use all land along transit corridors and redesignate all Residential Apartment to mixed commercial and residential zoning in Toronto. 11.Support responsible housing growth on undeveloped land, including outside existing municipal boundaries, by building necessary infrastructure to support higher density housing and complete communities and applying the recommendations of this report to all undeveloped land. Start saying “yes in my backyard” Even where higher density is allowed in theory, the official plans of most cities in Ontario contain conflicting goals like maintaining “prevailing neighbourhood character”. This bias is reinforced by detailed guidance that often follows from the official plan. Although requirements are presented as “guidelines”, they are often treated as rules. Examples include: •Angular plane rules that require successively higher floors to be stepped further back, cutting the number of units that can be built by up to half and making many projects uneconomic •Detailed rules around the shadows a building casts •Guidelines around finishes, colours and other design details One resident’s desire to prevent a shadow being cast in their backyard or a local park frequently prevails over concrete proposals to build more housing for multiple families. By-laws and guidelines that preserve “neighbourhood character” often prevent simple renovations to add new suites to existing homes. The people who suffer are mostly young, visible minorities, and marginalized people. It is the perfect example of a policy that appears neutral on its surface but is discriminatory in its application.[14] Far too much time and money are spent reviewing and holding consultations for large projects which conform with the official plan or zoning by-law and small projects which would cause minimal disruption. The cost of needless delays is passed on to new home buyers and tenants. Minimum parking requirements for each new unit are another example of outdated municipal requirements that increase the cost of housing and are increasingly less relevant with public transit and ride share services. Minimum parking requirements add as much as $165,000 to the cost of a new housing unit, even as demand for parking spaces is falling: data from the Residential Construction Council of Ontario shows that in new condo projects, one in three parking stalls goes unsold. We applaud the recent vote by Toronto City Council to scrap most minimum parking requirements. We believe other cities should follow suit. While true heritage sites are important, heritage preservation has also become a tool to block more housing. For example, some municipalities add thousands of properties at a time to a heritage register because they have “potential” heritage value. Even where a building isn’t heritage designated or registered, neighbours increasingly demand it be as soon as a development is proposed. This brings us to the role of the “not in my backyard” or NIMBY sentiment in delaying or stopping more homes from being built. New housing is often the last priority A proposed building with market and affordable housing units would have increased the midday shadow by 6.5% on a nearby park at the fall and spring equinox, with no impact during the summer months. To conform to a policy that does not permit “new net shadow on specific parks”, seven floors of housing, including 26 affordable housing units, were sacrificed. Multiple dry cleaners along a transit route were designated as heritage sites to prevent new housing being built. It is hard not to feel outrage when our laws are being used to prevent families from moving into neighbourhoods and into homes they can afford along transit routes. - 75 - Report of the Ontario Housing Affordability Task Force | 13 NIMBY versus YIMBY NIMBYism (not in my backyard) is a large and constant obstacle to providing housing everywhere. Neighbourhood pushback drags out the approval process, pushes up costs and discourages investment in housing. It also keeps out new residents. While building housing is very costly, opposing new housing costs almost nothing. Unfortunately, there is a strong incentive for individual municipal councillors to fall in behind community opposition – it’s existing residents who elect them, not future ones. The outcry of even a handful of constituents (helped by the rise of social media) has been enough, in far too many cases, to persuade their local councillor to vote against development even while admitting its merits in private. There is a sense among some that it’s better to let the Ontario Land Tribunal approve the development on appeal, even if it causes long delays and large cost increases, then to take the political heat. Mayors and councillors across the province are fed up and many have called for limits on public consultations and more “as of right” zoning. In fact, some have created a new term for NIMBYism: BANANAs – Build Absolutely Nothing Anywhere Near Anything, causing one mayor to comment “NIMBYism has gone BANANAs”. We agree. In a growing, thriving society, that approach is not just bad policy, it is exclusionary and wrong. As a result, technical planning decisions have become politicized. One major city has delegated many decisions to senior staff, but an individual councillor can withdraw the delegation when there is local opposition and force a vote at Council. We heard that this situation is common across the province, creating an electoral incentive for a councillor to delay or stop a housing proposal, or forcing a councillor to pay the electoral cost of supporting it. Approvals of individual housing applications should be the role of professional staff, free from political interference. The pressure to stop any development is now so intense that it has given rise to a counter-movement – YIMBYism, or “yes in my backyard,” led by millennials who recognize entrenched opposition to change as a huge obstacle to finding a home. They provide a voice at public consultations for young people, new immigrants and refugees, minority groups, and Ontarians struggling to access housing by connecting our ideals to the reality of housing. People who welcome immigrants to Canada should welcome them to the neighbourhood, fighting climate change means supporting higher-density housing, and “keeping the neighbourhood the way it is” means keeping it off-limits. While anti-housing voices can be loud, a member of More Neighbours Toronto, a YIMBY group that regularly attends public consultations, has said that the most vocal opponents usually don’t represent the majority in a neighbourhood. Survey data from the Ontario Real Estate Association backs that up, with almost 80% of Ontarians saying they are in favour of zoning in urban areas that would encourage more homes. Ontarians want a solution to the housing crisis. We cannot allow opposition and politicization of individual housing projects to prevent us from meeting the needs of all Ontarians. 12.Create a more permissive land use, planning, and approvals system: a) Repeal or override municipal policies, zoning, or plans that prioritize the preservation of physical character of neighbourhood b) Exempt from site plan approval and public consultation all projects of 10 units or less that conform to the Official Plan and require only minor variances c) Establish province-wide zoning standards, or prohibitions, for minimum lot sizes, maximum building setbacks, minimum heights, angular planes, shadow rules, front doors, building depth, landscaping, floor space index, and heritage view cones, and planes; restore pre-2006 site plan exclusions (colour, texture, and type of materials, window details, etc.) to the Planning Act and reduce or eliminate minimum parking requirements; and d) Remove any floorplate restrictions to allow larger, more efficient high-density towers. 13.Limit municipalities from requesting or hosting additional public meetings beyond those that are required under the Planning Act. 14.Require that public consultations provide digital participation options. 15.Require mandatory delegation of site plan approvals and minor variances to staff or pre-approved qualified third-party technical consultants through a simplified review and approval process, without the ability to withdraw Council’s delegation. - 76 - Report of the Ontario Housing Affordability Task Force | 14 16. Prevent abuse of the heritage preservation and designation process by: a) Prohibiting the use of bulk listing on municipal heritage registers b) Prohibiting reactive heritage designations after a Planning Act development application has been filed 17. Requiring municipalities to compensate property owners for loss of property value as a result of heritage designations, based on the principle of best economic use of land. 18. Restore the right of developers to appeal Official Plans and Municipal Comprehensive Reviews. We have heard mixed feedback on Committees of Adjustment. While they are seen to be working well in some cities, in others they are seen to simply add another lengthy step in the process. We would urge the government to first implement our recommendation to delegate minor variances and site plan approvals to municipal staff and then assess whether Committees of Adjustment are necessary and an improvement over staff-level decision making. - 77 - Report of the Ontario Housing Affordability Task Force | 15 Cut the red tape so we can build faster and reduce costs One of the strongest signs that our approval process is not working: of 35 OECD countries, only the Slovak Republic takes longer than Canada to approve a building project. The UK and the US approve projects three times faster without sacrificing quality or safety. And they save home buyers and tenants money as a result, making housing more affordable.[15] A 2020 survey of development approval times in 23 Canadian cities shows Ontario seriously lagging: Hamilton (15th), Toronto (17th), Ottawa (21st) with approval times averaging between 20-24 months. These timelines do not include building permits, which take about two years for an apartment building in Toronto. Nor did they count the time it takes for undeveloped land to be designated for housing, which the study notes can take five to ten years.[16] Despite the good intentions of many people involved in the approvals and home-building process, decades of dysfunction in the system and needless bureaucracy have made it too difficult for housing approvals to keep up with the needs of Ontarians. There appear to be numerous reasons why Ontario performs so poorly against other Canadian cities and the rest of the developed world. We believe that the major problems can be summed up as: • Too much complexity in the planning process, with the page count in legislation, regulation, policies, plans, and by-laws growing every year • Too many studies, guidelines, meetings and other requirements of the type we outlined in the previous section, including many that go well beyond the scope of Ontario’s Planning Act • Reviews within municipalities and with outside agencies that are piecemeal, duplicative (although often with conflicting outcomes) and poorly coordinated • Process flaws that include reliance on paper • Some provincial policies that are more relevant to urban development but result in burdensome, irrelevant requirements when applied in some rural and northern communities. All of this has contributed to widespread failure on the part of municipalities to meet required timelines. The provincial Planning Act sets out deadlines of 90 days for decisions on zoning by-law amendments, 120 days for plans of subdivision, and 30 days for site plan approval, but municipalities routinely miss these without penalty. For other processes, like site plan approval or provincial approvals, there are no timelines and delays drag on. The cost of delay falls on the ultimate homeowner or tenant. The consequences for homeowners and renters are enormous. Ultimately, whatever cost a builder pays gets passed on to the buyer or renter. As one person said: “Process is the biggest project killer in Toronto because developers have to carry timeline risk.” Site plan control was often brought up as a frustration. Under the Planning Act, this is meant to be a technical review of the external features of a building. In practice, municipalities often expand on what is required and take too long to respond. 8,200 Then & Now Total words in: 1996 Provincial Policy Statement 17,000 2020 17,000 1970 Planning Act 96,000 2020 - 78 - Report of the Ontario Housing Affordability Task Force | 16 An Ontario Association of Architects study calculating the cost of delays between site plan application and approval concluded that for a 100-unit condominium apartment building, each additional month of delay costs the applicant an estimated $193,000, or $1,930 a month for each unit.[17] A 2020 study done for the Building Industry and Land Development Association (BILD) looked at impacts of delay on low-rise construction, including single-detached homes. It estimated that every month an approval is delayed adds, on average, $1.46 per square foot to the cost of a single home. A two-year delay, which is not unusual for this housing type, adds more than $70,000 to the cost of a 2,000-square-foot house in the GTA.[16] Getting rid of so much unnecessary and unproductive additional work would significantly reduce the burden on staff. It would help address the widespread shortages of planners and building officials. It would also bring a stronger sense among municipal staff that they are part of the housing solution and can take pride in helping cut approval times and lower the costs of delivering homes. Adopt common sense approaches that save construction costs Wood using “mass timber” – an engineer compressed wood, made for strength and weight-bearing – can provide a lower-cost alternative to reinforced concrete in many mid-rise projects, but Ontario’s Building Code is hampering its use. Building taller with wood offers advantages beyond cost: •Wood is a renewable resource that naturally sequesters carbon, helping us reach our climate change goals •Using wood supports Ontario’s forestry sector and creates jobs, including for Indigenous people British Columbia’s and Quebec’s building codes allow woodframe construction up to 12 storeys, but Ontario limits it to six. By amending the Building Code to allow 12-storey woodframe construction, Ontario would encourage increased use of forestry products and reduce building costs. Finally, we were told that a shift in how builders are required to guarantee their performance would free up billions of dollars to build more housing. Pay on demand surety bonds are a much less onerous option than letters or credit, and are already accepted in Hamilton, Pickering, Innisfil, Whitchurch-Stouffville and other Ontario municipalities. We outline the technical details in Appendix D. 19.Legislate timelines at each stage of the provincial and municipal review process, including site plan, minor variance, and provincial reviews, and deem an application approved if the legislated response time is exceeded. 20.Fund the creation of “approvals facilitators” with the authority to quickly resolve conflicts among municipal and/or provincial authorities and ensure timelines are met. 21.Require a pre-consultation with all relevant parties at which the municipality sets out a binding list that defines what constitutes a complete application; confirms the number of consultations established in the previous recommendations; and clarifies that if a member of a regulated profession such as a professional engineer has stamped an application, the municipality has no liability and no additional stamp is needed. 22.Simplify planning legislation and policy documents. 23.Create a common, province-wide definition of plan of subdivision and standard set of conditions which clarify which may be included; require the use of standard province-wide legal agreements and, where feasible, plans of subdivision. 24.Allow wood construction of up to 12 storeys. 25.Require municipalities to provide the option of pay on demand surety bonds and letters of credit. Then: In 1966, a draft plan of subdivision in a town in southwestern Ontario to provide 529 low-rise and mid-rise housing units, a school site, a shopping centre and parks was approved by way of a two-page letter setting out 10 conditions. It took seven months to clear conditions for final approval. And now: In 2013, a builder started the approval process to build on a piece of serviced residential land in a seasonal resort town. Over the next seven years, 18 professional consultant reports were required, culminating in draft plan approval containing 50 clearance conditions. The second approval, issued by the Local Planning Appeals Board in 2020, ran to 23 pages. The developer estimates it will be almost 10 years before final approval is received. - 79 - Report of the Ontario Housing Affordability Task Force | 17 Prevent abuse of the appeal process Part of the challenge with housing approvals is that, by the time a project has been appealed to the Ontario Land Tribunal (the Tribunal), it has usually already faced delay and compromises have been made to reduce the size and scope of the proposal. When an approved project is appealed, the appellant – which could just be a single individual – may pay $400 and tie up new housing for years. The most recent published report showed 1,300 unresolved cases.[18] While under-resourcing does contribute to delays, this caseload also reflects the low barrier to launching an appeal and the minimal risks if an appeal is unsuccessful: •After a builder has spent time and money to ensure a proposal conforms with a municipality’s requirements, the municipal council can still reject it – even if its own planning staff has given its support. Very often this is to appease local opponents. •Unlike a court, costs are not automatically awarded to the successful party at the Tribunal. The winning side must bring a motion and prove that the party bringing the appeal was unreasonable, clearly trying to delay the project, and/or being vexatious or frivolous. Because the bar is set so high, the winning side seldom asks for costs in residential cases. This has resulted in abuse of the Tribunal to delay new housing. Throughout our consultations, we heard from municipalities, not-for-profits, and developers that affordable housing was a particular target for appeals which, even if unsuccessful, can make projects too costly to build. Clearly the Tribunal needs more resources to clear its backlog. But the bigger issue is the need for so many appeals: we believe it would better to have well-defined goals and rules for municipalities and builders to avoid this costly and time-consuming quasi-judicial process. Those who bring appeals aimed at stopping development that meets established criteria should pay the legal costs of the successful party and face the risk of a larger project being approved. The solution is not more appeals, it’s fixing the system. We have proposed a series of reforms that would ensure only meritorious appeals proceeded, that every participant faces some risk and cost of losing, and that abuse of the Tribunal will be penalized. We believe that if Ontario accepts our recommendations, the Tribunal will not face the same volume of appeals. But getting to that point will take time, and the Tribunal needs more resources and better tools now. Recommendation 1 will provide legislative direction to adjudicators that they must prioritize housing growth and intensification over competing priorities contained in provincial and municipal policies. We further recommend the following: 26. Require appellants to promptly seek permission (“leave to appeal”) of the Tribunal and demonstrate that an appeal has merit, relying on evidence and expert reports, before it is accepted. 27.Prevent abuse of process: a) Remove right of appeal for projects with at least 30% affordable housing in which units are guaranteed affordable for at least 40 years. b) Require a $10,000 filing fee for third-party appeals. c) Provide discretion to adjudicators to award full costs to the successful party in any appeal brought by a third party or by a municipality where its council has overridden a recommended staff approval. 28.Encourage greater use of oral decisions issued the day of the hearing, with written reasons to follow, and allow those decisions to become binding the day that they are issued. 29.Where it is found that a municipality has refused an application simply to avoid a deemed approval for lack of decision, allow the Tribunal to award punitive damages. 30.Provide funding to increase staffing (adjudicators and case managers), provide market-competitive salaries, outsource more matters to mediators, and set shorter time targets. 31.In clearing the existing backlog, encourage the Tribunal to prioritize projects close to the finish line that will support housing growth and intensification, as well as regional water or utility infrastructure decisions that will unlock significant housing capacity. - 80 - Report of the Ontario Housing Affordability Task Force | 18 Reduce the costs to build, buy and rent The price you pay to buy or rent a home is driven directly by how much it costs to build a home. In Ontario, costs to build homes have dramatically increased at an unprecedented pace over the past decade. In most of our cities and towns, materials and labour only account for about half of the costs. The rest comes from land, which we have addressed in the previous section, and government fees. A careful balance is required on government fees because, as much as we would like to see them lowered, governments need revenues from fees and taxes to build critically needed infrastructure and pay for all the other services that make Ontario work. So, it is a question of balance and of ensuring that our approach to government fees encourages rather than discourages developers to build the full range of housing we need in our Ontario communities. Align government fees and charges with the goal of building more housing Improve the municipal funding model Housing requires more than just the land it is built on. It requires roads, sewers, parks, utilities and other infrastructure. The provincial government provides municipalities with a way to secure funding for this infrastructure through development charges, community benefit charges and parkland dedication (providing 5% of land for public parks or the cash equivalent). These charges are founded on the belief that growth – not current taxpayers – should pay for growth. As a concept, it is compelling. In practice, it means that new home buyers pay the entire cost of sewers, parks, affordable housing, or colleges that will be around for generations and may not be located in their neighbourhood. And, although building affordable housing is a societal responsibility, because affordable units pay all the same charges as a market unit, the cost is passed to new home buyers in the same building or the not-for-profit organization supporting the project. We do not believe that government fees should create a disincentive to affordable housing. If you ask any developer of homes – whether they are for-profit or non-profit – they will tell you that development charges are a special pain point. In Ontario, they can be as much as $135,000 per home. In some municipalities, development charges have increased as much as 900% in less than 20 years.[20] As development charges go up, the prices of homes go up. And development charges on a modest semi-detached home are the same as on a luxury 6,000 square foot home, resulting in a disincentive to build housing that is more affordable. Timing is also a challenge as development charges have to be paid up front, before a shovel even goes into the ground. To help relieve the pressure, the Ontario government passed recent legislation allowing builders to determine development charges earlier in the building process. But they must pay interest on the assessed development charge to the municipality until a building permit is issued, and there is no cap on the rate, which in one major city is 13% annually. Cash payments to satisfy parkland dedication also significantly boost the costs of higher-density projects, adding on average $17,000 to the cost of a high-rise condo across the GTA.[21] We heard concerns not just about the amount of cash collected, but also about the money not being spent in the neighbourhood or possibly not being spent on parks at all. As an example, in 2019 the City of Toronto held $644 million in parkland cash-in-lieu payments.[22] Everyone can agree that we need to invest in parks as our communities grow, but if the funds are not being spent, perhaps it means that more money is being collected for parklands than is needed and we could lower the cost of housing if we adjusted these parkland fees. A 2019 study carried out for BILD showed that in the Greater Toronto Area, development charges for low-rise housing are on average more than three times higher per unit than in six comparable US metropolitan areas, and roughly 1.75-times higher than in the other Canadian cities. For high-rise developments the average per unit charges in the GTA are roughly 50% higher than in the US areas, and roughly 30% higher than in the other Canadian urban areas.[19] - 81 - Report of the Ontario Housing Affordability Task Force | 19 Modernizing HST Thresholds Harmonized sales tax (HST) applies to all new housing – including purpose-built rental. Today, the federal component is 5% and provincial component is 8%. The federal and provincial government provide a partial HST rebate. Two decades ago, the maximum home price eligible for a rebate was set at $450,000 federally and $400,000 provincially, resulting in a maximum rebate of $6,300 federally and $24,000 provincially, less than half of today’s average home price. Buyers of new homes above this ceiling face a significant clawback. Indexing the rebate would immediately reduce the cost of building new homes, savings that can be passed on to Ontarians. When both levels of government agree that we are facing a housing crisis, they should not be adding over 10% to the cost of almost all new homes. 32. Waive development charges and parkland cash-in-lieu and charge only modest connection fees for all infill residential projects up to 10 units or for any development where no new material infrastructure will be required. 33. Waive development charges on all forms of affordable housing guaranteed to be affordable for 40 years. 34. Prohibit interest rates on development charges higher than a municipality’s borrowing rate. 35. Regarding cash in lieu of parkland, s.37, Community Benefit Charges, and development charges: a) Provincial review of reserve levels, collections and drawdowns annually to ensure funds are being used in a timely fashion and for the intended purpose, and, where review points to a significant concern, do not allow further collection until the situation has been corrected. b) Except where allocated towards municipality-wide infrastructure projects, require municipalities to spend funds in the neighbourhoods where they were collected. However, where there’s a significant community need in a priority area of the City, allow for specific ward-to-ward allocation of unspent and unallocated reserves. 36. Recommend that the federal government and provincial governments update HST rebate to reflect current home prices and begin indexing the thresholds to housing prices, and that the federal government match the provincial 75% rebate and remove any clawback. Make it easier to build rental In cities and towns across Ontario, it is increasingly hard to find a vacant rental unit, let alone a vacant rental unit at an affordable price. Today, 66% of all purpose-built rental units in the City of Toronto were built between 1960 and 1979. Less than 15% of Toronto’s purpose-built rentals were constructed over the ensuing 40 years in spite of the significant population growth during that time. In fact, between 2006 and 2016, growth in condo apartments increased by 186% while purpose-built rental only grew by 0.6%.[12] In 2018, the Ontario government introduced positive changes that have created growth in purpose-built rental units – with last year seeing 18,000 units under construction and 93,000 proposed against a 5-year average prior to 2020 of 3,400 annually.[23] Long-term renters often now feel trapped in apartments that don’t make sense for them as their needs change. And because they can’t or don’t want to move up the housing ladder, many of the people coming up behind them who would gladly take those apartments are instead living in crowded spaces with family members or roommates. Others feel forced to commit to rental units at prices way beyond what they can afford. Others are trying their luck in getting on the wait list for an affordable unit or housing co-op – wait lists that are years long. Others are leaving Ontario altogether. Government charges on a new single-detached home averaged roughly $186,300, or almost 22% of the price, across six municipalities in southcentral Ontario. For a new condominium apartment, the average was almost $123,000, or roughly 24% of a unit’s price. of all purpose-built rental units in the City of Toronto were built between 1960 and 1979. 66% - 82 - Report of the Ontario Housing Affordability Task Force | 20 A pattern in every community, and particularly large cities, is that the apartments and rented rooms that we do have are disappearing. Apartment buildings are being converted to condos or upgraded to much more expensive rental units. Duplexes get purchased and turned into larger single-family homes. A major challenge in bridging the gap of rental supply is that, more often than not, purpose-built rental projects don’t make economic sense for builders and investors. Ironically, there is no shortage of Canadian investor capital seeking housing investments, particularly large pension funds – but the economics of investing in purpose-built rental in Ontario just don’t make sense. So, investments get made in apartment projects in other provinces or countries, or in condo projects that have a better and safer return-on-investment. What can governments do to get that investor capital pointed in the right direction so we can create jobs and get more of the housing we need built? Some of our earlier recommendations will help, particularly indexing the HST rebate. So will actions by government to require purpose-built rental on surplus government land that is made available for sale. (Appendix C) Municipal property taxes on purpose-built rental can be as much as 2.5 times greater than property taxes for condominium or other ownership housing.[24] The Task Force recommends: 37. Align property taxes for purpose-built rental with those of condos and low-rise homes. Make homeownership possible for hardworking Ontarians who want it Home ownership has always been part of the Canadian dream. You don’t have to look far back to find a time when the housing landscape was very different. The norm was for young people to rent an apartment in their twenties, work hard and save for a down payment, then buy their first home in their late twenties or early thirties. It was the same for many new Canadians: arrive, rent, work hard and buy. The house might be modest, but it brought a sense of ownership, stability and security. And after that first step onto the ownership ladder, there was always the possibility of selling and moving up. Home ownership felt like a real possibility for anyone who wanted it. That’s not how it works now. Too many young people who would like their own place are living with one or both parents well into adulthood. The escalation of housing prices over the last decade has put the dream of homeownership out of reach of a growing number of aspiring first-time home buyers. While 73% of Canadians are homeowners, that drops to 48% for Black people, 47% for LGBTQ people[5] (StatsCan is studying rates for other populations, including Indigenous People who are severely underhoused). This is also an issue for younger adults: a 2021 study showed only 24% of Torontonians aged 30 to 39 are homeowners.[25] In Canada, responsibility for Indigenous housing programs has historically been a shared between the federal and provincial governments. The federal government works closely with its provincial and territorial counterparts to improve access to housing for Indigenous peoples both on and off reserve. More than 85% of Indigenous people live in urban and rural areas, are 11 times more likely to experience homelessness and have incidence of housing need that is 52% greater than all Canadians. The Murdered and Missing Indigenous Women and Girls report mentions housing 299 times – the lack of which being a significant, contributing cause to violence and the provision of which as a significant, contributing solution. The Province of Ontario has made significant investments in Urban Indigenous Housing, but we need the Federal Government to re-engage as an active partner. While measures to address supply will have an impact on housing prices, many aspiring homeowners will continue to face a gap that is simply too great to bridge through traditional methods. The Task Force recognizes the need for caution about measures that would spur demand for housing before the supply bottleneck is fixed. At the same time, a growing number of organizations – both non-profit and for-profit are proposing a range of unique home equity models. Some of these organizations are aiming at households who have sufficient income to pay the mortgage but lack a sufficient down payment. Others are aiming at households who fall short in both income and down payment requirements for current market housing. - 83 - Report of the Ontario Housing Affordability Task Force | 21 The Task Force heard about a range of models to help aspiring first-time home buyers, including: • Shared equity models with a government, non-profit or for-profit lender holding a second “shared equity mortgage” payable at time of sale of the home • Land lease models that allow residents to own their home but lease the land, reducing costs • Rent-to-own approaches in which a portion of an occupant’s rent is used to build equity, which can be used as a down payment on their current unit or another market unit in the future • Models where the equity gain is shared between the homeowner and the non-profit provider, such that the non-profit will always be able to buy the home back and sell it to another qualified buyer, thus retaining the home’s affordability from one homeowner to the next. Proponents of these models identified barriers that thwart progress in implementing new solutions. • The Planning Act limits land leases to a maximum of 21 years. This provision prevents home buyers from accessing the same type of mortgages from a bank or credit union that are available to them when they buy through traditional homeownership. • The Perpetuities Act has a similar 21-year limit on any options placed on land. This limits innovative non-profit models from using equity formulas for re-sale and repurchase of homes. • Land Transfer Tax (LTT) is charged each time a home is sold and is collected by the province; and in Toronto, this tax is also collected by the City. This creates a double-tax in rent-to-own/equity building models where LTT ends up being paid first by the home equity organization and then by the occupant when they are able to buy the unit. • HST is charged based on the market value of the home. In shared equity models where the homeowner neither owns nor gains from the shared equity portion of their home, HST on the shared equity portion of the home simply reduces affordability. • Residential mortgages are highly regulated by the federal government and reflective of traditional homeownership. Modifications in regulations may be required to adapt to new co-ownership and other models. The Task Force encourages the Ontario government to devote further attention to avenues to support new homeownership options. As a starting point, the Task Force offers the following recommendations: 38. Amend the Planning Act and Perpetuities Act to extend the maximum period for land leases and restrictive covenants on land to 40 or more years. 39. Eliminate or reduce tax disincentives to housing growth. 40. Call on the Federal Government to implement an Urban, Rural and Northern Indigenous Housing Strategy. 41. Funding for pilot projects that create innovative pathways to homeownership, for Black, Indigenous, and marginalized people and first-generation homeowners. 42. Provide provincial and federal loan guarantees for purpose-built rental, affordable rental and affordable ownership projects. - 84 - Report of the Ontario Housing Affordability Task Force | 22 Support and incentivize scaling up housing supply Our goal of building 1.5 million homes in ten years means doubling how many homes Ontario creates each year. As much as the Task Force’s recommendations will remove barriers to realizing this ambitious goal, we also need to ensure we have the capacity across Ontario’s communities to deliver this new housing supply. This includes capacity of our housing infrastructure, capacity within our municipal planning teams, and boots on the ground with the skills to build new homes. There is much to be done and the price of failure for the people of Ontario is high. This is why the provincial government must make an unwavering commitment to keeping the spotlight on housing supply. This is also why the province must be dogged in its determination to galvanize and align efforts and incentives across all levels of government so that working together, we all can get the job done. Our final set of recommendations turns to these issues of capacity to deliver, and the role the provincial government can play in putting the incentives and alignment in place to achieve the 1.5 million home goal. Invest in municipal infrastructure Housing can’t get built without water, sewage, and other infrastructure When the Task Force met with municipal leaders, they emphasized how much future housing supply relies on having the water, storm water and wastewater systems, roads, sidewalks, fire stations, and all the other parts of community infrastructure to support new homes and new residents. Infrastructure is essential where housing is being built for the first time. And, it can be a factor in intensification when added density exceeds the capacity of existing infrastructure, one of the reasons we urge new infrastructure in new developments to be designed for future capacity. In Ontario, there are multiple municipalities where the number one barrier to approving new housing projects is a lack of infrastructure to support them. Municipalities face a myriad of challenges in getting this infrastructure in place. Often, infrastructure investments are required long before new projects are approved and funding must be secured. Notwithstanding the burden development charges place on the price of new housing, most municipalities report that development charges are still not enough to fully cover the costs of building new infrastructure and retrofitting existing infrastructure in neighbourhoods that are intensifying. Often infrastructure crosses municipal boundaries creating complicated and time-consuming “who pays?” questions. Municipal leaders also shared their frustrations with situations where new housing projects are approved and water, sewage and other infrastructure capacity is allocated to the project – only to have the developer land bank the project and put off building. Environmental considerations with new infrastructure add further cost and complexity. The Task Force recommends: 43. Enable municipalities, subject to adverse external economic events, to withdraw infrastructure allocations from any permitted projects where construction has not been initiated within three years of build permits being issued. 44. Work with municipalities to develop and implement a municipal services corporation utility model for water and wastewater under which the municipal corporation would borrow and amortize costs among customers instead of using development charges. - 85 - Report of the Ontario Housing Affordability Task Force | 23 Create the Labour Force to meet the housing supply need The labour force is shrinking in many segments of the market You can’t start to build housing without infrastructure. You can’t build it without people – skilled trades people in every community who can build the homes we need. The concern that we are already facing a shortage in skilled trades came through loud and clear in our consultations. We heard from many sources that our education system funnels young people to university rather than colleges or apprenticeships and creates the perception that careers in the skilled trades are of less value. Unions and builders are working to fill the pipeline domestically and recruit internationally, but mass retirements are making it challenging to maintain the workforce at its current level, let alone increase it. Increased economic immigration could ease this bottleneck, but it appears difficult for a skilled labourer with no Canadian work experience to qualify under Ontario’s rules. Moreover, Canada’s immigration policies also favour university education over skills our economy and society desperately need. We ought to be welcoming immigrants with the skills needed to build roads and houses that will accommodate our growing population. The shortage may be less acute, however, among smaller developers and contractors that could renovate and build new “missing middle” homes arising from the changes in neighbourhood zoning described earlier. These smaller companies tap into a different workforce from the one needed to build high rises and new subdivisions. Nonetheless, 1.5 million more homes will require a major investment in attracting and developing the skilled trades workforce to deliver this critically needed housing supply. We recommend: 45. Improve funding for colleges, trade schools, and apprenticeships; encourage and incentivize municipalities, unions and employers to provide more on-the-job training. 46. Undertake multi-stakeholder education program to promote skilled trades. 47. Recommend that the federal and provincial government prioritize skilled trades and adjust the immigration points system to strongly favour needed trades and expedite immigration status for these workers, and encourage the federal government to increase from 9,000 to 20,000 the number of immigrants admitted through Ontario’s program. Create a large Ontario Housing Delivery Fund to align efforts and incent new housing supply Build alignment between governments to enable builders to deliver more homes than ever before All levels of government play a role in housing. The federal government sets immigration policy, which has a major impact on population growth and many tax policies. The province sets the framework for planning, approvals, and growth that municipalities rely upon, and is responsible for many other areas that touch on housing supply, like investing in highways and transit, training workers, the building code and protecting the environment. Municipalities are on the front lines, expected to translate the impacts of federal immigration policy, provincial guidance and other factors, some very localized, into official plans and the overall process through which homes are approved to be built. The efficiency with which home builders can build, whether for-profit or non-profit, is influenced by policies and decisions at every level of government. In turn, how many home developers can deliver, and at what cost, translates directly into the availability of homes that Ontarians can afford. - 86 - Report of the Ontario Housing Affordability Task Force | 24 Collectively, governments have not been sufficiently aligned in their efforts to provide the frameworks and incentives that meet the broad spectrum of housing needs in Ontario. Much action, though, has been taken in recent years. •The Ontario government has taken several steps to make it easier to build additional suites in your own home: reduced disincentives to building rental housing, improved the appeal process, focused on density around transit stations, made upfront development charges more predictable, and provided options for municipalities to create community benefits through development. •The federal government has launched the National Housing Strategy and committed over $70 billion in funding.[26] Most recently, it has announced a $4 billion Housing Accelerator Fund aimed at helping municipalities remove barriers to building housing more quickly.[27] •Municipalities have been looking at ways to change outdated processes, rules, and ways of thinking that create delays and increases costs of delivering homes. Several municipalities have taken initial steps towards eliminating exclusionary zoning and addressing other barriers described in this report. All governments agree that we are facing a housing crisis. Now we must turn the sense of urgency into action and alignment across governments. Mirror policy changes with financial incentives aligned across governments The policy recommendations in this report will go a long way to align efforts and position builders to deliver more homes. Having the capacity in our communities to build these homes will take more than policy. It will take money. Rewarding municipalities that meet housing growth and approval timelines will help them to invest in system upgrades, hire additional staff, and invest in their communities. Similarly, municipalities that resist new housing, succumb to NIMBY pressure, and close off their neighbourhoods should see funding reductions. Fixing the housing crisis is a societal responsibility, and our limited tax dollars should be directed to those municipalities making the difficult but necessary choices to grow housing supply. In late January 2022, the provincial government announced $45 million for a new Streamline Development Approval Fund to “unlock housing supply by cutting red tape and improving processes for residential and industrial developments”.[28] This is encouraging. More is needed. Ontario should also receive its fair share of federal funding but today faces a shortfall of almost $500 million,[29] despite two thirds of the Canadian housing shortage being in Ontario. We call on the federal government to address this funding gap. 48. The Ontario government should establish a large “Ontario Housing Delivery Fund” and encourage the federal government to match funding. This fund should reward: a) Annual housing growth that meets or exceeds provincial targets b) Reductions in total approval times for new housing c) The speedy removal of exclusionary zoning practices 49. Reductions in funding to municipalities that fail to meet provincial housing growth and approval timeline targets. We believe that the province should consider partial grants to subsidize municipalities that waive development charges for affordable housing and for purpose-built rental. Sustain focus, measure, monitor, improve Digitize and modernize the approvals and planning process Some large municipalities have moved to electronic tracking of development applications and/or electronic building permits (“e-permits”) and report promising results, but there is no consistency and many smaller places don’t have the capacity to make the change. Municipalities, the provincial government and agencies use different systems to collect data and information relevant to housing approvals, which slows down processes and leaves much of the “big picture” blank. This could be addressed by ensuring uniform data architecture standards. Improve the quality of our housing data to inform decision making Having accurate data is key to understanding any challenge and making the best decisions in response. The Task Force heard from multiple housing experts that we are not always using the best data, and we do not always have the data we need. - 87 - Report of the Ontario Housing Affordability Task Force | 25 Having good population forecasts is essential in each municipality as they develop plans to meet future land and housing needs. Yet, we heard many concerns about inconsistent approaches to population forecasts. In the Greater Golden Horseshoe, the forecast provided to municipalities by the province is updated only when the Growth Plan is updated, generally every seven years; but federal immigration policy, which is a key driver of growth, changes much more frequently. The provincial Ministry of Finance produces a population forecast on a more regular basis than the Growth Plan, but these are not used consistently across municipalities or even by other provincial ministries. Population forecasts get translated into housing need in different ways across the province, and there is a lack of data about how (or whether) the need will be met. Others pointed to the inconsistent availability of land inventories. Another challenge is the lack of information on how much land is permitted and how much housing is actually getting built once permitted, and how fast. The Task Force also heard that, although the Provincial Policy Statement requires municipalities to maintain a three-year supply of short-term (build-ready) land and report it each year to the province, many municipalities are not meeting that requirement. At a provincial and municipal level, we need better data on the housing we have today, housing needed to close the gap, consistent projections of what we need in the future, and data on how we are doing at keeping up. Improved data will help anticipate local and provincial supply bottlenecks and constraints, making it easier to determine the appropriate level and degree of response. It will also be important to have better data to assess how much new housing stock is becoming available to groups that have been disproportionately excluded from home ownership and rental housing. Put eyes on the crisis and change the conversation around housing Ours is not the first attempt to “fix the housing system”. There have been efforts for years to tackle increasing housing prices and find solutions so everyone in Ontario can find and afford the housing they need. This time must be different. The recommendations in this report must receive sustained attention, results must be monitored, significant financial investment by all levels of government must be made. And, the people of Ontario must embrace a housing landscape in which the housing needs of tomorrow’s citizens and those who have been left behind are given equal weight to the housing advantages of those who are already well established in homes that they own. 50. Fund the adoption of consistent municipal e-permitting systems and encourage the federal government to match funding. Fund the development of common data architecture standards across municipalities and provincial agencies and require municipalities to provide their zoning bylaws with open data standards. Set an implementation goal of 2025 and make funding conditional on established targets. 51. Require municipalities and the provincial government to use the Ministry of Finance population projections as the basis for housing need analysis and related land use requirements. 52. Resume reporting on housing data and require consistent municipal reporting, enforcing compliance as a requirement for accessing programs under the Ontario Housing Delivery Fund. 53. Report each year at the municipal and provincial level on any gap between demand and supply by housing type and location, and make underlying data freely available to the public. 54. Empower the Deputy Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing to lead an all-of-government committee, including key provincial ministries and agencies, that meets weekly to ensure our remaining recommendations and any other productive ideas are implemented. 55. Commit to evaluate these recommendations for the next three years with public reporting on progress. - 88 - Report of the Ontario Housing Affordability Task Force | 26 Conclusion We have set a bold goal for Ontario: building 1.5 million homes in the next 10 years. We believe this can be done. What struck us was that everyone we talked to – builders, housing advocates, elected officials, planners – understands the need to act now. As one long-time industry participant said, “for the first time in memory, everyone is aligned, and we need to take advantage of that.” Such unity of purpose is rare, but powerful. To leverage that power, we offer solutions that are bold but workable, backed by evidence, and that position Ontario for the future. Our recommendations focus on ramping up the supply of housing. Measures are already in place to try to cool demand, but they will not fill Ontario’s housing need. More supply is key. Building more homes will reduce the competition for our scarce supply of homes and will give Ontarians more housing choices. It will improve housing affordability across the board. Everyone wants more Ontarians to have housing. So let’s get to work to build more housing in Ontario. - 89 - Report of the Ontario Housing Affordability Task Force | 27 APPENDIX A:Biographies of Task Force Members Lalit Aggarwal is President of Manor Park Holdings, a real estate development and operating company active in Eastern Ontario. Previously, Lalit was an investor for institutional fund management firms, such as H.I.G. European Capital Partners, Soros Fund Management, and Goldman Sachs. He is a past fellow of the C.D. Howe Institute and a former Director of both Bridgepoint Health and the Centre for the Commercialization of Regenerative Medicine. Lalit holds degrees from the University of Oxford and the University of Pennsylvania. He is also a current Director of the Hospital for Sick Children Foundation, the Sterling Hall School and the Chair of the Alcohol & Gaming Commission of Ontario. David Amborski is a professional Urban Planner, Professor at Ryerson University’s School of Urban and Regional Planning and the founding Director of the Centre for Urban Research and Land Development (CUR). His research and consulting work explore topics where urban planning interfaces with economics, including land and housing markets. He is an academic advisor to the National Executive Forum on Public Property, and he is a member of Lambda Alpha (Honorary Land Economics Society). He has undertaken consulting for the Federal, Provincial and a range of municipal governments. Internationally, he has undertaken work for the Canadian International Development Agency (CIDA), the World Bank, the Inter-American Development Bank, the Lincoln Institute of Land Policy, and several other organizations in Eastern Europe, Latin America, South Africa, and Asia. He also serves on the editorial boards of several international academic journals. Andrew Garrett is a real estate executive responsible for growing IMCO’s $11+ Billion Global Real Estate portfolio to secure public pensions and insurance for Ontario families. IMCO is the only Ontario fund manager purpose built to onboard public clients such as pensions, insurance, municipal reserve funds, and endowments. Andrew has significant non-profit sector experience founding a B Corp certified social enterprise called WeBuild to help incubate social purpose real estate projects. He currently volunteers on non-profit boards supporting social purpose real estate projects, youth programs and the visual arts at Art Gallery of Ontario. Andrew sits on board advisory committees for private equity firms and holds a Global Executive MBA from Kellogg School Management and a Real Estate Development Certification from MIT Centre for Real Estate. Tim Hudak is the CEO of the Ontario Real Estate Association (OREA). With a passion and voice for championing the dream of home ownership, Tim came to OREA following a distinguished 21-year career in politics, including five years as Leader of the Progressive Conservative Party of Ontario. In his role, Tim has focused on transforming OREA into Ontario’s most cutting-edge professional association at the forefront of advocacy on behalf of REALTORS® and consumers, and providing world-class conferences, standard forms, leadership training and professional guidance to its Members. As part of his work at OREA, Tim was named one of the most powerful people in North American residential real estate by Swanepoel Power 200 for the last five years. Tim is married to Deb Hutton, and together they have two daughters, Miller and Maitland. In his spare time, Tim enjoys trails less taken on his mountain bike or hiking shoes as well as grilling outdoors. Jake Lawrence was appointed Chief Executive Officer and Group Head, Global Banking and Markets in January 2021. In this role, Jake is responsible for the Bank’s Global Banking and Markets business line and strategy across its global footprint. Jake joined Scotiabank in 2002 and has held progressively senior roles in Finance, Group Treasury and Global Banking and Markets. From December 2018 to January 2021, Jake was Co-Group Head of Global Banking and Markets with specific responsibility for its Capital Markets businesses, focused on building alignment across product groups and priority markets to best serve our clients throughout our global footprint. Previously, Jake was Executive Vice President and Head of Global Banking and Markets in the U.S., providing overall strategic direction and execution of Scotiabank’s U.S. businesses. Prior to moving into GBM, Jake served as Senior Vice President and Deputy Treasurer, responsible for Scotiabank’s wholesale funding activities and liquidity management as well as Senior Vice President, Investor Relations. - 90 - Report of the Ontario Housing Affordability Task Force | 28 Julie Di Lorenzo (GPLLM, University of Toronto 2020), is self-employed since 1982, operates one of the largest female-run Real Estate Development Companies in North America. She was instrumental in the Daniel Burnham award-winning Ontario Growth Management Plan (2004) as President of BILD. Julie served as the first female-owner President of GTHBA (BILD) and on the boards of the Ontario Science Centre, Harbourfront Toronto, Tarion (ONHWP), St. Michael’s Hospital, NEXT36, Waterfront Toronto, Chair of IREC Committee WT, Havergal College (Co-Chair of Facilities), York School (interim Vice-Chair), and Canadian Civil Liberties Association Board. Julie has served various governments in advisory capacity on Women’s issues, Economic Development, Innovation and Entrepreneurship. Awards include Lifetime Achievement BILD 2017, ICCO Business Excellence 2005 & ICCO Businesswoman of the Year 2021. Justin Marchand (CIHCM, CPA, CMA, BComm) is Métis and was appointed Chief Executive Officer of Ontario Aboriginal Housing Services (OAHS) in 2018. Justin has over 20 years of progressive experience in a broad range of sectors, including two publicly listed corporations, a large accounting and consulting firm, and a major crown corporation, and holds numerous designations across financial, operations, and housing disciplines. He was most recently selected as Chair of the Canadian Housing and Renewal Association’s (CHRA’s) Indigenous Caucus Working Group and is also board member for CHRA. Justin is also an active board member for both the Coalition of Hamilton Indigenous Leadership (CHIL) as well as Shingwauk Kinoomaage Gamig, located in Bawaating. Justin believes that Housing is a fundamental human right and that when Indigenous people have access to safe, affordable, and culture-based Housing this provides the opportunity to improve other areas of their lives. Ene Underwood is CEO of Habitat for Humanity Greater Toronto Area), a non-profit housing developer that helps working, lower income families build strength, stability and self-reliance through affordable homeownership. Homes are delivered through a combination of volunteer builds, contractor builds, and partnerships with non-profit and for-profit developers. Ene’s career began in the private sector as a strategy consultant with McKinsey & Company before transitioning to not-for-profit sector leadership. Ene holds a Bachelor of Arts (Honours) from the University of Waterloo and a Master of Business Administration from Ivey Business School. Dave Wilkes is the President and CEO of the Building Industry and Land Development Association of the GTA (BILD). The Association has 1,300 members and proudly represents builders, developers, professional renovators and those who support the industry. Dave is committed to supporting volunteer boards and organizations. He has previously served on the George Brown College Board of Directors, Ontario Curling Association, and is currently engaged with Black North Initiative (Housing Committee) and R-Labs I+T Council. Dave received his Bachelor of Arts (Applied Geography) from Ryerson. - 91 - Report of the Ontario Housing Affordability Task Force | 29 APPENDIX B:Affordable Housing Ontario’s affordable housing shortfall was raised in almost every conversation. With rapidly rising prices, more lower-priced market rental units are being converted into housing far out of reach of lower-income households. In parallel, higher costs to deliver housing and limited government funding have resulted in a net decrease in the number of affordable housing units run by non-profits. The result is untenable: more people need affordable housing after being displaced from the market at the very time that affordable supply is shrinking. Throughout our consultations, we were reminded of the housing inequities experienced by Black, Indigenous and marginalized people. We also received submissions describing the unique challenges faced by off-reserve Indigenous Peoples both in the province’s urban centres and in the north. While many of the changes that will help deliver market housing will also help make it easier to deliver affordable housing, affordable housing is a societal responsibility. We cannot rely exclusively on for-profit developers nor on increases in the supply of market housing to fully solve the problem. The non-profit housing sector faces all the same barriers, fees, risks and complexities outlined in this report as for-profit builders. Several participants from the non-profit sector referred to current or future partnerships with for-profit developers that tap into the development and construction expertise and efficiencies of the private sector. Successful examples of leveraging such partnerships were cited with Indigenous housing, supportive housing, and affordable homeownership. We were also reminded by program participants that, while partnerships with for-profit developers can be very impactful, non-profit providers have unique competencies in the actual delivery of affordable housing. This includes confirming eligibility of affordable housing applicants, supporting independence of occupants of affordable housing, and ensuring affordable housing units remain affordable from one occupant to the next. One avenue for delivering more affordable housing that has received much recent attention is inclusionary zoning. In simple terms, inclusionary zoning (IZ) requires developers to deliver a share of affordable units in new housing developments in prescribed areas. The previous Ontario government passed legislation in April 2018 providing a framework within which municipalities could enact Inclusionary Zoning bylaws. Ontario’s first inclusionary zoning policy was introduced in fall 2021 by the City of Toronto and applies to major transit station areas. Internationally, inclusionary zoning has been used successfully to incentivize developers to create new affordable housing by providing density bonuses (more units than they would normally be allowed, if some are affordable) or reductions in government fees. Unfortunately, the City’s approach did not include any incentives or bonuses. Instead, Toronto requires market-rate fees and charges for below-market affordable units. This absence of incentives together with lack of clarity on the overall density that will be approved for projects has led developers and some housing advocates to claim that these projects may be uneconomic and thus will not get financed or built. Municipalities shared with us their concerns regarding the restriction in the provincial IZ legislation that prohibits “cash in lieu” payments. Municipalities advised that having the option of accepting the equivalent value of IZ units in cash from the developer would enable even greater impact in some circumstances (for example, a luxury building in an expensive neighbourhood, where the cost of living is too high for a low-income resident). Funding for affordable housing is the responsibility of all levels of government. The federal government has committed to large funding transfers to the provinces to support affordable housing. The Task Force heard, however, that Ontario’s share of this funding does not reflect our proportionate affordable housing needs. This, in turn, creates further financial pressure on both the province and municipalities, which further exacerbates the affordable housing shortages in Ontario’s communities. - 92 - Report of the Ontario Housing Affordability Task Force | 30 Finally, many participants in Task Force consultations pointed to surplus government lands as an avenue for building more affordable housing and this is discussed in Appendix C. We have made recommendations throughout the report intended to have a positive impact on new affordable housing supply. We offer these additional recommendations specific to affordable housing: • Call upon the federal government to provide equitable affordable housing funding to Ontario. • Develop and legislate a clear, province-wide definition of “affordable housing” to create certainty and predictability. • Create an Affordable Housing Trust from a portion of Land Transfer Tax Revenue (i.e., the windfall resulting from property price appreciation) to be used in partnership with developers, non-profits, and municipalities in the creation of more affordable housing units. This Trust should create incentives for projects serving and brought forward by Black- and Indigenous-led developers and marginalized groups. • Amend legislation to: • Allow cash-in-lieu payments for Inclusive Zoning units at the discretion of the municipality. • Require that municipalities utilize density bonusing or other incentives in all Inclusionary Zoning and Affordable Housing policies that apply to market housing. • Permit municipalities that have not passed Inclusionary Zoning policies to offer incentives and bonuses for affordable housing units. • Encourage government to closely monitor the effectiveness of Inclusionary Zoning policy in creating new affordable housing and to explore alternative funding methods that are predictable, consistent and transparent as a more viable alternative option to Inclusionary Zoning policies in the provision of affordable housing. • Rebate MPAC market rate property tax assessment on below-market affordable homes. - 93 - Report of the Ontario Housing Affordability Task Force | 31 APPENDIX C:Government Surplus Land Surplus government lands fell outside the mandate of the Task Force. However, this question came up repeatedly as a solution to housing supply. While we take no view on the disposition of specific parcels of land, several stakeholders raised issues that we believe merit consideration: •Review surplus lands and accelerate the sale and development through RFP of surplus government land and surrounding land by provincially pre-zoning for density, affordable housing, and mixed or residential use. •All future government land sales, whether commercial or residential, should have an affordable housing component of at least 20%. •Purposefully upzone underdeveloped or underutilized Crown property (e.g., LCBO). •Sell Crown land and reoccupy as a tenant in a higher density building or relocate services outside of major population centres where land is considerably less expensive. •The policy priority of adding to the housing supply, including affordable units, should be reflected in the way surplus land is offered for sale, allowing bidders to structure their proposals accordingly. - 94 - Report of the Ontario Housing Affordability Task Force | 32 APPENDIX D:Surety Bonds Moving to surety bonds would free up billions of dollars for building When a development proposal goes ahead, the developer typically needs to make site improvements, such as installing common services. The development agreement details how the developer must perform to the municipality’s satisfaction. Up until the 1980s, it was common practice for Ontario municipalities to accept bonds as financial security for subdivision agreements and site plans. Today, however, they almost exclusively require letters of credit from a chartered bank. The problem with letters of credit is that developers are often required to collateralize the letter of credit dollar-for-dollar against the value of the municipal works they are performing. Often this means developers can only afford to finance one or two housing projects at a time, constraining housing supply. The Ontario Home Builders’ Association estimates that across Ontario, billions of dollars are tied up in collateral or borrowing capacity that could be used to advance more projects. Modern “pay on demand surety bonds” are proven to provide the same benefits and security as a letter of credit, while not tying up private capital the way letters of credit do. Moving to this option would give municipalities across Ontario access to all the features of a letter of credit with the added benefit of professional underwriting, carried out by licensed bonding companies, ensuring that the developer is qualified to fulfill its obligations under the municipal agreement. Most important from a municipal perspective, the financial obligation is secured. If a problem arises, the secure bond is fully payable by the bond company on demand. Surety companies, similar to banks, are regulated by Ontario’s Office of the Superintendent of Financial Institutions to ensure they have sufficient funds in place to pay out bond claims. More widespread use of this instrument could unlock billions of dollars of private sector financial liquidity that could be used to build new infrastructure and housing projects, provide for more units in each development and accelerate the delivery of housing of all types. - 95 - Report of the Ontario Housing Affordability Task Force | 33 References 1. Ontario Housing Market Report https://wowa.ca/ontario-housing-market 2.Global Property Guide https://www.globalpropertyguide.com/North-America/Canada/ Price-History-Archive/canadian-housing-market-strong-127030 3. National Household Survey Factsheet https://www.fin.gov.on.ca/en/economy/demographics/census/ nhshi11-6.html#:~:text=Median%20After%2Dtax%20Income%20 of,and%20British%20Columbia%20at%20%2467%2C900 4. CMHC https://www03.cmhc-schl.gc.ca/hmip-pimh/en/TableMapChart/ 5. The Globe And Mail https://www.theglobeandmail.com/business/ article-black-canadians-have-some-of-the-lowest-home- ownership-rates-in-canada/ 6. Scotiabank https://www.scotiabank.com/ca/en/about/economics/ economics-publications/post.other-publications.housing. housing-note.housing-note--may-12-2021-.html 7. Scotiabank https://www.scotiabank.com/ca/en/about/economics/ economics-publications/post.other-publications.housing. housing-note.housing-note--january-12-2022-.html 8. Expert Market https://www.expertmarket.co.uk/vehicle-tracking/ best-and-worst-cities-for-commuting 9. Statista https://www.statista.com/statistics/198063/total-number-of- housing-starts-in-ontario-since-1995/ 10. Poltext https://www.poltext.org/sites/poltext.org/files/discoursV2/DB/ Ontario/ON_DB_1975_29_5.pdf 11. Toronto City Planning https://www.toronto.ca/legdocs/mmis/2021/ph/bgrd/ backgroundfile-173165.pdf 12. Federation of Rental-housing Providers of Ontario (FRPO) https://www.frpo.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/09/ Urbanation-FRPO-Ontario-Rental-Market-Report-Summer-2020.pdf 13. Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing https://www.ontario.ca/document/growth-plan-greater-golden- horseshoe/where-and-how-grow 14. More Neighbours Toronto https://www.moreneighbours.ca/ 15. The World Bank https://www.doingbusiness.org/en/data/exploretopics/ dealing-with-construction-permits 16. The Building Industry and Land Development Association (BILD) https://bildgta.ca/Assets/BILD%20Municipal%20 Benchmarking%20Study%20-%20FINAL%20-%20Sept%20 2020%20BILD.pdf 17. Construction and Design Alliance of Ontario (CDAO) http://www.cdao.ca/files/OAA/P5727%20-%20OAA%20Site%20 Plan%20Delay%20Study%20Update%20(2018).pdf 18. Tribunals Ontario 2019-20 Annual Report https://olt.gov.on.ca/wp-content/uploads/2021/01/Tribunals_ Ontario_2019-2020_Annual_Report_EN_v2.html 19. The Building Industry and Land Development Association (BILD) https://bildgta.ca/Assets/Bild/FINAL%20-%20BILD%20-%20 Comparison%20of%20Government%20Charges%20in%20 Canada%20and%20US%20-%20Sept%2013%202019.pdf 20. The Building Industry and Land Development Association (BILD) https://bildgta.ca/Assets/FINAL%20GTA%20-%20 Development%20Charges%20-%2009%202020.pdf 21. Toronto Star https://www.thestar.com/life/homes/2018/09/01/ where-did-the-money-go-parkland-dedication-fees-should-be- used-to-build-parks-in-gta.html 22. The Building Industry and Land Development Association (BILD) https://bildgta.ca/Assets/misc/BILD%20-%20New%20 Homeowner%20Money%20Report%20-%20Oct%205%20 2021%20(002)_Redacted.pdf 23. Urbanation Inc. https://www.urbanation.ca/news/336-gta-rental-construction- surged-2021-vacancy-fell 24. Federation of Rental-housing Providers of Ontario (FRPO) https://www.frpo.org/lobby-view/cities-still-ripping-off-renters 25. Edison Financial https://edisonfinancial.ca/millennial-home-ownership-canada/ 26. Government of Canada National Housing Strategy https://www.placetocallhome.ca/what-is-the-strategy 27. CMHC https://www.cmhc-schl.gc.ca/en/media-newsroom/ news-releases/2021/housing-accelerator-fund-rent-to-own-program 28. Toronto Star https://www.thestar.com/news/gta/2022/01/19/ ford-government-announces-45-million-to-cut-red-tape-and- speed-up-applications-for-new-home-construction.html 29. Canadian Real Estate Wealth https://www.canadianrealestatemagazine.ca/news/ federal-funds-must-flow-for-housing-programs-334810.aspx - 96 - Report to Council Report Number: CS 05-22 Date: February 28, 2022 From: Sarah Douglas-Murray Director, Community Services Subject: 2022 Community Events -Approval of 2022 Community Events in Esplanade Park -File: A-1440-001 Recommendation: 1.That Council authorize staff to issue a park permit for the use of Esplanade Park by House of Culture and Durham Carifest from Wednesday, July 20 to Tuesday, August 2, 2022 for Carnival City, on terms and conditions satisfactory to Director, Community Services and Chief Administrative Officer; 2.That the list of Community & City Events scheduled for Esplanade Park in 2022 be received for information; and, 3. That the appropriate officials of the City of Pickering be authorized to take the necessary actions as indicated in this report. Executive Summary: The Community Festivals and Events Policy CUL 070 (the “Policy”) outlines the criteria, guidelines and processes by which requests to host private and/or public events in City Parks are received and considered for approval. Prospective applicants are supported by the community events staff team and the Community Festivals & Events Manual which provides key information, timelines and required documentation to apply for events in City parks. Identified in the Policy are Signature Parks which consists of Esplanade Park, Millennium Square, Alex Robertson Park and Bruce Hanscombe Park. As per Section 05.02 (b), the permitting of Esplanade Park for public events with attendance greater than 5,000 persons is subject to the approval of Council. A number of 2022 Community Events were approved to take place in Esplanade Park by Council on October 25, 2021 through Report CS 31-21 (Resolution #709-21). At this time, an additional request has come forward to host the Carnival City in Esplanade Park in 2022. Therefore, the purpose of this report is to seek Council’s authorization that staff permit Esplanade Park for the Carnival City event in 2022. City staff will ensure that the terms and conditions set out in the park permits and the applicants event plans achieve compliance with the province’s public health guidelines and restrictions (to combat the spread of COVID-19), as may be applicable at that time. The City of Pickering retains the right to revoke permits if public health guidelines change. - 97 - CS 05-22 February 28, 2022 Subject: 2022 Community Events Page 2 Financial Implications: There are no financial implications for the City with the proposed Carnival City event; The organizers are responsible to coordinate and operate all aspects of their events including: •Marketing; •Event organization and operation; •Setup, and cleanup according to the terms and conditions set out by the City of Pickering; •All costs associated with application fees including park permit fees, table rentals, garbage/recycling receptacles, etc. (as per the Summary of Fees and Charges Schedule); and, •Costs associated with paid duty police officers and/or contracted security guards as required by the City. Discussion: As per the Community Festivals and Events Policy, Section 05.02(b), staff are required to seek Council approval for applicants of “Partner Events” requesting to operate in Esplanade Park in 2022. Due to the size and scope of this event (medium size), staff recommend operation at Esplanade Park in 2022 despite the anticipated works associated with the City Centre Project (subject to Council’s approval for construction of project). After speaking with appropriate City and Project Manager staff responsible for the City Centre Project, staff do not anticipate that these works will negatively impact the event operations or event parking. Proposed Event Event Organizers Proposed Dates (includes event setup, operation and cleanup) Carnival City House of Culture & Durham Wednesday, July 20 – Carifest Tuesday, August 2, 2022 The Community/Corporate Events Committee, comprised of City staff from Roads, Parks, By- law, Fire, Security, Facilities and Building Services support the above event, subject that various event/festival requirements are met by the applicant during the event planning process. The requirements include but are not limited to the following: •proof of liability insurance •rentals of event equipment and supplies •Durham Health Community Special Events Form for Event Coordinators/Organizers •locates completed for all staked equipment •rental of all required portable restroom and hand-washing stations (if applicable) •submission of site plan and emergency response plan •adherence to the City’s Emergency Weather Standard Operating Procedure •hiring of site security and police officers to monitor event operations (if applicable) - 98 - CS 05-22 February 28, 2022 Subject: 2022 Community Events Page 3 •operation within current community public health guidelines Event Details/Description Carnival City, a Caribbean community festival, is a new event in Pickering proposed by Durham Carifest and House of Culture. Patrice Barnes, one of the lead Organizers has been part of The Durham Caribbean Festival in Ajax for several years prior to launching Durham Carifest in 2021. Durham Carifest was held at Ajax Downs, but is now looking for a new venue. The event will operate two weekends at the end of July, featuring two stages with live music, entertainment, and food and beer tent. Event Operating Hours Thursday, July 21 4:00pm – 9:00 pm Friday, July 22 4:00 pm – 11:00 pm Saturday, July 23 12:00 pm – 11:00 pm Sunday, July 24 2:00 pm – 9:00 pm Thursday, July 28 4:00 pm – 9:00 pm Friday, July 29 12:00 pm – 11:00 pm Saturday, July 30 12:00 pm – 11:00 pm Sunday, July 31 12:00 pm – 11:00 pm Monday, August 1 12:00 pm – 4:00 pm The event times that run later than 9:00 pm require a noise exemption. The Event Organizer will apply for a noise exemption through By-law Services. When the event is not in operation the fencing will be open for through-way traffic until 1 hour before event start, in which gates will be closed for event entry only. The event will be free on Thursdays (July 21 and July 28) and paid admission from Friday to Sunday, including Civic Holiday Monday. Tickets will be available for reserve/purchase in advance of the event to maintain attendance numbers. Durham Regional Police Services (DRPS) have met with our Security Specialist to review the security plan, and have agreed to provide support officers for this event, should the event proceed. DRPS will work closely with City Staff and Event Organizers and sit in on the planning and execution of the event. At this time, staff are requesting Council authorization to permit Esplanade Park for the above community event. The below event table indicates the City and Community events scheduled to take place in Esplanade Park in 2022. - 99 - CS 05-22 February 28, 2022 Subject: 2022 Community Events Page 4 Events Organizer Dates Status Artfest City of Pickering and PineRidge Arts Council Saturday, Saturday, Saturday, May 28, June 4 and June 11 City Event D-Day Parade & Ceremony Royal Canadian Legion & of Pickering City Sunday, June 5 City Partnership Aboriginal Celebration Carea Community Centre Health Tuesday, June 21 Community Event Approved via Resolution 709-21 Canada Day City of Pickering Friday, July 1 Daytime only (noon to 5 pm) City Event Sunday Concert Series City of Pickering Sunday’s July 3, 10, August 14, 17, 28 City Event BBQ & Brew Fest Frederica Black Events Saturday, July 16 Community Event Approved via Resolution 709-21 Theatre in the Park City of Pickering Wednesday, August 3 City Event Food Truck Festival Canadian Food Truck Festivals Wednesday, August Monday, August 8, 3 – Community Event Approved via Resolution 709-21 Festival of Heritage India’s Indo-Canadian Cultural Association of Durham Inc. Sunday, August 14 Community Event Approved via Resolution 709-21 Cultural Fusion Festival City of Pickering and Rotary Club of Pickering Friday, August August 21 19 – Sunday, City Event Remembrance Day Royal Canadian Legion & of Pickering City Sunday, November 6 and Friday, November 11 City Partnership Winter Lights Nights, City City of Pickering Friday, November 25 – Sunday November 27 City Event - 100 - CS 05-22 February 28, 2022 Subject: 2022 Community Events Page 5 Attachments: 1.Carnival City Site Plan Prepared By: Approved/Endorsed By: Original Signed By Original Signed By Laura Gibbs MBA, MSc. Sarah Douglas-Murray Manager, Cultural services Director, Community Services LG:kr Recommended for the consideration of Pickering City Council Original Signed By Marisa Carpino, M.A. Chief Administrative Officer - 101 - Esplanade North Esplanade South Library City Hall Courtyard Parking Lot + VIP Beer Tent Garbage Bin Audience Audience S S S S Carnival City Site Plan Va l l e y F a r m R o a d - 102 - Report to Council Report Number: OPS 02-22 Date: February 28, 2022 From: Brian Duffield Director, Operations Subject: Winter Maintenance on Frenchman’s Bay Lake Ontario Waterfront -File: A-1440 Recommendation: 1.That Report OPS 02-22 from the Director, Operations regarding winter maintenance on Frenchman’s Bay Lake Ontario Waterfront be received for information; and, 2.That the appropriate City of Pickering officials be authorized to take the necessary actions as indicated in this report. Executive Summary: As per Council Resolution #800/22, #801/22, and #802/22, Public Works’ staff were directed through the Office of the CAO to investigate, as a pilot project, immediate short-term measures pertaining to winter maintenance of the section of the waterfront trail from Millennium Square to the spit (East Shore of Frenchman’s Bay) and the paved path and gravel roadway to the spit (West Shore of Frenchman’s Bay). Public Works’ staff initiated a pilot project to establish the feasibility of providing safe pedestrian access along the lakeshore gravel roadways in winter. The pilot project began on February 1, 2022 on the section of gravel roadway from the end of the asphalt section of Beachpoint Promenade to the east end of the spit near the west harbour entrance. The pilot project is ongoing and needs additional snow falls and freeze thaw cycles to provide sufficient information to allow proof of concept; however, from the activities of staff to date it would appear that winter control consisting of road base repairs, plowing with a one tonne truck, and the application of sand, can provide an acceptable pathway for pedestrians. Financial Implications: The February pilot for Beachpoint Promenade has been performed using exiting staff and equipment. Maintenance of the road bed is work that is budgeted and usually scheduled as routine spring maintenance, after the winter control season. Due to the significant road base repairs needed on Sand Bar Road, this work has been deferred to the spring, and again this is budgeted and scheduled as routine spring maintenance. At this time, staff are proceeding with the use of sand to treat the plowed gravel road. We will have further discussion with Toronto and Region Conservation Authority (TRCA) and should we need to consider the use of a de-icer, we will add this cost to the 2023 Current Budget submission. Staff are recommending that service to these two roadways is provided after regulatory roads winter control operations have been completed. These two sections are not on the designated - 103 - OPS 02-22 February 28, 2022 Subject: Winter Maintenance on Frenchman’s Bay Lake Ontario Waterfront Page 2 Waterfront Trail and priority should be given to the trail sections. No additional equipment of staff will be needed to add this service to the winter control program. Discussion: On February 1, 2022, Public Works’ staff began a pilot project to test the effectiveness of winter maintenance of the gravel roadway from Beachfront Promenade to the end of the spit (West Shore of Frenchman’s Bay). Staff initially used a front end loader to remove the excessive snow that had accumulated from the heavy storm event on January 17, 2022. Once removed, regular maintenance was achieved using a one tonne plow truck. After the removal of the snow, staff had to perform significant pothole maintenance on the road base that had many soft spots. This should, in future, be performed annually in October, in preparation of winter control activities and to ensure the road base can withstand plowing activities. Staff used sand from a truck mounted spreader to treat the plowed surface and provide improved traction for pedestrian traffic. To date, the gravel roadway has been regularly inspected and was plowed and sanded three times due to icy conditions as a result of freeze/thaw temperatures. There has not been any significant snowfalls in February and most of the activity has been limited to sanding without the need to plow any new snowfall. The gravel roadway portion of the spit on the west side of Frenchman’s Bay is on land that is owned by TRCA and is maintained by the City under a management agreement with TRCA. Due to the environmental sensitivity of this location, only sand will be used to treat the surface of the roadway. From initial discussion with TRCA, we believe that the use of pickled sand may be acceptable due to its very low salt content of 6 percent. To date, we have , used regular sand and will investigate further and seek TRCA’s approval on means and methods before the 2022/2023 winter season. Public Works’ staff recommend adding the section of gravel roadway from Beachfront Promenade to the end of the spit (West Shore of Frenchman’s Bay) to the existing small truck plow route with the use of sand for traction on the gravel roadway. This will require a separate service for sanding as the existing small truck route is set up for plowing and salting of the paved roadway. Public Works’ staff inspected the gravel roadway section (also known as Sandbar Road), from Millennium Square to the end of the spit (East Shore of Frenchman’s Bay) and determined that the roadway would require extensive repairs to be brought up to a suitable condition for pedestrian winter use. The existing road base is not of the same standard as the west side and is also subject to regular heavy vehicle traffic, servicing the commercial business operations at the east harbour entrance, which causes significant degradation of the road base. Extensive repairs would be required in order to start winter control and it was determined that undertaking these repairs is not feasible at this time of year. As such, the pilot project has been limited to the west spit only. In the spring, staff can assess the degradation and scope of repairs or improvements needed to include the east spit section in the winter control program for 2022/2023. - 104 - OPS 02-22 February 28, 2022 Subject: Winter Maintenance on Frenchman’s Bay Lake Ontario Waterfront Page 3 In summary, Pubic Work’s staff are confident that winter control can be performed successfully using small truck equipment and sand, if the road base can be brought up to a suitable standard and maintained in advance of winter. Staff will have to confirm our intentions with TRCA, review signage, and notify our insurance provider of this change to our scope of winter control. This can take place over the summer and staff will report back to Council regarding the inclusion of these sections in the 2022/2023 winter control program. Attachments: 1.Council Resolution #800/22, #801/22, and #802/22 2.Winter Maintenance Map 3.Winter Maintenance Before and After Photographs Prepared By: Approved/Endorsed By: Original Signed By: Original Signed By: Brian Duffield Stan Karwowski, MBA, CPA, CMA Director, Operations Director, Finance & Treasure BD:nm Recommended for the consideration of Pickering City Council Marisa Carpino, M.A. Chief Administrative Officer Original Signed By: - 105 - Legislative Services Division Clerk’s Office Directive Memorandum February 1, 2022 To: Brian Duffield Director, Operations From: Susan Cassel City Clerk Subject: Direction as per Minutes of the Meeting of City Council held on January 24, 2022 Winter Maintenance on Frenchman’s Bay/Lake Ontario Waterfront Council Decision Resolution #800/22, #801/22, #802/22 1.That staff be directed through the Office of the CAO to investigate, as a pilot project, immediate short-term measures pertaining to winter maintenance of the section of the Waterfront Trail from Millennium Square to the spit (East Shore of Frenchman’s Bay) and the paved path and gravel roadway to the spit (West Shore of Frenchman’s Bay), in a manner that will not compromise the environment, consistent with the requirements of the TRCA and best practices of other waterfront municipalities across the GTHA, and that Staff report back to Council by the February 28, 2022 Council meeting; and, 2.That staff be directed through the Office of the CAO to incorporate into the planning and construction of all future infrastructure along the Waterfront Trail, measures that will achieve full seasonal accessible use, but not limited to the construction of the approved permanent washrooms on both the east and west sides of the Frenchman’s Bay and all proposed reconstructions of the Waterfront Trail system. Please take any action deemed necessary. Susan Cassel Copy: Chief Administrative Officer Attachment 1 to Report OPS 02-22 - 106 - FRENCHMAN’S BAY 832m GRAVEL SURFACE 450m GRAVEL SURFACE SQUARE TURNAROUND GATE ASPHALT & CURRENTLY MAINTAINED AS A CLASS 6 ROADWAY LAKE ONTARIO MILLENNIUM WINTER MAINTENANCE MAP PROPOSED MAINTENANCE PROPOSED MAINTENANCE Attachment 2 to Report OPS 02-22 - 107 - Winter Maintenance Before and After Photographs Attachment 3 to Report OPS 02-22 - 108 - Report to Council Report Number: OPS 07-22 Date: February 28, 2022 From: Brian Duffield Director, Operations Subject: Civic Complex Boiler Replacement -File: A-1440 Recommendation: 1.That Tender No. T2021-14 submitted by S.I.G. Mechanical Services Limited in the amount of $395,385.87 (HST included) be accepted; 2.That Council grant pre-2022 Capital Budget approval for project 5700.2202.6500 (Backup Boiler Replacements) and authorize the Director, Finance & Treasurer to fund the sum of $300,000.00 from Federal Gas Tax (FGT) Reserve Fund; 3.That the total gross project cost of $544,546.00 (HST included), including the amount of the tender, contingency, and other associated costs, and the total net project cost of $490,381.00 (net of HST rebate), be approved; 4.That the Director, Finance & Treasurer be authorized to finance the total net project costs of $490,381.00 through a transfer from the Federal Gas Tax Reserve Fund; and, 5.That the appropriate City of Pickering officials be authorized to take the necessary action to give effect hereto. Executive Summary: The existing backup boiler systems serving the Pickering Civic Complex is original to the building, which opened in 1990. It provides heat throughout the building, and is essential to maintaining indoor temperatures throughout the colder half of the year. These boilers, pumps and other equipment have reached end of life and require replacement. Located in the uppermost level of the central tower, access for larger removal of the existing boilers and delivery of the new equipment will require removal of exterior louvres and the use of cranes from the vehicle drop-off loop on the west side of the building. The work must be completed over the summer and be completely commissioned and operational prior to the 2022-23 heating season. Tender T2021-14 was issued on November 21, 2021, and closed on December 22, 2021. Five bids were received. Subject to receipt and approval of all submittals required by the tender documents, the low compliant bid submitted by S.I.G. Mechanical Services Limited in the amount of $395,385.87 (HST included) is recommended for approval. The total gross project cost is estimated to be $544,546.00 and the total net project cost is estimated at $490,381.00 (net of HST rebate). - 109 - OPS 07-22 February 28, 2022 Subject: Civic Complex Boiler Replacement Page 2 Financial Implications: 1. Tender Amount Tender No. T2021-14 $349,899.00 HST (13%) Total Gross Tender Cost 45,486.87 $395,385.87 2.Estimated Project Costing Summary Tender No. T2021-14 $349,899.00 Consulting, Testing & Inspection 60,000.00 Controls 30,000.00 Construction Contingency (12%) 42,000.00 Total Project Cost $481,899.00 HST (13%) 62,647.00 Total Gross Project Costs $544,546.00 HST Rebate (11.24%) (54,165.00) Total Net Project Cost $490,381.00 3.Approved Source of Funds - Community Centres Capital Budget Approved Code 5700.1702.6500 5700.2109.6500 5700.2202.6500 Total Funds Source of Funds Federal Gas Tax Federal Gas Tax Federal Gas Tax Funds Available $110,000.00 160,000.00 300,000.00 $570,000.00 Funds Required $110,000.00 160,000.00 _ 220,381.00 $490,381.00 Project Cost under (over) approved funds by $79,619.00 Costs shown above include previously committed and separately awarded consulting and related project fees. They are funded from the same accounts and have been included for clarity regarding the total cost of the project. Discussion: Two backup boiler units currently service the Pickering Civic Complex, providing secondary heat throughout the building. Both units are located in the uppermost level of the central tower, which houses the bulk of the building’s heating and ventilation equipment on the three levels above the second floor. The units and their related pumps and other equipment are at end of life and must be replaced ahead of the next heating season. All of the service and equipment floors in the upper levels of the tower are crowded and only accessible from the interior by a stairwell and open central shaft that was used during the original construction of the facility. Both are too tight to allow for removal of the old equipment or delivery - 110 - OPS 07-22 February 28, 2022 Subject: Civic Complex Boiler Replacement Page 3 of the new, and there is insufficient space to allow for the existing boilers to be abandoned and left in place. Extensive planning was done to determine how best to complete these tasks in a safe and efficient manner, and will require the temporary removal of a large ventilation louvre on the west tower façade. The new boilers must be commissioned, connected to the City’s centralized building automation system, and ready for operation prior to the start of the next heating season. Mechanical equipment costs have experienced a significant increase over the last twelve months due to supply chain issues resulting from the COVID-19 pandemic, contributing to higher project costs than originally allowed for in previously approved budgets. Additional funds were added to the draft 2022 Capital Budget to offset these increases. Given ongoing instability in the market and risks of ongoing cost inflation, it is preferable to proceed with the price in hand than to risk even higher cost by re-tendering the project after the 2022 budget approval. Pre-budget approval is therefore requested to enable the City to proceed with this time-sensitive work. S.I.G. Mechanical Services Limited have provided written confirmation of their agreement to hold their price beyond the irrevocable 60 day tender period to allow for this work to proceed. Tender T2021-14 was issued on November 21, 2021, and closed on December 22, 2021. Five bids were received. Subject to receipt and approval of all submittals required by the tender documents, the low compliant bid submitted by S.I.G. Mechanical Services Limited in the amount of $395,385.87 (HST included) is recommended for approval. The total gross project cost is estimated to be $544,546.00 and the total net project cost is estimated at $490,381.00 (net of HST rebate). Prepared By: Approved/Endorsed By: Vince Plouffe, OAA, RAIC Stan Karwowski, MBA, CPA, CMA Manager, Facilities Capital Projects Director, Finance & Treasurer Brian Duffield Director, Operations Recommended for the consideration of Pickering City Council Marisa Carpino, M.A. Chief Administrative Officer Original Signed By: Original Signed By: Original Signed By: Original Signed By: - 111 - Report to Council Report Number: OPS 08-22 Date: February 28, 2022 From: Brian Duffield Director, Operations Subject: Tennis Court Lighting Revitalization -File: A-1440 Recommendation: 1.That Tender No. T2021-35 submitted by R.A. Graham Construction Ltd. in the amount of $202,631.54 (HST included) be accepted; 2.That the total gross project cost of $243,897.00 (HST included), including the amount of the tender, contingency, and other associated costs, and the total net project cost of $219,637.00 (net of HST rebate) be approved; 3.That the Director, Finance & Treasurer be authorized to finance the total net project costs of $219,637.00 through a transfer from the Federal Gas Tax Reserve Fund: a)That the budget available in project C10225.2102 in the amount of $162,000.00 be increased to $219,637.00; and, 4.That the appropriate City of Pickering officials be authorized to take the necessary action to give effect hereto. Executive Summary: The existing lighting systems of the indoor tennis courts at Chestnut Hill Development Recreation Complex (CHDRC) have experienced performance degradation resulting in overall lighting level reduction throughout the space which has affected use of the space. The scope of work of this tender includes replacement of the affected fixtures, upgraded controls, and the conversion of existing fluorescent light fixtures in the back of house utility rooms to LED to reduce overall energy use. Tender T2021-35 was issued on December 29, 2021, and closed on January 26, 2022. One bid was received. Subject to receipt and approval of all submittals required by the tender documents, the low bid submitted by R.A. Graham Construction Ltd. in the amount of $202,631.54 (HST included) is recommended for approval. The total gross project cost is estimated to be $243,897.00 and the total net project cost is estimated at $219,637.00 (net of HST rebate). - 112 - OPS 08-22 February 28, 2022 Subject: Tennis Court Lighting Revitalization Page 2 Financial Implications: 1. Tender Amount Tender No. T2021-35 $179,319.95 HST (13%) Total Gross Tender Cost 23,311.59 $202,631.54 2.Estimated Project Costing Summary Tender No. T2021-35 $179,320.00 Consulting, Testing & Inspection 15,000.00 Construction Contingency (12%) 21,518.00 Total Project Cost $215,838.00 HST (13%) 28,059.00 Total Gross Project Costs $243,897.00 HST Rebate (11.24%) (24,260.00) Total Net Project Cost $219,637.00 2.Approved Source of Funds - Community Centres Capital Budget Approved Code C10225.2102.80 Source of Funds Federal Gas Tax Funds Available $162,000.00 Funds Required $219,637.00 Project Cost under (over) approved funds by ($57,637.00) Section 11.02 of the Financial Control Policy (FIN 030) requires that where authority has been given in the annual Capital Budget for a particular project, the Chief Administrative Officer, the appropriate Department Head(s), and the Treasurer may jointly approve changes to such authorized amounts provided that the total amount of the over expenditures: (a) does not exceed the lesser of ten percent of the approved capital expenditure or $100,000.00; and, (b) are offset by corresponding under expenditures in other approved capital expenditures. Additionally, Section 11.05 requires that Current and Capital Budget expenditures in excess of the limits established under Section 11.02 shall require the approval of the Treasurer, the Chief Administrative Officer, and Council. Discussion: The Council approved 2021 Capital Budget included funding for the replacement of existing lighting fixtures in the indoor tennis courts and conversion of existing fluorescent fixtures throughout CHDRC to LED fixtures. The two scopes of work were combined in order to provide savings through economies of scale and avoid duplication in mobilization and administrative costs that would have resulted from two separate tenders. - 113 - OPS 08-22 February 28, 2022 Subject: Tennis Court Lighting Revitalization Page 3 Lighting improvements in the tennis courts will include the replacement of fixtures surrounding all four tennis courts and the addition of new fixtures along the perimeter of the volume of the space to eliminate shade and low illumination levels, such as under the walkway overhang on the west side. Three major mechanical and electrical utility rooms will have their fixtures converted from T8 and T12 fluorescent fixtures to LED as part of this work. Electrical equipment and fixture costs have experienced a significant increase over the last twelve months due to supply chain issues resulting from the COVID-19 pandemic, contributing to higher project costs than originally allowed for in the approved budgets. Due to the extent to which the existing lighting systems in the tennis courts have degraded, and ongoing upward cost pressures in the marketplace, it is recommended that this work proceed based on the available bid. Tender T2021-35 was issued on December 29, 2021, and closed on January 26, 2022. One bid was received. Subject to receipt and approval of all submittals required by the tender documents, the low bid submitted by R.A. Graham Construction Ltd. in the amount of $202,631.54 (HST included) is recommended for approval. The total gross project cost is estimated to be $243,897.00 and the total net project cost is estimated at $219,637.00 (net of HST rebate). Prepared By: Approved/Endorsed By: Original Signed By: Original Signed By: Vince Plouffe, OAA, RAIC Stan Karwowski, MBA, CPA, CMA Manager, Facilities Capital Projects Director, Finance & Treasurer Original Signed By: Brian Duffield Director, Operations BD:vp Recommended for the consideration of Pickering City Council Marisa Carpino, M.A. Chief Administrative Officer Original Signed By: - 114 - Report to Council Report Number: PLN 14-22 Date: February 28, 2022 From: Kyle Bentley Director, City Development & CBO Subject: Zoning By-law Amendment Application A 01/22 City Initiated Lots 1 to 205 and Blocks 206 to 244, Plan 40M-2710 (North and south of Alexander Knox Drive) Recommendation: 1.That City Initiated Zoning By-law Amendment Application A 01/22 to permit technical housekeeping amendments to Zoning By-law 7652/18, as amended, to correct zoning boundaries for lands located north and south of Alexander Knox Drive, west of Mulberry Lane within the Wilson Meadows Neighbourhood in the Seaton Community be approved, and that the draft implementing Zoning By-law Amendment as set out in Appendix I to Report PLN 14-22 be enacted by Council. Executive Summary: The proposed technical housekeeping amendments to Zoning By-law 7652/18 are appropriate, and are in keeping with Council’s intentions when By-law 7652/18 was initially passed on September 17, 2018. Accordingly, staff recommends that Council approve Zoning By-law Amendment Application A 01/22. Financial Implications: No direct costs to the City are anticipated as a result of the proposed development. Discussion: The purpose of this report is to obtain Council’s approval regarding an application for Zoning By-law Amendment, initiated by the City, proposing technical housekeeping amendments to site specific Zoning By-law 7652/18, as amended. Mattamy (Seaton) Limited submitted building permit applications for a number of properties within their subdivision plan (file number SP-2009-11 (R)). Lands subject to this plan are located north and south of Alexander Knox Drive, west of Mulberry Lane within the Wilson Meadows Neighbourhood, forming part of the Seaton Community (see Location Map, Attachment #1). Through the building permit and zoning review, it was identified that a zone category was not included on Schedule I to Zoning By-law 7652/18, and as a result, Building Services would not be able to issue permits for select lots. Also through the review, it was recommended that certain zone boundary lines be slightly adjusted to ensure the by-law is clear and eliminating the possibility for misinterpretation. A detailed description of the proposal is included in Information Report 04-22, which is provided as Appendix II to this Report. The statutory public meeting was held on February 7, 2022. No comments were received from external agencies, internal departments or from the public. - 115 - Report PLN 14-22 February 28, 2022 Subject: City Initiated (A 01/22) Page 2 The proposed amendments are appropriate and accurately reflect the intent of Zoning By-law 7652/18. Therefore, it is recommended the draft implementing zoning by-law amendment provided as Appendix I to the Report be enacted by Council. Appendices: Appendix I Draft Implementing Zoning By-law Amendment A 01/22 Appendix II Information Report 04-22 Attachment: 1.Location Map Prepared By: Original Signed By Cristina Celebre, MCIP, RPP Principal Planner, Strategic Initiatives Original Signed By Nilesh Surti, MCIP, RPP Manager, Development Review & Urban Design Approved/Endorsed By: Original Signed By Catherine Rose, MCIP, RPP Chief Planner Original Signed By Kyle Bentley, P. Eng. Director, City Development & CBO CC:ld Recommended for the consideration of Pickering City Council Original Signed By Marisa Carpino, M.A. Chief Administrative Officer - 116 - Appendix I to Report No. PLN 14-22 Draft Implementing Zoning By-law Amendment A 01/22 - 117 - The Corporation of the City of Pickering By-law No. 7908/22 Being a by-law to amend Restricted Area (Zoning) By-law 7364/14, as amended by By-law 7652/18, to implement the Official Plan of the City of Pickering, Region of Durham, for lands at Part of Lots 21 and 22, Concession 4, and Part of Lots 21, 22 and 23, Concession 5, City of Pickering (A 01/22) Whereas the Council of The Corporation of the City of Pickering deems it desirable for a technical housekeeping amendment to Restricted Area (Zoning) By-law 7364/14, as amended by By-law 7652/18 for lands at Part of Lots 21 and 22, Concession 4, and Part of Lots 21, 22 and 23, Concession 5, in the City of Pickering; And whereas an amendment to By-law 7364/14, as amended by By-law 7652/18, is deemed necessary; Now therefore the Council of The Corporation of the City of Pickering hereby enacts as follows: 1.Schedule I Schedule I to By-law 7652/18 is hereby repealed and replaced by Schedule I attached hereto and references shown thereon is hereby declared to be part of this By-law. 2.Area Restricted The provisions of this By-law shall apply to those lands at Part of Lots 21 and 22, Concession 4, and Part of Lots 21, 22 and 23, Concession 5, in the City of Pickering, designated”, “LD1”, “LD1-T”, “LD2”, “LD2-M”, “MCC”, “MD-M, “MD-DS”, “OS” and “SWM” on Schedule I attached hereto. 3.General Provisions No building, structure, land or part thereof shall hereafter be used, occupied, erected, moved or structurally altered except in conformity with the provisions of this By-law. 4.By-law 7364/14, as amended by By-law 7652/18 By-law 7364/14, as amended by By-law 7652/18, is hereby further amended only to the extent necessary to give effect to the provisions of this By-law as it applies to the area set out in Schedule I to this By-law. Definitions and subject matters not specifically dealt with in this By-law shall be governed by relevant provisions of By-law 7364/14, as amended by By-law 7652/18. - 118 - By-law No. 7908/22 Page 2 5.Effective Date This By-law shall come into force in accordance with the provisions of the Planning Act. By-law passed this 28th day of February, 2022. ________________________________ David Ryan, Mayor ________________________________ Susan Cassel, City Clerk - 119 - Alexander Knox Drive S i d e l i n e 2 0 LD1 LD2-M LD1 MC C MD-M SWM LD2 OS SWM LD1-T LD 2 LD1 Clerk Mayor N MD-DS MD - D S Schedule I to By-Law 7652/18 Amended By By-Law 7908/22 Passed This 28th Day of February, 2022 - 120 - Appendix II to Report No. PLN 14-22 Information Report 04-22 - 121 - Information Report to Planning & Development Committee Report Number: 04-22 Date: February 7, 2022 From: Catherine Rose, MCIP, RPP Chief Planner Subject: Zoning By-law Amendment Application A 01/22 City Initiated Lots 1 to 205 and Blocks 206 to 244, Plan 40M-2710 (North and south of Alexander Knox Drive) 1.Purpose of this Report The purpose of this report is to provide preliminary information regarding an application for Zoning By-law Amendment, initiated by the City, proposing technical housekeeping amendments to site specific Zoning By-law 7652/18, as amended. This report contains background information on the proposed amendment. This report is intended to assist members of the public and other interested stakeholders to understand the proposed amendment. Planning & Development Committee will hear public delegations on the application, ask questions of clarification, and identify any planning issues. This report is for information and no decision on this application is being made at this time. Staff will bring forward a recommendation report for consideration by the Planning & Development Committee upon review of the comments received and revisions to the amendment if necessary. 2.Property Location and Description The subject lands are located north and south of Alexander Knox Drive (formerly Whitevale Road), west of Mulberry Lane within the Wilson Meadows Neighbourhood, forming part of the Seaton Community (see Location Map, Attachment #1). The lands are approximately 55 hectares in size, covered by the approved Registered Plan 40M-2710 (file number SP-2009-11 (R)), and approved for 387 dwelling units, consisting of detached dwellings and townhouse units. The surrounding lands are all owned by the Province, and are designated Seaton Natural Heritage System. Beyond the Seaton Natural Heritage lands, are privately owned lands within the Seaton Neighbourhood that are subject to other draft plans of subdivisions. 3.Background Information The original Plan of Subdivision, file number SP-2009-11, submitted by Mattamy (Seaton) Limited, was draft approved by the Ontario Municipal Board (OMB) in December 2013. The related zoning that implemented the subdivision, being the Seaton Zoning By-law 7364/14, was approved by the OMB on December 17, 2013 and January 24, 2014. The decisions of the OMB were confirmed, by the Province, through an Order in Council on March 2014. - 122 - Information Report 04-22 Page 2 In 2018, Mattamy (Seaton) Limited, submitted applications for a Zoning By-law Amendment (file number A 04/18) and a request for red-line revision to Draft Approved Plan of Subdivision SP-2009-11 (R), addressing design modifications, and to add a remnant parcel into the approved subdivision plan. The majority of the subdivision remained unchanged. On September 17, 2018, Council endorsed the revised Draft Plan of Subdivision and proposed amendments to the conditions of draft plan of subdivision approval; and passed site specific Zoning By-law 7652/18 (see Zoning By-law 7652/18, Attachment #2). The Local Planning Appeal Tribunal (formerly the Ontario Municipal Board) granted approval of the red-line revision to the draft plan of subdivision on March 12, 2019 and further revised their approval on July 23, 2021. On December 2, 2021, final approval of the revised Draft Plan of Subdivision was granted by the Director, City Development & CBO, and subsequently the plan was registered on December 3, 2021, and assigned Plan 40M-2710. 4.Proposal In December 2021, Mattamy (Seaton) Limited submitted building permits applications for the subject lands. In the review of the applications, it was discovered that there were discrepancies between select properties under building permit review, and the applicable zoning category boundaries as shown on Schedule I of Zoning by-law 7652/18. As illustrated on Attachment #3, Required Changes to Zone Boundaries, the map displays the zone boundary lines that require deletion or modification, and the corrected zone boundary lines. Staff have categorized three types of technical housekeeping amendments to Schedule I of Zoning By-law 7652/18. The changes are described below, and illustrated on Attachment #4, Lots and Blocks Affected by Zone Category Changes. A)Match zone category with lot lines Blocks 220 and 228, and Lots 21, 63, 98-100 and 117, include two zone categories. These properties were only intended for one zone category. The affected lots and blocks are illustrated in purple on Attachment #4, Lots and Blocks Affected by Zone Category Changes. It is recommended that the zone category boundary lines be adjusted to match with the lot lines to appropriately illustrate the intended zone boundary. These changes do not impact the Building Department from issuing building permits given that the Building Department has interpreted the blocks to have the appropriate/intended zone category. However, to improve readability of the by-law schedule, staff recommend the following: •the zone line that bisects Block 220 be removed, and the block be zoned as LD1-T only; •the zone line that bisects Block 228 be removed, and the block be zoned as LD2-M only; •the zone line that bisects Lots 21, 63, 98 and 99 be removed, and the lots be zoned as LD1 only; •the zone line that bisects Lot 100 be removed, and the lot be zoned LD2 only; and •the zone line that bisects Lot 117 be removed, and the lot be zoned MD-DS only. - 123 - Information Report 04-22 Page 3 B) Remove unnecessary zone category boundary lines Unnecessary zone boundary lines are located on Lots 76, 77, 79, 80-82, 84-88, 101-112, 115-121. The lots are illustrated in green on Attachment #4, Lots and Blocks Affected by Zone Category Changes. The zone boundary lines are unnecessary, and it is recommended that removing the zone boundary lines allows for better readability of the Schedule. These changes do not impact the Building Department from issuing of building permits. C)Add a zone category The zone category for Blocks 212, 213, 214 and 221 was not illustrated on Schedule I of Zoning by-law 7652/18. The lots are illustrated in orange on Attachment #4, Lots and Blocks Affected by Zone Category Changes. The lands were intended to be zoned MD-M, but mistakenly not included on the schedule. Consequently, the omission of the zone category on the schedule to the by-law results in the Building Department not being able to issue building permits for these blocks. However, once the zoning by-law is passed, but still in its appeal period, the CBO can issue a conditional building permit for the lots within these blocks. This will minimize the delay in issuing permits. Therefore, staff recommend that: •the zone line that bisects Blocks 212, 213, 214 and 221 be removed; and •a zone category of MD-M be added to the subject blocks. The above-noted recommended changes are illustrated on Attachment #5, Correct Zone Category Boundaries. Staff will incorporate the changes into an implementing zoning by-law amendment for Councils consideration. 5.Public Notice In addition to the standard departments and agencies, written notice of the Electronic Statutory Public Meeting was provided to landowners within 500 metres of the subject lands. The notice was also posted on the City’s website. 6.Comments Received 6.1 Public Comments As of writing this report, no comments have been received from the public. 6.2 Agency Comments As of writing this report, no comments have been received from external agencies. 6.3 City Department Comments As of writing this report, no comments have been received from internal departments. - 124 - Information Report 04-22 Page 4 7.Planning & Design Section Comments 7.1 The proposed technical housekeeping revisions do not affect the purpose of Zoning By-law 7652/18, and are in keeping with Council’s intentions when initially passed on September 17, 2018. The proposed revisions are all consistent with the approved red-line revision to the draft plan of subdivision, SP- 2009-11 (R), and the recently approved Plan 40M-2710. Furthermore, the proposed revisions do not affect the purpose of Zoning By-law 7652/18, and are in keeping with Council’s intent when recommending approval of Zoning By-law Amendment Application A 04/18, and enacting the original by-law. Staff will finalize and forward an implementing Zoning By-law to Council for enactment on February 28, 2022. 8.Information Received •None required. 9.Procedural Information 9.1 General •written comments regarding this proposal should be directed to the City Development Department; •oral comments may be made at the Electronic Statutory Public Meeting; •all comments received will be noted and used as input to a Recommendation Report prepared by the City Development Department for a subsequent meeting of Council or a Committee of Council; •any member of the public who wishes to reserve the option to appeal Council’s decision must provide comments to the City before Council adopts any by-law for this proposal; and •any member of the public who wishes to be notified of Council’s decision regarding this proposal must request such in writing to the City Clerk. 10.Owner/Applicant Information The City is the applicant. Attachments: 1.Location Map 2. Zoning By-law 7652/18 3.Required Changes to Zone Boundaries 4.Lots and Blocks Affected by Zone Category Changes 5.Correct Zone Category Boundaries - 125 - Information Report 04-22 Page 5 Prepared By: Original Signed By Cristina Celebre, MCIP, RPP Principal Planner, Strategic Initiatives Original Signed By Nilesh Surti, MCIP, RPP Manager, Development Review & Urban Design Approved/Endorsed By: Original Signed By Catherine Rose, MCIP, RPP Chief Planner CC:ld Date of Report: January 24, 2022 - 126 - Attachment #1 to Information Report 04-22 Alexander Knox Drive S i d e l i n e 2 0 Mu l b e r r y L a n e City DevelopmentDepartment Location MapFile:Applicant:A 01/22 Date: Jan. 21, 2022 City of Pickering SubjectLands L:\PLANNING\01-MapFiles\A\2022\A 01-22 - City Initiated, Mattamy 40M-2710\A01_22_LocationMap.mxd 1:4,500 SCALE:THIS IS NOT A PLAN OF SURVEY. © 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, Departmentof Natural Resources. All rights reserved.; © Teranet Enterprises Inc. and its suppliers. All rights reserved.; © Municipal PropertyAssessment Corporation and its suppliers. All rights reserved. Property Description: North and South of Alexander Knox Drive (Plan 40M-2710) - 127 - Attachment #2 to Information Report 04-22 The Corporation of the City of Pickering By-law No. 7652/18 Being a By-law to amend Restricted Area (Zoning) By~law 7364/14, to implement the Official Plan of the City of Pickering, Region of Durham, for land at Part of Lot 21 & 22 Concession 4, and Part of Lots 21, 22 & 23 Concession 5 City of Pickering (A 04/18) Wher.eas the Council of The Corporation of the City of Pickering received an application to rezone portions of the subject lands being Part of Lot 21 & 22 Concession 4, and Part of Lots 21, 22 & 23 Concession 5, in the City of Pickering to permit revisions to a draft approved plan of subdivision; And whereas an an,endment to Zoning By-law 7364/14, is deemed necessary to permit the requested revisions. Now therefore the Council of The Corporation of the City of Pickering hereby enacts as follows: · 1. Schedule I Schedule I attached hereto with notations and references shown thereon are · hereby declared to be part of this By-law. 2. Area Restricted The provisions of this By-law shall apply to those lands in Part of Lot 21 & 22 Concession 4, and Part of Lots 21, 22 & 23 Concession 5, in the City of Pickering, designated "LD1, LD1-T, LD2, MD-OS" on Schedule I attached hereto. 3. General Provisions No building, structure, land or part thereof shall hereafter be used, occupied, erected, moved or structurally altered except in conformity with the provisions of this By-law. 4. By-law 7364/14 By-law 7364/14, is hereby further amended only to the extent necessary to give effect to the provisions of this By,.law as it applies to the area set out in Schedule I to this By-law. Definitions and subject matters not specifically dealt with in this By-law shall be governed by.relevant provisions of By-law 7364/14. - 128 - By-law No. 7652/18 Page 2 5. Effective Date This By-law shall come into force in accordance with the provisions of the Planning Act, upon the approval by the Local Planning Appeal Tribunal/Ontario Municipal Board of the red-line revisions to Draft Approved Plan of Subdivision SP-2009-11. By~law passed this 17 th day of September, 2018. Debbie Shields, City Clerk - 129 - \ \ I I \ \ ------------------------ (J) 0 0 ~ SWM I I-----~~)---______..,.._!"'B__"lll"'"""""II___... __....,-,_____....,....,_____._,.._____________________________________ WHITEVALE ROAD LD1 i i ________J l________ 1' . SCHEDULE I TOBY-LAW 7652/18 PASSED THIS __1_7t_h ___ DAY OF__S_e~p_te_m_b_e_r_ MAYOR - 130 - Attachment #3 to Information Report 04-22 Alexander Knox Drive S i d e l i n e 2 0 SWM LD1 LD1 LD2 MD - D S LD1 LD2 LD 2 OSOS LD2-M LD1 SWM MC C LD 1 - T MD-DS MD-M 1:3,500 SCALE: © 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 THIS IS NOT A PLAN OF SURVEY. Date: Jan. 21, 2022 Required Changes to Zone Boundaries File:Applicant:City of Pickering This zoning map is a graphical representation of the zoning schedules and is not a plan of survey. The zoning schedules in Zoning By-Law 7364/14, as amended, are the official schedules. In any situation where the zoning schedules are found to differ from this map, the text of thesigned By-Law, as amended, will take precedence in the interpretation of zoning. MD - D S A 01/22 OS Legend Zone BoundaryLines requiringdeletion ormodification Corrected ZoneBoundary Lines Property Description: North and South of Alexander Knox Drive (Plan 40M-2710) - 131 - Attachment #4 to Information Report 04-22 Alexander Knox Drive S i d e l i n e 2 0 SWM LD1 LD1 LD2 MD - D S LD1 LD2 LD 2 OSOS LD2-M LD1 SWM MC C LD 1 - T MD-DS MD-M 1:3,500 SCALE: © 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 THIS IS NOT A PLAN OF SURVEY. Date: Jan. 21, 2022 MD - D S Lots and Blocks Affected by Zone Category ChangesFile:Applicant:City of Pickering The zoning schedules in Zoning By-Law 7364/14, as amended, are the official schedules. In any situation where the zoning information found on thismap differs from the official schedules, the text of the signed By-Law, as amended, will take precedence in the interpretation of zoning. A 01/22 Add a Zone Category Affected Lots and Blocks Match Zone Category with Lot Lines Remove Unnecessary Zone Category Boundaries Add a Zone Category No Change (Blocks 220 and 228 and Lots 21, 63,98-100 and 117) (Lots 76, 77, 79, 80-82, 84-88, 101-112, 115-121) (Blocks 212, 213, 214 and 221) OS Property Description: North and South of Alexander Knox Drive (Plan 40M-2710) - 132 - Attachment #5 to Information Report 04-22 Alexander Knox Drive S i d e l i n e 2 0 LD1 LD2-M LD1 MC C MD-M SWM MD-DS LD2 OS SWM LD 1 - T LD 2 LD1 1:3,500 SCALE: © 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 THIS IS NOT A PLAN OF SURVEY. Date: Jan. 21, 2022 MD - D S Correct Zone Category BoundariesFile:Applicant:City of Pickering This zoning map is a graphical representation of the zoning schedules and is not a plan of survey. The zoning schedules in Zoning By-Law 7364/14, as amended, are the official schedules. In any situation where the zoning schedules are found to differ from this map, the text of thesigned By-Law, as amended, will take precedence in the interpretation of zoning. Property Description: A 01/22 North and South of Alexander Knox Drive (Plan 40M-2710) - 133 - Attachment #1 to Report #PLN 14-22 Alexander Knox Drive S i d e l i n e 2 0 Mu l b e r r y L a n e City DevelopmentDepartment Location MapFile:Applicant:A 01/22 Date: Jan. 21, 2022 City of Pickering SubjectLands L:\PLANNING\01-MapFiles\A\2022\A 01-22 - City Initiated, Mattamy 40M-2710\A01_22_LocationMap.mxd 1:4,500 SCALE:THIS IS NOT A PLAN OF SURVEY. © 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, Departmentof Natural Resources. All rights reserved.; © Teranet Enterprises Inc. and its suppliers. All rights reserved.; © Municipal PropertyAssessment Corporation and its suppliers. All rights reserved. Property Description: North and South of Alexander Knox Drive (Plan 40M-2710) - 134 - Memo To: February 18, 2022 From: Copy: Susan Cassel City Clerk Catherine Rose Chief Planner Manager, Policy & Geomatics Principal Planner, Policy Subject: By-law to adopt Amendment 35 to the Pickering Official Plan Official Plan Amendment Application OPA 19-003/P City Initiated Official Plan Amendment: Ecosystem Compensation Adopting By-law 7907/22 for Official Plan Amendment Application OPA 19-003/P. Statutory Public Meeting Date June 17, 2019 Planning & Development Committee Date February 7, 2022 Purpose and Effect of By-law To adopt Amendment 35 (Ecosystem Compensation) to the Pickering Official Plan, by adding new policies to and change existing policies in the Pickering Official Plan with regard to ecosystem loss and compensation. Council Meeting Date February 28, 2022 Note In accordance with the direction of the Planning & Development Committee at its February 7, 2022 meeting, the attached By-law 7907/22 is as set out in Appendix l to Report PLN 08-22, including the change outlined in Item 5.3 of the Minutes of the Planning & Development Committee Meeting in relation to Report PLN 08-22. Original Signed By Catherine Rose DJ:ld Attachments By-law Text Exhibit ‘A’ to By-law 7907/22 - 135 - The Corporation of the City of Pickering By-law No. 7907/22 Being a by-law to adopt Amendment 35 to the Official Plan for the City of Pickering (OPA 19-003/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 the Planning Act identifies the protection of ecological systems, including natural areas, features and functions as a matter of Provincial interest, and the Provincial Policy Statement 2020 requires that the long term ecological function and biodiversity of natural heritage systems should be maintained, restored or enhanced where possible; Whereas the Region has advised that, in accordance with By-law 11-2000, Amendment 35 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 35 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 28 day of February, 2022. ________________________________ David Ryan, Mayor ________________________________ Susan Cassel, City Clerk - 136 - Exhibit “A” to By-law 7907/22 Amendment 35 to the City of Pickering Official Plan - 137 - Amendment 35 to the Pickering Official Plan Purpose: The purpose of this Amendment is to add new policies to and change existing policies in the Pickering Official Plan with regard to ecosystem loss and compensation. Location: The Amendment applies City-wide. Basis: There is a strong policy framework in Ontario to protect and expand the natural heritage system. The Planning Act identifies the protection of ecological systems, including natural areas, features and functions as a matter of Provincial interest. Similarly, the Provincial Policy Statement requires that the long-term ecological function and biodiversity of natural heritage systems should be maintained, restored or enhanced where possible. The natural heritage system and features continue to be compromised or lost through development and the effects of climate change. Embedding the principle of ecosystem compensation (where all options for protection have been exhausted) in the Pickering Official Plan will provide a stronger basis for collaboration between parties and achieves a consistent and transparent approach to compensation through the implementation of approved development proposals. The compensation will enable the replanting, restoration and/or enhancement of the natural heritage system. Actual The City of Pickering Official Plan is hereby amended by: Amendment: (New text is shown as underlined text, deleted text is shown as strikeout text, and retained text is shown as unchanged text.) 1.Revising Section 10.12, Key Natural and Key Hydrologic Features, in Chapter 10 – Resource Management, by deleting “and” at the end of subsection (d); deleting the period “.”and adding “; and” at the end of subsection (e); and adding new subsections (f) and (g) to read as follows: “10.12 City Council recognizes the significance and sensitivity of key natural heritage and key hydrologic features and their inter-related systems of water resources, biotic habitat, natural and cultural heritage, and landform; accordingly, Council shall: (a)to (c) …; (d)…; and (e)….; and - 138 - Amendment 35 to the Pickering Official Plan Page 2 (f)require compensation for the loss of ecosystem functions due to development impacts, after all other options for protection, minimization and mitigation have been exhausted, in accordance with the relevant conservation authority’s guideline for determining ecosystem compensation, with the exception of tree removal that falls under the purview of the City’s Tree Removal Compensation Fee, where applicable; and (g)not require ecosystem compensation in accordance with Section 10.12 (f) of this Plan in the following circumstances: (i)within the relevant conservation authority’s regulatory jurisdiction where removal of regulated features and/or ecosystem functions has previously been determined as part of a zoning by-law amendment, or draft plan of subdivision, or draft plan of condominium, or site plan, approved under the Planning Act, and where compensation for the loss of the features and/or ecosystem functions has already been determined in accordance with an approved master environmental servicing plan, environmental assessment or environmental report, prior to the adoption of this Amendment; or (ii)outside of the relevant conservation authority’s regulatory jurisdiction where compensation for the loss of non-regulated features and/or ecosystem functions has been determined in accordance with an approved master environmental servicing plan, environmental assessment or environmental report; or (iii)where compensation for the loss of non-regulated features and/or ecosystem functions has previously been determined as part of Amendment 22 to the Pickering Official Plan and the Seaton Master Environmental Servicing 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. In light of the numerous components of the Official Plan that are being revised concurrently, the numbering of the policy sections in this amendment is subject to change in accordance with the sequencing of approvals. 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. Cross Reference: OPA 19-003/P City Initiated - 139 - Memo To: Susan Cassel February 23, 2022 City Clerk From: Catherine Rose Chief Planner Copy: Manager, Development Review & Urban Design Senior Planner, Development Review & Heritage Subject: Amending By-law for Zoning By-law Amendment Application A 08/20 Steele Valley Developments Ltd., 334979 Ontario Ltd., Pickering Square Inc., and Pickering Square (1986) Inc. 1300 Kingston Road, 1360 Kingston Road and 1550 Kingston Road Amending By-law 7909/22 for Zoning By-law Amendment Application A 08/20 Statutory Public Meeting Date February 1, 2021 Planning & Development Committee Date January 10, 2022 Subject Lands The subject lands municipally known as 1300 and 1360 Kingston Road are located on the north side of Kingston Road, between Liverpool Road and Glenanna Road. The subject lands municipally known as 1550 Kingston Road are located at the northeast corner of Kingston Road and Valley Farm Road (see Location Map, Attachment #1). Purpose and Effect of Amending By-law To amend Zoning By-law 7553/17 to increase the maximum building height for 4 buildings from 15 storeys to 25, 27, and 29 storeys at 1300 and 1360 Kingston Road, and to increase the maximum building height from 15 storeys to 23 and 27 storeys for 2 buildings at 1550 Kingston Road. The maximum tower floor plate for floors above 25 storeys will be limited to 650 square metres. The amendment also requires a minimum gross leasable floor area of non-residential uses for each lot, as follows: •for 1300 Kingston Road: 3,700 square metres •for 1360 Kingston Road: 1,500 square metres •for 1550 Kingston Road: 2,300 square metres An “H” Holding provision will be placed on all three properties, subject to the following conditions being completed by the landowner to the satisfaction of the City of Pickering: - 140 - February 23, 2022 Page 2 of 2 By-law 7909/22 (A 08/20) a)The completion of an updated Functional Servicing Report (FSR), and that the FSR include recommendations on how sanitary servicing capacity will be provided to enable the full development of each site, to the satisfaction of the Region of Durham. b)The submission of a comprehensive phasing plan and construction management strategy, demonstrating how the demolition and construction of new development will be phased and sequenced, while minimizing the impact on the operation of the existing non-residential tenants located within the existing buildings not to be demolished in that phase. c)The submission of a tenant relocation plan, for both interim and long-term, offering an option to the existing non-residential tenants to relocate their businesses into the new development. d)The submission of a block plan and/or site plan illustrating adequate and appropriately located convenience surface parking spaces, and loading facilities, to support the non-residential uses. Council Meeting Date for By-law February 28, 2022 Original Signed By Catherine Rose EM:ld Attachments Location Map By-law (Text & Schedules) - 141 - Attachment #1 Valley Farm Road Glenview Road Memory L a n e Everton Street F ieldlight B oulevard G le n a nna Road Kingsto n R o a d Liverpool R oad R o s efield Road Brands Court Diefenbak er Court Pickering Park w a y Highway 401 A n t o n Square GlendalePark EsplanadePark DianaPrincess OfWales Park GlengrovePark RecreationComplex 1:6,750 SCALE: © 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 MapFile: Applicant: Property Description: A 08/20 THIS IS NOT A PLAN OF SURVEY. Date: Dec. 07, 2021 Steele Valley Developments Ltd., 334979 Ontario Ltd., 1300, 1360, 1450, & 1550 Kingston Rd Subject Property1300 Kingston Road L:\PLANNING\01-MapFiles\A\2020\A 08-20 Steele Valley & Pickering Square\A08_20_LocationMap.mxd Subject Property1360 Kingston Road 1450 Kingston Road Subject Property1550 Kingston Road Pickering Square Inc., and Pickering Square (1986) Inc. (Applicant has removedthis property from theZoning By-law Amendmentapplication) - 142 - The Corporation of the City of Pickering By-law No. 7909/22 Being a By-law to amend Zoning By-law 7553/17, as amended, to implement the Official Plan of the City of Pickering, Region of Durham, Plan M998, Part of Blocks A and B, and Part of Lot 22, Concession 1, Now Parts 1 to 5, 12, 18 to 23, 40R-8184 in the City of Pickering, Plan M998, Part of Block B, Now Parts 9 to 12, 40R2526, and Part 1 and 5, 40R-7595 in the City of Pickering, and Concession 1, North Part of Lot 20, Now Parts 2 and 3, 40R-11306 in the City of Pickering (A 08/20). Whereas the Council of The Corporation of the City of Pickering deems it desirable to increase the maximum building heights on lands being Plan M998, Part of Blocks A and B, and Part of Lot 22, Concession 1, Now Parts 1 to 5, 12, 18 to 23, 40R-8184 in the City of Pickering, Plan M998, Part of Block B, Now Parts 9 to 12, 40R2526, and Part 1 and 5, 40R-7595 in the City of Pickering, and Concession 1, North Part of Lot 20, Now Parts 2 and 3, 40R-11306 in the City of Pickering; And whereas an amendment to By-law 7553/17, as amended, is therefore deemed necessary; Now therefore the Council of The Corporation of the City of Pickering hereby enacts as follows: 1.Section 6, Exceptions, and Schedule 7 of Zoning By-law 7553/17, as amended, is further amended by adding a new Exception E15 as follows: 6.15.1 Zone Provisions The following regulations apply: a) Notwithstanding Schedule 5, related to Maximum Building Height, the maximum height of a building or structure wholly located within the area identified by the dashed lines as shown on Figure 6.15.2(a) is specified by the number following the HT symbol as shown on Figure 6.15.2(a). b) Notwithstanding Section 4.2 g) i) related to maximum Tower Floor Plates for a residential building, the maximum tower floor plate for any portion of a building above 77 metres in height shall not exceed 650 square metres. c) The minimum gross leasable floor area of non-residential uses shall be as follows: i)for lands located at 1300 Kingston Road: 3,700 square metres ii)for lands located at 1360 Kingston Road: 1,500 square metres - 143 - By-law No. 7909/22 Page 2 6.15.2 Special Site Figures Figure 6.15.2(a) 2.Section 6, Exceptions, and Schedule 7 of Zoning By-law 7553/17, as amended, is further amended by adding a new Exception E16 as follows: 6.16.2 Zone Provisions The following regulations apply: a) Notwithstanding Schedule 5, related to Maximum Building Height, the maximum height of a building or structure wholly located within the area identified by the dashed lines as shown on Figure 6.16.2(a) is specified by the number following the HT symbol as shown on Figure 6.16.2(a). b) Notwithstanding Section 4.2 g) i) related to maximum Tower Floor Plates for a residential building, the maximum tower floor plate for any portion of a building above 77 metres in height shall not exceed 650 square metres. c) The minimum gross leasable floor area of non-residential uses shall be as follows: i)for lands located at 1550 Kingston Road: 2,300 square metres - 144 - By-law No. 7909/22 Page 3 6.16.2 Special Site Figures Figure 6.16.2(a) 3.Section 7, Holding Provisions, and Schedule 8 of Zoning By-law 7553/17, as amended, is further amended by adding a new (H) Holding Symbol as follows: H8 Plan M998, Part of Blocks A and B, and Part of Lot 22, Concession 1, Now Parts 1 to 5, 12, 18 to 23, 40R-8184 in the City of Pickering, Plan M998, Part of Block B, Now Parts 9 to 12, 40R2526, and Part 1 and 5, 40R-7595 in the City of Pickering (1300 and 1360 Kingston Road) Parent Zone: CC1 Schedule 8 Amending By-law: N/A 7.1 Conditions for Removal of the “H” The “H” symbol shall, upon application by the landowner, be removed by City Council passing a By-law under Section 34 of the Planning Act. The following conditions shall first be completed to the satisfaction of the City of Pickering: a) The completion of an updated Functional Servicing Report (FSR), and that the FSR include recommendations on how sanitary servicing capacity will be provided to enable the full development of each site, to, the satisfaction of the Region of Durham. - 145 - By-law No. 7909/22 Page 4 b) The submission of a comprehensive phasing plan and construction management strategy, demonstrating how the demolition and construction of new development will be phased and sequenced, while minimizing the impact on the operation of the existing non-residential tenants located within the existing buildings not to be demolished in that phase. c) The submission of a tenant relocation plan, for both interim and long-term, offering an option to the existing non-residential tenants to relocate their businesses into the new development. d) The submission of a block plan and/or site plan illustrating adequate and appropriately located convenience surface parking spaces, and loading facilities, to support the non-residential uses. 4.Section 7, Holding Provisions, and Schedule 8 of Zoning By-law 7553/17, as amended, is further amended by adding a new (H) Holding Symbol as follows: H9 Concession 1, North Part of Lot 20, Now Parts 2 and 3, 40R-11306 in the City of Pickering (1550 Kingston Road) Parent Zone: CC1 Schedule 8 Amending By-law: N/A 7.1 Conditions for Removal of the “H” The “H” symbol shall, upon application by the landowner, be removed by City Council passing a By-law under Section 34 of the Planning Act. The following conditions shall first be completed to the satisfaction of the City of Pickering: a) The completion of an updated Functional Servicing Report (FSR), and that the FSR include recommendations on how sanitary servicing capacity will be provided to enable the full development of each site, to, the satisfaction of the Region of Durham. b) The submission of a comprehensive phasing plan and construction management strategy, demonstrating how the demolition and construction of new development will be phased and sequenced, while minimizing the impact on the operation of the existing non-residential tenants located within the existing buildings not to be demolished in that phase. c) The submission of a tenant relocation plan, for both interim and long-term, offering an option to the existing non-residential tenants to relocate their businesses into the new development. d) The submission of a block plan and/or site plan illustrating adequate and appropriately located convenience surface parking spaces, and loading facilities, to support the non-residential uses. 5.Schedule 7, Exceptions, of Zoning By-law 7553/17, as amended, is further amended by adding an E15 and E16 notation as depicted on Schedule I to this By-law. - 146 - By-law No. 7909/22 Page 5 6.Schedule 8, Holding Provisions, of Zoning By-law 7553/17, as amended, is further amended by adding an H8 and H9 notation as depicted on Schedule II to this By-law. 7.That By-law 7553/17, as amended, is hereby further amended only to the extent necessary to give effect to the provisions of this By-law. Definitions and subject matters not specifically dealt with in this By-law shall be governed by relevant provisions of By-law 7553/17, as amended. 8.That this By-law shall come into force in accordance with the provisions of the Planning Act. By-law passed this 28th day of February, 2022. ___________________________________ David Ryan, Mayor ___________________________________ Susan Cassel, City Clerk - 147 - Fay lee Crescent Kin g sto n R o a d Gle n a n n a R o a d Va l l e y F a r m R o a d Rosefield Road GlenviewRoad FieldlightBoulevard Li v e r p o o l R o a d Brands Court D i e fenbak er Court A vo n m o r e S q u a r e The Esplanade S The Esplanade N Glengrove Road Clerk Mayor N Schedule I to By-Law 7909/22Passed This 28th Day of February 2022 E15 E15 E16 - 148 - Fay lee Crescent Kin g sto n R o a d Gle n a n n a R o a d Va l l e y F a r m R o a d Rosefield Road GlenviewRoad FieldlightBoulevard Li v e r p o o l R o a d Brands Court D i e fenbak er Court A vo n m o r e S q u a r e The Esplanade S The Esplanade N Glengrove Road Clerk Mayor N Schedule II to By-Law 7909/22Passed This 28th Day of February 2022 H8 H8 H9 - 149 - Memo To: Susan Cassel City Clerk February 22, 2022 From: Paul Bigioni Director, Corporate Services & City Solicitor Copy: Director, City Development & CBO Subject: Request for Part Lot Control By-law -Owner: Madison Brock Limited. -Block 2, Plan 40M-2639 File: PLC.40M-2639.1 The above-mentioned blocks are being developed in accordance with the appropriate Subdivision Agreement in such a manner to allow for the construction of 118 townhouse dwelling units. We have been advised that, due to a delay in the Owner’s construction schedule, the 118 townhouse units will not be completed and transferred into private ownership by June 29, 2022, which is the date Part Lot Control By-law 7767/20 expires. Accordingly, a further by-law is required, extending the expiry date to February 28, 2024. Attached is a location map and a draft by-law, enactment of which will exempt these lands from the part lot control provisions of the Planning Act thus allowing the 118 townhouse dwelling units to be conveyed into private ownership. This draft by-law is attached for the consideration of City Council at its meeting scheduled for February 28, 2022. PB:ca Attachments Location Map Draft By-law - 150 - Br o c k R o a d Shining Star Chase Hidden Valley Glen Moonbeam Glen Dersan Street F o u r S e a s o ns Lane William Jackson Drive Palmer's Sawmill Road 1:2,500 SCALE: © 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 MapFile:Applicant:Property Description: Part Lot Control THIS IS NOT A PLAN OF SURVEY. Date: May. 15, 2020 ¯ E Madison Brock LimitedBlock 2, Plan 40M-2639(Castlegate Crossing) Block 240M-2639 L:\PLANNING\01-MapFiles\Legal\Part Lot Control\PartLotControl_40M2639.mxd PN-6- 151 - The Corporation of the City of Pickering By-law No. 7910/22 Being a by-law to exempt Block 2, Plan 40M-2639, Pickering, from the part lot control provisions of the Planning Act. Whereas pursuant to the provisions of section 50(7) of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, chapter P.13, as amended, the Council of a municipality may by by-law provide that section 50(5) of the Act does not apply to certain lands within a plan of subdivision designated in the by-law; And Whereas Madison Brock Limited, the owner of Block 2, Plan 40M-2639, intends to obtain approval of, and register a common elements condominium plan on the lands; And Whereas the proposed common elements condominium plan is to consist of 118 townhouse residential dwelling units; And Whereas it is intended that the owner or owners of each of the 118 townhouse dwelling units will own the parcel of tied land on which his, her or their dwelling is located, in fee simple and will also be a member or members of the common elements condominium corporation; And Whereas it is intended that the parcels of tied lands on which the 118 townhouse dwelling units are to be constructed will be subdivided by means of an exemption from the part lot control provisions of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, chapter P.13. Now therefore the Council of The Corporation of the City of Pickering hereby enacts as follows: 1.Section 50(5) of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, chapter P.13, shall cease to apply to Block 2, Plan 40M-2639, upon: (a)registration of this By-law in the Land Registry Office for the Land Titles Division of Durham (No. 40); and (b)registration of a restriction, pursuant to Section 118 of the Land Titles Act, R.S.O. 1990, chapter L.5, requiring the consent of the Solicitor for The Corporation of the City of Pickering to the registration of any transfer or charge of any portion of Block 2, Plan 40M-2639 in the Land Registry Office for the Land Titles Division of Durham (No. 40). - 152 - By-Law No. /22 Page 2 2.This By-law shall remain in force and effect for a period of two years from the date of the passing of this By-law and shall expire on February 28, 2024. By-law passed this 28th day of February, 2022. ________________________________ David Ryan, Mayor ________________________________ Susan Cassel, City Clerk - 153 - Memo To: Sussan Cassel City Clerk February 22, 2022 From: Paul Bigioni Director, Corporate Services & City Solicitor Copy: Director, City Development & CBO Subject: Request for Part Lot Control By-law -Owner: 1133373 Ontario Inc. -Lots 24 to 26, 29, 36 to 44, 47 to 51, 59 to 62, 65, 68 to 70, 73 to 75, 80 to 82, 84, 90 to 92, 94, to 100, 104 to 106 and 128, and Blocks 154 to 186, Plan 40M- 2671 File: PLC.40M-2671 The above-mentioned blocks are being developed in accordance with the appropriate Subdivision Agreement in such a manner to allow for the construction of 94 semi-detached dwelling units and 192 townhouse dwelling units. Attached is a location map and a draft by-law, enactment of which will exempt these lands from the part lot control provisions of the Planning Act thus allowing the 94 semi-detached dwelling units and 192 townhouse dwelling units to be conveyed into private ownership. This draft by-law is attached for the consideration of City Council at its meeting scheduled for February 28, 2022. PB:ca Attachments Location Map Draft By-law - 154 - Block181 Block180 Block179 Block178 Block177Block186 Block185 Block184 Block183 Block182 Block 158 Block176 Block175 Block174 Block173 Block172 Block171 Block170 Block169 Block168 Block167 Block166 Block165 Block154 Block155 Block160 Block 161 Block 162 Block 163Block159 Block 164 Lot24 Lot25 Lot26 Lot29 Lot 36 Lot 37 Lot 38 Lot 39 Lot 40 Lot 41 Lot 42 Lot 43 Lot 44 Lot 47 Lot 48 Lot 49 Lot 50 Lot 51Lot 59 Lot 60 Lot 61 Lot 62 Lot 65 Lot 68 Lot 69 Lot 70 Lot 73 Lot 74Lot 75 Lot 80 Lot 81 Lot 82 Lot 84 Lot 90 Lot 91 Lot 92 Lot94 Lot95 Lot96 Lot97 Lot98 Lot99 Lot100 Lot104 Lot105 Lot106 L o t 1 2 8 Block 157Block156 Burk h o l d e r D r i v e Hi b i s c u s D r i v e EganMews Cact u s C r e s c e n t De l p h i n i u m T r a i l Azalea Avenue D r a w s t r i n g L a n e Skyridge Bouleva r d Marathon Avenue Chateau Court Cari n a T e r r a c e Cam e o S t r e e t Citri n e S t r e e t An g o r a S t r e e t Aquarius Tr a i l Ceri s e M a n o r At h e n a P a t h Sp i n d l e M e w s Ap r i c o t L a n e So l s t i c e M e w s Pe t e r M a t t h e w s D r i v e Cactus Crescent 1:3,500 SCALE: © 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 MapFile:Applicant:Property Description: Subdivision Assumption 40M-26711133373 Ontario Inc. Lots 24-26, 29, 36-44, 47-51, 59-62, 65, 68-70, 73-75, 80-82, THIS IS NOT A PLAN OF SURVEY. Date: Feb. 10, 2022 L:\PLANNING\01-MapFiles\Legal\SubdivisionCompletion\SubCompletion_40M2671.mxd 84, 90-92, 94-100, 104-106 &128, & Blocks 154-186, Plan 40M-2671 - 155 - The Corporation of the City of Pickering By-law No. 7911/22 Being a by-law to exempt Lots 24 to 26, 29, 36 to 44, 47 to 51, 59 to 62, 65, 68 to 70, 73 to 75, 80 to 82, 84, 90 to 92, 94, to 100, 104 to 106 and 128, and Blocks 154 to 186, Plan 40M- 2671, from the part lot control provisions of the Planning Act Whereas pursuant to the provisions of section 50(7) of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, chapter P.13, as amended, the Council of a municipality may by by-law provide that section 50(5) of the Act does not apply to certain lands within a plan of subdivision designated in the by-law Now therefore the Council of The Corporation of the City of Pickering hereby enacts as follows: 1.Section 50(5) of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, chapter P.13, as amended shall cease to apply to Lots 24 to 26, 29, 36 to 44, 47 to 51, 59 to 62, 65, 68 to 70, 73 to 75, 80 to 82, 84, 90 to 92, 94, to 100, 104 to 106 and 128, and Blocks 154 to 186, Plan 40M- 2671. 2.This by-law shall remain in force and effect for a period of two years from the date of the passing of this by-law and shall expire on February 28, 2024. By-law passed this 28th day of February, 2022. ________________________________ David Ryan, Mayor ________________________________ Susan Cassel, City Clerk - 156 -