Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
April 4, 2022
Planning & Development Committee Meeting Agenda April 4, 2022 Hybrid Electronic Meeting – 7:00 pm Chair: Councillor Pickles 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 meetings with limited in person participation at this time. 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. Page 1.Roll Call 2.Disclosure of Interest 3.Statutory Public Meetings Statutory Public Meetings are held to receive input and feedback on certain types of planning applications. Due to the need to hold electronic meetings during the COVID-19 pandemic, members of the public who wish to address the Planning & Development Committee for any matters listed under Statutory Public Meetings may do so via an audio connection into the electronic meeting. To register as a delegate, visit www.pickering.ca/delegation and complete the on-line delegation form or email clerks@pickering.ca by 12:00 noon on the business day prior to the meeting. Please ensure that you provide the telephone number you wish to be called at so that you can be connected via audio when it is your turn to make a delegation. 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. 3.1 Information Report No. 06-22 1 Zoning By-law Amendment Application A 08/21(R1) Tribute (Liverpool) Limited Northwest corner of Highway 401 and Liverpool Road 3.2 Information Report No. 07-22 24 Official Plan Amendment OPA 21-002/P Zoning By-law Amendment A 13-21 2465 Brock Road Development Inc. 2465 Brock Road 4.Delegations Due to COVID-19, members of the public looking to provide a verbal delegation to Members of the Planning and Development Committee, may do so via audio connection Planning & Development Committee Meeting Agenda April 4, 2022 Hybrid Electronic Meeting – 7:00 pm Chair: Councillor Pickles For information related to accessibility requirements please contact: Committee Coordinator 905.420.4611 clerks@pickering.ca into the electronic meeting. To register as a delegate, visit www.pickering.ca/delegation, and complete the on-line delegation form or email clerks@pickering.ca. Persons who wish to speak to an item that is on the agenda must register by 12:00 pm noon on the last business day before the meeting. All delegations for items not listed on the agenda shall register ten (10) days prior to the meeting date. 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. 5.Planning & Development Reports 5.1 Director, Corporate Services & City Solicitor, Report LEG 08-22 38 1185497 Ontario Limited – Plan of Subdivision 40M-1912 -Final Assumption of Plan of Subdivision -Lots 1 to 6, Plan 40M-1912 -Acorn Lane/Brock Road Recommendation: 1.That works and services required by the Subdivision Agreement within Plan 40M-1912, 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 1185497 Ontario Limited be released from the provisions of the Subdivision Agreement and any amendments thereto relating to Plan 40M-1912; and, 3.That the appropriate City of Pickering officials be authorized to take the actions necessary to implement the recommendations in this report. 5.2 Director, City Development & CBO, Report PLN 17-22 41 Zoning By-law Amendment Application A 11/21 Planning & Development Committee Meeting Agenda April 4, 2022 Hybrid Electronic Meeting – 7:00 pm Chair: Councillor Pickles For information related to accessibility requirements please contact: Committee Coordinator 905.420.4611 clerks@pickering.ca Universal City Seven Developments Inc. Southwest corner of Sandy Beach Road and future Celebration Drive (Part of Lot 21, Concession 1, Now Part 3 40R-30834) Recommendation: 1.That Zoning By-law Amendment Application A 11/21, submitted by Universal City Seven Developments Inc., to permit a 37-storey residential condominium building with approximately 482 residential units at the southwest corner of Sandy Beach Road and future Celebration Drive be approved, and that the draft Zoning By-law Amendment, as set out in Appendix I to Report PLN 17-22, be finalized and forwarded to Council for enactment; 2.That Zoning By-law Amendment Application A 11/21, to amend City Centre Zoning By-law 7553/17, as amended, to remove the “H6” Holding Symbol on lands being Part of Lot 21, Concession 1, Now Part 3 40R-30834, as set out in Appendix II to Report PLN 17-22, be finalized and forwarded to Council for enactment; 3.That prior to issuing Site Plan Approval, Universal City Seven Developments Inc. shall satisfy the City with a letter from the H6 Landowners’ Group acknowledging that the Owner has either entered into the Universal City Infrastructure Agreement and Cost Sharing Agreement, or the Owner has satisfied all financial obligations under the said Universal City Infrastructure Agreement and Cost Sharing Agreement; and, 4.That Council grants an exemption in accordance with Section 45 (1.4) of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990; c. P.13 as amended, and permits the Committee of Adjustment to consider minor variance applications resulting from the processing of future site plan or building permit applications submitted by Universal City Seven Developments Inc., for the lands municipally know as Part of Lot 21, Concession 1, Now Part 3 40R-30834, before the second anniversary of the day on which an applicant-initiated zoning by-law amendment was enacted for the subject lands. 5.3 Director, City Development & CBO, Report PLN 18-22 74 Envision Durham – Identifying a Regional Natural Heritage System -The Region of Durham Municipal Comprehensive Review Planning & Development Committee Meeting Agenda April 4, 2022 Hybrid Electronic Meeting – 7:00 pm Chair: Councillor Pickles For information related to accessibility requirements please contact: Committee Coordinator 905.420.4611 clerks@pickering.ca Recommendation: That Council support the draft Regional Natural Heritage System (RNHS) for the new Regional Official Plan and endorse staff’s comments contained in Report PLN 18-22. 5.4 Director, City Development & CBO, Report PLN 19-22 90 Appeals of Council Decisions on Planning Act Applications and Committee of Adjustment Decisions Policy Recommendation: That the Appeals of Council Decisions on Planning Act Applications and Committee of Adjustment Decisions Policy, dated April 25, 2022, be approved as set out in Appendix I to Report PLN 19-22. 5.5 Director, City Development & CBO, Report PLN 20-22 98 Envision Durham – Growth Management Study -Alternative Land Need Scenarios Summary Report Recommendation: 1.That Council endorse the Staff Comments contained in Section 3 of Report PLN 20-22 as the City’s formal comments on the Envision Durham’s Alternative Land Need Scenarios Summary Report, prepared by Watson & Associates Economists Ltd. and Urban Strategies Inc., dated March 2022; and, 2.That the appropriate City of Pickering staff be authorized to take the necessary actions as indicated in this report. 6.Other Business 7.Adjournment Information Report to Planning & Development Committee Report Number: 06-22 Date: April 4, 2022 From: Catherine Rose, MCIP, RPP Chief Planner Subject: Zoning By-law Amendment Application A 08/21(R1) Tribute (Liverpool) Limited Northwest corner of Highway 401 and Liverpool Road 1.Purpose of this Report The purpose of this report is to provide preliminary information regarding a revised application for Zoning By-law Amendment, submitted by Tribute (Liverpool) Limited, to facilitate the construction of a high-density, mixed-use development. This report contains general information on the applicable Official Plan and other related policies and identifies matters raised to date. This report is intended to assist members of the public and other interested stakeholders to understand the proposal. The Planning & Development Committee will hear public delegations on the 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 completion of a comprehensive evaluation of the proposal. 2.Property Location and Description The subject property is located at the northwest corner of Liverpool Road and Highway 401, within the City Centre (see Location Map, Attachment #1). The subject lands have a total area of approximately 4.2 hectares, while the portion of lands subject to this zoning by-law amendment application have an area of approximately 2.0 hectares. The site has frontage along Liverpool Road at the northeast corner of the property. The property is currently vacant. The site is bisected by Pine Creek, a north-south watercourse that drains into Frenchman’s Bay and Lake Ontario to the south. The portion of lands subject to the rezoning application are located to the east of Pine Creek. There is an existing Region of Durham sanitary sewer that runs diagonally through the site along the east side of the property. The surrounding land uses are as follows (see Air Photo Map, Attachment #2): North: To the north are several commercial plazas, which contain uses such as a grocery store, pharmacy, bank, restaurants, retail stores and medical offices. At the northeast corner of the site is an existing driveway access from Liverpool Road, providing vehicular access for the north abutting commercial plaza that fronts Liverpool Road. - 1 - Information Report No. 06-22 Page 2 East: Immediately to the east is Liverpool Road and a Highway 401 westbound off-ramp, which exits onto Liverpool Road. North of the off-ramp are two eight-storey office buildings, with commercial/retail uses at grade. South: Immediately to the south is Highway 401 and a westbound on-ramp. Further south is a Canadian National railway track and an automobile service station with an associated convenience store and restaurant. West: To the west, across Pine Creek, are several commercial plazas, which contain uses such as a grocery store, pharmacy, restaurants, retail stores, medical offices, professional offices, and automobile service shops. Also to the west is Walnut Lane, which provides vehicular access for the commercial properties west of Walnut Lane. 3.Ap plicant’s Proposal In June of 2021, the applicant submitted a Zoning By-law Amendment Application to develop the lands east of Pine Creek for 3 mixed-use towers having heights of 122 metres (40 storeys each). Following the statutory public meeting for this proposal (held on October 4, 2021), the applicant revised their Zoning By-law Amendment application to facilitate the phased construction of 3 mixed-use towers having heights of 46 storeys for Tower A, 53 storeys for Tower B, and 49 storeys for Tower C. The revised proposal features Towers A and B connected by a 6-storey podium, and Tower C being a standalone building with a 5-storey podium (see Submitted Revised Site Plan, Attachment #3, and Submitted Conceptual Renderings, Attachments #4 and #5). All towers will have interconnected below and above-grade parking structures. The table below summarizes the key details of the original and revised proposals: Provision Original Proposal Revised Proposal Gross Floor Area (GFA) Maximum 113,700 square metres Approximately 127,196 square metres Commercial/Retail GFA Approximately 674 square metres Approximately 1,155 square metres Number of Residential Units Approximately 1,318 units Approximately 1,779 units Floor Space Index (FSI) Maximum 5.75 Approximately 5.72 Number of Storeys and Building Heights Towers A, B and C: 122 metres or 40 storeys Tower A: 142 metres or 46 storeys Tower B: 163 metres or 53 storeys Tower C: 151 metres or 49 storeys Private Amenity Area Not specified Indoor: 3,579 square metres Outdoor: 4,388 square metres Total: 7,967 square metres - 2 - Information Report No. 06-22 Page 3 Provision Original Proposal Revised Proposal Vehicular Parking Not specified Resident: 1,455 spaces Visitor/Retail: 266 spaces Total: 1,721 spaces Bicycle Parking Not specified 892 spaces Commercial uses are proposed at grade for all three towers fronting what is currently being referred to as the future extension of Walnut Lane. A daycare facility, with outdoor amenity space, is proposed to be located at the northeast corner of Tower C. To address comments received from the City on the first submission, the applicant is now proposing to convey approximately 0.24 of a hectare of land to the City for parkland dedication, which represents approximately 15 percent of the total land area subject to the rezoning application, excluding the lands for the Walnut Lane extension. The parkland is located at the northeast corner of the site, on the north side of the future extension of Walnut Lane. In addition, on the portion of lands to the west of Pine Creek, the applicant is currently exploring whether these lands could be conveyed to the City for additional parkland that would include a public trail system with open green space (see Submitted Conceptual Park Plan, Attachment #6). The applicant has submitted a Scoped Environmental Impact Study to define the extent of the Pine Creek valley lands and associated vegetation buffer. These lands will also be conveyed to a public authority, which will be further reviewed and refined through the site plan approval process. To address comments received from the City on the first submission, the applicant is now proposing to provide 27, two and three-bedroom affordable housing units to Habitat for Humanity GTA, for a fraction of the cost. Nine units within each building will be provided to Habitat for Humanity GTA. Vehicular and pedestrian access to and from the site is proposed along Walnut Lane, where the road is planned to extend through the site. The City has initiated a Municipal Class Environmental Assessment Study to extend Walnut Lane from the section currently constructed on the south side of Kingston Road, which provides driveway access to the west abutting commercial plaza. More information related to the extension of Walnut Lane can be found in Section 5.0 of this report. To facilitate the proposal, the applicant is requesting site-specific exceptions to the City Centre Zoning By-law. The requested amendments are outlined in Section 4.4 of this report. An application for Site Plan Approval for the three towers has been submitted and is currently under review. - 3 - Information Report No. 06-22 Page 4 4.Policy Framework 4.1 Durham Regional Official Plan The subject property is designated Urban Growth Centre and Regional Centre in the Regional Official Plan. Lands that are designated as Centres shall be developed as the main concentration of commercial, residential, cultural and government functions in a well-designed and intensive land use form. Urban Growth Centres shall be planned to accommodate a minimum density target of 200 persons and jobs combined per gross hectare and a floor space index of 3.0. The built form for Urban Growth Centres should be a mix of predominately high-rise development, with some mid-rise, as determined by area municipalities. The subject lands have frontage along Liverpool Road, which is designated as a Type ‘B’ Arterial Road in the Regional Official Plan. Type 'B' Arterial Roads are designed to carry large volumes of traffic at moderate to high speeds and connect to freeways and arterial roads. The general right-of-way width requirement for a Type ‘B’ arterial road is 36 to 45 metres. Future vehicular access to the site will be provided from the extension of Walnut Lane. The proposal generally conforms to the Durham Regional Official Plan. 4.2 Pickering Official Plan The portion of lands subject to the rezoning application are designated “Mixed Use Areas – City Centre” within the Pickering Official Plan. This designation permits high-density residential uses, retailing of goods and services, offices and restaurants, hotels, convention centres, community, cultural and recreational uses, community gardens and farmers’ markets. The designation has a minimum net residential density of 80 units per hectare and no maximum density; a maximum gross leasable floorspace for the retailing of goods and services of up to and including 300,000 square metres; and, a maximum FSI of over 0.75 and up to and including 5.75. Within the Official Plan, FSI is calculated as the total floor space of all buildings on a lot divided by the total area of the lot. OPA 26 introduced various new policies for the City Centre Neighbourhood with respect to enhancements to the public realm; active uses at grade; performance criteria for tall buildings to minimize adverse impacts concerning shadowing, sky view, privacy, and transition to established low-density development; and the pedestrian network and mobility. The key policies within the City Centre Neighbourhood as it relates to the proposal are summarized in Attachment #7 to this report. The lands bisected by Pine Creek, to the west of the proposed development, are designated "Open Space Systems – Natural Areas" within the Pickering Official Plan. The Natural Areas land use designation is further identified as “Shorelines, Significant Valley Lands and Stream Corridors”. An Environmental Impact Study is required for any proposed development within 120 metres of a key natural heritage or key hydrologic feature. The - 4 - Information Report No. 06-22 Page 5 purpose of the study is to identify and evaluate the natural heritage features and hydrologic features, determine the minimum required vegetation protection zones, and determine the site’s development limits, to prevent potential negative impacts from the proposed development on the natural heritage features. The City Centre Neighbourhood Map and City Centre Urban Design Guidelines – City Centre Street Network Map propose a future easterly extension of Walnut Lane north of the subject lands, connecting Kingston Road to the intersection of Liverpool Road and Pickering Parkway. The City Centre Street Network Map also proposes a private street intersecting the subject lands, accessed from Liverpool Road. However, the City has initiated a Municipal Class Environmental Assessment Study to alternatively extend Walnut Lane from the section currently constructed on the south side of Kingston Road, eastward through the subject lands to connect to Liverpool Road. Future vehicular access to the subject site will be provided from the extension of Walnut Lane. More information related to the extension of Walnut Lane can be found in Section 5.0 of this report. The applicants’ proposal will be assessed against the policies and provisions of the Official Plan during the further processing of the application. 4.3 Pickering City Centre Urban Design Guidelines The City Centre Urban Design Guidelines (UDG) provide design direction for intensification, to guide buildings and private development, as well as investments in public infrastructure in the City Centre. Some of the key guiding principles of the UDG include: •make the City Centre highly walkable, with new streets and pathways, a compact block pattern, traffic calming measures, and visually interesting streetscapes; •encourage a mix of land uses to create vitality at all times of the day, by enhancing the range of activities, amenities and uses that will attract and serve all ages for all seasons; •offer distinct living options, urban in format, and in close proximity to shopping, entertainment, culture, and work. The key urban design objectives with respect to built form, site design, landscaping, building design, and pedestrian connections as it relates to the proposal are summarized in Attachment #8 to this report. 4.4 City Centre Zoning By-law 7553/17 The portion of lands subject to the rezoning application are zoned “City Centre One – CC1” within the City Centre By-law 7553/17, as amended. Uses permitted include a broad range of residential and non-residential uses, such as apartment dwellings, townhouse dwellings, commercial, office, retail, community, recreational and institutional uses. The lands are also subject to an “H3” Holding Symbol, which requires the following conditions to be satisfied before the holding symbol is lifted: •appropriate public road infrastructure is in place or will be provided in conjunction with the development; - 5 - Information Report No. 06-22 Page 6 •an Environmental Assessment or equivalent comprehensive evaluation of alternatives for flood remediation and a road crossing of the Pine Creek valley corridor has been completed to the satisfaction of the City of Pickering and the Toronto and Region Conservation Authority; •an Environmental Impact Study and a detailed engineering design and restoration plan for the rehabilitation of the Pine Creek valley corridor has been completed to the satisfaction of the City of Pickering and the Toronto and Region Conservation Authority; •the execution of an Agreement to ensure that the Pine Creek valley corridor will be conveyed into public ownership upon completion of the works to the satisfaction of the City of Pickering and the Toronto and Region Conservation Authority; and •appropriate arrangements have been made to the satisfaction of the City of Pickering and the Toronto and Region Conservation Authority to implement the recommendations of the Environmental Assessment or equivalent comprehensive evaluation. As part of this zoning by-law amendment application, the applicant is not requesting to remove the “H3” Holding Symbol. The applicant has indicated that a request to remove the “H3” Holding Symbol will be submitted at a later date. 4.5 Requested Site-Specific Zoning By-law Amendment As part of the initial rezoning application, the applicant requested to amend the definition of “Lot Area” to permit the portion of lands for the future Walnut Lane road extension and the proposed park block immediately north of the road extension to be included in the calculation of lot area. The applicant has indicated that the Pickering Official Plan identifies a private street going through the subject lands, which would have been included in the total lot area, and therefore, included in the calculation of Floor Space Index (FSI). The City has initiated a Municipal Class Environmental Assessment Study to alternatively extend Walnut Lane eastward through the subject lands to connect to Liverpool Road. A portion of the subject lands will be conveyed to the City of Pickering for the future road extension and a future public park. The lot area of the subject lands will be reduced and as a result, the total buildable Gross Floor Area of the subject lands will decrease. Accordingly, the applicant is requesting that the portion of lands for the future Walnut Lane road extension and the proposed park block immediately north of the road extension be included in the calculation of the lot area. The applicant also requested the following site-specific amendments: •add a provision to permit stacked bicycle parking (see Figure 1 below), whereas the by-law only includes minimum parking space dimensions for horizontal and vertical bicycle parking spaces; and •permit structures (such as mechanical equipment, architectural features, landscape features and wind/noise attenuation structures) on the podiums to project beyond the maximum podium height, whereas the by-law permits a maximum podium height of 10.5 metres. - 6 - Information Report No. 06-22 Page 7 Figure 1: Proposed stacked bicycle parking In addition to the above-noted requested site-specific amendments, as part of the revised rezoning application, the applicant is also requesting the following additional site-specific amendments to facilitate the revised development proposal: •increase the maximum building height from 122 metres (approximately 40 storeys) to 142 metres (approx. 46 storeys) for Tower A, 163 metres (approx. 53 storeys) for Tower B, and 151 metres (approx. 49 storeys) for Tower C; and •remove the main wall stepback requirement, whereas the by-law requires a minimum main wall stepback of 3.0 metres between the top 6.0 and 18.0 metres of a point tower for buildings equal to and greater than 73.5 metres (approx. 24 storeys). The applicant is also requesting that Council grant an exemption in accordance with Section 45(1.4) of the Planning Act to permit the Committee of Adjustment to consider potential minor variance applications within 2 years of this zoning by-law amendment, which may result due to processing of future site plan and building permit applications. 5.Walnut Lane Extension In 2017, the City initiated a Municipal Class Environmental Assessment (Class EA) study to extend Walnut Lane from the section presently constructed south of Kingston Road, eastward through the subject lands, to connect to Liverpool Road (see Figure 2 below). The existing Walnut Lane is a local two-lane roadway running north-south, which currently connects Glenanna Road to Kingston Road, on the north side of Kingston Road. On the south side of Kingston Road, Walnut Lane provides driveway access to the west abutting commercial plaza. A new connection between Liverpool Road and Kingston Road is required to service existing, approved and proposed development in the City Centre neighbourhood, and will accommodate all road users (vehicles including public transit, cyclists and pedestrians) following “Complete Streets” principles. Potential structure design alternatives over Pine Creek are also being considered. - 7 - Information Report No. 06-22 Page 8 A draft of the Municipal Class EA report was circulated to external agencies on February 16, 2022, for their review and comment, including agencies such as the Ministry of Transportation, Toronto and Region Conservation Authority, Region of Durham and Ministry of the Environment, Conservation and Parks. After the agencies’ review, the report is expected to be circulated to the public for a 30-day public review period. The Municipal Class EA Report will also be presented to Council for endorsement. Following completion of the EA study, a detailed design of the road extension will begin. Construction of the Walnut Lane extension is tentatively scheduled to begin in late 2023, subject to Council’s budget approval. Figure 2: Proposed easterly extension of Walnut Lane Subject Lands 6.Comments Received 6.1 Public comments on the proposal Notice of the Electronic Statutory Public Meeting regarding the revised application was provided through a mailing of all properties within 150 metres of the entire subject site (in total, notice was mailed to 8 property owners). In addition, a Public Meeting Notice Sign was erected at the property on March 4, 2022, along the Liverpool Road frontage. As of the date of this report, the City has received the following comments from two area residents: •concerns related to traffic, as there is no Liverpool Road off-ramp travelling eastbound, which will lead to added traffic on Bayly Street; •concerns related to the proposed increase in building height, as the proposed towers on the Pickering Town Centre lands (being a maximum of 50 storeys) should be the tallest in the City Centre to ensure that development is the focal point of the City Centre; and - 8 - Information Report No. 06-22 Page 9 • questions related to the process of providing affordable housing units to Habitat for Humanity GTA, how property taxes and maintenance fees will be applied to these units, and if parking spaces will be provided for these units. 6.2 Agency Comments The application was circulated to the following agencies for their review and comment: Region of Durham, Toronto and Region Conservation Authority, Metrolinx, Ministry of Transportation, Bell Canada, Elexicon Energy, Enbridge Gas, Canada Post Corporation, Hydro One Networks Inc., The Durham District School Board, The Durham Catholic District School Board, Conseil Scolaire Catholique MonAvenir, Le Conseil Scolaire de District Du Centre-Ouest, Ontario Power Generation, Rogers Cable, Durham Regional Police and Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation. As of the date of this report, comments have been received from the following agencies: 6.2.1 Durham Regional Police, Radio Systems – Communications • Construction within the boundaries of the subject lands will pose no immediate obstruction issue for the Region’s NextGen radio system and associated microwave links. 6.3 City Department Comments The application was circulated to the following City departments for their review and comment: Engineering Services, Building Services, Fire Services and Sustainability. As of the date of this report, no written comments have been received from the above- noted City departments. 7. Planning & Design Section Comments The following is a summary of key concerns/issues or matters of importance raised to date. These matters, and others identified through the circulation and detailed review of the proposal, are required to be addressed by the applicant before a final recommendation report to Planning & Development Committee: • ensure conformity with the City of Pickering Official Plan and the City Centre Urban Design Guidelines; • assess the suitability and appropriateness of the site for the proposed increase in height; • review the requested site-specific exceptions to ensure the proposed design of the buildings maintain the general intent and purpose of the City Centre Zoning By-law and the City Centre Urban Design Guidelines; • in consultation with the TRCA, determine a method of securing the conveyance of the open space lands associated with Pine Creek into public ownership, and ensure these lands are rezoned to an appropriate zone category; • review the size and functionality of the proposed park on the north side of the Walnut Lane extension allow the lands to be designed and programmed to the City’s requirements, and ensure these lands are rezoned to an appropriate open space zone category; - 9 - Information Report No. 06-22 Page 10 •in consultation with the TRCA, evaluate the location, size, grading and functionality of the proposed trail system and open green space on the lands located west of Pine Creek, and ensure these lands are rezoned to appropriate zone category; •ensure that the Walnut Lane EA process is completed, and that the lands through the subject site, required to create the new connection between Liverpool Road and Kingston Road, are secured; •ensure the traffic generated by the proposal can be accommodated by the proposed road network; •ensure sufficient resident, visitor and commercial parking is provided on-site in accordance with the City Centre Zoning By-law; and •ensure the architectural treatments of the building are enhanced (e.g., architectural projections, use of high-quality building materials, glazing, transparent windows at street level). Further issues may be identified following receipt and review of comments from the circulated departments, agencies and public. The City Development Department will conclude its position on the application after it has received and assessed comments from the circulated departments, agencies, and public. 8.Information Received Copies of the plans and studies listed below are available for viewing on the City’s website at pickering.ca/devapp or in person at the office of the City of Pickering, City Development Department: •Planning Rationale Addendum Letter, prepared by The Biglieri Group Ltd., dated December 14, 2021; •Site Plan, prepared by IBI Group Architects (Canada) Inc., revised and dated November 16, 2021; •Scoped Environmental Impact Study, prepared by GeoProcess Research Associates Inc., dated June 14, 2021; •Traffic Distribution Report, prepared by WSP Canada Group Limited, dated June 11, 2021; •Context Plan and Site Statistics, prepared by IBI Group Architects (Canada) Inc., revised and dated December 14, 2021; •Facility Fit Plan, prepared by NAK Design Group Inc., dated December 3, 2021; •Renderings and Elevations, prepared by IBI Group Architects (Canada) Inc., revised and dated December 7, 2021; •Shadow Study, prepared by IBI Group Architects (Canada) Inc., dated December 2021; •Sustainability Report, prepared by EQ Building Performance, dated December 1, 2021; and •Transportation Noise and Vibration Assessment, prepared by Gradient Wind Engineering Inc., dated December 9, 2021. 9.Procedural Information 9.1 General •written comments regarding this proposal should be directed to the City Development Department; - 10 - Information Report No. 06-22 Page 11 •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 owner of this property is Tribute (Liverpool) Limited, who is represented by Cassells, Brock and Blackwell, LLP and The Biglieri Group Ltd. Attachments: 1.Location Map 2.Air Photo Map 3.Submitted Revised Site Plan 4.Submitted Conceptual Rendering - Facing South 5.Submitted Conceptual Rendering - Tower C Entrance 6.Submitted Conceptual Park Plan 7.City Centre Neighbourhood Policies Related to the Proposal 8.City Centre Urban Design Guidelines Related to the Proposal Prepared By: Original Signed By Isabel Lima (Acting) Planner II Original Signed By Nilesh Surti, MCIP, RPP Manager, Development Review & Urban Design Approved/Endorsed By: Original Signed By Catherine Rose, MCIP, RPP Chief Planner IL:ld Date of Report: March 9, 2022 - 11 - Attachment #1 to Information Report 06-22 Li v e r p o o l R o a d Kingsto n R o a d St Martins Dri ve B a y l y Street P ic k ering Parkway Highway 401 Storringto n S t r e e t DouglasRavine South Pine CreekRavine Location MapFile:Applicant:Municipal Address: A 08/21 (R1) Date: Mar. 08, 2022 Tribute (Liverpool) LimitedHighway 401 and Liverpool Road (Northwest corner) Portion of LandsSubject to Rezoning L:\PLANNING\01-MapFiles\A\2021\A 08-21 Tribute (Liverpool) Limited\A08_21_LocationMap_Focus.mxd 1:4,000 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. City DevelopmentDepartment Lands Owned by Tribute(Liverpool) Limited - 12 - Attachment #2 to Information Report 06-22 Li v e r p o o l R o a d Wa l n u t L a n e Gle ndale Dri v e Poprad Avenue Tatra Drive Be g l e y S t r e e t B a y l y Street B r o n t e S q u a re Wayfarer Lane A l b a c o r e M a n o r Tanzer Court Kin g sto n R o a d St M a r t i n s D r i v e Sa n g r o L a n e S t o rri n g t o n S tr e et Charl o tte C ircle Li s t ow e l l C r e s c e nt Highway 401 Picke ri n g P a r k w a y Air Photo MapFile:Applicant:Municipal Address: A 08/21 (R1) Date: Mar. 08, 2022 Tribute (Liverpool) LimitedHighway 401 and Liverpool Road (Northwest corner) L:\PLANNING\01-MapFiles\A\2021\A 08-21 Tribute (Liverpool) Limited\A08_21_AirPhoto_Focus_v2.mxd 1:5,000 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. City DevelopmentDepartment Portion of LandsSubject to Rezoning Lands Owned by Tribute(Liverpool) Limited - 13 - Attachment #3 to Information Report 06-22 L:\Planning\01-MapFiles\A\2021 March 8, 2022DATE: Applicant: Municipal Address: File No: Submitted Revised Site Plan FULL SCALE COPIES OF THIS PLAN ARE AVAILABLE FOR VIEWING AT THE CITY OF PICKERING CITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT. City Development Department A 08/21(R1) Highway 401 and Liverpool Road (Northwest corner) Tribute (Liverpool) Limited Tower C Tower B Tower A N - 14 - Attachment #4 to Information Report 06-22 Submitted Conceptual Rendering - Facing South City Development Department March 8, 2022FULL SCALE COPIES OF THIS PLAN ARE AVAILABLE FOR VIEWING AT THE CITY OF PICKERING CITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT. A 08/21 (R1) Tribute (Liverpool) LimitedApplicant: Municipal Address: DATE: File No: Highway 401 and Liverpool Road (Northwest corner) L:\Planning\01-MapFiles\A\2021 - 15 - Attachment #5 to Information Report 06-22 L:\Planning\01-MapFiles\A\2021 March 8, 2022DATE: Applicant: Municipal Address: File No: Submitted Conceptual Rendering - Tower C Entrance FULL SCALE COPIES OF THIS PLAN ARE AVAILABLE FOR VIEWING AT THE CITY OF PICKERING CITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT. City Development Department A 08/21(R1) Highway 401 and Liverpool Road (Northwest corner) Tribute (Liverpool) Limited - 16 - Attachment #6 to Information Report 06-22 L:\Planning\01-MapFiles\A\2021 March 8, 2022DATE: Applicant: Municipal Address: File No: Submitted Conceptual Park Plan FULL SCALE COPIES OF THIS PLAN ARE AVAILABLE FOR VIEWING AT THE CITY OF PICKERING CITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT. City Development Department A 08/21(R1) Highway 401 and Liverpool Road (Northwest corner) Tribute (Liverpool) Limited - 17 - Attachment #7 to Information Report 06-22 City Centre Neighbourhood Policies Related to the Proposal •Encourage the highest mix and intensity of uses and activates in the City to be in this neighbourhood. •Encourage the transformation of the City Centre into a more liveable, walkable and human-scaled neighbourhood with inviting public spaces such as parks, squares and streets. •Encourage the development of streetscapes, public spaces and pedestrian routes that are safe and comfortable for all genders and ages, accessible and easy to navigate regardless of physical ability. •Encourage street-facing façades to have adequate entrances and windows facing the street. •Encourage publicly accessible outdoor and indoor spaces where people can gather. •Encourage new development to be designed, located and massed in such a way that it limits any shadowing on the public realm, parks and public spaces in order to achieve adequate sunlight and conform in the public realm through all four seasons. •Shall strive to locate either a park or square, within a 5 minute walk of all residences and places to work located within the City Centre. •Encourage opportunities for public art contributions and/or the integration of public art with development and infrastructure. •In consultation with the Toronto and Region Conservation Authority, shall require the proponents of new development to assess the regulatory flood plain risks associated with lands proposed for redevelopment within the Pine Creek flood plain; and implement, where appropriate, a revised flood plain boundary for Pine Creek. •In consultation with the Toronto and Region Conservation Authority, shall require the preparation of a plan to rehabilitate Pine Creek, to enhance the natural heritage features and to design, align and construct a multi-modal bridge across Pine Creek. •May accept privately constructed squares and publicly accessible open spaces as part of a development as fulfilling in whole or in part, the parkland conveyance requirements if all of the following conditions are met: •the square or publicly accessible open space is designed and maintained to the standards of the City; •the square or publicly accessible open space is visible, open and accessible to the public at all times; and •the owner enters into an agreement with the City to ensure that the previous conditions are met, to the satisfaction of the City. •Encourage the development of buildings with active frontages at grade in appropriate locations to promote a vibrant and safe street life. •Promote the highest buildings to locate on sites along or in proximity to Highway 401 or in proximity to higher order transit stations. - 18 - •Consider in review of development applications for buildings taller than 5-storeys, the following performance criteria: •that buildings be massed in response to the scale of surrounding buildings, nearby streets and public open spaces; •that upper levels of buildings be set back or a podium and point tower form be introduced to help create a human scale at street level; •that shadowing impacts on surrounding development, publicly accessible open spaces and sidewalks be mitigated/minimized to the extent feasible; •that sufficient spacing be provided between the building face of building towers to provide views, privacy for residents and to minimize any shadowing and wind tunnel impacts on surrounding development, streets and public spaces; •that buildings be oriented to optimize sunlight and amenity for dwellings, private open spaces, adjoining open spaces and sidewalks; •that living areas, windows and private open spaces be located to minimize the potential for overshadowing adjoining residential properties; •that informal or passive surveillance of streets and other public open spaces be maximized by providing windows to overlook street and public spaces and using level changes, floor and balcony spaces elevated above the street level to allow views from residential units into adjacent public spaces whilst controlling views into these units; and •that protection be provided for pedestrians in public and private spaces from wind down drafts. •Select transit junctions and related pedestrian connections as priority areas for design excellence and capital improvements including landscaping, public seating, weather protection and public art. •Consider in the review of development applications, the following performance criteria with regard to on-site parking and access drives/aisles: •that parking be situated either in parking areas located at the rear or side of the building or on-street, where the development fronts on a collector or local road; •that the parking format be structured or below grade parking; •that shared parking be encouraged in mixed use areas to minimize land devoted to parking; •that the implementing zoning by-law may permit a reduction of customer parking for ground floor commercial uses through the provision of on-street parking; •that surface parking areas be well landscaped and lit to provide a safe and comfortable pedestrian environment; and •that access driveways to side and rear parking areas be consolidated where practical, and be accessible by a public laneway or drive aisle. •Require proponents to enter into agreements with the City, Region and other agencies as appropriate, respecting various development related matters including but not limited to: •ensuring that development shall not take place on lands within the defined Pine Creek corridor; and •providing contributions to the cost of rehabilitating Pine Creek, if necessary. - 19 - Attachment #8 to Information Report 06-22 City Centre Urban Design Guidelines Related to the Proposal Site Design •The design of sites and buildings shall seek to create and enhance view portals and vistas of parks and signature buildings within the City Centre. •Site grades shall be matched to the street grade and surrounding properties, where possible. •The placement and orientation of buildings should define and augment the public realm (streets and open spaces) and places on properties where routes intersect and people congregate, such as private squares. The coordination of building location along a street edge and the placement of buildings on prominent corners help create an active and attractive streetscape. •Buildings shall be aligned to contribute to a consistent street wall with minimal gaps or courts between buildings, except to allow for pedestrian access to internal lanes, walkways. •Throughout the City Centre, the building face shall be articulated through recessions, projections and change of materials. •The installation of awnings or canopies is encouraged to provide weather protection and to animate storefronts. These elements may project over the sidewalk subject to the following criteria: •that safe unobstructed clearance be provided for pedestrians; •retractable awnings are encouraged because they provide greater flexibility and control for business over sun and shadow impacts and during storm events or heavy snow falls; and •that encroachment agreements be entered into with the Region of Durham or the City of Pickering where canopies or awnings extend over the sidewalk or public right-of-way. •Building setbacks may vary between 1.0 metre and 4.0 metres to maintain a visually consistent streets edge. Building setbacks could be increased to create public accessible open spaces such as court yards or plazas along a streetline. •Setback areas with retail or commercial uses at grade should be designed to accommodate patios, seating, and other at grade animating uses over time. Where buildings are setback more than one metre, the area between the buildings and front property line may feature hard and soft landscaping, lighting, signage and seating that enhance the sense of place, amenity and way-finding to the building and within the City Centre. •For buildings 8 storeys in height or greater, a minimum building separation of 18.0 metres is required, but it may be reduced if there are no primary windows in the wall facing an abutting building. •Tower portions of a building (those over 12 storeys) are subject to a minimum tower separation distance of 25.0 metres, to provide outlook, daylight access and privacy for residents. •The design of pedestrian walkways on-site shall seek direct connectivity to adjacent public spaces, transit stops and amenities. - 20 - •Primary entrances of buildings along the street edge shall be encouraged to face the streets. Entrances at grade should be highly visible, accentuated through design, and of appropriate scale to their function and frequency of use. •Pedestrian walkways between building entrances and the street shall have a minimum width of 1.8 metres, be barrier-free, and provide curb ramps at grade changes with minimum cross gradient. •Distinctive paving material or coloured markings shall be used for pedestrian walkways to ease way finding and identify pedestrian routes. •Pedestrian-scaled lighting shall be encouraged along pedestrian walkways to improve security and visibility. •Landscaping elements such as planters or benches shall be encouraged along pedestrian walkways to define the paths and to create an attractive and pleasant pedestrian realm. •Outdoor waiting areas in front of residential or office towers should be weather protected to make waiting and access to and from the site more comfortable. This may include awnings, building projections or covered waiting areas. •Structured above grade parking with high quality architectural and landscape treatment that is visually and physically designed to be part of a larger development is acceptable. •Large scale residential developments, such as condominium apartment blocks and office towers, shall be encouraged to include adequate, secure indoor bicycle storage for residents or employees, and charging stations for electric vehicles. •The exterior vehicular ramps and entrances to structured parking below or above grade shall be located at the rear or side of buildings, and avoid locations in close proximity of streets and street corners. •Well defined, safe pedestrian entrances to structured parking will be provided from streets. •Any surface parking areas, drive-aisle and accesses will be located at the rear and sides of development, and shall generally not exceed 30 percent of the total width of any street frontage of a lot. •Access to parking and automobile drop-off areas will be designed to minimize pedestrian/vehicular conflict. The number of vehicular access points will be kept to a minimum to reduce potential conflict between pedestrians, cyclists and motor vehicles. •Adequate short-term bicycle parking should be provided at grade for larger developments. At grade short-term bicycle parking should be located close to building entrances (residential lobbies, retail store entrances and office entrances). •Loading areas shall be located at the side or the rear of buildings, or below grade or within the building where feasible. Where loading areas are located to the side of a building, it should be screened from public view. •Waste and recycling facilities shall be fully enclosed and encouraged to be integrated with the principal building on a site. - 21 - •Internal routes to loading areas and waste and recycling facilities are encouraged to be designed to avoid crossing primary vehicular circulation routes and walkways. •Transformer vaults, utility meters and other services shall be located within the building and/or internal to the site and away from public view. •Service and utility areas shall be concealed with fencing, screens, and landscaping, and use materials that coordinate or blend with the main structure. Cluster or group utilities to minimize the visual and other impacts on the streetscape and public spaces. •Building exhaust and other service intake or output vents shall be located and concealed to avoid impact on public sidewalks, outdoor spaces and adjacent development. Service intake vents shall generally not project 1.2 metres above finished grade and no closer than 4.0 metres to a street line. •At least 10 percent of each lot shall be landscaped. •A landscape buffer of at least 3.0 metres wide shall be encouraged along surface parking lots situated adjacent to a street, to limit its visual impact on the public realm, to ensure a safe and comfortable pedestrian realm, and to mitigate stormwater runoff from paved areas. •Landscape buffers or landscaping within properties shall include a combination of indigenous deciduous and evergreen trees and shrubs that are hardy, tolerant to de-icing agents; and adaptable to urban conditions. •Soft landscaping elements such as trees and shrubs, and hard landscaping elements such as rockery and water features should be used to enhance the visual image of a site and to define pedestrian routes and private open spaces on a property. •Foundation planting may be incorporated to soften the visual impact of continuous building mass along the street edge. •Pedestrian scaled lighting shall be used to illuminate pedestrian connections and private open spaces. •Accent lighting may be used to accentuate landmark buildings, prominent building façades, landscape features and public art. •Building entrances should be accentuated through exterior lighting to provide a safe pedestrian environment and to assist with wayfinding. Building Design •The shadow impacts of buildings on public open spaces and private amenity areas shall be minimized. •Design buildings with a defined base, middle and top section to emphasize human scale dimensions, reduce appearance of bulk and to create an interesting skyline. •The base component (podium) of a building generally establishes the height of the street wall along a street and establishes human scale at the street level. The building podium should be at least 3 storeys before any building step-backs are introduced. The base shall have a - 22 - minimum floor-to-ceiling height of 4.5 metres along active at grade frontage to accommodate a range of uses over time. •The middle component of a building generally constitutes the bulk of the building and typically consists of office or residential uses. The floor plate above the podium shall not exceed 850 square metres. Continuous blank walls are generally not permitted on tower faces. •The top of a building is where the building wall meets the roof. The top of towers should be attractively designed using setbacks, articulation and other means to contribute positively to the skyline. The tower tops should screen rooftop mechanical equipment through roof parapets or by incorporating mechanical penthouses and elevator cores into the design of the building top to contribute to an attractive skyline profile. •All buildings should be built with high quality, enduring materials such as brick, stone, and glass. Materials that do not age well, such as stucco, vinyl, and highly reflective glass will be discouraged. •Variation in façade treatment, building materials and colours shall be sought along the street edge in order to create an appealing and interesting streetscape. •Large expanses of blank walls should be avoided by façade articulation (i.e., recessions or projections), fenestration, cornices, vertical pillars, and prominent entrances that respond to the massing and architectural style of the building. •Service meters and connections, vents and building utilities on façades facing public streets shall be minimized by concealment (i.e., landscape screening or sensitively integrating them within the building design). •Development within the City Centre shall be encouraged to incorporate sustainable development practices such as optimizing energy efficiency of buildings, Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design (LEED) certification or alternative equivalent for new private and public buildings, providing vehicle charging stations, and low impact development practices (i.e., the use of grey water systems). •Roof tops are encouraged to include green roof spaces for environmental sustainability, amenity space for residents or urban agriculture. •Bird-friendly glazing should be installed on tall buildings in locations that are within known migratory routes. •Landscape opportunities should be maximized within the City Centre in order to increase the tree canopy, improve air quality and groundwater infiltration. •The roofs of mid-rise and tall buildings and podiums shall be encouraged to have green or vegetated roofs to improve environmental performance of the building and provide amenity space where appropriate. •The design and orientation of buildings shall consider aspects such as passive solar gain, minimizing the adverse shadow impacts on adjacent buildings, streets and open spaces, and minimizing adverse wind impacts on the public realm. - 23 - Information Report to Planning & Development Committee Report Number: 07-22 Date: April 4, 2022 From: Catherine Rose Chief Planner Subject: Official Plan Amendment OPA 21-002/P Zoning By-law Amendment A 13-21 2465 Brock Road Development Inc. 2465 Brock Road 1.Purpose of this Report The purpose of this report is to provide preliminary information regarding applications for Official Plan Amendment and Zoning By-law Amendment, submitted by 2465 Brock Road Development Inc., to permit a high-density mixed-use development. This report contains general information on the applicable Official Plan and other related policies and identifies matters raised to date. This report is intended to assist members of the public and other interested stakeholders to understand the proposal. The Planning & Development Committee will hear public delegations on the applications, ask questions of clarification and identify any planning issues. This report is for information and no decision on these applications are being made at this time. Staff will bring forward a recommendation report for consideration by the Planning & Development Committee upon completion of a comprehensive evaluation of the proposal. 2.Property Location and Description The subject lands are located on the east side of Brock Road, north of Third Concession Road, within the Duffin Heights Neighbourhood (see Location Map, Attachment #1). The lands are approximately 2.69 hectares in size, with approximately 151 metres of frontage along Brock Road. The majority of the property is undeveloped, while the southwestern portion of the property fronting Brock Road contains a retail store, a greenhouse and two sheds (Pristritto’s Farm and Garden Centre). The site also contains a single-storey residential dwelling. The site slopes down significantly, having a grade difference of approximately 14.5 metres from Brock Road to the southeast corner of the site. The southeasterly corner of the site contains a wetland feature. There are no significant wooded areas on the site. - 24 - Information Report 07-22 Page 2 Surrounding land uses are: North & East: Immediately north and east of the subject property is the Duffin Meadows Cemetery. South: Immediately south of the property is a vacant parcel of land, and further south is a Hydro corridor. West: Across Brock Road, is the Seaton Centre, a commercial shopping centre, containing a variety of uses including retail, restaurant, personal service and financial institutions. North of the shopping centre is a residential condominium development that is currently under construction consisting of 3-storey townhouses along Brock Road, and rear lane and street townhouses on internal private streets. 3. Applicant’s Proposal 2465 Brock Road Development Inc., is proposing to develop the westerly portion of the property for a high-density mixed-use development consisting of 2 residential towers having heights of 17-storeys connected by a 5-storey podium containing a total of 353 dwelling units and 954 square metres of grade related commercial uses. Also proposed is an 8-storey seniors’ residence containing a total of 86 units. The table below summarizes the key details of the proposal: Provision Proposal Gross Floor Area (GFA) Mixed-Use Building: 27,894 square metres Seniors’ Residence: 7,990 square metres Net Floor Area (GFA) Mixed-Use Building: 26,940 square metres Seniors’ Apartment Building: 7,990 square metres Number of Residential Units Mixed-Use Building: 353 Seniors’ Apartment Building: 86 Floor Space Index (FSI) 1.36 Tower Floor Plate Size Mixed-Use Building: • Tower 1: 702 square metres • Tower 2: 702 square metres Number of Storeys and Building Height Mixed-Use Building: 2 towers, 17 storeys each (55 metres) Seniors’ Apartment Building: 8 storeys (25.5 metres) - 25 - Information Report 07-22 Page 3 Provision Proposal Unit Types Mixed-Use Building: •1 bed: 156 (44%) •2 bed: 152 (43%) •3 bed: 32 (9%) •2-storey units: 12 (4%) Vehicular Parking Mixed-Use Building: •Resident – 441 spaces at a ratio of 1.25 parking spaces per unit (all located within a 3-level underground parking garage) •Visitor – 88 spaces at a ratio of 0.25 parking spaces per unit (59 surface spaces and 30 spaces within the underground parking garage) •Commercial – 43 spaces at a ratio of 4.5 per 100 square metres Total – 381 spaces Seniors’ Apartment Building: •63 spaces at a ratio of 0.73 spaces per unit Bicycle Parking 388 spaces Amenity Area Indoor – 628 square metres Outdoor (P1 level) – 1,603 square metres Outdoor (patio and private amenity) – 2,119 square metres Outdoor (Level 6) – 1,011 square metres Total – 5,361 square metres Site access is proposed from two driveway accesses from Brock Road, on the north and south sides of the mixed-use building. The 6.5-metre wide private driveway provides access to the underground garage ramps, the at-grade parking spaces, the loading spaces, and two drop-off lay-by areas. The northerly driveway will be aligned opposite Palmers Sawmill Road and will be signalized. For the mixed-use building, indoor and outdoor amenity spaces are proposed at Level 6 (on the roof of the 5th-floor podium). Due to the grade differential across the site, both the P1 and P2 levels will be above the grade at the rear of the building. An additional 1,603 square metres of outdoor amenity space is proposed at the P1 level at the rear of the building. Approximately 0.055 of a hectare at the southeasterly corner of the site, which consists of a small portion of a larger wetland and an associated 10-metre buffer will be conveyed to a public authority for the long-term protection and maintenance of the natural heritage feature. - 26 - Information Report 07-22 Page 4 An 8-storey seniors’ apartment building is proposed at the southwest part of the site. The building will consist of 86 units, each unit being a complete dwelling unit, including a kitchen. The units vary in size and number of bedrooms, and will feature facilities designed to promote aging in place, such as accessibility facilities. On the ground floor of the building, there will be a mix of commercial uses, which may include, but not be limited to, a restaurant, offices, and retail, to complement and serve the needs of the residents. Indoor fitness and physical therapy facilities, communal spaces to support community activities and a party room are also proposed. The purpose of the Official Plan Amendment is to increase the maximum permitted density from 140 units per hectare to 166 units per hectare. Given the dwelling units within the Senior's Residence are independent dwelling units containing a bathroom, kitchen and living area, the proposed 86 suites are included in the residential density calculation. The purpose of the Zoning By-law Amendment is to rezone the lands from the site-specific exception under “A – Rural Agricultural” to Mixed-Use and Open Space zone categories to permit the uses and to specify zoning performance standards. The development will be subject to site plan approval. 4. Policy Framework 4.1 Durham Regional Official Plan The subject lands are designated as “Living Areas” with a “Regional Corridor” overlay in the Durham Regional Official Plan (ROP). Lands within the Living Areas designation are predominately intended for housing purposes, and limited office development and commercial uses. In the consideration of development proposals, regard shall be had to achieving a compact urban form, including intensive residential, office, retail and service, and mixed uses along arterial roads, in conjunction with present and potential transit facilities. Regional Corridors shall be planned and developed in accordance with the underlying land use designation, as higher-density mixed-use areas, supporting higher-order transit services and pedestrian-oriented design. Regional Corridors are intended to support an overall, long-term density target of at least 60 residential units per gross hectare and a floor space index (FSI) of 2.5, with a wide variety of building forms, generally mid-rise in height, with some higher buildings, as detailed in municipal official plans. Brock Road is designated as a Type ‘A’ Arterial Road in the ROP. This designation is designed to carry large volumes of traffic at moderate to high speeds, have some access restrictions, and generally have a right-of-way width ranging from 36 to 45 metres. Type ‘A’ Arterial Roads are designed to permit private access generally located a minimum of 200 metres apart in Urban Areas, mixed-use developments and higher density developments with shared or combined access. - 27 - Information Report 07-22 Page 5 Brock Road is designated as a High-Frequency Transit Network. The development shall provide for complementary higher density and mixed uses at an appropriate scale and context, buildings oriented towards the street to reduce walking distances, facilities which support non-auto modes of transportation, and limited surface parking and the potential redevelopment of surface parking. The proposal generally conforms to the Durham Regional Official Plan. 4.2 Pickering Official Plan The Pickering Official Plan designates the subject lands as “Mixed Use Areas – Mixed Corridors” within the Duffin Heights Neighbourhood. The Duffin Heights Neighbourhood is intended to be developed with a mix of uses including medium and high-density residential. Lands within the mixed-use designation are intended primarily for housing, retailing of goods and services serving the needs of the surrounding neighbourhood, and offices and restaurants. The permitted residential density range for Mixed Corridors is over 30 units and up to and including 140 units per net hectare. A maximum Floor Space Index (FSI) of up to and including 2.5 is permitted. The proposed development will result in a density of 166 units per net hectare, which is not within the permissible density range. Therefore, an Official Plan Amendment is required to facilitate the proposal. An FSI of 1.36 is proposed. The following table outlines the maximum permissible and proposed density for the development. Units per Net Hectare Resulting in the total number of units The maximum permitted density by the City's Official Plan 140 units/ha 369 units Proposed Maximum Density 166 units/ha 439 units Difference between maximum permitted density and proposed density additional 26 units/ha additional 70 units 4.3 Duffin Heights Neighbourhood Policies and Development Guidelines The Duffin Heights Neighbourhood policies of the Pickering Official Plan require a broad mix of housing by form, location, size, and affordability within the neighbourhood. A new development is required to demonstrate how the proposal is consistent with the Duffin Heights Environmental Servicing Plan (ESP) to the satisfaction of the Region, City and the Toronto and Region Conservation Authority (TRCA). - 28 - Information Report 07-22 Page 6 For lands designated Mixed-Use Areas – Mixed Corridor: • require new development to provide a strong and identifiable urban image by establishing buildings closer to the street, providing safe and convenient pedestrian access, and requiring all buildings to be multi-storey; • require commercial development to provide a second storey functional floor space with three-storey massing; and • require higher intensity multi-unit housing forms on lands adjacent to Brock Road and restrict grade related residential development to lands adjacent to collector or local roads. As a condition of approval, the landowners are required to become a party to the cost-sharing agreement for Duffin Heights, or receive an acknowledgement from the Trustee of the Duffin Heights Landowners Group Inc., that the benefitting landowner has made satisfactory arrangements to pay its proportion of the shared development costs. The Duffin Heights Neighbourhood Development Guidelines provide design objectives for the neighbourhood. The Tertiary Plan identifies the lands as Brock Road Streetscape. The intent of the Guidelines is to further the objectives of the Official Plan and to achieve the following: • an accessible pedestrian-oriented residential area, distinct in character and harmonious with the larger neighbourhood; • a streetscape which is attractive, safe and encourages social interaction with the neighbourhood; • a central focus to the neighbourhood which is safe, lively and attractive; • a diversity of uses to support neighbourhood and City functions; and • a mix of housing types, forms, affordability and tenure on a variety of lot frontages. The applications will be assessed against the provisions of the Duffin Heights Neighbourhood policies and Development Guidelines during the further processing of the applications. 4.4 Zoning By-law 3037 The subject lands are currently zoned “A” – Rural Agricultural within Zoning By-law 3037, as amended. The lands are also subject to a site-specific Zoning By-law 2049/85, which permits the retail sale of agricultural products such as fruits and vegetables, including retail sale of ancillary confectionery and dairy products. It also permits a maximum 300 square metre building for retail sales, and includes site-specific parking provisions. A zoning by-law amendment is required to permit the proposed mixed-use development and to establish specific zone performance standards. 5. Comments Received 5.1 Public Comments • Request from Duffin Meadows Cemetery to be included on the interested parties list, but have not provided formal comments at the time of writing this report. - 29 - Information Report 07-22 Page 7 5.2 Agency Comments 5.2.1 Town of Ajax • Consider having a future trail network east of the proposed development that can be connected to the Town of Ajax's existing trail network, east of Urfe Creek. • Consider providing a wider landscape buffer near the south side of the subject site, to protect the existing vegetation. • The full Traffic Impact Study would be required to provide accurate comments regarding the impact of traffic on the Town of Ajax roads. However, the numbers for traffic generation provided in Planning Rationale should not affect Rossland Road, Kingston Road or Church Street significantly. 5.2.2 Durham District School Board • Staff has no objections. Students generated from this development will attend existing neighbourhood schools. 5.3.4 Region of Durham Planning and Public Works Department • No comments have been received at the time of writing this report. 5.3.4 Toronto and Region Conservation Authority • No comments have been received at the time of writing this report. 5.3 City Department Comments 5.3.1 Sustainability and Strategic Environmental Initiatives • The applicant has indicated the proposal would achieve a total of 57 points, which exceeds the minimum level 1 (19 points) required. • Beyond required guidelines to adhere to, the application also provides for additional features, such as including options for permeable paving for the surface parking lot, using native species for 75% of the proposed landscaped area, plans to minimize disruptive construction activity beyond the footprint area, re-creation of Barn Swallow nests, including electric vehicle charging in underground parking, and developing primarily the western half of the site to allow for optimal stormwater runoff to the east. 5.3.2 Fire Services • A fire hydrant will be required to be within 45m of the two Siamese connections, and it will be required to be on the same side of the street as the buildings. 5.3.3 Engineering Services • No comments have been received at the time of writing this report. - 30 - Information Report 07-22 Page 8 6. Planning & Design Section Comments The following is a summary of key concerns/issues or matters of importance raised to date. These matters, and others identified through the circulation and detailed review of the proposal, are required to be addressed by the applicant before a final recommendation report to Planning & Development Committee: • ensuring conformity with all applicable statutory policies of the Provincial Policy Statement, the Growth Plan for the Greater Golden Horseshoe, the Region of Durham and City of Pickering Official Plans, Neighbourhood policies and Development Guidelines; • assessing the appropriateness of the Official Plan Amendment to increase density; • evaluating the appropriateness of the proposed site layout, and building setbacks; • evaluating whether the south vehicular access to the site requires restricted movement; • reviewing the propose resident, visitor, commercial parking standards to ensure that sufficient parking is provided to support the proposal; • reviewing the massing and landscaping to ensure the City’s urban design objectives are achieved; • evaluating the design of the pedestrian connections within the site, and to the transit stop location(s); • evaluating the size and functionality of proposed outdoor amenity space; • assessing whether the size and configuration of the proposed private amenity space is appropriate for the proposed development; • ensuring the natural heritage features and the associated buffers are appropriately rezoned to an open space category; • ensuring Low Impact Development measures are appropriately designed and located to the satisfaction of the City and the TRCA; and • ensuring the applicant becomes a party to the cost-sharing agreement for Duffin Heights, or receives an acknowledgement from the Trustee of the Duffin Heights Landowners Group Inc., that the benefitting landowner has made satisfactory arrangements to pay its proportions of the shared development cost. Further issues may be identified following receipt and review of comments from the circulated departments, agencies and public. The City Development Department will conclude its position on the application after it has received and assessed comments from the circulated departments, agencies, and public. 7. Information Received Copies of the plans and studies submitted in support of the application(s) are listed below and available for viewing on the City’s website at pickering.ca/devapp or at the offices of the City of Pickering, City Development Department: • Planning and Urban Design Rationale, Draft Official Plan Amendment and Draft Zoning By-law Amendment prepared by Bousfields Inc., dated November 2021; • Colour Concept Plan prepared by Thincdesign, dated November 2021; - 31 - Information Report 07-22 Page 9 • Architectural Plans and Concept Site Plan, prepared by SRN Architects, dated June 2021; • Arborist Report, prepared by Beacon Environmental, dated October 2021; • Transportation Impact Study, prepared by LEA Consulting, dated November 2021; • Geo-Technical Site Analysis, prepared by Sola Engineering, dated August 2021; • Functional Servicing and Stormwater Management Report, prepared by IBI Group, dated November 2021; • Environmental Impact Study, prepared by Beacon Environmental, dated November 2021; • Hydrogeological and Water Budget Survey, prepared by Watermark Environmental Ltd., dated November 2021; • Erosion Sediment Plan, Site Grading Plan and Site Servicing plan, prepared by IBI Group, dated September 2021; • Phase One Environmental Assessment, prepared by CEGP Consultants Ltd., dated July 2021; • Phase Two Environmental Assessment, prepared by CEGP Consultants Ltd., dated July 2021; and • Noise Study, prepared by SLR Consulting (Canada) Ltd., dated October 2021. 8. Procedural Information 8.1 General • written comments regarding this proposal should be directed to the City Development Department; • oral comments may be made at the Electronic Statutory Public Meeting; • all comments received will be noted and used as input to a Planning Report prepared by the City Development Department for a subsequent meeting of Council or a Committee of Council; • any member of the public who wishes to reserve the option to appeal Council’s decision must provide comments to the City before Council adopts any by-law for this proposal; 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. 8.2 Official Plan Amendment Approval Authority • the Region of Durham may exempt certain local official plan amendments from Regional approval if such applications are determined to be locally significant, and do not exhibit matters of Regional and/or Provincial interest; and • at this time, the Region has not yet determined whether this official plan amendment application is exempt from Regional Approval. 9. Owner/Applicant Information The owner of the subject lands is 2465 Brock Road Development Inc., and the agent is Shakeel Walji, Sher Corporation. - 32 - Information Report 07-22 Page 10 Attachments: 1. Location Map 2. Air Photo Map 3. Submitted Concept Site Plan 4. Submitted Concept Renderings Prepared By: Original Signed By Elizabeth Martelluzzi, MCIP, RPP Senior Planner, Development Review & Heritage Original Signed By Nilesh Surti, MCIP, RPP Manager, Development Review & Urban Design Approved/Endorsed By: Original Signed By Catherine Rose, MCIP, RPP Chief Planner EM:NS:ld Date of Report: March 15, 2022 - 33 - Attachment #1 to Information Report 07-22 Southcott RoadRossland Road W CooteCourt Third Concession Road Br o c k R o a d C l e a r s i d e C ourt Palmer's Sawmill Road Four Seasons Lane © 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:Municipal Address: OPA 21-002/P, A13-21 Date: Nov. 30, 2021 ¯ E 2465 Brock Road Developments Inc.2465 Brock Road SubjectLands Hydro Lands L:\PLANNING\01-MapFiles\OPA\2021\OPA 21-002P, A 13-21 - 2465 Brock Road Developments Inc\OPA 21-002P_LocationMap.mxd 1:4,000 SCALE:THIS IS NOT A PLAN OF SURVEY. Hydro Lands - 34 - Attachment #2 to Information Report 07-22 Ca s t l e g a t e C r o s s i n g Rossland Road W Shining Star Chase Br o c k R o a d Hadrian Court Palmer's Sawmill Road Ma p l e H i l l C o u r t Moonbeam Glen SouthcottRoad William Jackson Drive Conacher C rescent F o u r S easons La n e Dersan Street CooteCo u rt Third Concession Road Clea r sid e C o u r t Liatris Drive 1:5,000 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 Air Photo MapFile:Applicant:Municipal Address: OPA 21 002/P, A 13/212465 Brock Road Development Inc.2465 Brock Road THIS IS NOT A PLAN OF SURVEY. Date: Mar. 07, 2022 SubjectLands L:\PLANNING\01-MapFiles\OPA\2021\OPA 21-002P, A 13-21 - 2465 Brock Road Developments Inc\OPA 21-002P_AirPhoto.mxd - 35 - Attachment #3 to Information Report 07-22 Submitted Concept Plan City Development Department March 7, 2022FULL SCALE COPIES OF THIS PLAN ARE AVAILABLE FOR VIEWING AT THE CITY OF PICKERING CITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT. OPA 21 002/P, A 13/21 2465 Brock Road Development Inc.Applicant: Municipal Address: DATE: File No: 2465 Brock Road L:\Planning\01-MapFiles\OPA\2021 N 17 Storey Residential Tower Use Podium 5 Storey Mixed- Residential Tower 17 Storey 8 Storey Seniors’ Residence Outdoor Amenity Space - 36 - Attachment #4 to Information Report 07-22 L:\Planning\01-MapFiles\OPA\2021 March 7, 2022DATE: Applicant: Municipal Address: File No: Submitted Conceptual Renderings FULL SCALE COPIES OF THIS PLAN ARE AVAILABLE FOR VIEWING AT THE CITY OF PICKERING CITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT. City Development Department OPA 21 002/P, A 13/21 2465 Brock Road Development Inc. 2465 Brock Road STREET LEVEL PERSPECTIVE - VIEW FROM THE NORTH WEST AERIAL PERSPECTIVE - VIEW FROM THE SOUTH EAST STREET LEVEL PERSPECTIVE - VIEW FROM THE NORTH EAST STREET LEVEL PERSPECTIVE - VIEW FROM THE EAST - 37 - Report to Planning & Development Committee Report Number: LEG 08-22 Date: March 17, 2022 From: Paul Bigioni Director, Corporate Services & City Solicitor Subject: 1185497 Ontario Limited – Plan of Subdivision 40M-1912 -Final Assumption of Plan of Subdivision -Lots 1 to 6, Plan 40M-1912 -Acorn Lane/Brock Road -File: 40M1912 Recommendation: 1.That works and services required by the Subdivision Agreement within Plan 40M-1912, 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 1185497 Ontario Limited be released from the provisions of the Subdivision Agreement and any amendments thereto relating to Plan 40M-1912; and 3.That the appropriate City of Pickering officials be authorized to take the actions necessary to implement the recommendations in this report. Executive Summary: The City entered into a Subdivision Agreement with the above-noted developer for the development of the lands within Plan 40M-1912. As all works and services within these plans have been completed to the satisfaction of City staff, it is appropriate to finalize the assumption of those works and services. Financial Implications: Not applicable. Discussion: The City entered into a Subdivision Agreement with the above-noted developer for the development of the lands within Plan 40M-1912. As the developer has now completed all of the works and services to the satisfaction of City staff, it is appropriate to: (a) assume the works and services within Plan 40M-1912; and (b) release 1185497 Ontario Limited from the provisions of the Subdivision Agreement with the City and any amendments related thereto, as it relates to Plan 40M-1912. -C~o/- Pl(KERlNG - 38 - LEG 08-22 March 17, 2022 Subject: Final Assumption of Plan of Subdivision 40M-1912 Page 2 Attachments: 1.Location Map – 40M-1912 Prepared By: Approved/Endorsed By: Chantelle Adair Paul Bigioni Law Clerk Director Corporate Services & City Solicitor PB:ca Recommended for the consideration of Pickering City Council Marisa Carpino, M.A. Chief Administrative Officer Recommendation approved: Chief Administrative Officer per: Director, City Development & CBO per: Director, Corporate Services & City Solicitor per: Director, Engineering Services per: Original Signed By:Original Signed By: Original Signed By: Original Signed Original Signed Original Signed Original Signed - 39 - Acorn Lane Car p e n t e r C o u r t Ca n s o D r i v e 1:2,000 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 Development Department Location MapFile:Applicant:Property Description: Subdivision Assumption 40M-1912 1185497 Ontario Limited Lots 1 to 6, 40M1912 THIS IS NOT A PLAN OF SURVEY. Date: Feb. 08, 2022 L:\PLANNING\01-MapFiles\Legal\SubdivisionCompletion\SubCompletion_40M1912.mxd Lot 1Lot 2Lot 3Lot 4Lot 5Lot 6 Attachment #1 to Report LEG 08-22_____ _,,,/ / ~/ / -----, L--/1/ ,.......___ --._.~ X ,rx")C-.; -o; • )c Ill :x .A.,. ....., ~ ~ ~ >C :X:X:X X - -04Jof- PICKERING I - 40 - Report to Planning & Development Committee Report Number: PLN 17-22 Date: April 4, 2022 From: Kyle Bentley Director, City Development & CBO Subject: Zoning By-law Amendment Application A 11/21 Universal City Seven Developments Inc. Southwest corner of Sandy Beach Road and future Celebration Drive (Part of Lot 21, Concession 1, Now Part 3 40R-30834) Recommendation: 1.That Zoning By-law Amendment Application A 11/21, submitted by Universal City Seven Developments Inc., to permit a 37-storey residential condominium building with approximately 482 residential units at the southwest corner of Sandy Beach Road and future Celebration Drive be approved, and that the draft Zoning By-law Amendment, as set out in Appendix I to Report PLN 17-22, be finalized and forwarded to Council for enactment; 2.That Zoning By-law Amendment Application A 11/21, to amend City Centre Zoning By-law 7553/17, as amended, to remove the “H6” Holding Symbol on lands being Part of Lot 21, Concession 1, Now Part 3 40R-30834, as set out in Appendix II to Report PLN 17-22, be finalized and forwarded to Council for enactment; 3.That prior to issuing Site Plan Approval, Universal City Seven Developments Inc. shall satisf y the City with a letter from the H6 Landowners’ Group acknowledging that the Owner has either entered into the Universal City Infrastructure Agreement and Cost Sharing Agreement, or the Owner has satisfied all financial obligations under the said Universal City Infrastructure Agreement and Cost Sharing Agreement; and 4.That Council grants an exemption in accordance with Section 45 (1.4) of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990; c. P.13 as amended, and permits the Committee of Adjustment to consider minor variance applications resulting from the processing of future site plan or building permit applications submitted by Universal City Seven Developments Inc., for the lands municipally know as Part of Lot 21, Concession 1, Now Part 3 40R-30834, before the second anniversary of the day on which an applicant-initiated zoning by-law amendment was enacted for the subject lands. Executive Summary: Universal City Seven Developments Inc. has submitted a Zoning By-law Amendment application to facilitate the construction of the 37-storey residential condominium building, consisting of 482 dwelling units, located at the southwest corner of Sandy Beach Road and future Celebration Drive (see Location Map, Attachment #1). - 41 - Report PLN 17-22 April 4, 2022 Subject: Universal City Seven Developments Inc. Page 2 Following the Statutory Public Meeting, the applicant made the following refinements to the proposal: slightly increased the total number of dwelling units from 472 to 482 units; relocated the stairs and air vents associated with the underground parking garage from the front yard to the interior side yard; proposed a site-specific zoning exception to permit a fence for noise attenuation purposes to exceed the maximum podium height of 20 metres; and proposed a site-specific zoning exception to marginally reduce the minimum indoor amenity space requirement from 2.0 square metres to 1.9 square metres per dwelling unit. In addition, through collaboration between the applicant and City staff, the applicant has increased the size of the privately-owned public space (POPS) from 213 square metres to 605 square metres, which is 11 percent of the total land area. The POPS will front future Celebration Drive and will be accessible to residents, visitors and members of the public. City Development staff are in support of the revised plan. The proposal conforms to the City’s Official Plan policies and density requirements. The proposed tower maintains a sufficient separation distance between adjacent towers, to ensure outlook, daylight access and privacy is maintained for residents of all buildings. The proposed increase in building height is not expected to have a significant shadow impact on the surrounding residential properties, or on the proposed public and private amenity spaces on site. The proposed architectural treatment of the building incorporates a wave articulation creating a signature design located at a key point of entry into the Universal City development. Staff will continue to work with the applicant to address any outstanding technical requirements through the Site Plan Approval process. Further, all conditions required for the removal of the “H6” Holding Symbol that applies to the subject property have been addressed to the satisfaction of the City of Pickering. Staff recommend that the “H6” Holding Symbol be lifted. In addition, staff recommend that Site Plan Approval for the proposed development only be issued upon the City receiving confirmation from the trustee of the H6 Landowners’ Group that Universal City Seven Developments Inc. has entered into the Universal City Infrastructure Agreement and Cost Sharing Agreement, which is a condition of the “H6” Holding Symbol. The proposed development will be subject to site plan approval, in which detailed design issues will be dealt with. Through the detailed design stage, minor refinements to the proposed building may be required. As such, staff recommend that Council grant an exemption in accordance with Section 45 (1.4) of the Planning Act to permit minor variance applications to be considered by the Committee of Adjustment, resulting from the processing of future site plan or building permit applications, within 2 years of the passing the zoning by-law. Staff recommend that the site-specific implementing by-law, containing the standards set out in Appendix I to this report, be finalized and brought before Council for enactment. Staff recommend that the draft by-law to remove the “H6” Holding Symbol that applies to the subject site, as set out in Appendix II to this report, be finalized and brought forward to Council for enactment. Financial Implications: No direct costs to the City are anticipated as a result of the proposed development. - 42 - Report PLN 17-22 April 4, 2022 Subject: Universal City Seven Developments Inc. Page 3 1.Background 1.1 Property Description The subject property is located north of Bayly Street, at the southwest corner of Sandy Beach Road and future Celebration Drive within the City Centre (see Location Map, Attachment #1). The site has an area of approximately 0.52 of a hectare, with approximately 45 metres of frontage along Sandy Beach Road and approximately 49 metres of frontage along future Celebration Drive. The site currently contains a surface parking lot that was formerly owned by Metrolinx to serve the Pickering GO Station. The surrounding land uses are as follows (see Air Photo Map, Attachment #2): North: Across future Celebration Drive is a surface parking lot owned by Metrolinx, which is currently being used for the Pickering GO Station. South: Immediately to the south is Universal City 6, with a building height of 27 storeys. An application for Site Plan Approval is currently under review, and final site plan approval is anticipated to be issued in the first quarter of 2022. East: Across Sandy Beach Road is an industrial building occupied by FedEx and further east are multi-tenant industrial buildings. West: To the west are Universal City 1, 2, and 3, with building heights ranging between 17 and 31 storeys. Site Plan Approval for Universal City 1 was granted in December 2020 and construction is now underway. Site Plan Approval for Universal City 2 was issued on March 3, 2022. A conditional building permit was previously issued for Universal City 2 to commence construction of footings, foundation and slab on grade, under slab and garage roof slab, above-grade structural walls and floor slabs, including plumbing within and below the parking garage. An application for Site Plan Approval has been submitted for Universal City 3, and final site plan approval is anticipated to be issued in the first quarter of 2022. 2.Applicant’s Proposal The applicant has applied for a Zoning By-law Amendment to facilitate the construction of a 37-storey residential condominium building with a 4-storey podium (see Submitted Conceptual Site Plan, Attachment #3, and Submitted Conceptual Renderings, Attachments #4, #5 and #6). Following the Statutory Public Meeting, the applicant made the following refinements to the proposal: •slightly increased the total number of dwelling units from 472 units to 482 units; •relocated the stairs and air vents associated with the underground parking garage from the front yard to the interior side yard; •proposed a site-specific zoning exception to permit a wall or fence for noise attenuation purposes to exceed the maximum podium height of 20 metres; and - 43 - Report PLN 17-22 April 4, 2022 Subject: Universal City Seven Developments Inc. Page 4 •proposed a site-specific zoning exception to marginally reduce the minimum indoor amenity space requirement from 2.0 square metres to 1.9 square metres per dwelling unit. In addition, through collaboration between the applicant and City staff, the applicant has increased the size of the outdoor at grade privately-owned public space (POPS) from 213 square metres to 605 square metres, which represents approximately 11 percent of the total land area. The POPS is located at the northwest corner of the site, fronting future Celebration Drive. The POPS will be publicly accessible to all residents, visitors and members of the public, but will be maintained and owned by the condominium corporation. This proposal will form Phase 7 of the Universal City development (see Universal City Master Plan, Attachment #7). The purpose of the zoning by-law amendment is to permit an increase to the maximum building height from 25 storeys to 37 storeys, and to permit other minor exceptions to the required zoning standards. Indoor amenity areas are provided within the ground floor, as well as an outdoor amenity area located at grade within the southern portion of the site and along the east property boundary. On Levels 2, 3 and 5, the applicant is proposing to include green roofs for environmental sustainability and stormwater management purposes. Additional indoor and outdoor amenity spaces are proposed on the fifth floor, including an outdoor swimming pool. Vehicular access to and from the site is proposed through a private driveway from future Celebration Drive. The private driveway provides access to the main pedestrian entrance located on the west side of the building, the surface visitor parking spaces, loading area, and entrance to the underground parking garage. Attachment #8 to this report summarizes the key statistical details of the proposal. This development will be subject to site plan approval. 3.Comments Received 3.1 January 10, 2022 Electronic Statutory Public Meeting and Written Comments An electronic Statutory Public Meeting was held on January 10, 2022. No residents spoke at the meeting. Before the public meeting, the City received 4 written comments from the public. The following is a list of key comments and concerns expressed by area residents in written submissions: •concerned with the proposed reduction of the minimum residential parking ratio, stating that because the area is under-serviced by public transit, and cycling is not a safe option, most residents will choose to drive and vehicle parking will overflow onto the GO Transit parking lots and adjacent residential streets; •in light of COVID-19, concerned that high-density structures impair the ability for independently supplied air and certifiable air purification in congregant spaces, specifically in elevators and stairwells; - 44 - Report PLN 17-22 April 4, 2022 Subject: Universal City Seven Developments Inc. Page 5 •concerned that the proposed increase to the maximum building height will result in privacy and overlook issues; •concerned with an increase in traffic as a result of the proposed development; and •requested the provision of temporary sound barrier walls to mitigate noise impact during construction. Key questions/comments raised by members of the Planning & Development Committee at the electronic Statutory Public Meeting include: •explore opportunities to provide a larger at-grade amenity space for future residents and the public, to accommodate outdoor activities such as pickle ball courts; •explore opportunities to make the proposed green roofs accessible to future residents for activities such as walking their dogs; •ensure sufficient commercial/retail space is being provided within the Universal City development and questioned what type of commercial/retail businesses are expected to serve future residents, visitors and the public; and •explore opportunities for designated parking spots for ride share companies to be included in the proposal. 3.2 Agency Comments 3.2.1 Region of Durham •no objections; •this application has demonstrated consistency and conformity with the applicable Provincial and Regional land use policies; •the applicant is required to submit a Record of Site Condition through the Ministry of the Environment, Conservation and Parks; •the Region will require an acknowledgement letter from the Ministry noting that the Record of Site Condition was filed into the Environmental Site Registry; and •this development application does not present any significant impacts from the perspectives of Regional servicing, transportation, and Durham Region Transit. 3.2.2 Toronto and Region Conservation Authority (TRCA) •no objections; and •the zoning by-law amendment is seeking amendments, which do not impact the TRCA’s policies or programs. 3.2.3 Durham Regional Police, Radio Systems – Communications •construction within the boundaries of the subject property will pose no immediate obstruction issue for the Region’s NextGen radio system and associated microwave links; •in-building radio coverage for First Responders may be an issue in the future if larger buildings are constructed on the subject property; and •larger and newly constructed buildings will have to be tested for in-building coverage once the buildings are completed. - 45 - Report PLN 17-22 April 4, 2022 Subject: Universal City Seven Developments Inc. Page 6 3.2.4 Ministry of Transportation (MTO) •no concerns; and •all MTO Building and Land Use Permits must be applied for prior to construction. 3.2.5 Durham Catholic District School Board •no objections; and •students from this development will attend either Father Fenelon Catholic Elementary School located at 795 Eyer Drive, or St. Mary Catholic Secondary School located at 1918 Whites Road in the City of Pickering. 3.2.6 Durham District School Board •no objections; and •students generated from this development will be accommodated in neighbourhood schools. 3.3 Comments from City Departments 3.3.1 Engineering Services •no objections to the proposed zoning by-law amendment application; and •technical matters related to grading, drainage, servicing, and landscaping will be addressed through the site plan approval process. 3.3.2 Sustainability •the submitted Revised Sustainable Development Report indicates the proposed development satisfies the required points, and achieves Level 2 with 46 optional points of the City’s current Sustainable Development Guidelines, which exceeds the required minimum of Level 1; •the applicant proposes the following optional sustainability measures to achieve Level 2 of the City’s Sustainable Development Guidelines: •integrating innovative elements (for example rainwater re-use); •use of native plant species for at least 50 percent of the landscaped area; •intensification within an Urban Growth Centre; •walkability; •location in proximity to higher-order transit facilities; •integrates greywater and/or stormwater systems to capture and reuse at least 25 percent of stormwater; and •heat island reduction through use of highly reflective roofing; •staff will be requesting further details from the proponent to confirm how the proposed sustainability measures have been, or will be, met through the site plan review process. - 46 - Report PLN 17-22 April 4, 2022 Subject: Universal City Seven Developments Inc. Page 7 4.Planning Analysis 4.1 The proposed development conforms to the Pickering Official Plan Policies The subject lands are designated “Mixed Use Areas – City Centre” within the Pickering Official Plan. This designation permits high-density residential uses, retailing of goods and services, offices and restaurants, hotels, convention centres, community, cultural and recreational uses, community gardens and farmers’ markets. The designation permits a minimum net residential density of 80 units per hectare and no maximum density; a maximum gross leasable floorspace for the retailing of goods and services of up to and including 300,000 square metres; and a maximum Floor Space Index of over 0.75 and up to and including 5.75. The City Centre Neighbourhood includes specific policies with respect to enhancements to the public realm; active uses at grade; performance criteria for tall buildings to minimize adverse impacts concerning shadowing, sky view, privacy, and transition to established low-density development; and pedestrian network and mobility. The proposed development contributes to the transformation of the City Centre into a more liveable, walkable and human-scaled neighbourhood by providing features such as: a publicly accessible park where people can gather; enhanced landscaping along Sandy Beach Road and future Celebration Drive; and pedestrian accesses to the site, indoor and outdoor amenity areas and the residential units at grade. In addition, the proposed tower provides adequate stepbacks and podium height to help create a human scale at street level and reduce shadow impacts. The tower provides sufficient spacing between adjacent buildings to ensure views and privacy for residents is maintained, and to minimize any shadowing and wind tunnel impacts on adjacent development, streets and public spaces. The proposal conforms to the policies within the Pickering Official Plan. 4.2 The requested increase in building height is consistent with the approved City Centre Urban Design Guidelines The applicant is proposing to increase the maximum building height from 77 metres (approximately 25 storeys) to 117 metres (37 storeys). The City Centre Urban Design Guidelines provide design direction for intensification, to guide buildings and private development. The proposed 37-storey residential building maintains the key urban design objections of the Guidelines by: •locating the building along the street edge and at the corner of the property to create an active and attractive streetscape; •providing a high-quality architectural design at the key intersection of Sandy Beach Road and future Celebration Drive; •articulating the building face through recessions, projections and change of materials; •providing appropriate screening and buffering through landscaping for the residential units at grade; - 47 - Report PLN 17-22 April 4, 2022 Subject: Universal City Seven Developments Inc. Page 8 •providing sufficient separation distances between adjacent towers, to ensure outlook, daylight access and privacy for residents; •locating the tower portion of the building closer to the street corner, which provides greater separation from adjacent towers and allows for greater infiltration of light onto the amenity areas; •creating weather protection at the building main entrance and for pedestrians along Sandy Beach Road and future Celebration Drive through architectural design (waved design of balconies and awnings); •locating surface parking and loading spaces within the interior side yard of the building, and waste and recycling facilities within the building; •providing short-term bicycle parking at grade and close to the building main entrance, as well as bicycle parking within the building and underground parking garage; •designing the building with a defined base, middle and top sections to emphasize human-scale dimensions, reduce the appearance of bulk and create an interesting skyline; and •providing outdoor amenity spaces at grade and green roofs, resulting in the site having approximately 38 percent landscaped coverage. The intersection of Sandy Beach Road and future Celebration Drive acts as a key community gateway, providing a point of entry into the Universal City development. The combination of the proposed building height and the high-quality architectural design will ensure a visually prominent building that creates a distinct street corner. The City Centre Neighbourhood policies encourage the highest of buildings to locate on sites along or in proximity to Highway 401 and higher-order transit stations. The site is located within approximately 200 metres of Highway 401, and 500 metres of the Pickering GO Station and 7 Durham Region Transit bus stops. The tower portion of the proposed building maintains a minimum separation distance of approximately 50 metres to the adjacent tower to the west (Universal City 2), and 47 metres to the tower to the south (Universal City 6), which will ensure outlook, daylight access and privacy is maintained for residents of all the buildings. In addition, based on the submitted shadow study, the proposed building is not expected to cast shadows beyond Bayly Street, and will therefore not impact the low-density residential dwellings located on the south side of Bayly Street. - 48 - Report PLN 17-22 April 4, 2022 Subject: Universal City Seven Developments Inc. Page 9 An area resident expressed concerns related to privacy and overlook affecting the low- density residential dwellings to the south, as a result of the proposed increase to the maximum building height. In response to these comments, the applicant has provided a pedestrian view of the proposed building from the south side of Bayly Street, where the existing low-density dwellings are located (see Figure 1). The view of the proposed 37-storey building will be substantially blocked by UC 6. The additional building height will not be visible to the average pedestrian standing on the south side of Bayly Street. In addition, the applicant has indicated that the building has been located towards the northern edge of the property, to achieve the largest separation distance between the high-density development and the low-density dwellings (approximately 100 metres). Staff support the applicant’s request to increase the maximum building height. Through the site plan review process, staff will continue to ensure the site design and architectural treatment of the building is consistent with the City Centre Urban Design Guidelines. Figure 1: View of the proposed building from the south side of Bayly Street 4.3 Adequate parking is provided for the future residents of Universal City 7 The proposed development includes a total of 321 residential parking spaces and 73 visitor spaces. The City Centre Zoning By-law requires a minimum of 0.8 spaces per dwelling unit and an additional 0.15 spaces per dwelling unit for visitors. The applicant is requesting to amend the residential parking rate from 0.8 spaces to 0.65 spaces per dwelling unit, which is a reduction in the required parking by 65 spaces. The proposal also includes 242 indoor and outdoor bicycle parking spaces, and is close to the Pickering GO Station (approximate 9-minute walk) and at least 7 Durham Region Transit bus stops. - 49 - Report PLN 17-22 April 4, 2022 Subject: Universal City Seven Developments Inc. Page 10 To support the proposed reduction in residential parking, the applicant has submitted a Transportation Brief, prepared by BA Group. The Brief identified that the proposed reduction is appropriate, for the following reasons: •the reduction is based on the parking sales trend observed for Universal City 1, 2 and 3, which saw an overall parking demand of 0.71 spaces per unit, and to date Universal City 6 has seen an overall parking demand of 0.58 spaces per unit; •recent residential buildings within the Greater Toronto Area have received parking reduction approvals when located in proximity to an existing transit hub; •the reduction is consistent with Ontario’s New Five Year Climate Change Action Plan, which supports reduced single-passenger vehicle trips, eliminating minimum parking requirements (especially in transit corridors), and supports cycling, walking and use of transit; •the proposed development has access to many non-automobile modes of travel, including the Pickering GO Train, GO Regional bus services and multiple Durham Region bus services; and •the implementation of sustainable Transportation Demand Management (TDM) measures for all Universal City phases, to reduce overall reliance on single- occupancy vehicles while promoting more active modes of transportation, by: •providing sidewalks and cycling routes along all new public and private streets within the project area, including along future Celebration Drive; •allowing purchasers to only pay for the amount of parking they require; and •advertising the different modes of transportation available (i.e., Go Transit, indoor bicycle lockers). In addition, the Durham Regional Official Plan (DROP) identifies the site as being within a Commuter Station Area for the Pickering GO Station. The DROP indicates that in support of existing and future transit services, development adjacent to transportation hubs shall provide for facilitates that support non-automobile modes of travel, including walkways, trails and other pedestrian and cycling facilities; limited surface parking; and the potential redevelopment of existing surface parking. During the statutory public meeting, Committee members encouraged the applicant to explore opportunities for designated parking spots for ride share companies to be included in the proposal. The applicant has indicated that opportunities to provide parking spaces for ride-share companies to benefit the entire Universal City development are being explored and will be dependent on a suitable ride-share company wanting to operate in the area. Staff support the applicant’s request to reduce the minimum parking ratio, which is consistent with the City Centre objective to create a pedestrian-focused neighbourhood and support alternative modes of travel. The applicant has also demonstrated the appropriateness of a reduced ratio through previous phases that have requested a reduced ratio, based on the demand for parking spaces. The proposed parking ratio is appropriate to accommodate the parking needs for this development. - 50 - Report PLN 17-22 April 4, 2022 Subject: Universal City Seven Developments Inc. Page 11 4.4 Requested site-specific zoning exemptions The subject lands are zoned “City Centre Two – CC2” within the City Centre By-law 7553/17, as amended. Uses permitted include a broad range of residential and non-residential uses, such as apartment dwellings, townhouse dwellings, commercial, office, retail, community, recreational and institutional uses. The City Centre Zoning By-law also includes various requirements for building setback, podium heights for tall buildings, size of the tower floor plate, building separation, building setbacks, landscaping, indoor and outdoor amenity requirements, and vehicular and bicycle parking. In addition to the applicant’s request to increase the maximum building height and reduce the residential parking rate, the applicant is also requesting the following technical site-specific exceptions: • remove the main wall stepback requirement, whereas the by-law requires a minimum main wall stepback of 3.0 metres between the top 6.0 and 18.0 metres of a point tower for buildings equal to and greater than 73.5 metres (approximately 24 storeys); • permit a minimum balcony size requirement of 4.0 square metres (see Figure 2 below), whereas the by-law requires a minimum balcony depth of 1.5 metres; Figure 2: Example of proposed waved balconies • slightly reduce the minimum required continuous length of a building along a street line from 60 percent of the street frontage to 55 percent; • reduce the minimum width requirement for a landscaped area between a surface parking area and an existing residential development from 3.0 metres wide to 0.6 metres wide; • slightly reduce the minimum indoor amenity space requirement from 2.0 square metres to 1.9 square metres per dwelling unit; and • permit structures used for noise attenuation to exceed the maximum podium height of 20.0 metres. - 51 - Report PLN 17-22 April 4, 2022 Subject: Universal City Seven Developments Inc. Page 12 The purpose of the exceptions to the main wall stepback and balcony depth requirement is to create a distinctive architectural design, which is achieved through a podium and tower stepback, and stepbacks on the upper floors. In addition, the tower features a waved balcony design which further articulates the building face. The purpose of reducing the length of the building along the street line is to maximize the size of the privately-owned public space fronting future Celebration Drive. The exception to the width of the landscaped area is required due to the irregular shape of the parcel, which creates a reduced landscaped area along the west property line between the surface parking on the site and the landscaped area on the adjacent Universal City 2 site. The slight reduction to the indoor amenity space is to accommodate a larger privately-owned outdoor public space on the site. The proposal includes 935 square metres of indoor amenity space, whereas the exception accounts for a reduction of 48.2 square metres of indoor amenity space. The purpose of the noise attenuation structures on the podium is to ensure a comfortable environment for residents using the outdoor amenity space located on the podium. Staff are supportive of the requested exceptions. 4.5 Proposed road network will adequately accommodate the traffic generated by the Universal City Master Plan In 2019, the applicant submitted a comprehensive Transportation Master Plan (TMP), prepared by BA Group, for the entire Universal City development, in support of the Universal City Precinct Plan. This Plan was approved by Council in December 2019. At the time, the subject site was owned by Metrolinx, and was not considered part of the Universal City development. As such, the TMP identified the site as Parcel I of adjacent Metrolinx lands, with an estimated residential development of 493 units. As part of this rezoning application, the applicant has submitted a Transportation Brief, prepared by BA Group, to revise the findings of the TMP to reflect the proposed development on the lands and to ensure the development will have no negative traffic impacts on the road network. Currently, the intersection of Bayly Street and Sandy Beach Road functions below capacity, and site-generated traffic volumes will require modest signal timing improvements in the future (increase signal timing during peak hours from 100 seconds to 120 seconds). The study anticipates that by 2037, the Universal City development will be fully built, along with Durham Live. To accommodate the anticipated traffic volumes, Bayly Street will need to be widened to 6 or 7 lanes. Staff are supportive of the recommended improvements, and have no concerns with the projected traffic generated by the proposed development. 4.6 Enlarged privately-owned public space to be provided on-site At the statutory public meeting, Committee members requested that the applicant explore opportunities to provide a larger at-grade amenity space for future residents and the public. Through collaboration between the applicant and City staff, the applicant has revised the proposal to increase the at-grade green space from 213 square metres to 605 square metres, representing 11 percent of the total site area. The privately-owned - 52 - Report PLN 17-22 April 4, 2022 Subject: Universal City Seven Developments Inc. Page 13 public space (POPS) is located at the northwest corner of the site, fronting future Celebration Drive, and will be publicly accessible to residents, visitors and members of the public. Programming and detailed design of the POPS will be confirmed through the site plan review process. However, the applicant has prepared a preliminary conceptual plan for the space (see Figure 3 below). In addition, the applicant will be providing cash-in-lieu of parkland to satisfy parkland dedication requirements within the Planning Act. Figure 3: Submitted Conceptual Park Plan In addition, the Universal City Master Plan includes a 1,450 square metre public piazza to be conveyed to the City for future residents of the Universal City development, located north of future Celebration Drive. The plan below (Figure 4) shows the location of the POPS in relation to the proposed public piazza. In addition, each building within the Universal City Development will have dedicated outdoor and indoor amenity areas, including outdoor pools, party rooms, and green roofs. - 53 - Report PLN 17-22 April 4, 2022 Subject: Universal City Seven Developments Inc. Page 14 Figure 4: Proposed parkland within the Universal City Development During the statutory public meeting, Committee members encouraged the applicant to explore opportunities to make the proposed green roofs accessible to future residents. The applicant has indicated that the purpose of the green roofs is for environmental sustainability and to form part of the building’s stormwater management facilities. As such, the green roofs are unable to be accessible to residents. 4.7 Sufficient commercial space will be provided for residents within the Universal City development At the statutory public meeting, Committee members requested confirmation that there is sufficient commercial/retail space provided within the Universal City development to serve future residents, visitors and the public. The proposed development does not include commercial space on site. Universal City 1, 2 and 3 include a total of approximately 948 square metres of grade-related commercial space. Within Universal City 4 and 5, 842 square metres of grade-related commercial space is proposed, resulting in a total of approximately 1,790 square metres of commercial/retail space within the entire Universal City development. The applicant has indicated that the commercial space is located in proximity to the proposed public piazza, in order to ensure the commercial uses are viable and will have the best exposure to all residents within the overall development. - 54 - Report PLN 17-22 April 4, 2022 Subject: Universal City Seven Developments Inc. Page 15 In addition, Committee members questioned what type of commercial/retail businesses are expected to operate within the Universal City development. The applicant has indicated that though commercial tenants cannot be confirmed until closer to occupancy dates, it is the applicant’s intent to secure the largest range of commercial tenants to benefit future residents. Staff are satisfied that sufficient commercial space will be provided within the Universal City development to provide convenient services for future residents, visitors and the public. 4.8 The building’s heating, ventilation and air conditioning system (HVAC) system will comply with all applicable regulations within the Ontario Building Code An area resident expressed concerns related to high-density structures impairing the ability for independently supplied air and certifiable air purification in congregant spaces, specifically in elevators and stairwells. The applicant has indicated that the proposed HVAC system for the building will comply with all applicable regulations within the Ontario Building Code, to ensure the supplied air and air purification within the building is acceptable. 4.9 Exemption to the 2 year time-out period for minor variance applications Bill 73, the Smart Growth for Our Communities Act, 2015, amended the Planning Act by removing the ability for an applicant to apply for a minor variance for 2 years following the passing of an applicant-initiated zoning by-law amendment. However, the Planning Act changes also permit a municipal Council to allow minor variance applications to proceed on a case-by-case basis by Council resolution. The Province indicated that the intent of the amendment is to prevent, for a 2 year period, zoning provisions that Council determines to be important from being reversed through the minor variance process. The proposed development will be subject to site plan approval, in which detailed design issues will be dealt with. This includes matters such as, but not limited to: refining building design and materials; finalizing landscaping; controlling drainage and grading; and detailing site servicing. Through the detailed design stage, minor refinements to the proposed building may be required. As such, staff recommend that Council grant an exemption in accordance with Section 45 (1.4) of the Planning Act to permit minor variance applications to be considered by the Committee of Adjustment resulting from the processing of future site plan or building permit applications. 4.10 Conditions of the “H6” Holding Symbol are satisfied Within the City Centre By-law 7553/17, as amended, the site is subject to an “H6” Holding Symbol, which requires the following conditions to be satisfied before the holding symbol is lifted: •a block development plan (also referred to as a Precinct Plan), approved by City Council, has been prepared to demonstrate the orderly development of the lands providing details regarding such matters as: street and block pattern; pedestrian, - 55 - Report PLN 17-22 April 4, 2022 Subject: Universal City Seven Developments Inc. Page 16 landscape and open space connections; parking strategy; community uses such as parks, community centres and other public uses; conservation and enhancement of natural features; public and private street right-of-way design; and phasing of the proposed development; •a comprehensive transportation study has been conducted to assess the impact on the transportation system and appropriate road infrastructure is in place to support the development of the lands; •cost-sharing agreements for matters such as community uses, public parks, municipal roads and infrastructure, are made between the participating landowners; •an Environmental Impact Study and a detailed engineering design and restoration plan for the rehabilitation of the Krosno Creek valley corridor has been completed to the satisfaction of the City of Pickering and the Toronto and Region Conservation Authority; and •the execution of an Agreement to ensure that the restored and rehabilitated Krosno Creek valley corridor, to include 6.0 metres from the long-term stable top of bank, will be conveyed into public ownership upon completion of the works, to the satisfaction of the City of Pickering. As part of this rezoning application, the applicant is requesting to remove the “H6” Holding Symbol that applies to the property. The conditions of the “H6” Holding Symbol have been addressed by the applicant, as follows: •City Council approved the Universal City Precinct Plan, prepared by Weston Consulting, in December of 2019; •a comprehensive Transportation Master Plan, prepared by BA Group, was submitted to the City for the entire Universal City development, in support of the Universal City Precinct Plan; the Precinct Plan was received and accepted by the Region of Durham and the City as part of the Universal City Precinct Plan review; •the applicant has provided confirmation from the trustee of the H6 Landowners’ Group that Universal City Seven Developments Inc. has initiated the process to be added as a party to the Universal City Infrastructure Agreement and Cost Sharing Agreement, and that the trustee does not object to the “H6” Holding Symbol being lifted; •a Scoped Environmental Impact Study, prepared by Savanta Inc., which assessed the potential impacts of the proposed development on the natural heritage features and associated functions, has been received and accepted by the Toronto and Region Conservation Authority (TRCA) and the City as part of the Universal City Precinct Plan review; •detailed engineering design and restoration plans for the rehabilitation of the Krosno Creek valley corridor, prepared by Geomorfix and Schaeffers, has been reviewed and approved by the TRCA and the City; and •the executed Master Development Agreement secures for the conveyance of the Krosno Creek valley corridor prior to issuance of site plan approval for Universal City 3 and 4. - 56 - Report PLN 17-22 April 4, 2022 Subject: Universal City Seven Developments Inc. Page 17 All of the conditions required for the removal of the “H6” Holding Symbol from the subject site have been addressed to the satisfaction of the City of Pickering. Staff recommend that the “H6” Holding Symbol that applies to the property be lifted. In addition, staff recommend that Site Plan Approval for the proposed development only be issued upon the City receiving written confirmation from the trustee of the H6 Landowners’ Group that Universal City Seven Developments Inc. has become a party to the Universal City Infrastructure Agreement and the Cost Sharing Agreement, or has satisfied all financial obligations under the said Universal City Infrastructure Agreement and Cost Sharing Agreement. 4.11 Technical matters will be addressed through site plan approval Detailed design issues will be dealt with through the site plan approval process. These requirements will address matters such as, but not limited to: • refining building design and materials; • finalizing landscaping; • detailed design of the privately-owned public space; • requiring construction management/erosion and sediment controls; • controlling drainage and grading; and • detailing site servicing. 5. Zoning By-law to be finalized and forwarded to Council for enactment The applicant is requesting site-specific exceptions to facilitate the development of a high-density residential condominium building. Staff support the rezoning application and recommend that By-law 7553/17 be amended to permit the site-specific exceptions. Staff recommend that the site-specific implementing by-law, containing the standards set out in Appendix I to this report, be finalized and brought before Council for enactment. As discussed in Section 4.10 of this report, staff support the request to remove the “H6” Holding Symbol, and recommend that the draft by-law to remove the “H6” Holding Symbol that applies to the property, as set out in Appendix II to this report, be finalized and brought forward to Council for enactment. Further, staff recommend that Council grant an exemption in accordance with Section 45 (1.4) of the Planning Act to permit minor variance applications to be considered by the Committee of Adjustment resulting from the processing of future site plan or building permit applications. 6. Applicant’s Comments The applicant has been advised of and concurs with the recommendations of this report. - 57 - Report PLN 17-22 April 4, 2022 Subject: Universal City Seven Developments Inc. Page 18 Appendices Appendix I Recommended Zoning By-law Provisions for Zoning By-law Amendment Application A 11/21 Appendix II Recommended Draft Zoning By-law to Remove the “H6” Holding Symbol A 11/21 Attachments: 1. Location Map 2. Air Photo Map 3. Submitted Conceptual Site Plan 4. Submitted Conceptual Rendering – Facing Southwest 5. Submitted Conceptual Rendering – Facing Northwest 6. Submitted Conceptual Rendering – North Podium Face 7. Universal City Master Plan 8. Summary of Key Details of Proposal Prepared By: Original Signed By Isabel Lima (Acting) Planner II 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 IL:NS:ld Recommended for the consideration of Pickering City Council Original Signed By Marisa Carpino, M.A. Chief Administrative Officer - 58 - Appendix I to Report PLN 17-22 Recommended Zoning By-law Provisions for Zoning By-law Amendment A 11/21 - 59 - The Corporation of the City of Pickering Draft By-law No. XXXX/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, Part of Lot 21, Concession 1, Now Part 3 40R-30834, in the City of Pickering (A 11/21) Whereas the Council of The Corporation of the City of Pickering deems it desirable to permit a high-density residential condominium building on lands being Part of Lot 21, Concession 1, Now Part 3 40R-30834, 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 E16 as follows: 6.16.1 Zone Provisions The following regulations apply: a) Notwithstanding Section 4.2 b) ii) and Schedule 5, related to Maximum Building Height, the height of a building or structure shall not exceed a building height of 117 metres (37-storeys). b) Notwithstanding Section 3.1, Table 1, related to Parking Space Requirements, the minimum parking ratio shall be 0.65 parking spaces per apartment dwelling unit for residents, and 0.15 parking spaces per apartment dwelling unit for visitors. c) Notwithstanding Section 4.2 j) i) and ii) related to Minimum Main Wall Stepback for Buildings greater than 37.5 metres and buildings equal to and greater than 73.5 metres, the minimum main wall stepback shall not apply. d) Notwithstanding Section 4.2 k) i) related to Balcony Requirements, the minimum area of a balcony is 4 square metres. e) Notwithstanding Section 4.2 l), related to Continuous Length of Buildings along a Street Line, a minimum 55 percent of the street frontage of a lot along Celebration Drive must be occupied by a building. f) Notwithstanding Section 3.7 b), related to Surface Parking Spaces, a minimum 0.6 metre wide landscaped area shall be required and permanently maintained between the west lot line and the parking spaces or aisles. g) Notwithstanding Section 4.2 o) i) related to Amenity Space Requirements for Apartment Dwellings, a minimum of 1.9 square metres of indoor amenity space is required per apartment dwelling unit. h) Notwithstanding Section 4.2 f) ii) related to Podium Requirements for Buildings greater than 37.5 metres, structures on the podium for noise attenuation purposes may exceed the maximum podium height of 20.0 metres. - 60 - By-law No. XXXX/22 Page 2 2. Schedule 7, Exceptions, of Zoning By-law 7553/17, as amended, is further amended by adding an E16 notation as depicted on Schedule I to this By-law. 3. 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. 4. That this By-law shall come into force in accordance with the provisions of the Planning Act. By-law passed this XX day of XXXX, 2022. ___________________________________ ___________________________________ Draft David Ryan, Mayor Draft Susan Cassel, City Clerk - 61 - Bayly Street Sa n d y B e a c h R o a d Alliance Road Reytan Boulevard Clerk Mayor Schedule I to By-LawPassed ThisDay of N XXXX/22XXth XXXX 2022 E16 Highway 401 Kros n o B o u l e v a r d - 62 - Appendix II to Report PLN 17-22 Recommended Draft Zoning By-law to Remove the “H6” Holding Symbol A 11/21 - 63 - The Corporation of the City of Pickering Draft By-law No. XXXX/22 Being a By-law to amend Zoning By-law 7553/17, as amended, to remove the holding provision “H6” (A 11/21) Whereas Section 34 of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c.P.13, as amended, permits a Council to pass a by-law prohibiting the use of land, buildings or structures within a defined area or areas; Whereas Section 36 of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c.P.13, as amended, permits a Council to pass a by-law to specify the use to which lands, buildings or structures may be put at such time in the future as the hold symbol is removed by amendment to the by-law; Whereas Zoning By-law 7553/17 is the governing By-law of The Corporation of the City of Pickering pertaining to the subject lands; Whereas the Council of the Corporation of the City of Pickering has deemed it advisable to amend Zoning By-law 7553/17; Whereas it has been confirmed to Council that all of the conditions required for the removal of the H6 Holding Symbol from the subject lands have been addressed to the satisfaction of the City; and Now therefore the Council of The Corporation of the City of Pickering enacts as follows: 1.That By-law 7553/17 is hereby further amended as follows: 1.1 Schedule 8 of By-law 7553/17, as amended, is further amended by removing the “H6” Holding symbol for the lands outlined on Schedule I attached hereto. 2.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 as it applies to the area set out in Schedule I attached hereto. 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. 3.That this By-law shall come into force in accordance with the provisions of the Planning Act. By-law passed this XX day of XXXX, 2022. ___D___raft_____ ________________________ _______________________ David Ryan, Mayor Susan Cassel, City Clerk D___raft________ _ - 64 - Bayly Street Sa n d y B e a c h R o a d Highway 401 Poprad Avenue Alliance Road Reytan Boulevard Clerk Mayor Schedule I to By-LawPassed ThisDay of N XXXX/22XXth XXXX 2022 RemoveH6HoldSymbol 66m 78 m 78 m 66m Kros n o B o u l e v a r d H6 H6 - 65 - Attachment #1 to Report #PLN 17-22 K r o s n o B o u l e v a r d Drava Street Bayly Street R e y t a n B o u l e v a r d Tatra Dri ve Sa n d y B e a c h R o a d Morden Lan e G l e n a n n a R o a d Poprad A v e n u e Pickering Park w a y Al l i a n c e R o a d Fordon A ve n u e Highway 401 MitchelPark City DevelopmentDepartment Location MapFile:Applicant:Property Description: A 11/21 Date: Mar. 11, 2022 Universal City Seven Developments Inc Future Celebration Drive Part of Lot 21, Concession 1, Now Part 3 40R-30834 SubjectLands L:\PLANNING\01-MapFiles\A\2021\A 11-21 - UC7\A11_21_LocationMap.mxd 1:4,000 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. Bayview HeightsPublic School Sa n d y B e a c h R o a d Al l i a n c e R o a d - 66 - Attachment #2 to Report #PLN 17-22 Tatra Drive Regan Place K r o s n o B o u l e v a r d R e y t a n B o u l e v a r d D r a v a Street Sandy Beac h Roa d Morden Lan e Bayly Street Al l i a n c e R o a d G l e n a n n a R o a d Pickering Park w a y Garvolin Avenue Poprad Avenue Fordon Avenue Highway 401 Air Photo MapFile:Applicant: Date: Mar. 11, 2022 L:\PLANNING\01-MapFiles\A\2021\A 11-21 - UC7\A11_21_AirPhoto.mxd 1:5,000 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. City DevelopmentDepartment SubjectLands A 11/21Universal City Seven Developments IncPart of Lot 21, Concession 1, Now Part 3 40R-30834Property Description: Celebration Drive Bayview HeightsPublic School - 67 - Attachment #3 to Report #PLN 17-22 Submitted Revised Site Plan City Development Department March 11, 2022FULL SCALE COPIES OF THIS PLAN ARE AVAILABLE FOR VIEWING AT THE CITY OF PICKERING CITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT. A 11/21 Universal City Seven Developments Inc.Applicant: Property Description: DATE: File No: Part of Lot 21, Concession 1, Now Part 3 40R-30834 L:\Planning\01-MapFiles\A\2021 - 68 - Attachment #4 to Report #PLN 17-22 Submitted Conceptual Rendering - Facing Southwest City Development Department March 11, 2022FULL SCALE COPIES OF THIS PLAN ARE AVAILABLE FOR VIEWING AT THE CITY OF PICKERING CITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT. A 11/21 Universal City Seven Developments Inc.Applicant: Property Description: DATE: File No: Part of Lot 21, Concession 1, Now Part 3 40R-30834 L:\Planning\01-MapFiles\A\2021 - 69 - Attachment #5 to Report #PLN 17-22 Submitted Conceptual Rendering - Facing Northwest City Development Department March 11, 2022FULL SCALE COPIES OF THIS PLAN ARE AVAILABLE FOR VIEWING AT THE CITY OF PICKERING CITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT. A 11/21 Universal City Seven Developments Inc.Applicant: Property Description: DATE: File No: Part of Lot 21, Concession 1, Now Part 3 40R-30834 L:\Planning\01-MapFiles\A\2021 - 70 - Attachment #6 to Report #PLN 17-22 L:\Planning\01-MapFiles\A\2021 March 11, 2022DATE: Applicant: Property Description: File No: Submitted Conceptual Rendering - North Podium Face FULL SCALE COPIES OF THIS PLAN ARE AVAILABLE FOR VIEWING AT THE CITY OF PICKERING CITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT. City Development Department A 11/21 Part of Lot 21, Concession 1, Now Part 3 40R-30834 Universal City Seven Developments Inc. - 71 - Attachment #7 to Report #PLN 17-22 Universal City Master Plan City Development Department March 11, 2022FULL SCALE COPIES OF THIS PLAN ARE AVAILABLE FOR VIEWING AT THE CITY OF PICKERING CITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT. A 11/21 Universal City Seven Developments Inc.Applicant: Property Description: DATE: File No: Part of Lot 21, Concession 1, Now Part 3 40R-30834 L:\Planning\01-MapFiles\A\2021 - 72 - Attachment #8 to Report #PLN 17-22 Summary of Key Details of Proposal (A 11/21) Proposal Total Area of Land 0.52 of a hectare Gross Floor Area (GFA) 34,505 square metres Net Floor Area (NFA) 29,663 square metres Number of Residential Units 482 residential units Floor Space Index (FSI) 5.75 Tower Floor Plate Size 840.4 square metres Number of Storeys and Building Heights 37 storeys 116.3 metres Unit Types 1 Bedroom: 157 units 1 Bedroom plus Den: 170 units 2 Bedroom: 104 units 2 Bedroom plus Den: 39 units 3 Bedroom: 12 units Vehicular Parking Resident – 321 spaces at a minimum ratio of 0.65 parking spaces per unit Visitor – 73 spaces at a ratio of 0.15 parking spaces per unit Total – 394 spaces Bicycle Parking 242 spaces at a ratio of 0.5 spaces per unit Private Amenity Area Indoor – 935 square metres Outdoor – 964 square metres Total – 1,899 square metres Privately-Owned Public Space 605 square metres - 73 - Report to Planning & Development Committee Report Number: PLN 18-22 Date: April 4, 2022 From: Kyle Bentley Director, City Development & CBO Subject: Envision Durham – Identifying a Regional Natural Heritage System -The Region of Durham Municipal Comprehensive Review -File: A-2100-020 Recommendation: 1.That Council support the draft Regional Natural Heritage System (RNHS) for the new Regional Official Plan and endorse staff’s comments contained in Report PLN 18-22. Executive Summary: On March 1, 2022, the Regional Municipality of Durham released a report regarding the mapping of a draft Regional Natural Heritage System (RNHS) for the new Regional Official Plan as part of Envision Durham – the Region’s comprehensive review of its Official Plan. A copy of the Commissioner of Planning and Economic Development’s Report 2022-P-7 and accompanying attachments, are provided as Attachment #1 to this report. City staff recommend that the comments in bold contained in Section 3 of this report be endorsed as the City comments on the draft Regional NHS mapping, in relation to lands within the City of Pickering. Financial Implications: The recommendations of this report do not present any financial implications to the City of Pickering. Discussion: 1.Purpose The purpose of this report is to obtain Council’s endorsement of staff’s comments on the Region of Durham’s draft mapping of the Regional Natural Heritage System (RNHS), released as part of Envision Durham, the Municipal Comprehensive Review of the Regional Official Plan (ROP). 2.Background The Region of Durham, as part of its review of the ROP, is required to bring its plan in conformity with provincial plans (the Growth Plan, the Greenbelt Plan, the Oak Ridges Moraine Conservation Plan, and the Central Pickering Development Plan), and to ensure consistency with the Provincial Policy Statement (PPS). Currently, the ROP identifies Key Natural Heritage and Hydrologic Features, and Natural Core Areas and Natural Linkage Areas on the Oak Ridges Moraine, but not as a system of features. The Province requires the identification of a RNHS in the Regional Official Plan, capturing all the identified features and linkages into a holistic, integrated NHS. - 74 - Report PLN 18-22 April 4, 2022 Subject: Envision Durham – Identifying a Regional Natural Heritage System Page 2 The identification of a RNHS stems from the PPS requirement of a system-based approach to natural heritage planning instead of a features-based approach. Further, A Place to Grow: Growth Plan for the Greater Golden Horseshoe, requires the Growth Plan Natural Heritage System to be included as an overlay with supporting policies in official plans. The Region’s Report 2022-P-7, released in association with the draft RNHS (see Attachment #1), provides a more comprehensive explanation of the basis for the draft RNHS, and it also discusses: • the Region’s approach to gathering the various data sets to inform the draft RNHS; • how the NHS will be displayed in the ROP and the geographic context of the RNHS within the Rural Area, Urban Area, and “W hitebelt” lands; • the identification of “Enhancement Opportunity Areas” proposed by Durham’s conservation authorities (that are not part of the NHS); • a number of proposed key policy directions, to be further detailed in the draft ROP; and • how the RNHS can be implemented and used by area municipalities, conservation authorities and land owners. The Region’s report also highlights the inclusion of the Growth Plan NHS, which covers areas outside the urban area boundaries and the Greenbelt Plan, into the draft RNHS. The affected lands in Pickering are in the vicinity of Westney Road, north of Highway 407, and are shown in orange on Attachment #4 to the Region’s Report 2022-P-7. While these areas would be additions to the Region’s NHS, the areas for the most part are already identified as part of the Natural Heritage System in the City’s Official Plan. A key aspect to highlight, with respect to the Region’s approach to identify and implement the RNHS in the ROP, is that it will be depicted as an “overlay” and not a land use designation. The RNHS overlay will act as a screening tool for development applications, to determine which natural heritage features, functions and/or linkages may be present, based on background data, and whether any environmental impact study or natural heritage evaluation may be required. The City of Pickering, through Official Plan Amendment (OPA) 27 (The Greenbelt and Countryside Amendment approved in December 2017), introduced policies to the Pickering Official Plan (POP) that elevated natural heritage planning in Pickering from a features-based to a system-based approach. The Amendment also added a new Schedule IIIA to the POP depicting a city-wide Natural Heritage System, inclusive of the Seaton Natural Heritage System that was approved through OPA 22. The city-wide NHS depicted on Schedule IIIA of the POP, together with the more detailed features mapping on Schedules IIIB, IIIC and IIID, are already being used by City staff as a screening tool to review development proposals and applications. The implementation of the RNHS in the ROP will provide an additional screening tool, and assist with making the mapping of the NHS and its interpretation, more uniform and predictable across the Region. - 75 - Report PLN 18-22 April 4, 2022 Subject: Envision Durham – Identifying a Regional Natural Heritage System Page 3 The list of source data, used by the Region to inform the draft RNHS, includes the NHS and features mapping in the POP, together with conservation authority NHS data sets, the enhanced NHS depicted in the Carruthers Creek Watershed Plan (2021), as well as the Toronto and Region Conservation Authority (TRCA) draft enhanced NHS (2021). 3. Staff Comments The mapping of the draft RNHS has gone through a number of iterations over the past year. City planning staff, as part of Envision Durham Municipal Working Group engagements, undertook a detailed review of the draft RNHS using the NHS mapping in the POP, aerial photography, and available development data and approvals. Comments were submitted through an online map browser to Regional staff in late summer 2021, and again in early 2022. The mapping revisions proposed by staff pertained mainly to small portions or slivers of the draft RNHS layer that were protruding into developed properties (where the development limits have been established through previous background studies and planning approvals), or into undeveloped properties for which the development limits were established through recent studies and planning approvals. Staff also submitted comments to ensure that the Seaton NHS, as approved through OPA 22, is accurately depicted in the draft RNHS. Using the staff comments that were previously submitted to Regional staff as a benchmark, staff conducted a final review of the latest draft RNHS mapping, contained in Attachment #1 to this report. Staff found it to be generally consistent with the NHS mapping in the POP, and it also accurately depicts the Seaton NHS. As for the proposed “Enhancement Opportunity Areas” reflected in Attachment #1 to the Region’s Report 2022-P-7, staff identified the following concerns: • The Region states in its report that the “Enhanced Opportunity Areas” are not part of the RNHS. At this time, there is no proposed policy framework to help understand the implications of having an Enhanced Opportunity Area shown on a property. In the absence of the specific policy language, it is unclear what “weight” the identification of an Enhanced Opportunity Area would have, or how, and to what extent, it should be implemented. • Staff also noticed a relatively large number of “Enhanced Opportunity Areas” in northwest Pickering. Staff recently provided comments to TRCA regarding their proposed updated and enhanced NHS and features mapping. Consistent with those staff-to-staff comments, staff notes that if or when urban development is contemplated for the northwest Pickering lands, concerted effort should be made to strike a balance between environmental protection and accommodating future growth up to and beyond 2051. - 76 - Report PLN 18-22 April 4, 2022 Subject: Envision Durham – Identifying a Regional Natural Heritage System Page 4 Attachment: 1. Report of the Regional Commissioner of Planning and Economic Development 2020-P-7 Prepared By: Original Signed By Déan Jacobs, MCIP, RPP Manager, Policy & Geomatics Approved/Endorsed By: Original Signed By Catherine Rose, MCIP, RPP Chief Planner Original Signed By Kyle Bentley, P. Eng. Director, City Development & CBO DJ:ld Recommended for the consideration of Pickering City Council Original Signed By Marisa Carpino, M.A. Chief Administrative Officer - 77 - Attachment #1 to Report PLN 18-22 If this information is required in an accessible format, please contact 1-800-372-1102 ext. 2564 The Regional Municipality of Durham Report To: Planning and Economic Development Committee From: Commissioner of Planning and Economic Development Report: #2022-P-7 Date: March 1, 2022 Subject: Envision Durham – Identifying a Regional Natural Heritage System, File D12-01 Recommendation: That the Planning and Economic Development Committee recommends: Receive for information Report: 1.Purpose 1.1 The purpose of this report is twofold: i.To advise Committee that the draft mapping of the Regional Natural HeritageSystem (NHS) for the new Regional Official Plan (ROP) is being released forpublic and agency comment; andii.To introduce potential “Enhancement Opportunity Areas”, as proposed byDurham’s conservation authorities that would support the proposed RegionalNHS. 1.2 The provincial requirement to identify a Regional NHS is one of many key components of Envision Durham, the Municipal Comprehensive Review (MCR) of the ROP. The inclusion of the NHS is required for the new ROP to be consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement (PPS), and to conform with provincial plans (the Growth Plan, the Greenbelt Plan and the Oak Ridges Moraine Conservation Plan). - 78 - Report #2022-P-7 Page 2 of 7 1.3 Following Planning and Economic Development Committee on March 1, 2022, the draft Regional NHS will be posted to the Envision Durham project webpage through an interactive online map viewer and for convenience, is provided as Attachment #1 to this report. Those wishing to provide input may do so by commenting directly within the online map viewer or by submitting comments to EnvisionDurham@durham.ca or by mail. Comments are requested by May 2, 2022, representing a 60-day commenting window. 2. Previous Reports and Decisions 2.1 The following Regional staff reports related to the Regional NHS have been provided to Council since the launch of the MCR: • Report #2019-P-36 Envision Durham – Environment and Greenlands Discussion Paper; and • Report #2021-P-7 Envision Durham – Proposed Policy Directions. 3. Existing Policy Requirements 3.1 The PPS requires that natural features and areas be protected for the long term and that municipalities identify a “Natural Heritage System” (NHS). An NHS is defined as “a system made up of natural heritage features and areas1, and linkages intended to provide connectivity (at the regional or site level) and support natural processes which are necessary to maintain biological and geological diversity, natural functions, viable populations of indigenous species, and ecosystems. These systems can include natural heritage features and areas, federal and provincial parks and conservation reserves, lands that have been restored or have the potential to be restored to a natural state, areas that support hydrological functions and working landscapes that enable ecological functions to continue.” 1 The PPS defines natural heritage features and areas as features and areas, including significant wetlands, significant coastal wetlands, other coastal wetlands in Ecoregions 5E, 6E and 7E, fish habitat, significant woodlands and significant valleylands in Ecoregions 6E and 7E (excluding islands in Lake Huron and the St. Marys River), habitat of endangered species and threatened species, significant wildlife habitat, and significant areas of natural and scientific interest, which are important for their environmental and social values as a legacy of the natural landscapes of an area. - 79 - Report #2022-P-7 Page 3 of 7 3.2 The PPS requires a “systems-based approach” to natural heritage planning. A systems-based approach is required, (as opposed to a “features-based approach”), since isolated features have lower ecological functioning compared to features that form part of a connected system.2 Natural communities are dependent on the interchange of resources that support healthy, functioning and resilient ecosystems.3 Natural heritage planning best practice also recognizes the strategic importance of a systems-based approach to protecting, restoring and enhancing the natural environment not only by considering core natural features, but also the connections between them. 3.3 The Oak Ridges Moraine Conservation Plan (ORMCP) designates Natural Core Areas and Natural Linkage Areas, which together make up the NHS on the Oak Ridges Moraine as reflected in the current ROP (see Attachment #2). Municipalities are required to protect these areas for their natural heritage and hydrologic value. The ROP has included mapping and policies for these NHS areas on the Oak Ridges Moraine for almost 20 years. 3.4 The Greenbelt Plan established the Greenbelt NHS in 2005 which municipalities are required to protect through policy and mapping within official plans that is reflected in the current ROP as Schedule B1 (see Attachment #3). 3.5 The Growth Plan for the Greater Golden Horseshoe, 2020 adopts a similar definition as the PPS, and introduced an NHS for areas outside the Greenbelt and the Urban Area Boundary (i.e., in the “whitebelt”), where small areas containing natural heritage features within Pickering and Clarington have been identified (see Attachment #4). The Growth Plan requires that the Growth Plan NHS be included in official plans as an overlay and that policies be applied to maintain, restore, or enhance the diversity and connectivity of the system and its long term ecological and hydrologic functions. 4.Approach 4.1 The proposed NHS that is being released for public comment largely exists today in different forms and in different locations. The approach for the Region’s new official plan is to assemble the various NHS datasets in one location in the Region’s new OP, as an “overlay”. An overlay is not a land use designation. An overlay is a way 2 Natural Heritage Reference Manual for Natural Heritage Policies of the Provincial Policy Statement, 2005, Second Edition, 2010. 3 Ontario Nature: Best Practice Guide to Natural Heritage Systems Planning, 2014. - 80 - Report #2022-P-7 Page 4 of 7 of depicting information to let the reader know that any development which may be permitted by the underlying land use designation may be subject to some form of site-specific study and review to ensure the NHS is being properly addressed. The proposed NHS consists of the following: a. Within the Rural Area, the proposed Regional NHS is comprised of the Greenbelt NHS and ORMCP Natural Core and Natural Linkage Areas (as previously described); b. Within the Urban Area, area municipal datasets were used to establish the proposed Regional NHS, in consultation with area municipal staff. Where features were identified outside the area municipal NHS, area municipal staff determined if these features should be included or excluded; c. Within the “whitebelt”, the proposed Regional NHS includes the identified Growth Plan NHS areas as required by the Province, approved area municipal NHS datasets, and conservation authority datasets where appropriate, including those developed through watershed planning exercises; and d. For the Urban Area and the “whitebelt”, the proposed Regional NHS incorporates additional work undertaken for significant woodlands. The data sources used to generate the proposed Regional NHS are shown in Attachment #5. 4.2 The Region’s conservation authority partners have also identified “Enhancement Opportunity Areas” within their respective jurisdictions to support the proposed Regional NHS. The Enhancement Opportunity Areas are not part of the NHS; rather, these are linkage areas where restoration, stewardship or other efforts would support the health of the Regional NHS, and a more resilient ecosystem in the face of ongoing climate change threats (see Attachment #1). 5. Implementation of the Regional NHS 5.1 While precise policy language will be presented through the draft ROP, Proposed Policy Directions identified approaches for a Regional NHS through Report #2021-P-7. In general, these proposed directions include: • objectives to promote a systems-based approach to protecting the natural environment, to achieve no net loss and to protect, enhance and restore features and areas and their ecological functions; - 81 - Report #2022-P-7 Page 5 of 7 • that existing identified linkages, including “Open Space Linkages” and “Waterfront Links” and future linkages and enhancement areas identified through watershed plans and/or area municipal assessments be incorporated into a Regional NHS; • that cross-jurisdictional relationships and impacts on the Regional NHS be considered, and that the importance and intent of external connections, such as Urban River Valleys within the Greenbelt Plan be recognized; • that the completion of climate vulnerability assessments which identify the most vulnerable areas of the regional NHS and suggest enhancements and/or restoration needed to mitigate climate change impacts be supported; • that area municipalities develop an NHS and/or refine their existing NHS policies and mapping, including the identification of enhancement areas and linkages as necessary; and • that the Regional NHS be updated from time-to-time to reflect minor changes as a result of the newest and best available data, at the date of an official plan consolidation, without the need for an amendment to the ROP. 5.2 Once implemented, the Regional NHS and associated features maps can be used by municipalities, conservation authorities and property owners to understand what features could be impacted by development and site alteration. Once in effect, the Regional NHS would act as a screening tool for development applications such as official plan amendments, plans of subdivision, plans of condominium and consent (or land division) applications. During pre-consultation, or when applications are received, staff would determine which environmentally sensitive features, areas, functions, and/or linkages may be present based on the background data. Staff could also advise which Provincial Plan would apply and whether an environment impact study or natural heritage evaluation report, may be required. 6. Relationship to Strategic Plan 6.1 This report aligns with/addresses the following goals and priorities in the Durham Region Strategic Plan: a. Priority 1.3 under the goal of Environmental Sustainability, a Regional NHS would protect preserve and restore the natural environment, including greenspaces, waterways, parks, trails and farmlands; - 82 - Report #2022-P-7 Page 6 of 7 b.Priority 1.4 under the goal of Environmental Sustainability, a Regional NHSdemonstrates continued leadership in sustainability and addressing climatechange; andc.Priority 5.3 under the goal of Service Excellence, the proposed consultationapproach through Envision Durham demonstrates commitment to continuousquality improvement and communicating results. 6.2 Identifying a Regional NHS contributes to achieving objectives within the Durham Community Climate Adaptation Plan and is consistent with the Region’s climate emergency declaration. Protection of the natural environment can help to reduce the severity and frequency of riverine flooding and reduce ambient summer temperatures in urban areas to reduce heat stress. 7.Consultation Process 7.1 This report, the draft Regional NHS mapping, including instructions on how to use the map viewer, as well as a series of Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ) regarding Natural Heritage Systems, will be posted to the project webpage at www.durham.ca/EnvisionDurham for public and agency review. 7.2 Interested parties are encouraged to provide input directly within the online map viewer. Comments may also be submitted to EnvisionDurham@durham.ca or by mail and are requested by May 2, 2022. Information on the release of the draft Regional NHS map will be announced by way of: a.News release and public service announcement;b.Social media platforms, including Facebook, Twitter and LinkedIn; andc.Email notifications and report circulation, as detailed below. 7.3 A copy of this report and an invitation to provide input through the online map viewer will be forwarded to all Envision Durham Interested Parties, Durham’s area municipalities, conservation authorities, Indigenous communities, BILD – Durham Chapter, and the Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing. Circulation will also be provided to Regional Advisory Committees (Durham Environmental Advisory Committee, Durham Agricultural Advisory Committee and Durham Region Roundtable on Climate Change) that may have interest in where and how the Region intends to protect and enhance the Regional NHS. 8.Conclusion 8.1 Identification of a Regional NHS is required by provincial legislation and policies. - 83 - Report #2022-P-7 Page 7 of 7 8.2 The approach that is being proposed for the Region’s new official plan is to assemble information contained in existing NHS datasets and to clearly depict the NHS as an overlay. The proposed NHS does not introduce any new restrictions that do not exist already. 8.3 Input on the draft Regional NHS is requested by May 2, 2022. Feedback received will be reviewed and will inform the preparation of the draft ROP. 9.Attachments Attachment #1: Draft Regional Natural Heritage System and Enhancement Opportunity Areas Attachment #2: Existing Regional Official Plan Schedule B – Map B3 – Oak Ridges Moraine Conservation Plan Land Use Designations Attachment #3: Existing Regional Official Plan Schedule B – Map B1 – Key Natural Heritage and Hydrologic Features and Greenbelt Natural Heritage System Attachment #4: Growth Plan Natural Heritage System Areas in Durham Attachment #5: Draft Regional Natural Heritage System – Source Data Table Respectfully submitted, Original signed by Brian Bridgeman, MCIP, RPP Commissioner of Planning and Economic Development Recommended for Presentation to Committee Original signed by Elaine C. Baxter-Trahair Chief Administrative Officer - 84 - Lake Simcoe Lake Ontario Lake S c u g o g * ** * ** ** ** * * * * ** ** ** * ** * * * N× Scugog Uxbridge Ajax Whitby Oshawa Clarington Brock 401 401 401 401 35 115 35 115 77 48 12 7 7A 127 7 12 127 12 407 407 412 412 407 Draft Regional Natural Heritage System 0 4 8 Kilometres This map has been produced from a variety of sources. The Region of Durham does not make any representations concerning the accuracy, likely results, or reliability of the use of the materials. The Region hereby disclaims all representations and warranties. Digital cartography by The Regional Municipality of Durham, Planning and Economic Development Department, 2022. All rights reserved. May not be reproduced without permission. Enhancement Opportunity Areas Urban Area Boundary Draft Regional Natural Heritage System Overlay Attachment #1 Pickering - 85 - ")10 ")23 ")32 UV41 2 UV40 7 ")39 ")13 ")13 ")1 UV7UV12 ")2 ")47 ")57 UV7A ")21 UV7A ")7 ")57 ")47 ")1 UV40 7 UV7 ")23 ")26 ")31 ")5 ")22UV40 1")2 ")28 ")12 ")4 ")34 ")14 ")22 UV35UV11 5 UV35 UV11 5 ")18 ")9 UV40 1")2 ")42 L A K E S C U G O G ")20 ")34 ")3 ")55 ")2 ")30 ")8 ")6 ")8 UV41 8 ")11 ")27 L A K E O N T A R I O LA K E O N T A R I O IN D E X SC H E D U L E ' B ' - M A P ' B 3 ' OA K R I D G E S M O R A I N E LA N D U S E LE G E N D OF F I C I A L P L A N O F T H E RE G I O N A L M U N I C I P A L I T Y OF D U R H A M ³ NA T U R A L C O R E A R E A NA T U R A L L I N K A G E A R E A CO U N T R Y S I D E A R E A HA M L E T SE T T L E M E N T A R E A PR I M E A G R I C U L T U R E OA K R I D G E S M O R A I N E C O N S E R V A T I O N P L A N A R E A B O U N D A R Y UR B A N A R E A LA N D S A P P E A L E D T O O M B , RE F E R T O P O L I C Y 1 4 . 1 3 . 7 . NO T E S : 1) T H I S M A P F O R M S P A R T O F T H E O F F I C I A L P L A N O F T H E R E G I O N A L M U N I C I P A L I T Y O F D U R H A M A N D M U S T B E RE A D I N C O N J U N C T I O N W I T H T H E T E X T . 2) O F F I C E C O N S O L I D A T I O N - M A Y 2 6 , 2 0 2 0 SO U R C E S : 1) O A K R I D G E S M O R A I N E : B O U N D A R Y , M I N I S T R Y O F M U N I C I P A L A F F A I R S & H O U S I N G , 2 0 0 2 , 1 : 1 0 0 , 0 0 0 . At t a c h m e n t # 2 - 86 - ")23 ")48 ")15 UV12 ")12 UV48 UV12 UV7 ")10 ")23 ")32 UV412 UV407 ")39 ")13 ")13 ")1 UV7 UV12 ")2 ")47 ")57 UV7A ")21 UV7A ")7 ")57 ")47 ")1 UV407 UV7 ")23 ")26")27 ")31 ")5 ")22 UV401 ")2 ")28 ")12 ")4 ")34 ")14 ")22 UV35 UV115 UV35 UV115 ")18 ")9 UV401 ")2 ")42 LAKE SIMCOE L A K E S C U G O G ")20 ")34 ")3 ")55")2 ")30 ")8 ")6 LAKE ONTARIO ")8 UV418 A ³ OFFICIAL PLAN OF THEREGIONAL MUNICIPALITY OF DURHAM SCHEDULE 'B' - MAP 'B1'GREENBELT NATURAL HERITAGESYSTEM & KEY NATURAL HERITAGE AND HYDROLOGIC FEATURES LEGEND URBAN AREA OAK RIDGES MORAINE CONSERVATION PLAN AREA BOUNDARY SPECIFIC POLICY AREAA KEY NATURAL HERITAGE AND HYDROLOGIC FEATURES NOTES:1) THIS MAP FORMS PART OF THE OFFICIAL PLAN OF THE REGIONAL MUNICIPALITY OF DURHAM AND MUST BEREAD IN CONJUNCTION WITH THE TEXT. 2) ROADS ARE FOR REFERENCE PURPOSES ONLY. 3) OFFICE CONSOLIDATION - MAY 11, 2017. SOURCES:1) OAK RIDGES MORAINE: BOUNDARY, MINISTRY OF MUNICIPAL AFFAIRS & HOUSING, 2002, 1:100,000. 2) NATURAL HERITAGE FEATURES: MINISTRY OF NATURAL RESOURCES, 1:10,000. 3) CONSERVATION AUTHORITIES. 4) GREENBELT PLAN: © QUEEN'S PRINTER FOR ONTARIO, 2005. REPRODUCED WITH PERMISSION. LANDS APPEALED TO OMB,REFER TO POLICY 14.13.7. Attachment #3 GREENBELT NATURAL HERITAGE SYSTEM - 87 - Attachment #4 - 88 - Attachment 5 Draft Regional Natural Heritage System – Source Data 1.Rural Area •Greenbelt NHS (MNRF, 2017) •Natural Core Areas and Natural Linkage Areas on the Oak RidgesMoraine (MNRF, 2017) 2.Urban Area and Whitebelt •Growth Plan NHS (MNRF, 2017) •Pickering – area municipal NHS (2018), conservation authority NHS(2018), environmental datasets, Seaton NHS and Carruthers CreekWatershed Plan Enhanced NHS (Existing NHS), 2021 •Ajax – area municipal NHS (2018), environmental datasets andCarruthers Creek Watershed Plan Enhanced NHS (Existing NHS), 2021 •Whitby – area municipal NHS (2020) and environmental datasets •Oshawa – area municipal NHS (2019) and environmental datasets •Clarington – area municipal NHS (2018) and environmental datasets •Uxbridge – area municipal NHS (2018), conservation authority NHS(2019) and environmental datasets •Scugog – area municipal EP zoning (2021) and environmental datasets •Brock – conservation authority NHS (2019) and environmental datasets 3.Environmental Datasets •Fish Habitat – CLOCA, 2019/LSRCA, 2018/TRCA, 2019/MNRF, 2019 •Areas of Natural and Scientific Interest – MNRF, 2019 •Sand Barrens, Savannahs, Tallgrass Prairies and Alvars – CLOCA,2019/GRCA, 2013/KRCA, 2015/LSRCA, 2017/TRCA, 2018 •Permanent and Intermittent Streams – CLOCA, 2021/KRCA,2018/LSRCA, 2016/TRCA, 2010 and 2018/MNRF, 2020 •Provincially Significant Wetland – MNRF, 2019 •Wetlands – CLOCA, 2019/GRCA, 2013/KRCA, 2015/LSRCA,2017/TRCA, 2018 •Significant Woodlands – North South Environmental Inc., 2021 •Significant Valleylands – Matrix Solutions Inc., 2021 4.Enhancement Opportunity Areas •CLOCA, 2021, GRCA, 2018, KRCA, 2012, LSRCA, 2019, TRCA, 2021 - 89 - Report to Planning & Development Committee Report Number: PLN 19-22 Date: April 4, 2022 From: Kyle Bentley Director, City Development & CBO Subject: Appeals of Council Decisions on Planning Act Applications and Committee of Adjustment Decisions Policy File: A-1110-007 Recommendation: 1.That the Appeals of Council Decisions on Planning Act Applications and Committee of Adjustment Decisions Policy, dated April 25, 2022, be approved as set out in Appendix I to Report PLN 19-22. Executive Summary: The Planning Act (Ontario) allows appeals to the Ontario Land Tribunal (“OLT”) of Council decisions and non-decisions on Planning Act applications, and decisions of the Committee of Adjustment (referred to in this report as the “Committee”). Staff have prepared, for Council approval, a policy to provide guidance on when Council or Committee decisions are to be defended at OLT hearings. The draft policy also provides guidance on when staff can represent Council or Committee at hearings, or when it is warranted for Council to retain outside counsel and independent experts. Financial Implications: No direct costs are anticipated as a result of the recommendations of this Report. 1.Background 1.1 The Planning Act (Ontario) permits Council Decisions and Committee of Adjustment Decisions to be appealed to the Ontario Land Tribunal The Planning Act (Ontario) allows persons and public bodies to appeal, to the OLT, Council decisions and non-decisions on certain Planning Act applications, and decisions of the Committee of Adjustment. Planning Act applications include official plan amendments, demolition control areas, zoning by-law amendments, holding provision by-laws, community benefits by-laws, interim control by-laws, site plan control approvals, conveyance of land for park purposes by-laws, subdivision approvals, and consents. - 90 - Report PLN 19-22 April 4, 2022 Subject: Appeals of Council Decisions on Planning Act Applications and Committee of Adjustment Decisions Policy Page 2 The Committee is constituted and appointed by City Council pursuant to section 44 of the Planning Act. The Committee is a quasi-judicial body that is independent of Council, that hears and decides on minor variances to the City’s zoning by-laws. Decisions are made by the Committee after reviewing minor variance applications and submitted documentation, conducting site visits, and hearing from the circulated public bodies and members of the public at the public hearing. 1.2 The City submits a required municipal record to the OLT In all appeals, City staff forward required documents to the OLT (associated with the matter under appeal), forming the municipal record. These documents include: the application form, drawings and supporting documents; City Development staff report; meeting and hearing minutes; public notice; circulation lists; and written comments and submissions made to Council or the Committee. The record provides the OLT with information on the processing of the application, reporting by staff to Council or the Committee, and comments from circulated public bodies and individuals. 1.3 Council must decide whether to defend Council or Committee of Adjustment decisions and direct staff accordingly or retain outside representation City Council must decide whether Council or Committee decisions will be defended at the OLT hearing, and whether City staff can be directed to do so, or whether outside counsel and independent experts be retained to represent the City at the OLT hearing. Outside counsel and independent experts are warranted where the City staff position does not support the Council or Committee decision, or where City staff resources are not available. 2.The draft policy provides guidance on determining City representation at OLT hearings In preparing a City Policy to provide guidance in determining when and how to seek direction from Council when Council decisions or non-decisions on Planning Act applications and Committee decisions are appealed, staff considered outside municipal best practices. The attached draft policy (see Appendix I) proposes the following approach for dealing with appeals of Council and Committee decisions: •Mayor and Council are notified, as soon as practicable, of receipt of an appeal to the OLT, and are provided with a brief summary of the appeal and main issues raised by the appeal; •The City Clerk will circulate to the Mayor; Councillors; CAO; and senior staff, the following formal OLT correspondence in respect of the appeal of a Decision: (i) the appeal acknowledgement letter, (ii) notice of any hearing dates (ii) notice of withdrawal or an adjournment, and (iv) notice of OLT decisions. - 91 - Report PLN 19-22 April 4, 2022 Subject: Appeals of Council Decisions on Planning Act Applications and Committee of Adjustment Decisions Policy Page 3 •Upon receipt of a Notice of Hearing from the OLT, any Councillor may request through the City Clerk that the appeal be considered at an in-camera meeting of Council; •When such a request for an in-camera meeting is made, staff will provide a Confidential Memo giving legal and planning advice on the issues raised by the appeal, including a recommendation regarding the role, if any, that the City and staff should take on the appeal; •Involvement of the City in an OLT hearing is considered on a case by case basis and decided by Council resolution; •City staff will attend OLT hearings only when authorized by Council or served with a Summons to Witness; and •City staff can only attend OLT hearings as representatives of the City when staff’s professional opinion aligns with Council’s or the Committee’s decision. Otherwise, outside expert witnesses and legal representation may be retained to support Council’s or Committee’s position. 3.Staff Recommend that the Appeals of Council Decisions on Planning Act Applications and Committee of Adjustment Decisions Policy be approved by Council Staff have consulted with the Director, Corporate Services & City Solicitor in the preparation of the Draft Appeals of Council Decisions on Planning Act Applications and Committee of Adjustment Decisions Policy. The City’s internal Policy Committee has reviewed the draft policy. Staff recommend that Council approve the attached Draft Appeals of Council Decisions on Planning Act Applications and Committee of Adjustment Decisions Policy as set out in Appendix I. Appendix: Appendix I – Draft Appeals of Council Decisions on Planning Act Applications and Committee of Adjustment Decisions Policy - 92 - Report PLN 19-22 April 4, 2022 Subject: Appeals of Council Decisions on Planning Act Applications and Committee of Adjustment Decisions Policy Page 4 Prepared By: Approved/Endorsed By: Original Signed By Original Signed By Deborah Wylie, MCIP, RPP Catherine Rose, MCIP, RPP Manager, Zoning & Administration Chief Planner Original Signed By Kyle Bentley, P. Eng. Director, City Development & CBO Original Signed By Paul Bigioni Director, Corporate Services & City Solicitor DW :ld Recommended for the consideration of Pickering City Council Original Signed By Marisa Carpino, M.A. Chief Administrative Officer - 93 - Appendix I to Report No. PLN 19-22 Draft Appeals of Council Decisions on Planning Act Applications and Committee of Adjustment Decisions Policy - 94 - Policy Procedure Title: Appeals of Council Decisions on Planning Act Applications and Committee of Adjustment Decisions Policy Number ADM 230 Reference Planning Act Resolution #xxx/xx By-law xxxx/xx Date Originated (m/d/y) April 25, 2022 Date Revised (m/d/y) "Click and type date" Pages 3 Approval: Chief Administrative Officer Point of Contact Director, Corporate Services & City Solicitor Manager, Zoning & Administration, City Development Policy Objective The objective of this Policy is to establish a process for obtaining Council direction on The Corporation of the City of Pickering (“City”) representation at Ontario Land Tribunal (OLT) hearings in appeals of Planning Act applications including appeals of Committee of Adjustment Decisions. This policy supplements the Planning Act (Ontario), as amended, and the City of Pickering Committee of Adjustment Rules of Procedure. Governing Legislation The Planning Act (Ontario) sets out various persons or public bodies who may appeal to the OLT in respect of: (i) Decisions of Council related to Planning Act applications including official plan amendments, demolition control areas, zoning by-law amendments, holding provision by-laws, community benefits by-laws, interim control by-laws, site plan control approvals, conveyance of land for park purposes by-laws, subdivision approvals and consents; and (ii) Decisions of the Committee of Adjustment on minor variance applications. Index 01 Definitions 02 General 03 Staff Attendance and City Representation at OLT Hearings 01 Definitions 01.01 Act – The Planning Act (Ontario), as amended. 01.02 Council – The Council of The Corporation of the City of Pickering. - 95 - Policy Title: Appeals of Council Decisions on Planning Act Application and Committee of Adjustment Decisions Page 2 of 3 Policy Number: ADM 230 01.03 Committee of Adjustment – The Committee of Adjustment constituted and appointed by the City pursuant to section 44 (or a predecessor of such section) of the Act. 01.04 Decision – A decision made by Council on an application under the Act (whether or not delegated to City staff), a non-decision of Council on an application under the Act (whether or not delegated to City staff), or a Decision of the Committee of Adjustment on a minor variance application under section 45 of the Act. 01.05 Secretary-Treasurer – Secretary-Treasurer of the Committee of Adjustment. 01.06 OLT – The Ontario Land Tribunal, an independent adjudicative tribunal responsible for resolving appeals and applications on municipal and land use planning matters. 02 General 02.01 Appeals of Council Decisions to the OLT are filed with the City Clerk, and appeals of Committee of Adjustment Decisions to the OLT are filed with the Secretary-Treasurer. 02.02 Appeals of Council Decisions filed with the City Clerk will be sent by the City Clerk, or their designate, to the Director, City Development & CBO. Appeals of Committee of Adjustment Decisions filed with the Secretary-Treasurer will be sent by the Secretary-Treasurer, or their designate to the Director, City Development & CBO. 02.03 The Director, City Development & CBO, or their designate will, as soon as practical after their receipt of same, circulate notice of any appeal of a Decision by email to Mayor; Councillors; Admin CAO; Chief Planner; Manager, Development Review & Urban Design; Manager, Policy & Geomatics; City Clerk; and Director, Corporate Services & City Solicitor. 02.04 The email notice circulated by the Director, City Development & CBO pursuant to section 02.03 shall include a brief summary of the Decision appealed from including: (i) a description of the subject lands, (ii) the parties, (iii) the main issues raised by the appeal. 02.05 Upon receipt of formal communication from the OLT, the City Clerk, or their designate, will circulate by email to Mayor; Councillors; CAO; Admin CAO; Director, City Development & CBO; Chief Planner; Manager, Development Review & Urban Design; Manager, Policy & Geomatics; Secretary-Treasurer; Director, Corporate Services & City Solicitor; and Planning Webmail, the following correspondence in respect of the appeal of a Decision: (i) appeal acknowledgement letter, (ii) notice of any hearing dates (iii) notice of withdrawal or an adjournment, and (iv) notice of OLT decisions. - 96 - Policy Title: Appeals of Council Decisions on Planning Act Application and Committee of Adjustment Decisions Page 3 of 3 Policy Number: ADM 230 02.06 Upon receipt of a Notice of Hearing from the OLT, any Councillor may notify the Director, City Development & CBO; the Director, Corporate Services & City Solicitor; the City Clerk; the Chief Administrative Officer (CAO); and the Mayor; that they request the Notice be added to an upcoming in-camera session or special in-camera meeting of Council to be called by the Mayor. 02.07 Upon receipt of a request from a Councillor pursuant to section 02.06, the Director, City Development & CBO and the Director, Corporate Services & City Solicitor shall draft and send to the CAO and the City Clerk, a Confidential Memo containing all of the information set out in section 02.04 together with City staff’s legal and planning advice on the issues raised by the appeal, including a recommendation regarding what role, if any, the City and its staff should take on such appeal. Such Memo shall be included in the confidential Agenda package provided to Council. 02.08 Council will consider in-camera, what role, if any, the City should take on any appeal of a Decision, and will direct staff accordingly. Such direction shall be ratified in open session. 03 Staff Attendance and City Representation at OLT Hearings 03.01 Active involvement of the City in an OLT hearing is considered by Council on a case-by-case basis and decided by resolution. 03.02 City staff will attend OLT hearings only when: (i) authorized by Council by resolution, or (ii) served with a Summons to Witness. 03.03 City staff can only attend OLT hearings as representatives of the City when the professional opinion of staff regarding an OLT appeal aligns with Council’s position on the Decision under appeal. 03.04 In situations where the professional position of City staff on the appeal of a Decision does not align with Council’s position, Council may decide that the City shall take no active role in the appeal or that City staff be directed to retain such outside planning, legal and/or consulting representation as is required to support Council’s position before the OLT. Please refer to all associated Procedures and Standard Operating Procedures, if applicable, for detailed processes regarding this Policy. - 97 - Report to Planning & Development Committee Report Number: Report PLN 20-22 Date: April 4, 2022 From: Kyle Bentley, P. Eng. Director, City Development & CBO Subject: Envision Durham – Growth Management Study -Alternative Land Need Scenarios Summary Report -File: A-2100-020 Recommendation: 1.That Council endorse the Staff Comments contained in Section 3 of Report PLN 20-22 as the City’s formal comments on the Envision Durham’s Alternative Land Need Scenarios Summary Report, prepared by Watson & Associates Economists Ltd. and Urban Strategies Inc., dated March 2022; and 2.That the appropriate City of Pickering staff be authorized to take the necessary actions as indicated in this report. Executive Summary: On March 11, 2022, the Region of Durham released the “Alternative Land Need Scenarios Summary Report”, (the “Scenarios Report”), dated March 2022, prepared by Watson & Associates and Urban Strategies Inc., and requested comments by April 14, 2022. A copy of the Commissioner of Planning and Economic Development’s Report #2022-INFO-19, and the attached Scenarios Report, are provided as Attachment #1 to this report. The Scenarios Report forms part of the Region’s Growth Management Land Need Assessment exercise. It provides a summary of 5 Community Area Land Need Scenarios and 2 Employment Area Land Need Scenarios. Further, it outlines the resultant analysis and assessment of the scenario modelling outcomes, and implications on urban structure and land need across Durham. Staff’s comments on the Scenarios Report are outlined in Section 3 of this report. Staff is seeking Council’s endorsement of the comments, and that a copy of Council’s resolution and Report PLN 20-22 be forwarded to the Region for consideration. Due to the short comment period (30 days) for this report, staff will also be providing a copy of Report PLN 20-22, and the draft minutes of the Planning & Development Committee meeting of April 4, 2022, to the Region, ahead of Council’s consideration of the matter. Financial Implications: This report has no financial implications for the City. - 98 - Report PLN 20-22 April 4, 2022 Subject: Envision Durham – Growth Management Study Page 2 Discussion: 1.Background The Region of Durham is undertaking a Growth Management Study (GMS), as part of Envision Durham, the Region’s Municipal Comprehensive Review process. The first phase of the GMS consists of a Land Need Assessment (LNA). The purpose of the LNA is to determine the amount of land required through settlement area boundary expansions, in order to accommodate the future population and job growth to 2051. The second phase of the GMS will identify the location of any expansion areas, and allocate population and employment growth targets for those areas. During the summer and early fall of 2021, the Region’s Growth Management Project Team (GMPT) released the following four Technical Reports, that provided an analysis of the form of growth and resulting land needs in Durham: •The Region-Wide Growth Analysis; •The Housing Intensification Study; •The Employment Strategy; and •The Community Area Urban Land Needs. These four reports were presented for public comment. The City of Pickering provided comments through Correspondence 41-21 (endorsed by Council on September 27, 2021), Report PLN 40-21 (Resolution #716/21), Report PLN 42-21 (Resolution #737/21), and Report PLN 45-21 (Resolution #750/21). Certain area municipalities, including the City of Pickering, as well as the development industry, questioned the proposed housing mix contained in the draft Region Wide Growth Analysis (47.6% high density, 30.6% medium density and 21.8% low density). Concerns were expressed that the housing mix was too heavily weighted towards high density development, and did not adequately represent the market demand for lower density housing in Durham. The Region also received correspondence from individual members of the public, certain organizations, and comments from certain municipalities, agreeing with the proposed housing mix in the draft Region Wide Growth Analysis LNA targets. Opinions were expressed that the Region could be more aggressive to limit settlement area expansions, by giving greater priority to climate change mitigation, the protection of farmland, and maximizing opportunities for intensification. In response to comments received on the four Technical Reports noted above, Regional Planning staff agreed, at the October 5, 2021 Planning and Economic Development Committee meeting, to undertake additional analysis. Staff would run modelling and assess a range of alternative land need scenarios, and examine the implications on the urban structure, and land needs across Durham. Subsequently, the GMPT prepared a series of five Community Area Land Need Scenarios, and two Employment Area Land Need Scenarios, and undertook the required analysis. - 99 - Report PLN 20-22 April 4, 2022 Subject: Envision Durham – Growth Management Study Page 3 On March 11, 2022, the Region released the Alternative Land Need Scenarios Summary Report, (the “Scenarios Report”), dated March 2022. The Scenarios Report is an attachment to the Regional Commissioner of Planning and Economic Development #2022-INFO-19. The Commissioner’s Report is provided as Attachment #1 to this report. Comments are due April 14, 2022. Once input from this consultation is received and assessed, the Region’s GMPT will provide a Recommended Land Need Scenario to the Planning and Economic Development Committee on May 3, 2022. 2. The Alternative Land Need Scenarios To reflect the current context across the Region, prior to undertaking the scenario modelling and analysis, the GMPT made refinements to the baseline of existing settlement patterns, and supply of urban, greenfield land available for development. The refinements included the following: • Incorporating decisions made by Regional Council, on December 22, 2021, regarding Employment Area conversion requests, which resulted in increased Community Area Land supply; • Revising the base mapping to reflect the ‘updated natural heritage takeout layer’ that would be used in the Designated Greenfield Area (DGA) land need analysis, including the reclassification of select sites based on comments received, which reduced the remaining developable vacant land supply; and • Reassessing the current active development applications and developable land area within Seaton, which would result in a change to the overall DGA land needs. The analysis also took into account the interconnectivity that exists between the following key factors in the Land Needs Assessment: housing unit mix; intensification rate; Built Up Area (BUA) unit mix; DGA density; DGA unit mix; Strategic Growth Area/Major Transit Station Area density targets; and Employment density. Moving or revising one key factor would impact all the other key factors. The GMPT developed a spectrum of five Community Area Land Need Scenarios and two Employment Area Land Need Scenarios, to examine a broader range of options to accommodate the growth forecast for the Region to 2051. The Scenarios are summarized below. 2.1 The Community Area Land Need Scenarios (Community Area Scenarios): The Community Area Scenarios were developed to present a range of development options, from the lowest density housing mix and highest land need, to the highest density housing mix and lowest land need. The key variables that have been adjusted across the scenarios include housing mix, DGA density targets, and intensification targets. - 100 - Report PLN 20-22 April 4, 2022 Subject: Envision Durham – Growth Management Study Page 4 The five Community Area Scenarios and key outcomes, including the implications on future land needs, are presented in the chart below: Community Area Land Need Scenarios Scenario 1 Emphasis on low-density housing (“Hemson”) Scenario 2 Primarily low- density housing Scenario 3 Shifting the unit mix Scenario 4 Balancing the unit mix Scenario 5 Emphasis on higher densities Housing Unit Mix of new units: Low: 56% Medium: 23% High: 19% Secondary units: 2% Housing Unit Mix of new units: Low: 39% Medium: 26% High: 32% Secondary units: 3% Housing Unit Mix of new units: Low: 34% Medium: 30% High: 33% Secondary units: 3% Housing Unit Mix of new units: Low: 28% Medium: 28% High: 41% Secondary units: 3% Housing Unit Mix of new units: Low: 20% Medium: 31% High: 47% Secondary units: 3% Intensification Rate: 35% Intensification Rate: 45% Intensification Rate: 50% Intensification Rate: 50% Intensification Rate: 55% Designated Greenfield Area Density: 50 people and jobs per hectare Designated Greenfield Area Density: 55 people and jobs per hectare Designated Greenfield Area Density: 57 people and jobs per hectare Designated Greenfield Area Density: 60 people and jobs per hectare Designated Greenfield Area Density: 64 people and jobs per hectare New Community Area Land Need: 5,400 hectares (13,344 acres) New Community Area Land Need: 2,600 hectares (6,425 acres) New Community Area Land Need: 1,500 hectares (3,707 acres) New Community Area Land Need: 950 hectares (2,348 acres) New Community Area Land Need: 0 •Scenario 1, is based on background technical work completed by Hemson Consulting for the Province, for A Place to Grow. •Scenario 4 is an updated version of the initial scenario that formed part of the Region-Wide Growth Analysis Technical Report, commented on in late Summer 2021. 2.2 Employment Area Land Need Scenarios (Employment Area Scenarios): The initial Employment Area Land Need Scenario, which was reflected in the Region’s Employment Strategy Technical Report, was updated primarily to reflect the additional Employment Area conversions that were recently endorsed by the Regional Council. This effectively reduced the baseline of available Employment Area lands. Subsequently, two Employment Area Scenarios were developed. - 101 - Report PLN 20-22 April 4, 2022 Subject: Envision Durham – Growth Management Study Page 5 The two Employment Area Scenarios are summarized and presented in the chart below. Employment Area Land Need Scenarios Scenario 1 Scenario 2 Vacant Employment Area Density Target: 27 Jobs per gross hectare Vacant Employment Area Density Target: 27 Jobs per gross hectare Employment Intensification Target: 15% Employment Intensification Target: 20% New Employment Area Land Need: 1,350 hectares (3,335 acres) New Employment Area Land Need: 1,170 hectares (2,891 acres) •Scenario 1 is an updated version of the Employment Area Land Need contained in the Employment Strategy Technical Report, commented on in Fall 2021. The Scenarios Report points out that achieving Scenario 2 means that Employment Area Lands would be more efficiently used, and the resultant reduction in land need would have lesser impact on the Region’s agricultural lands and rural systems. A detailed discussion on the five Community Area Scenarios and the two Employment Area Scenarios is contained in the Scenarios Report, and also summarized in Section 5.1 (pages 3 to 5) of the Regional Commissioner’s Report #2022-INFO-19. 2.3 The Scenarios Assessment Framework The following five principles were used by the Region’s GMPT to assess the five Community Area Scenarios: Principle 1: Achieving Targets Does the scenario achieve the minimum targets of the Growth Plan, before advancing additional settlement area boundary expansion? Principle 2: Housing Market Choice Does the scenario respond to market demand and provide for the development of a fulsome range of housing types? Principle 3: Setting up Strategic Growth Areas (SGA) for Success Does the scenario support the ability of SGAs, including Urban Growth Centres, MTSAs, Regional Centres, and Regional Corridors, to achieve their planned function as higher density, mixed-use, and transit supportive urban communities? - 102 - Report PLN 20-22 April 4, 2022 Subject: Envision Durham – Growth Management Study Page 6 Principle 4: Protecting Agricultural and Rural Systems, preparing for Climate Change and Achieving Sustainable Development To what extent would the scenario negatively impact existing agricultural and rural areas, provide sustainable development patterns, and respond to the Region’s Climate Change Emergency declaration? Principle 5: Competitive Economic and Employment Conditions To what extent does the scenario capitalize on the Region’s economic and sector strengths, to ensure Durham remains economically attractive and competitive over the long term? The Region’s assessment of the Community Area Scenarios against the above principles rendered the following results. Scenarios 1 and 2 ranked the weakest in meeting the principles. Scenario 3 ranked better than Scenarios 1 and 2 in terms of Principle 1 (Achieving the Growth Plan targets), but it failed, similar to Scenario 1, in terms of the rest of the principles. Scenarios 4 and 5 ranked the best for meeting the most principles, with Scenario 5 failing to meet Principle 5 (Housing Market Choice). A detailed discussion on how the five Community Area Scenarios measured up against the principles is contained in Section 3.4 of the Scenarios Report. The Scenarios Report does not contain a Recommended Land Need Scenario. As noted earlier in this report, the Region’s Growth Management Project Team will consider the comments on the Scenarios Report and present a Recommended Land Need Scenario to the Region’s Planning and Economic Development Committee in May 2022. 3.Staff Comments 3.1 Staff is pleased with the fact that Region have incorporated alternative scenarios into the Land Needs Assessment, although very little time has been granted to stakeholders to review and comment on such a fundamental component of the Region’s Growth Management Study. At the onset of the Land Needs Assessment exercise, City staff, through the Municipal Working Group Sessions, asked whether the Region would be considering alternative growth scenarios as part of this exercise. It is disconcerting that the Scenario analysis was not addressed until almost the end of the study, instead of being addressed earlier. 3.2 Although staff supports the five Principles against which the Land Needs Scenarios were measured, there does not appear to be any weighting factor associated with these Principles. Clearly, the principles compete with each other. However, it is staff’s opinion that Durham, given its attractiveness for families coupled with the availability of Whitebelt lands, is uniquely positioned to continue to offer an ample supply of market choice, grade-related, family-friendly housing (including more affordable housing options) to its residents and newcomers. In Durham’s current context, the principle of Housing Market Choice, should not be underplayed but rather accentuated in the selection of a Recommended Land Need Scenario. - 103 - Report PLN 20-22 April 4, 2022 Subject: Envision Durham – Growth Management Study Page 7 3.3 The Scenarios Report presented two of the five Community Area Scenarios as not meeting the minimum Growth Plan intensification target of 50%. Scenario 1 illustrates the significant amount of additional urban land that would be required based on the housing mix identified by the population forecasts prepared by Hemson Consulting Ltd. However, a Scenario that would have modeled both the Growth Plan targets of 50% for intensification, and the density target of 50 persons and jobs per hectare, would have provided a baseline from which to compare Scenarios 3, 4 and 5. 3.4 The Scenarios are presented showing gradual increases in the density of the housing mix, from lowest to highest, and the corresponding effect of the amount of new community area land need: the lower the density, the greater the need for new urban area land; the higher the density, the lower the need for new urban area land. However, comparison of the different Community Area Lands Need scenarios is difficult, as more than one variable is being changed. For example, Scenarios 2, 4 and 5 increase both the intensification rate, and the DGA density, relative to the previous scenario. This makes it impossible to determine a comparison of the effects of an increase in the rate of intensification, independent of an increase in DGA density. The same would hold true for an attempt to compare the effects of the increase in DGA density, independent of increase in the intensification rate. Similarly, under Scenario 3, there are various statements highlighting the fact that low and medium-density housing forms require a larger amount of land, but the Scenarios Report does not highlight the availability of Whitebelt lands in Durham and the attractiveness of, and qualities associated with, medium and low density housing for families. Staff requests that the selection of the Recommended Land Need Scenario for Whitebelt lands in Durham takes into consideration the availability, attractiveness and qualities associated with medium and low density housing for families. The City commented through the Community Area Urban Land Need Technical Report, questioning the rationale for the DGA density target being higher, at 64 persons and jobs per hectare, than the mandated DGA density of 50%. The comments pointed out that DGAs do not contain the same robust, high order transit systems as the built-up area, to provide the necessary transportation infrastructure and mix of uses needed to support a significant shift to higher density housing forms. Additionally, we indicated that the proposed housing mix of 21% low density, 31% medium density, and 48% high density was basically the reverse of today’s mix. It is noted that the scenario presented in the Community Area Land Need Assessment Technical Paper has been refined, reducing the DGA density from 64 to 60 persons and jobs per hectare (see Scenario 4). Additionally, the total new housing mix has been refined from 21% to 28% low density; from 31% to 28% medium density; from 48% to 41% high density; and 3% secondary units. In spite of these refinements, staff still holds the opinion that DGAs won’t be able to provide the necessary higher order transit transportation infrastructure, and mixed of uses, within the timeframe (to 2051) to support a DGA density of 60 persons and job per hectare or greater. - 104 - Report PLN 20-22 April 4, 2022 Subject: Envision Durham – Growth Management Study Page 8 3.5 The new Community Area Land Need Assessment Scenarios differentiate between the proposed unit mix for the existing Built Up Area and the DGA. To reflect the lack of higher order transit in the DGA, and to ensure a supply of market housing to provide family accommodation, and contribute to a complete community, staff recommends the Region consider a ‘modified Scenario 3’. It is staff’s opinion that the New Unit Mix in the BUA from Scenario 3, is most appropriate, at 9% low density; 34% medium density; 52% high density; and 6% secondary units. Further, it is staff’s opinion that the DGA density of 57 people and jobs per ha, from Scenario 3, is most appropriate, but that a modified New Unit Mix for the DGA be established at 42% low density, 42% medium density, 15% high density, and 1% secondary units, to reflect the attractiveness and qualities associated with medium and low density housing for families. Staff recommend that Community Area Land Need Scenario 3, as modified, be used in preparing the recommended Land Need Assessment. 3.6 Section 2 of the Scenarios Report discusses the implications of increasing the assumption on the amount of intensification within existing Employment Area, from 15% to 20%. Using the higher rate (Scenario 2) would reduce the amount of land needed for Employment Area through urban area boundary expansion. However, the level of intensification is largely left to the choice of the business owner and is difficult to predict. If the 20% is not realized, the Region may be left with a shortfall of vacant Employment Land. The growing trend of manufacturing industries being exported out of Canada, the demand for major logistics and warehousing facilities with relatively lower employees per square metre, the replacement of manual labour with automation technology, and the lack of incentives to intensify, lead staff to question whether the Employment Intensification Area target of 20% is attainable. Accordingly, staff recommends that the Region select Employment Area Land Need Scenario 1, with the 15% intensification assumption, in establishing the overall Recommended Land Need Scenario. 4.Staff Recommendations: It is recommended that the staff comments in Section 3 of this report be endorsed by Council as the City’s formal comments on the Envision Durham’s Scenarios Report dated March 2022, and that a copy of Report PLN 20-22 and Council’s resolution be forwarded to the Region of Durham for consideration. - 105 - Report PLN 20-22 April 4, 2022 Subject: Envision Durham – Growth Management Study Page 9 Attachment: 1.Report of the Regional Commissioner of Planning and Economic Development 2022-INFO-19 Prepared By: Original Signed By Déan Jacobs, MCIP, RPP Manager, Policy & Geomatics Approved/Endorsed By: Original Signed By Catherine Rose, MCIP, RPP Chief Planner Original Signed By Kyle Bentley, P. Eng. Director, City Development & CBO DJ:ld Recommended for the consideration of Pickering City Council Original Signed By Marisa Carpino, M.A. Chief Administrative Officer - 106 - Attachment #1 to Report PLN 20-22 If this information is required in an accessible format, please contact 1-800-372-1102 ext. 2564 The Regional Municipality of Durham Information Report From: Commissioner of Planning and Economic Development Report: #2022-INFO-19 Date: March 11, 2022 Subject: Envision Durham – Growth Management Study – Release of Alternative Land Need Scenarios Assessment Summary Report, File D12-01 Recommendation: Receive for information Report: 1.Purpose 1.1 The Growth Management Study (GMS) that is currently being undertaken by the Planning Division is an integral component of Envision Durham, the Municipal Comprehensive Review (MCR) of the Regional Official Plan (ROP). The first phase of the GMS is the preparation of a Land Needs Assessment (LNA) to quantify the amount of Settlement Area Boundary Expansion that will be required to accommodate the Region’s population and employment growth forecasts to the year 2051. 1.2 The purpose of this report is to advise Council, agencies, service providers, stakeholder groups and members of the public that the modelling and assessment of alternative land need scenarios is now available for review and comment until April 14th. At the May 3, 2022, Planning and Economic Development Committee, staff will recommend a preferred scenario, taking into account the input received. A Council decision on the preferred scenario will enable the second phase of the GMS to commence. - 107 - Page 2 of 9 2.Background 2.1 During the summer and early fall of 2021, four Technical Reports in support of the Region’s draft LNA were released for public review and comment. These reports were prepared in conformity with the Provincial Land Needs Assessment Methodology. The Growth Plan requires upper tier municipalities in the Greater Golden Horseshoe to use this methodology to assess the quantity of land required to accommodate forecasted growth. 2.2 The Technical Reports were fulsome and included: an overall recommended growth forecast; housing unit mix; intensification analysis; designated greenfield area density analysis; Employment Area density analysis; and the resulting Community Area and Employment Area land need. 2.3 In response to comments received from the development community and other stakeholders on the draft LNA, Regional Planning staff agreed at the October 5, 2021, Planning and Economic Development Committee meeting to assess a range of alternative land need scenarios by applying alternative housing unit mixes, intensification rates, and densities. In particular, a scenario that models the housing unit mix used in the Growth Plan 2051 Forecast Background Study, commonly referred to as the “Hemson scenario”, has been prepared. 3.Previous Reports and Decisions 3.1 Commissioner’s Report #2022-INFO-9 released February 11, 2022 provided an update on the assessment framework and consultation timelines for the alternative land need scenarios. 4.The Consultant’s Initial Community Area Land Need Scenario and Employment Area Land Need Have Been Updated 4.1 Since the release of the Technical Reports, additional work and updates to the underlying analysis have been undertaken to this initial scenario which had a unit mix of 22% low density units; 31% medium density units; and 47% high density units. The updated scenario (identified later in this report as Scenario 4), has been modelled and assessed along with the other of the other alternative scenarios. The key changes between the initial land need scenario and the Updated Scenario 4 are identified below: - 108 - Page 3 of 9 Initial Land Need Assessment Scenario from Technical Reports Updated Scenario 4: Balancing the Unit Mix Unit Mix: Low density units: 22% Medium density units: 31% High density units: 47% Unit Mix: Low density units: 28% Medium density units: 28% High density units: 41% Secondary units: 3% Intensification Rate: 50% Intensification Rate: 50% Designated Greenfield Area Density Target:64 people and jobs per hectare Designated Greenfield Area Density Target:60 people and jobs per hectare Community Area Land Need: 737 hectares (1,821 acres) Community Area Land Need: 950 hectares (2,348 acres) 4.2 The initial Employment Area Land Need was also updated, primarily to reflect additional Employment Area conversions recently endorsed by Regional Council. This review has resulted in an increase to the Employment Area Land Need reported in the Employment Strategy Technical Report, while other key metrics haver remained the same, as follows: Employment Strategy Technical Report Scenario Updated Employment Scenario Vacant Employment Area Density Target: 27 jobs per hectare Vacant Employment Area Density Target: 27 jobs per hectare Employment Intensification Rate: 20% Employment Intensification Rate: 20% Employment Area Land Need: 1,164 hectares (2,876 acres) Employment Area Land Need: 1,351 hectares (3,338 acres) 5.Release of Alternative Land Need Scenarios Assessment and Planned Consultation 5.1 The alternative scenario modelling outcomes and assessment is documented in the “Alternative Land Need Scenarios Assessment Summary Report” (see Attachment #1) which was released on March 10 on the Envision Durham website for public review. A summary of the alternative scenarios is provided below, with additional details including the scenario assessment found in the attached report. For ease of review, the five Community Area Land Need Scenarios are arranged in order from lowest density housing mix and highest land need, to highest density housing mix and lowest land need. It may be noted that Scenarios 1 and 2 do not conform to the - 109 - Page 4 of 9 Growth Plan because they do not achieve the minimum Intensification Rate of 50% as required under the Growth Plan, but they have been prepared for comparison purposes. A lower intensification rate than 50% would require special approval from the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing if sufficient justification could be provided that the 50% intensification rate cannot be achieved in Durham. Community Area Land Need Scenarios Scenario 1 Emphasis on low-density housing (“Hemson”) Scenario 2 Primarily low- density housing Scenario 3 Shifting the unit mix Scenario 4 Balancing the unit mix Scenario 5 Emphasis on higher densities Housing Unit Mix of new units: Low: 56% Medium: 23% High: 19% Secondary units: 2% Housing Unit Mix of new units: Low: 39% Medium: 26% High: 32% Secondary units: 3% Housing Unit Mix of new units: Low: 34% Medium: 30% High: 33% Secondary units: 3% Housing Unit Mix of new units: Low: 28% Medium: 28% High: 41% Secondary units: 3% Housing Unit Mix of new units: Low: 20% Medium: 31% High: 47% Secondary units: 3% Intensification Rate: 35% Intensification Rate: 45% Intensification Rate: 50% Intensification Rate: 50% Intensification Rate: 55% Designated Greenfield Area Density: 50 people and jobs per hectare Designated Greenfield Area Density: 55 people and jobs per hectare Designated Greenfield Area Density: 57 people and jobs per hectare Designated Greenfield Area Density: 60 people and jobs per hectare Designated Greenfield Area Density: 64 people and jobs per hectare New Community Area Land Need: 5,400 hectares (13,344 acres) New Community Area Land Need: 2,600 hectares (6,425 acres) New Community Area Land Need: 1,500 hectares (3,707 acres) New Community Area Land Need: 950 hectares (2,348 acres) New Community Area Land Need: 0 Note: Totals may not add due to rounding - 110 - Page 5 of 9 Employment Area Land Need Scenarios Scenario 1 Scenario 2 Vacant Employment Area Density Target: 27 Jobs per gross hectare Vacant Employment Area Density Target: 27 Jobs per gross hectare Employment Intensification Target: 15% Employment Intensification Target: 20% New Employment Area Land Need: 1,350 hectares (3,335 acres) New Employment Area Land Need: 1,170 hectares (2,891 acres) 5.2 Also on March 10, a feedback survey was posted on the Envision Durham website, to provide opportunities for public feedback on the alternative land need scenarios. Survey responses are being accepted until April 14, 2022. A Virtual Public Information Centre is scheduled for March 24, 2022, at 7pm. Notification of the Public Information Centre will be advertised via local newspapers, emailed to the Envision Durham interested parties list, social media channels, and a public service announcement. 5.3 Barring any unforeseen events, it is expected that a preferred land need scenario for both Community Areas and Employment Areas will be recommended to Planning and Economic Development Committee on May 3, 2022. 5.4 Upon Council’s endorsement of a preferred land need scenario, and the associated quantum of urban land need, the GMS will proceed to evaluate the most suitable locations for Settlement Area Boundary Expansion (i.e. Phase 2 of the process). 6.Relationship to Strategic Plan 6.1 This report aligns with/addresses the strategic goals and priorities in the Durham Region Strategic Plan. See Commissioner’s Report #2022-INFO-9 for additional details. 7.Conclusion 7.1 The release of this report will also be announced by way of: •Public service announcements; •Social media platforms, including Facebook, Twitter, and LinkedIn; and •Email notifications and report circulation. - 111 - Page 6 of 9 7.2 A copy of this report will be forwarded to all Envision Durham Interested Parties, Durham’s area municipalities, Indigenous communities, conservation authorities, the Building Industry and Land Development (BILD) – Durham Chapter, Durham Region Homebuilders Association, and the Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing. Circulation will also be provided to agencies and service providers that may have an interest in where and how long-term growth in the Region is being planned for (school boards, hospitals, utility providers, etc. as specified in Appendix #1). 8.Attachments Attachment #1: Alternative Land Need Scenarios Assessment Summary Report,prepared by Urban Strategies and Watson and Associates Respectfully submitted, Original signed by Brian Bridgeman, MCIP, RPP Commissioner of Planning and Economic Development - 112 - Page 7 of 9 Appendix 1 – to Report #2022-INFO-19 Circulated Agencies and Service Providers •Canada Post •Bell Canada •Rogers Communications •Shaw Cable TV •Compton Communications •Persona Communications •Canadian Pacific Railway •Canadian National Railway •Enbridge Gas Distribution Inc. and Enbridge Pipelines Inc. •Trans-Northern Pipelines Inc. •TransCanada Pipelines Inc. •Hydro One Networks Inc. •Ontario Power Generation Inc. •Durham District School Board •Durham Catholic District School Board •Conseil Scolaire Viamonde •MonAvenir Conseil Scolaire Catholique •Mississaugas of Scugog Island First Nation •Ministry of Transportation •Greater Toronto Airports Authority - 113 - Page 8 of 9 •Transport Canada •Metrolinx •Trent-Severn Waterway •Kawartha Pine Ridge District School Board •Peterborough Victoria Northumberland and Clarington Catholic District SchoolBoard •Durham Region Police Department •Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing •Elexicon •Hydro One Networks Inc. (Brock, Scugog and Uxbridge) •Independent Electricity System Operator •Ontario Tech University •Trent University Durham •Durham College •Durham Workforce Authority •General Motors of Canada •Lakeridge Health •Ajax-Pickering Board of Trade •Brock Board of Trade •Clarington Board of Trade •Newcastle & District Chamber of Commerce •Greater Oshawa Chamber of Commerce •Scugog Chamber of Commerce - 114 - Page 9 of 9 •Uxbridge Chamber of Commerce •Whitby Chamber of Commerce •Downtown Ajax BIA •Bowmanville BIA •Brooklin BIA •Pickering Village BIA •Port Perry BIA •Uxbridge BIA •Downtown Whitby BIA •Business Advisory Centre Durham •Spark Centre - 115 - ALTERNATIVE LAND NEED SCENARIOS ASSESSMENT SUMMARY REPORT Part of the Region of Durham Growth Management Study: Land Needs Assessment March 2022 - 116 - - 117 - TABLE OF CONTENTS 1. INTRODUCTION AND CONTEXT 4 2. EMPLOYMENT AREA LAND NEED SCENARIOS 6 2.1 Description 6 2.2 Methodology/Analysis 6 2.3 Key Considerations 7 3. COMMUNITY AREA LAND NEED SCENARIOS 8 3.1 A Spectrum of Community Area Land Need Scenarios 9 3.2 Community Area Alternative Land Need Scenario Methodology 10 3.3 Community Area Land Need Scenario Assessment Framework 12 3.4 Community Area Land Need Scenario Outcomes 14 4. RANGE OF LAND NEED 24 5. NEXT STEPS 25 TECHNICAL APPENDIX 26 - 118 - 4 Alternative Land Need Scenarios Assessment Summary 1. Introduction and Context Durham Region is undertaking a Growth Management Study (GMS) as part of Envision Durham, the Municipal Comprehensive Review (MCR) of the Regional Official Plan (ROP). This is a two-phase study to assess how to accommodate the Growth Plan for the Greater Golden Horseshoe forecast growth to 2051 of 1,300,000 people and 460,000 jobs in the Region of Durham. The first phase of the GMS is the preparation of a Land Needs Assessment (LNA) to quantify the amount of Settlement Area Boundary Expansion that will be required to accommodate future population and employment growth to the year 2051. During the summer and early fall 2021, the GMS Project Team released four Technical Reports (the “Technical Reports”) providing an analysis of the form of growth and resulting land needs in Durham. These four reports were presented for public comment and Planning and Economic Development Committee consideration: 1. The Region-Wide Growth Analysis (released on July 2, 2021) presented region-wide population and employment forecasts, various trends in demographics, unit mix, housing prices, and built form. The Report included a forecast housing unit mix for new units to be built during 2021 to 2051 timeframe of 22% low density units, 31% medium density units, and 47% high density units. 2. The Housing Intensification Study Technical Report (released on September 3, 2021) evaluated the supply and demand for housing within the built-up area, including a detailed assessment of likely opportunities and supply potential for intensification1 and associated population and employment accommodation. The Report recommended a regional intensification target of 50%. 3. The Employment Strategy Technical Report (released on September 24, 2021) provided an assessment of trends in employment and analyzed the current state of the region’s Employment Areas, provided recommendations on Employment Area conversions, recommended an overall Employment Area density target of 26 jobs per hectare by 2051, and identified an additional Employment Area land need of 1,164 hectares. 4. The Community Area Land Needs Technical Report (released on October 1, 2021) evaluated the existing state, current trends, and long-term development potential of designated greenfield areas (i.e. lands within the urban area boundary that are outside of the built-up area). The Report provided a recommended overall designated greenfield areas density target of 64 people and jobs per hectare and an additional Community Area land need of 737 hectares. 1 Intensification is defined as the development of a property, site or area within the Built Up Area at a higher density than currently exists. - 119 - 5 March 2022 Through the fall 2021, the Envision Durham process sought input and comments on the Technical Reports from stakeholders and the public. Correspondence from BILD, other development interests, certain area municipalities, and others, questioned whether the proposed housing mix contained in the draft Region Wide Growth Analysis was too heavily weighted towards high density forms of development, and did not adequately represent the market demand for low density housing (i.e. single detached dwellings). Other correspondence, including from individual members of the public, certain area municipal comments, and other organizations indicated that the draft LNA targets were either appropriate, or could be more aggressive to limit settlement area expansions by more heavily prioritizing the protection of farmland, mitigating climate change, and maximizing higher density intensification opportunities. In response to comments received, Regional Planning staff agreed at the October 5, 2021 Planning and Economic Development Committee meeting to run modelling and assess a range of alternative land need scenarios. This report provides a summary of the land need scenarios, including 2 Employment Land need scenarios and 5 Community Area land need scenarios, and the resultant analysis and assessment of the scenario modelling outcomes. Before the Scenario modelling and analysis was undertaken, adjustments were made to reflect the current context across the Region to create a refined baseline of existing settlement patterns and supply of urban land available for development (greenfield). Input from stakeholders and consultation has also informed the adjustments. These adjustments are as follows: a. Decisions made by Regional Council on December 22, 2021 regarding Employment Area conversion requests, including some additional sites that were endorsed for conversion, which resulted in increased Community Area Land supply; b. Revised base mapping to reflect updated natural heritage takeout layer in the DGA Community Area land need analysis, and a reclassification of select sites based on comments received which reduced the remaining developable vacant land supply; and c. Reassessment of the current active development applications and developable land area within Seaton. The information contained in this report and the technical appendix are provided in order to allow for meaningful and informed feedback through the ongoing consultation process and engagement survey available at durham. ca/envisiondurham. Once input from this consultation is received, a Recommended Land Needs Scenario will be provided to the Region’s Planning and Economic Development Committee in May 2022. - 120 - 6 Alternative Land Need Scenarios Assessment Summary 2. Employment Area Land Need Scenarios 2.1 Description The Employment Strategy Technical Report identified an Employment Area forecast of 99,500 jobs, where 15% of employment growth is expected to be accommodated through the intensification of existing businesses and sites, with the remaining growth anticipated to occur on vacant employment lands at a density of 27 jobs per gross hectare. In response to feedback on the Durham Region Employment Strategy Technical Report, an alternative Employment Area scenario has been defined and assessed. The alternative employment scenario examines an alternative Employment Area intensification target of 20%, compared to 15% reported in the Durham Region Employment Strategy Technical Report. Employment Area intensification represents opportunities to accommodate job growth on employment lands which are currently developed or underutilized through the expansion of existing businesses, severance of existing parcels with adequate frontage, or the redevelopment of existing uses to more employment-intensive operations. The Durham Region Employment Strategy density target of 27 jobs per gross hectare for the region’s vacant employment lands has been maintained in the alternative employment scenario. This is because recent trends in employment development show a strong market for more land extensive logistics and warehousing uses in Durham, which result in moderate employment densities. The Region has minimal ability to effectively influence higher densities on vacant lands and assuming a higher density beyond what has already been identified in the Employment Strategy is not recommended. 2.2 Methodology/Analysis Based on an updated natural heritage system as well as Employment Area conversions endorsed by Durham Regional Council, the land needs calculation has been revised since the release of the Durham Region Employment Strategy Technical Report. Further to these changes, a potential higher number of forecast jobs occurring through intensification results in a greater utilization of Durham Region’s existing Employment Area land base and infrastructure. Increasing employment densities on existing vacant and underutilized sites within Durham Region encourages the concentration of economic activity and reduces the amount of new land and infrastructure needed to promote job growth. As shown in the graphic on page 7, an increased intensification target of 20% in the alternative Employment scenario results in an overall reduction in vacant Employment Area land needed to accommodate forecast growth to 2051. With a 20% intensification target, the overall land need by 2051 would be reduced to 1,170 gross hectares compared to 1,350 hectares required with a 15% intensification target. Historical building permit activity over the past decade indicates that approximately 20% of gross floor area (G.F.A.) development in Employment Areas has been achieved through expansions. This figure does not account for new building permits on lands which have been severed or redeveloped. Furthermore, there are ample opportunities across Durham Region’s underutilized employment lands to accommodate job growth through intensification. For example, through a review of larger sized underutilized sites with high potential to accommodate intensification, it is estimated that approximately 10,000 jobs could be accommodated on just 25 of the larger underutilized parcels within Employment Areas. These parcels represent approximately one third of the total underutilized land area in Employment Areas across the Region. - 121 - 7 March 2022 2.3 Key Considerations • Achieving a higher Employment Area intensification target of 20% results in a more efficient use of land and reduced Employment Area land need in Durham Region by 2051. A reduction in new land required to accommodate job growth has a lesser impact on the Region’s agricultural lands and rural systems. • Intensification of existing Employment Lands in proximity to major transit station areas (MTSAs) and other locations served by Regional Transit would complement the Region’s priorities related to transit- oriented development (TOD) and economic competitiveness. • The level of intensification achieved in Durham Region is largely left to the discretion of business owner choice and it is therefore difficult to predict future levels of intensification. • If a higher intensification target of 20% does not materialize, it could potentially result in an insufficient amount of vacant Employment Area land available for development over the horizon of the Official Plan. It is noted, however, that there would be an opportunity to reassess intensification patterns during the next Municipal Comprehensive Review and re-evaluate whether additional employment land will be required through expansion. Figure 2-3-1: Employment Area Land Need Methodology Flow Chart - 122 - 8 Alternative Land Need Scenarios Assessment Summary 3. Community Area Land Need Scenarios Five Community Area Land Need Scenarios have been framed to test a broader range of options for accommodating the 2051 forecast growth across the Region. The five Community Area Land Need Scenarios create a spectrum ranging from lowest density housing mix and highest land need to highest density housing mix and lowest land need. All scenarios accommodate the Growth Plan forecast for Durham Region to 2051. The key variables that have been adjusted across the scenarios include housing mix (regionally and by policy area), designated greenfield area (DGA) density targets, intensification targets, and future land need. The five Community Area Land Need Scenarios are described on page 9 followed by a summary of the analysis and resultant growth patterns and an assessment of each Scenario. Each Scenario has been defined by prioritizing one or more of the key variables noted above as the primary driver, with the other variables being resultant outcomes. For example, prioritizing a unit mix with a high share of low-density housing will result in a lower intensification and DGA density target, while producing a higher DGA Community Area land need. Conversely, prioritizing sustainability objectives including TOD and less need for settlement area boundary expansions will drive a unit mix with a higher share of medium and high-density units and result in a higher intensification target and DGA density target and a lower DGA Community Area land need. The following describes each of the scenarios and key drivers and their position on the Scenario spectrum. Figure 3-1: Trends along the spectrum of scenarios - 123 - 9 March 2022 3.1 A Spectrum of Community Area Land Need Scenarios 1. Scenario 1: Emphasis on low-densityhousing, not meeting the minimum Growth Plan intensification target This scenario implements the housing unit mix from the Growth Plan background technical report entitled: “Greater Golden Horseshoe: Growth Forecasts to 2051”, prepared by Hemson Consulting, dated August 26, 2020. This scenario incorporates the highest proportion of low-density housing forms, which will result in the highest amount of additional Community Area land and the lowest intensification rate at 35%, well below the Growth Plan minimum. 2. Scenario 2: Primarily low-density housing, with increased share of medium and high-density housing Scenario 2 targets a higher intensification rate than Scenario 1, while maintaining a housing unit mix that is still predominantly oriented towards low- and medium-density housing. The resultant intensification rate is 45%, lower than the Growth Plan minimum. The unit mix paired with the lower intensification rate results in the second highest amount of additional Community Area land. 3. Scenario 3: Shifting the unit mix and adding low density intensification to BUA and SGAs to achieve the minimum Growth Plan intensification target Scenario 3 aims to meet the Growth Plan minimum intensification target of 50%, while maintaining a high share of low- and medium-density housing forms. To accommodate increased levels of low- and medium-density housing forms in the BUA (to achieve the 50%), intensification within urban structure will limit higher density growth with Regional Centres and along Regional Corridors. Achieving this scenario would prove challenging, because a high number of low-density units would be required within the BUA on sites that may otherwise be appropriate and desirable for more intensive forms of development, and through the redevelopment of larger lots in stable neighbourhoods. Furthermore, this Scenario will still result in a considerable amount of additional Community Area land need. 4. Scenario 4: Balancing the unit mix -with an emphasis on high and medium-density housing, while achieving the minimum 50% intensification target Scenario 4 reflects the current pipeline development trend toward high- density housing forms in the BUA, while accommodating a sufficient proportion of low- and medium-density forms in response to public and stakeholder comments. The result is a Scenario that achieves the minimum 50% intensification target, supports the growth of SGAs, and offers a market- based choice of housing options that is adjusted to a more balanced mix of built form in the region over the 30-year horizon. A moderate amount of new Community Area land is anticipated. 5. Scenario 5: Emphasis on higher densitiesand intensification beyond minimum Growth Plan targets Scenario 5 seeks to achieve an intensification rate of 55%, primarily though medium- and high-density housing forms. The forecast unit mix in the DGA is expected to accommodate the greatest share of high-density housing compared to the previous four scenarios. Based on less overall housing growth forecast in the DGA and a dense housing mix, no additional Community Area Land is required. This represents a “no-urban-expansion” scenario. - 124 - 10 Alternative Land Need Scenarios Assessment Summary 3.2 Community Area Alternative Land Need Scenario Methodology The Community Area Alternative Land Need Scenarios test a range of inputs and outcomes/implications for how growth can be accommodated across Durham Region. The draft LNA outcome from the Technical Reports represents a reference point, but each of the Five Scenarios has been defined and analysed distinct from this departure point. The following three key steps were undertaken in preparing the Scenario Analysis: 1. The key drivers from each Scenario were used to frame the analysis. An initial analysis of the Scenario was run against the forecast model and reviewed against the outcomes (housing mix, intensification rate, greenfield density, impact on planned regional structure, and additional land need). If needed, adjustments were made to the Scenario to ensure each was coming as close as possible to conforming with Growth Plan policies and targets while complementing Regional priorities (i.e. MTSAs). 2. In order to achieve the Scenario drivers, in particular an increased proportion of low- and medium-density housing mix, some additional assumptions were made. More specifically, in order to accommodate complete communities in both the BUA and Greenfield areas, an increased amount of low- (single-detached, semi-detached, and duplexes) and medium-density (townhouse) housing units need to be accommodated in both the DGA and BUA policy areas. To achieve this in the BUA, some underutilized lands or soft sites were assumed to be developed as low and medium density rather than high density units, and intensification through lot splitting (larger sized single lots severed into two lots) also was assumed. 3. Secondary units, also referred to as Gentle Intensification in the Housing Intensification Technical Report, have been separated into their own density category for the assessment of the Five Scenarios. This reflects the unique form of intensification, where they are typically located in low-density unit types but are assigned a high-density people per unit assumption. Their low-density context yet high-density residency makes them sufficiently different for the purpose of the analysis. The assumption for the absolute number of secondary units in the region does not vary by scenario, though the proportion of these units does fluctuate due to the varying rates of other unit types. Final outputs for each scenario varies in terms of housing mix by type (region wide and within the BUA and DGA), achievement of the Growth Plan intensification target, assumed DGA density, and the resulting land need to accommodate forecast growth to 2051. Once these outputs were obtained, an assessment was undertaken of each scenario. Figure 3-2-1: Key Variables in the Land Needs Assessment are interrelated - 125 - 11 March 2022 Figure 3-2-2: Alternative Scenarios development and assessment flow chart - 126 - 12 Alternative Land Need Scenarios Assessment Summary 3.3 Community Area Land Need Scenario Assessment Framework To provide Regional Council, stakeholders and members of the public with additional information and context, each scenario was measured against an assessment framework. The Assessment Framework was developed by considering the key theme areas of Conformity with the Growth Plan, Regional Priorities, Future Forward Planning, and Regional Official Plan and Envision Durham Planning Objectives, all of which inform how growth in Durham should occur over the next 30 years. A review of existing policies and strategies under each theme was conducted, which resulted in the following principles and questions that were uses to measure and compare the scenarios: Principle 1:Achieving Targets 1. Does the scenario achieve the minimum targets of the Growth Plan, before advancing additional settlement area boundary expansion? Principle 2:Housing Market Choice 1. Does the scenario provide for the development of a fulsome range of housing types? 2. How does the scenario respond to market demand? Principle 3:Setting up Strategic Growth Areas for Success 1. Does the scenario support the ability of SGAs, including Urban Growth Centres, MTSAs, Regional Centres, and Regional Corridors, to achieve their planned function as higher density, mixed-use, and transit supportive urban communities? Principle 4:Protecting Agricultural and Rural Systems, preparing for Climate Change and Achieving Sustainable Development 1. To what extent would the scenario negatively impact existing agricultural and rural areas? 2. Does the scenario provide efficient and sustainable development patterns, including transit-oriented development? 3. Does the scenario respond to the Region’s Climate Change Emergency declaration? - 127 - 13 March 2022 Principle 5:Competitive Economic and EmploymentConditions 1. To what extent does the scenario capitalize on the Region’s economic and sector strengths, including providing for appropriate Employment Area land to ensure Durham remains economically attractive and competitive over the long term? The outcomes/implications from each scenario were then compared and ranked. The rankings, with the exception of Principle 1, were predominantly based on a qualitative assessment, recognizing the overlapping and subjective nature of the principles. Principle 1 is a quantitative assessment based on the 50% Intensification Rate, and minimum MTSA and UGC people and jobs per hectare densities required by the Growth Plan. The Scenario outcomes and assessment summaries are contained in the following section. - 128 - 14 Alternative Land Need Scenarios Assessment Summary 3.4 Community Area Land Need Scenario Outcomes Emphasis on low-density housing,not meeting the minimum Growth Plan intensification target 1. Scenario 1 implements the housing mix established in the Greater Golden Horseshoe: Growth Forecasts to 2051 Technical Report, August 26, 2020 (Growth Plan Technical Report). The housing mix is based on a continuation of historical propensity trends for Durham Region to 2051. This Scenario explores the implications of a low-density focused growth scenario on the regional urban structure. The high proportion (56%) of low density units has implications on all metrics, resulting in an intensification rate of 35%, which is lower than the Growth Plan minimum requirement of 50%. Given the low percentage of high-density units, this Scenario locates virtually all of the forecast high-density housing mix within the Built-up Area to best support the Strategic Growth Areas. The DGA Density meets the Growth Plan target but is lowest of all scenarios. The resultant land need is the greatest of all of the five scenarios. 4,800 29,400 35,500 4,100 ‘0,000 units 110,700 18,220 5,480 460 ‘0,000 units 50 Secondary UnitsOutcomes 35% Low Density Medium Density High Density Intensification Rate New Community AreaLand Need (Hectares) DGA Density (PJH) DGA New Unit Mix Durham Total Unit Mix 2051 (Existing + New) DGA New Units Durham Total Units 2051 (Existing + New) BUA New Unit Mix BUA New Units 40% 6% 7% 48% 82% 14% Durham Total New Unit Mix 18% 4% 1% 40 0 0 8 12 1 10 2 20 3 30 4 ‘0,000 units 297,600 78,600 85,200 5,400 56% 23% 19% 63%19% 2% The intensification rate is 35%. The BUA unit mix is 7% low-density, 40% medium-density, 48% high- density, and 6% secondary units. The BUA unit amounts are 4,800 low-density, 29,400 medium-density, 35,500 high-density, and 4,100 secondary units. The DGA density is 50 people and jobs per hectare. The DGA unit mix is 82% low-density, 14% medium-density, 4% high-density, and 1% secondary units. The DGA unit amounts are 110,700 low-density, 18,220 medium-density, 5,480 high density, and 460 secondary units. The total new unit mix is 56% low-density, 23% medium-density, 19% high-density, and 2% secondary units. The total new community area land need is 5,400 hectares. - 129 - 15 March 2022 Scenario 1 Assessment 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. Achieving Targets Does the scenario achieve the minimum targets of the Growth Plan, before advancing additional settlement area boundary expansion? Housing Market Choice Does the scenario provide for the development of a ful- some range of housing types? How does the scenario respond to market demand? Setting-up SGAs for success Does the scenario support the ability of SGAs, including Urban Growth Centres, MTSAs, Regional Centres, and Regional Corridors, to achieve their planned function as higher density, mixed-use, and transit supportive urban communities? Protecting Agricultural and Rural Systems, preparing for Climate Change and Achieving Sustainable Development To what extent would the scenario negatively impact exist- ing agricultural and rural areas? Does the scenario provide efficient and sustainable devel- opment patterns, including transit-oriented development? Does the scenario respond to the Region’s Climate Change Emergency declaration? Competitive Economic andEmployment Conditions To what extent does the scenario capitalize on the Region’s economic and sector strengths, including providing for appropriate Employment Area land to ensure Durham remains economically attractive and competitive over the long term? • 50% intensification target not met. • Minimum greenfield density of 50 p&j/ ha met but is below the Category 1 density (currently approved). • MTSA and UGC minimum densities difficult to meet • Implementing the Growth Plan Technical Report forecasts results in an increased share of low-density housing types than are reported in the active development pipeline • Assumes future housing unit mix would be a flat line projection of historical patterns (based on 2016). • Limited high-density options in DGA. • Housing forms are generally ground-oriented, leading to lowest intensification densities within the BUA. • Lowest level density development potential within the SGAs, challenging their potential as mixed-use, transit supportive urban communities. • Requires the most new land, consuming existing rural and agricultural land. • Predominance of low-density form makes transit oriented redevelopment difficult and increases car-dependency • Supply of low-density units encourages new families to move to Durham. • Low-density form leads to increasing traffic congestion long-term. • Car-dependent urban form is less physically and economically accessible. • Low-density form, spread over a larger settlement area and related infrastructure is more costly to maintain in the long- term. Key Considerations • Highest proportion of low-density housing forms across all policy areas. • Strategic Growth Areas planned to achieve lowest level of density • Development of urban structure as a compact, transit oriented places least supported. • Highest relative land need of the Five Scenarios. - 130 - 16 Alternative Land Need Scenarios Assessment Summary 2. Primarily low-density housing,with increased share of medium and high-density housing Scenario 2 represents a Region-wide housing mix forecast that continues to prioritize low- and medium- density housing, while achieving a higher intensification rate and providing a wider range of market options in the DGA than Scenario 1. Based on supply opportunities within the BUA, as well as the housing demand by type, Scenario 2 can reasonably achieve an intensification target of 45% between 2022 and 2051. Overall, there are fewer units being allocated into the DGA in Scenario 2, since an increased intensification target results in more units being provided in the BUA than in Scenario 1. These additional units are directed towards the Strategic Growth Areas (SGAs). The DGA is higher (55PJH) given the shift in the unit mix. In total, 2600 ha of new Community Area Land is needed to accommodate the forecast to 2051. Intensification Rate DGA Units 45% 31% 6% 5% 57% 66% 22% 11% 1% 39% 26% 32% 3% 4,900 5,870 30,200 55,000 76,600 660 25,300 13,200 DGA New Unit Mix BUA New Unit Mix BUA New Units Durham Total New Unit Mix 20 0 4 6 8 2 4 6 ‘0,000 units ‘0,000 units Durham Total Units 2051 Durham Total Unit Mix DGA Density (Existing + New) 2051 (Existing + New) (PJH) 55 0 10 20 30 259,000 96,100 113,000 ‘0,000 units New Community AreaLand Need (Hectares) 2,600 Low Density Medium Density High Density Secondary Units 55%21% 24% Outcomes The intensification rate is 45%. The BUA unit mix is 5% low-density, 31% medium-density, 57% high- density, and 6% secondary units. The BUA unit amounts are 4,900 low-density, 30,200 medium-density, 55,000 high-density, and 5,870 secondary units. The DGA density is 55 people and jobs per hectare. The DGA unit mix is 66% low-density, 22% medium-density, 11% high-density, and 1% secondary units. The DGA unit amounts are 76,600 low-density, 25,300 medium-density, 13,200 high density, and 660 secondary units. The total new unit mix is 39% low-density, 26% medium-density, 32% high- density, and 3% secondary units. The total new community area land need is 2,600 hectares. - 131 - 17 March 2022 Scenario 2 Assessment 1. Achieving Targets Does the scenario achieve the minimum targets of the Growth Plan, before advancing additional settlement area boundary expansion? 2. Housing Market Choice Does the scenario provide for the development of a ful- some range of housing types? How does the scenario respond to market demand? 3. Setting-up SGAs for success Does the scenario support the ability of SGAs, including Urban Growth Centres, MTSAs, Regional Centres, and Regional Corridors, to achieve their planned function as higher density, mixed-use, and transit supportive urban communities? Protecting Agricultural and Rural 4. Systems, preparing for Climate Change and Achieving Sustainable Development To what extent would the scenario negatively impact exist- ing agricultural and rural areas? Does the scenario provide efficient and sustainable devel- opment patterns, including transit-oriented development? Does the scenario respond to the Region’s Climate Change Emergency declaration? Competitive Economic and5. Employment Conditions To what extent does the scenario capitalize on the Region’s economic and sector strengths, including providing for appropriate Employment Area land to ensure Durham remains economically attractive and competitive over the long term? Key Considerations • Shift towards market-based supply and higher density in DGA • 50% intensification target not met. • Minimum greenfield density of 50 p&j/ ha met • MTSA and UGC minimum densities can be met. • The scenario provides a range of housing types and options in the BUA and a range of low- and medium- density housing options in the DGA, though likely provides less density in the DGA than there is demand, based on active development applications. • Densities within Regional Centres are elevated to transit-supportive levels, but densities along Regional Corridors generally do not meet the same threshold. • Requires the second highest amount of new land, consuming existing rural and agricultural land. • Lower density form unlikely to support viable transit options outside of MTSAs and UGCs • Shift to medium density undermines transit supportive densities along Re- gional Corridors. • Supply of low-density units encourages new families to move to Durham. • Shift to higher-density forms in BUA enables Regional Centres to emerge as economic centres. • MTSAs are supported as growth centres, offering mobility choice and competitive advantage to new employment and residential uses • Regional Centres supported for growth although Regional Corridors growth potential is not optimized • High relative new land need compared to Scenarios 3, 4 and 5 - 132 - 18 Alternative Land Need Scenarios Assessment Summary 3. Shifting the unit mix and adding low density intensification to BUA and SGAs toachieve the minimum Growth Plan intensification target This scenario meets the Growth Plan minimum intensification rate of 50%, but uses a high proportion of low-and medium-density housing forms in the unit mix. Low- and medium-density housing forms require large amounts of land compared to apartments and condominiums. Meeting the 50% intensification figure with low- and medium-density housing forms required large areas within SGAs, including Regional Centres and Corridors, be planned for ground related housing. In addition, significant amounts of low density intensification within community areas is required, including within existing stable neighbourhoods. A higher DGA density is achieved, resulting in a lower Community Land Area need than the previous scenarios. Intensification Rate BUA New Unit Mix BUA New Units 50% 6% 9% 34%52% 9,300 36,500 55,100 5,870 0 2 4 6 ‘0,000 units Durham Total New Unit Mix DGA New Unit Mix DGA Units 3% 1% 58%26% 15% 60,800 660 27,500 16,300 34% 30% 33% New Community AreaLand Need (Hectares) DGA Density (PJH) 57 247,000 104,900 116,500 1,500 53% 22% 25% 20 0 4 6 8 5 10 15 20 25 ‘0,000 units ‘0,000 units Durham Total Unit Mix 2051 (Existing + New) Durham Total Units 2051 (Existing + New) Low Density High Density Secondary UnitsMedium Density Outcomes The intensification rate is 50%. The BUA unit mix is 6% low-density, 34% medium-density, 52% high- density, and 6% secondary units. The BUA unit amounts are 9,300 low-density, 36,500 medium-density, 55,100 high-density, and 5,870 secondary units. The DGA density is 57 people and jobs per hectare. The DGA unit mix is 58% low-density, 26% medium-density, 15% high-density, and 1% secondary units. The DGA unit amounts are 60,800 low-density, 27,500 medium-density, 16,300 high density, and 660 secondary units. The total new unit mix is 34% low-density, 30% medium-density, 33% high- density, and 3% secondary units. The total new community area land need is 1,500 hectares. - 133 - 19 March 2022 Scenario 3 Assessment 1. Achieving Targets Does the scenario achieve the minimum targets of the Growth Plan, before advancing additional settlement area boundary expansion? 2. Housing Market Choice Does the scenario provide for the development of a ful- some range of housing types? How does the scenario respond to market demand? 3. Setting-up SGAs for success Does the scenario support the ability of SGAs, including Urban Growth Centres, MTSAs, Regional Centres, and Regional Corridors, to achieve their planned function as higher density, mixed-use, and transit supportive urban communities? Protecting Agricultural and Rural 4. Systems, preparing for Climate Change and Achieving Sustainable Development To what extent would the scenario negatively impact exist- ing agricultural and rural areas? Does the scenario provide efficient and sustainable devel- opment patterns, including transit-oriented development? Does the scenario respond to the Region’s Climate Change Emergency declaration? Competitive Economic and5. Employment Conditions To what extent does the scenario capitalize on the Region’s economic and sector strengths, including providing for appropriate Employment Area land to ensure Durham remains economically attractive and competitive over the long term? Key Considerations • 50% intensification target met. • Minimum greenfield density of 50 p&j/ ha met. • MTSA and UGC minimum densities can be met • The scenario provides a range of housing types and options in both the BUA and DGA. • Higher levels of low and medium density provided in the BUA are accommodated by growth in stable neighbourhoods and lower densities in SGAs. • Highest levels of low-and medium- density housing forms in BUA undermines SGA planned function and transit supportive objectives. • Requires additional land, consuming existing rural and agricultural land. • Focus on low- and medium-density within BUA limits transit supportive development opportunities. Return on public transit investments undermined. • Supply of low-density units encourages new families to move to Durham. • Focus on low-and medium-density forms within BUA limits long-term viability of SGAs due to limited population growth. • Scenario achieves intensification target using a balanced mix of housing forms • Use of low- and medium-density housing forms in BUA and SGAs undermines transit oriented development objectives and regional urban structure by placing a high share of grade-related housing forms in SGAs • Low- and medium-density housing units in Regional Centres unlikely to align with market conditions • Assumes highest level of lot splitting/ intensification within Community Area lands including existing mature and stable neighbourhoods - 134 - 20 Alternative Land Need Scenarios Assessment Summary 4. Balancing the unit mix with an emphasis on high and medium-density housing, whileachieving the minimum 50% intensification target Scenario 4 builds from the approach of the Technical Reports with a preference for high-density housing forms in the BUA, but is adjusted to increase the proportion of low- and medium-density forms in response to public and stakeholder comments. This mix is intended to reflect the rapidly growing population of Durham while preserving its capacity to house new and growing families with a range of housing types and affordable housing options compared to other Greater Toronto and Hamilton Area (GTHA) regions. This Scenario achieves a focus on high-density units in Strategic Growth Areas (SGAs) with additional low- and medium-density housing forms along Regional Corridors. The higher DGA density of 60 PJH is achieved with approximately 50% low-density housing units. This scenario results in a lower Community Area land need than the three previous scenarios. Intensification Rate BUA New Unit Mix BUA New Units 50% 6% 5% 29% 61% 5,100 31,000 64,800 5,870 0 2 4 6 8 ‘0,000 units Durham Total New Unit Mix DGA New Unit Mix DGA Units 3% 1% 51% 27% 21% 53,500 660 28,800 22,600 28% 28% 41% 20 4 6 ‘0,000 units Durham Total Units 2051 Durham Total Unit Mix DGA Density (Existing + New) 2051 (Existing + New) (PJH) 60 234,900 50% 21% 28% New Community Area 100,500 Land Need (Hectares) 133,000 9500 5 10 15 20 25 ‘0,000 units Low Density Medium Density High Density Secondary UnitsOutcomes The intensification rate is 50%. The BUA unit mix is 5% low-density, 29% medium-density, 61% high- density, and 6% secondary units. The BUA unit amounts are 5,100 low-density, 31,000 medium-density, 64,800 high-density, and 5,870 secondary units. The DGA density is 60 people and jobs per hectare. The DGA unit mix is 51% low-density, 27% medium-density, 21% high-density, and 1% secondary units. The DGA unit amounts are 53,500 low-density, 28,800 medium-density, 22,600 high density, and 660 secondary units. The total new unit mix is 28% low-density, 28% medium-density, 41% high- density, and 3% secondary units. The total new community area land need is 950 hectares. - 135 - 21 March 2022 Scenario 4 Assessment 1. Achieving Targets Does the scenario achieve the minimum targets of the Growth Plan, before advancing additional settlement area boundary expansion? 2. Housing Market Choice Does the scenario provide for the development of a ful- some range of housing types? How does the scenario respond to market demand? 3. Setting-up SGAs for success Does the scenario support the ability of SGAs, including Urban Growth Centres, MTSAs, Regional Centres, and Regional Corridors, to achieve their planned function as higher density, mixed-use, and transit supportive urban communities? Protecting Agricultural and Rural 4. Systems, preparing for Climate Change and Achieving Sustainable Development To what extent would the scenario negatively impact exist- ing agricultural and rural areas? Does the scenario provide efficient and sustainable devel- opment patterns, including transit-oriented development? Does the scenario respond to the Region’s Climate Change Emergency declaration? Competitive Economic and5. Employment Conditions To what extent does the scenario capitalize on the Region’s economic and sector strengths, including providing for appropriate Employment Area land to ensure Durham remains economically attractive and competitive over the long term? Key Considerations • 50% intensification target met. • Minimum greenfield density of 50 p&j/ ha met. • MTSA and UGC minimum densities can be met • Shift to housing form and choice creates balance between low, medium and high density, providing housing choice for a broad and changing demographic. • Focus on higher-density forms supports the growth of the SGAs • Proportion of medium density units in the SGAs does not optimize the growth potential in transit supportive areas • Requires additional land, consuming existing rural and agricultural land. • Preference for compact housing forms supports transit oriented communities. • Compact form can align with efficient building design and travel modes, reducing greenhouse gas emissions. • Supply of low- and medium-density forms in BUA attracts new families. • Supply of high-density units in DGA supports new planned Centres. • Higher-density focus in BUA supports planned urban structure. • Transit oriented development limits future traffic congestion. • Scenario achieves intensification target using a balanced mix of housing forms in the DGA and a higher proportion of high-density housing forms in the BUA • Supports compact, transit oriented communities and regional urban structure • Moderate additional Community Area land required - 136 - 22 Alternative Land Need Scenarios Assessment Summary and intensification beyond minimum Growth Plan targets Emphasis on higher densities5. Scenario 5 tests the growth pattern required to exceed the minimum intensification target (55%) and require no new Community Land to accommodate the 2051 growth forecast. The Region-wide unit mix is established by meeting these requirements. The Built-up Area (BUA) is forecast to contain the highest amount of high-density housing units, and the DGA housing forecast results in a mix which is more oriented towards high-density units than reported in active development applications. The resultant output is a DGA unit mix which provides the lowest proportion of low-density and greatest proportion of high-density units - a significant shift from past and recent development trends. The DGA density of 64 pjh is the highest overall DGA density by 2051 and results in a no expansion scenario. Intensification Rate BUA New Unit Mix BUA New Units 5% 4% DGA Units 27% 63% 5,200 5,870 32,000 74,300 38% 35% 27% 1% 36,000 660 33,100 25,500 20% 31% 47% 3% 55% Low Density Medium Density High Density Secondary Units New Community AreaLand Need (Hectares) DGA Density (PJH) 64 216,700 106,500 145,700 0 46% 23% 31% DGA New Unit MixDurham Total New Unit Mix 10 0 2 3 4 2 4 6 8 ‘0,000 units ‘0,000 units ‘0,000 units 0 5 10 15 20 25 Durham Total Unit Mix 2051 (Existing + New) Durham Total Units 2051 (Existing + New) Outcomes The intensification rate is 55%. The BUA unit mix is 5% low-density, 27% medium-density, 63% high- density, and 5% secondary units. The BUA unit amounts are 5,200 low-density, 32,000 medium-density, 74,300 high-density, and 5,870 secondary units. The DGA density is 64 people and jobs per hectare. The DGA unit mix is 38% low-density, 35% medium-density, 27% high-density, and 1% secondary units. The DGA unit amounts are 36,000 low-density, 33,100 medium-density, 25,500 high density, and 660 secondary units. The total new unit mix is 20% low-density, 31% medium-density, 47% high-density, and 3% secondary units. No additional Community Area land is required. - 137 - 23 March 2022 Scenario 5 Assessment 1. Achieving Targets Does the scenario achieve the minimum targets of the Growth Plan, before advancing additional settlement area boundary expansion? 2. Housing Market Choice Does the scenario provide for the development of a ful- some range of housing types? How does the scenario respond to market demand? 3. Setting-up SGAs for success Does the scenario support the ability of SGAs, including Urban Growth Centres, MTSAs, Regional Centres, and Regional Corridors, to achieve their planned function as higher density, mixed-use, and transit supportive urban communities? Protecting Agricultural and Rural 4. Systems, preparing for Climate Change and Achieving Sustainable Development To what extent would the scenario negatively impact exist- ing agricultural and rural areas? Does the scenario provide efficient and sustainable devel- opment patterns, including transit-oriented development? Does the scenario respond to the Region’s Climate Change Emergency declaration? Competitive Economic and5. Employment Conditions To what extent does the scenario capitalize on the Region’s economic and sector strengths, including providing for appropriate Employment Area land to ensure Durham remains economically attractive and competitive over the long term? Key Considerations • 50% intensification target met. • Minimum greenfield density of 50 p&j/ ha exceed. • MTSA and UGC minimum densities can be met • Significant emphasis on high-density forms across the Region results in a DGA that potentially provides an oversupply of apartment units compared to active development applications. • The highest level of intensification and high density units within the BUA are not likely to be absorbed even over the long term • Focus on higher-density forms optimizes the planned growth of the SGAs across the Region. • Requires no new Community Area expansion. • Focus on compact housing forms sup- ports transit oriented communities. • Compact form can align with efficient building design and travel modes, reducing greenhouse gas emissions. • Lack of market supply of low-and medium-density units in DGA limits growth of new families. • Supply of high-density units in DGA supports new planned centres, but may not be absorbed by market demand • Transit oriented development limits future traffic congestion. • Supports and optimizes regional urban structure and compact, transit oriented communities • No additional Community Area land required • Scenario exceeds intensification target as a result of focus on high-density housing forms in BUA • Results in a DGA unit mix which is too oriented towards high-density housing forms and is not representative of DGA market demand. - 138 - 24 Alternative Land Need Scenarios Assessment Summary 4. Range of Land Need The five scenarios result in a range of Land Need based on unit mix, DGA density and intensification rates. As the intensification target increases and the unit mix shifts more towards high-density dwellings, the total Community Area land need decreases. The range of land need for both Community Areas and Employment Areas is demonstrated in Figure 5-1 below. The Figure below illustrates the Community Area and Employment Land Need for each Scenario. The resulting land need ranges from 1,171 ha (Scenario 5 + Revised Employment Area Intensification Target) to 6,751 ha (Scenario 1 + Employment Strategy Technical Report). At the scale of Land Need of Scenario 1, with either employment scenario, there may not be sufficient land in the whitebelt to accommodate the forecast without putting lands that should be protected under pressure. Figure 4-1: Summary range of total regional new land need combining Community Area and Employment Land Need by Scenario - 139 - 25 March 2022 5. Next Steps The Region will be launching a public survey to solicit feedback on the Scenario modelling outcomes and assessment. The comment period for this report and the survey will close on April 14th, 2022. The Project Team will review the public feedback received and use this as input along with the Scenario Assessment to prepare a Recommended Land Need Scenario, including both Community Area and Employment Area land needs. A final recommendations package will be presented to the Planning and Economic Development Committee in May 2022. This package will contain recommendations on the Preferred Land Need Scenario, supporting technical figures and tables and other recommendations related to Phase 2 of the Growth Management Study. This presentation will represent the culmination of Phase One of the Envision Durham: Growth Management Study. Following Regional Council’s decision, the Growth Management Study will move into Phase 2 to determine Local Area Allocations and preferred locations for Settlement Area Boundary Expansion(s), which will focus on determining the share and form of growth attributed to the Area Municipalities. Phase 2 will culminate with a Regional Official Plan and demonstration of Growth Plan conformity. The next steps and project schedule is outlined below: • March 10 – scenario modelling outcomes and assessment posted for public review. Response survey opens – visit www.durham. ca/envisiondurham • March 24 – Virtual Public Information Centre scheduled for 7pm. Notification of Public Information Centre will be advertised via local Newspapers, e-mailed to the Envision Durham interested parties list, social media channels and a public service announcement. • April 14 – response survey closes. • May 3 – Present the Preferred Land Need Scenario to Planning and Economic Development Committee. - 140 - 26 Alternative Land Need Scenarios Assessment Summary Technical Appendix Appendix A: Land Needs Calculation for Each Scenario The following tables provide details on the land needs calculation for each Scenario. For additional details regarding the methodology, please refer to the Community Area Urban Land Needs Technical Report. Figure A-1: Durham Region DGA Community Area Developable Land Supply Land Area Total DGA Community Area Supply (Net of Growth Plan Take-Outs) (developable ha) A 6,142 Total Employment Area Conversions (Net of Growth Plan Take-Outs) (developable ha) B 308 Total DGA Community Area Supply (Including Employment Area Conversions), developable ha C = A + B 6,450 Vacant Land Contingency (gross ha) (1.5%)1 D = C * 1.5% 97 Total DGA Community Area Supply (Including Employment Area Conversions and Land Contingency factor), developable ha E = C - D 6,353 Source: Watson & Associates Economists Ltd., 2022. 1 Land Contingency factor accounts for Employment Area conversions that may not redevelop during the planning horizon, as w ell as other DGA Community Area w hich may not develop by 2051. - 141 - 27 March 2022 Figure A-2: Scenario 1 – DGA Community Area Land Need Calculation, 2051 Land Area (ha) People and Jobs People and Jobs Per Developable ha Total Existing DGA 6,353 Developed 1,496 71,950 48 Category 11 2,490 155,630 63 Category 22 2,367 108,900 46 Forecast, 2019 to 2051 10,244 512,320 Total DGA at 2051 11,740 584,270 50 Expansion Requirement 5,387 247,790 46 Source: Watson & Associates Economists Ltd., 2022. 1 Category 1 - Approved (registered but unbuilt or in the process of being built out), Draft Approved and Applications Under Review . The Category 1 density of 63 people and jobs per hectare is upw ardly affected by a density of 83 w ithin the Seaton Community Area. 2 Category 2 - Remaining Vacant DGA Lands: includes all lands outside of Category 1 that could become available for Community Area development. - 142 - 28 Alternative Land Need Scenarios Assessment Summary Figure A-3: Scenario 2 – DGA Community Area Land Need Calculation, 2051 Land Area (ha) People and Jobs People and Jobs Per Developable ha Total Existing DGA 6,353 Developed 1,496 71,950 48 Category 11 2,490 155,630 63 Category 22 2,367 127,840 54 Forecast, 2019 to 2051 7,471 424,610 Total DGA at 2051 8,967 496,560 55 Expansion Requirement 2,614 141,140 54 Source: Watson & Associates Economists Ltd., 2022. 1 Category 1 - Approved (registered but unbuilt or in the process of being built out), Draft Approved and Applications Under Review . The Category 1 density of 63 people and jobs per hectare is upw ardly affected by a density of 83 w ithin the Seaton Community Area. 2 Category 2 - Remaining Vacant DGA Lands: includes all lands outside of Category 1 that could become available for Community Area development. - 143 - 29 March 2022 Figure A-4: Scenario 3 – DGA Community Area Land Need Calculation, 2051 Land Area (ha) People and Jobs People and Jobs Per Developable ha Total Existing DGA 6,353 Developed 1,496 71,950 48 Category 11 2,490 155,630 63 Category 22 2,367 136,600 58 Forecast, 2019 to 2051 6,362 379,070 Total DGA at 2051 7,858 451,020 57 Expansion Requirement 1,505 86,840 58 Source: Watson & Associates Economists Ltd., 2022. 1 Category 1 - Approved (registered but unbuilt or in the process of being built out), Draft Approved and Applications Under Review . The Category 1 density of 63 people and jobs per hectare is upw ardly affected by a density of 83 w ithin the Seaton Community Area. 2 Category 2 - Remaining Vacant DGA Lands: includes all lands outside of Category 1 that could become available for Community Area development. - 144 - 30 Alternative Land Need Scenarios Assessment Summary Figure A-5: Scenario 4 – DGA Community Area Land Need Calculation, 2051 Land Area (ha) People and Jobs People and Jobs Per Developable ha Total Existing DGA 6,353 Developed 1,496 71,950 48 Category 11 2,490 155,630 63 Category 22 2,367 152,820 65 Forecast, 2019 to 2051 5,812 370,100 Total DGA at 2051 7,308 442,050 60 Expansion Requirement 955 61,650 65 Source: Watson & Associates Economists Ltd., 2022. 1 Category 1 - Approved (registered but unbuilt or in the process of being built out), Draft Approved and Applications Under Review . The Category 1 density of 63 people and jobs per hectare is upw ardly affected by a density of 83 w ithin the Seaton Community Area. 2 Category 2 - Remaining Vacant DGA Lands: includes all lands outside of Category 1 that could become available for Community Area development. - 145 - 31 March 2022 Figure A-6: Scenario 5 – DGA Community Area Land Need Calculation, 2051 Land Area (ha) People and Jobs People and Jobs Per Developable ha Total Existing DGA 6,353 Developed 1,496 71,950 48 Category 11 2,490 155,630 63 Category 22 2,367 177,560 75 Forecast, 2019 to 2051 4,760 325,890 Total DGA at 2051 6,256 397,840 64 Expansion Requirement -97 -7,300 75 Source: Watson & Associates Economists Ltd., 2022. 1 Category 1 - Approved (registered but unbuilt or in the process of being built out), Draft Approved and Applications Under Review . The Category 1 density of 63 people and jobs per hectare is upw ardly affected by a density of 83 w ithin the Seaton Community Area. 2 Category 2 - Remaining Vacant DGA Lands: includes all lands outside of Category 1 that could become available for Community Area development. - 146 - 32 Alternative Land Need Scenarios Assessment Summary Appendix B: Land Needs Calculation for Each Scenario A housing propensity analysis by population age and housing structure type is a common approach used to assess future housing demand by structure type. This approach uses current Census data, in this case 2016 Statistics Canada Census data, as a starting point to derive housing propensity rates by structure type to the Durham Region population by age group. From this data, assumptions regarding shifting patterns in propensity are assumed for each growth scenario, to determine housing growth by structure type for each age group. It is important to note that if propensities are flat-lined to derive future housing needs, this would result in an significant amount of low-density. It is not appropriate to flat-line propensity rates because there are a multitude of factors which influence them and their volatility, such as housing affordability and changing housing preferences (e.g. aging of the population which will put upward pressure on high-density units). The 2021 to 2051 housing forecast by age group (age of primary household maintainer) and housing type for all five residential growth scenarios is provided below. Figure B-1: Scenario 1: Growth Plan Background Report – Total Housing Forecast by Propensity and Type, 2021 to 2051 Age Grou p 75+ 56,000 65-74 55-64 45-54 35-44 25-34 Under 25 19% Low Density¹ 35% 30% 35% 52% 66% 73% 65% 44% 12% 31% 28% 17% 17% 69% 16% 17% 6% 10% 18% 40% 0 10,000 20,000 30,000 40,000 50,000 60,000 17,500 2,000 41,300 42,500 34,600 25,700 Medium Density² High Density³ Total Housing Growth, 2021-2051 1 Low density represents singles and semi-detached. 2 Medium density includes townhouses (including back -to-back and stacked townhouses) and duplexes. 3 High density includes all apartments. Source: Watson & Associates Economists Ltd., 2022. - 147 - 33 March 2022 Figure B-2: Scenario 2: Higher Proportion of Low-Density Housing – Not Meeting Intensification Target – Total Housing Forecast by Propensity and Type, 2021 to 2051 Age Grou p 75+ 65-74 55-64 45-54 35-44 25-34 -3% Under 25 -10,000 Low Density¹ Medium Density² High Density³ Total Housing Growth, 2021-2051 1 Low density represents singles and semi-detached. 2 Medium density includes townhouses (including back -to-back and stacked townhouses) and duplexes. 3 High density includes all apartments. Source: Watson & Associates Economists Ltd., 2022. 11% 28% 51% 68% 48% 27% 13% 30% 32% 35% 22% 23% 18% 90% 59% 40% 14% 11% 28% 55% 0 10,000 20,000 30,000 40,000 50,000 60,000 56,000 17,500 2,000 41,300 42,500 34,600 25,700 - 148 - 34 Alternative Land Need Scenarios Assessment Summary Figure B-3: Scenario 3: Higher Proportion of Low-Density – Testing Impact of Meeting Intensification Target– Total Housing Forecast by Propensity and Type, 2021 to 2051 Age Grou p 75+ 65-74 55-64 45-54 35-44 25-34 -7% Under 25 -10,000 Low Density¹ Medium Density² High Density³ Total Housing Growth, 2021-2051 1 Low density represents singles and semi-detached. 2 Medium density includes townhouses (including back -to-back and stacked townhouses) and duplexes. 3 High density includes all apartments. Source: Watson & Associates Economists Ltd., 2022. 4% 20% 45% 62% 43% 23% 16% 36% 37% 40% 26% 27% 20% 91% 60% 43% 15% 13% 30% 57% 0 10,000 20,000 30,000 40,000 50,000 60,000 56,000 17,500 2,000 41,300 42,500 34,600 25,700 - 149 - 35 March 2022 - Figure B-4: Scenario 4: Modified Mix Meeting Targets – Total Housing Forecast by Propensity and Type, 2021 to 2051 Age Grou p 75+ 65-74 55-64 45-54 35-44 25-34 Under 25 -9% 3% 17% 43% 53% 37% 16% 14% 34% 34% 38% 24% 25% 19% 94% 69% 48% 19% 23% 37% 66% 56,000 17,500 2,000 41,300 42,500 34,600 25,700 -10,000 0 10,000 20,000 30,000 40,000 50,000 60,000 Low Density¹ Medium Density² High Density³ Total Housing Growth, 2021-2051 1 Low density represents singles and semi-detached. 2 Medium density includes townhouses (including back -to-back and stacked townhouses) and duplexes. 3 High density includes all apartments. Source: Watson & Associates Economists Ltd., 2022. - 150 - 36 Alternative Land Need Scenarios Assessment Summary - Figure B-5: Scenario 5: Exceeding Targets – No Additional Land Need – Focus on Higher-Density – Total Housing Forecast by Propensity and Type, 2021 to 2051 75+ 65-74 55-64 45-54 35-44 25-34 -13% Under 25 -10,000 Low Density¹ Medium Density² High Density³ Total Housing Growth, 2021-2051 1 Low density represents singles and semi-detached. 2 Medium density includes townhouses (including back-to-back and stacked townhouses) and duplexes. 3 High density includes all apartments. Source: Watson & Associates Economists Ltd., 2022. 10% 6% 31% 48% 25% 11% 17% 38% 37% 41% 26% 28% 20% 97% 72% 57% 28% 26% 48% 68% 0 10,000 20,000 30,000 40,000 50,000 60,000 56,000 17,500 2,000 41,300 42,500 34,600 25,700 Age Grou p - 151 - 37 March 2022- 152 - - 153 -