HomeMy WebLinkAboutBy-law 8135/24 (OLT-23-000498)OLT Case No.
OLT-23-000498
July 8, 2024
The Corporation of the City of Pickering
By-law No. 8135/24
Being a By-law to amend Restricted Area (Zoning) By-law
3036, as amended, to implement the Official Plan of the City
of Pickering, Region of Durham, Part of Lot 18, Concession 2
South, Now Parts 1 to 12 , 40R-28897, City of Pickering
(A 05/20)
Whereas the Council of The Corporation of the City of Pickering received an application
to rezone the subject lands being Part of Part of Lot 18, Concession 2 South, Now Parts
1 to 12, 40R-28897, in the City of Pickering to permit a high-density, residential
development;
And whereas an amendment to Zoning By-law 3036, as amended by By-law 7085/10, is
therefore deemed necessary;
Now therefore the Council of The Corporation of the City of Pickering hereby enacts as
follows:
1.Schedules I, II, and III
Schedules I, II, and III to this By-law with notations and references shown
thereon are hereby declared to be part of this By-law.
2.Area Restricted
The provisions of this By-law shall apply to those lands being Part of Lot 18,
Concession 2 South, Now Parts 1 to 12, 40R-28897, in the City of Pickering,
designated “RHII-6”, “RMI-7”, “OS-PP” & “OS-HL” on Schedule I to this By-law.
3.General Provisions
No building, structure, land or part thereof shall hereafter be used, occupied,
erected, moved or structurally altered except in conformity with the provisions of
this By-law.
4.Definitions
In this By-law,
(1)“Amenity Space” means the total passive or active recreational area
provided on a lot for the personal, shared or communal use of the
residents of a building or buildings, and includes balconies, patios, rooftop
gardens and other similar features, but does not include indoor laundry or
locker facilities.
(2)“Balcony” means an attached covered or uncovered platform projecting
from the face of an exterior wall, including above a porch, which is only
directly accessible from within a building, usually surrounded by a
balustrade or railing, and does not have direct exterior access to grade.
By-law No. 8135/24 Page 2
(3)“Bay Window” means a window with at least three panels set at different
angles to create a projection from the outer wall of a building, and includes
a bow window.
(4)“Block” means all land fronting on one side of a street between the nearest
streets, intersecting, meeting or crossing said street.
(5)“Build-to-Zone” shall mean an area of land in which all or part of a building
elevation of one or more buildings is to be located.
(6)“Building” means a structure occupying an area greater than 10 square
metres and consisting of any combination of walls, roof and floor but shall
not include a mobile home.
(7)“Building, Main” means a building in which is carried on the principal
purpose for which the lot is used.
(8)“Daylight Triangle” means an area free of buildings, structures, fences and
hedges up to 0.9 metres in height and which area is to be determined by
measuring, from the point of intersection of street lines on a corner lot, the
distance required by this By-law along each such street line and joining
such points with a straight line. The triangular-shaped land between the
intersecting street lines and the straight line joining the points the required
distance along the street lines is the daylight triangle.
(9)“Development Agreement” means an executed contract between a
developer/property owner and the City of Pickering that is required in
order to implement development and may include a subdivision
agreement, site plan agreement, or other similar agreements for
development.
(10)“Dwelling” includes:
a)“Accessory Dwelling Unit” means a separate dwelling unit subsidiary
to and located in the same building as an associated principal
dwelling unit; and its creation does not result in the creation of a
semi-detached dwelling, duplex dwelling, three-unit dwelling or
converted dwelling.
b)“Apartment Dwelling” means a residential use building containing four
or more principal dwelling units where the units are connected by a
common corridor or vestibule, other than a townhouse dwelling or
stacked dwelling.
c)“Back-to-Back Townhouse Dwelling” means a residential use building
containing four or more attached principal dwelling units divided
vertically where each unit is divided by common walls, including a
common rear wall without a rear yard setback, and whereby each
unit has an independent entrance to the unit from the outside
accessed through the front yard or exterior side yard.
By-law No. 8135/24 Page 3
d)“Block Townhouse Dwelling” means a residential use building
containing three or more attached principal dwelling units divided
vertically, and where all dwelling units are located on one lot and
accessed from a private street, laneway or common condominium
aisle.
e)“Dwelling Unit” means a residential unit that:
i)consists of a self-contained set of rooms located in a building or
structure;
ii)is used or intended for use as a residential premise;
iii)contains kitchen and bathroom facilities that are intended for the
use of the unit only; and
iv)is not a mobile home or any vehicle.
(11)“Existing” means existing as of the date of the enactment of the provision
that contains that word.
(12)“Floor Area” means the total area of all floors of a building within the
outside walls.
(13)“Floor Area, Net” means the total area of all floors of a building measured
from the interior faces of the exterior walls or demising walls, but does not
include the following areas:
(a)Motor vehicle parking and bicycle parking below established grade;
(b)Motor vehicle parking and bicycle parking at or above established
grade;
(c)Loading spaces and related corridors used for loading purposes;
(d)Rooms for storage, storage lockers, washrooms, electrical, utility,
mechanical and ventilation;
(e)Indoor amenity space required by this By-law;
(f)Elevator, garbage and ventilating shafts;
(g)Mechanical penthouse; and
(h)Stairwells in the building.
(14)“Floor Space Index” means the total net floor area of all buildings on a lot
divided by the total area of the lot.
(15)“Grade” or “Established Grade” means the average elevation of the
finished level of the ground adjoining all exterior walls of a building.
(16)“Gross Floor Area” means the total area of each floor whether located
above, at or below grade, measured between the exterior faces of the
exterior walls of the building at each floor level but excluding any porch,
veranda, cellar, mechanical room or penthouse, or areas dedicated to
parking within the building. For the purposes of this definition, the walls of
an inner court shall be deemed to be exterior walls.
By-law No. 8135/24 Page 4
(17)“Gross Leasable Floor Area” means the total floor area designed for
tenant occupancy and exclusive use, including basements, mezzanines
and upper floor areas if any; expressed in square metres and measured
from the centre line of joint partitions and from outside wall faces.
(18)“Ground Floor” means the floor of a building at or first above grade.
(19)“Ground Floor Area” means the gross floor area only on the ground floor.
(20)“Height” means the vertical distance between the established grade, and
in the case of a flat roof, the highest point of the roof surface or parapet
wall, or in the case of a mansard roof the deck line, or in the case of a
gabled, hip or gambrel roof, the mean height level between eaves and
ridge. When the regulation establishes height in storeys, means the
number of storeys. The height requirements of this By-law shall not apply
to rooftop mechanical penthouses.
(21)“Landscaped Area” means an outdoor area on a lot comprising trees,
plants, decorative stonework, retaining walls, walkways, or other
landscape or architectural elements, excluding aisles and areas for
loading, parking or storing of vehicles.
(22)“Lane” means a thoroughfare not intended for general traffic circulation
that provides means of vehicular access to the rear of a lot where the lot
also fronts or flanks onto a street, or where a lot fronts onto public or
private open space. The lane may be maintained by a condominium
corporation as a private road condominium or by a government authority.
(23)“Loading Space” means an unobstructed area of land which is provided
and maintained upon the same lot or lots upon which the principal use is
located and which area is provided for the temporary parking of one
commercial motor vehicle while merchandise or materials are being
loaded or unloaded from such vehicles.
(24)“Lot” means a parcel of land fronting on a street, whether or not occupied
by a building or structure.
(25)“Lot Area” means the total horizontal area of a lot.
(26)“Lot Line” means a line delineating any boundary of a lot.
(27)“Main Wall” means a primary exterior front, rear or side wall of a building,
not including permitted projections.
(28)“Park, Private” means an area of land not under the jurisdiction of a public
authority that is designed or maintained for active or passive recreational
purposes.
(29)“Parking Area” means one or more parking spaces, including related
aisles, for the parking or storage of vehicles.
By-law No. 8135/24 Page 5
(30)“Parking Garage” means a building, or part thereof, used for the parking of
vehicles and may include any permitted use in the first storey, but shall not
include any area where vehicles for sale or repair are kept or stored. A
parking garage includes underground parking and a parking structure.
(31)“Parking Lot” means a lot or portion thereof provided for the parking of
motor vehicles accessory or incidental to the main use.
(32)“Parking Space” means an unobstructed area of land that is accessible by
an aisle, having access to a street or lane that is reserved for the purpose
of the temporary parking or storage of one motor vehicle.
(33)“Parking Space, Bicycle” means an area used exclusively for parking or
storing a bicycle.
(34)“Parking Structure” means a building or portion thereof, containing one or
more parking spaces.
(35)“Patio” means an outdoor area where seating accommodation can be
provided and/or where meals or refreshments are served to the public for
consumption.
(36)“Podium” means the base of a building, structure or part thereof located at
or above established grade that projects from the tower portion of the
building.
(37)“Point Tower” means a compact and slender building form.
(38)“Porch” means a roofed deck or portico structure with direct access to the
ground that is attached to the exterior wall of a building.
(39)“Premises” means the whole or part of lands, buildings or structures, or
any combination of these.
(40)“Primary Entrance Door” means the principal entrance by which the public
enters or exits a building or individual retail/commercial unit or the resident
enters or exits a dwelling unit.
(41)“Primary Window” means all windows except bathroom, hallway, closet or
kitchen windows.
(42)“Setback” means the distance between a building and a lot line. In
calculating the setback the horizontal distance from the respective lot line
shall be used.
(43)“Storey” means that portion of a building other than a basement, cellar, or
attic, included between the surface of any floor, and the surface of the
floor, roof deck or ridge next above it.
(44)“Storey, First” means the storey with its floor closest to grade and its
ceiling more than 1.8 metres above grade.
By-law No. 8135/24 Page 6
(45)“Street” means a public highway but does not include a lane or a King’s
Highway (Highway 401). Where a 0.3 metre reserve abuts a street, or
where a daylight triangle abuts a street, for the purposes of determining
setbacks the street shall be deemed to include the 0.3 metre reserve
and/or the daylight triangle, however, nothing herein shall be interpreted
as granting a public right of access over the 0.3 metre reserve or as an
assumption of the 0.3 metre reserve as a public highway for maintenance
purposes under the Municipal Act.
(46)“Street Line” means the dividing line between a lot and a street.
(47)“Street, Private” means:
a)a right-of-way or roadway that is used by vehicles and is maintained
by a condominium corporation;
b)a private road condominium, which provides access to individual
freehold lots;
c)a roadway maintained by a corporation to provide vehicular and
pedestrian access to parking lots and individual retail/commercial
units; and
d)a private right-of-way over private property, that affords access to lots
abutting a private road, but is not maintained by a public body and is
not a lane.
(48)“Structure” means anything that is erected, built or constructed of parts
joined together with a fixed location on the ground, or attached to
something having a fixed location in or on the ground and shall include
buildings, walls or any sign, but does not include fences below six feet in
height or in-ground swimming pools.
(49)“Tower” means the storeys within that portion of a building or structure or
part thereof located above the podium.
(50)“Tower Floor Plate” means the average floor area of all storeys within that
portion of a building or structure or part thereof located above the podium,
measured to the exterior faces of exterior walls of each storey of a building
or structure.
(51)“Uncovered Platform” means an attached or freestanding structure not
covered by a roof, which is located on the same level as or lower than the
first storey of the building associated with the platform.
5.Permitted Uses and Zone Regulations
(1)Permitted Uses (“RHII-6” Zone)
No person shall within the lands zoned “RHII-6” on Schedule I to this By-
law, use any lot or erect, alter, or use any building or structure for any
purpose except the following:
a)Apartment Dwelling
By-law No. 8135/24 Page 7
(2)Permitted Uses (“RMI-7” Zone)
No person shall within the lands zoned “RMI-7” on Schedule I to this By-law,
use any lot or erect, alter, or use any building or structure for any purpose
except the following:
a)Block Townhouse Dwelling
b)Back-to-Back Townhouse Dwelling
(3)Zone Regulations (“RHII-6” & “RMI-7” Zone)
No person shall within the lands zoned “RHII-6” & “RMI-7” on Schedule I to
this By-law, use any lot or erect, alter, or use any building or structure
except in accordance with the following provisions:
“RHII-6” “RMI-7”
a)Floor Space Index (FSI)i)the area shown on Schedule I to this By-law, zoned
“RHII-6”, “RMI-7” and “OS-PP” shall be the extent of
lands for the purposes of calculating FSI
ii)minimum FSI – 0.75
iii)maximum FSI – 2.02
b)Number of Dwelling
Units
i)minimum 74 units
ii)maximum 372 units
c)Building Height i)the maximum height of a building is specified by the
number following the HT symbol as shown on Schedule III
to this By-law
ii)notwithstanding section 5 (3) c) i) above, enclosed
stairwells providing roof access may exceed the
maximum building height as shown on Schedule III to a
maximum of 2.7 metres
d)Building Location and
Setbacks
i)no building or part of a building, or structure shall be
erected outside of a building envelope, as shown on
Schedule II to this By-law
ii)no building or portion of a building or structure shall be
erected within the building envelope, unless a minimum of
80 percent of the entire length of the build-to-zone, as
shown on Schedule II to this By-law, contains a
continuous portion of the exterior wall of a building
iii)notwithstanding section 5 (3) d) i) above, buildings or
portions of buildings not exceeding 4.5 metres in height
and used solely for stairwell access to an underground
parking garage or waste collection are permitted to be
located beyond the building envelope, provided such
buildings are setback a minimum of 7.0 metres from all lots
lines
By-law No. 8135/24 Page 8
“RHII-6” “RMI-7”
e)Setback for Below Grade
Parking Structures
i)minimum – 0.0 metres
ii)notwithstanding Section 5 (3) e) i) above, a minimum
setback of 1.5 metres shall be provided from a lot line
abutting a “S4-11” zone
f)Podium Requirements i)minimum height of podium –
10.5 metres (3-storeys)
ii)maximum height of podium
–13.5 metres (4-storeys)
Nil
g)Tower Floor Plate i)maximum tower floor plate
for a building greater than
37.5 metres in height – 810
square metres
ii)notwithstanding Section 5
(3) g) i) above, balconies
shall be excluded from the
calculation of tower floor
plate
Nil
h)Parking Requirements i)1.0 parking space per
dwelling unit
i)2.0 parking spaces
per dwelling unit
i)Visitor Parking
Requirements
i)0.25 of a parking space per dwelling unit
j)Private Amenity
Requirements
i)a minimum of one balcony,
deck or private patio shall
be provided for each
dwelling unit
ii)minimum area – 3.0 square
metres
i)a minimum of one
balcony, deck, or
rooftop patio shall be
provided for each
back-to-back
townhouse dwelling
unit, which shall have
a minimum area of
4.5 square metres
k)Common Amenity Space
Requirements
i)minimum – 2.0 square metres of indoor amenity space
per dwelling unit
ii)minimum – 2.0 square metres of outdoor amenity space
per dwelling unit (a minimum contiguous area of 40.0
square metres must be provided in a common location)
By-law No. 8135/24 Page 9
“RHII-6” “RMI-7”
iii)lands zoned “OS-PP” on Schedule I to this By-law, are
permitted to contribute to the common amenity space
requirement outlined under Section 5 (3) k) ii) above
l)Landscaped Area i)minimum – 10 percent of land area
ii)the area shown on Schedule I to this By-law, zoned “RHII-
6” and “RMI-7” shall be the extent of lands for the purpose
of calculating landscaped area
(4)Permitted Uses (“OS-HL” Zone)
No person shall within the lands designated “OS-HL” on Schedule I
attached hereto use any lot or erect, alter or use any building or structure
for any purpose except the following:
(a)preservation and conservation of the natural environment, soil and
wildlife; and
(b)resource management.
(5)Zone Requirements (“OS-HL” Zone)
(a)No buildings or structures shall be permitted to be erected, nor shall
the placing or removal of fill be permitted, except where buildings or
structures are used only for purposes of flood and erosion control,
resource management, or pedestrian trail and walkway purposes.
(6)Permitted Uses (“OS-PP”)
No person shall within the lands designated “OS-HL” on Schedule I
attached hereto use any lot or erect, alter or use any building or structure
for any purpose except the following:
(a)Private Park
6.Special Provisions (“RHII-6” & “RMI-7” Zones)
(1)Sections 5.21.1, 5.21.2(a), 5.21.2(b), 5.21.2(d), 5.21.2(e), 5.21.2(f), 5.22
and 6.4 of By-law 3036, as amended, shall not apply to the lands zoned
“RHII-6” and “RMI-7” on Schedule I attached to this By-law.
(2)A private street shall have a minimum width of 6.5 metres.
(3)Waste shall be stored within a fully enclosed building, structure or partially
underground structure.
(4)Air Conditioners are not permitted to be located between a building and a
street, however are permitted to be located on a balcony or roof or on a
private patio at or below grade.
By-law No. 8135/24 Page 10
(5)Permitted Encroachments
No part of the building envelope shall be obstructed except as follows:
(a)Projections such as awnings, canopies, window sills, chimney
breasts, fireplaces, belt courses, cornices, pilasters, eaves, piers,
eave troughs, and other similar architectural features may be
permitted to project a maximum of 2.0 metres beyond the building
envelope as illustrated on Schedule II to this By-law, but shall
maintain a minimum setback of 0.6 metres to a lot line.
(b)Any stairs, including to a porch or any associated landing, uncovered
platform, covered platform, and any unenclosed ramp for wheelchair
access may encroach beyond the building envelope no closer than
0.45 metres to a lot line.
(c)A balcony, porch, uncovered platform or covered platform may
encroach beyond the building envelope to a maximum of 2.0 metres
or half the distance of the required setback, whichever is less.
(d)A bay, box or bow window, with or without foundation, having a
maximum width of 4.0 metres may encroach beyond the building
envelope to a maximum of 0.6 metres or half the distance, whichever
is less.
(6)Height Exceptions
(a)Notwithstanding Section 5 (3) c) and f), the following building
elements may exceed the maximum building heights:
(a)equipment used for the functional operation of the building and
structures including electrical, utility, mechanical and ventilation
equipment, enclosed stairwells roof access, maintenance
equipment storage, chimneys, vents, and window washing
equipment;
(b)architectural features, parapets, elements and structures
associated with a green roof;
(c)planters, landscaping features, guard rails, divider screens on a
balcony and/or terrace; and
(d)trellises, pergolas and unenclosed structures providing safety or
wind/noise protection to rooftop amenity space.
(7)Yards Abutting Daylight Triangles
Where a lot abuts a daylight triangle, the setback provisions shall be
measured as if the daylight triangle did not exist, provided all buildings are
setback 0.6 metres from the daylight triangle with the exception of window
sills, belt courses, cornices, eaves, eave troughs and architectural
elements, such as the architectural projections from the podium and
canopies, which may project to within 0.3 metres of the daylight triangle.
By-law No. 8135/24 Page 11
(8)Bicycle Parking Space Requirements
a)Minimum number of bicycle parking spaces:
i)0.5 of a space per apartment dwelling unit; and
ii)1.0 space per block townhouse dwelling and back-to-back
townhouse dwelling;
b)Where the number of bicycle parking spaces exceeds 50 spaces, a
minimum of 25 percent of the total required must be located within:
i)a building or structure;
ii)a secure area such as a supervised parking lot or enclosure; or
iii)bicycle lockers.
c)Where four or more bicycle parking spaces are provided in a
common parking area, each space must contain a parking rack that
is securely anchored to the ground and attached to a heavy base
such as concrete.
d)Dimensions:
i)if located in a horizontal position (on the ground): a minimum
length of 1.6 metres and a minimum width of 0.6 metres;
ii)if located in a vertical position (on the wall): a minimum length of
1.5 metres and a minimum width of 0.5 metres;
iii)if stacked: a minimum length of 1.5 metres and a minimum
width of 0.45 metres.
(9)Loading Standards
Where a loading space is provided, the following regulations apply:
(a)the minimum dimensions of a loading space are 3.5 metres in width
and 12.0 metres in length, with a minimum vertical clearance of
4.2 metres;
(b)a loading space shall abut the building for which the loading space is
provided;
(c)an unenclosed loading space located above established grade shall
be set back a minimum of 10.0 metres from a street line;
(d)an enclosed loading space located above established grade shall not
be located beyond the building envelope as shown on Schedule III to
this By-law.
By-law No. 8135/24 Page 12
7.Special Provisions (“RMI-7” Zone)
(1)Private Garage Requirements:
(a)Minimum one private garage per block townhouse dwelling, the
vehicular entrance of which shall be located not less than 6.0 metres
from a private street.
(b)A private garage shall have a minimum width of 3.0 metres and a
minimum depth of 6.0 metres provided, however, the width may
include one interior step and the depth may include two interior steps.
(2)A driveway for a block townhouse dwelling shall not exceed the width of
the unit to which it provides access.
(3)Rooftop private amenity space shall not be permitted for block townhouse
dwellings.
8.By-law 3036
By-law 3036, is hereby further amended only to the extent necessary to give
effect to the provisions of this By-law as it applies to the area set out in
Schedule I to this By-law. Definitions and subject matters not specifically dealt
with in this By-law shall be governed by relevant provisions of By-law 3036.
9.Effective Date
That this By-law shall come into force in accordance with the provisions of the
Planning Act.
Note: Written Decision of the Ontario Land Tribunal issued on July 8, 2024
Br
o
c
k
R
o
a
d
Saffron Drive
Usman Road
i
N
Schedule I to By-Law 8135/24
Approved by the Ontario Land TribunalWritten Decision issued on July 8, 2024
OS-HL
88.7m 107.7m 10.
4
m
16.
3
m
21.8
m
1
6
.
9
m
75.0m
58
.
5
m
13.7
m
RHII-6 RMI-7
101.1m29
.
5
m
22.5m
36
.
0
m
22.7m
30
.
7
m
OS-PP
82.7m
15
6
.
4
m
12
7
.
7
m
304.6m
Br
o
c
k
R
o
a
d
Usman Road
Saffron Drive
Su
n
f
l
o
w
e
r
R
o
a
d
i
N
Schedule II to By-Law 8135/24
Approved by the Ontario Land Tribunal
Written Decision issued on July 8, 2024
6.4m
19.3m
10.0m
10.0m
3.7m3.7m
1.6m
3.7m
4.0m
3.5m 3.5m
5.5m
5.5m
7.0m
7.0m
90.5m 68.0m 24.6m
148.9m
38.6m
45
.
2
m
3.3m
3.0m
2.0m57
.
2
m
Build-to-Zone (5.0 metres)
Building Envelope
4.9m
Br
o
c
k
R
o
a
d
Usman Road
Saffron Drive Su
n
f
l
o
w
e
r
R
o
a
d
i
N
Schedule III to By-Law 8135/24
Approved by the Ontario Land Tribunal
Written Decision issued on July 8, 2024
HT: 20.5m (Max: 6 Storeys)
HT: 15.0m (Max: 4 Storeys)
HT: 63.5m (Max: 20 Storeys)
HT: 11.2m (Max: 3 Storeys)
HT: 13.5m (Max: 3 Storeys)
10.
4
m
16.
3
m
21.8
m
1
6
.
9
m
13.
7
m
87.2m 70.7m 38.5m
71.5m
30
.
5
m
156.0m
42.6m
32
.
9
m
12
.
5
m
22
.
7
m
41.2m 52.7m
12
.
4
m
11
.
0
m
35
.
1
m
41.9m 8.5m
PROCEEDING COMMENCED UNDER subsection 22(7) of the Planning Act, R.S.O.
1990, c. P. 13, as amended
Applicant/Appellant: Brock Road Duffins Forest Inc.
Subject: Request to amend the Official Plan – Refusal of
request
Description: To permit a total of 372 residential units comprising of
a 20 and 6-storey building connected by a 4-storey
podium and townhouse units
Reference Number: OPA 20-001/P
Property Address: 2055 Brock Road
Municipality/UT: Pickering/Durham
OLT Case No: OLT-23-000498
OLT Lead Case No: OLT-23-000498
OLT Case Name: Brock Road Duffins Forest Inc. v Pickering (City)
PROCEEDING COMMENCED UNDER subsection 34(11) of the Planning Act, R.S.O.
1990, c. P. 13, as amended
Applicant/Appellant: Brock Road Duffins Forest Inc.
Subject: Application to amend the Zoning By-law – Refusal of
application
Description: To permit a total of 372 residential units comprising of
a 20 and 6-storey building connected by a 4-storey
podium and townhouse units
Reference Number: A 05/20
Property Address: 2055 Brock Road
Municipality/UT: Pickering/Durham
OLT Case No: OLT-23-000499
OLT Lead Case No: OLT-23-000498
Ontario Land Tribunal
Tribunal ontarien de l’aménagement
du territoire
ISSUE DATE: July 08, 2024 CASE NO(S).: OLT-23-000498
Written Decision from the Ontario Land Tribunal
2 OLT-23-000498
PROCEEDING COMMENCED UNDER subsection 51(34) of the Planning Act, R.S.O.
1990, c. P. 13, as amended
Applicant/Appellant: Brock Road Duffins Forest Inc.
Subject:
Proposed Plan of Subdivision - Refusal by Approval
Authority
Description:
To permit a total of 372 residential units comprising of
a 20 and 6-storey building connected by a 4-storey
podium and townhouse units
Reference Number: SP-2020-01
Property Address: 2055 Brock Road
Municipality/UT: Pickering/Durham
OLT Case No: OLT-23-000501
OLT Lead Case No: OLT-23-000498
PROCEEDING COMMENCED UNDER subsection 41(12) of the Planning Act, R.S.O.
1990, c. P. 13, as amended
Applicant/Appellant: Brock Road Duffins Forest Inc.
Subject: Site Plan
Description:
To permit a total of 372 residential units comprising of
a 20 and 6-storey building connected by a 4-storey
podium and townhouse units
Reference Number: S07/23
Property Address: 2055 Brock Road
Municipality/UT: Pickering/Durham
OLT Case No: OLT-23-000613
OLT Lead Case No: OLT-23-000498
Heard: April 29 to May 9, 2024, by Video Hearing (Excluding
May 8, 2024)
APPEARANCES:
Parties Counsel
Brock Road Duffins Park Inc. L. Longo
City of Pickering J. Mark Joblin
Kindwin (Brock) Development
Corporation (“Kindwin”)
A. Lusty (Present for Opening and Closing
Submissions only)
3 OLT-23-000498
DECISION DELIVERED BY STEVEN T. MASTORAS AND ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL
INTRODUCTION
[1] The Tribunal held an eight-day video hearing (“Hearing”) on appeals relating to
applications for an Official Plan Amendment (“OPA”), a Zoning By-law Amendment
(“ZBA”), a Draft Plan of Subdivision (“DPS”), and a Site Plan Amendment (“SPA”) pursuant
to Sections 22(7), 34(11), 51(39), and 41(12) of the Planning Act (“Act”), respectively
(together the “Applications”/“Appeals”).
[2] The Appeals are the result of a decision by the City of Pickering (“City”), in the
Region of Durham (“Region”), refusing the Applications. The property address is known as
2055 Brock Road (“Subject Site”), now owned by Brock Road Duffins Park Inc.
(“Appellant”/“Applicant”).
[3] The associated SPA application was submitted to the City in March 2023, just prior
to the City’s consideration of the OPA, ZBA, and DPS. The SPA Appeal application was
subsequently filed with the Tribunal on June 28, 2023, pursuant to s. 41(12) of the Act and
has been administratively consolidated with the three Appeals previously referenced under
the lead case file OLT-23-000498.
[4] As a brief outline, the Appellant is seeking approval to develop the Subject Site
consisting of four development blocks, a total of 372 residential units, at a maximum floor
space index (“FSI”) of 2.02, and a density of 286 units per hectare (“UPH”) (“Proposal”).
[5] The Applicant is seeking a Tribunal decision allowing the Appeals associated with
the OPA and ZBA in their final form as presented to the Tribunal, and that the Tribunal also
allow the DPS appeal with conditions (Exhibits 6A and 6B). Additionally, the Applicant is
seeking a further Tribunal decision allowing the SPA appeal, in principle, and in
accordance with plans prepared by Kohn Partnership Architects Inc. Architects Inc.
(“Kohn”) and is requesting that the Tribunal withhold a Final Order associated with the SPA
appeal until a final draft instrument is agreed to between the Parties.
4 OLT-23-000498
[6] The Tribunal notes that the City's Development and Planning Staff Report dated
April 3, 2023 (“PSR”) (Exhibit 2C, Tab F) recommended approval of the proposed OPA
(OPA 20-001/P), ZBA (A 05/20), and DPS (SP-2020-01) Applications, along with the
requisite instruments currently before the Tribunal, in full support of the Proposal.
[7] For the following reasons, the Tribunal allows the first three appeals and allows the
more recent SPA appeal, in principle, with the final Order withheld subject to conditions
outlined in the Order below. Following the Tribunal’s consideration of the policy and
legislative framework and based on the evidence, analysis, and conclusions, the Proposal
represents good land use planning and is in the public interest.
PRELIMINARY MATTER
[8] The Parties advised the Tribunal that a Settlement on the issue of cost recovery
between Kindwin and the Appellant, completed on March 26, 2024, maintains specific
conditions associated with the SPA and DPS. The agreement between the Parties (Exhibit
3) refers to proportionate cost recovery of services including land, roads, sanitary sewers,
stormwater services, and utilities from which the Applicant will benefit, subject to the
decision of the Tribunal relating to the Appeals. With the consent of the Parties, the
Tribunal determined that Kindwin could be excused for the balance of the Hearing and was
provided the opportunity to return for closing submissions.
SUBJECT SITE AND SURROUNDING AREA
[9] The Subject Site consists of a total size of approximately 5.047 ha and is just north
of West Duffins Creek, abutting the Duffins Creek Valley Lands, and north of Finch
Avenue, which ends at Kingston Road to the east of Brock Road. The overall property has
a 230 metres (“m”) frontage along Brock Road and approximately 120 metres of frontage
along Usman Road (south). The total proposed developable area is 1.311 ha.
5 OLT-23-000498
[10] This developable area of the Subject Site at the south-east corner of Brock Road
and Usman Road (south) is directly across from the Pickering Islamic Centre (“PIC”) to the
north, which also fronts on Brock Road at the northeast corner of Usman Road (south).
There are several neighbouring blocks of townhomes with some detached homes to the
north and north/east and single-family detached homes that abut the west of Brock Road,
which are setback further to the west and separated by Rayleen Crescent, all forming part
of the Brock Ridge Neighbourhood.
[11] There are three community parks in the immediate area, including Usman Park to
the north, Brock Ridge Community Park to the southwest, and Major Oaks Park to the
northwest. Pedestrian sidewalks currently exist along the perimeter of the Subject Site on
Brock Road and Usman Road (south), and there are no current pedestrian crossings at
this intersection. There is also a Stormwater Management Pond along a portion of Saffron
Drive (Exhibit 2I, pgs.19, and 25).
THE PROPOSAL
[12] The Proposal consists of a twenty-storey (“Block A”/“Tower 1”) located at the south-
west corner of the development area connected to a six-storey (“Block A”/“Tower 2”) to the
north along a portion of Brock Road and to the east along Usman Road (south). They are
both linked by a four-storey podium, containing a total of 328 units. Block A/Towers 1 and
2 are designed to share a common exterior rooftop-amenity-area at level 5 between the
two towers and maintain a separation distance of 15 m.
[13] A new north-south internal roadway with pedestrian sidewalks and crossings is a
component of the design, with an oval/circular drop-off connection, barrier-free entrances,
service/loading areas, 10 short-term surface parking spaces, and below-grade access to
parking south of Usman Road (south), separating the remaining 10-townhouse units
(“Block B”) and 34 back-to-back townhouse units (“Block C” and “Block D”) at the easterly
and southerly sections of the development envelope. As previously stated, a total of 372
residential units are contained in the Proposal, which represents a total residential density
6 OLT-23-000498
of 286 UPH and an FSI of 2.02 rather than the permitted FSI of 2.32. The two-level, below-
grade parking areas are designed to be constructed entirely within the development
envelope up to the perimeter retaining walls, maximizing the footprint of the built form.
[14] A proposed Privately-Owned Publicly Accessible Space (“POPS”) with an area of
approximately 660.7 square metres (“m2”) is incorporated into the Subject Site design at
the south end of the new public north-south roadway, which also abuts the oval/circular
drop-off area. There are perimeter sidewalks with access to the POPS, which is also
adjacent to a stairwell to the below-grade parking levels and an additional 6 short-term
surface parking spaces nearby. Site Plan and Statistics are attached below (Exhibit 2E, pg.
5).
[15] All Parties acknowledged that the Proposal identifies a significant portion of the
overall property (3.736 ha) and that the associated buffer (Exhibit 2E, pg. 4, in grey
hatching) would be conveyed to the Toronto Region Conservation Authority (“TRCA”) for
long-term protection and preservation, as stipulated in the instruments submitted to the
7 OLT-23-000498
Tribunal (Exhibits 6A and 6B), which will become part of the West Duffins Creek lands.
This portion of the Subject Site is presently zoned Open Space Hazard Lands (“OS-HL”)
under By-law 7085/10, and an easement for maintenance access approval is pending from
the TRCA.
LEGISLATIVE FRAMEWORK
[16] The Proposal and its related planning instruments must be representative of good
planning; have regard for matters of provincial interest in s. 2 of the Act; be consistent with
the Provincial Policy Statement, 2020 (“PPS”); and conform with A Place to Grow: Growth
Plan for the Greater Golden Horseshoe (“GP”). The Proposal must also conform with the
Region of Durham Official Plan (“DROP”), the City Official Plan (“COP”), and the City
Zoning By-law 3036 (“ZBL”). The proposed SPA must be compliant with applicable by-
laws, and any conditions proposed must be reasonable and necessary, having appropriate
regard to the nature of the Proposal.
[17] Furthermore, s. 2.1(1) of the Act requires that the Tribunal must also have regard
for the decision of the City of Pickering Council (“City Council”) made on May 9, 2023, and
the information considered by it at the time the Applications were denied, despite the
support of its Planning staff, and instructed its Counsel to appear at this Hearing to oppose
the development with separately retained transportation and land use planning witnesses.
HEARING EVIDENCE AND ANALYSIS
[18] The following individuals were qualified without objection to provide opinion
evidence to the Tribunal in their respective fields of expertise, as noted below:
• For the Applicant – Dana Anderson – Land Use Planning; Kathryn Bell –
Architectural and Urban Design; and Michael Linton – Transportation
Engineering & Planning.
8 OLT-23-000498
• For the City - Allan Ramsay – Land Use Planning; Robert Freedman – Urban
Design; and Joshua de Boer – Transportation Engineering.
[19] The written evidence considered for the purposes of the Hearing was marked in the
following order:
• Exhibit 1 - The original Affidavit of Service for Notice of the first Case
Management Conference, dated August 2, 2023;
• Exhibit 2 – Joint Document Book (Volumes A to K) (Volume G-Tab B-
discarded);
• Exhibit 3 – Minutes of Settlement (“MOS”) between Kindwin (Brock);
Development Corporation, and the Applicant; and,
• Exhibit 4 – Draft OPA;
• Exhibit 5 – Draft ZBA;
• Exhibit 6A and 6B – DPS with Conditions and Plan;
• Exhibit 7 – Durham/Scarborough BRT Design;
• Exhibit 8A and 8B – Kathryn Bell Curriculum Vitae and Acknowledgement of
Expert’s Duty;
• Exhibit 9 – Durham Region Official Plan Schedules;
• Exhibit 10 – Ontario Transit Supportive Guidelines;
9 OLT-23-000498
• Exhibit 11 – 2465 Brock Road Development Inc. - Planning Report (January
9, 2023);
• Exhibit 12 – Architectural Sections;
• Exhibit 13 – South Durham RT Map (Frequency 2024);
• Exhibit 14 – ROPA 186 Maps (Schedule ‘C’);
• Exhibit 15 – Final Appendix B (per de Boer Testimony);
• Exhibit 16 – Brock Road/Dellbrook Avenue Intersection;
• Exhibit 17 – City of Toronto Mid-Rise Avenue Study; and,
• Exhibit 18 – City of Toronto, Downtown Tall Blocks Design Guidelines.
ISSUES
[20] In addition to the legislative framework evidence and analysis, the Hearing focused
largely on the following key issues, based on much of the commonality from community
input through Participant statements, with appropriate regard for the City Council decision
refusing the Applications, and whether the development, as proposed:
a) Represents good land use planning and urban design that is compatible with
the existing low-rise Brock Ridge Neighbourhood area character;
b) Maintains an appropriate level of intensification, with attention to height,
density, shadow impact, and overlook;
10 OLT-23-000498
c) Would result in undue adverse impacts to the surrounding area from a
traffic/transportation/congestion/emergency service and pedestrian safety
perspective, including the adequacy of proposed on-site parking for unit
owners and visitors; and,
d) Preserves natural heritage, enhances public parks and amenities, and
enhances the quality of life in the community.
PLANNING HISTORY OF THE SUBJECT SITE
[21] Ms. Anderson was retained prior to this Proposal and has been directly involved
with the Subject Site for several years. She provided the Tribunal with a detailed history of
previous applications that came before the City and consultations around a number of
different proposals.
[22] In an attempt to gain a better understanding of the detailed history and evolution of
the Subject Site, and for the benefit of the general public, the Tribunal has condensed the
important details from Ms. Anderson’s chronological evidence leading up to the current
Proposal, with the following summary:
a) A previous 2010 site-specific zoning (H)RH/MU-3 through By-law 7085/10
(“ZBL-2010”) was approved, allowing a mixed-use proposal consisting of
offices, ground-floor commercial retail, and twelve live-work townhomes with
an H provision. As previously detailed, the West Duffins Creek lands
component at that time was rezoned from the Greenbelt (“G”) zone to the
current OS-HL zoning and was similarly expected to be conveyed to the
TRCA;
b) The property was purchased by a new owner (“Fortress”) in 2013, and by
2016, it became evident that although building permits were obtained,
11 OLT-23-000498
construction did not proceed, and a separate ZBA application was filed
consisting of twenty-five townhome units on the entirety of the property;
c) In July 2017, the current Applicant acquired the Subject Site, and submitted a
new application with a total of 59 townhomes, which was subsequently
withdrawn around March 2018. In April 2019, a pre-consultation meeting with
the City, and the Applicant resulted in a new proposal (April 2020);
d) All of the requisite supporting studies for the new proposal were submitted to
the City (Exhibit 2G, Tab A, para. 44), and the application, deemed complete
in May 2020, was the subject of a community open house in September
2020. A Statutory Public Meeting was held in January 2021, and by February
2022, further revisions were adopted, including the expansion of the POPS,
changes to setbacks, step backs, density, parking underground, landscaping,
and buffering in Block C, with all supplementary requisite studies combined
with City and Region history (see Exhibit 2G, Tab A, paras. 50-60);
e) A second resubmission followed in October 2022 with a number of updates
that led up to the current Proposal’s consideration in April 2023. The PSR of
April 3, 2023, recommended support for the Proposal, which came before the
City’s Planning and Development Committee (“Committee”) on April 24, 2023
(note: this Committee consists of all City Council Members).
f) The Region confirmed its support for higher densities along the Brock Road
corridor, including high-density residential development conducive to transit
use, consistent with the PPS encouraging the efficient use of land, existing
infrastructure, and conforms to the GP in an effort to meet the Region’s
intensification targets in a compatible manner with the community. The TRCA
and City Engineering also confirmed their support of the Proposal (Exhibit
2G, Tab A, paras. 61-64).
12 OLT-23-000498
g) Despite Planning staff recommendations in support of the OPA, ZBA, and
DPS, the Proposal was not approved by the Committee, which was ultimately
adopted at City Council on May 3, 2023. Following the Clerk’s notice of
refusal of the Applications, Appeals to the Tribunal were submitted by the
Applicant, and the Proposal in its current form is now before the Tribunal;
h) Through the Appeals, the proposed OPA will establish a redesignation of the
Subject Site from “Urban Residential Areas – Medium Density Areas” to
“Urban Residential Areas – High Density Areas” and “Open Space System –
Natural Areas”, and add a site-specific policy for the portion of the lands
designated as “Urban Residential Areas – High Density Areas” to permit a
maximum residential density of 286 [UPH], to facilitate the Proposal. The
instrument is attached to this Order (Exhibit 4) below;
i) The current ZBL-2010 is proposed to change to a site-specific “RHII-6”,
“RMI-7”, “OS-PP”, and OS-HL” to permit a high-density residential
development consisting of a twenty-storey building containing 328 units, 34
three storey back-to-back townhomes, and 10 three storey townhomes. The
ZBA will include a number of provisions referenced in her witness statement
(Exhibit 2G, Tab A, paras. 92-93). The instrument is also attached to this
Order (Exhibit 5) below; and,
j) The proposed DPS is intended to establish a single development block,
including the portion of the valleylands for the West Duffins Creek and an
associated buffer to be conveyed to the TRCA. The instrument is also
attached to this Order (Exhibits 6A and 6B) below.
[23] Land use planning evidence is outlined in greater detail later in this Decision, as the
Tribunal firstly finds it appropriate to initially provide its analysis of Transportation,
Architecture and Urban Design issues.
13 OLT-23-000498
TRANSPORTATION EVIDENCE
Transit, Traffic, and Parking
[24] A significant portion of the Hearing considered evidence provided by Mr. Linton and
Mr. de Boer, primarily resulting from a substantial number of community concerns around
issues of traffic and pedestrian safety, as outlined in numerous written Participant
statements. After careful review of their Agreed Statement of Facts (“ASF”) submissions,
and the testimony from both expert Transportation witnesses, it became increasingly
evident that there was a limited difference of opinion regarding several issues. The
Tribunal determined that both witnesses acknowledged at some point in their testimony
that the following conditions existed in relation to the Proposal itself, including but not
limited to the following:
a) Brock Road is a busy “Type A” arterial roadway functioning as a present-day
high-order transit corridor, with four High-Frequency Bus stops in north/south
directions, along Brock Road, and an important responsibility of the Region.
High Occupancy Vehicle (“HOV”) lanes, anticipated with roadway widening
along Brock Road from four to six or possibly seven lanes, should also serve
to accommodate greater densities and new development along this important
corridor;
b) Major new transit initiatives, including the east-west transit routes to the
south currently along the Kingston Road Urban Growth Area, along with the
proposed Rapid Transit Corridor once established along Kingston Road, as
proposed by the Region, should provide for significantly expanded transit
service to the immediate area. This is within a reasonable walking distance
and is expected to reduce vehicular demand. Walking distance was
established to be within approximately 550 metres (“m”) to 600 m from the
Usman Road (south) intersection at Brock Road, consistent with, by way of
example, a Major Transit Station Area (“MTSA”) requirement of 800 m.
14 OLT-23-000498
Based on this, transit will be more readily accessible to all current area
residents and any new residents associated with the Proposal (see Future
Transportation Context image below (Exhibit 2I-Tab A, pg. 38));
c) Brock Road presently has a designated right-turn-lane-northbound and a
designated left-turn-lane-southbound, both turning east onto Usman Road
(south). There are concrete curbs/medians running north/south along Brock
Road, and a curb/median requiring a right-turn-north-only onto Brock Road
from Usman Road (south), all separating vehicular traffic;
d) Current and future expected levels of traffic activity do not warrant any
changes or modifications, however, both witnesses agree that the Region’s
more recent approvals of a half-signalled intersection at Usman Road (south)
and Brock Road will serve to resolve issues relating to pedestrian safety and
likely help to improve traffic flows during peak periods. The concern with safe
pedestrian crossings will also be addressed with two new signaled
crosswalks proposed, as no crosswalks currently exist;
15 OLT-23-000498
e) The development requires 509 vehicle parking spaces, zero bicycle parking
spaces, and zero loading spaces. The Proposal contains 509 vehicle parking
spaces, 372 bicycle parking spaces, and 2 loading spaces, which are fully
satisfied on-site. This meets and exceeds the City Zoning By-law
requirements. Additionally, as these parking provisions are accommodated
entirely at the Subject Site, consisting of 416 resident spaces and 93 visitor
spaces, it is generally not anticipated that there will be a need for any added
parking on the local street network stemming from the Proposal;
f) Peak traffic counts in witness testimony were not in dispute, but important to
note was that significant volume exists in morning and afternoon rush-hour
periods. There is a significantly higher traffic count demand tied to the PIC
peak volumes at midday on Fridays (Exhibits 2F and Tab E) combined with
very active pedestrian crossings in all directions. There was also no dispute
regarding the Proposal’s potential impact on traffic counts and that, if
approved, the Proposal’s traffic impact overall would be limited. This was
further reinforced in the PSR of April 3, 2023 (Exhibit 2C, pg. 604). The
Tribunal notes that the PSR indicates that it would be helpful if the half-signal
intersection were expedited with pedestrian crossings and installed prior to
the construction of the Proposal. This is recommended by Region and City
staff, based on their own pedestrian volume analysis, and despite the limited
traffic warrant activity shared by both witnesses; and
g) Finally, there was also no dispute with regard to any concerns around
Emergency Vehicle or Service Vehicle access, as no concerns were
expressed by the City or Regional agencies.
[25] One area of disagreement related to Mr. de Boer’s opinion that the half-signaled
intersection should be a requirement of the Proposal, before it is constructed and subject
to a Holding provision (“H”), despite the fact that the Region provided its approval for the
16 OLT-23-000498
work in the 2023 budget, scheduled to have construction commence at the intersection in
2024.
[26] Furthermore, Mr. de Boer opined that it was important for any underground work to
factor in the future prospect of a need for a fully signaled intersection based on the
possibility of increased traffic counts. His rationale for this appeared to be that there is an
ongoing redevelopment application by the PIC with a proposal to expand its facilities in the
near term, currently under appeal as a separate matter before the Tribunal and scheduled
for a hearing in September 2024. Generally speaking, and only for context, the proposed
PIC redevelopment approved by City Council intends to add a three-storey private school
addition with a total area of approximately 3162 m2 and a two-level above-grade parking
structure at the north-east portion of the site, providing a limited number of new parking
spaces. City Planning staff comments require a significantly higher number of new
additional parking spaces. The Tribunal was not in a position to weigh-in on this issue at
this time but felt it appropriate to briefly reference the prospect of this additional matter
scheduled to come before the Tribunal in September 2024.
[27] As a separate matter, Mr. Linton opined that further north along Brock Road, the
intersection at Usman Road (north), which crosses over to Major Oaks Road, could readily
be modified to extend a westerly left-turn-lane by 16.3 m, allowing for an increase in left-
turn lane vehicular storage at this fully signalled intersection with the implementation of
lane-width reductions to 3 m. He proposed that the City could enact optional peak-period
parking restrictions, and if deemed helpful, specifically to the northerly portion of Usman
Road (north), which can currently accommodate approximately 8-9 on-street parking
spaces without any apparent restrictions. Mr. de Boer disagreed with this scenario, noting
that Mr. Linton’s suggested recommendation for 3 m wide lanes was not feasible and that
a road-widening was a better alternative. During cross-examination, his view regarding
feasibility was countered when Mr. de Boer indicated he was not familiar with the other 3 m
wide lanes that existed approximately 450 m to the north of this intersection at Brock Road
and Dellbrook Avenue (Exhibit 16), which have apparently been in operation for a number
of years.
17 OLT-23-000498
FINDINGS REGARDING TRANSPORTATION EVIDENCE
[28] After careful consideration of both transportation witness statements and analysis of
the witness testimony, respectively, the Tribunal finds that it is persuaded by the evidence
as presented by the Applicants and concludes that appropriate regard has been given to
the overall transportation planning issues in the area. The Transportation evidence and
analysis addresses all matters regarding present and future transit objectives, the
provision of on-site parking for future residents and visitors, and whether the Proposal
meets and exceeds the City’s Zoning By-law requirements in anticipation of ongoing and
future traffic conditions. The Tribunal determines that future vehicular movements with a
widened Brock Road will no doubt, deliver significant benefits to the surrounding
community, tied to meaningful improvements such as a half-signalled intersection at
Usman Road (south) and Brock Road, and improved safety measures with new pedestrian
crossings. In conclusion, the Proposal poses no significant adverse impact on the
immediate neighbourhood and community, purely from a transportation planning
perspective.
ARCHITECTURE AND URBAN DESIGN EVIDENCE
[29] Ms. Bell confirmed at the outset of her testimony that she concurred and adopted as
her own the Witness and Reply Statements of Sean Lawrence, who was unable to attend
the Hearing for personal reasons. Ms. Bell has shared carriage of the Proposal for the
Applicant since 2020 and was directly involved in the April 2023 final submission to the
City. As a visual reference, the below architectural image from Kohn (Exhibit 2E, pg. 3) is
provided:
18 OLT-23-000498
[30] Ms. Bell opined that overall, the Proposal is a well-designed mix of housing,
sensitive to the surrounding neighbourhood, and represents at scale and density that
reflects the City and Region’s desire to continue with residential growth. She asserted that
the architectural design, with most of the massing and height along or adjacent to Brock
Road (a 45 m Right-of-Way) (“ROW”), is well-situated and has been responsive to
neighbourhood concerns regarding overlooks, and shadowing. She stated that the design
is pedestrian-friendly, has a sound internal layout for vehicular access, and has a
comprehensive array of indoor/outdoor amenities for new residents and visitors to the
Subject Site.
[31] More specifically, Ms. Bell opined that the stacked, and back-to-back townhomes in
Blocks B, C, and D, which are more immediate in proximity to the existing residential
neighbourhood to the north/east, complements existing residential built forms. According
to architectural cross-sections (Exhibit 12), approximate measurements consist of Block B
with a setback of 7.32 m from the Subject Site northerly property line, a built-form width of
12 m by 55.4 m length, and with a height of 9.63 m, virtually identical in height to homes to
the north along Saffron Drive. Block C, which is perpendicular to Block B, has a total length
of 43 m, a height of 12.4 m, and a 1.5 m privacy screen, at a slightly lower grade, which is
also in line with the height of existing homes along Saffron Drive. Block D is similar to
19 OLT-23-000498
Block C in height at 12. 4 m, however, it maintains a slightly larger built form at 18 m in
width, setback 17.5 m from Block B, in a parallel manner at the south end of the
development envelope overlooking the Proposal’s conveyed lands, with a length of
approximately 81 m (Exhibit 2E, pg.16). Block D has effectively no impact on dwellings to
the north along Saffron Drive. Furthermore, with the addition of privacy screens to rooftop
terraces, the Proposal effectively addresses privacy concerns with neighbours from Blocks
B, C, and D.
[32] Ms. Bell also opined that the Subject Site maintains an attractive, and
comprehensive landscape design (Exhibit 2E, pg. 5), despite some challenges with most,
with at-grade limited soil levels, covering the entire site, that are the result of the below-
grade development envelope. Ms. Bell did state that there is a reasonable mix of plantings
reflective of current SPA guidelines/policies which are expected to be clarified further
between the City and Applicant, including improved buffering if the Proposal is allowed by
the Tribunal.
[33] Regarding overlook and shadowing, Ms. Bell dealt extensively with the impact of the
Proposal, with particular regard given to Block A/Towers 1 and 2. She asserted that Tower
2 has a distance separation of approximately 35 m diagonally, in relation to dwellings to
the north-east, and its six-storey height transitions well with the PIC directly to the north as
an institutional use. Tower 1 also has a diagonal distance separation of 95 m from the
nearest external residential property at Saffron Drive and is located approximately 60 m
from homes to the west along Rayleen Crescent. Ms. Bell opined that the slender design
of Tower 1, with its limited floorplate of 810 m2, recessed balconies, terraces, setbacks,
and step backs from the podium level, offer an appropriate scale and density, with limited
overlook respectful of neighbourhood residential dwellings, especially with its positioning at
the south-west corner of the development envelope.
[34] Ms. Bell referenced the Sun/Shadow Impact Study (“SSIS”) (Exhibit 2E, pg. Tab B),
which she asserted makes evident that the scale, massing, and building height of Towers
1 and 2 allow for compatible transitioning to properties to the north and north-east and
20 OLT-23-000498
predominantly show that most shadowing exists internally within the Subject Site. The
SSIS demonstrates that Proposal’s impact is kept to a maximum of two hours during peak
seasons, including the spring, summer, fall, and winter, between the hours of
approximately 9:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. She concluded that the minimal impact of shadowing
and overlook, adequately addresses neighbourhood concerns that were the direct result of
architectural design revisions, in concert with the City and public consultation over the
course of the multi-year application process.
[35] With respect to amenity space, Ms. Bell concurred with the City staff that a ratio of 4
m2 per residential unit (totaling 1488 m2) exceeds typical projects of this size in other
developments. The amenity space exceeds the City’s requirements, complementing the
Proposal with more than adequate indoor/outdoor areas for both residents and visitors.
Privately-Owned Publicly Accessible Space (“POPS”)
[36] The POPS was emphasized as an important additional feature of the Proposal
achieved with input from City staff and design guideline best practices, evolving from
approximately 600 m2 originally to 660 m2 in the final Proposal. Ms. Bell opined that the
visibility and access to the POPS as determined by these iterative discussions with the
City allows for easy access from Usman Road (south) for pedestrians, cyclists, and
vehicular drop offs, with landscaped elements in the design, allowing for natural views
adjacent to West Duffins Creek.
[37] Finally, Ms. Bell reiterated that appropriate protections are in place through the SPA
process, which will implement any outstanding matters of importance associated with the
Proposal’s progress and ultimate construction.
[38] It is important to note that Ms. Anderson’s witness statement provides a thorough
analysis of the range and types of residential units that form part of each of the four Blocks
A to D (Exhibit 2G, Tab A, paras. 80-83). She asserted that the Proposal “provides a high-
quality design that optimizes the use of the land and infrastructure” and reflects the
21 OLT-23-000498
Regional objectives of intensification while at the same time being compatible with the
neighbourhood. Her focus on perhaps the more controversial element (Tower 1) stressed
that despite the presence of the tower at the south-westerly corner, the manner in which it
is situated on the Subject Site, along with the appropriate transition through a shared four-
storey podium connecting to Tower 2 at six-storeys, adjacent to Blocks B, C, and D,
represents good planning and design.
[39] Ms. Anderson opined that Tower 1 represents a landmark feature, and because of
its location, concerns regarding overlook and shadowing are mitigated. At the same time,
she asserted that the four and six-storey levels directly across from the PIC were a
“strategic” design decision respectful of the Masjid’s height, inclusive of minarets. She also
reiterated that the Proposal represents a good design and is compatible with the
surrounding community.
[40] Mr. Freedman’s testimony extensively outlined the history of the surrounding
neighbourhoods, his interpretation of COP/DROP policies and guidelines along with the
evolution of transit and transportation plans for the area. He generally concurred that a
residential redevelopment of the Subject Site may be appropriate along this transit
corridor, however, this Proposal represents “over-intensification” and is “out of character”
with the Brock Road Neighbourhood, which is predominantly a low-rise residential area.
He asserted that the Proposal’s density of 286 units per hectare (“UPH”) represents twice
the density permitted at 140 UPH for a high-density site and insisted that a mid-rise
development was more appropriate for this area, in line with his position that this is a mid-
rise site.
[41] Mr. Freedman opined extensively in relation to area characteristics from a broader
context and focused his assessment on the density, built form, and mass, but in particular
the Tower 1 height of twenty-storeys located at the south-west corner of the Subject Site.
Specifically, Mr. Freedman opined that Tower 1 is too tall and the Proposal’s density, at
twice the permitted level in the COP, was inappropriate within the overall context of the
Brock Road corridor. Mr. Freedman emphasized, in particular, that Tower 1 was not a
22 OLT-23-000498
good fit with the community and the Brock Road corridor, was less suitable for higher
densities, and that such projects should be more appropriately focused along the Kingston
Road Urban Growth Centre and further south to the Anchor Mobility Hub surrounding the
GO Station, among other nodes.
[42] Regarding built form, Mr. Freedman opined that the Tower 1 design does not
enhance the character of the surrounding neighbourhood and therefore contravenes the
COP’s objectives. Regarding transition and good separation distance, Mr. Freedman
emphasized that despite the respective Tower 1 separation of 60 m to the west and 95 m
to the north-east, the negative impact as seen from a distance “creates the impression that
the residents of the tower can see into the neighbourhood, the yards, and the windows of
the surrounding houses – negatively impacting neighbourhood privacy”, and that “the
separation distance in this suburban context is not enough to overcome this extreme
height differential and the sense of being watched from above.” He shared the same
opinion with respect to the 35 m separation distance from the six-storey, Tower 2 design.
He also noted that the PIC is more representative of a landmark at three-storeys (plus the
additional height of the adjacent minarets) across Usman Road (south), and the Proposal
impedes its visibility. During cross-examination, Mr. Freedman briefly acknowledged that
current zoning, allows for up to eight-storeys in height fronting along Usman Road (south).
[43] Finally, Mr. Freedman also opined that the POPS was not ideally situated on the
Subject Site, was impacted by shadowing, and suggested that it would be more accessible
if relocated to the front along Brock Road or Usman Road (south), requiring an entire
redesign of the Proposal. Regarding landscaping and buffering, Mr. Freeman suggested
that a reduced perimeter for parking, setback for garage construction impacting Brock
Road and Usman Road (south), would allow for improved planting alternatives, again
requiring an overall redesign of the development. No design or architectural alternatives
were presented at the Hearing.
23 OLT-23-000498
[44] During further cross-examination, Mr. Freedman acknowledged that, through his
extensive experience, mid-rise projects normally allow for up to twelve-storeys in
neighbouring municipalities along avenues with a 20 m to 36 m ROW. Brock Road is
currently a four-lane 45 m ROW, and despite the anticipated addition of up to three new
lanes along the corridor at the Region’s initiative, Mr. Freedman maintained that any
comparison was “apples to oranges” between the mid-rise definitions of neighbouring
municipalities as they relate to the Subject Site. Supplemental to this during cross,
Counsel for the Applicant clarified with the witness that generally, maximum heights in the
DROP and COP do not presently exist and did eventually elicit a response acknowledging
twelve-storeys buildings along Brock Road could be deemed mid-rise.
FINDINGS REGARDING ARCHITECTURE, URBAN DESIGN, AND THE POPS
[45] After careful analysis of witness statements on the subject of the architectural and
urban design evidence and careful regard to oral testimony from the witnesses, the
Tribunal is persuaded by the Applicant’s evidence in this area. The Tribunal determined
that the Applicant demonstrated considerable effort in ensuring any City and Regional
issues have been addressed associated with built form design.
[46] The Tribunal also finds that the Proposal demonstrates a creative and appropriate
transition with Blocks B, C, and D, as they are closest in proximity to existing built-form
residential dwellings in the surrounding area. From this point to the west and south-west
(Block A), the design also provides a gradual connection to Tower 2 along Usman Road
(south) at four storeys with an appropriate design step back at levels five and six. The
design ultimately transitions very well to Tower 1 at the furthest distance away to the
south-west corner of the development area along Brock Road.
[47] The 35 m, 60 m, and 95 m setbacks, respectively, are significant and enhance the
character of the overall community, well-separated from the existing residential built forms.
The addition of Block A with Towers 1 and 2 allows for an attractive and creative diversity
of residential design, with increased housing alternatives and a minimal degree of
24 OLT-23-000498
shadowing in a relatively compact form. The Tribunal agrees that a slenderer architectural
Tower 1 design element, previously described as graduated from Blocks B, C, and D,
represents a complement to the residential area’s mix of housing. There is limited overlook
into the neighbouring community to the north, north-east, and to the west, and shadowing
is minimally impactful, mostly affecting the Subject Site internally to a rather limited extent
depending on the time of year.
[48] Finally, it is important to recognize the opinion of City Planning staff. The PSR goes
on to address the issue of ensuring a sensitive transition between Tower 1 and states that
“the applicant has provided a progressive stepping of building heights, and has sited the
tallest portion of the building to maximize separation from the detached dwellings” and
notes that as per the cross-section below, “the proposal replicates the existing building
height and setbacks established immediately to the north.”
Above: Cross Section Elevation view from the west (PSR-Exhibit 2C, pg.601)
25 OLT-23-000498
[49] The Tribunal also concurs that the POPS is well-designed in its current proposed
location and should not be relocated along Brock Road or Usman Road (south), requiring
an entirely new site design, as suggested by the City’s witness. The current POPS design
will result in reduced at-grade, street, and vehicular noise in its proposed location, buffered
by adjacent built-forms. The increase in size of the POPS resulting from City staff
consultations to 660 m2, should serve to provide enhanced public open space alternatives
to the immediate community. Furthermore, it is important to note the City staff’s position in
the PSR (Exhibit 2C, Tab F, pg. 609 and 601), which states that “the final design details for
the POPS will be confirmed through the [SPA] process.” The Tribunal is also confident that
the possibility of enhanced signage alternatives encouraged through SPA deliberations
with the City could also assist in its degree of visibility and at the same time maintaining a
high level of community safety at its proposed location.
LAND USE PLANNING EVIDENCE
[50] In their Agreed Statement of Facts (“ASF”) (Exhibit 2J, Tab A), the Planning
witnesses acknowledged among a number of issues, that it is the extent of proposed
growth and development that is in dispute not whether the site is an appropriate location
for growth and development.
Provincial Framework
Planning Act
[51] Mr. Ramsay, retained by the City in August 2023, provided his opinions regarding s.
2 of the Act, initially confirming that the Proposal is in a location that is appropriate for
residential intensification. However, he stated that the Proposal represents an
overdevelopment of the Subject Site and is out of character/not compatible with the
predominantly low-rise community. He asserted that the Proposal does not have sufficient
regard for matters of provincial interest specific to s. 2 of the Act. Through his witness
26 OLT-23-000498
statement (Exhibit 2H, Tab A, para. 26), Mr. Ramsay briefly highlighted the updated
changes to the Proposal submitted in March 2023, including that it:
- maintains the height of the tower of 20-and 6-storeys;
- maintains the height of the podium of 4-storeys;
- an increase in the total gross floor area from 30,269 m2 to 30,367 m2;
- maintains the number of residential dwellings [at] 372 (328 apartment units,10
street townhouse units and 44 stacked townhouse units)
- maintains the density of 286 uph ; and,
- increases indoor/outdoor amenity space from 1,851 m2 to 1,960 m2.
[52] More specifically, regarding s. 2 of the Act, Mr. Ramsay expressed concern with the
following areas where there is disagreement with the Proposal:
(h) the orderly development of safe and healthy communities;
(n) the resolution of planning conflicts involving public and private interests;
(p) the appropriate location of growth and development; and
(r) the promotion of built form that,
(i) is well-designed,
(ii) encourages a sense of place, and
(iii) provides for public spaces that are of high quality, safe, accessible,
attractive and vibrant.
[53] Mr. Ramsay testified that the Proposal does not represent orderly development nor
does the design represent an appropriate height, scale, and massing; setbacks are
inadequate along Brock Road; privacy and overlook are concerns; public and private
interests are at odds with each other due to the adverse impact on the surrounding
community, especially with the streetscape impact of Tower 1; the design does not
encourage a sense of place, and that it does not provide for public spaces that are of high
quality, safe, accessible, attractive, and vibrant.
[54] Ms. Anderson testified initially at a high level, that she rebuts Mr. Ramsay’s opinion,
and that the Proposal has the appropriate regard for s. 2 (h), (n), (p), and (r) of the Act and
makes reference to the MHBC Planning Justification Report (“PJR”) for greater detail,
which was consistently updated, as the Proposal evolved (Exhibit 2D, Tab A, 4.1 Planning
Act, and Tabs B and C). More specifically, she asserted that the DPS: will facilitate
27 OLT-23-000498
continuous and orderly development which makes use of existing underutilized lands, in
close proximity to commercial uses within a reasonable distance; large landscaped open
space is accessible; and the density increase supports active transportation as well as
greater levels of public transit.
[55] Furthermore, Ms. Anderson stated that: public consultation in accordance with the
Act was ongoing throughout the process; existing development surrounds the Proposal
along with natural features, protected by the land conveyance to the TRCA; and, the close
proximity of commercial uses, employment, and recreational facilities, are complemented
by the increased density.
[56] Finally, regarding s. 2 of the Act, she testified that the Proposal provides a high-
quality, well-designed built form that offers a sense of place and fit within the surrounding
area. She asserted that it also provides accessible, safe, and high quality public open
space and amenity areas for both current and future residents.
Provincial Policy Statement 2020
[57] In his witness statement (2H, Tab A, paras. 57, 58, 65), Mr. Ramsay outlines his
position that the Proposal generally maintains consistency with the PPS, beginning with:
Managing and Directing Land Use (Section 1.1.1 a) through i)). He shared the same
general opinion that the Proposal maintained consistency with the PPS, regarding Housing
(1.4.3).
[58] Mr. Ramsay maintained a different view, however, regarding the Proposal’s
consistency with the PPS related to Settlement Areas (Sections 1.1.3.1, 1.1.3.2, 1.1.3.3,
1.1.3.4). He asserted that the OPA and ZBA: will result in a development that is
inappropriate, as it is situated adjacent to low-rise development to the north, east and
west; it does not take into account existing building stock in this area of low-rise housing
forms; and the height density setbacks and overall intensity of the Proposal is not
compatible with the community.
28 OLT-23-000498
[59] Furthermore, he stated that the Proposal is not consistent with the PPS, as it related
to Public Spaces, Recreation, Parks, Trails, and Open Space (1.5.1). Specifically, he
reiterated that the POPS, located within the interior of the Subject Site, is “neither visible
nor accessible from Brock Road and has limited visibility from Usman Road with access
along a private driveway.”
[60] Ms. Anderson fundamentally disagreed with Mr. Ramsay’s position regarding the
POPS, and as a reference, the Tribunal refers to the Witness Reply of Mr. Lawrence
(Exhibit 2G, Tab C, para. 3) whereby he states:
• The location of the POPS space as proposed followed extensive discussion
with City staff throughout the Zoning Bylaw Amendment application process,
and the location as shown was deemed the preferred location. The POPS is
accessible from Usman Road by means of a continuous sidewalk and
pedestrian crossing. The POPS is not located off Brock Road or accessible
from Brock Road, as a street wall was the preferred built form along the
Brock Road frontage following the City’s design guidelines and best
practices. As referenced in the Duffins Precinct Development Guidelines, M1
4.4, amenity should not be located along Brock Road, but instead separated
by building mass.
[61] Furthermore, Ms. Anderson opined that the Proposal is compatible with the existing
and evolving community. She stated that it supports increased densities along a critical
transit spine, efficiently utilizing existing infrastructure and is focused on delivering a
development pattern that supports strong, livable, and healthy communities.
[62] Ms. Anderson testified that the Proposal also showed particular regard to sections
51(24) and 41 of the Act, as they apply to the DPS Block Plan and SPA, respectively. She
notes in (2G, Tab A, para. 103) that the SPA will further crystalize in numerous respects,
also conforming with City and Regional objectives, including the following:
29 OLT-23-000498
• Provides for the massing and design of the proposed buildings, the
relationship of the proposed buildings to adjacent buildings, streets, and
exterior areas to which members of the public have access, the provision of
interior walkways, stairs, and elevators to which members of the public have
access from streets, open spaces, and interior walkways in adjacent
buildings. Matters relating to exterior design, including the character, scale,
appearance, and design features of buildings and their sustainable design,
landscaping, road and access design, parking and loading, amenity areas
including walkways and pedestrian connections, as well as lighting are set
out on the site plan as well as in the supporting plans and reports submitted
with the SPA.
[63] She concluded that the PPS strongly encourages new development that will provide
long term prosperity, environmental health, and social well-being, facilitating economic
growth and a range of new housing forms and options responding to current and future
needs. As a new development of a vacant site, she opined that the Proposal is consistent
with all of the PPS criteria and maintains that it represents an appropriate level of
intensification that will integrate well with the surrounding community, optimizing transit
investments and standards, and minimizing land consumption and service costs.
Growth Plan
[64] Mr. Ramsay’s view that the Proposal does not conform to the GP, which refers to
Policies for Where and How to Grow, Managing Growth, focuses on sections 1.2.1, and
where he asserts the Proposal does not:
• Prioritize intensification and higher densities in strategic growth areas to
make efficient use of land and infrastructure and support transit viability.
30 OLT-23-000498
• Improve the integration of land use planning with planning and investment in
infrastructure and public service facilities, including integrated service
delivery through community hubs, by all levels of government.
• Provide for different approaches to managing growth that recognize the
diversity of communities in the GGH.
[65] He expands further on this topic by noting: this is not a strategic growth area; the
Proposal is “ad hoc” as it relates to density and does not support the broader urban
structure in the City where infrastructure and public services facilities are planned and
available; and the Proposal is not located where the City directs higher densities that
should exist more appropriately.
[66] He did acknowledge that regarding section 2.2.1, generally, there was conformity
with the GP, as the Proposal is within the delineated built-up areas; however, he highlights
concern with regard to 2.2.2(1) through 2.2.2(3), where such density is more appropriate in
other areas, the Proposal ultimately “does not conform with the City wide intensification
policies” and “the guiding principles (Section 1.2.1) and intensification strategy
requirements (Section 2.2.2(3))” of the GP.
[67] Ms. Anderson rebutted this and testified that the Proposal conforms to and serves
to implement the policies of the GP in that it meets the Region’s intensification
objectives, providing connectivity along Brock Road with its density and is compatible with
the neighbouring community, in a compact form (see PJR-Exhibit 2D, 4.3). Furthermore,
she noted that this is reinforced, and is in line with, the shifted timelines for growth
forecasts to 2051. Additionally, the Proposal’s instruments remain in conformity with the
policies of the GP, and the density will complement an area that is well served by existing
transit, optimizing the use of existing water, wastewater, and stormwater infrastructure with
existing community services, parks, the natural environment, and local businesses in close
proximity.
31 OLT-23-000498
[68] Regarding density, Ms. Anderson reiterated that the Proposal: prioritizes the
immediate access to current and pending major transit initiatives; will implement a much
needed range of housing types and options, and that no policies preclude such
development along an arterial corridor of such significance in its current form and into the
future.
FINDINGS REGARDING THE ACT, PPS AND GP
[69] The Tribunal prefers the evidence of Ms. Anderson, which includes the PJR (Exhibit
2D, Tabs A, B, and C) that more broadly and consistently addresses the requisite
legislative framework dating back to 2020. The Proposal is located in a predominantly
residential area, with neighbouring commercial uses in close proximity, and along an
arterial transit corridor that can accommodate and implement provincial objectives and
guidelines. The Applicant’s evidence demonstrates appropriate regard for s. 2 of the Act, is
consistent with the PPS, and conforms to the GP. The Proposal promotes intensification
that complements the existing surrounding area, represents efficient design and built form,
and is at a density that efficiently utilizes existing infrastructure and public service facilities.
[70] The Proposal is responsive to and will most definitely benefit from anticipated major
transit initiatives, with the anticipated widening of the ROW along the Brock Road corridor
but will also have a favourable impact on public utilization of planned additional transit
initiatives further to the south across Kingston Road, in the near future.
[71] The Applicant’s evidence regarding consistency, and conformity with the above
legislative framework, is corroborated further through the PSR (2C, Tab F) as referenced
throughout this Decision. Specifically, the PSR reinforces that the Proposal: appropriately
transitions its built form to adjacent residential areas; has minimal shadow impact; does
not have any adverse transportation impact; implements numerous improvements through
a number of future traffic management strategies; offers an enlarged POPS; offers
sufficient indoor/outdoor amenity space; complies with the Duffins Precinct Environmental
32 OLT-23-000498
Servicing Plan; and, concurrently, approves of the instruments implementing the Proposal,
with Attachments 1, 2, and 3, as attached to the Order that follows in this Decision.
REGIONAL AND CITY POLICIES
Region of Durham Official Plan
[72] Regarding the DROP (consolidated in 2020), Ms. Anderson opined that the
Proposal conforms with the plan, as it facilitates residential uses with taller heights and
densities along regional corridors such as Brock Road, allowing for taller buildings. The
Region’s density objectives are further enhanced through proposed new transit
improvements with implementation in the near term (2031) along this important corridor
(Exhibit 2D, Tab A, pgs. 50-54). She also asserted that the Proposal’s increase in height
and density should not be prevented where it meets the Region’s objectives. In this
instance, while not directly in the designated “Urban Growth Area,” located close in
proximity just to the south of the Subject Site, the Proposal meets the Region’s density
objectives, and also preserves/enhances the Natural Heritage System (Duffins Creek)
through the previously referenced land conveyance to the TRCA.
[73] In her witness statement (Exhibit 2G, paras. 114-116), Ms. Anderson expands
further regarding the following:
• Within the Regional Official Plan (“ROP”), the Subject Lands are designated
as “Living Areas” with a “Regional Corridor” overlay. A portion of the Subject
Lands located adjacent to Duffins Creek are also designated “Major Open
Space Areas”. A portion of the Subject Lands are identified as “Key Natural
Heritage and Hydrologic Features” and “High Aquifer Vulnerability Areas”
within Schedule B of the ROP. Brock Road is also identified as a “Transit
Spine” on Schedule C of the ROP and identified as a Type A Arterial Road
on Schedule 3, Map C2: Road Network, and a High Frequency Transit Line
on Schedule 3, Map C3: Transit Priority Network.
33 OLT-23-000498
• The “Living Areas” are intended to accommodate a full range of housing
developed in a cost effective and efficient manner, while maintaining an
attractive, safe living environment that is respectful of existing natural areas.
The proposal conforms to these objectives by proposing a compact built form
within a built-up area, and through site design and layout, providing adequate
setbacks to the adjacent natural features to ensure these areas are not
adversely impacted by the proposal.
• Regional Corridors are to be developed to promote transit and be designed
with a mix of higher density uses. Sensitive urban design is to be used that is
oriented towards the corridors. Portions of Regional Corridors with an
underlying Living Area designation, which are identified as appropriate for
higher density mixed use development in area municipal official plans, shall
support an overall, long-term density target of at least 60 residential units per
gross hectare and a FSI of 2.5. The built form should be a wide variety of
building forms, generally mid-rise in height, with some higher buildings, as
detailed in the area municipal official plans. The proposed development
meets these policies.
[74] Regarding the recent DROP (adopted 2023), which is awaiting Ministerial approval,
Ms. Anderson importantly denotes in her witness statement that the Proposal appropriately
considers and conforms with updated objectives as follows:
• Brock Road is a High Frequency Transit Network, a Type A Arterial Road,
and a Regional Corridor, and the valley lands are designated as a Regional
Natural Heritage System and form part of the Urban River Valley;
• Community Areas are to be planned as complete communities providing a
range of housing, transportation, and lifestyle choices; and,
34 OLT-23-000498
• Regional Corridors are generally identified as appropriate locations for
higher-density development. Built form along Regional Corridors is
encouraged to be multi-storey compact, pedestrian friendly and transit-
supportive. The new policies also encourage the area municipalities to
establish transit supportive density targets along the Regional Corridors and
designate key development areas as prime opportunities for transit
supportive intensification. Within the Medium Density Areas on Schedule I
Land Use Structure; Sheet 1. This structural designation extends the full
extent of lands along the east side of Brock Road up to Finch Avenue to the
north.
[75] The PSR (Exhibit 2C, Tab F, pg. 598) states that the Proposal conforms to the
DROP, in that the increase in proposed density is appropriate and that Brock Road, is
within Regional responsibility, which maintains a designation recognizing the corridor as a
Type “A” Arterial, Transit Spine in the COP, with a higher level of transit service and
moderate traffic levels/speeds, with access to local collectors. The DROP designates
Brock Road as a High-Frequency Transit Network (“HFTN”). Higher density developments,
with mixed uses and at an appropriate scale and context are encouraged in HFTN
designations. The PSR goes on to state:
• The proposed density will facilitate a built form that has been demonstrated
to achieve a compatible transition with the existing residential neighbourhood
immediately to the north, by siting a built form that has a similar building
height and setbacks to the existing dwellings, providing appropriate building
separation between the existing dwellings and the apartment building. The
proposal has been designed to maximize the separation between the tallest
and most dense components of the development and existing residential
properties to the north, which will limit any negative impacts with respect to
privacy and shadowing. On the easterly portion of the subject lands, and
nearest to existing detached dwellings, the proposed development provides
for compatible building heights, and a less dense built form, through the
35 OLT-23-000498
placement of townhouse units with adjoining rear yards along the north
property boundary.”
• The proposal is located along an arterial road and a collector road that can
accommodate the traffic generated by this development. Furthermore, siting
the apartment building adjacent to Brock Road, which is identified as a transit
spine, encourages the opportunity to reduce auto-dependency, and
contribute to the development of a livable, transit-oriented community.
[76] Mr. Ramsay opined that the DROP stipulates broad policies, requiring greater
efficiency in design, and deferred to Mr. Freedman’s testimony in this regard. He also
asserted that more in accordance with the DROP, the redevelopment should consist of a
mid-rise design along a Regional corridor such as this one.
City of Pickering Official Plan
[77] As he continued with his land use planning opinion, Mr. Ramsay asserted that the
Proposal does not reflect the objectives and guidelines of the COP, noting in particular,
section 3.2. Similarly, with Mr. Freedman, he argued that the proper location for this
degree of density, “which can be better achieved elsewhere”, includes along Kingston
Road, and areas like a Mobility Hub further south towards the GO Transit Station among
other options.
[78] Mr. Ramsay also testified that Block A, in particular, is too big and reiterated that it
did not represent good urban design. He stated that the Duffin Creek Lands conveyance
and their integration with the Subject Site, is appropriate, but the ZBA will not protect or
enhance the neighbourhood, and that it represents an overdevelopment of the Subject
Site. He estimated that 100 UPH could potentially be achieved at the Subject Site but that
even this degree of density “was a stretch,” and that anything greater was not
contemplated in the COP. He also concurred with Mr. Freedman’s analysis that the COP’s
intended provisions are to locate developments such as this on Kingston Road and
36 OLT-23-000498
elsewhere. Both believe it is the intended provisions of the COP, that this Proposal’s
overall scale, massing, density, and height, will be “overly dominating.”
[79] Ms. Anderson’s opinion disagreed, and she stated that the Proposal serves to
implement the objectives of the COP, by “providing for a compact and urban residential
built form on a site with the Built Boundary of the City’s existing Urban Area, where the
majority of growth is to occur ” and “ directs increased density to an area of the [Subject
Site] located along Brock Road, an identified Regional Corridor and Transit Spine, and [is]
appropriate for the proposed level of intensification.”
[80] Furthermore, Ms. Anderson reiterated that the proposed OPA “seeks to permit high-
density residential uses in order to ensure a transit-supportive and vibrant form of
development is achieved along Brock Road within the Brock Ridge neighbourhood. The
proposed development is in conformity with the City’s natural heritage system policies and
has been carefully designed to protect the existing natural features adjacent [to] the site.
The proposed development, and associated planning applications conform to and serve to
implement the applicable objectives and policies of the City of Pickering OP.”
[81] The PSR (Exhibit 2C, Tab F, pg. 598) states that the “Medium Density” designation
is intended primarily for residential uses and denotes a range of 30 to 80 UPH. It also
encourages a variety of housing forms as part of the Brock Ridge Neighbourhood policies,
and suggests that “the City Council should acknowledge the landowners’ interest in
maximizing the developable area of the property” and “that City Council shall encourage a
broad diversity of housing by form, location, size, tenure, and cost within the
neighbourhoods and villages of the City, so that the housing needs of existing and future
residents can be met as they evolve over time.” The Tribunal determines that this
reinforces the Applicant’s evidence, asserting that the Proposal conforms to the COP.
37 OLT-23-000498
Duffins Precinct Development Guidelines (1997)
[82] As an additional and important consideration, the DPDG, provides some direction
for land use, transportation, community design, and servicing within the Duffins Precinct,
excluding the portion to be conveyed to the TRCA. Following some
clarifications/corrections in her witness statement, Ms. Anderson assisted the Tribunal in
better understanding the planning-related objectives of the growth framework. Some of
these changes are summarized below:
• The Subject Site is within Area 5 (not Area 2) of the growth framework, which
targets units between 45 and 119 units, and has a density range between 30
and 80 UPH; and,
• The key consideration is that what has not been achieved in relation to all
areas in the Duffins Precinct Area is that Area 2 has effectively no new
intensification, and Areas 3 and 4 have underachieved the planned maximum
units by 441 units. This clearly makes evident the fact that existing and
proposed developments have not achieved the minimum unit targets and are
at the low end of density ranges.
• Though the proposal exceeds the maximum density guideline, the increase
in density offsets the under achieved density in other parts of the area and is
provided in a compatible design, without adverse impacts, and will contribute
to the much-needed housing now required to meet the City’s housing pledge
and growth to 2051.
[83] Mr. Ramsay opined that the Proposal contravenes the Duffins Precinct
Development Guidelines 1997 (“DPDG”), resulting in adverse impacts on adjacent
properties and will “[establish] a negative urban design precedent for the City.”
38 OLT-23-000498
[84] The PSR (Exhibit 2C, pg. 599) again reinforced the Applicant’s evidence,
maintaining that the design provides an appropriate transition in built form from the
adjacent residential areas and meets the objectives of the DPDG, including:
• A range of housing types, including detached, semi-detached, townhomes,
and multi-unit dwellings;
• Building form adjacent to Brock Road that is sensitive to the potential impacts
of the road but does not turn its back on it;
• Streetscape and architectural designs that are aesthetically pleasing,
diverse, encourage social interaction within a neighbourhood, and support
safe environments; and,
• Development that embraces the natural environment.
[85] During cross-examination, Mr. Ramsay acknowledged that the COP did not have
any height restrictions, but instead primarily maintained its range of FSI objectives.
Additionally, he recognized that with a framework horizon of 2016, the COP (2007) is
considered outdated and does require an up-to-date review, reflective of ongoing and new
growth. Conveniently and quite timely, evidence from the Applicant showed that a City-
initiated review of the COP is underway as of March 2024, (Exhibit 19). It announces a
public consultation process will commence in late May 2024, all in an effort to “maintain its
conformity with Provincial and Regional planning documents through amendments to the
[COP].” The Report also notes that the City “is projected to enter a significant period of
growth in the coming decades,” and will therefore “not only increase the population and
number of housing units within the community but will result in changes in the needs of
residents.” Concurrent to this, the witness also acknowledged that the evolution of current
provincial guidelines are pursuing a more comprehensive, updated approach, and
relatedly, did not dispute that the PSR of April 2023, recommended approval of the OPA,
ZBA, and DPS along with the requisite instruments.
39 OLT-23-000498
City of Pickering Zoning By-law 3036
[86] A review of the updated draft ZBA (Exhibit 5 and Attachment “2” to this Order),
confirms that the implementing instrument, amends the City ZBL 3036 as previously
amended by ZBL-2010. Ms. Anderson testified that this updated draft ZBA has the
concurrence of City Planning staff, as similarly recommended for approval through its PSR
of April 2023. Regarding conformity with the ZBL, the final paragraph of this instrument is
quoted below for clarity:
• By-law 3036 is hereby further amended only to the extent necessary
to give effect to the provisions of this By-law as it applies to the area
set out in Schedule I to this By-law. Definitions and subject matters
not specifically dealt with in this By-law shall be governed by
relevant provisions of By-law 3036.
FINDINGS REGARDING THE DROP, COP, DPDG, AND CITY ZBL
[87] The Tribunal is again persuaded by the Applicant, based on witness evidence, and
corroborated by the City PSR of April 2023. It was acknowledged by the City’s witnesses
that, despite opinions regarding the overall size of Block A, the City ZBL currently allows
up to an eight-storey, 70 m building length along Usman Road (south) from Brock Road
and up to four storeys further east. The approximately 50 m length along Brock Road, with
a four-level podium and six storeys (also in Block A), is in line with the current City ZBL,
existing as-of-right since approximately 2010, and has the full support of City Planning
staff.
[88] The Proposal achieves a number of objectives through elements that conform with
the above, including: the land conveyance to the TRCA at the outset; the provision of
public and private amenities and the provision of the POPS in a central and accessible
location; the provision of a wide variety of housing options; pedestrian connectivity; with
noise and traffic mitigation factored into the design. The Tribunal determined by way of
careful evaluation of the evidence, that almost everything associated with the density,
40 OLT-23-000498
height, and massing of the Proposal, other than Tower 1, conforms to the DROP, the COP,
DPDG, and the City ZBL.
SUPPLEMENTAL PLANNING EVIDENCE AND ANALYSIS
Planning Staff Report and Analysis
[89] While neither of the Parties chose to subpoena Planning staff for the purposes of
the Hearing, it became quite evident that the Parties allowed the PSR of April 2023 to
speak for itself and effectively represent a supplemental, detailed expert perspective on
the Proposal from the City’s own Planning Department. As referenced a number of times in
oral evidence and by way of the JDB submitted (Exhibit 2), Planning staff has played an
integral role in the evolution of various proposals on the Subject Site since 2010. No doubt,
the Tribunal may have benefited from their supplemental direct evidence at the Hearing,
however, in their absence, Ms. Anderson appropriately shared many of her thoughts about
the City Planning staff’s role in the process through her witness statement. It is her opinion
that the PSR provides a comprehensive and thorough assessment of the Proposal in
relation to the PPS, GP, DROP, and COP. She continues with a brief summary of the
PSR, as follows:
a) The PSR addresses matters related to urban design including the transition
of height and built form proposed, shadow impacts, the provision of indoor
and outdoor amenity space, POPS, sustainability, and connectivity.
b) The [PSR] recommends approval of the proposed applications based on its
thorough and comprehensive analysis. The City’s Planning Staff support the
proposed residential density and height, as it will facilitate a built form that
has been demonstrated to achieve a compatible transition with the
neighbourhood immediately to the north through appropriate building siting,
setbacks, separation distances, height, and massing.
41 OLT-23-000498
c) Staff note the compact form of development and design will maintain and
protect the natural areas within the associated valleylands to the south and
east and conveyed the appropriate lands to the TRCA. Planning Staff note
the plan will provide for a more diversified housing mix of housing forms and
tenure that will assist the City in achieving its intensification targets, while
providing at-grade amenity space for use by the broader community.
d) Staff note that the proposal is located on an arterial road and a collector that
can accommodate the proposed traffic generated by the development.
Planning Staff confirm that the proposed applications are consistent with the
PPS, conform to the Growth Plan, the Region of Durham Official Plan, and
the City Official Plan.
e) They further support the OPA and ZBA and POS with Draft Conditions.
[90] As a brief summary, it is also important to note that the PSR references agency
comments and input, including from the Region, TRCA, the District and Catholic District
School Boards, Durham Region Police, City Engineering, Fire Services, and Sustainability,
all of whom have no objections to the Proposal, and have received appropriate
consideration from the Tribunal.
[91] Mr. Ramsay, on the other hand, appeared to have given minimal regard to the
position of Planning staff in his evidence, and when asked during cross-examination if he
had consulted with the department during his analysis, in preparation for the Hearing, he
indicated that he had not consulted with them or any other City or Regional agency, in his
review. It became apparent to the Tribunal that this decision may have limited Mr.
Ramsay’s efforts, which could have allowed for a more fulsome analysis. Counsel for the
Applicant quite appropriately argued in closing, that this may have been the basis for a
“flawed foundation” of opinions opposing the Proposal, and summarized these as a
“largely speculative, overstated, and unsupported” overall land use planning opinion.
42 OLT-23-000498
Compatibility with the Community
[92] Finally, in considering site-specific proposals such as these, the Tribunal must
always contemplate compatibility. Ms. Anderson defines compatibility as a design that co-
exists with the surrounding area, without adverse impacts. The Proposal encourages an
adequate supply, mix, and range of housing types and options and blends this with
compatibility in a very unique fashion, with careful consideration given to the site-specific
dynamics of the Subject Site.
[93] The City’s planning and urban design witnesses each suggested that as a low-rise
community consisting of predominantly single-family detached and townhome dwellings,
the Proposal represents an affront to the surrounding area from a density, built form,
height, massing, and design perspective, particularly with the height of Tower 1. They
persisted with this opinion, and both appeared to evade existing permitted zoning on the
Subject Site, allowing up to eight-storeys along Usman Road (south) with the potential for
a building with a length of 70 m from Brock Road, plus an additional four-storeys beyond
that point.
[94] Ms. Anderson effectively shared her opinion that perhaps the most important
contributing elements that are foundational and unique to the Proposal, includes its overall
compact and creative design, density, height, and built form with immediate access to
existing and planned future transit, road widening, and access to current municipal
infrastructure. She reiterated the significance of maintaining the conveyed portion of the
Subject Site to the TRCA and the natural heritage elements of that component of the
Proposal. She also affirmed that the Transportation analysis was thorough, addressing any
and all concerns raised about all related issues.
[95] Ms. Anderson further opined that from an urban design and architectural
perspective, issues such as overlook, shadowing, and privacy were effectively addressed
with the requisite studies in consulting evidence and testimony, emphasizing setbacks,
43 OLT-23-000498
step backs, efficient land use, and accessible public and private amenity space with a
prominent POPS element.
[96] Without belabouring the question of height and density, Ms. Anderson reiterated
that the Subject Site is underdeveloped. While not within a designated Urban Growth Area,
the Subject Site is uniquely situated along a very busy transportation and transit corridor,
has met all City and Regional departmental and agency requirements, and fundamentally
has the continued support of City Planning staff. In summary, the Tribunal accepts the
Applicant’s evidence and opinions on the issue of compatibility with the community and
surrounding area.
CONCLUSIONS
[97] The evidence that has led the Tribunal to its Decision is founded on well-established
expert witness statements and oral testimony. In general, the Tribunal maintains a very
serious responsibility, when considering site-specific applications of this nature and must
carefully provide its rationale, with careful attention to the legislative framework outlined
above. A balanced approach in this matter, must weigh the benefits of compact, creative,
and well-designed density and attention to natural heritage, along the well-established
Brock Road arterial corridor, and evaluate the Proposal as it relates to the surrounding
area and its neighbourhood character.
[98] Brock Road is clearly a strategic corridor that provides high-use transit availability
now and will expand more significantly into the future. It is precisely these opportunities
that allow for new housing in areas where growth should occur, as demonstrated, where
there are also a variety of benefits that exist from efficient use of municipal infrastructure
both in the immediate area, and the broader community.
[99] The Tribunal concludes that the Proposal appropriately and creatively factors in
these current conditions along the Brock Road transit corridor, the Brock Ridge
44 OLT-23-000498
Neighbourhood and surrounding area. The Applicant’s comprehensive evidence provides
a solid foundational basis for support of this Proposal.
[100] The Tribunal has also given appropriate regard to the Council decision adopting the
recommendation of the Committee refusing the Applications, noting its unanimous
disagreement with recommendations in full support of the Proposal, from their own
Planning staff, the Region, and all relevant agencies and departments. Notwithstanding
this final issue, it is the determination of the Tribunal that the height, density, design,
massing, and built form all transition well with the surrounding community. The Proposal
represents good planning, enhancing public safety, and will combine significant long-term
economic benefits that will follow along this very important corridor.
[101] Finally, in addition to weighing the merits of the Appeals and the Proposal, the
Tribunal should also be aware of ongoing City, Regional, and Provincial updates and new
initiatives associated with their respective policies and guidelines. As mentioned earlier in
this Decision, the Region, and City have recently pursued some new policy initiatives and
are attempting to update their guidelines and requirements, reflecting many of the current
and future housing and economic challenges that they, among others are confronted with.
Provincial legislation and policy documents also continue to evolve around transit-
supportive communities. Intensification on lands that are adjacent to existing and planned
frequent transit corridors are active opportunities for growth and increased densities. It is
worth reiterating the importance of this, as it applies to Brock Road specifically in this
circumstance, with its widening to six or seven lanes, allowing the City to expand on these
new density, tied to transportation enhancements.
[102] The timing of the Proposal and the overall redevelopment of the Subject Site, with
the natural heritage conveyance component is precisely the right fit and has effectively
demonstrated that a site-specific Decision of the Tribunal is well-deserved in this instance.
Allowing a well-designed plan at the Subject Site is a reasonable, balanced, and pragmatic
choice. The Proposal: has appropriate regard to the legislative framework relating to s. 2 of
45 OLT-23-000498
the Act; maintains consistency with the PPS; and conforms with the GP, the DROP, the
COP, and the City ZBL.
ORDER
[103] THE TRIBUNAL ORDERS THAT:
1. The Appeal pursuant to s. 22(7) of the Planning Act by Brock Road Duffins
Forest Inc. is allowed, and the Official Plan for the City of Pickering is
amended as set out in Attachment 1 to this Order, and
2. The Appeal pursuant to s. 34(11) of the Planning Act by Brock Road Duffins
Forest Inc. is allowed, and the municipality is directed to amend By-law 3036
as amended by By-law 7085/10, as set out in Attachment 2 to this Order.
The Tribunal authorizes the municipal clerk of the City of Pickering to assign
a number to this by-law for record-keeping purposes; and,
3. The Appeal pursuant to s. 51(34) of the Planning Act by Brock Road Duffins
Forest Inc. is allowed, and the Draft Plan of Subdivision is authorized as set
out in Attachment 3 to this Order.
[104] THE TRIBUNAL FURTHER ORDERS THAT the Appeal pursuant to s. 41(12) of
the Planning Act is allowed, in principle, with the final Order withheld pending confirmation
that the Owner has entered into a Site Plan Agreement with the City of Pickering, which
shall include all final plans and drawings as well as securities (see Exhibit 2I, Tab H, pp.
82-94). Such approval shall include conditions associated with the Owner’s settlement with
Kindwin (Brock) Development Corporation (included as Exhibit 3, s. 4), associated with
cost recovery.
46 OLT-23-000498
[105] The Member shall remain seized of this Appeal and may be spoken to regarding
either:
a) A settlement hearing; or
b) A contested hearing at which the Tribunal shall decide/settle any unresolved
matters.
“Steven T. Mastoras”
STEVEN T. MASTORAS
MEMBER
Ontario Land Tribunal
Website: www.olt.gov.on.ca Telephone: 416-212-6349 Toll Free: 1-866-448-2248
The Conservation Review Board, the Environmental Review Tribunal, the Local Planning
Appeal Tribunal and the Mining and Lands Tribunal are amalgamated and continued as the
Ontario Land Tribunal (“Tribunal”). Any reference to the preceding tribunals or the former
Ontario Municipal Board is deemed to be a reference to the Tribunal.
47 OLT-23-000498
ATTACHMENT “1”
48 OLT-23-000498
49 OLT-23-000498
50 OLT-23-000498
51 OLT-23-000498
53 OLT-23-000498
54 OLT-23-000498
55 OLT-23-000498
56 OLT-23-000498
57 OLT-23-000498
58 OLT-23-000498
59 OLT-23-000498
60 OLT-23-000498
61 OLT-23-000498
62 OLT-23-000498
63 OLT-23-000498
64 OLT-23-000498
65 OLT-23-000498
66 OLT-23-000498
67 OLT-23-000498
68 OLT-23-000498
69 OLT-23-000498
70 OLT-23-000498
ATTACHMENT “3”
71 OLT-23-000498
72 OLT-23-000498
73 OLT-23-000498
74 OLT-23-000498
75 OLT-23-000498
76 OLT-23-000498
77 OLT-23-000498
78 OLT-23-000498
79 OLT-23-000498