The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutPLN 15-21Report to Council Report Number: PLN 15-21 Date: March 22, 2021 From: Kyle Bentley Director, City Development & CBO Subject: Comprehensive Zoning By-law Review, Phases 2 and 3 File: D-1100-101 Recommendation: 1.That the conclusions and recommendations of the Comprehensive Zoning By-law Review –Phase 1 – Discussion Papers, be received; 2.That the total gross project cost of $266,804.00 (HST included) for Phases 2 and 3 of the Comprehensive Zoning By-law Review, and the total net project cost of $240,265.00 (net of HST rebate), be approved; 3.That Council authorize the Director, Finance & Treasurer to finance the Phases 2 and 3 net project cost in the amount of $240,265.00 as follows: a)The sum of $78,086.00, identified for this project in the 2021 Current Budget – Planning & Design Cost Centre, be funded from the Rate Stabilization Fund; and b)The sum of $162,179.00, identified in the 2021 Current Budget – Planning & Design Cost Centre, be funded by a transfer from the Development Charges – Studies Reserve Fund; 4.That Council authorize staff to request that the Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing undertake a review of the Minister’s Zoning Orders being Ontario Regulations 102/72, 19/74 and 154/03, to harmonize agricultural and rural provisions with the City’s new zoning by-law; and 5.That the appropriate City of Pickering staff be authorized to enter into any agreements to give effect hereto. Executive Summary: In 2019, after City Council’s acceptance of the consulting proposal submitted by WSP, the multi-year Comprehensive Zoning By-law Review (CZBR) was initiated. Phase 1 of the CZBR continued throughout 2020 during which time, staff along with the consultant, prepared a public consultation strategy and worked towards the completion of 8 draft discussion papers. The City hosted an electronic open house on November 5, 2020 where the findings of the discussion papers were presented. A recording of the open house can be viewed on the City’s YouTube Channel. Electronic community engagement sessions with smaller community groups will be held during 2021, as needed. Initially, Council approved funding for Phase 1 only as there was concern that Development Charges would not be available past 2020 to fund growth related studies. It has since been Report PLN 15-21 March 22, 2021 Subject: Comprehensive Zoning By-law Review, Phases 2 and 3 Page 2 confirmed that growth related studies continue to be an eligible class of service under the Development Charges Act. The City is able to fund Phases 2 and 3 of the CZBR through the Development Charges Reserve Fund in part. And, in lieu of property taxes funding the remaining amount, the Treasurer has identified use of the Rate Stabilization Fund. Phase 2 will include the preparation of the draft by-law including revisions, public consultation, and preparation of a recommended by-law. Following completion in early 2022, Phase 3 will comprise the presentation to Planning & Development Committee of the recommended by-law for Council adoption later that year. Staff is recommending that Council receive the conclusions and recommendations of the CZBR Phase 1 Discussion Papers, authorize staff to initiate Phases 2 and 3 of the CZBR, and authorize staff to request that the Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing undertake a review of Pickering’s rural area Minister’s Zoning Orders to harmonize agricultural and rural provisions with the City’s new zoning by-law. Financial Implications: 1.Phases 2 and 3 Project Costing Summary Proposal Number RFP-7-2019 Project costs for Phase 2 Project costs for Phase 3 Total Project Costs (excluding HST) HST (13%) Total Gross Project Costs HST Rebate (11.24%) Total Net Project Costs $228,112.00 7,997.50 $236,109.50 30,694.50 $266,804.00 (26,539.00) $240,265.00 2.Source of Funds – Phases 2 and 3 (2021 Current Budget) Account Code Source of Funds Funds Available Funds Required 2611.2392.0000 Development Charges Reserve Fund – Growth Related Studies (67.5%) $162,179.00 $162,179.00 Rate Stabilization Fund (32.5%) 78,086.00 78,086.00 Total Funds $240,265.00 $240,265.00 Project Cost under (over) approved funds by $00.00 Report PLN 15-21 March 22, 2021 Subject: Comprehensive Zoning By-law Review, Phases 2 and 3 Page 3 1.Background 1.1 Report to Planning & Development Committee PLN 18-19 outlined the need for a zoning review as 4 of the City’s 6 parent by-laws (see Attachment #1, Areas for Parent Zoning By-laws) were originally enacted by Council in the 1960s, and have been amended hundreds of times by site specific by-laws and minor variance approvals. The report also noted that not only are the by-laws outdated, they are not in an accessible format, and are not available online. In June 2019, City Council endorsed a work program for a comprehensive review of the City’s zoning by-laws, and authorized the release of a request for proposal to retain external planning consultants to assist staff in a zoning review. A Request for Proposals was issued in October 2019, calling for consultant proposals for a multi-year zoning review. City Council accepted the consulting proposal submitted by WSP to undertake a multi-year Comprehensive Zoning By-law Review (CZBR) at a total cost of $412,387.85 (HST included). At the same time, Council approved the total gross project cost of $145,606.00 (HST included) to proceed with Phase 1. Report to Council PLN 29-19 indicated that staff will recommend appropriate funds in the 2021 and 2022 Current Budgets (City Development Department) for the initiation of Phase 2 in 2021 and the completion of Phase 3 in 2022. Phased funding approval for the CZBR was due to proposed legislative changes in 2019 resulting from the More Homes, More Choice Act. At the time, it was not certain that Development Charges Reserve Funds would be available after 2020 for growth related studies. It has since been confirmed that growth related studies continue to be an eligible class of service for Development Charge funding. With funding now identified for the study, we are now requesting authorization to proceed with Phases 2 and 3 of the CZBR. 1.2 The purpose of the Comprehensive Zoning By-law Review The primary purpose of the CZBR is to update and consolidate the City’s current by- laws into one zoning by-law that conforms with and implements the City’s Official Plan. More specifically, the CZBR will: •implement recent policy changes regarding intensification, built-form, environmental matters and mapping changes; •replace and remove outdated definitions and zoning provisions to provide for consistent interpretation; •eliminate and amalgamate site specific zone provisions; and •make the zoning by-law available in an online and print accessible format. 1.3 The multi-year review commenced in 2019 Initiated in late 2019, the CZBR comprises 3 phases. The following outlines the tasks to be undertaken in the phases: Report PLN 15-21 March 22, 2021 Subject: Comprehensive Zoning By-law Review, Phases 2 and 3 Page 4 •Phase 1, initiated in December 2019, and concluding with this report, includes the preparation of a public consultation strategy, preparation of 8 discussion papers, hosting of open houses to present the findings of the discussion papers and obtain feedback from the community, and reporting to Council on the findings of the discussion papers and comments received from the public and stakeholders. •Phase 2, to be initiated early 2021 for completion in 2022, includes the preparation of the draft by-law, public consultation, revisions to the draft by-law, and preparation of a recommended by-law. •Phase 3, is the presentation to Planning & Development Committee of the recommended by-law for Council adoption in 2022. 2.Phase 1 2.1 Discussion Papers Eight draft discussion papers along with summaries and videos are available on the Zoning Review webpage for review and comment. Discussion papers 1 and 2 provide a high-level framework for the Comprehensive Zoning By-law to be drafted in Phase 2. The 6 other discussion papers provide an overview of the relevant provisions in each of the existing parent zoning by-laws along with an analysis of how the existing zoning relates to planning policies and legislation at the local, regional and provincial levels. Discussion papers 3 to 6 also discuss recent best practices in Ontario municipalities that have undertaken a comprehensive zoning by-law review. These discussion papers provide guiding principles for the preparation of the new zoning by-law, identify and assess key policy gaps and issues, and propose a recommended zone category structure. Excerpts of the conclusions and recommendations of each Discussion Paper are contained in Attachment #2. The topics of the discussion papers, major findings and recommendations are: •Discussion Paper 1 – Guiding Principles and Parameters, recommends a single, user friendly, online comprehensive zoning by-law to address the needs of the City and communities, and emerging issues. •Discussion Paper 2 – Assessment of Existing Parent By-laws, found that there is a lack of consistency between the existing Zoning By-laws. This Paper concludes that the existing zoning by-laws be consolidated and harmonized to provide continuity for residents, the development industry and staff. •Discussion Paper 3 – Residential Areas, and Discussion Paper 4 – Employment Areas, explore a range of key issues and potential updates including a framework for consolidating and renaming residential and employment zones and updating general provisions. •Discussion Paper 5 – Mixed Use Areas/Intensification Areas, identifies that the existing mixed use and commercial zones align well with the Official Plan policies but a new zone structure is recommended integrating the City Centre, the Seaton Report PLN 15-21 March 22, 2021 Subject: Comprehensive Zoning By-law Review, Phases 2 and 3 Page 5 Urban Area and new zones for the Kingston Road Corridor and Specialty Retailing Node (incorporating the outcomes of the upcoming official plan Amendment and zoning by-law amendment for the Kingston Road Corridor and Specialty Retailing Node). •Discussion Paper 6 – Agricultural, Rural, Hamlet, Open Space and Environmental Areas, recommends that zoning categories and provisions be updated to harmonize zones and implement the Natural Heritage System policies of the Official Plan, integrate Minister’s Zoning Order provisions, and create new provisions addressing agricultural related and on-farm diversified uses. •Discussion Paper 7 – Parking, Active Transportation and Loading, identifies that while there are modern aspects in the City Centre and Seaton Urban Area by-laws, there are opportunities outside of these areas to introduce new updated zoning provisions that better align with City, Regional and Provincial approaches to reducing automobile dependence and increasing active transportation and transit use. •Discussion Paper 8 – Cannabis Production Facilities & Retail Businesses, provides zoning recommendations based on a review of best practices in other municipalities. However, the paper concludes that it is premature to develop zoning provisions for cannabis production facilities until the City establishes clear policy direction for cannabis production facilities through an Official Plan Amendment. 2.2 Community Engagement At the start of Phase 1 in early 2020, information about the zoning review including informational videos and draft discussion papers were posted to the project’s web page. This web page provided opportunities for the public to monitor the status of the review and submit comments throughout 2020 when in-person open houses and meeting were restricted due to the COVID-19 pandemic. On November 5, 2020, the City hosted an electronic open house, where the consultant presented the findings of the discussion papers. A recording of this open house can be viewed on the City’s YouTube Channel. Electronic community engagement sessions with smaller community and stakeholder groups during 2021 will be conducted in keeping with the safety requirements of COVID-19. There will be an emphasis on small, by appointment meetings to bring the content of the discussion papers to the community and stakeholders. 2.3 Comments Received Throughout Phase 1 comments have been received from the public, and stakeholder groups. Staff have responded directly to comments received and have forwarded comments to the appropriate departments and agencies (see Attachment #3). Key comments are summarized as follows: •Toronto and Region Conservation Authority (TRCA) has provided detailed comments on the pertinent discussion papers. Central Lake Ontario Conservation Authority (CLOCA) has provided support for TRCA’s comments. Responses from City staff are contained in Attachment #3. City staff will continue discussions with TRCA and CLOCA regarding their feedback. Report PLN 15-21 March 22, 2021 Subject: Comprehensive Zoning By-law Review, Phases 2 and 3 Page 6 •The Seaton landowners commented that the Seaton Zoning By-law 7364/14 should not be included in a consolidation of the six area specific zoning by-laws citing that Seaton is subject to a different planning regime, and expressed concern that the smallest change in provisions can have significant implications for development in Seaton. Staff and the City’s consultants are reviewing options for incorporating the Seaton Zoning By-law into the new comprehensive by-law, including maintaining the Seaton By-law as a separate chapter. •Various residents have provided comments on all the discussion papers. Responses from City staff on the various comments and requests for information are contained in Attachment #3. 3.Minister’s Zoning Orders In 1972, the provincial Minister’s Zoning Order (MZO), Ontario Regulation 102/72, was enacted to ensure that land use and new development proposals on lands adjacent to the Federally owned lands (expropriated for the potential development of a new airport) would remain compatible with a future airport and its operations. A second MZO, Ontario Regulation 19/74, was enacted that prohibits all uses except agricultural uses, and single-family dwellings used in connection with an agricultural operation. Later in 2003, a third MZO, Ontario Regulation 154/03, was enacted to prevent new urban development on lands designated rural and agricultural within the Greenbelt Plan (Rouge Duffins Agricultural Preserve lands). MZOs are enacted as regulation under the Planning Act and take priority over any existing municipal zoning by-laws in the event of conflict. Where there is no conflict, municipal zoning applies. Landowners may apply to amend or remove a MZO from their property by making an application to the Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing (MMAH). MZO Regulation 102/72 has been the subject of numerous costly and lengthy amendments to permit development and improvements to properties in the rural and agricultural areas. Through the City’s Zoning By-law Review, zoning in the rural and agricultural areas will be updated to bring zoning into compliance with provincial policy permitting second suites, agriculture related uses, and on-farm diversified uses where appropriate and supported by the Ministry. Staff is recommending that Council authorize staff request the Ministry to undertake a review of the MZOs to harmonize agricultural and rural provisions with the City’s new zoning by-law. The objective of the review is to create a more efficient zoning by-law to administer, that is easier for residents and the agricultural community to understand and take advantage of the full scope of permissible uses. Report PLN 15-21 March 22, 2021 Subject: Comprehensive Zoning By-law Review, Phases 2 and 3 Page 7 4.Next steps 1.A preliminary draft by-law will be established to consolidate the definitions, general provisions, zones, and mapping of the six parent by-laws. Approaches to formatting found in both the Seaton and City Centre by-laws may be used for the consolidated by-law. The preliminary draft by-law will contain updated definitions and general provisions, and merged and/or revised zone categories and provisions. Zone mapping of the six parent zoning by-laws will be consolidated and will reflect the merged and/or revised zone categories. The development of the consolidated zoning text and mapping will be undertaken with the goal of delivering a by-law that will be available online. 2.The first draft of the consolidated by-law is scheduled for public release in 2021 followed by community workshops and open houses. A statutory public meeting will be held in the fall of 2021. The draft by-law will be released in an interactive online format allowing the searching of definitions, general provisions, zoning provisions and the zoning of properties. 5.Recommendations Staff recommend that Council receive the conclusions and recommendations of the 8 Discussion Papers as set out in Attachment #2, and authorize staff to initiate Phases 2 and 3 of the Study. In addition, it is recommended that Council authorize staff to request that the MMAH undertake a review of the MZOs enacted in the agricultural and rural areas with the objective to harmonize the MZOs with the new future zoning by-law. Attachments: 1.Areas for Parent Zoning By-laws 2.Conclusions and Recommendations of Discussion Papers 1 to 8 3.Staff’s Response to Comments Received Report PLN 15-21 March 22, 2021 Subject: Comprehensive Zoning By-law Review, Phases 2 and 3 Page 8 Prepared By: Original Signed By Deborah Wylie, MCIP, RPP Manager, Zoning & Administration Approved/Endorsed By: Original Signed By Catherine Rose, MCIP, RPP Chief Planner DW:ld Original Signed By Kyle Bentley, P. Eng. Director, City Development & CBO Recommended for the consideration of Pickering City Council Original Signed By Marisa Carpino, M.A. Chief Administrative Officer 1:100,000 SCALE: © The Corporation of the City of Pickering Produced (in part) under license from: © Queens Printer, Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources. All rights reserved.;© Her Majesty the Queen in Right of Canada, Department of Natural Resources. All rights reserved.; © Teranet Enterprises Inc. and its suppliers all rights reserved.; © Municipal Property Assessment Corporation and its suppliers all rights reserved.; City DevelopmentDepartment Areas for Parent Zoning By-laws Applicant: THIS IS NOT A PLAN OF SURVEY. Date: Nov. 26, 2019 ¯ City Initiated(7364/14, 3037, 7553/17, 3036, 2511, & 2520) By-law 7364/14 By-law 3037 By-law 7553/17 By-law 3036 By-law 2511 By-law 2520 Lake Ontario Frenchman's Bay Attachment #1 to Report #PLN 15-21 Page 1 of 15 Attachment #2 to Report #PLN15-21 Conclusions and Recommendations of Discussion Papers 1 to 8 Discussion Paper #1: Guiding Principles and Parameters Recommendations The purpose of this Discussion Paper was to introduce the Zoning By-law Review process by discussing the state of the current Pickering Zoning By-laws, the policy and legislative framework, how zoning by-laws work, and to go over best practice examples on how zoning by-laws are being modernized for easier use. Through this discussion, there are several conclusions and guiding principles that can be established as the Review moves forward. Those key guiding principles are: 1.Consolidation of existing Zoning By-laws – Currently there are six separate parent Zoning By-laws in the City. In order to ensure consistency and to have a holistic approach to zoning in the City, it is crucial to have one comprehensive Zoning By-law that addresses the needs of the City. It is anticipated that the Zoning By-law will be based upon a consolidation and modernization of the existing Zoning By-laws. Other discussion papers will explore the harmonization and modernization of the standards and zones in more detail. 2.Conformity with the Official Plan and local studies – Over the years, there have been many changes to the Official Plan and several planning studies conducted that impact zoning in the City and ensuring that the new Zoning By-law conforms to the applicable policy is a key requirement of this Review process. 3.Conformity with Provincial and Regional Plans and policies – There have been several updates to the policies within the Growth Plan and the Provincial Policy Statement which require the zoning by-law conformity. It is important to ensure these are implemented through the Official Plan to the Zoning By-law, where it is possible to do so. In many cases, Provincial and regional policy will need to be implemented initially through the local official plan prior to zoning. 4.Creating a User-Friendly Document – As the current Zoning By-laws are dated, this Review is an opportunity to create a document that is accessible, easily understandable and clear in its style and structure. 5.Addressing Emerging Issues – Many emerging issues are not addressed in the existing Zoning By-laws including contemporary issues such as climate change and sustainability, affordable and diversified housing, promoting a mix of uses and pedestrian-friendly environments, and protecting natural resources such as source water, among many others. The new Zoning By-law has a role in contributing to these broad policy and public issues and these issues will be explored further in subsequent Discussion Papers. 6.Innovation – Several best practice examples were presented in this paper proposing innovative approaches to zoning, such as the use of overlays, form-based zoning and the use of illustrations and notations to create a user-friendly zoning by-law. In order to create a modern and contemporary Zoning By-law, it is important that the City takes the opportunity to implement innovative approaches that are locally and contextually appropriate. Page 2 of 15 7.Contemporary Mapping – As the current Zoning By-laws are dated, it is crucial that the new Zoning By-law implement a robust and modern GIS database with zoning data that can complement the Zoning By-law text and provide for opportunities of analysis and also have clear, legible and easy-to-understand zoning maps that will orient the reader in understanding the Zoning By-law provisions. Discussion Paper #2: Review and Assessment of Existing Parent By-laws Conclusions The outcome of this Zoning By-law Review will be a new comprehensive Zoning By-law to replace the existing Zoning By-laws. Rather than fulsomely replace all elements of the By-laws with new text, this discussion paper suggests an approach of consolidating and harmonizing the provisions of the By-laws to provide a level of continuity for residents, development proponents and City staff. This would also help communicate how the zoning regime within the City will change, allowing for comparisons that are close to apples-to-apples. The definitions, general provisions, administration and interpretation sections of the by-laws will be reviewed with the aim of simplifying and streamlining the By-law text. This may include moving certain provisions to different sections, combining direction or updating terminology to reflect current practices. The objective will be to retain the general intent of the current zoning by-laws, ensuring the new document conforms to the Official Plan and reflects the current approach to development within the City. Consolidating and harmonizing the existing six Zoning By-laws into a single new zoning by-law will require the elimination of some zones by name, and collapsing various zones/provisions into one zone. The result will be a streamlined suite of zones that conform to the Official Plan and provide consistency across the City. The minor variances and site-specific amendments that have been approved over the years provide an indication of changes to the parent by-laws that may be considered reasonable and desirable. Variances related to decks and porches suggest the current zoning provisions may not reflect today’s attitudes towards these features. The prevalence of site-specific amendments within “one-family detached” zones, for example, may indicate acceptance of more housing types with different standards than those that have been in place since 1960. As discussed previously, it is recommended that a comprehensive review of site-specific exception zones be conducted to assess opportunities to delete, update and restructure the exception zones in a comprehensive fashion. This provides the best balance of minimizing appeal risk, ensuring Official Plan conformity and providing the City with a more streamlined, consistent structure to administer moving forward. Future Discussion Papers will explore how specific issues are currently addressed by the existing by-laws and how they may be regulated under the new by-law. Discussion Papers #3 to 6 will specifically discuss the following: •Residential; •Employment; •Mixed Use/Intensification Areas; and •Agricultural/Rural/Hamlet/Open Space/Environment. Page 3 of 15 Each Discussion Paper will provide a deep dive on its topics, looking at data, Official Plan and other policy direction and best practices related to each subject matter. The papers will provide options for addressing key issues identified through public consultation and stakeholder input. Specific recommendations for new zoning provisions will be provided and the papers will be written to help communicate the recommended direction to residents, stakeholders and City staff. Discussion Paper #3: Residential Areas Conclusions and Recommendations The Urban Residential Areas of the City encompass a diverse range of different neighbourhoods, from mature neighbourhoods to newly developing communities. The City currently administers a wide range of zones amongst its six parent Zoning By-laws, which reflects this contextual diversity. As the City has grown, the existing Zoning By-laws for the older areas have become outdated and are not as comprehensive in terms of residential zone provisions compared with the newer Zoning By-laws for Pickering City Centre and Seaton. This Discussion Paper has included a review of existing policy for the Urban Residential Areas, comprised of its three subcategories, and its existing zoning. This Paper has explored a range of key issues and potential updates, including a framework for consolidating and naming the residential zones, as well as updates to a wide range of general provisions and permitted uses, based on the Official Plan and other practice in Ontario. In summary, the following are the recommendations arising from this Discussion Paper: 1.It is recommended that a conformity checklist for the neighbourhood policies and guidelines be completed when developing the Draft Zoning By-law. These documents contain some detailed requirements that will have to be assessed individually in comparison with site-specific amendments and requirements which is beyond the scope of this Paper. This is the best means of ensuring conformity with these requirements and to ensure that the permitted uses are in conformity with the Official Plan, since the Urban Residential Areas land use designation contains a very broad list of permitted uses. 2. Consideration will be made to rezone any agricultural lands now designated for urban uses to an Urban Reserve or similar zone. However, the risk of leaving the lands as agriculture is minimal and would not conflict with the Official Plan. 3.It is recommended that some of the existing parent residential zones be merged as noted in this Report. Generally, the City Centre zones and Seaton zones will need to be retained and cannot likely be further merged or consolidated. 4.It is recommended that some key zone provisions be added into the harmonized zones where common standards are missing in the current zones. For example, some of the parent residential zones in the older zoning by-laws do not include a maximum height requirement, which should be introduced to help maintain community character. The introduction of any new standard should be made in consideration of the context where the zone is applied to ensure the standard reflects the community character and enables an appropriate degree of intensification. This may be informed by the City’s ongoing Infill and Replacement Housing Study. Page 4 of 15 5. It is recommended that a new residential zone structure be developed which utilizes density and permitted uses as the basis for organizing and naming the zones. For example, the R1 zone will address single detached dwellings. Sub-zones can be created to address variations in the form of R1A, R1B, etc. In particular, the Seaton zones can be integrated into this hierarchy in the form of R1S, for example. Exception zones would be denoted as a suffix with a dash followed by the exception zone number. a. Zone symbology should follow a more consistent approach. The parent zone codes, should not utilize specialized symbols such as prefixes or suffices with a dash, but should follow the approach above. b. Any one-off site-specific zone codes will be rezoned with an appropriate parent zone described above, and consideration will be made to create a site-specific amendment to carry forward any special permissions, if appropriate and if the permissions conform to the Official Plan. Another option to organizing the new zones is to organize the zones by location first, and secondly by density. Further consultation and analysis of the exception zones will help inform the most suitable approach. Overall, the goal of harmonizing the zones is to achieve an appropriate balance of minimizing the number of zones while maintaining sufficient detail to recognize and reflect the character of Pickering’s diverse neighbourhoods. The option that best achieves this balance should be used in the new Zoning By-law. 6. The accessory building and structure requirements will need to be harmonized and City-wide standards should be introduced. The Seaton requirements represent an appropriate basis for this. Further consideration and consultation is required to inform the implications of applying the Seaton standards to other areas of the City, because there are some minor to modest differences and risks of creating legal non-compliance. 7. It is recommended that some minor updates and refinements to accessory building and structure provisions, including detached garages, be considered using best practice, minor variances and other sources. 8. When the new Zoning By-law is developed, it is recommended that frequent variances as noted in the Report be reviewed to assess potential updates to the residential zone provisions. 9. It is recommended that the new City-wide Zoning By-law adopt a framework wherein accessory buildings and structures are only accessory if they are detached from the main building. An attached accessory building or structure would more simply form a component of the main building and be subject to the zone requirements. This can be complemented by additional standards related to individual accessory structures (e.g., permitted encroachments into minimum yards). This approach will harmonize the various approaches used by the by-laws and introduce a more conventional approach that is easier to interpret. 10. It is recommended that City-wide requirements for amenity areas be adopted. The definitions and terms for amenity areas should be harmonized as they differ between Pickering City Centre and Seaton. No standards exist outside these areas, except perhaps through exception zones or other zones created via amendment. The Page 5 of 15 requirements for Seaton and City Centre can be retained. Seaton should form a general basis for the City-wide standards, but modifications may be required to address locational or other contexts. It is appropriate to continue to include minimum amenity area requirements in the zone provision tables rather than the general provisions. Consideration can be made to elaborate on these requirements as has been done in other Ontario zoning by-laws, such as requiring a minimum contiguous amenity area. 11.A framework for regulating garages and driveways should be introduced City-wide. The detailed requirements in Seaton should be retained, but consideration should be made to introduce relatively simpler and contextually appropriate requirements across other areas of the City, such as maximum projection for garages from the main wall of the dwelling into the front yard setback and maximum width for driveways and garages. Consideration could be made to enabling driveway expansions by setting out standards for minimum pervious surface. 12.It is recommended that the new Zoning By-law incorporate a framework to address detached garages across the City, including addressing a wide range of configurations and potential accessory dwelling units (coach houses). 13.It is recommended that the framework for home-based businesses be carried forward with some refinements, including alignment with the Official Plan (such as the use of the term home-based business), and other refinements to permitted uses as well as consideration to permit the use within a private attached garage, subject to restrictions. It may also be desirable to differentiate work-from-home to distinguish the use from a home-based business, which would appear to require a business license. Further, consideration should be made to permit home-based businesses more broadly amongst the existing zones where residential uses are permitted. 14.A City-wide framework for secondary suites (accessory dwelling units) is required. These uses should be permitted in conjunction with any single detached, semi-detached and townhouse dwelling subject to any servicing constraints. It is recommended that reduced restrictions (parking, maximum floor area) be considered. Further, consultation with the City is required to address the new requirement for the permission of accessory dwellings in detached buildings/structures, which would benefit from policy direction. 15.It is recommended that the Zoning By-law permit group homes broadly across the City where residential uses are contemplated. The options include being silent on group homes (i.e., relying on the interpretation that a group home is the same as another permitted use) or explicitly defining and permitting group homes with different categories based on the intensity of the use. A site plan approval process may also apply depending on the intensity of the use. 16.It is recommended that a best practice review be conducted on zoning provisions for short-term accommodations. Based on the findings of the best practice review, the City will consider conducting a study or review of short-term accommodations to assess a more fulsome framework of implementation tools. However, if this will not be conducted, then zoning regulations can be introduced based on best practice, local context and input. 17.It is recommended that the new Zoning By-law incorporate a framework to address boarding, rooming and lodging homes, generally permitting them across the City in appropriate forms. There is also an opportunity to limit these uses to certain areas of the City, such as the higher density zones, or to establish other provisions to manage the intensity of the uses. Page 6 of 15 Discussion Paper #4: Employment Areas Conclusions and Recommendations The Employment Areas of the City permit a range of employment uses, as well as some cultural and community-oriented uses and complementary, limited commercial uses. Generally, the existing employment zoning aligns fairly well with the policies for the Employment Areas, but zone structure and some modifications to permitted uses is required to bring the zoning into conformity with the Official Plan. Additionally, there is an opportunity to modernize and update the permitted uses and regulations associated with Employment Areas, such as outdoor storage requirements. This Discussion Paper has included a review of existing policy for the Employment Areas designation, comprised of its three subcategories, as well as existing zoning. This Discussion Paper has explored a range of key issues and potential updates, including a framework for consolidating and naming the employment zones, as well as updates to general provisions and permitted uses, based on the Official Plan and other practice in Ontario. In summary, the following are the main recommendations made within this Discussion Paper: 1. It is recommended that the new Zoning By-law establish three new parent employment zones that are based on the Official Plan’s subcategories: a General Employment (GE) zone, Prestige Employment (PE) zone, and Mixed Employment (ME) zone. The basis for these zones is as noted in this Discussion Paper, with adjustments to align with the associated Official Plan subcategory. 2. It is recommended that the permitted uses and definitions of uses be reviewed and updated to align with the Official Plan, best practice and against any added uses in the minor variance or site-specific exception zone history. There is a need to ensure precision and avoid permitting non-employment uses while also providing flexibility. 3. It is recommended that some of the existing employment zones be merged and realigned with the new zone structure, as noted in this Discussion Paper. Generally, the Prestige Employment (PEG and PEN) zones used in the Seaton Zoning By-law 7364/14 will need to be retained and can be integrated as variations or sub-zones to the new Prestige Employment (PE) zone. 4. Modifications to permitted uses will be required to align the zoning with the Durham Regional Official Plan, and this may require coordinated amendments to the City of Pickering Official Plan. In particular, office uses are anticipated to be permitted in all employment zones, and outside storage will not be permitted in the Prestige Employment and Mixed Employment areas. 5. There is an opportunity to review how the zoning implements the specific policies of Neighbourhood 9, Village East, and the Mixed Employment area that serves as transition between the residential neighbourhood to the west and industrial uses to the east. 6. It is recommended that the City and the Region of Durham be consulted further to identify whether there is any need to incorporate compatibility related provisions for any sensitive uses proposed in proximity to the Duffin Creek Water Pollution Control Plant. Page 7 of 15 7.There is an opportunity to review the current parking requirements related to Employment Uses through the parking-related Discussion Paper #7. 8.The existing Industrial and Commercial (MC) zone is recommended to be replaced by the new Mixed Employment (ME) zone. Where this exists in the Prestige Employment and General Employment areas, further review is required to confirm Official Plan conformity and ensure that inappropriate commercial development is not permitted. 9.When the new Zoning By-law is developed, it is recommended that site-specific amendments be reviewed in detail to identify potential updates to the employment zone provisions, particularly with regard to permitted uses and parking requirements. This will help reduce the need for future amendments. Additionally, other base zones that have been applied in only one or a few instances, as well as certain other zones (e.g., a few existing residential zones) in the Employment Areas will need to be reviewed for conformity with the Official Plan. 10.It is recommended that the lot and building requirements for the employment zones be reviewed and updated to integrate and consider the Official Plan’s urban design principles. 11.A new framework for outdoor storage should be developed and integrated into the new Zoning By-law, as described in this Discussion Paper. 12.A framework for integrating landscaping and setback requirements based on adjacent sensitive zones should be implemented in the new Zoning By-law, as described in this Discussion Paper. Discussion Paper #5: Mixed Use Areas/Intensification Areas Conclusions and Recommendations The Mixed Use Areas of the City are intended to have the widest variety of uses and highest levels of activities. Generally, the existing mixed use and commercial zones align fairly well with the policies for the Mixed Use Areas, but a new zone structure for areas outside of the City Centre and Seaton Urban Area is required to achieve greater alignment with the Official Plan. This Discussion Paper has included a review of existing policy for the Mixed Use Areas designation, comprised of its five subcategories, and its existing zoning. This Discussion Paper has explored a range of key issues and potential updates, including a framework for creating a new set of mixed use zones and consolidating the commercial zones. In summary, the following are the main recommendations made within this Discussion Paper: 1.It is recommended that a policy conformity checklist be completed for the Neighbourhood policies and Development Guidelines when developing the Draft Zoning By-law. These documents contain some detailed requirements such as, additional permitted uses and building requirements, that will have to be assessed individually in comparison with the existing zoning and exceptions which is beyond the scope of this Discussion Paper. This is the best means of ensuring conformity with these requirements and to ensure that the permitted uses are in conformity with the Official Plan, since the Mixed Use Areas Page 8 of 15 designation contains a wide range of permitted uses. This conformity matrix would not be applied to the City Centre or Seaton Urban Area due to the recent implementation of their area-specific Zoning By-laws. 2.It is recommended that this Discussion Paper be reviewed/updated in the future to incorporate the outcomes of the Official Plan Amendment for the Kingston Road Corridor and Specialty Retailing Node Study Area. It is anticipated upon completion of this amendment there will be recommendations that will be implemented through a City-initiated Zoning By-law Amendment, or that implementing zoning will be developed through this Zoning By-law Review process. City Staff will be presenting the approach to zoning the lands within the Kingston Road Corridor and Specialty Retailing Node in detail as the Zoning By-law Review process moves forward. 3.It is recommended that any agricultural lands that are currently designed Mixed Use Areas be reviewed to determine whether they can be rezoned to an “Urban Reserve” or similar zone. However, the risk of leaving the lands as agriculture is minimal and would not conflict with the Official Plan. 4.It is recommended that the existing mixed use zones found in the City Centre and Seaton Zoning By-laws be retained. The zones in these existing Zoning By-laws likely cannot be further merged or consolidated due to their specific nature. The City Centre zones will be differentiated by CC and the Seaton zones will be denoted by an “S” symbol following the initial parent zone. 5.It is recommended that a new mixed use zone structure be developed, integrating the City Centre, the Seaton Urban Area and new zones for the Kingston Road Corridor and Specialty Retailing Node. This new mixed use zone structure should be established to align with the Mixed Use Areas subcategories, and can include area-specific sub-zones to relate to the Neighbourhoods. In both cases, there is a need to consolidate and eliminate the wide range of exception zones, which will require detailed review to determine which zones should be carried forward or elevated as new parent zones. A streamlined approach to zone symbology should be utilized. Upon consolidation of common exception zones, remaining exceptions zones can be retained as exceptions and denoted as a suffix with a dash followed by the exception zone number. 6.It is recommended that where policy is directing intensification, or change to occur in the Neighbourhoods located outside of the City Centre, Seaton Urban Area, and the Kingston Road Corridor and Specialty Retailing Node Study Area, that individual properties be reviewed to determine if they can either be pre-zoned to an appropriate mixed use zone category or be rezoned “Urban Reserve”. 7.It is recommended that the existing commercial zones within the older Zoning By-laws be consolidated and updated to reflect the existing commercial typologies and the City’s intent for some areas to evolve. It is recommended that exceptions be reviewed in detail to identify potential updates to the existing commercial zone provisions. This will help reduce the need for future amendments. Additionally, other commercial parent zones may need to be established to reflect common commercial exception zones, such as the Local Central Area (LCA) zone and the Special Commercial (SC) zone. These exceptions will need to be reviewed for conformity with the Official Plan and for integration into the overall zone structure. Page 9 of 15 8. There are conformity issues regarding automotive uses prohibited in some Neighbourhoods yet permitted in the existing zoning. It is recommended that where zoning for these uses exist, the zoning be thoroughly reviewed against the applicable policies in the Neighbourhoods and Development Guidelines. As such, the completion of a conformity matrix is again recommended to provide assurance that the zoning is in line with the uses permitted by the Official Plan. The zoning can be left as is and modified to remove prohibited uses or the zoning can be modified to permit only existing uses. It is recommended that a new parent zone that permits only automotive uses be established. 9. The City Centre and Seaton Zoning By-laws utilize approaches and tools that are common in other Ontario municipalities to create a more prescriptive, form-based approach to mixed use, higher density areas and mid-and high-rise buildings and also to address compatibility with lower-density, adjacent areas. It is recommended that some of these tools be integrated into a new zoning framework for the Kingston Road Corridor and Specialty Retailing Node and as part of the zones used to implement the Mixed Use Areas in other Neighbourhoods. This Discussion Paper incorporates some potential ideas about how the City Centre zones in particular can be modified. There appears to be limited opportunity to make changes to the Seaton zones, since they are so highly aligned with the policies. 10. When consolidating all of the existing Zoning By-laws into one new City-wide Zoning By-law, consideration will need to be made to harmonizing the form-based zones and introducing more consistency in terminology and approach. This may include utilizing a form-based approach to the text included in the zone symbols, such as indicating height or density requirements directly into the zone symbols, to permit a greater amount of flexibility and minimize the number of zone categories and exceptions. 11. It is recommended that the variances noted in the Discussion Paper be reviewed to assess potential updates to the mixed use and commercial zone provisions during the completion of the Draft Zoning By-law. The site-specific zones will need to be reviewed and integrated into the new zone structure. 12. It is recommended that a City-wide set of zoning provisions be developed to address refuse/waste storage in employment, mixed-use, commercial areas and in conjunction with multi-unit residential development. Discussion Paper #6: Agricultural, Rural, Hamlet, Open Space and Environmental Areas Conclusions and Recommendations The agricultural, rural, hamlet, open space and environmental areas collectively represent the majority of the City’s land area. The Official Plan provides some prescriptive requirements regarding permitted uses, in response to Provincial policy and the goals of protecting the environment and the agricultural land base. There is a need for the zoning to be reviewed and updated across these areas. This Discussion Paper incorporates a review of the policy framework and the zoning. The areas reviewed by this Discussion Paper include a wide range of Rural Settlement categories as well as open space and other rural/agricultural areas of the City. In summary, the following are the main recommendations made within this Discussion Paper: Page 10 of 15 1.It is recommended that a conformity checklist for assessing implementation of the Rural Settlement Area Plans be completed when developing the Draft Zoning By-law. These Plans include some detailed policies and site-specific policies that will need to be reviewed against the current zoning, including any site-specific exception zones. 2.This Discussion Paper includes a recommended framework for the zone structure which is intended to harmonize the existing zones while aligning more with the Official Plan’s land use designations and terminology. The use of zone symbols, suffixes/prefixes as described in Discussion Paper #3 are also relevant recommendations to ensure consistency across the City’s zones. The recommended zone structure includes a wide range of zones to implement the various policies of the various designations. 3.It is recommended that further consultation with the Province and Conservation Authorities be undertaken to identify opportunities for the Zoning By-law to help implement the Natural Heritage System. This Discussion Paper includes several options in this regard. It is generally recommended that zoning updates for the Natural Heritage System be considered only where accurate and recent data is available. Other options could include creating an overlay for hazardous lands/sites or to illustrate the regulated area for the Conservation Authorities. 4.It is recommended that provisions related to the application of Minimum Distance Separation (MDS) be reviewed and considered in the new Zoning By-law. 5.It is suggested that the zoning of lands located in the Rouge National Urban Park is generally appropriate, but that Parks Canada be consulted to identify potential opportunities for the Zoning By-law to support the objectives for the Park’s Management Plan. 6.It is recommended that the Minister’s Zoning Orders be referenced or that the provisions be integrated into the new Zoning By-law to provide clarity that the Zoning Orders are applicable. 7.It is recommended that the new Zoning By-law more explicitly and clearly regulate where open storage is permitted and that provisions be established to guide open storage (e.g., buffering, setbacks, screening, permitted locations on a lot). This Discussion Paper sets out a series of principles to form the basis for these regulations. 8.It is recommended that an updated and harmonized framework for regulating commercial and oversized vehicles be integrated into the new Zoning By-law, based on the principles set out in this Discussion Paper. 9.It is recommended that the new Zoning By-law consider a new set of provisions for agriculture-related and on-farm diversified uses including criteria, and that a range of appropriate on-farm diversified uses be permitted in the Zoning By-law where they are accessory to a farm operation. This would include a series of definitions of these types of uses, associated provisions and permissions in the applicable zones. Some of these uses, particularly those which serve a broader farming community, are best permitted only through a rezoning application or may be permitted in the Rural Settlement Areas or within appropriate urban zones. The Province’s Guidelines, best practice and community input will provide the basis for the new framework. It is recognized that the City’s policies for agriculture-related uses and on-farm diversified uses may change through Envision Page 11 of 15 Durham and the City’s next Official Plan Review. As such, the development of zoning provisions for these uses, if appropriate, will need to be coordinated with these other processes. 10.It is recommended that minor variances and site-specific exceptions be reviewed in detail to inform improvements to the zone standards. This Discussion Paper identifies some potential focus area with respect to minor variances and notes that the site-specific exception zones will be subject to a detailed review in conjunction with the preparation of the new Zoning By-law. 11.It is recommended that the Zoning By-law be prepared in a manner that aligns with Envision Durham to the extent possible, particularly with respect to land use permissions and policy directions regarding the agricultural, rural, hamlet, open space and environmental areas. However, it is recognized that some policy directions emerging from Envision Durham may require City implementation in its Official Plan before provisions can be incorporated into the Zoning By-law. Discussion Paper #7: Parking, Active Transportation and Loading Conclusions and Recommendations This Discussion Paper has reviewed a very wide range of parking, active transportation and loading topics. Overall, there are modern aspects of the City’s existing zoning, particularly in the City Centre and Seaton Urban Area. However, there are also aspects of the City’s which are outdated compared to other municipalities. There are significant opportunities to introduce a new zoning approach to these matters which better aligns with City, Regional and Provincial policy for reducing automobile dependence and increasing the modal split. The recommendations of this Discussion Paper have been presented throughout this Discussion Paper. For convenience, all of the recommendations are included as follows: General 1.Align and consolidate the list of land uses. 2.Align minimum parking requirements based on a tiered approach with the lowest parking rates in the City Centre and intensification areas with immediate access to higher order transit (e.g., Kingston Road), and highest in the parking rates in the areas outside the City Centre and intensification areas. 3.Align minimum parking requirements across land uses where obvious discrepancies exist. 4.Fill gaps where parking requirements are missing for parts of the City. 5.Use a consistent approach to organize regulations related to different aspects of parking. 6.Modifications to the Zoning By-law’s parking requirements may precipitate a need for the City to review alignment with other documents, such as design guidelines or Site Plan requirements. Page 12 of 15 Minimum residential parking requirements 7. Reduce minimum parking requirements for apartments in areas outside the City Centre and intensification areas, and consider potential reductions for other dwelling types, including accessory dwelling units or second suites. 8. Realign the general parking requirement for detached dwellings. 9. Apply a consistent approach to visitor parking requirements across dwelling types. 10. Align parking requirements for live-work and related uses. Minimum commercial parking requirements 11. Set minimum parking requirements for medical office and equivalent land uses based on floor area. 12. Clarify bus parking versus bus loading requirements and eliminate any duplications. 13. Consider removing bus related requirements from the minimum parking requirements table. 14. Use a consistent standard for converting bench space to seating capacity, or eliminate references to bench space. 15. Relax the minimum parking requirements for retail, office, and medical uses based on benchmarking, and consider parking reductions for other commercial uses. 16. Consider supplemental parking provisions to facilitate temporary use of parking spaces, including parking requirements for the temporary use, temporary parking reductions for existing uses, and requirements to maintain adequate vehicular access. 17. Maintain minimum parking requirements for restaurants in the areas outside the City Centre and intensification areas. 18. Consider clarifying the land use definitions to address “mega” religious facilities to aid interpretation of the new Zoning By-law. 19. Consider the tier of parking requirements that should apply to the Kingston Road Intensification Corridor and Specialty Retailing Node. Minimum industrial parking requirements 20. Consider relaxing the minimum parking requirements for industrial uses based on benchmarking. 21. Minimum parking requirements for industrial uses do not need to be defined in the City Centre. Minimum parking requirements for Institutional and other uses 22. Use a consistent unit or set of units for calculating school parking requirements. Page 13 of 15 23.Consider removing parking requirements for any land uses that are no longer relevant, subject to further consultation with City staff. 24.Consider consolidation of miscellaneous land uses, subject to further consultation with City staff. 25.Consider supplementary provisions such as permitting off-site and shared parking for non-private community and institutional uses, subject to further consultation with City staff. Minimum parking space and drive aisle dimensions 26.Consider establishing City-wide minimum dimensions for a garage space based on the Seaton Urban Area regulations. 27.Consider establishing minimum dimensions for tandem parking, angled parking, and small car parking. 28.Maintain existing minimum parking space and drive aisle dimensions. 29.Address minimum parking space and drive aisle dimensions in the General Provisions of the Zoning By-law. 30.Consider vertical height clearance or other requirements related to accommodating storage in private residential garages. Minimum landscaped areas with parking facilities 31.Incorporate a streamlined, City-wide framework for minimum landscape strips in conjunction with parking areas, particularly along any rear lot line or interior side lot line abutting more sensitive uses, and provide a minimum landscape strip or buffer where a parking area abuts a street. This may include varied requirements in different contexts in the City. Shared parking 32.Implement shared parking framework City-wide. 33.Consider updating and expanding the parking formula based on benchmarking and industry resources. Bicycle parking 34.Expand the existing bicycle parking requirements City-wide and consider tiered reductions for mixed use and the areas outside the City Centre and intensification areas. 35.Maintain existing minimum bicycle parking space dimensions. 36.Address minimum bicycle parking space dimensions in the General Provisions of the Zoning By-law, including consideration for setbacks to address compatibility. Page 14 of 15 Drive-through lanes 37.Address minimum drive-through lane dimensions in the Zoning By-law based on minimum dimensions for a one-way drive aisle that does not abut a parking space. 38.Ensure that the permission of drive-throughs conforms to the City’s Official Plan. 39.Address minimum drive-through lane dimensions in the General Provisions of the Zoning By-law. Loading 40.Consider the expanding existing loading space requirements (Bay Ridges area or Seaton Urban Area) to the rest of the City. 41.Define minimum dimensions for a consistent set of loading types across the City. 42.Address minimum loading space dimensions in the General Provisions of the Zoning By-law. Cash-in-lieu of parking 43.Implement cash-in-lieu (CIL) of parking in the Zoning By-law only with confirmation of financial viability of a CIL program and appetite for CIL amongst developers. Parking maximums 44.Consider setting parking maximums in the City Centre and within intensification areas. Discussion Paper #8: Cannabis Production Facilities and Retail Businesses Conclusions and Recommendations Many other municipalities have recently initiated studies and zoning amendments to regulate cannabis production facilities and retail businesses, in response to recent federal and provincial legislation. There is an opportunity through the Zoning By-law Review process for the City of Pickering to introduce a regulatory framework that is reflective of the local context on this topic. This should be considerate of different rural and urban contexts and the varied nature of the types of cannabis production facilities that may be proposed. Following is a summary of the key recommendations arising from this Discussion Paper: 1.The City may consider initiating an Official Plan Amendment to establish a clear policy statement on the topic of cannabis facilities in the City. Should this be conducted by the City, the new Zoning By-law can be prepared to implement any proposed policies. It may be premature to develop zoning provisions if it is the City’s intent to establish policies in the near future, so this should be understood before proceeding with preparing draft zoning requirements. Additionally, the City may wish to utilize other regulatory tools such as site plan control to help ensure that proposed cannabis uses are compatible with and do not adversely affect adjacent or surrounding land uses. Page 15 of 15 2. It is recommended that cannabis cultivation be permitted in the new agricultural zone in the new Zoning By-law. There is an opportunity to consider defining cannabis cultivation in the rural context and permitting the use explicitly. 3. It is recommended that a limited amount of processing and related activities be permitted in the context of an on-farm diversified use in conjunction with any cannabis cultivation use in the rural areas of the City. Large-scale operations involving the processing of cannabis products from off-site sources should not be permitted as-of-right and should require a zoning by-law amendment to evaluate the use. 4. It is recommended that setbacks and minimum lot area requirements be considered for proposed cannabis production in the rural areas to address potential odour and character impacts. As odour can be addressed on-site with a suitable air filtration/ventilation system, it is recommended that the requirements vary depending on whether such a system is used. 5. It is recommended that cannabis production and processing facilities be permitted in applicable employment areas and zones. This should include setbacks to address potential odour impacts which can similarly vary depending on whether there is an air filtration system. Additional requirements may be used in prestige employment areas to limit or prohibit security fences and outdoor storage as appropriate. In these areas, the cannabis production and processing facilities would be more permissive than in the rural areas with respect to allowing for a wide range of processing, production and research activities, including processing cannabis produced off-site. 6. It is recommended that the new Zoning By-law not specifically define or regulate cannabis retail businesses, as the uses are subject to Provincial licensing requirements. By using this approach, the cannabis retail business would be interpreted as a retail use and permitted where retail uses are permitted in the Zoning By-law, and subject to the same requirements. Responses to Public and Agency Comments Name/Organization Comment(s) Response Mary-Ann Burns, Toronto and Region Conservation Authority Upon review of the two Discussion Papers that have been released (“Guiding Principles and Parameters” and “Review and Assessment of Existing Parent By- laws”, March 2020), we note that the Papers do not mention conservation authority (CA) regulations. CA regulations can affect permissions under a zoning by- law pursuant to section 28 regulations under the Conservation Authorities Act. Therefore, we recommend the City’s new By-law include a section on CA Regulations and a schedule of CA Regulated Areas within Pickering. For the City’s consideration, TRCA staff can provide examples of wording and schedules for this purpose extracted from other zoning by-laws within TRCA’s jurisdiction. Staff will have further conversations with TRCA regarding this comment. Mary-Ann Burns, Toronto and Region Conservation Authority Discussion Paper #1, Section 4.7 We recommend re-zoning the remaining Seaton lands after the Functional Servicing and Stormwater Management Reports are reviewed and satisfactory to the City and TRCA. The size and location of SWM facilities and therefore the zoning boundaries within the development blocks cannot be determined until the FSSRs are complete. Through the Comprehensive Zoning By-law Review, Staff are considering zoning the Seaton Natural Heritage System. Consideration to other lands will need further discussion with between TRCA and City Staff (possibility to zone Seaton employment lands). Mary-Ann Burns, Toronto and Region Conservation Authority Discussion Paper #1, Section 4.9 Consistent with Provincial Policy Statement 3.1 and the Pickering Official Plan policies for Special Policy Areas and other flood vulnerable lands, please plan to include in the By-law, zoning provisions prohibiting development within hazardous lands (and include in the By-law, hazardous lands as a defined term as per the PPS definition). Staff will have further conversations with TRCA regarding this comment. Mary-Ann Burns, Toronto and Region Discussion Paper #1, Section 4.13 Suggest that "applicable law" be mentioned here. For example, CA permitting requires certain setbacks Staff will have further conversations with TRCA regarding this comment. Attachment #3 to Report #PLN 15-21 Name/Organization Comment(s) Response Conservation Authority from natural hazards and the natural heritage system, which is consistent with the Official Plan policies (i.e. 10 m setback from stable top of bank as determined by TRCA). The zoning should include certain provisions to ensure consistency between the zoning and the CA requirements. TRCA can provide examples of these types of policies from other municipalities’ by-laws in our jurisdiction if the City so desires. Mary-Ann Burns, Toronto and Region Conservation Authority Discussion Paper #1, Section 5.3 Re: Holding Zones – other studies that may be required are flood plain delineation and natural heritage impact studies. The City Centre by-law north of Hwy 401 has multiple holding designations and is complicated by the need for a future comprehensive flood management and natural heritage studies to address these challenges. It is complex and results in uncertainty for the landowners and is not recommended by TRCA when natural hazard or natural heritage matters must be addressed. Staff will have further conversations with TRCA regarding this comment. Mary-Ann Burns, Toronto and Region Conservation Authority Discussion Paper #1, Section 7.2 Re: Zoning provisions for restricting development in flood-prone areas and other hazardous lands, including setbacks – This is very much supported. We recommend a minimum of 10 metres to primary structures and 6 metres to accessory structures; May wish to add: restricting development in the natural heritage system, including buffers. Noted Mary-Ann Burns, Toronto and Region Conservation Authority Discussion Paper #2, Section 3.1 It is noted that Pickering will be evaluating the opportunity to consolidate zones, and that “subsequent discussion papers will look closely at the similarities and differences between zones within categories, and assess how the zones can be consolidated into a single, comprehensive Zoning By-law, while Staff have requested a list of TRCA owned properties. Name/Organization Comment(s) Response considering the impact of eliminating zones and changing the standards or permitted uses.” Conservation Authorities own thousands of hectares of conservation land and, unless they qualify for provincial property tax incentive or exemption programs, or are exempt as a municipal capital facility, pay property taxes on those lands. One of the criteria to support an application for tax exemption is if the lands are designated/zoned as an environmentally sensitive area, environmentally significant area, environmental protection area, natural heritage system or another area with an equivalent designation within a municipal official plan or zoning by-law. Some of the existing zones for “Public Use and Environmental Protection” in the existing zoning by- laws include Public Open Space, Open Space, Waterfront Zones, Oak Ridges Moraine Recreational, Natural Heritage System, etc. When undertaking the review of zoning and categories, TRCA staff request that Pickering staff take into consideration the implications zoning can have on tax exemptions for Conservation Authorities, particularly for properties that may serve multiple purposes (i.e., natural heritage corridor/linkage lands that are used for passive recreation). Mary-Ann Burns, Toronto and Region Conservation Authority Discussion Paper #2, Section 3.2 TRCA would be pleased to provide any additional floodplain or natural heritage mapping required by the City to ensure appropriate Open Space Zoning boundaries are incorporated into the new by-law and reflect current technical information. Staff would appreciate TRCA sharing any mapping to assist the consultants in zoning the Natural Heritage System & Floodplain. Mary-Ann Burns, Toronto and Region Conservation Authority Discussion Paper #2, Section 4.2 It may be helpful to have an illustration of natural hazard and natural heritage setbacks as well. Staff will have further conversations with TRCA regarding this comment. Name/Organization Comment(s) Response Mary-Ann Burns, Toronto and Region Conservation Authority Discussion Paper #2, Section 4.3 It will be important that there is no "up-zoning" within natural hazards; That is, even if a proposed zone is compatible with the OP land use designation, it may not be compatible with PPS or CA Regulations if, for example, a zone that does not currently allow a secondary suite or residential is now proposed to include those uses, and the site is in a flood plain or erosion zone. TRCA would be happy to discuss the semantics/implications of this with the City. Noted. Staff will have further conversations with TRCA regarding this comment. Mary-Ann Burns, Toronto and Region Conservation Authority Discussion Paper #2, Section 8 TRCA staff request the opportunity to participate in the development of the Open Space and Environment discussion paper; at that time, for any discussion regarding zoning provisions for Source Water Protection, staff can also provide advice regarding conformity with the Credit Valley – Toronto and Region – Central Lake Ontario Source Protection Plan. TRCA has been given the opportunity to comment on the Open Space and Environment discussion paper. At this time, Staff have implemented Official Plan Policies for Source Waste Protection, however zoning provisions have not been contemplated. Staff will work with TRCA to discuss the appropriateness to add zoning provisions for Source Water Protection. Mary-Ann Burns, Toronto and Region Conservation Authority Discussion Paper #3, Section 4.4.1 It is important to recognize that additional dwelling units (including intensified group homes, secondary suites, coach house, etc.) or dwelling units for vulnerable populations such as long-term care homes and retirement homes are not permitted within natural hazards, including floodplains and areas of slope instability. The ZBL should recognize this with special provisions excluding these as permitted uses within natural hazards. Staff will have further conversations with TRCA regarding this comment. Mary-Ann Burns, Toronto and Region Conservation Authority Discussion Paper #3 This paper briefly discusses the needs for reports to show mitigation strategies to meet stormwater management (SWM) requirements associated with development, but Papers 4, 5, and 7 have nothing related to SWM. Further, none of the papers discuss Staff will have further conversations with TRCA regarding this comment. Name/Organization Comment(s) Response the need for green infrastructure to reduce runoff impacts associated with all forms of development. Across all land uses, SWM and green infrastructure needs should be recognized, tying them to the City’s Official Plan policies. Therefore, permissions / provisions for SWM facilities (including LIDs) should be included in the ZBL review in appropriate zones, recognizing that a more comprehensive treatment of SWM would occur within a review of the City’s Official Plan (OP). Mary-Ann Burns, Toronto and Region Conservation Authority Discussion Paper #6, Figure 3.1 Page 20 – TRCA staff understand that the City is undertaking a rezoning of Frenchman's Bay West from Residential to Open Space. Suggest revising to reflect this change once approved. Agreed. Zoning By-law 7808/21 rezoned the Rotary Frenchman’s Bay West Park to an open space zone category is currently in its appeal period. Mary-Ann Burns, Toronto and Region Conservation Authority Discussion Paper #6, Section 4.1 Any refining of Environmental Protection Zoning to capture connectivity and corridors (local and regional) would provide further benefit in protecting the City’s natural heritage system, recognizing that the zoning would have to conform to the OP. It appears the merging of environmental protection and open space areas is proposed and discussed at a high level. We recommend that any merged environmental protection zones ensure that no uses that would impact natural hazards or the natural heritage system be included in that zone. The merged zone should align with natural hazard and natural heritage objectives in both the Pickering and Durham Region OPs. Staff will have further conversations with TRCA regarding this comment. Mary-Ann Burns, Toronto and Region Conservation Authority Discussion Paper #6, Section 4.2 This section provides an excellent overview of some of the options for zoning within the Natural Heritage System. The second bullet on Page 44 states: “However, the Conservation Authority’s regulation limit will not correspond to the Natural Heritage Staff will have further conversations with TRCA regarding this comment. Name/Organization Comment(s) Response System, since the Natural Heritage System may include other features that are not reviewed by the Conservation Authority (e.g., woodlands). We note that in addition to this, the Natural Heritage System may not correspond with the regulation limit as there are areas of the City where the floodplain extends beyond the natural features, such as the Special Policy Area in the vicinity of Notion Road and other flood vulnerable areas. TRCA is in support of a hybrid methodology that refines the natural system to include hazards (steep slopes, floodplain etc.) as part of the natural heritage/environmental protection system. This refinement should additionally include using data sources to improve the accuracy and that more closely reflects the natural features and hazards on the landscape. TRCA has GIS data layers that can help support the City’s objectives as well align with the updates occurring as part of the Region’s OP review. Mary-Ann Burns, Toronto and Region Conservation Authority Discussion Paper #6, Section 5 We agree that further consultation with the Province and CAs be undertaken to identify opportunities for the ZBL to help implement the Natural Heritage System. This should also apply to natural hazards since, as mentioned above; there are lands subject to natural hazards that lie outside the identified natural heritage system. A number of guidelines, studies and reports prepared by TRCA, Durham Region and the Province are available to characterize and address concerns for natural features, hazards and opportunities in order to protect and grow the natural heritage system within the City of Pickering. These include watershed plans, fisheries management plans, climate adaptation/mitigation plans, and development Noted. Staff will have further conversations with TRCA regarding this comment. Name/Organization Comment(s) Response guidelines could be used to inform acceptable permitted uses within the Environmental Protection zones and Open Space zones, subject to directions from the OP. Language within the paper identifies criteria required for an Environmental Report and that minor development such as the “creation of a few lots” is not a trigger. We recommend reviewing the criteria for defining minor development to a finer scale. For example, the creation of even one new lot is not permitted within a natural hazard under the PPS. Lisa-Beth Bulford, Central Lake Ontario Conservation Authority Thank you for contacting Central Lake Ontario Conservation Authority (CLOCA) within regard to the City of Pickering’s Comprehensive Zoning By-law Review Electronic Open House. CLOCA staff have reviewed Discussion Papers 1, 2 and 6 for consistency with the natural heritage and natural hazard policies within the Provincial Policy Statement and in the context of Ontario Regulation 42/06 of the Conservation Authorities Act and other applicable watershed management guidelines and policies. Since CLOCA is one of two governing Conservation Authorities within your municipality and being the one with the significantly smaller land area within our jurisdiction, we are providing a letter of support for the comments provided by Toronto Region Conservation Authority (TRCA) related to their review of these discussion papers instead of a separate comment letter of our own. We are satisfied that our interests in this particular review will be satisfied through the comments provided in the TRCA letter submitted to the City of Pickering on these Discussion Papers later today. Please continue to include CLOCA in the ongoing Comprehensive Zoning By-law Review process. We Noted. Staff will have further conversations with both CLOCA and TRCA regarding these consolidated comments. Name/Organization Comment(s) Response look forward to reviewing the new draft Comprehensive Zoning By-law and may have more detailed comments related to the lands specifically within our jurisdiction at that time. Elizabeth Howson, Seaton Landowners Group Discussion Paper #1 Through our review, we have identified a serious and fundamental concern for the SLG with the approach identified in Section 1.1 of Discussion Paper #1, Guiding Principles and Parameter. That approach is the proposal to consolidate the six area specific Zoning By-laws, including the Seaton Urban Area Zoning By-law 7364/14, into one by-law. The rationale provided is as follows: • One by-law that conforms with recent updates to the City of Pickering’s Official Plan, 2018 (the Official Plan)” because “zoning is required to be brought into conformity with its corresponding Official Plan within three years of an Official Plan conformity exercise being completed, per Section 26(9) of the Planning Act”; and, • This Review represents a significant opportunity for modernization by making the zoning by-law accessible and available online, and by updating the City’s key framework for regulating the use of land, buildings and structures.” Discussion Paper #1 then goes on to outline what the new Zoning By-law will address as follows: 1. Achieve conformity with the Official Plan and implement the policies of the Official Plan in a single, streamlined and concise Zoning By-law and ensure the document is consistent with the PPS, 2020 and conforms with Provincial Plans as applicable; 2. Update standards, definitions, and regulations to reflect contemporary planning practice, market Staff and the City’s consultants are reviewing options for incorporating the Seaton Zoning By-law in to the new comprehensive by-law, including maintaining the Seaton By-law as a separate chapter. Name/Organization Comment(s) Response and development trends and eliminate redundant and/or repetitive provisions; 3.Enhance the structure, format and usability of the document to ensure the document is readable by members of the public and not just planners and professions(sic); and 4.Produce an accessible document that has wayfinding elements, clear and simple text, illustrations, and graphics that supports the interpretation of the regulatory text. In reviewing the rationale presented for creation of a consolidated new Zoning By-law, there are in fact a number of significant reasons, in our opinion, for not including Zoning By-law 7364/14 for the Seaton Urban Area in such a consolidation, as outlined below: •Seaton is subject to a different planning regime than other areas of the City. Official Plan Amendment 22, which provides the policy direction for the Seaton Urban Area, was prepared in conformity with the Central Pickering Development Plan (CPDP) which is applicable to Seaton and which in turn implements the Planning and Development Act. The basis for the Amendment recognizes that the plan for the Seaton Urban Area was prepared under a different policy regime than the other areas of the City and also reflects the complexity of that process as follows: •The current standards, definitions and regulations were developed as a result of a lengthy process as a cohesive whole, and any changes can only be made after rigorous review and careful consideration of the implications for Seaton to ensure there are no unintended consequences. Name/Organization Comment(s) Response The smallest change can have significant implications for development in Seaton. The process of developing the Seaton policy and regulatory regime took place over many years and involved close coordination between all the stakeholders. This included the Province, the City, the landowners, residents, the Region, agencies, and other stakeholders. The zoning bylaw was carefully calibrated to implement the policy directions and all aspects of the document are interrelated. In particular, changes to the regulations cannot be considered without understanding the definitions and the general regulations and how they are interrelated. The implications of any change in a definition or a regulation would have to be rigorously reviewed to ensure that there are no unintended consequences. For instance, the potential of making existing or planned uses legal non- conforming. The success of this process and the resulting by-law is reflected in the fact that, as reported in Discussion Paper #2, only two amendments have been made to the By-law since its adoption in 2013/2014. • The Seaton By-law reflects a current approach to regulation, and has been designed to maximize accessibility and readability. As noted in Discussion Paper #1, Zoning By-law 7364/14 was enacted relatively recently, unlike most of the other City Zoning By-laws. The By-law was carefully crafted by City staff and consultants to ensure that it was designed to be readable and accessible by all potential users including members of the public. This includes an introduction on “How to Read and Use this By-law”; clear and simple text, and the use of Name/Organization Comment(s) Response tables that support clarity in the interpretation of the regulations. If the City wishes to add additional elements to further enhance accessibility this should be relatively easy to accomplish given the current format, while recognizing that it remains a regulatory document. It is not necessary to create a new zoning bylaw for the Seaton Urban Area to achieve the objective of accessibility. Therefore, we would request on behalf of the SLG and the individual owners of which it is composed, that Zoning By-law 7364/14 for the Seaton Urban Area be maintained as a separate by-law and that it not be considered for consolidation into a comprehensive City-wide Zoning By-law. Alan Jeffs, Resident Discussion Paper #5 At what stage in the process will recommendations be made as far as which particular areas fall into which particular future zoning classifications? The first draft by-law will be released in 2021. Alan Jeffs, Resident Discussion Paper #5 Who will be making this initial determination, the consultant? The Consultant will undertake a review of all parent and site specific zones and draft the new by-law. Alan Jeffs, Resident Discussion Paper #5 Just out of interest, which consulting firm is it who has the lead on this file? The City has hired WSP to complete the Comprehensive Zoning By-law Review. Glenn Brown, Resident Discussion Paper #3 As people's forms of social/residential associations change, the terms rooming, boarding, rooming, and lodging homes, and group homes should be abandoned. In order to meet financial constraints, need for socialization especially during health emergencies (including outside "pods"), and helpful associations to facilitate inter-generational support (whether or not within 'families"), the city should withdraw interest in who lives in an abode, and what their relationship is to the others, save to guard Noted. Name/Organization Comment(s) Response against overcrowding, health, public safety, and criminal renting activities. Doug McLaughlin, Resident Discussion Paper #1 •Pg. 54 (PDF document Pg. 59). “With an expansive natural system in the City of Pickering, sustainability and climate change are important issues that can be addressed through the new Zoning By-law.” •Pg. 55 (PDF document Pg. 60). “A zoning by-law can include provisions that can support sustainability and address climate change…”. “The Review is an opportunity to modernize the Pickering Zoning By-law to address these emerging issues of sustainability and climate change and develop complete communities that are considerate of nature and our environment.” •Pg. 74 (PDF document Pg. 79). Guiding Principles and Recommendations - Addressing Emerging Issues. “Many emerging issues are not addressed in the existing Zoning By-laws including contemporary issues such as climate change and sustainability…”. A glaring omission in the current Pickering zoning by- laws is the issue of bird-collision deterrence and bird- friendly building design. Approximately 25 million birds are killed by colliding with buildings (glass or plastic glazing) in Canada annually (see endnote #1). Across the U.S., the estimated number of migrating birds killed annually in collisions with buildings ranges from 365 and 988 million (see endnote #2). In consideration of the fact that Earth’s biodiversity is in serious decline and is in the midst of a sixth mass extinction, every means possible should be pursued by the City of Pickering to minimize hazards, injury Noted. Staff request a bird strike study as part of high-rise developments. Name/Organization Comment(s) Response and death to all species, including birds (see endnote #3). The Canadian Standards Association and the Standards Council of Canada have developed and issued CSA A460:19 Bird-Friendly Building Design standard to deter bird collisions. In order for the City of Pickering to meet its environmental, sustainability, biodiversity and considerate-of-nature goals, it should be mandatory for the City to fully comply with CSA A460:19 in regard to all structures and buildings (residential, commercial, industrial, retail, office, utility, etc.) including all new build, upgrades, retrofits and any existing structures that are prone to bird collisions. CSA A460:19 must apply across all zoning by-laws and any new over-arching by-law being considered by the zoning review project. Resident Discussion Paper #1 Please define, as-of-right; As-of-right means the use is permitted in the zoning. On page 44 of Discussion Paper #1, the sentence: “Specific zoning regulations and requirements in conformity with the official plan are developed for the identified area to allow for development to occur in accordance with the official plan as-of- right.” The zone will include performance standards that must be met and there are other requirements or approvals required under other legislation for example that site plan approval, conservation authority permits for regulated areas, and compliance with the Ontario Building Code. Name/Organization Comment(s) Response Resident Discussion Paper #1 Since the Review represents a significant opportunity for modernization, the City of Pickering must include a limit on the time for which a development application can be active. I would suggest 5 years. For the past 2+ years there have been motions hearings, decisions, reversal of a decision and an appeal to the Ontario Municipal Board, after that the Local Planning Appeal Tribunal, with respect to a development application from 1990. This is a ridiculous situation. No development application should be allowed to sit dormant for decades and then be allowed to be resurrected and go forward based upon standards that are decades old. The Comprehensive Zoning By-law that will be developed through this review must contain a provision that specifies a development application has a limit of 5 years after which it must be considered to be expired; A comprehensive by-law cannot mandate the closing of development applications. An application can be closed if a recommendation is brought forward to Council or if the applicant agrees to withdraw/close the application. If an application has been inactive for a period of time the City does require a resubmission, since policies and standards are constantly being updated. Resident Discussion Paper #1 Regarding 4.1 Planning Act, in Figure 4.1 on page 13, in the box entitled City of Pickering Zoning By-law, after Municipal by-law that can be enforced, add the words “or not”. Alternatively, add the words “Property owner may have to take personal legal action”. Either will alert residents that they may not be able to rely on enforcement of Zoning By-laws; Your comment has been considered and it is not appropriate to add this language to the Discussion Paper. Resident Discussion Paper #1 For the above section on page 14, in the paragraph beginning “Zoning by-laws are …” add the following at the end of the last line, “Since City departments have limitations with enforcement, residents may find their situation becomes a civil matter and their only recourse is through the courts when dealing with persons whose property does not meet zoning by-law(s).” Again, this will help alert residents that Your comment has been considered and it is not appropriate to add this language to the Discussion Paper. Name/Organization Comment(s) Response they may have to take personal legal action to resolve a zoning by-law non-conformance; Resident Discussion Paper #1 Regarding 4.6 Clean Water Act (2016), it provides some insights into probably the most important resource to us living in Rural Areas where we are responsible for providing our own water supply. It can not be overly stressed that the Act and local Source Protection Plans are designed to protect both the quality and quantity of water. When development is proposed within an area that relies upon well access to an aquifer, there is the possibility that the development will adversely affect either or both the quality and quantity of water that those accessing an aquifer, before the development occurred, might experience. After development is completed, should residents find the quality and/or the quantity of their water supply that existed from an aquifer, before the development, became adversely affected, the Ontario Ministry of Environment may conduct an investigation and ultimately, if the quality and/or the quantity of the residents water supply is found to be adversely affected, compel the Region of Durham to provide a municipal water supply by installing or extending a pipe line or installing communal wells. Currently, the Region of Durham charges, for an individual residence municipal water supply and connection, a minimum of $14215.75 + HST for the minimum 75 foot (22.86 meters) lot frontage in Rural Areas of the City of Pickering up to a maximum of $19010.50 + HST for the minimum 75 foot (22.86 meters) lot frontage, depending upon the size of pipe required and the time of year the installation and connections were made. After connection, the Region of Durham charges a monthly fee for water usage. And, often when installing a water supply, the Region of Durham This comment cannot be addressed through the Comprehensive Zoning By-law Review. For development applications in the rural area, studies are required to determine that proposals will not cause negative impact on water quality and quantity. The City has brought its Official Plan into conformity with the source water protection Plan. As part of this zoning review we will be identifying where zoning needs to address source water protection plans. Name/Organization Comment(s) Response will install sewers, both sanitary and storm. Currently, the Region of Durham charges, for an individual residence sanitary sewer line and connection, a minimum of $15432.75 + HST for the minimum 75 foot (22.86 meters) lot frontage in Rural Areas of the City of Pickering up to a maximum of $19567.00 + HST for the minimum 75 foot (22.86 meters) lot frontage, depending upon the size of pipe required and the time of year the installation and connection were be made. Should there be an adverse effect to the water supply from an aquifer, residents will have to prove the actual quantity of water they have immediately before the development began by having their Well Record up-dated to include a current flow rate test which typically costs $600.00 + HST. And, residents will have to prove the actual quality of water they have immediately before the development. The Region of Durham will provide a no-cost bacteria test. Otherwise, the residents are on their own for water quality testing. Testing, by a provincially accredited laboratory, can range in cost from $180.00 + HST for tests reporting all items that the Region formally conducted for residents, without any charge, up to about $3,000.00 + HST for comprehensive water analyses which includes those items that were free at one time plus several other metals as well as insecticides, herbicides and other chemicals. A new comprehensive Zoning By-law must include, for any development proposing to use an aquifer as the water source, the requirement that all residents accessing the aquifer be supplied a document outlining the above costs at the time the development application is submitted to the City of Pickering; Resident Discussion Paper #1 Regarding 4.7 Central Pickering Development Plan (2012), for figure 4.2, in order that I might much better Please see figure 2.1 in Discussion Paper #2 (page 5). Name/Organization Comment(s) Response understand this section, please provide me with an overlay of the figure showing the Dufferin Rouge Agricultural Preserve, Seaton and the 15 “compact urban neighbourhoods” with their boundaries; Resident Discussion Paper #1 Regarding 7.1 Affordable Housing, please explain how a by-law review might encourage the development of affordable housing available for low- and moderate-income families while the Ontario Government allows the operation of a property tax scheme that penalizes home owners and home renters in the City of Pickering to the tune of a greater than 80% higher total property tax bill as compared with an equivalently assessed Toronto property. Updated zoning by-laws that permit alternative housing forms, second units, garden suites, increased densities in targeted area and on under-utilized sites, and reduced parking requirements where appropriate (among other zoning provisions) can help to reduce the cost of delivering housing. Resident Discussion Paper #1 Regarding 7.1.1 Secondary Residential/Accessary Units, if a residence is converted to add a secondary residential/accessary unit, does the Municipal Property Assessment Corporation raise the assessment of the entire property? Please advise. Also, does the City of Pickering notify the Municipal Property Assessment Corporation of the one-time registration fee for secondary residential/accessory units? Please advise. Please define the term “garden suite”; The City sends MPAC a copy of the letter assigning an address to the accessory dwelling unit and building permit issuances. Garden suite means a dwelling unit that is accessory to the existing primary residential dwelling, and does not include a basement. Resident Discussion Paper #1 Regarding 7.1.2 Inclusionary Zoning, please define the term “payment in-lieu”; Inclusionary zoning requires developers who are delivering market rate housing units to provide a percentage of the housing at below market rates. Inclusionary zoning policies also permits to pay cash or in-lieu fees to the municipality as an alternative to building below market rate units on the subject lands. The money is then used to construct housing in another location. Name/Organization Comment(s) Response Resident Discussion Paper #1 Regarding 7.2 Sustainability and Climate Control, to the list on page 55, please add the following: i)Require electrical vehicle charging systems at every new construction, ii)Require R20 minimum exterior wall insulation, R40 minimum roof insulation, Argon filled triple glazing and insulated exterior doors for all new residential construction, iii)Require a minimum 3 kilowatt solar electricity generating system on every roof of new residential construction and site location of buildings so as not to shade the solar panels of an adjacent building at any time pf the year and orientation of buildings on lots to approach a south facing of portion of the roof that will accommodate the solar system. With the advent of the law requiring vehicles to pass bicycles with a 1 metre spacing, regardless of whether or not there is a dedicated bicycle lane, if the facilities for active transportation includes bicycles and the bicycles will be using the same roadway as motor vehicles, roadways in newly constructed areas that are proposed to be arterial roads will have to be sufficiently wide to allow the 1 metre distance passing a bicycle without not having to drive a vehicle into oncoming traffic; Comment will be taken under consideration Comments regarding arterial road widths to accommodate 1 metre passing for bicycles cannot be addressed by the Zoning By-law Review. This is a matter more appropriately addressed through a Master Transportation Plan. Resident Discussion Paper #1 Regarding 7.5 Public Transportation and Active Transportation, please add to the list of major transportation corridors the following: a)To the list of Highways, add Highway 7, b)To the list of rail corridor, add CP mainline and the CP Havelock line, c)To the list of roads, add Brock Road; The Official Plan comment is out of scope for this project. Comment has been forwarded to the Department’s Policy & Geomatics for consideration as part of comments on the Durham Regional Official Plan Review, and for future review of the Pickering Official Plan. Name/Organization Comment(s) Response Add to the Official Plan a section requiring that officials from the City encourage, at every opportunity, the Government of Canada to re-start the commuter service between Toronto and Havelock which was included in the last budget of The Honourable Jim Flaherty. And add the requirement for a Community Planning Permit System along that corridor in the Rural Areas; Resident Discussion Paper #1 Regarding 7.6 Agriculture and Rural Areas, if indeed “protection of prime agricultural land and rural land for a diversifying range of agricultural uses is a key component of the Official Plan and the PPS” and “the PPS strongly emphasizes the protection of prime agricultural land with non-agricultural uses being extremely limited and lot creation being discouraged”, why has the development along Taunton Road, roughly between Brock Road and Whites Road, proceeded? Please advise in order that I can better understand the Official Plan and PPS. This section has nothing to offer with regard to Rural Areas which are not involved with agriculture. It should be expanded to include non-agriculture aspects Seaton has been designated for Urban Development in the Region of Durham’s Official Plan since 1981. It remained agricultural until such time as the demand for additional urban areas occurred to accommodate population growth. The lands which you are referring to are part of Seaton. You can find the Central Pickering Development Plan and Pickering’s Official Plan Land Use Schedule on the City’s website. Resident Discussion Paper #1 Regarding 7.7 Cultivation and Production of Cannabis. A new By-law should probably include cannabis containing products. And, a new By-law should probably include how and where marketing of cannabis should be allowed, or not; Discussion Paper 8: Cannabis production facilities & retail businesses considers zoning provisions for cannabis cultivation and production. The retail sale of cannabis products is entirely controlled by the Provincial government, not municipal zoning. Resident Discussion Paper #1 Regarding 7.8 Employment Areas, the assertion that rural employment is limited indicates a lack of familiarity and a lack of understanding of the Rural Areas. Home businesses and home enterprises have been a feature or rural Pickering going back long Please note that all of the current Parent Zoning By-laws permit home-based businesses in residential zones. Name/Organization Comment(s) Response before the incorporation of the Town. Carpenters, plumbers, electricians, masons and many other trades have operated their business typically with a home office for administration and client meetings along with an out building used for production and storage. There are warehousing businesses that have operated from out buildings and home for more than half a century supplying materials, parts and components to local and far away businesses, to farmers and to local residents. One of the premier sound studios in Canada is located in rural Pickering. Many consultants carry on business in the Rural Areas from home. COVID-19 has caused many to move to working from home to improve their safety and retain employment. Since home businesses continue to be prevalent in the Rural Areas, a new Zoning By-law should incorporate the entire range of existing home businesses/occupations into the Hamlet Employment category or in a separate category altogether. While the Discussion Paper indicates on page 62 that the Official Plan has 4 categories, a close examination of table 7 on page 66 of the Official Plan shows only the first 3 categories. Please advise exactly on which page in the Official Plan the category Hamlet Employment can be found; Page 276 of the Official Plan has a Table (Table 16) which includes the designation “Hamlet Employment”. Further, map 303 has a map of Claremont and identifies the Hamlet Employment areas. Resident Discussion Paper #1 Regarding 8 Zoning By-law Format, Layout and Structure and 8.2 Trends and Best Practice. One of the objectives of the Revised Zoning By-law should be to make it very easy for the untrained individual to locate on the City’s website. If it can not be easily found, all the progressive and user friendly approaches; all the images and illustrations will be for naught. Currently, when I search the City’s website for my area’s by-law using “copy of by-law 3037” there are 763 results. Frankly, I do not have the time Unfortunately, the current Parent Zoning By-laws are not available on the City’s website. One of the goals and objectives of this Review is to produce a user-friendly Comprehensive Zoning By-law that will be available on the City’s website. Comments will be taken under consideration regarding including a comprehensive definition section and explaining acronyms. Name/Organization Comment(s) Response to scroll through and try to locate a copy of by-law 3037. You lost my attention. The revised Zoning By-law should contain at the beginning a Title, immediately following should be a detailed index, then a complete list of Definitions including acronyms such as OP, PPS, PSEZ, GIS and legal terms such as “as-of-right”, “payment in- lieu”. Do not use Latin, either for legal terms or anything else, anywhere. After Definitions, should appear Administration, then the meat and potatoes categories; Resident Discussion Paper #1 Regarding 8.2.1 to 8.2.6, they all have good suggestions to improve clarity and to help make the Revised Zoning By-law understandable by an untrained person. Perhaps the writers could follow a guide from newspapers which are written for an individual with grade 8 education to be to read and understand. Accordingly, it might be a good idea to have grade 9 students read the initial draft and consider their opinions of the draft’s clarity. The Revised Zoning By-law should be printed in 14 point or larger. Comment will be taken under consideration – Staff believe the recommendations in section 8.2.1 and 8.2.6 will assist the reader in interpreting the language. The required City corporate standard font size will be used (Arial, 12 pt. font size). Please note that you will have the ability to zoom in or zoom out of this future By-law. Resident Discussion Paper #3 Regarding 2.1.3 General Housing Policies, there are several references to “Sections” in the Pickering Official Plan. In looking for these references in the Official Plan, I cannot find any listing of Sections. There are however Chapter numbers that correspond with the Sections. For clarity, it would be best to refer to Chapters when listing references in the Official Plan as is done in this sub-section when reference is made to Chapter 11 and in 2.1.4 where Chapter 12 is referenced; Comment will be taken under consideration Name/Organization Comment(s) Response Resident Discussion Paper #3 Regarding 2.1.4 Neighbourhood Policies and Guidelines, while I understand this Discussion Paper, even though it is titled Residential Areas, and in spite of the opening sentence in 1 Introduction, I would submit that the Settlements listed in the Pickering Official Plan should also be considered as neighbourhoods. They should be included in Figure 2.2. The Development Guidelines fail when developers or residents do not follow them and City staff finds that, as only guidelines, they can not be enforced. If they are important, they should be included into the Comprehensive Zoning By-law that can be enforced; The settlement areas are included in the Rural Areas Discussion Paper 6, as this discussion paper focuses on neighbourhoods in the rural area. More recently as we are preparing development guidelines, we are identifying which of those guidelines require a corresponding zoning provision within the Zoning By-laws. Resident Discussion Paper #3 Regarding 3.1 Official Plan and Zoning Relationship, there is a typographical error in second sentence of the first paragraph. There two categories listed but three are referenced; Thank you for catching this error. A correction will be made. Resident Discussion Paper #3 Regarding 4.3.1 Residential Accessory Uses and Structures plus 4.3.3 Garages, to reflect what actually occurs with both accessory buildings and garages, the Comprehensive Zoning By-law should be written to allow storage. In the case of a garage, in addition to a vehicle; and in the case of an accessory building, over and above the use to which the accessory building is currently allowed to be put. Comment will be taken under consideration. The current by-laws do not restrict garages to only parking. Currently the City does encourage developers to provide a garage that accommodates both vehicular parking and limited storage. Resident Discussion Paper #3 Regarding 4.3.4 Driveways, if the requirement from the Seaton By-law 7364/14 that garages are not permitted to be wider than the driveway, there will be a very large number of legal non-conforming properties created which seems to counter-productive to the objectives of this Review. Also, in the third bullet point of this sub-section, there is a Comment will be taken under consideration. Thank you for catching the mistake. A correction will be made. Name/Organization Comment(s) Response typographical error listing 3027 as an existing Zoning By-law. While that may be a Zoning By-law, this Review is not concerned with that By-law. I suspect it should read 3037. Resident Discussion Paper #3 Regarding 4.3.5 Home-based Businesses, for Zoning By-law 3037, as you have indicated in third bullet point on page 50, this By-law details in Sub-Section 5.19 the requirements for a Home-Based Business. In addition, the same By-law defines in Section 2.64 Home Industry. In Section 5 – General Provisions for All Zones, which includes Sub-Section 5.19, is also included Sub-Section 5.37 Home Industry with its requirements and non-permitted items. And Section 6 –Rural Agricultural Zone A includes Sub-Section 6.1.1.1 Home Occupation with its suggestion for offices of practitioners that do not seem directly connected with Agriculture. For clarity all three should be combined in the Comprehensive Zoning By-law and if any of the other City Zoning By-laws contain such replication, they should be combined to a single section. The prohibition of storage in an accessory building shown in (7) of Sub-Section 5.19 followed by (8) the permitted limited storage in a garage, which may be an accessory building is silly. It is even more so when considering 5.37 Home Industry which permits in (b) the use of an accessory building and the business would require storage of both raw materials, goods in process and finished goods. All three Sub-Sections require some dramatic re-working to bring clarity and to make them current. The second to last paragraph on page 50 and the second paragraph on page 51 both make good points. The approach detailed in the last paragraph on page 50 and extending to the first paragraph on page 51 should be that in the Comprehensive Zoning By-law. Comments will be taken under consideration. Staff will review the Official Plan and Zoning By-law for consistency in the use of terminology. Name/Organization Comment(s) Response There is some sort of typographical error in last line of the paragraph following the bullet points on page 50 Resident Discussion Paper #4 Regarding 1 Introduction, with the effects COVID-19 has had on the job/employment market, planners might be re-thinking the premise of the second sentence. There has been a dramatic growth in home-based businesses/home industry and work from home. From comments of employment consultants, employers and employment search firms, that trend is expected to continue which would mean that the entirety of residential properties in the City will become the area from which significant employment growth will occur, for which the City will have to be prepared and for which the Comprehensive Zoning By-law will have to reflect that change. My comments regarding the previous Draft Discussion Papers should be consulted for additional contextual information which I will not repeat in any of my additional comments for this Draft Discussion Paper; Thank you for your comment – Employment Lands are still essential for industrial and manufacturing businesses, which cannot shift to working from home. Although there has been an increase in working from home for other industries (such as consultants, financial workers, etc.), there are still industries which need large spaces and outdoor storage. Resident Discussion Paper #4 Regarding 2.1.1 Land Use Policies, I am confused. Zoning By-law 3037 in Section 4 – Zones lists C2, ORM-C2, C3, ORM-1, M1 and ORM-M1, that in my mind, refer to Employment. Each of these Zones are further defined under a separate Section which includes Permitted Uses. Except for i) accessory dwelling unit, in Zone ORM-C2, every Permitted Use would result in employment. Please clear-up my confusion by explaining why these are not included in this Sub-Section of the Draft Discussion Paper and why they do not appear on Figure 2.1. The concept, noted on page 4 of the Draft Discussion Paper, that some employment maybe allowed in an area to “serve the This discussion paper focuses on prime employment lands. The M1 zone is identified in this discussion paper. The Oak Ridges Moraine M1 is not captured in the discussion paper, as these lands in north Pickering are not designated as prime employment lands. In addition, all the lands with Commercial zones are not designated as prime employment lands. Name/Organization Comment(s) Response area” is silly. When the area changes, as they always do, sometimes quickly, sometimes slowly, does that mean the business that was serving the area has to close when the business it was serving moves or closes? Or, what does a business owner do when the business set-up to serve an area has the opportunity to serve businesses outside the area? Is the owner supposed to refuse? Such a concept should not be carried forward into the Comprehensive Zoning By-law. While I understand this sub-section pertains to the manner in which the Official Plan handles Employment, I wanted to get my comments and questions in before the December 1, 2020 cut-off date, which allowed far too little time to obtain documents frequently referenced read all of the information provided at the Zoning By-law Review webpage and try to understand it; These zones may generate employment (i.e., retail store or professional office), however they are at a different intensity. For example, the M1 zone permits manufacturing uses such as a bindery (produce paper products). This use would not be permitted anywhere else in the City, except within employment areas. A professional office permitted in the C1 zone could be permitted almost anywhere in the city (on lands designated residential or mixed use). The term serving the area allows smaller scale commercial uses to open up in residential neighbourhoods. For instance, it allows an applicant to potentially open a convenience store in an area designated residential. Resident Discussion Paper #4 Regarding 2.2 Zoning, the fifth bullet point in this sub-section refers to “one small piece of land with a Prestige Employment designation.” in the Rural Area Zoning By-law 3037. In my copy of this By-law, received May 22, 2012, there is no reference to Prestige Employment in Section 2 – Definitions, nor in Section 3 – Schedule A, or B, or C, nor in Section 4 – Zones, nor in Section 5 – General Provisions for All Zones. Please advise when this By-law was amended to include this small piece of land with a Prestige Employment designation and where it is located as I do not see it in Figure 2.3. This property is located at the north side of Taunton Road West, at the intersection of Taunton Road and William Jackson Drive (1960 Taunton Road). Resident Discussion Paper #4 Regarding 3.1 Durham Region Official Plan, as with the City of Pickering website, searching the Durham Region website for the Official Plan yields thousands Links were provided to the resident. Name/Organization Comment(s) Response of results. Please provide a link for the Durham Region Official Plan. And, if the complete Plan is not available from a single link, as is the case with the City of Pickering Official Plan, please provide all links is order that I might be able to access the complete Plan. Resident Discussion Paper #4 Regarding 3.3 Assessment of Zoning in the Employment Areas, this sub-section seems to indicate that having both Employment Areas and Zones where both have permitted uses is overly cumbersome. Would it not be clearer to have just 1 listing in which the permitted uses could be found? Please advise. The purpose of this analysis is to break down the permitted uses in the Official Plan designations and the existing zones. Resident Discussion Paper #6 Regarding 4.2 Natural Heritage System Implementation, the third bullet point, top of page 45, contains a reference to the Tree Protection By-law. A search of the city of Pickering website indicates this is By-law 6108/03. This By-law contains a reference to a Schedule ‘A’ which the text indicates is attached. However, the Schedule is not contained within the City’s webpage. Like the Official Plan, the series of Schedules and the Compendium Document are not attached to the Official Plan found on the City’s website. In order to be assured that residents have complete access to Zoning By-laws, the Comprehensive Zoning By-law Review should include a review of all Zoning By-laws posted on the City’s website to ensure all documents associated with each Zoning By-law are attached to the webpage for each By-law; Thank you for finding this error. The City will correct the Tree Protection By-law to include Schedule “A”. Resident Discussion Paper #6 Regarding 4.5 Outdoor Storage and Commercial Vehicle Parking, the sixth bullet point suggests that generally outdoor storage should not be permitted in When the discussion paper refers to outdoor storage, it means large objects such as commercial vehicles, trailers, large scraps, and Name/Organization Comment(s) Response Rural Settlement Areas. Where would the author suggest that fuel for a back-up heating wood burning stove be kept while it seasons? Please advise. The last bullet point in this section makes good points for considering the outdoor storage of recreational equipment such as boat and trailer, snowmobile and trailer, 4-wheeler and trailer, motorhome, etc. but the definition of “larger rural residential lots” would need to be agreed upon and specified; not to smaller items such as extra fuel for a stove. Resident Discussion Paper #6 Regarding 4.6 Agriculture-Related and On-Farm Diversified Uses, based upon the discussion in the third paragraph, the Comprehensive Zoning By-law Review must specify whether or not businesses servicing farm operations are limited to servicing those operations within the area of the Comprehensive Zoning By-law. Or, can “primarily to the farming community”, as appears in Zoning By-law 3037, subsection 2.64 (b) Home Industry, and in the definition of Home Industry (b) in the Oak Ridges Moraine Conservation Plan Regulation 140/02, mean any farming community or farmer anywhere? Thank you for your comment and interpretation. Consideration will be made to provide clarity that the term “area” is not related to the geographical area of the By-law, but relates to the farming/agricultural community. Resident Discussion Paper #8 Regarding 2.1 Federal Legislation, in the second bullet point, the authors indicate there approximately 400 holders of a licence from Health Canada with respect to cultivation, processing and selling of cannabis. If the authors know, please provide the number of those licences that are currently held for the City of Pickering for each of the various classes and sub-classes of these activities and micro- activities. Health Canada website does identify the company’s which hold licences and which type of license, however it does not provide personal information or detailed location. Resident Discussion Paper #8 Regarding 2.2 Provincial Legislation and Policy, in the second bullet point the authors indicate retail operators selling cannabis require a licence. If the As the City has recently opted-in to permitting retail cannabis, we are not aware of any licences granted within Pickering at the time of writing this report. Name/Organization Comment(s) Response authors know, please provide the number of those licences that are currently held for the City of Pickering. Resident Discussion Paper #8 Regarding 2.4.3 Council By-laws and Resolutions, if the authors know, please advise the number of licences that were issued by Health Canada in respect of the Marihuana for Medical Purposes Regulations in the City of Pickering; Please contact Health Canada for this information. Resident Discussion Paper #8 Regarding 3.1.2 Township of King, there is no mention of Oak Ridges Moraine Zoning. Is there no mention in the Site Plan Control or Zoning By-laws that were passed? Or, did the authors not feel any mention was important? Please advise; The Township of King only updated the zoning for specific areas – Schomberg, Nobleton and King City Urban Areas. This is the reason the Oak Ridges Moraine wasn’t included in this section. Resident Discussion Paper #8 Regarding 3.3.1 Rural Area and 3.3.2 Urban Area and 4 Conclusions and Recommendations point 4.and point 5., regardless of setbacks, when the wind blows the odours from cannabis production and processing will extend out from the facility and with strong winds quite a substantial distance. Only high volume air filtration systems will ensure odours are not emitted from those facilities and must be made mandatory in the Comprehensive Zoning By-law regardless of the size of the facility. In addition, the Comprehensive Zoning By-law must make mandatory a monitoring system for every cannabis production and processing facility that constantly samples the air on at least 4 sides of the border of the property, is monitored within the facility and any odour detection above a pre-determined limit must cause a shut-down of the facility and a notification of local environmental authorities. Upon triggering of a shut-down, the plant could not re-start activities until the cause of the odour escape was determined, mitigation and Thank you for your comments. Please note that licences for cannabis cultivation and production are Federally regulated. Name/Organization Comment(s) Response correction completed to the satisfaction of local environmental authorities. Resident Discussion Paper #8 For all but Draft Discussion Paper #1, there is no discussion of enforcement pertaining to reviews of existing Zoning By-laws or a Comprehensive Zoning By-law. Why not? Please advise. It is anticipated that the new Zoning By-law will be easier to understand, and may make compliance with the by-law easier and enable clarity in enforcement.