Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutApril 3, 2023Planning & Development Committee Meeting Agenda April 3, 2023 Hybrid Electronic Meeting – 7:00 pm Council Chambers Chair: Councillor Cook For information related to accessibility requirements please contact: Committee Coordinator 905.420.4611 clerks@pickering.ca Members of the public may attend the meeting in person, or may observe the meeting proceedings by viewing the livestream. A recording of the meeting will also be available on the City’s website following the meeting. Page 1.Roll Call 2.Disclosure of Interest 3.Statutory Public Meetings Statutory Public Meetings are held to receive input and feedback on certain types of planning applications. Members of the public looking to provide a verbal delegation to Members of the Planning & Development Committee may do so either in person or through a virtual audio telephone connection into the meeting. For more information, and to register as a delegate, visit www.pickering.ca/delegation, and complete the on-line delegation form or email clerks@pickering.ca. The list of delegates who have registered to speak will be called upon one by one by the Chair in the order in which they have registered. A maximum of 10 minutes shall be allotted for each delegation. Please be advised that your name will appear in the public record and will be posted on the City’s website as part of the meeting minutes. 3.1 Information Report No. 03-23 1 Zoning By-law Amendment Application A 08/22 Draft Plan of Subdivision SP-2022-03 Draft Plan of Condominium CP-2022-04 The Brock Zents Partnership Southwest corner of Brock Road and Zents Drive (2660, 2670 & 2680 Brock Road) 4.Delegations Members of the public looking to provide a verbal delegation to Members of the Planning & Development Committee may do so either in person or through a virtual audio telephone connection into the meeting. For more information, and to register as a Planning & Development Committee Meeting Agenda April 3, 2023 Hybrid Electronic Meeting – 7:00 pm Council Chambers Chair: Councillor Cook For information related to accessibility requirements please contact: Committee Coordinator 905.420.4611 clerks@pickering.ca delegate, visit www.pickering.ca/delegation, and complete the on-line delegation form or email clerks@pickering.ca. The list of delegates who have registered to speak will be called upon one by one by the Chair in the order in which they have registered. A maximum of 10 minutes shall be allotted for each delegation. Please be advised that your name will appear in the public record and will be posted on the City’s website as part of the meeting minutes. 5.Planning & Development Reports 5.1 Director, City Development & CBO, Report PLN 08-23 17 The Municipal Comprehensive Review of the Durham Regional Official Plan - City of Pickering Comments on the new draft Regional Official Plan Recommendation: 1.That Council endorse the City of Pickering Comments on Envision Durham contained in Appendix I of Report PLN 08-23 on the new draft Regional Official Plan; and, 2.That a copy of Report PLN 08-23 and Council’s resolution be forwarded to the Region of Durham as Pickering’s comments on the new draft Regional Official Plan. 5.2 Director, City Development & CBO, Report PLN 09-23 50 City Initiated Official Plan Amendment 46 Changes to development review procedures and fees in response to Bill 109, the More Homes For Everyone Act, 2022 Recommendation: 1.That Official Plan Amendment Application OPA 22-003/P, initiated by the City of Pickering, to amend existing policies and introduce new policies related to the review of Planning Act applications, as set out in Exhibit ‘A’ to Appendix I to Report PLN 09-23 be approved; Planning & Development Committee Meeting Agenda April 3, 2023 Hybrid Electronic Meeting – 7:00 pm Council Chambers Chair: Councillor Cook For information related to accessibility requirements please contact: Committee Coordinator 905.420.4611 clerks@pickering.ca 2.That the Draft By-law to adopt Amendment 46 to the Pickering Official Plan, to amend existing policies and introduce new policies to the Pickering Official Plan with regard to the review of Planning Act applications under Bill 109, the More Homes For Everyone Act, 2022, as set out in Appendix I to Report PLN 09-23, be enacted; 3.That the revised Draft Pre-consultation By-law, as set out in Appendix II to Report PLN 09-23, be enacted; 4.That, in response to legislated changes arising from the enactment of Bill 109, the More Homes For Everyone Act, 2022, the City Development Department – Planning Fees be approved, effective June 1, 2023; 5.That an amendment to Schedule “I” to By-law 6191/03, the General Municipal Fees and Charges By-law, as amended, by deleting the pages for City Development Department – Planning, and substituting the updated pages for City Development Department – Planning, as set out in Schedule “I” to the Draft By-law provided as Appendix III to Report PLN 09-23, be approved; and, 6.That the revised Draft By-law to amend Schedule “I” to the General Municipal Fees and Charges By-law 6191/03, as set out in Appendix III to Report PLN 09-23, be enacted. 5.3 Director, City Development & CBO, Report PLN 10-23 101 Official Plan Amendment Application OPA 20-001/P Zoning By-law Amendment Application A 05/20 Draft Plan of Subdivision Application SP-2020-01 Brock Road Duffins Forest Inc. (2055 Brock Road) Recommendation: 1.That Official Plan Amendment Application OPA 20-001/P, submitted by Brock Road Duffins Forest Inc., to re-designate the subject lands municipally known as 2055 Brock Road from “Urban Residential Areas – Medium Density Areas” to “Urban Residential Areas – High Density Areas” and “Open Space System – Natural Areas”, and to add a site-specific policy for the portion of the lands designated as Planning & Development Committee Meeting Agenda April 3, 2023 Hybrid Electronic Meeting – 7:00 pm Council Chambers Chair: Councillor Cook For information related to accessibility requirements please contact: Committee Coordinator 905.420.4611 clerks@pickering.ca “Urban Residential Areas – High Density Areas”, to permit a maximum residential density of 286 units per net hectare, to facilitate a high-density residential development, be approved, and that the draft by-law to adopt Amendment 48 to the Pickering Official Plan, as set out in Appendix I to Report PLN 10-23, be finalized and forwarded to Council for enactment; 2.That Zoning By-law Amendment Application A 05/20, submitted by Brock Road Duffins Forest Inc., to permit a high-density residential development consisting of: a 20-storey building containing a total of 328 residential units; 34, 3-storey back-to-back townhouse units, and 10, 3-storey townhouse units; located at the southeast corner of Brock Road and Usman Road, be approved, and that the draft Zoning By-law Amendment, as set out in Appendix II to Report PLN 10-23, be finalized and forwarded to Council for enactment; and, 3.That Draft Plan of Subdivision Application SP-2020-03, submitted by Brock Road Duffins Forest Inc., to establish a single development block, with the balance of the subject lands, containing a portion of the valleylands for the West Duffins Creek and the associated buffer, to be conveyed to the Toronto and Region Conservation Authority, as shown on Attachment #5 to Report PLN 10-23, and the implementing conditions of approval, as set out in Appendix III, be endorsed. 6.Other Business 7.Adjournment Information Report to Planning & Development Committee Report Number: 03-23 Date: April 3, 2023 From: Catherine Rose, MCIP, RPP Chief Planner Subject: Zoning By-law Amendment Application A 08/22 Draft Plan of Subdivision SP-2022-03 Draft Plan of Condominium CP-2022-04 The Brock Zents Partnership Southwest corner of Brock Road and Zents Drive (2660, 2670 & 2680 Brock Road) 1.Purpose of this Report The purpose of this report is to provide preliminary information regarding applications for Zoning By-law Amendment, Draft Plan of Subdivision and Draft Plan of Condominium, submitted by The Brock Zents Partnership, to facilitate a residential condominium development. This report contains general information on the applicable Official Plan and other related policies and identifies matters raised to date. This report is intended to assist members of the public and other interested stakeholders to understand the proposal. The Planning & Development Committee will hear public delegations on the applications, ask questions of clarification and identify any planning issues. This report is for information and no decision is being made at this time. Staff will bring forward a recommendation report for consideration by the Planning & Development Committee upon completion of a comprehensive evaluation of the proposal. 2.Property Location and Description The subject lands are located at the southwest corner of Brock Road and Zents Drive within the Duffin Heights Neighbourhood (see Location Map, Attachment #1). The subject lands comprise 4 properties, having a combined area of approximately 2.98 hectares, with approximately 198 metres of frontage along Brock Road, and approximately 92 metres of frontage along Zents Drive. The site currently contains 2 unoccupied detached dwellings to be demolished to accommodate the development. Along the southerly and westerly portions of the subject lands is mature vegetation, forming part of the significant woodlands immediately to the west (see Air Photo Map, Attachment #2). Surrounding land uses include: North: Across Zents Drive, the Pickering Fire Services Headquarters, which is nearing completion. East: Across Brock Road, a residential condominium development by Averton (Brock) Limited, which includes a mix of stacked townhouse units on the north and south sides of Rex Heath Drive, and zoning approval for two 8-storey mixed-use apartment buildings and stacked townhouse units along Brock Road. - 1 - Information Report No. 03-23 Page 2 South: Immediately to the south are vacant lands owned by Lebovic Enterprises Limited for which the Ontario Municipal Board (now Ontario Land Tribunal) has approved a Draft Plan of Subdivision and site-specific Zoning By-law Amendment to facilitate a residential condominium development consisting of stacked and townhouse units. West: Immediately to the west is a woodlot that is identified as Significant Woodlands in the City’s Official Plan. These lands are currently owned by Infrastructure Ontario. 3. Applicant’s Proposal The applicant has submitted applications for Zoning By-law Amendment, Draft Plan of Subdivision and Draft Plan of Condominium to facilitate a residential condominium development. The Draft Plan of Subdivision proposes the creation of a total of 4 blocks, which are summarized in the table below (see Submitted Draft Plan of Subdivision, Attachment #3): Block Number Land Area Proposed Use Block 1 2.630 hectares Residential development block for standard and common-element condominiums. Block 2 0.164 of a hectare Environmental lands to be conveyed to an appropriate public agency and rezoned to an appropriate open space zone category. Block 3 0.008 of a hectare Conveyance of a sight triangle at the corner of Brock Road and Zents Drive to the Region of Durham. Roads 0.182 of a hectare Conveyance of Street ‘A’ to the City for the northerly extension of Four Seasons Lane. Total 2.984 hectares Within Block 1, the applicant is proposing a total of 195 residential dwelling units (see Conceptual Site Plan, Attachment #4). The submitted site plan illustrates 14 townhouse buildings (Blocks 1 to 12, 16 and 17), consisting of 170 stacked townhouses fronting Brock Road, Zents Drive, Four Seasons Lane, with garage access and vehicle parking at the rear of the buildings from the internal private road and an internal landscaped area. The remaining 3 townhouse buildings (Blocks 13 to 15) consist of a total of 25 rear-lane townhouses and will have vehicular and garage access from the private road at the rear of the units. The stacked townhouse blocks will consist of two different internal unit configurations, both of which will be 3 storeys in height, and provide private amenity space through balconies or at-grade patios. The rear-lane townhouse blocks are proposed to be 3 storeys in height, and will have private amenity space through a deck above the garage. Refer to Attachment #5, Submitted Conceptual Elevations, for sample building elevations for the various building configurations proposed. - 2 - Information Report No. 03-23 Page 3 Resident parking for both the stacked townhouses and rear-lane townhouses is proposed at a ratio of 2.0 parking spaces per dwelling unit. The stacked townhouses will accommodate 1 parking space within a private garage and 1 space on a surface driveway. Parking spaces for the rear-lane townhouses will be accommodated within a double or tandem private garage. Visitor parking is provided at a rate of 0.22 spaces per unit for a total of 44 parking spaces, which will be distributed throughout the site. Vehicular access to the internal private road will be provided through two connections from the east side of the future Four Seasons Lane. The most northerly connection will be a right-in/right-out access, while the southerly connection will be a full-movement access. The applicant has indicated the private road has been designed to allow for municipal waste collection (curbside waste collection) for all units. In order to provide for the extension and completion of Four Seasons Lane, between the lands to the south and Zents Drive, the applicant will be required to acquire lands currently owned by Infrastructure Ontario. A 540 square metres common outdoor private amenity area is proposed between Buildings 11 and 12. This space is connected to an internal pedestrian pathway network that connects to the private road, Brock Road and Four Seasons Lane. The applicant is also proposing a 433 square metres landscaped gateway entry feature at the intersection of Brock Road and Zents Drive. The proposed development will consist of multiple condominium corporations. The tenure of Buildings 1 to 12, 16 and 17 will be a standard condominium, and the tenure of Buildings 13 to 15 will be a common element condominium. It is contemplated that the private roads, outdoor amenity areas, internal walkways, community mailboxes, water meter room, and visitor parking areas will be contained within the common element. Reciprocal easements will be established by providing access over these elements for the standard condominiums to Four Seasons Lane. A mutual use and cost-sharing arrangement will be established for all the condominiums to ensure an equitable arrangement regarding the use, long-term care, and maintenance of the common elements (see Submitted Draft Plan of Condominium, Attachment #6). Further applications for a draft plan of condominium (standard condominium) will be submitted at a later date specifically for the stacked townhouses. The development will be subject to site plan approval. 4. Policy Framework 4.1 Durham Regional Official Plan The subject lands are designated as “Living Areas” with a “Regional Corridor” overlay in the Durham Regional Official Plan. Lands within this designation are predominately intended for housing purposes. In addition, limited office development and limited retailing of goods and services, in appropriate locations, as components of mixed-use developments, are permitted. In the consideration of development proposals, regard shall be had to achieving a compact urban form, including intensive residential, office, retail and service, and mixed uses along arterial roads, in conjunction with present and potential transit facilities. - 3 - Information Report No. 03-23 Page 4 Regional Corridors shall be planned and developed in accordance with the underlying land use designation, as higher-density mixed-use areas, supporting higher-order transit services and pedestrian-oriented design. Regional Corridors are intended to support an overall, long-term density target of at least 60 residential units per gross hectare, and a floor space index of 2.5, with a wide variety of building forms, generally mid-rise in height, with some higher buildings, as detailed in municipal official plans. 4.2 Pickering Official Plan The easterly portion of the subject lands is designated “Mixed Use Areas – Mixed Corridors” within the Duffin Heights Neighbourhood. Mixed Use Areas are recognized as lands that have or are intended to have the widest variety of uses, and highest levels of activity in the City. This designation is intended primarily for residential, retail, community, cultural and recreational uses. Minimum and maximum residential densities are established for Mixed Corridors. The permitted density range for lands within this designation is over 30 units and up to and including 140 units per net hectare, and a maximum Floor Space Index (FSI) of up to and including 2.5 FSI. The proposed townhouse development is consistent with the permissions for residential uses within the Mixed Corridor designation, and the proposed density of 75 units per hectare and FSI of 0.92 conforms to the density requirements of the City’s Official Plan. The southwesterly portion of the subject lands is designated as “Open Space Systems - Natural Area”. Furthermore, Schedule III B, Resource Management: Key Natural Heritage Features, of the City’s Official Plan identifies portions of the subject lands containing significant woodlands. Lands designated as part of the open space system are intended to be used primarily for conservation, restoration, environmental education, recreation, and ancillary purposes. The Official Plan requires a minimum vegetation protection zone from features including a minimum setback of 10.0 metres from significant woodlands. An Environmental Impact Study is required for proposals within 120 metres of natural heritage or hydrologic features. In support of the proposed development, the applicant has submitted an Environmental Impact Assessment (EIS). The EIS is required to evaluate and establish limits of the natural features on the subject lands and provide recommendations for the preservation or removal of such features. As noted above, the lands designated “Open Space System – Natural Areas” are proposed to be conveyed to the appropriate public agency, through the creation of an open space block on the Draft Plan of Subdivision. The proposed development also contemplates the removal of 0.95 hectares of natural heritage features (significant woodlands). The applicant’s proposal will be assessed against these policies of the Official Plan during the further processing of the applications. 4.3 Duffin Heights Neighbourhood Policies Policies for the Mixed Use Areas – Mixed Corridors designation in this neighbourhood require the following: - 4 - Information Report No. 03-23 Page 5 • new development to provide a strong and identifiable urban image by establishing buildings closer to the street, providing safe and convenient pedestrian access and requiring all buildings to be multi-storey; • require higher intensity multi-unit housing forms on lands adjacent to Brock Road and restrict grade-related residential development to lands adjacent to collector or local roads; and • the development of future roads adjacent to the Mixed Corridor designation on both sides of Brock Road to provide alternative access and potential transit routes. The subject lands are located at the intersection of Brock Road and Zents Drive, which has been identified as a Focal Point within the Duffin Heights Neighbourhood. Development within Focal Points is to contribute to the prominence of the intersection by requiring: • initial development on each property to occur at the corner of the intersection; • the inclusion of appropriate provisions in the implementing zoning by-law to address such matters as the location and extent of build-to-zones, mix of permitted uses, and required building articulation; • the use of other site development features, such as building design, building material, architectural features or structures, landscaping, public art and public realm enhancements such as squares or landscaped seating areas, to help achieve focal point prominence; and • all buildings to be a minimum of 3 functional storeys with 4-storey massing. The Duffin Heights Neighbourhood Policies also require landowners to: • submit a Functional Servicing and Stormwater Management Report that demonstrates how the proposal is consistent with the Duffin Heights Environmental Servicing Plan to the satisfaction of the Region, City and the Toronto and Region Conservation Authority (TRCA); and • become a party to the cost-sharing agreement for Duffin Heights, or receive an acknowledgement from the Trustee of the Duffin Heights Landowners Group Inc., that the benefitting landowner has made satisfactory arrangements to pay its proportion of the shared development cost. These applications will be assessed against the Duffin Heights Neighbourhood policies and provisions of the Pickering Official Plan during the further processing of the applications. 4.4 Duffin Heights Neighbourhood Development Guidelines The Duffin Heights Neighbourhood Development Guidelines intend to further the objectives of the Official Plan, and to achieve the following design objectives for the neighbourhood: • to create a streetscape that is attractive, safe and encourages social interaction within the neighbourhood; • to establish a central focus to the neighbourhood which is safe, lively and attractive; and • to provide a diversity of uses to support neighbourhood and City functions. The subject lands are delineated as Brock Road Streetscape on the Tertiary Plan, which encourages higher density, mid-rise and mixed-use buildings with a high level of architectural quality. The Tertiary Plan also identifies the intersection of Brock Road and - 5 - Information Report No. 03-23 Page 6 Zents Drive as a focal point that will require special design considerations through the use of appropriate building heights, massing, architectural features and landscaping to establish a prominent image at these intersections. The guidelines for lands within the Brock Road Streetscape include the following requirements: • properties fronting Brock Road shall be required to provide a built form across a minimum of 60 percent of the lot frontage; • all primary frontages of buildings shall front Brock Road and provide pedestrian access directly to the sidewalk and multi-use trail along Brock Road; and • large walls visible from Brock Road shall be articulated through various treatments such as offsets in massing; blank façades will not be permitted facing Brock Road or any street. These applications will be assessed against the Duffin Heights Neighbourhood Guidelines during the further processing of the applications. 4.5 Zoning By-law 3037 The subject lands are currently zoned “A” – Rural Agricultural Zone within Zoning By-law 3037, as amended, which permits a detached dwelling, home occupation, agricultural and related uses, recreational, and limited institutional uses. The applicant is requesting to rezone Block 1 to appropriate residential zone categories, with site-specific performance standards, to facilitate the proposal. The open space block will be rezoned to an appropriate open space zone category to ensure long-term protection and preservation. 5. Comments Received 5.1 Resident Comments Notice of the Statutory Public Meeting regarding this application was provided through a mailing to all properties within 150 metres of the subject property. In addition, two public meeting notice signs were erected at the property, on February 27, 2023, along Brock Road and Zents Drive. To date, the City has received written comments from one resident providing the following: • concerned that future construction activities will result in disruption to school bus schedules; • concerned that construction vehicles will park on surrounding streets, thereby blocking residential driveways; • concerned that existing elementary schools will not be able to accommodate future students from the proposed development; • outlined that there are not enough medical clinics within the immediate area to support future residents; and • concerned garbage from future dwellings will not be contained within the subject lands, namely during episodes of heavy winds. - 6 - Information Report No. 03-23 Page 7 5.2 Agency Comments At the time of writing this report, no comments have been received from the Region of Durham, Durham Catholic District School Board or the TRCA. 5.2.1 Durham District School Board (DDSB) • no objections to the proposed development; and • students generated from this development will attend existing neighbourhood schools. 5.3 City Department Comments At the time of writing this report, no comments have been received from Engineering Services, Fire Services and the Office of Sustainability. 6. Planning & Design Section Comments The following is a summary of key concerns/issues or matters of importance raised to date. These matters, and others identified through the circulation and detailed review of the proposal, are required to be addressed by the applicant before a final recommendation report to Planning & Development Committee: • ensure conformity with the City’s Official Plan and Duffin Heights Neighbourhood policies; • ensure the proposal addresses the goals and objectives of the Duffin Heights Neighbourhood Development Guidelines with respect to building siting and setbacks, building heights and massing, architectural features and materials, landscaping, outdoor open space, and pedestrian connectivity within and external to the site; • require the applicant to acquire lands from Infrastructure Ontario to complete the northerly extension of Four Seasons Lane to Zents Drive, or place an “(H)” Holding Symbol preventing the use of the lands for residential purposes until such time the applicant acquires the necessary lands for the public road extension; • require the applicant construct the extension of Four Seasons Lane within and adjacent to the proposed draft plan of subdivision to municipal engineering standards at their expense; • require the submitted draft plan of subdivision be revised to reflect the entire land holdings of the applicant; • ensure the boundaries of the draft plan of subdivision, draft plan of condominium and zoning by-law amendment are enlarged to include lands acquired by the applicant from Infrastructure Ontario; • require the applicant to create multiple architectural designs with varying heights, projects, rooflines and materials for the stacked townhouse buildings fronting Brock Road, Zents Drive, and Four Seasons Lane to create a visually appealing streetscape; • require the gateway entry feature design at the southwest corner of Brock Road and Zents Drive to achieve the City’s urban design objective to create a prominent image at this intersection; • require that the outdoor amenity area (private park) be enlarged to provide for a greater outdoor amenity space for the future residents of the development; • review the proposed visitor parking standards to ensure sufficient parking is provided to support the proposal; - 7 - Information Report No. 03-23 Page 8 • require the interior garage size to meet the City’s requirements to ensure residents can adequately park a vehicle and accommodate internal storage, bikes and waste containers; • review the submitted Environmental Impact Study to ensure required buffers are provided; • ensure that appropriate compensation (financial and replacement planting) is provided for the removal of the existing vegetation and loss of ecosystem services; • evaluate the design of the pedestrian connections within the site and to the transit locations to ensure a barrier-free path of travel; • ensure adequate private outdoor amenity space is provided for each dwelling unit; • review the building setbacks along Brock Road, Zents Drive and future Four Seasons Lane, and the setbacks between the stacked townhouse and rear-lane townhouse units; • review building setbacks and the height of the ground floors from established grade along Brock Road, Four Seasons Lane, and Zents Drive to reduce the number of risers to the principal entrances, and provide space for enhanced landscaping; • ensure sufficient space is provided for snow storage, at-grade utilities, hydro transformers, light standards, water meter room(s), and community mailboxes; • explore opportunities for the development to include affordable or rental units; and • ensure the applicant becomes a party to the cost-sharing agreement for Duffin Heights, or receives an acknowledgement from the Trustee of the Duffin Heights Landowners Group Inc., that the benefitting landowner has made satisfactory arrangements to pay its proportions of the shared development cost. Further issues may be identified following receipt and review of comments from the circulated departments, agencies and the public. The City Development Department will conclude its position on the applications after it has received and assessed comments from the circulated department, agencies and the public. 7. Information Received Copies of the plans and studies submitted for the application listed below are available for viewing on the City’s website at pickering.ca/devapp or in person at the office of the City of Pickering, City Development Department: • Planning Justification Report, prepared by Evans Planning Inc., dated November 2022; • Conceptual Site Plan, prepared by Guthrie Muscovitch Architects, dated November 11, 2022; • Conceptual Elevation Plan, prepared by Guthrie Muscovitch Architects, dated October 3, 2022; • Draft Plan of Subdivision, prepared by Evans Planning Inc., dated May 27, 2022; • Draft Plan of Condominium, prepared by J.D. Barnes Limited, dated September 13, 2022; • Environmental Impact Study, prepared by Beacon Environmental, dated November 2022; • Hydrogeologic Review, prepared by Terrapex Environmental Limited, dated May 26, 2022; • Arborist Report, prepared by Beacon Environmental, dated November 2022; • Conceptual Landscape Plans, prepared by Adesso Design Inc., dated October 4, 2022; • Noise Feasibility Study, prepared by HGC Engineering, dated October 21, 2022; - 8 - Information Report No. 03-23 Page 9 • Site Screening Questionnaire (Application for Draft Plan Approval), prepared by Terrapex Environmental Limited, dated August 26, 2022; • Site Screening Questionnaire (Application for Zoning By-law Amendment), prepared by The Brock Zents Partnership, dated August 26, 2022; • Geotechnical Investigation, prepared by Terrapex Environmental Limited, dated August 23, 2019, revised February 2, 2022; • Sustainable Development Report, prepared by Evans Planning Inc., dated November 2022; • Transportation Study, Prepared by Trans-Plan, dated October 2022; • Functional Servicing and Stormwater Management Report, prepared by TYLin, dated November 2022; • Engineering Plans (Grading, Servicing and Erosion/Sediment Control), prepared by TYLin, dated November 9, 2022; • Conceptual Design for Four Seasons Drive, prepared by TYLin, dated September 29, 2022; • Stage 1 & 2 Archaeological Assessment, prepared by The Archaeologists Inc., dated July 19, 2019; • Stage 1 & 2 Archaeological Assessment, prepared by The Archaeologists Inc., dated May 11, 2020; • Phase I Environmental Site Assessment (2660 - 2680 Brock Road), prepared by Terrapex Environmental Limited, dated May 26, 2022; • Phase I Environmental Site Assessment (Balance of the Lands), prepared by Terrapex Environmental Limited, dated May 26, 2022; • Phase II Environmental Site Assessment, , prepared by Terrapex Environmental Limited, dated May 27, 2022. 8. Procedural Information 8.1 General • written comments regarding this proposal should be directed to the City Development Department; • oral comments may be made at the Hybrid Statutory Public Meeting; • all comments received will be noted and used as input to a Recommendation Report prepared by the City Development Department for a subsequent meeting of Council or a Committee of Council; • any member of the public who wishes to reserve the option to appeal Council’s decision must provide comments to the City before Council adopts any by-law for this proposal; and • any member of the public who wishes to be notified of Council’s decision regarding this proposal must request such in writing to the City Clerk. 9. Owner/Applicant Information The owners of these properties are Brock Zents Developments 2660-2670 Inc. & Brock Zents Development 2680 Inc. (“The Brock Zents Partnership”) and represented by Evans Planning Inc. - 9 - Information Report No. 03-23 Page 10 Attachments 1. Location Map 2. Air Photo Map 3. Submitted Draft Plan of Subdivision 4. Conceptual Site Plan 5. Submitted Conceptual Elevations 6. Submitted Draft Plan of Condominium Prepared By: Original Signed By Cody Morrison Principal Planner, Development Review Original Signed By Catherine Rose For Nilesh Surti Nilesh Surti, MCIP, RPP Manager, Development Review & Urban Design Approved/Endorsed By: Original Signed By Catherine Rose, MCIP, RPP Chief Planner CM:ld Date of Report: March 17, 2023 - 10 - Attachment #1 to Information Report 03-23 Carousel Drive William Jackson Drive Adirondack Chase Grenwich Glen Ga r r i s o n C r o s s i n g Pure Springs Boulevard Jackpine C ros s ing Bronzedale Str e et Ge n e r r a M e w s Byford Street Rex Heath Drive M a y a p p l e C r o s s i n g La d y f e r n C r o s s i n g Tally Street Na n t u c k e t C h a s e Bo s t o n G l e n Br o c k R o a d Zents Drive City DevelopmentDepartment Location MapFile:Applicant:Municipal Address: A 08/22, SP-2022-03 & CP-2022-04 Date: Dec. 15, 2022 ¯ E The Brock Zents Partnership2660, 2670 & 2680 Brock Road SubjectLands L:\PLANNING\01-MapFiles\SP\2022\SP-2022-03, A 0822, CP-2022-04 Brock Zents Developments 2680 Inc\SP-2022-03_LocationMap_v2.mxd 1:3,500 SCALE: THIS IS NOT A PLAN OF SURVEY. © The Corporation of the City of Pickering Produced (in part) under license from: © Queens Printer, Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources. All rights reserved.; © Her Majesty the Queen in Right of Canada, Departmentof Natural Resources. All rights reserved.; © Teranet Enterprises Inc. and its suppliers. All rights reserved.; © Municipal PropertyAssessment Corporation and its suppliers. All rights reserved. 2660 Brock Road 2670 Brock Road 2680 BrockRoad - 11 - Attachment #2 to Information Report 03-23 William Jac k s on Drive Adirondack Chase Grenwich GlenCa n a d i a n S t r e e t Ga r r i s o n C r o s s i n g Pur eSprings B oulevard Jackpine Cr o ssing Bronzedale Str e et Ge n e r r a M e w s Huckleberry Crossing Spinnaker Mews Bruny Avenue C arousel Drive Dusty Drive Winville Road Calico Mews Edgecroft Drive Misthollow DriveScenic Lane Drive Ti l l i n g s R o a d Byford Street Te a k M e w s Pe n n y L a n e Rex Heath Drive Carousel Mews Le g i a n M e w s Tally Street Kalmar Avenue Hayden Lane Na n t u c k e t C h a s e E a r l G r e y A v e n u e Br o c k R o a d Four S e a s o n s Lane Bo s t o n G l e n Liatris Drive Dersan Street S t a r b o a r d M e w s Zents Drive Air Photo Map Date: Feb. 24, 2023 ¯ E SubjectLands L:\PLANNING\01-MapFiles\SP\2022\SP-2022-03, A 0822, CP-2022-04 Brock Zents Developments 2680 Inc\SP-2022-03_AirPhoto.mxd 1:5,000 SCALE:THIS IS NOT A PLAN OF SURVEY. © The Corporation of the City of Pickering Produced (in part) under license from: © Queens Printer, Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources. All rights reserved.; © Her Majesty the Queen in Right of Canada, Departmentof Natural Resources. All rights reserved.; © Teranet Enterprises Inc. and its suppliers. All rights reserved.; © Municipal PropertyAssessment Corporation and its suppliers. All rights reserved. City DevelopmentDepartment 2660 Brock Road 2670 Brock Road 2680 BrockRoad File:Applicant:Municipal Address: A 08/22, SP-2022-03 & CP-2022-04The Brock Zents Partnership2660, 2670 & 2680 Brock Road - 12 - Attachment #3 to Information Report 03-23 Submitted Draft Plan of Subdivision City Development Department Feb. 24, 2023FULL SCALE COPIES OF THIS PLAN ARE AVAILABLE FOR VIEWING AT THE CITY OF PICKERING CITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT. SP-2022-03, A 08/22 & CP-2022-04 The Brock Zents PartnershipApplicant: Municipal Address: DATE: File No: 2660, 2670 & 2680 Brock Road L:\Planning\01-MapFiles\SP\2022 N - 13 - Attachment #4 to Information Report 03-23 Conceptual Site Plan City Development Department March 10, 2023FULL SCALE COPIES OF THIS PLAN ARE AVAILABLE FOR VIEWING AT THE CITY OF PICKERING CITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT. SP-2022-03, A 08/22 & CP-2022-04 The Brock Zents PartnershipApplicant: Municipal Address: DATE: File No: 2660, 2670 & 2680 Brock Road L:\Planning\01-MapFiles\SP\2022 N Stacked Units Townhouse Common Amenity Area Units Townhouse Stacked Units Townhouse Stacked Landscaped Entry Feature - 14 - Attachment #5 to Information Report 03-23 L:\Planning\01-MapFiles\SP\2022 Feb. 24, 2023DATE: Applicant: Municipal Address: File No: Submitted Conceptual Elevations FULL SCALE COPIES OF THIS PLAN ARE AVAILABLE FOR VIEWING AT THE CITY OF PICKERING CITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT. City Development Department SP-2022-03, A 08/22 & CP-2022-04 The Brock Zents Partnership 2660, 2670 & 2680 Brock Road Rear-lane Townhouse (Front Elevation) Stacked Townhouse (Front Elevation) Stacked Townhouse (Front Elevation) - 15 - Attachment #6 to Information Report 03-23 L:\Planning\01-MapFiles\SP\2022 Feb. 24, 2023DATE: Applicant: Municipal Address: File No: Submitted Draft Plan of Condominium FULL SCALE COPIES OF THIS PLAN ARE AVAILABLE FOR VIEWING AT THE CITY OF PICKERING CITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT. City Development Department SP-2022-03, A 08/22 & CP-2022-04 The Brock Zents Partnership 2660, 2670 & 2680 Brock Road - 16 - Report to Planning & Development Committee Report Number: PLN 08-23 Date: April 3, 2023 From: Kyle Bentley Director, City Development & CBO Subject: The Municipal Comprehensive Review of the Durham Regional Official Plan -City of Pickering Comments on the new draft Regional Official Plan -File: A-2100-020 Recommendation: 1.That Council endorse the City of Pickering Comments on Envision Durham contained in Appendix I of Report PLN 08-23 on the new draft Regional Official Plan; and 2.That a copy of Report PLN 08-23 and Council’s resolution be forwarded to the Region of Durham as Pickering’s comments on the new draft Regional Official Plan. Executive Summary: The Region of Durham is seeking comments by April 3, 2023 on the new draft Regional Official Plan (draft ROP). A copy of the draft ROP can be found on the Region of Durham’s Website under “Envision Durham”. The draft ROP will repeal and replace the existing Durham ROP and includes a new planning horizon to 2051. The draft ROP reflects the current requirements of the Growth Plan for the Greater Golden Horseshoe, other related Provincial policy and legislation, and also considers all consultation for Envision Durham undertaken by the Region to date. However, the draft ROP does not reflect recent changes to legislation that removed the Cherrywood lands from the Greenbelt Plan. City staff have reviewed the proposed new policies in the draft ROP, and prepared comments for the Committee and Council’s consideration and endorsement as the City’s comments. Staff from Sustainability, Economic Development & Strategic Projects, and Engineering Services were consulted and provided feedback in the preparation of these comments. Staff have advised the Region that the Pickering Council resolution regarding the draft ROP will not be available until after April 24, 2023. However, following the Planning & Development Committee, a copy of Report PLN 08-23 and the draft minutes of that meeting will be forwarded to the Region of Durham. Staff have also provided the Region with minor technical comments. Financial Implications: The recommendations of this report do not represent direct or immediate costs to the City of Pickering. - 17 - PLN 08-23 April 3, 2023 Subject: The Municipal Comprehensive Review of the Durham Regional Official Plan Page 2 Discussion: 1. Purpose On February 10, 2023, the Region of Durham released a draft version of the new Regional Official Plan (ROP). The draft ROP is the key deliverable of Envision Durham, which is the Region of Durham’s Municipal Comprehensive Review project. It will repeal and replace the existing Durham ROP and includes a new planning horizon to 2051. The draft ROP reflects the current requirements of the Growth Plan for the Greater Golden Horseshoe, other related Provincial policy and legislation, and also considers consultation for Envision Durham undertaken by the Region to date. The purpose of this report is to provide an overview of the draft ROP and to obtain Council’s endorsement of staff’s comments to the Region on the draft policies. Comments were previously sent to the Region of Durham in response to: • six discussion papers; • a proposed policy direction report; • the Growth Management Study (GMS), including the Protected Major Transit Station Areas (PMTSAs); • Draft Regional Natural Heritage System mapping; • Land Needs Scenarios; and • Draft Settlement Area Boundary Expansions and Area Municipal Growth Allocations (via CAO memo included as Council correspondence on January 23, 2023). Report PLN 08-23 will provide comments on the draft ROP policies and will highlight comments previously sent to the Region. This report will present comments based on the themes in the discussions papers, as was previously commented on by staff. Staff will identify whether, in staff’s opinion, the previous comments have or have not been sufficiently addressed. The report also includes new comments based on review of the draft ROP. 2. Background 2.1 “Envision Durham” – The Municipal Comprehensive Review of the Durham Regional Official Plan Official Plans provide a vision for the orderly development of a municipality through a set of policies and maps. The Planning Act is the provincial legislation governing land use planning in Ontario that requires municipalities to regularly review and update their Official Plan. On May 2, 2018, Regional Council authorized commencement of the Envision Durham Municipal Comprehensive Review (MCR) of the ROP. The outcome of the MCR process is to repeal and replace the current ROP. The new ROP will provide an updated planning vision for the Region up to 2051. Once the Region has completed its Official Plan review, the City of Pickering will be in a position to review and update its own Official Plan. - 18 - PLN 08-23 April 3, 2023 Subject: The Municipal Comprehensive Review of the Durham Regional Official Plan Page 3 The first stage of the Region’s Official Plan Review was titled “Discover”, and commenced with the launch of a public consultation program through an online project hub and public opinion survey. The second stage, titled “Discuss”, focused on the preparation of a series of discussion papers, addressing the following major areas: agriculture and rural systems; climate change and sustainability; growth management; the environment; transportation; and housing. The third stage, titled “Direct”, included the release of proposed policy directions. The City of Pickering submitted detailed comments to the Region on the following six Envision Durham Discussion Papers, including the Policy Directions Report, the Alternative Land Use Scenarios Report, and the Draft Regional Natural Heritage System Map Report: • Agriculture and Rural System Discussion Paper (released March 5, 2019), Report PLN 13-19; • Climate Change and Sustainability Discussion Paper (released May 7, 2019), Report PLN 21-19; • Growth Management Urban System Discussion Paper (released June 4, 2019), Report PLN 32-19; • Environment and Greenlands System Discussion Paper (released September 3, 2019), Report PLN 04-20; • Transportation System Discussion Paper (released October 1, 2019), Report PLN 12-20; • Housing Policy Planning Discussion Paper (released December 3, 2019), Report PLN 06-20; and • Proposed Policy Directions Report in support of a Prosperous Economy (released March 2, 2021), Report PLN 29-21. City staff worked with the Region throughout the Envision Durham process. Staff provided comments throughout the project, and generally support the proposed new mapping and land use structure within the draft ROP (recognizing that the designation of the Cherrywood lands does not reflect their removal from the Greenbelt). The Region’s revised mapping is more robust and descriptive, which better supports the new and enhanced policies of the draft ROP. 2.2 Major Transit Station Areas As part of the second phase of Envision Durham, through the Growth Management discussion paper, the Region released draft boundary delineations for PMTSAs in Durham, including the PMTSA in Pickering around the GO Station. On July 30, 2021, the Regional Municipality of Durham gave notice of its intent to amend the ROP to implement the PMTSAs and a policy framework to support transit-oriented development. Pickering provided comments through Report PLN 34-21, including support in principle, for the proposed Regional Official Plan amendment to implement policies and delineation for the Protected Major Transit Station Area in Pickering. Regional Council - 19 - PLN 08-23 April 3, 2023 Subject: The Municipal Comprehensive Review of the Durham Regional Official Plan Page 4 adopted Amendment #186 to the Durham Regional Official Plan on December 22, 2021. Although ROPA #186 is still awaiting approval by the Minister, it has been included in the draft ROP. 2.3 Land Needs Assessment and Settlement Area Boundary Expansions In addition to the phases identified above, a critical part of the Envision Durham process was the GMS. Phase One of the GMS focused on preparing a Land Needs Assessment to determine how much additional urban land would be required to accommodate Durham’s forecasted population and employment growth to 2051. Comments have previously been provided to the Region following Pickering Council’s endorsement of staff Report PLN 20-22 Alternative Land Need Scenarios Summary Report. Council passed Resolution #871/22, which recommended to the Region a modified Community Area Land Need Scenario 2. In May 2022, Regional Council endorsed Community Area Land Scenario 2a and Employment Area Land Need Scenario 2, which translates into an additional 3,671 hectares of developable urban land required to accommodate the Region’s growth to 2051. In November 2022, the Region released an information report on the Draft Settlement Area Boundary Expansions and Area Municipal Growth Allocations. That report and the draft ROP include an urban boundary expansion for lands in northeast Pickering. Pickering Council previously passed Resolutions #140/19 and #173/19, supporting an urban area boundary expansion for lands in northeast Pickering. The Region’s Draft Settlement Area Boundary Expansions and Area Municipal Growth Allocations were completed prior to the Province releasing Bill 23 and changes to the Greenbelt Plan. As referenced in a January 2023 memo to Council that was forwarded to the Region, until further clarity is provided by the Province, staff is of the opinion that it would be premature for the City to provide the Region with comments on the proposed Growth Allocations and Settlement Area Boundary Expansions at the present time. 2.4 Changes to the Greenbelt On December 14, 2022, the Province approved legislation that removed lands from the Provincial Greenbelt, including the Duffins Rouge Agricultural Preserve (DRAP), and prioritized these areas for development. The Envision Durham exercise was based on land assessments that were completed prior to October 25, 2022. As a result, the Region’s settlement area boundary expansions do not reflect the changes made by the Province. The DRAP lands have been identified as a Special Study Area in the draft ROP. The Region has stated this approach is necessary given the Province’s stated intention to return removed lands back to the Greenbelt if certain milestones are not achieved, (e.g. progress on planning approvals by 2023, and homes under construction by 2025). The proposed policies in the draft ROP mirror the Province’s requirements for development within these areas. As the Province is both the approval authority for the ROP and the authority to be satisfied as to the progress of development in the Greenbelt Removal Areas, any modifications to the ROP due to Greenbelt removals will form part of a future Provincial decision. - 20 - PLN 08-23 April 3, 2023 Subject: The Municipal Comprehensive Review of the Durham Regional Official Plan Page 5 2.5 Bill 23 Implications The majority of the Envision Durham process was completed prior to the release and approval of Bill 23: The More Homes Built Faster Act, 2022. As a result, there are a number of policies that staff believe require additional review. Staff have highlighted a number of those items in the body of this report and included them in the comments table contained in Appendix I. The Region has acknowledged that additional review is required to ensure the policies reflect recent changes to Provincial Legislation. 3. Comments on the draft Regional Official Plan The Region has requested comments on the draft ROP by April 3, 2023. Staff advised the Region that the Pickering Council resolution regarding the draft ROP will not be available until after April 24, 2023. However, following the Planning & Development Committee, a copy of this report and the draft minutes of that meeting will be forwarded to the Region of Durham. Staff have also provided the Region with minor technical comments. City staff have undertaken a detailed review of the draft ROP, considering the City’s comments that were provided as part of Phase two “Discuss” and Phase Three “Direct” of the Envision Durham consultation process. The following comments consist of an overview of the previous comments and requests submitted by the City that have been sufficiently addressed in the draft ROP; comments and requests that have not been sufficiently addressed; and additional comments previously not included, which staff believe should be included in the comments based on the draft policies and mapping. 3.1 Housing Policies – Previous comments incorporated into the draft ROP The draft ROP has broadened the policies supporting complete communities, adding policies that recognize the importance of affordable, age-friendly, and/or accessible housing, and community hubs. The following staff comments have been incorporated in the draft ROP: • Maintain the definition of affordable rental and affordable ownership housing to be consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement; • Support higher targets for affordable housing within Strategic Growth Areas; • Strengthen the rental to ownership housing conversion policies to help protect existing affordable rental housing; • Encourage area municipalities to reduce parking requirements for second units located in areas well served by transit; • Encourage Inclusionary Zoning policies enabling the local area municipalities to determine the appropriateness of implementing this tool; • Encourage municipalities to use legislative tools to preserve existing affordable rental housing especially in Strategic Growth Areas and areas in proximity to transit; and - 21 - PLN 08-23 April 3, 2023 Subject: The Municipal Comprehensive Review of the Durham Regional Official Plan Page 6 • Encourages area municipalities to explore the use of a full suite of incentives and policy tools through local housing strategies in order to achieve affordable housing targets. Since providing comments to the Region in 2020, Pickering Council approved the Pickering Housing Strategy & Action Plan in June, 2022. The Housing Strategy and Action Plan implements the policies in the draft ROP, by including policy and financial tools that Pickering Council can implement within the local context. 3.1.1 Rental Conversion Policies and Monitoring and Reporting on Rental Data The draft ROP has introduced new polices to require applicants to provide more information as part of a rental conversion application. The additional information must: • Demonstrate a net benefit for housing in Durham that will advance the goals of the Region’s 10-year housing and homelessness plan; • Include a tenant relocation plan for all existing residents to find suitable and affordable housing in proximity to the site; • Summarize consultation with existing residents and a strategy outlining how existing tenants will temporarily be relocated within proximity of the site; and • Grant existing tenants the right of first refusal to purchase a replacement unit. Staff support the introduction of the draft policies. However, staff would recommend the policies be revised to include the following provisions; • The applicant must meet the requirements of area municipal housing plans in addition to the Region’s 10-year housing and homelessness plan; and • Maintain the existing wording from the current plan that states the conversion of rental housing “shall be discouraged”. As outlined above, the Region has taken steps to require more information in an effort to protect existing residents of rental properties from conversions. However, recent changes to the Municipal Act, through Bill 23, will allow the Minister to make regulations, imposing limits and conditions on the powers of a local municipality to prohibit and regulate the demolition and conversion of residential rental properties. Those regulations could have a significant impact on both Durham Region’s and Pickering’s ability to require the information noted above and regulate rental conversions in the future. Staff requested that the Region report vacancy data by individual area municipality and not combine them as identified in the current ROP. The Region has removed previous policies establishing vacancy rates for rental conversions by combining area municipalities (i.e., Pickering and Ajax and Whitby and Oshawa were reported together). This change in policy will avoid a skewed perspective on vacancy rates in area municipalities. The rates will now accurately reflect the vacancy rate in Pickering and the local rental accommodation pressures. - 22 - PLN 08-23 April 3, 2023 Subject: The Municipal Comprehensive Review of the Durham Regional Official Plan Page 7 3.2 Housing Policies – Previous comments not incorporated into the draft ROP The following staff comments have not been incorporated in the draft ROP: • Robust policies in the ROP related to cultural heritage protection (instead the draft ROP defers these policies to area municipalities); and • A monitoring framework for short-term rentals to assess the impact of short-term rental housing in Durham. 3.3 Housing Policies – Additional comments based on the draft ROP The draft ROP policy states that the Region will undertake a Regional housing assessment to assist with implementing inclusionary zoning requirements in PMTSA’s. The policy indicates the Region will consult with area municipalities, to review the current range and mix of housing options and evaluate projected needs for housing including affordable and special needs housing. While staff support this initiative, there has been no consultation on the scope or preparation of the Region’s housing assessment, which is apparently close to being completed. Furthermore, a local housing assessment would still be required in order to implement inclusionary zoning in the City’s Protected Major Transit Station Area. The draft ROP includes a minimum target of 35% of all new residential units created in Strategic Growth Areas, to be affordable to low and moderate income households. Staff support higher affordability targets, in principle, within Strategic Growth Areas, as noted in Section 3.1. Despite staff’s support in principle, recent changes to Provincial legislation through Bill 23 could have a significant impact on the ability to implement affordable housing policies. The changes to Bill 23 include: • a new definition of affordable by the Province; • a limit on the maximum number of affordable units permitted through inclusionary zoning in protected major transit station areas (i.e., around Pickering’s GO Station); and • a maximum timeframe for how long these units are required to remain affordable. In addition, affordable units, as defined by the Province, are now exempt from development charges, community benefits charges, and parkland dedications. These exemptions will have a significant effect on the planning and financial impacts on municipalities. While staff support the goal of achieving more affordable units within Strategic Growth Areas, a further review of the policy should be undertaken in light of the Bill 23 changes, to ensure this policy is achievable and financially attainable for local area municipalities. - 23 - PLN 08-23 April 3, 2023 Subject: The Municipal Comprehensive Review of the Durham Regional Official Plan Page 8 3.4 Climate Change & Sustainability Policies – Previous comments incorporated into the draft ROP The draft ROP has created new policies to encourage resilient development and support nature-based solutions. It has also placed a new emphasis on encouraging green infrastructure, energy conservation/efficiency and waste management. The following staff comments have been incorporated in the draft ROP: • Encourage the initial design stages of all development to include a review of the ability of the development to incorporate small and/or large scale renewable energy systems; • Plan our communities in a holistic manner that takes into account the principles of sustainability and complete communities; and • Enhance opportunities for active transportation through the planning of Regional infrastructure and the design of the built environment. 3.5 Climate Change & Sustainability Policies – Previous comments not incorporated into the draft ROP The following staff comments have not been incorporated in the draft ROP: • Support for renewable energy production through public and private partnerships; and • Identify the implementation of active transportation facilities on Regional roads, at the Region’s expense. 3.6 Growth Management Policies – Previous comments incorporated into the draft ROP The draft ROP has introduced new policies for Strategic Growth Areas, including Urban Growth Centres, PMTSAs, and Rapid Transit Corridors. New policies were also added to support the distribution of servicing to Strategic Growth Areas, as well as the expansion of broadband infrastructure to underserved areas. The following staff comments have been incorporated in the draft ROP: • Prioritize municipal servicing within urban areas and, in particular, to Strategic Growth Areas such as the City Centre and Kingston Corridor; • Establish appropriate densities to support future Light Rapid Transit along Kingston Road; • Do not identify Waterfront Places as Strategic Growth Areas; • Include Northeast Pickering in an urban area boundary expansion; • Support the development of a multi-modal employment hub in the vicinity of the Federal lands in Pickering; and • Not prohibit places of worship from locating within Employment Areas. - 24 - PLN 08-23 April 3, 2023 Subject: The Municipal Comprehensive Review of the Durham Regional Official Plan Page 9 3.6.1 Waterfront Places The draft ROP policy identifies Waterfront Places, such as Frenchman’s Bay, as areas for context-appropriate intensification that includes a mix of residential, commercial, and recreational uses. However, staff believe that this policy should go further to also identify that Waterfront Places are first and foremost spaces best enjoyed by everyone. In this regard, Waterfront Places should prioritize public access to the water, parks, and waterfront trails. 3.7 Growth Management Policies – Previous comments not incorporated into the draft ROP The following staff comments have not been incorporated in the draft ROP: • Commit to pre-servicing employment lands, such as the Employment Lands in Seaton and along Highway 407, and the planned employment hub surrounding the Federal lands; and • Include policies to incentivize the delivery of seniors, affordable, and/or accessible housing through the implementation of a Regional Community Improvement Plan, (instead, the ROP has encouraged area municipalities to incentivize these forms of housing). 3.8 Growth Management Policies – Additional comments The Region has included a new policy in the draft ROP that requires applicants to prepare fiscal impact studies for development applications. This requirement would apply to all major developments, which includes any application for more than four lots or the construction of more than 500 square metres. The study would include estimating the life cycle costs of the servicing, infrastructure investments, and the financial impact on Regional servicing and infrastructure. Staff do not support the requirement for fiscal impact studies to be provided for the processing of development applications. Staff has no objection to the Region requiring this information, as part of servicing agreements or other mechanisms, to ensure there will not be any impacts on processing timelines for development applications. 3.9 Environment & Greenlands Policies – Previous comments incorporated in the draft ROP The draft ROP created a new Regional Natural Heritage System (NHS) overlay and associated policies. It included new policies for source water protection and expanded policies for significant woodlands, watershed planning, and water resources system policies. The following staff comments have been incorporated in the draft ROP: • Incorporate a climate change perspective recognizing its impact on the natural environment and infrastructure; - 25 - PLN 08-23 April 3, 2023 Subject: The Municipal Comprehensive Review of the Durham Regional Official Plan Page 10 • Promote greater collaboration with conservation authorities respecting the implementation of controls for invasive species and pests throughout the Region; • Promote education programs that help to create an awareness of invasive species and pests present in the Region; • Continue to use the “Major Open Space” designation on non-prime agricultural lands, in the new Regional Official Plan; • Maintain an active transportation link (Province-wide cycling network) north of the Pickering Nuclear Generating Station; • Implement Regional Road tree planting to demonstrate their partnership in improving the tree canopy; • Recognize local official plans as the appropriate level to prescribe minimum vegetation protection zones; • Allow for adjustments to the natural heritage overlay where it is deemed appropriate by lower-tier municipalities through various means, such as site specific environmental impact studies, without the need for amendments to the ROP; • Encourage area municipalities to maintain their own established natural heritage systems; • Implement policies that address the changing climate with methods, techniques, and best practices for adaptation, mitigation, and resiliency; • Identify the advocacy role that the Region can play in adapting to climate change in collaboration with all levels of government and a wide variety of stakeholders; and • Encourage ecosystem compensation for developments, as a last resort, when mitigation or avoidance of natural features is not possible. 3.9.1 Ecosystem Compensation The Region has introduced new policies regarding ecosystem compensation. The draft ROP provides direction that removal and compensation should be used as a last resort, if avoidance and mitigation are not possible. The policy encourages local area municipalities to develop detailed ecosystem compensation policies, within their official plans, in keeping with ecosystem compensation guidelines and protocols established by the Province and conservation authorities. In March 2022, Council passed Resolution #819/22, approving a Pickering Official Plan Amendment to introduce new policies regarding ecosystem loss and compensation. The policies apply in specific instances where some removal of ecosystem features or functions may be required to facilitate appropriate development. 3.10 Environment & Greenlands Policies – Previous comments not incorporated in the draft ROP The following staff comments have not been incorporated in the draft ROP: • ROP encourages participation on environmental stewardship with municipalities, conservation authorities, and others, but does not commit the Region to financial or resource contributions; - 26 - PLN 08-23 April 3, 2023 Subject: The Municipal Comprehensive Review of the Durham Regional Official Plan Page 11 • Identification of a baseline of tree canopy coverage along with separate tree canopy targets for urban and rural areas was not provided; and • The ROP should maintain permission for severance where it supports natural heritage conservation, as permitted by Provincial policy. 3.11 Transportation Policies – Previous comments incorporated in the draft ROP The draft ROP introduced new policies promoting active transportation. It also added policies to delineate a Rapid Transit Corridor along Kingston Road. The following staff comments have been incorporated in the draft ROP: • Assist Pickering in working with VIA Rail and Metrolinx to implement high frequency service on the CPR Havelock rail line; • Recognize and plan for enhanced trail connections through areas such as hydro corridors, by including: • A map in the ROP showing existing cycling and pedestrian trail networks, identifying gaps and opportunities; and • a policy encouraging stakeholders to collaborate with the Region to pursue new cycling/trail connections; • Encourage the following transit projects that would assist in attracting transit riders and transit supportive development: • the establishment of the Whites Road Priority Bus, extending from the Pickering GO Station along Bayly Street to Whites Road to Highway 7; and • the extension of GO rail service to Seaton; • Use an integrated Class EA and Planning Act process in new growth areas to optimize the alignment and design of arterial roads as the combined processes would allow for a comprehensive evaluation, reduce duplication in meeting Provincial requirements, and expedite development; • Encourage carpooling by recommending the Region: • play a larger role in the provision of purpose-built commuter lots beyond the Small Urban and Rural Carpool Lot Program to implement commuter lots along major arterial roads and highways; • continue its role engaging with area municipalities and businesses to promote carpooling programs in key destinations that provide connectivity to transit and active transportation networks both within and between municipalities in the GTHA; and • seek the use of more social media tools and real-time information to facilitate user participation and parking availability to enhance the effectiveness of carpool programs; • Only designate Regional Corridors adjacent to the arterial road corridors that are part of the High Frequency Transit Network. - 27 - PLN 08-23 April 3, 2023 Subject: The Municipal Comprehensive Review of the Durham Regional Official Plan Page 12 3.11.1 CPR Havelock Rail Line The draft ROP includes policy that supports the investigation of further extensions of rail passenger service along existing rail corridors, including the CPR Havelock Line for VIA Rail High Frequency Rail. Staff recommend the policy include stronger language to advocate for the advancement of these projects and specifically identify a future station in Pickering. 3.12 Transportation Policies – Previous comments not incorporated in the draft ROP The following staff comments have not been incorporated in the draft ROP: • Incorporate new Regional Official Plan policies that would better support planning for all road users including: • policies indicating that a “complete street” includes the provision of sidewalks/multi use paths, boulevard planting and street lighting, and that it is a Regional responsibility to provide the pedestrian/cycling, planting and street lighting components of a complete street on Regional roads; • policies allowing closer entrance and intersection spacing along arterials; and • policies allowing closer traffic signal spacing along arterials to assist pedestrian crossings; • Support the implementation of light rail transit along Kingston Road through Pickering. 3.13 Rural System Policies – Previous comments included The draft ROP has added new policy permissions related to on-farm diversified uses and other agricultural related uses. It has also simplified rural settlement policies. The following staff comments have been incorporated in the draft ROP: • Maintain the current goals of the agricultural and rural system and expand and support the diversification of agricultural uses, value-added agriculture, urban agriculture, and the important relationship with the agri-food network; • Retain the current approach to referencing the Minimum Distance Separation (MDS); • Maintain the existing “Major Open Space” mapping, which is consistent with the City of Pickering Official Plan mapping approach; • Include policies that limit large commercial solar farms in Prime Agricultural Areas; • Acknowledge the Rouge National Urban Park as Special Policy and/or Specific Policy Area; and • Introduce policies that enable area municipalities to permit accessory uses on golf courses, subject to criteria controlling the scale of the accessory use. - 28 - PLN 08-23 April 3, 2023 Subject: The Municipal Comprehensive Review of the Durham Regional Official Plan Page 13 3.13.1 Agricultural Diversification and Value-Added Agriculture Council and staff requested the Region expand and emphasize the importance of Prime Agricultural Areas, recognizing the relationship with the Agri-Food Network, and the importance of allowing for diversification of agricultural uses and value added agriculture. The Region has included specific policies regarding agricultural related uses and on-farm diversified uses that will allow for more diversification, while continuing to promote and protect agriculture as the main use in the rural area. The Region has also included a number of new definitions including on-farm diversified uses, agri-food network, and agricultural related uses. Local municipalities will have the opportunity to reflect these changes within local official plans and create provisions in zoning by-law that provide greater clarity for the agricultural area. The new policies should facilitate and enhance economic opportunities for agricultural uses in the Region. In addition to the rural area, staff requested support for urban agriculture as part of the Region’s Agricultural System, subject to local municipalities implementing policies in local official plans and zoning by-law provisions that fit the local context. The Region has included policies that encourage urban agriculture in community areas or private property, where deemed appropriate by the local municipality. This policy direction further strengthens the options for a strong regional food system, while providing local municipalities the ability to ensure the scale and types of urban agricultural are appropriate within the local context. 3.14 Rural System Policies – Previous comments not included The following staff comments have not been incorporated in the draft ROP: • Incorporate policies on edge planning along the urban/agricultural interface to help address land use conflicts; • Identify an exception, as provided in the Pickering Official Plan, for a cemetery use on lands located northeast of the hamlet of Greenwood; and • Revise the mapping to remove the High Potential Aggregate Resource Areas on lands within the limits of Country Residential Subdivisions. 3.14.1 The Urban/Rural Interface Council and staff requested the Region specifically review the implementation of urban edge planning policies. Proper edge planning would minimize conflicts between urban and agricultural land uses by ensuring adequate separation from typical farm practices that can generate noise, dust, and odour, to new urban areas. The Region did not include any specific edge management policies or directions. The draft ROP policies do not recognize the importance of creating a proper urban/rural interface and the challenges that can arise if that interface is not adequately defined. The policies in the draft plan defer to separation of uses in accordance with provincial minimum distance separation formulae (MDS), which municipalities will implement at the local level. - 29 - PLN 08-23 April 3, 2023 Subject: The Municipal Comprehensive Review of the Durham Regional Official Plan Page 14 While staff agree with the approach to allow local municipalities to implement MDS at the local level, MDS only regulates the distance between residential units and livestock and manure storage. This approach essentially only deals with the issue of odour. It does not provide adequate separation from other complaints that can occur from normal farm practices. Proper edge planning can be created in a number of ways. Staff encourage the Region to revisit this item with best practices in Ontario and Canada. Proper edge planning policies will assist local municipalities in implementing plans and development application approvals that minimize conflicts between normal farm practices and new urban areas. 3.15 Additional Comments on the Draft ROP Under a new section entitled “Consultation and Engagement”, the draft ROP introduces new policies addressing consultation with Indigenous communities. The policies encourage the Province to make financial resources available to Indigenous communities to participate in the planning process. These new policies are consistent with previous Pickering comments. However, there is no language about the Region providing guidance on engagement between Indigenous communities and municipalities. It is recommended that the Region take a leadership role in facilitating this engagement. 4. Conclusion Overall, staff are generally in support of the draft ROP. The ROP will guide growth and change in Durham in the years ahead – providing the blueprint for Durham to become known as the place to live, learn and thrive by 2051. Staff advised the Region that the Pickering Council resolution regarding the draft ROP will not be available until after April 24, 2023. However, following the Planning & Development Committee a copy of Report PLN 08-23 and the draft minutes of that meeting will be forwarded to the Region of Durham. Staff to staff minor technical comments have been provided to the Region. The Region’s Report #2023-P-6 has outlined next steps and timing for Envision Durham. In the conclusion of that report, Regional staff indicated that, following the current consultation on the draft ROP, a final draft is anticipated for Regional Council’s consideration before the summer recess. The final draft of the ROP will be available to the public two weeks prior to the Regional committee meeting at which time the final draft ROP will be considered. Staff will continue to work with the Region through the Envision Durham process, and will report back to Council as additional information becomes available. Staff recommend that Council endorse the City of Pickering Comments on Envision Durham contained in Appendix I of Report PLN 08-23 on the new draft Regional Official Plan; and a copy of Report PLN 08-23, and that the Council resolution be forwarded to the Region of Durham as Pickering’s comments on the draft new Regional Official Plan. - 30 - PLN 08-23 April 3, 2023 Subject: The Municipal Comprehensive Review of the Durham Regional Official Plan Page 15 Appendix Appendix I Comments to the Region of Durham on the draft Regional Official Plan Prepared By: Original Signed By Brandon Weiler, MCIP, RPP Principal Planner, Policy Original Signed By Déan Jacobs, MCIP, RPP Manager, Policy & Geomatics Approved/Endorsed By: Original Signed By Catherine Rose, MCIP, RPP Chief Planner Original Signed By Kyle Bentley, P. Eng. Director, City Development & CBO BW :ld Recommended for the consideration of Pickering City Council Original Signed By Marisa Carpino, M.A. Chief Administrative Officer - 31 - Appendix I to Report PLN 08-23 Comments to the Region of Durham on the draft Regional Official Plan - 32 - City of Pickering Comments on Envision Durham Previous Comments to the Region Draft Regional Official Plan New Comments to the Region Housing Policy Planning Discussion Paper, (PLN 06-20) June 15, 2020 That the Region include policies in the Regional Official Plan that generally support higher targets for affordable housing within Strategic Growth Areas and other appropriate areas as defined by the local municipality. Draft ROP policy 3.1.34 identifies 25% of units be affordable across the Region and 35% of units in strategic growth areas be affordable. Pickering supports this policy in principal. However, a further review should be undertaken in light of the recent Bill 23 changes to ensure such a provision is achievable and what financial impacts it may have on municipalities in the new planning framework. That the Region: • provide greater support and encouragement for the development of local housing strategies which can address the local municipal context and aid in achieving the Region’s goals and objectives for increasing the supply of affordable housing; and, There are many policies encouraging local municipalities to look at and implement incentives. However, there is no commitment from the Region to implement these tools in an equitable way across the Region. Pickering requests the Region implement financial tools, through CIP’s and additional Planning Act tools, at a Regional level that achieves the goals and objectives for increasing the supply of affordable housing. That the Region consider strengthening the rental to ownership housing conversion policies in the Regional Official Plan to help protect existing affordable rental housing; Same policies as previous Draft ROP policy 3.1.28. 3.1. iv. Is perhaps a weakening over previous language that “discouraged” loss of affordable/rental units. Request the Region reinstate the wording ‘discourage’. Request that the Region advocate to the Ministry to allow municipalities to create appropriate regional specific regulations for conversions vs. the Province implementing a one size fits all regulation. Request that the Region amend 3.1.30 a) to include “meet the - 33 - City of Pickering Comments on Envision Durham Previous Comments to the Region Draft Regional Official Plan New Comments to the Region requirements of area municipal housing plans in addition to the Region’s 10-year housing and homelessness plan”. That the Region develop a monitoring framework for short-term rentals to assess the impact of short-term rental housing in Durham; No policy language to this effect. Request the Region provide more statistical reporting in the annual housing monitoring report. New comment Policy 3.1.8 supports reuse of industrial or commercial for residential uses. This should indicate reuse is permitted, in a residential designation, where it can be proven there is no requirement for the non-residential space. Concern this may provide housing options in areas where we don’t want to promote that type of conversion. Climate Change & Sustainability Policy Planning Discussion Paper, (PLN 21-19) October 7, 2019 That the Region of Durham include an implementation policy in the ROP identifying the Regional implementation of active transportation facilities on Regional roads, at the Region’s expense, with an emphasis on connectivity and continuity of the active systems and transit, both within and between municipalities. Draft ROP policy 3.3.35 states that consideration should be had regarding the following where downtowns coincide with a Strategic Growth Area or Local Centre: • healthy, accessible and complete communities that reduce vehicular dependence and support a mix of land uses, active transportation, transit routes and community Provide an implementation policy. - 34 - City of Pickering Comments on Envision Durham Previous Comments to the Region Draft Regional Official Plan New Comments to the Region services and facilities that serve the needs of residents of all ages and abilities, in accordance with Policy 3.3.1; In Draft ROP Section 4.1, Transportation and Transit, it states that the Region has jurisdiction over a network of Regional roads, forming a key component of the arterial road network as designated on Map 3b. The Regional road network includes existing roads and supporting infrastructure that the Region maintains, and their expansion, extension and rehabilitation over time. The Regional road network includes a growing network for active transportation and supports goods movement. That the Region of Durham include a policy in the ROP indicating support for renewable energy production through public and private partnerships, and pilot and demonstration projects. Draft ROP 3.2.2 speaks to the development and update of a Regional Community Energy Plan, Climate Change Local Action Plan and a Climate Adaptation Plan. The Regional Community Energy Plan focuses on improving sustainable energy production and efficiency, and reducing GHG emissions through various approaches including building retrofits, electric vehicle infrastructure, Include a policy in support of renewable energy production through public and private partnerships. - 35 - City of Pickering Comments on Envision Durham Previous Comments to the Region Draft Regional Official Plan New Comments to the Region alternative energy, and education and outreach. Growth Management Urban System Discussion Paper, (PLN 32-19) December 16, 2019 That, to strengthen the existing urban system goal of creating healthy and complete, sustainable communities that balances population and employment growth, stronger regional implementation policies, such as financial incentives (which could include Community Improvement Plans; and servicing of employment areas) should be considered for certain types and locations of job creating uses. Same comment applies That, to strengthen the existing urban system goal of encouraging a mix of housing by type, size and tenure, stronger implementation policies are required to incentivize the delivery of seniors, affordable, and/or accessible housing (which could include Community Improvement Plans (CIP)). The Draft ROP incorporated policies supportive of complete communities. Region included CIP options in the Plan and indicate they will monitor housing, and the new policies encourage municipalities to use tools (Inclusionary zoning, CIP’s, etc.). No firm actions committed to. Request the Region to commit to setting up a CIP with affordable housing specific objectives that meets the Region’s definition of affordable. That the following measures be considered by the Region to achieve its employment objectives: No commitments to pre-servicing of all or existing planned employment lands. Draft ROP policy 3.1.8 supports the reuse of commercial or industrial Include the pre-servicing of identified (existing and future) employment lands as a priority in the Goals of Chapter 4. - 36 - City of Pickering Comments on Envision Durham Previous Comments to the Region Draft Regional Official Plan New Comments to the Region • pre-servicing employment lands, ensuring that they are shovel ready for potential development; • protecting employment lands from conversion to residential and commercial use; • ensuring that uses are not introduced in employment areas that may be considered sensitive land uses and which would undermine the ability of employment areas to diversify and expand in accordance with existing zoning permissions; • ensuring that lands adjacent to key goods movement corridors are protected for employment uses; • providing lands close to highway interchanges for land uses that involve the shipping or receiving of goods via long combination vehicles; • continue promoting the development of an airport in Pickering; and • consider the implementation of Community Improvement Plans for employment generating uses/lands, which would include measures such as municipal buildings for residential purposes but does not indicate in what designations. Policies 5.5.25/26 discuss introduction of sensitive land uses in employment areas. Policy 5.5.6 discusses the employment lands adjacent to key goods and movement corridors. Policies 2.1.18-21 support the airport as a transportation-based employment hub area. Policy 11.4 CIP policies don’t specifically mention employment development. However, there is a general statement regarding additional uses. Policy 3.1.8 should indicate in community areas where the conversion does not impact existing commercial or industrial uses. Staff request the Region to commit to pre-servicing employment lands in Seaton and along Highway 407. - 37 - City of Pickering Comments on Envision Durham Previous Comments to the Region Draft Regional Official Plan New Comments to the Region grants, and tax increment financing. That the Region can influence how and where people work by: • ensuring locally developed and available skilled labour/talent, by supporting and partnering with post-secondary institutions, centres of excellence, research institutes, and apprenticeship programs. Same comment applies. That to assist in achieving 50 percent of the jobs in designated Employment Areas, the Region should establish a program to upfront the cost of servicing vacant employment lands, and that a context sensitive analysis for any proposed Employment Area conversion be conducted, to ensure that job generating opportunities are not compromised or lost. As pointed out under a previous comment, the Draft ROP lacks a policy regarding commitment to pre- serviced employment lands. Also, there is no further direction on conversion of employment lands in the Draft ROP, except that policy 5.5.10 indicates conversion can only be considered as part of a comprehensive review. Commit to pre-servicing employment lands in Seaton and along Highway 407. That the designation and delineation of Waterfront Places be dealt with as a local planning matter, similar to the approach for Local Centres. As such, it is suggested that the Waterfront Place symbols be removed from the Regional Official Plan, and that local municipalities be provided with greater discretion regarding the identification of areas for growth, and the The Draft ROP no longer identify Waterfront Places as strategic areas for higher density residential development. The Draft ROP policy identifies Waterfront Places, such as Frenchman’s Bay, as areas for context-appropriate intensification that Identify Waterfront Places first and foremost as public spaces best enjoyed by everyone. Waterfront Places should prioritize public access to the water, parks, and waterfront trails. - 38 - City of Pickering Comments on Envision Durham Previous Comments to the Region Draft Regional Official Plan New Comments to the Region distribution and density of development within their municipalities. includes a mix of residential, commercial, and recreational uses. That the methodology for delineating Major Transit Station Areas (MTSA), and the resultant draft boundary delineation for Pickering’s Protected Major Transit Station Area (see Attachment #2 to Report PLN 32-19), are supported. Map A in the Draft ROP reflects the Protected Major Transit Station Area (PMTSA) in Pickering, which is supported by Pickering. In order to simplify and potentially expedite implementation of density and transit-supportive policies, staff recommend that the Region consider the inclusion of all lands within the Pickering PMTSA in the Urban Growth Centre designation, for which a robust set of policies have already been incorporated in the Pickering OP. New comment – see last column The draft ROP policy promotes an “intensification first” approach. While Staff generally support this principle, it should be noted that a large portion of future development in Pickering will occur within greenfield areas and not through intensification – i.e., Cherrywood, Northeast Pickering, and Seaton. New comment – see last column The Region has included a policy that requires applicants to prepare fiscal impact studies for development applications. This requirement would apply to all major developments which includes any application for more than four lots or the construction of more than 500 square metres. The study - 39 - City of Pickering Comments on Envision Durham Previous Comments to the Region Draft Regional Official Plan New Comments to the Region would include estimating the life cycle costs of the servicing and infrastructure investments and the financial impact on Regional servicing and infrastructure. Staff do not support the requirement for a fiscal impact studies to be provided for the processing of development applications. Staff has no objection to the Region requiring this information as part of servicing agreements or other mechanisms to ensure there will not be any impacts on processing timelines for development applications. New comment – see last column The Region’s land needs methodology does not consider the development of the Duffins Rouge Agricultural Preserve (DRAP). Regional staff has indicated that they are in discussions with the Province regarding the inclusion or exclusion of the DRAP lands from their Growth Management Study. Pickering staff will provide further comment on the proposed Growth Allocations and Settlement Area Boundary Expansions once those additional discussions have concluded and there is a clear understanding of - 40 - City of Pickering Comments on Envision Durham Previous Comments to the Region Draft Regional Official Plan New Comments to the Region how the DRAP are addressed in the Growth Management Study. New comment – see last column Special Study Area 6 – Cherrywood The lands have been removed from the Greenbelt and should be reflected in the mapping as such. An overlay could identify the Special Study Area policies should the Province not be satisfied. Staff believe the policies of the Special Study Area should defer to the Province for approval and include a clause for reverting the lands out of the urban boundary without amendment to the Plan should the Province not be satisfied and return the lands to the Greenbelt. New comment – see last column The Region has included policies for the Seaton Lands in Section 5.6 of the ROP. Staff are satisfied these policies address the requirements for the implementation of the former Central Pickering Development Plan and current Pickering Official Plan policies. Please clarify the need to identify the area as a Specific Policy Area given the policies of section 5.6. Environment & Greenlands Policy Planning Discussion Paper, (PLN 04-20) March 2, 2020 - 41 - City of Pickering Comments on Envision Durham Previous Comments to the Region Draft Regional Official Plan New Comments to the Region That the Region, through a coordinated consultation with the Indigenous communities within the Region, endeavour to provide guidance to local area municipalities in terms of who, and how, these communities can appropriately be consulted. Partially Incorporated: In policies 11.2.2 and 11.2.5 the Region has added policy that recognizes the value of Indigenous community engagement but does not commit to providing guidance to local area municipalities. Include a policy that the Region will provide leadership in facilitating consultation between Indigenous communities and area municipalities. That the Region continue and expand its support for environmental stewardship through financial resource contributions, and by including policy in the Regional Official Plan that encourages participation with local area municipalities, conservation authorities and others as appropriate. Draft ROP policy 7.7.1 seeks partnerships with area municipalities, Indigenous communities, conservation authorities, provincial agencies and other organizations in the stewardship of land and water resources. Draft ROP encourages participation with municipalities, conservation authorities, and other organizations, but does not speak to financial resource contributions. That policies be included in the Regional Official Plan that establish separate tree canopy targets for urban and rural areas, following the identification of the current baseline. Draft ROP policy 3.2.19 encourages area municipalities to: • establish urban and rural tree canopy targets. Identify the current baseline of tree canopy coverage and establish canopy targets for urban and rural areas. That the Region keep the current policies in the Regional Official Plan that provide guidance on the conveyance of land for natural heritage conservation as they adequately address the matter. Not incorporated. Maintain policy 14.8.14 from the current ROP which permits severance where it supports natural heritage conservation while maintaining consistency with Provincial policy. - 42 - City of Pickering Comments on Envision Durham Previous Comments to the Region Draft Regional Official Plan New Comments to the Region New comment – See last column Proposed policy states that prior to the submission of any application, applicants shall confirm the scope of any potential environmental study requirements with the Region and the local conservation authority, and whether the study will be prepared by a consultant retained by the Region, or by the applicant. The local municipality should also be consulted on the scope of an environmental impact study. That an Open Space Linkages designation continue to be identified in the Regional Official Plan for the Rouge-Duffins Wildlife Corridor in Pickering, as it represents an east- west corridor for flora and fauna, as well as the location for trails for the movement of people. Not incorporated. Same comment applies. Furthermore, no references are made to a Rouge- Duffins Wildlife Corridor Pickering supports the inclusion of policy to identify and protect wildlife corridors, specifically Rouge-Duffins Wildlife Corridor and additional opportunities to connect to the Rouge National Park. This would expand upon ROP policy 9.2.10 in Specific Policy Area D regarding the Rouge National Urban Park. Transportation Discussion Report (PLN 12-20) July 13, 2020 Beyond the “In Delivery” and “In Development” transit projects, City staff identifies the following transit projects that would assist in attracting transit riders and transit supportive development: a) Bayly from Brock to Whites is identified as a Rapid Transit Spine on Map 3a. Whites to Highway 7 is identified as a High Frequency Transit Network on Map 3a. High Frequency Transit Networks do not Create a timeline or set of criteria to be met for the implementation of light rail transit along Kingston Road. - 43 - City of Pickering Comments on Envision Durham Previous Comments to the Region Draft Regional Official Plan New Comments to the Region a) the establishment of the Whites Road Priority Bus, extending from the Pickering GO Station along Bayly Street to Whites Road to Highway 7 (and providing connections to lands in Seaton designated high density residential and Community Node, and to lands in the Seaton Innovation Corridor); b) the implementation of light rail transit along Kingston Road; and c) the extension of GO rail service to Seaton include priority bus lanes with a note that “Planned HOV lanes may be converted to dedicated bus lanes as growth in ridership warrants”. b) No commitment to light rail transit. Within Rapid Transit Corridors it is indicated that “On Highway 2, bus rapid transit is currently being implemented and light rail transit may be planned over the long- term.” c) Map 3a. identifies a future commuter station for the Seaton Lands. 8.1.7 speaks to Go rail to the Seaton Lands. Staff advises that when assessing new development, and reconstructing or building new public roads, new Regional Official Plan policies that would better support planning for all road users include: a) policies indicating that a “complete street” includes the provision of sidewalks/multi use paths, boulevard planting and street lighting, and that it is a Regional responsibility to provide the pedestrian/cycling, planting and street lighting components of a complete street on Regional roads; a) Table 5 in the Draft ROP provides some direction on the design based on the classification of road. No direction the Region will construct or be responsible for these items. i. 5.2.22 k iii) requires municipal plans to include policies for sidewalks on both sides of all roads in MTSA’s. ii. 8.1.11 indicates transit stops are a responsibility of the developer to construct or fund. iii. 11.3.9 c) indicates sidewalks may be included for Same comment applies. - 44 - City of Pickering Comments on Envision Durham Previous Comments to the Region Draft Regional Official Plan New Comments to the Region b) policies allowing closer entrance and intersection spacing along arterials; and c) policies allowing closer traffic signal spacing along arterials to assist pedestrian crossings, and in keeping with transit-supportive development. agreements for Planning Act applications. b) Intersection spacing has not changed for Arterial Roads in Table 6. c) Nothing to address closer traffic signal intersection spacing. Staff recommends that supporting the Strategic Goods Movement while preserving a complete streets approach include design standards that not only best manage the movement of goods (e.g., implementing street elements for loading and deliveries, traffic calming, off-hour delivery programs), but also supports Durham Vision Zero to mitigate pedestrian/cyclist and freight conflicts. Draft ROP policy 8.5.3 indicates “a complete streets approach that balances the need for goods movement with other transportation modes in planning new infrastructure on the Strategic Goods Movement Network” will be taken. Table 5 and 6 in the Draft ROP provide some detail over how arterials are to be managed/developed but no specific design elements for those arterial roads that are part of the strategic movements network. Request that the arterial roads that form part of the Strategic Goods Movement Network be identified specifically for different design criteria in Tables 5 and 6. The Region is requested to assist Pickering in a) working with VIA Rail and Metrolinx to implement high frequency service on the CPR Havelock rail line; and b) identifying the appropriate location for a VIA Rail station along the CPR Havelock rail line within, or in a) 8.1.8 in the Draft ROP supports the investigation of further extensions of rail passenger service. Map 3a shows the Havelock CPR corridor as “Protect for future Commuter Rail. b) Nothing in the ROP mapping or policies this specific. Policy 8.1.8 is Request that policy 8.1.8 be revised to include that the Region supports and will work with area municipalities, VIA Rail and federal agencies to identify opportunities for additional station locations along the Havelock line in Pickering. - 45 - City of Pickering Comments on Envision Durham Previous Comments to the Region Draft Regional Official Plan New Comments to the Region proximity, to the Federal Pickering Lands as part of the transportation system component of Envision Durham. the only policy identifying this issue. Agriculture and Rural System (PLN 13-19) That the Region maintain the current goals and directions for the Agricultural/Rural System, and expand the goals and directions for the Agricultural/Rural System in Durham to: • support the diversification of agricultural uses and value-added agriculture; • support edge planning that will protect farm operations and improve land use compatibility between agricultural and urban land uses; • plan for climate change impacts; • acknowledge the important relationship between the Prime Agricultural Areas and the Agri-Food Network, and • support the provision of reliable fiber optic services to the rural area. In Draft ROP policies 6.2 and 6.3 the Region has identified agricultural as the primary land use in the Prime Agricultural Area and provided opportunities for agricultural related uses and on-farm diversified uses. No specific edge planning policies have been included in the Draft ROP. Recognition of the relationship between prime ag and agri-food. No specific policy regarding telecommunications and the rural area. Include policies that indicate the Prime Agricultural Areas soils should be protected for the long-term viability of agriculture. Encourage the location of agriculture- related uses on lands not classified as class 1-3 soils or demonstrate that the proposal will not negatively impact the long-term viability of the soils or mitigate to the extent possible when locating these uses. Edge planning policies should be included to support normal farm practices and reduce nuisance complaints between urban areas and agricultural areas. Edge planning policies provide the Region and area municipalities the opportunity to increase greenways and the active transportation network at these interfaces. That the Region require local official plans to incorporate buffer areas along the urban/agricultural interface as a mechanism to address land use No strong direction on edge planning. Request policy on the items that municipalities should be encouraged to review and implement as part of edge planning or boundary - 46 - City of Pickering Comments on Envision Durham Previous Comments to the Region Draft Regional Official Plan New Comments to the Region conflicts arising between urban and real land uses expansions adjacent to greenbelt or prime agricultural areas. That the Region introduce policies to restrict large solar farms from locating on prime agricultural lands. Region allows them in the definition of On-farm Diversified Uses in Prime Agricultural Areas. Draft ROP policy 4.3.18 restricts large-scale, commercial renewable energy facilities, notwithstanding Policy 4.3.17, within Prime Agricultural Areas. There needs to be stronger policy direction to ensure agricultural-related uses in these areas are located on lands not classified as class 1-3 or that the proposal will not negatively impact the long-term viability of the soils or mitigate to the extent possible when locating these uses. Clarify what is large-scale, because on-farm diversified use for such facilities could be substantial. That the Region update its aggregate resources policies in accordance with the Provincial Policy Statement 2014 and the Growth Plan 2017; and further the Region remove the designations of High Potential Aggregate Resource Areas on lands within the limits of Settlement Areas (e.g., Barclay Estates). Not incorporated. Same comment applies. That the Region acknowledge the exception for a cemetery use on lands located northeast of the Hamlet of Greenwood, between Highway 407 and Highway 7, reflected as “E3” on Schedule I of the Land Use Structure in the Pickering Official Plan, by Not incorporated. Same comment applies. - 47 - City of Pickering Comments on Envision Durham Previous Comments to the Region Draft Regional Official Plan New Comments to the Region including a policy exception in the Regional Official Plan. New comment 6.4.5 e) Merge farms prior to surplus farm severance. This should be a condition of severance. Requiring an applicant to merge parcels (possibly not to be allowed to sever them) without a conditional approval in place is onerous. Proposed Policy Directions Report (PLN 29-21) June 7, 2021 That the City recommends policies be included in the ROP that encourage the Region to work with the provincial government to upgrade the existing infrastructure to support renewable and alternative energy projects. Partially Incorporated: Draft ROP policy 4.1.17 promotes the development and redevelopment of lands, and upgrades and retrofits of existing infrastructure and buildings that incorporate: a) green infrastructure to minimize the impacts of stormwater runoff, including low impact development, based on the existing water budget for the development application; b) energy efficient building and site design, including low carbon, net- zero and net-zero ready homes and buildings; c) water conservation; and d) green urban design. Include a policy that the Region accepts the responsibility to undertake upgrades to existing infrastructure, in support of renewable and alternative energy projects, with or without support from the Province. - 48 - City of Pickering Comments on Envision Durham Previous Comments to the Region Draft Regional Official Plan New Comments to the Region New comment 5.5.18 – 5.5.20 Accessory uses within employment areas. Staff request wording be changed to “shall generally not exceed” to allow for minor exceptions where appropriate. Hard limits on floor areas can be a deterrent to attract employment opportunities if ROPA’s are required vs. minor variances or rezonings. - 49 - Report to Planning & Development Committee Report Number: PLN 09-23 Date: April 3, 2023 From: Kyle Bentley Director, City Development & CBO Subject: City Initiated Official Plan Amendment 46 Changes to development review procedures and fees in response to Bill 109, the More Homes For Everyone Act, 2022 File: OPA 22-003/P Recommendation: 1.That Official Plan Amendment Application OPA 22-003/P, initiated by the City of Pickering, to amend existing policies and introduce new policies related to the review of Planning Act applications, as set out in Exhibit ‘A’ to Appendix I to Report PLN 09-23 be approved; 2.That the Draft By-law to adopt Amendment 46 to the Pickering Official Plan, to amend existing policies and introduce new policies to the Pickering Official Plan with regard to the review of Planning Act applications under Bill 109, the More Homes For Everyone Act, 2022, as set out in Appendix I to Report PLN 09-23, be enacted; 3.That the revised Draft Pre-consultation By-law, as set out in Appendix II to Report PLN 09-23, be enacted; 4.That, in response to legislated changes arising from the enactment of Bill 109, the More Homes For Everyone Act, 2022, the City Development Department – Planning Fees be approved, effective June 1, 2023; 5.That an amendment to Schedule “I” to By-law 6191/03, the General Municipal Fees and Charges By-law, as amended, by deleting the pages for City Development Department –Planning, and substituting the updated pages for City Development Department – Planning, as set out in Schedule “I” to the Draft By-law provided as Appendix III to Report PLN 09-23, be approved; and 6.That the revised Draft By-law to amend Schedule “I” to the General Municipal Fees and Charges By-law 6191/03, as set out in Appendix III to Report PLN 09-23, be enacted. Executive Summary: This Report to Planning & Development Committee replaces Report to Council PLN 47-22 (see Text of Report PLN 47-22, Attachment #1) in its entirety. Report PLN 47-22 addressed changes to the development application review process and changes to the application fees to address Bill 109, the More Homes For Everyone Act, 2022. - 50 - PLN 09-23 April 3, 2023 Subject: City Initiated Official Plan Amendment 46 Page 2 Bill 109 received Royal Assent on April 14, 2022. Among other matters, the Act amended the Planning Act to require municipalities to refund Zoning By-law Amendment and Site Plan Approval application fees, if no decision is made or no approval is issued within the legislative timelines. Zoning By-law Amendment Applications are required to have a decision made within 90 days (or 120 days if submitted together with an Official Plan Amendment), and site plan approval is required within 60 days, or else refunds of application fees are mandated. These changes came into effect on January 1, 2023, for new applications submitted after that date. To meet the legislated review timelines, and avoid having to pay refunds (that may put the corporation at financial risk), staff are proposing several changes to the development review process: • no longer permit development applications to be submitted concurrently; • introduce a new “pre-submission” review stage; • revise the “complete application” requirements for development applications; • make hosting an open house a mandatory requirement for submitting a complete application; • hold voluntary open houses when deemed appropriate; • prepare a recommendation report for consideration by the Planning & Development Committee on the same day as the statutory public meeting; • to address minor issues that may arise during the formal Zoning By-law Amendment application stage, which cannot be resolved within the legislated timeframes, staff will recommend Council “refuse the application without prejudice”; and • permit reconsideration of Zoning By-law Amendment applications that are refused without prejudice in select circumstances. An amendment to the policies in the Pickering Official Plan is proposed to revise the City’s current pre-consultation requirements and introduce the new “pre-submission” review stage (see Appendices I and II to Report PLN 09-23). The proposed changes will require early collaboration between applicants, staff and other stakeholders (including the public) to review key concerns and issues of the proposal, before the submission of a formal application. The proposed amendment to the General Municipal Fees and Charges By-law reflects changes resulting from Bill 109. The amount of money collected for each application will remain the same. The proposed amendment shifts when fees are paid to more accurately reflect where in the process the corresponding amount of work is completed (see Appendix III to Report PLN 09-23). Financial Implications: If no changes are made to the City’s development review process, the City is at risk of forfeiting most, or all, of the application fees collected for Zoning By-law Amendment and Site Plan Approval applications as per Bill 109. The precise amount associated with these applications will vary each year, based on the number of applications received. Using the last three years, the average amount of fees that could be at risk is approximately $1,000,000 per year. As of March 1, 2023, $351,375 in application funds are currently at risk for refund. The proposed changes to the Schedule of Fees will be revenue neutral and have no impact on the draft City budget. - 51 - PLN 09-23 April 3, 2023 Subject: City Initiated Official Plan Amendment 46 Page 3 1. Background On March 30, 2022, the Province introduced Bill 109, the More Homes for Everyone Act, 2022. Bill 109 amends various statutes, including the Planning Act, for items related to housing and development. City staff brought forward Report PLN 22-22 to the April 25, 2022, Council meeting, summarizing Bill 109 and its potential implications for the City. One of the changes made by Bill 109 was requiring municipalities to refund site plan control application fees and zoning by-law amendment application fees, on a graduated scale, if a decision on an application has not been made within the required timeframes. In response to the changes made by Bill 109, City staff presented Report PLN 47-22 on December 5, 2022 (see Text of Report PLN 47-22, Attachment #1). That report outlined proposed changes to development review procedures to avoid refunding application fees. On November 30, 2022, the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing, Steve Clark, sent a letter to the Association of Ontario Municipalities (AMO) stating an intent to defer the start of application refunds until July 1, 2023. Staff did not become aware of Minister Clark’s letter until after Report PLN 47-22 was completed, and were therefore unable to comment on it. In light of the commitment from Minister Clark to defer the start of application refunds, Council passed Resolution #07/22, which referred Report PLN 47-22 back to staff to: a. Review the best practices of other municipalities and ensure adequate public participation and engagement in the planning process; b. Review and clarify any potential financial risks to the Corporation as a result of Bill 109; c. Ensure that the Report back includes plain language to ensure that the public can understand the information being presented in the Report; and, d. Report back no later than the June 26, 2023 Council Meeting. 2. Response to Council concerns 2.1 Clarify any potential financial risks On December 22, 2022, Minster Clark wrote a letter to the Heads of Council, similar to the one sent to AMO, committing to introduce legislation to delay the effective date of refund provisions to July 1, 2023 (see Letter from Minister Clark, dated December 22, 2022, Attachment #4). At the time of writing this Report, no change had yet been made to Provincial legislation to extend application refund deadlines. As a result, the City is currently at risk for refunding fees for rezoning and site plan applications, received after January 1, 2023, that exceed the decision and approval timelines in the Planning Act. As of March 1, 2023, $351,375 in application funds are currently at risk for refund. Using a three-year range, the average amount of fees that could be at risk is approximately $1,000,000 per year. - 52 - PLN 09-23 April 3, 2023 Subject: City Initiated Official Plan Amendment 46 Page 4 2.2 Research from other municipalities Staff reviewed the responses to Bill 109 being made by Markham and other Durham area municipalities to identify other potential options that could be considered. All municipalities surveyed recognized the challenge of fitting their current review practices into the new timeframes, and as a result, are revising their procedures to “front-end” their review of development proposals. This involves undertaking technical review of the proposals, circulating proposals to commenting agencies, and identifying changes required to Proponents before the formal application is received. Figure 1: Proposed Development Review Process After the complete applications are received (Stage 2), the “application decision clock” starts. A few of the revisions that other municipalities are making to their processes within the application decision timeline include: • Reducing the content of information reports at Statutory Public Meetings; • Reducing the content of staff presentations at Statutory Public Meetings; • Approving minor applications on the same night as the Statutory Public Meeting. Even municipalities that already have a more frequent Committee and Council schedule than Pickering are exploring ways to modify their current review procedures. The Public Notice requirements within the Planning Act, and the amount of time needed to prepare staff reports and public meeting presentations, continue to constrain municipalities from making or requiring major changes within the application decision timeframe. A number of municipalities are still undertaking studies to evaluate further changes needed to successfully shift their processes to align with recent revisions to the Planning Act. Since all municipalities are implementing new review procedures in 2023, there is no opportunity yet to compare different practices and approaches. It should be noted that Building Industry and Land Development Association (BILD) has appealed Official Plan Amendments for the municipalities of Ajax, Brampton, Burlington, and Oakville. - 53 - PLN 09-23 April 3, 2023 Subject: City Initiated Official Plan Amendment 46 Page 5 2.3 Ensure adequate public participation The proposed changes to the application decision process include replacing the information report at the statutory public meeting with a recommendation report. This means that public comments received at the statutory public meeting will not be incorporated into the recommendation report. Members of Council have expressed their concern that this reduces the amount of public engagement. Figure 2: Current Public Engagement and Reporting To address this concern, a mandatory open house will be required for applications as part of the Pre-Submission Stage. Circulation of notice for the Open House will be provided in consultation with the area Ward Councillors. Staff will provide Proponents with a set of requirements for hosting and reporting on the Open House to ensure consistency. The public feedback gathered at that meeting will be summarized in a Public Engagement Report, which will be one of the requirements of a complete application. This Report will list the feedback that was received, and describe how it was addressed in the proposal. Figure 3: Proposed Public Engagement and Reporting In addition to the mandatory open house attended by the Proponent, a second open house may also be considered after the formal application has been received. City staff and Ward Councillors will evaluate each application received and determine which ones warrant a second open house. The second open house would provide the public an opportunity to review the formal application to learn about revisions and changes that were made during the technical review. The second open house would occur after the technical review has been completed and prior to the statutory public meeting. For further details, see Attachments #2 and #3. - 54 - PLN 09-23 April 3, 2023 Subject: City Initiated Official Plan Amendment 46 Page 6 3. Public and development community comments The City received written comments from BILD and three developers. There was also one public delegation at the Statutory Public Meeting. The main comments received included: • Concern that there are no defined timelines within the pre-submission stage; • Recommend that the City not start the new procedures until the Provincial refund requirements take effect; • Delay making a decision on the proposed changes to allow for greater engagement with industry partners; and • Do not make public consultation mandatory at the pre-submission stage. 3.1 Online forum with development community On January 11, 2023, staff hosted an online forum for BILD and members of the development community. The purpose of this forum was to review the proposed changes to the development review process and address concerns. Questions raised at this forum included: • How will the proposed process save time in development review? • When will these changes be implemented? • Is it reasonable to make a Record of Site Condition a requirement for a complete application? • How will the City transition from its current process to the proposed process? 3.2 Response to development community The legislative changes from Bill 109 do not account for all factors that contribute to the length of development review (i.e., agency response time, Proponent response time, quality of Proponent submission). The City’s proposed changes to the development review process are intended to preserve the integrity of the City’s current review process while also protecting the City from financial risks from application fee refunds. It is expected that the proposed changes will maintain the City’s development review timeframes. Staff recommend that the proposed changes take effect on June 1, 2023. A Record of Site Condition is already required prior to application approval. 3.2.1 Proposed Transitional Provisions To assist Proponents with implementing the revised development review process, the following transitional provisions are being proposed: - 55 - PLN 09-23 April 3, 2023 Subject: City Initiated Official Plan Amendment 46 Page 7 3.2.1.1 New Proposals As landowners contact the City Development Department to discuss a development proposal, staff will explain the new development review process, and provide directions on how to proceed to a complete application. 3.2.1.2 Pre-consultation Completed, but no Application Submitted Where complete application requirements have already been determined through a formal pre-consultation meeting prior to June 1, 2023, City staff will either: a. amend the formal pre-consultation requirements; or b. require a new pre-consultation meeting. 3.2.1.3 Existing Application, but no Statutory Public Meeting held yet These applications (submitted and deemed complete prior to June 1st, 2023) will follow the new development review process. An Open House will be held to provide information and gather public input. A subsequent Statutory Public Meeting will be held at the same time that a recommendation report is presented to Committee. 3.2.1.4 Existing Application and Statutory Public Meeting already held Since the statutory requirements of the Planning Act have already been met, a recommendation report will be presented to the Committee at the first opportunity. 4. Revise Fee Schedule The proposed amendment to the General Municipal Fees and Charges By-law reflects process changes resulting from Bill 109. The amount of money collected for each application will remain the same. The proposed amendment shifts the timing for when fees are paid to more accurately reflect where in the process the corresponding amount of work is completed (see Appendix III to Report PLN 09-23). 5. Notice of Proposed Official Plan Amendment 46 In accordance with the requirements of the Planning Act, a notice of this Report was provided to all individuals and organizations that had registered as an Interested Party with the City Development Department. This list includes BILD and members of the local development industry. 6. Conclusion Staff will continue to focus resources on effectively reviewing development proposals, while also meeting application decision timelines. A number of policy, procedure, and fee changes are needed in order for the City to avoid the refund requirements created by Bill 109: • no longer permit development applications (such as a rezoning application and a site plan application) to be submitted concurrently; - 56 - PLN 09-23 April 3, 2023 Subject: City Initiated Official Plan Amendment 46 Page 8 • introduce a new “pre-submission” review stage; • revise the “complete application” requirements for development applications; • make hosting an open house a mandatory requirement for submitting a complete application; • hold voluntary open houses when deemed appropriate; • provide recommendation reports for consideration by the Planning & Development Committee on the same day as the statutory public meeting; • recommend Council “refuse an application without prejudice”; to address minor issues that may arise during the formal Zoning By-law Amendment application stage, which cannot be resolved within the legislated timeframes; and • permit reconsideration of Zoning By-law Amendments in select circumstances. In addition to the procedural changes that will be instituted by staff, it is recommended that Council approve the corresponding changes. Staff recommends: a) That Council approve Recommended Amendment 46 to the Pickering Official Plan by passing the by-law to adopt Amendment 46, as set out in Appendix I to Report PLN 09-23 b) That Council approve an amendment to By-law 6942/09, Pre-consultation By-law; and c) That Council approve an amendment to By-law 6191/03, General Municipal Fee and Charges By-law. Appendices Appendix I Draft By-law to adopt Amendment 46 to the Pickering Official Plan Appendix II Draft By-law to Amend By-law 6942/09, Pre-consultation By-law Appendix III Draft By-law to Amend By-law 6191/03, General Municipal Fees Attachments 1. Text of Report PLN 47-22, Changes to development review procedures and fees in response to Bill 109, the More Homes For Everyone Act, 2022, and review of the City’s Planning Application Fees 2. Current Zoning By-law Amendment Process 3. Proposed Zoning By-law Amendment Process 4. Letter from Minister Clark, dated December 22, 2022 - 57 - PLN 09-23 April 3, 2023 Subject: City Initiated Official Plan Amendment 46 Page 9 Prepared By: Original Signed By Paul Wirch, RPP Principal Planner, Policy Approved/Endorsed By: Original Signed By Catherine Rose, MCIP, RPP Chief Planner Original Signed By Kyle Bentley, P. Eng. Director, City Development & CBO PW :ld Recommended for the consideration of Pickering City Council Original Signed By Marisa Carpino, M.A. Chief Administrative Officer - 58 - Appendix I to Report PLN 09-23 Draft By-law to Adopt Amendment 46 to the City of Pickering Official Plan - 59 - The Corporation of the City of Pickering By-law No. XXXX/23 Being a by-law to adopt Amendment 46 to the Official Plan for the City of Pickering (OPA 22-003/P) Whereas pursuant to the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c.p. 13, subsections 17(22) and 21(1), the Council of The Corporation of the City of Pickering may by by-law adopt amendments to the Official Plan for the City of Pickering; Whereas pursuant to Section 17(10) of the Planning Act, the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing has by order authorized Regional Council to pass a by-law to exempt proposed area municipal official plan amendments from its approval; Whereas on February 23, 2000, Regional Council passed By-law 11/2000 which allows the Region to exempt proposed area municipal official plan amendments from its approval; Whereas the Region has advised that Amendment 46 to the City of Pickering Official Plan is exempt from Regional approval; Now therefore the Council of The Corporation of the City of Pickering hereby enacts as follows: 1. That Amendment 46 to the Official Plan for the City of Pickering, attached hereto as Exhibit “A”, is hereby adopted; 2. That the City Clerk is hereby authorized and directed to forward to the Regional Municipality of Durham the documentation required by Procedure: Area Municipal Official Plans and Amendments; 3. This By-law shall come into force and take effect on the day of the final passing hereof. By-law passed this XXXX day of XXXX, 2023. ________________________________ Kevin Ashe, Mayor ________________________________ Susan Cassel, City Clerk - 60 - Exhibit “A” to By-law XXXX/23 Amendment 46 to the City of Pickering Official Plan - 61 - Amendment 46 to the Pickering Official Plan Purpose: The purpose of this Amendment is to change existing policies for complete application requirements, pre-consultation, and peer review. The Amendment will also add new policies for pre-submission review. These new and revised policies will align the Pickering Official Plan with recent changes to the Planning Act (Bill 109) for the development review process. Location: This amendment applies to all lands within the City of Pickering. Basis: Through Bill 109, the Planning Act was amended to create graduated refunds for Zoning By-law Amendments decisions and Site Plan approvals that are not completed within the timelines prescribed by the Planning Act. In order to avoid paying refunds, revisions are needed to the manner in which the City of Pickering reviews and processes development applications. The proposed changes necessitate amendments to the Pickering Official Plan to create new review procedures and update the requirements of a complete application. Actual The City of Pickering Official Plan is hereby amended by: Amendment: (New text is shown as underlined text, deleted text is shown as strikeout text, and retained text is shown as unchanged text.) 1. Revising and renumbering, and updating all cross-references to City Policy 16.2, Pre-submission Consultation, in Chapter 16 – Development Review, so that it reads as follows: City Policy Pre-submission consultation 16.2A City Council shall require applicants to consult with the Mmunicipality prior to submitting an application for an official plan amendment, zoning by-law amendment, draft plan of subdivision, draft plan of condominium or site plan approval. The A pre-submission consultation meeting will be held with the applicant, City staff and any other government agency or public authority that the City determines appropriate. At the pre-submission consultation meeting:… 2. Adding a new City Policy 16.2B, Pre-submission Review, in Chapter 16 – Development Review, as follows: “City Policy Pre-submission Review 16.2B City Council shall require that all materials and fees listed at the pre-consultation meeting be submitted to the City for review by City staff. Except for matters that are the subject of an amendment application, submission materials must conform with all policies, guidelines, and regulations stipulated by the City of Pickering, the Region of Durham, the Province of Ontario, and all relevant commenting agencies. The submission - 62 - Amendment 46 to the Pickering Official Plan Page 2 materials must also provide the rationale for all matters for which an amendment is being sought. This includes the completion and submission of any peer review of any materials that may be required. Once the City, and all commenting agencies, are satisfied that the submitted materials conform with the requirements listed at the pre-consultation meeting, the Proponent may submit the application.” 3. Revising City Policy 16.3, Complete Application, in Chapter 16 – Development Review, so that it reads as follows: 16.3 City Council shall not accept an application for an official plan amendment, zoning by-law amendment, draft plan of subdivision, draft plan of condominium, or site plan approval until the following has been submitted to the City: (a) a complete application form, including an acknowledgement by the applicant of the obligation to pay required peer review costs, as referred to in Section 16.4; (b) any information or materials prescribed by statute and regulation; (c) a record of pre-submission consultation; (d) the prescribed application fee(s); (e) payment, or proof of payment of all application review fees and any other fees charged by commenting agencies; (f) confirmation from internal departments and external agencies that the submitted studies and reports meet approved terms of reference and have addressed all technical comments; (f) (g) all required studies set out in Section 16.5A for an official plan amendment, zoning by‑law amendment, draft plan of subdivision and draft plan of condominium application; and (h) all required studies set out in Section 16.5B for a site plan application. 4. Revising City Policy 16.4, Peer Review at Applicant’s Expense, in Chapter 16 – Development Review, so that it reads as follows: 16.4 City Council shall require all of the matters set out in Sections 16.3, 16.5A, and/or 16.5B to be completed to the satisfaction of the City respecting the scope and complexity appropriate to the application prior to the City deeming the application complete. Once an application is deemed complete, tThe City may retain a qualified consultant to conduct a peer review of any of the studies required in Sections 16.5A and/or 16.5B at the applicant’s expense as acknowledged on the application form and as provided for in Section 16.3 (a). All peer reviews must be completed before the study can be deemed to be in conformity with the requirements listed at the pre-consultation meeting. - 63 - Amendment 46 to the Pickering Official Plan Page 3 5. Revising City Policy 16.5A, Required Studies for an Official Plan Amendment, Zoning By-law Amendment, Draft Plan of Subdivision, and Draft Plan of Condominium Approval, in Chapter 16 – Development Review, so that it reads as follows: City Policy Required Studies Requirements for an Official Plan Amendment, Zoning By-law Amendment, Draft Plan of Subdivision, and Draft Plan of Condominium Approval 16.5A City Council shall require the following materials and studies prepared by qualified experts, as scoped or expanded as a result of the pre-submission consultation required by Section 16.2A, to be submitted for review to ensure conformity with the requirements listed at the pre-consultation meeting at the time of application for an official plan amendment, zoning by-law amendment, draft plan of subdivision, and draft plan of condominium approval: (i) a planning rationale report which considers the overall benefit to the community and evaluates the proposal against the relevant goals, objectives, policies and general purpose and intent of this Plan, the Regional Official Plan, the Provincial Policy Statement, the Growth Plan for the Greater Golden Horseshoe, the Oak Ridges Moraine Conservation Plan and the Greenbelt Plan and Provincial policy, where applicable; (ii) a transportation study; … (xxxvii) an Information and Communication Technologies Implementation Plan, as referred to in Section 7.12 (b); and (xxxviii) a salt management plan as referred to in Sections 10.13 (g), and 10.27 (c).; (xxxix) a public engagement report from a public engagement event that has been held within six months prior to the submission of the application. The public engagement report must demonstrate that the event followed the City’s notification and meeting format requirements; (xl) confirmation that Indigenous consultation has been held in accordance with the City’s requirements; (xli) confirmation of parkland requirements; (xlii) a record of site condition; and (xliii) an affordable housing brief. - 64 - Amendment 46 to the Pickering Official Plan Page 4 6. Revising City Policy 16.5B, Required Studies for Site Plan Approval, in Chapter 16 – Development Review, so that it reads as follows: City Policy Required Studies Requirements for Site Plan Approval 16.5B City Council shall require the following materials and studies prepared by qualified experts, as scoped or expanded as a result of the pre-submission consultation provided for by Section 16.2A, to be submitted at the time of application for site plan approval: (i) a transportation study; … (xxviii) a water balance study, as referred to in Section 10.29 (e), 10.29 (f), 10.29 (g), 10.29 (h), and 10.29 (k); and (xxix) a salt management plan as referred to in Sections 10.13 (g), and 10.27 (c).; (xxx) confirmation of parkland requirements; (xxxi) a record of site condition; (xxxii) a zoning certificate; (xxxiii) approved cost estimates for all off-site and landscaping works; and (xxxiv) an affordable housing brief. 7. Revising City Policy 16.8, Environmental Reports Required, in Chapter 16 – Development Review, so that it reads as follows: 16.8 City Council: (a) as determined through a pre-submission consultation in Section 16.2A, require the submission and approval of an Environmental Report as part of the consideration of a development application or a public infrastructure project for major development within 120 metres of the Natural Heritage System or within the minimum area of influence prescribed in Table 18 of this Plan; and (b) despite Section 16.8(a), may, through the pre-submission consultation in Section 16.2A, require the submission and approval of an Environmental Report as part of its consideration of any other development application or public infrastructure project. - 65 - Appendix II to Report PLN 09-23 Draft By-law to Amend By-law 6942/09 Pre-consultation By-law - 66 - The Corporation of the City of Pickering By-law No. XXXX/23 Being a by-law to require consultation with the City prior to submission of applications for official plan amendments, zoning by-law amendments, site plans, plans of subdivision and plans of condominium Whereas the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990 c. P13 authorizes municipalities to pass by-laws to require land use planning applicants to consult with the municipality before submitting applications for official plan amendments, zoning by-law amendments, site plans, plans of subdivision and plans of condominium; Whereas Council wishes to have applicants discuss planning proposals with City staff before the applications are submitted to the City, to ensure that the appropriate studies and other requirements are completed to the satisfaction of the City, prior to the submission of a complete application; And whereas Council wishes to have City staff complete a preliminary review of all proposals, at the pre-submission stage, to ensure that all materials conform with the requirements of the pre-consultation, have been revised in accordance with City and agency comments, and all major issues have been resolved to the City’s satisfaction, before the application is submitted; Now therefore the Council of The Corporation of the City of Pickering hereby enacts as follows: 1. Proponents shall attend a pre-consultation meeting with relevant City staff prior to submitting requests to amend the City's Official Plan or zoning by-laws, and prior to submitting applications for site plan, plan of subdivision or plan of condominium approval. 2. After the pre-consultation meeting, Proponents shall submit their development proposals to the City for review at the pre-submission stage. The pre-submission stage will be an integrative process allowing City departments and external agencies the appropriate time to review studies and drawings, and allow the Proponent to address key technical issues prior to the submission of an application. 3. At the conclusion of the pre-submission stage, all planning applications submitted to the City must conform with the requirements of the pre-consultation meeting to be considered a complete application under the Planning Act. 4. Planning applications submitted to the City prior to a pre-consultation meeting or prior to the pre-submission stage will not be accepted as complete applications under the Planning Act. 5. If more than one application is required for planning approval in support of a single development proposal, a single pre-consultation meeting with City staff can satisfy the requirement to consult. Despite the joint pre-consultation meeting, and following the conclusion of the pre-submission stage, development applications must be submitted consecutively and not concurrently unless otherwise determined by the Director of City Development. - 67 - By-law No. XXXX/23 Page 2 6. Following the required pre-consultation meeting, if the proposal which was the subject of the pre-consultation meeting has not been submitted for a pre-submission review within the time-frame determined by the Director of City Development, the Proponent may be required to attend a new pre-consultation meeting. 7. Transition By-law 6942/09 shall be repealed upon this By-law coming into effect. 8. Effective date This By-law shall come into full force and effect on the day of its passing. By-law passed this XX day of XXXX, 2023. ________________________________ Kevin Ashe, Mayor ________________________________ Susan Cassel, City Clerk - 68 - Appendix III to Report PLN 09-23 Draft By-law to Amend By-law 6191/03 General Municipal Fees - 69 - The Corporation of the City of Pickering By-law No. XXXX/23 Being a by-law to Being a by-law to amend By-law No. 6191/03 to confirm General Municipal Fees Whereas the Council of The Corporation of the City of Pickering enacted By-law 6191/03, as amended, on October 14, 2003 to confirm general municipal fees. Whereas Schedule “I” to By-law 6191/03 was updated and replaced under By-law, 6338/04, By-law 6519/05, By-law 6652/06, By-law 6677/06, By-law 6748/07 By-law 6857/08, By-law 6951/09, By-law 7032/10, By-law 7119/11, By-law 7194/12, By-law 7268/13, By-law 7339/14, By-law 7411/15, By-law 7478/16, By-law 7542/17, By-law 7605/18; By-law 7679/19; By-law 7740/20, By-law 7823/21, 7918/22 and 7983/23; Now therefore the Council of The Corporation of the City of Pickering hereby enacts as follows: 1. Schedule “I” to By-law Number 6191/03, as amended, is hereby deleted and Schedule “I” attached hereto is substituted therefore. By-law passed this XX day of XXXX, 2023. ________________________________ Kevin Ashe, Mayor ________________________________ Susan Cassel, City Clerk - 70 - Schedule “I” to By-law XXXX/23 Updated Application Fees for City Development – Planning - 71 - City Development Department - Planning User Fee or Charge Current Fee (Excluding HST) Proposed Fee (Excluding HST) HST Applicable (Y/N) Proposed Fee Effective Date These fees are imposed under the authority of the Planning Act , R.S.O. 1990, c.P.13 Planning Documents Pickering Official Plan $225.00 $225.00 Y No change Official Plan Compendium $50.00 $50.00 Y No change Seaton Sustainable Placemaking Guidelines 1 $50.00 $50.00 Y No change City Centre Urban Design Guidelines $50.00 $50.00 Y No change Kingston Mixed Corridor & Brock Mixed Node Design Guidelines $50.00 $50.00 Y No change Development Guidelines $5.00-$20.00 $5.00-$20.00 Y No change Special Studies $10.00-$20.00 $10.00-$20.00 Y No change No change Zoning By-laws 3036 - Set 13 Volume $100.00 $100.00 Y No change 3036 - By Volume $10.00 $10.00 Y No change 2511, 2520, 3037, 7364/14 (Seaton), 7553/17 (City Centre) $40.00 $40.00 Y No change 20 Year Household & Population $30.00 $30.00 Y No change Mapping $5.00-$25.00 $5.00-$25.00 Y No change Address Booklet $25.00-$50.00 $25.00-$50.00 Y No change Fiche Prints Price Varies Price Varies Y No change Special Mapping Requests $54.15/hr $54.15/hr Y No change Photocopies - 6 or more pages $0.50/ea $0.50/ea Y No change CD Copies of Documents $10.00/document $10.00/document Y No change Telecommunications Tower Approval $9,355.00 $9,355.00 N No change Minor Variance Applications to recognize an "as built condition" Double the regular fee Double the regular fee N No change Accessory buildings, structures, decks, platforms & driveway widening $820.00 $820.00 N No change Residential Minor (a lot for a detached dwelling unit, semi-detached dwelling unit and/or freehold townhouse dwelling unit) Single Variance $1,100.00 $1,100.00 N No change Multiple Variances $1,390.00 $1,390.00 N No change Residential Major (all other residential and mixed use buildings) Single Variance $2,400.00 $2,400.00 N No change Multiple Variances $2,710.00 $2,710.00 N No change Institutional, Commercial & Industrial Single Variance $3,040.00 $3,040.00 N No change Multiple Variances $3,550.00 $3,550.00 N No change Tabling Fee & Recirculation (applicant initiated) $760.00 $760.00 N No change Special Meeting $4,830.00 $4,830.00 N No change Authorization to Apply for Variance Under Section 45 (1.4) of the Planning Act $6,906.00 $6,906.00 N No change Application for Pre-Consultation Simple2 $350.00 $350.00 N No change Complex $1,200.00 $1,200.00 N No change Zoning By-law Amendment - Pre-submission Review - 72 - User Fee or Charge Current Fee (Excluding HST) Proposed Fee (Excluding HST) HST Applicable (Y/N) Proposed Fee Effective Date City Development Department - Planning Zoning By-law Amendment - Major 3 - Base Fee New $9,590.00 N June 1, 2023 Plus Fee per Residential Unit First 25 units (1-25)New $260.00 N June 1, 2023 Next 75 units (26-100)New $190.00 N June 1, 2023 Next 100 Units (101-200)New $160.00 N June 1, 2023 Next 800 Units (201-1,000)New $65.00 N June 1, 2023 Plus Fee per Non-Residential Ha of Land Area 4 New $910.00 N June 1, 2023 Plus Fee per Development Block Ha (or part thereof) of Land Area 5 New $330.00 N June 1, 2023 Zoning By-law Amendment - Minor 6 New $6,690.00 N June 1, 2023 Zoning By-law - Recirculation 7 $2,000.00 $2,000.00 N No change Additional fee if within Oak Ridges Moraine or Greenbelt New $1,320.00 N June 1, 2023 Zoning By-law - Removal of Holding New $1,980.00 N June 1, 2023 Zoning By-law - Removal of Holding (Complex/Block Plan Required) New $9,590.00 N June 1, 2023 Zoning By-law - Extension of Temporary Use By-law New $9,590.00 N June 1, 2023 Authorization to Apply for Variance Under Section 34 (10.0.0.2) of the Planning Act New $6,906.00 N June 1, 2023 Zoning By-law Amendment - Application Zoning By-law Amendment - Major 3 - Base Fee $19,690.00 $10,100.00 N June 1, 2023 Plus Fee per Residential Unit First 25 units (1-25)$500.00 $240.00 N June 1, 2023 Next 75 units (26-100)$370.00 $180.00 N June 1, 2023 Next 100 Units (101-200)$305.00 $145.00 N June 1, 2023 Next 800 Units (201-1,000)$125.00 $60.00 N June 1, 2023 Plus Fee per Non-Residential Ha of Land Area 4 $1,395.00 $485.00 N June 1, 2023 Plus Fee per Development Block Ha (or part thereof) of Land Area) 24 $635.00 $305.00 N June 1, 2023 Zoning By-law Amendment - Minor 6 $13,190.00 $6,500.00 N June 1, 2023 Additional fee if within Oak Ridges Moraine or Greenbelt $2,570.00 $1,250.00 N June 1, 2023 Zoning By-law - Removal of Holding $3,810.00 $1,830.00 N June 1, 2023 Zoning By-law - Removal of Holding (Complex/Block Plan Required) $19,690.00 $10,100.00 N June 1, 2023 Zoning By-law - Extension of Temporary Use By-law $19,690.00 $10,100.00 N June 1, 2023 Zoning By-law - Reconsideration 8 $5,230.00 $5,230.00 N No change Minister Zoning Order Minister Zoning Order Amendment - Major 9 $3,000.00 $3,000.00 N No change Minister Zoning Order Amendment - Minor 10 $2,500.00 $2,500.00 N No change Official Plan Amendment - Pre-submission Review Pickering Official Plan Amendment - Major 11 New $45,500.00 N June 1, 2023 Pickering Official Plan Amendment - Minor 12 New $21,650.00 N June 1, 2023 - 73 - User Fee or Charge Current Fee (Excluding HST) Proposed Fee (Excluding HST) HST Applicable (Y/N) Proposed Fee Effective Date City Development Department - Planning Pickering Official Plan Amendment - Recirculation 7 New $2,000.00 N June 1, 2023 Additional fee if within Oak Ridges Moraine or Greenbelt New $3,300.00 N June 1, 2023 Official Plan Amendment - Application Pickering Official Plan Amendment - Major 11 $89,000.00 $43,500.00 N June 1, 2023 Pickering Official Plan Amendment - Minor 12 $42,400.00 $20,750.00 N June 1, 2023 Additional fee if within Oak Ridges Moraine or Greenbelt $6,300.00 $3,000.00 N June 1, 2023 Regional Official Plan - Amendment (not part of a Pickering OPA) $37,100.00 $37,100.00 N No change Neighbourhood Development Guideline Amendment 13 $4,300.00 $4,300.00 N No change Land Division Comments $2,600.00 $2,600.00 N No change Clearance of Conditions $1,300.00 $1,300.00 N No change Council authorization to proceed by land division instead of draft plan of subdivision 14 $8,670.00 $8,670.00 N No change Cash-in-Lieu of Parkland Conveyance For the creation of up to 3 additional lots (price per lot created) $6,940.00 $6,940.00 N No change For the creation of more than 3 additional lots See Parkland By-law See Parkland By-law N No change Draft Plan of Subdivision - Pre-submission Review Base Fee New $32,800.00 N June 1, 2023 Plus Fee per Residential Unit New First 25 units (1-25)New $470.00 N June 1, 2023 Next 75 units (26-100)New $380.00 N June 1, 2023 Next 100 Units (101-200)New $300.00 N June 1, 2023 Next 800 Units (201-1,000)New $190.00 N June 1, 2023 Plus Fee per Non-Residential Ha (or part thereof) of Land Area 4 New $150.00 N June 1, 2023 Plus Fee per Development Block Ha (or part thereof) of Land Area 5 New $95.00 N June 1, 2023 Recirculation 7 $2,000.00 $2,000.00 N No change Additional fee if within Oak Ridges Moraine or Greenbelt New $1,000.00 N June 1, 2023 Applicant-Initiated Major Revisions (prior to Draft Plan Approval) New $22,200.00 N June 1, 2023 Revisions to Draft Approved Plan - (redline revisions) - Pre-submission Review Base Fee New $13,000.00 N June 1, 2023 Plus Fee per Additional Residential Units First 25 units (1-25)New $470.00 N June 1, 2023 Next 75 units (26-100)New $380.00 N June 1, 2023 Next 100 Units (101-200)New $300.00 N June 1, 2023 - 74 - User Fee or Charge Current Fee (Excluding HST) Proposed Fee (Excluding HST) HST Applicable (Y/N) Proposed Fee Effective Date City Development Department - Planning Next 800 Units (201-1,000)New $190.00 N June 1, 2023 Plus Fee per Non-Residential Ha (or part thereof) of Land Area New $150.00 N June 1, 2023 Plus Fee per Development Block Ha (or part thereof) of Land Area New $95.00 N June 1, 2023 Draft Plan of Subdivision - Application Base Fee $67,400.00 $34,600.00 N June 1, 2023 Plus Fee per Residential Unit First 25 units (1-25)$1,045.00 $575.00 N June 1, 2023 Next 75 units (26-100)$845.00 $465.00 N June 1, 2023 Next 100 Units (101-200)$665.00 $365.00 N June 1, 2023 Next 800 Units (201-1,000)$420.00 $230.00 N June 1, 2023 Plus Fee per Non-Residential Ha (or part thereof) of Land Area 4 $335.00 $185.00 N June 1, 2023 Plus Fee per Development Block Ha (or part thereof) of Land Area 5 $210.00 $115.00 N June 1, 2023 Additional fee if within Oak Ridges Moraine or Greenbelt $3,500.00 $2,500.00 N June 1, 2023 Revisions to Draft Approved Plan - (redline revisions) - Application Base Fee $26,600.00 $13,600.00 N June 1, 2023 Plus Fee per Additional Residential Units First 25 units (1-25)$1,045.00 $575.00 N June 1, 2023 Next 75 units (26-100)$845.00 $465.00 N June 1, 2023 Next 100 Units (101-200)$665.00 $365.00 N June 1, 2023 Next 800 Units (201-1,000)$420.00 $230.00 N June 1, 2023 Plus Fee per Non-Residential Ha (or part thereof) of Land Area $335.00 $185.00 N June 1, 2023 Plus Fee per Development Block Ha (or part thereof) of Land Area $210.00 $115.00 N June 1, 2023 Release of Draft Plan of Subdivision/Clearance Fee $2,000.00 $2,000.00 N No change Plan of Condominium - Pre-submission Review Draft Plan of Condominium New $5,400.00 N June 1, 2023 Common Element Condominium New $7,900.00 N June 1, 2023 Recirculation 7 $2,000.00 $2,000.00 N No change Condominium Conversion New $7,900.00 N June 1, 2023 Revisions to a Draft Approved Plan - (redline revisions) $3,100.00 $3,100.00 N No change Plan of Condominium - Application Draft Plan of Condominium $19,000.00 $13,600.00 N June 1, 2023 Common Element Condominium $27,200.00 $19,300.00 N June 1, 2023 Condominium Conversion $27,200.00 $19,300.00 N June 1, 2023 Release of Draft Plan of Condominium/Clearance Fee $2,000.00 $2,000.00 N No change Site Plan - Pre-submission Review Residential See "All Uses Residential, Non-Residential, Mixed- Use) N No change - 75 - User Fee or Charge Current Fee (Excluding HST) Proposed Fee (Excluding HST) HST Applicable (Y/N) Proposed Fee Effective Date City Development Department - Planning Commercial See "All Uses Residential, Non-Residential, Mixed- Use) N No change Industrial See "All Uses Residential, Non-Residential, Mixed- Use) N No change All Uses (Residential, Non-Residential, Mixed-Use) - Base Fee New $5,300.00 N June 1, 2023 Plus Fee per Residential Unit First 25 units (1-25)New $370.00 N June 1, 2023 Next 75 units (26-100)New $300.00 N June 1, 2023 Next 100 Units (101-200)New $225.00 N June 1, 2023 Next 800 Units (201-1,000)New $55.00 N June 1, 2023 Plus Fee per 2,000 m2 (or part thereof) of Non-Residential GFA New $4,405.00 N June 1, 2023 Recirculation 7 $2,000.00 $2,000.00 N No change Applicant Initiated Revision Base Fee Base Fee N No change Site Plan - Application Review Residential See "All Uses Residential, Non-Residential, Mixed- See "All Uses Residential, Non-Residential, Mixed- Use) N No change Commercial See "All Uses Residential, Non-Residential, Mixed- See "All Uses Residential, Non-Residential, Mixed- Use) N No change Industrial See "All Uses Residential, Non-Residential, Mixed- See "All Uses Residential, Non-Residential, Mixed- Use) N No change All Uses (Residential, Non-Residential, Mixed-Use) - Base Fee $8,200.00 $2,900.00 N June 1, 2023 Plus Fee per Residential Unit First 25 units (1-25)$515.00 $145.00 N June 1, 2023 Next 75 units (26-100)$415.00 $115.00 N June 1, 2023 Next 100 Units (101-200)$310.00 $85.00 N June 1, 2023 Next 800 Units (201-1,000)$75.00 $20.00 N June 1, 2023 Plus Fee per 2,000 m2 (or part thereof) of Non-Residential GFA $6,100.00 $1,695.00 N June 1, 2023 Site Plan Agreement and Clearance of Conditions $7,300.00 $7,300.00 N No change Compliance Inspections/LC Release Report (includes 2 inspections) $960.00 $960.00 N No change Additional Compliance Inspections $410.00 $410.00 N No change Other Fees Request for Zoning Information $55.00 $55.00 N No change Zoning Certificate - Residential (single, semi, townhouse, accessory structure) initial review + 1 revision $150.00 $150.00 N No change Zoning Certificate - Development (within infill precincts, ORM, or requiring MDS calculation) initial review + 1 revision $580.00 $580.00 N No change Zoning Certificate - Mixed-use/Multi Residential/Non-Residential (industrial, commercial, institutional) initial review + 1 revision $695.00 $695.00 N No change Peer Reviews 15 Full recovery of City costs + 10% admin. fee Full recovery of City costs + 10% admin. fee Y No change - 76 - User Fee or Charge Current Fee (Excluding HST) Proposed Fee (Excluding HST) HST Applicable (Y/N) Proposed Fee Effective Date City Development Department - Planning Minor Revision to Approved Condo Site Plan (by unit owner) i.e., decks, sheds, fences $115.00 $115.00 N No change File Reactivation 16 $5,230.00 $5,230.00 N No change Opinion Letter for Complex Inquiries $1,200.00 $1,200.00 N No change Add Street Name to Approved List $1,070 $1,070 Y No change Request to Change Municipal Address $1,070 $1,070 Y No change Request for Exception to Council Adopted Policies on Municipal Addressing and Street Naming $6,040.00 $6,040.00 N No change Refund of Application Fees 17 $0 $0 Y No change Film Location Permit $350.00 $350.00 Y No change Film Location Permit and Road Closure $500.00 $500.00 Y No change Any other matter requiring a Report to Committee or Council $6,040.00 $6,040.00 N No change 1. Fee applicable after Council adoption. - an application relating to more than one property - a site specific application, if considered to represent a large scale redevelopment - any change in use and/or zone category, except as identified under a minor amendment - an application involving significant changes to the development standards or general provisions of the by-law - an application which requires major technical studies and extensive consultation 4. Applies to blocks intended to be developed for commercial, industrial, and institutional uses (including school blocks). 5. Excludes lands to be conveyed for roads, parkland, natural hazards, and stormwater or other public infrastructure. - request for additional permitted use, within an existing building with no significant impact on existing development standards - changes in development standards or zone to accommodate a residential severance to create one additional lot - application for Temporary Use 16. Fee applies to planning applications that have been inactive over 1 year but less than 2 years. If the file has been inactive 2 or more years, the file will be closed without notice and a new application will be required with current application fees being applied. 17. Also subject to deduction of credit card fee if paid by credit card. - an application involving significant changes to the policies of the Official Plan 12. An application for a minor, site specific and small scale amendment or exception to Official Plan policies and designations, having limited impact or policy implications beyond the subject lands, as determined by the Director, City Development or designate. 13. An application to amend a Neighbourhood Development Guideline when the development proposal would necessitate an amendment to the Guideline or there is no other planning application being processed by Council. 14. Charged only if no other planning applications are being processed by Council. 15. The applicant is responsible for the City's full costs of undertaking the peer review of any studies or drawings submitted in support of the application. This requirement applies to matters such as, but not limited to, the peer review of traffic, marketing, environmental, noise, engineering drawings and reports, and architectural drawings. 10. A minor Minister's Zoning Order application is where the proposed use or standards comply with the City's zoning by-law. 11. An application that is more significant in scale and scope than a minor amendment and which may have greater impact or policy - an application which requires major technical studies and extensive consultation - an application relating to more than one property - a site specific application if considered to represent large scale redevelopment or significant change to the designations and permitted -does not change the nature of the proposal; -is minor and technical in nature and I not expected to result in fundamental changes to the layout and design of the proposal; -does not involve re-engagement with the public; and -does not require recirculation of the application to external agencies. 9. A major Minister's Zoning Order application is where the proposed use or standards do not comply with the City's zoning by-law and a Report to Council is required. 6. An application for minor or small scale zoning amendment having no significant impact on adjoining lands, as determined by the Director, City Development or designate. Minor applications must be site specific and meet one or more of the following conditions: 8. An Application may apply for reconsideration provided that the resolution of the issue of concern: 7. Application fees include two resubmissions before re-circulation fees apply. Recirculation fees will be charged for the fourth submission and every submission thereafter. 3. An application for an amendment that is more significant in scale and scope than a minor zoning amendment, and which may have greater impact beyond the subject lands, as determined by the Director, City Development or designate. Major applications must meet one or more of the following conditions: 2. Oak Ridges Moraine applications, minor additions to existing bldgs (up to 20% of the current gross floor area) and inclusion of related - 77 - Attachment #1 to Report PLN 09-23 Report to Council Report Number: PLN 47-22 Date: December 5, 2022 From: Kyle Bentley Director, City Development & CBO Subject: City Initiated Official Plan Amendment: Changes to development review procedures and fees in response to Bill 109, the More Homes For Everyone Act, 2022, and review of the City’s Planning Application Fees File: OPA 22-003/P Recommendations: 1. That Official Plan Amendment Application OPA 22-003/P, initiated by the City of Pickering, to amend existing policies and introduce new policies related to the review of Planning Act applications, as set out in Exhibit ‘A’ to Appendix I to Report PLN 47-22 be approved; 2.That the Draft By-law to adopt Amendment 46 to the Pickering Official Plan, to amend existing policies and introduce new policies to the Pickering Official Plan with regard to the review of Planning Act applications under Bill 109, the More Homes For Everyone Act, 2022, as set out in Appendix I to Report PLN 47-22, be enacted; 3.That the revised Draft Pre-consultation By-law, as set out in Appendix II to Report PLN 47-22, be enacted; 4.That, in response to legislated changes arising from the enactment of Bill 109, the More Homes For Everyone Act, 2022, and to improve cost recovery of the processing of development applications, an increase to the City Development Department – Planning Fees be approved, effective January 1, 2023; 5.That an amendment to Schedule “I” to By-law 6191/03, the General Municipal Fees and Charges By-law, as amended, by deleting the pages for City Development Department –Planning, and substituting the updated pages for City Development Department – Planning, as set out in Schedule “I” to the Draft By-law provided as Appendix III to Report PLN 47-22, be approved; and 6.That the revised Draft By-law to amend Schedule “I” to the General Municipal Fees and Charges By-law 6191/03, as set out in Appendix III to Report PLN 47-22, be enacted. Executive Summary: On April 14, 2022, Bill 109, the More Homes For Everyone Act, 2022, received Royal Assent. Among other matters, Bill 109 amended the Planning Act to require municipalities to refund Zoning By-law Amendment and Site Plan Approval application fees if no decision is made or no approval is issued within the legislative timelines. Zoning By-law Amendment Applications are required to have a decision made within 90 days (or 120 days if concurrent with an official plan amendment) and site plan approval is required within 60 days or refunds of application fees are mandated. These changes will come into effect on January 1, 2023 for new applications submitted after that date. - 78 - PLN 47-22 December 5, 2022 Subject: Changes to Development Review Procedures and Application Fees Page 2 To meet the legislated review timelines and avoid having to pay refunds (that may put the corporation at financial risk), staff are proposing several changes to the development review process: • no longer permit development applications to be submitted concurrently; • introduce a new “pre-submission” review stage; • revise the “complete application” requirements for development applications; • make public engagement, during the “pre-submission” review stage, a requirement for submitting a complete application; • prepare a recommendation report for consideration by the Planning & Development Committee on the same day as the statutory public meeting; • to address minor issues that may arise during the formal Zoning By-law Amendment application stage, which cannot be resolved within the legislated timeframes, staff will recommend Council “refuse the application without prejudice”; and • permit reconsideration of Zoning By-law Amendment applications that are refused without prejudice in select circumstances. An amendment to the policies in the Pickering Official Plan is proposed to revise the City’s current pre-consultation requirements and introduce the new “pre-submission” review stage (see Appendices I and II to Report PLN 47-22). The proposed changes will require early collaboration between applicants, staff and other stakeholders (including the public) to review key concerns and issues of the proposal, before the submission of a formal application. The proposed amendment to the General Municipal Fees and Charges By-law reflects two different reviews of the fees. The first is a result of Bill 109. It will identify new charges for the “pre-submission” stage and shift when fees are paid to more accurately reflect where in the process the corresponding amount of work is completed. The second, unrelated to Bill 109, is an increase in fees to ensure that development application fees better reflect the amount of effort required from City staff (see Appendix III to Report PLN 47-22). The recommended changes to development review procedures and fees reflect a response to Bill 109, and an update of the City’s application fees. Recently announced draft changes to the Planning Act (Bill 23, the More Homes Built Faster Act, 2022) may require further modifications in the future. As required, staff may bring additional changes for Council’s consideration if/when this new legislation is enacted. Financial Implications: If no changes are made to the City’s development review process, as outlined in Section 2 of this report, the City is at risk of forfeiting most, or all, of the application fees collected for Zoning By-law Amendment and Site Plan Approval applications. The precise amount associated with these applications will vary each year, based on the number of applications received. Using a three-year range, the average amount of fees that could be at risk is approximately $1,000,000 per year. The addition of new charges for the “pre-submission” application stage, and proposed increase in development review fees, will bring many (but not all) of these fees to full cost recovery. This will provide the City with the ability to continue to perform the required function of development review and approval, while minimizing reliance on increased tax revenue to meet demand. - 79 - PLN 47-22 December 5, 2022 Subject: Changes to Development Review Procedures and Application Fees Page 3 1. Background The Planning Act of Ontario is the provincial legislation that sets out the ground rules for land use planning in Ontario. Guided by the Planning Act, the City of Pickering receives, reviews, and approves development applications leading to the construction of new homes and businesses. On March 30, 2022, the Province introduced Bill 109, the More Homes for Everyone Act, 2022. Bill 109 amends various statutes, including the Planning Act, for items related to housing and development. City staff brought forward a report (PLN 22-22) to the April 25, 2022, Council meeting, summarizing Bill 109 and its potential implications for the City (see Attachment #1). During the consultation period, the Province gave Bill 109 Royal Assent on April 14, 2022. Among other matters, Bill 109 amended the Planning Act to require municipalities to refund Zoning By-law Amendment and Site Plan application fees, if a decision or approval is not made or issued respectively, within the legislative timelines. These changes come into effect on January 1, 2023. A summary of the fee refunds is provided in Figures 1, 2 and 3. Figure 1: Zoning By-law Amendment refund schedule Figure 2: Zoning By-law Amendment refund schedule if submitted with an Official Plan Amendment Figure 3: Site Plan refund schedule - 80 - PLN 47-22 December 5, 2022 Subject: Changes to Development Review Procedures and Application Fees Page 4 Prior to the release of Bill 109, staff were in the midst of a review and update of the City’s development application fees. Watson & Associates Economists Ltd. was retained to assist staff in the review of these fees (see Planning Application Fee Review – Update Study, Watson & Associates, Attachment #2,). A discussion of the findings from Watson & Associates is summarized in Section 2.3.5 of this report. 2. Discussion 2.1 Challenges created by Bill 109 The Province has stated that the intent of the changes made by Bill 109 is to accelerate development approvals, leading to the faster construction of new homes. The goal of fast and efficient development approvals is shared by City staff. In practice, the development review process is designed to be an iterative and collaborative exchange between the City, developers, and stakeholders. The Planning Act requires municipalities to be transparent, and to actively engage the public in the review process. Unfortunately, the changes brought forward by Bill 109 do not take into account the following items in the development review process: 2.1.1 There is no ability to “stop-the-clock” when an application is circulated to commenting agencies for review There are a number of external agencies (Ministry of Transportation, Region of Durham, Conservation Authorities, etc.) and internal departments involved in the review of applications. The external agencies that assist with application review rarely provide their comments within the requested one-month period. Municipalities do not have the ability to “stop-the-clock” while awaiting comments from external agencies. This review may include an analysis of complex studies and reports such as comprehensive traffic impact assessments, functional servicing reports, noise studies, planning justification reports, heritage impact assessments, and geotechnical reports, to list a few. Delays in receiving comments from these agencies significantly affect approval timelines. These delays are beyond the control of the City. 2.1.2 There is no ability to “stop-the-clock” after comments have been provided to the Applicant, and the City is waiting for the proposal to be revised Once the review of an application has been completed, there are usually several modifications that need to be made by the Owner and/or Applicant in order for the application to align with City policies, guidelines, and regulations. While Applicants are often highly motivated to provide timely revisions, the City has no control over how long it takes before the revised submission is received from the Applicant. Depending on the complexity of the project, the key issues to be resolved, and the availability of consulting resources, it can take an applicant several months to resubmit application materials. It is also common for Applicants to provide more than one revision of their application before City staff are prepared to issue Site Plan Approval or recommend approval of a Zoning By-law Amendment to Council. - 81 - PLN 47-22 December 5, 2022 Subject: Changes to Development Review Procedures and Application Fees Page 5 2.1.3 Statutory public engagement becomes perfunctory rather than collaborative For Zoning By-law Amendment applications, municipalities are required to include public consultation by holding a Statutory Public Meeting. Following the Statutory Public Meeting, the comments from the public are expected to inform staff’s review and Council’s decision. Effectively reviewing and addressing public comments can also contribute to applications exceeding the Planning Act timelines. The requirements imposed by Bill 109 will now require Council to expedite its decision. If no changes were made to the City’s practices and procedures for reviewing and making decisions on planning applications, staff would be required to prepare a report with a recommendation on the application before the Statutory Public Meeting is held, and likely without time to receive all City, agency, and public comments. This would reduce the transparency of the review process, reduce the opportunity to undertake meaningful engagement with stakeholders and members of the public, and reduce the ability to provide a comprehensive planning recommendation to Council. The Bill 109 timelines require the rapid review and consideration of development applications. These timelines do not consider the fact that Committee and Council meetings are not typically held in the months of July and August or during election periods. As required, it may become necessary for special meetings of Council to be called during the summer to consider applications. Taking into account the review requirements of all City departments and external agencies, along with the quality of submissions and the response time from Applicants, it is staff’s opinion that the prescribed timelines in the Planning Act are not achievable. Therefore, without any change to our current practices and procedures, the City is at risk of refunding a significant amount of the application fees that are collected for Zoning By-law Amendment and Site Plan Approval applications. The City’s average processing timelines over the last few years are as follows: All Zoning By-law Amendments: • Required decision timeline: 90 days • Average decision timeline: 400 days Residential Site Plans: • Required decision timeline: 60 days • Average decision timeline: 500 days Staff notes that there are various factors that contribute to these long decision timelines. In many instances, delays are caused by untimely responses from Applicants and external agencies. There are also procedural matters that artificially inflate decision timelines. For example, in the past when Site Plan applications were submitted concurrently with Zoning By-law Amendments, approval of the Site Plan could not occur before the Zoning had been approved by Council. This has implications on how project timelines are reported but does not directly impact how project review occurs. - 82 - PLN 47-22 December 5, 2022 Subject: Changes to Development Review Procedures and Application Fees Page 6 City staff remain committed to the prompt and efficient review of development applications to spur economic development and support the creation of more housing. Unfortunately, the punitive measures created by Bill 109 unfairly penalize municipalities for delays that are often outside of their control. To best support the continued review of development applications, and to avoid the financial penalties imposed by Bill 109, staff are proposing several changes to the development review process. 2.2 Proposed Changes to the Development Review Process The changes staff are proposing should allow the City to meet the legislated timelines and avoid the loss of development application revenue, while still ensuring a robust and thorough evaluation of the application. The goal of these proposed changes is for the City to: • continue to diligently review development applications in a timely manner; • continue to provide appropriate analysis leading to high-quality urban design and orderly development; • ensure that development application fees more accurately reflect the City’s cost for reviewing those applications and are collected at the appropriate time; and • continue to seek meaningful public participation despite a condensed timeline. 2.2.1 Development Review Process The development review process currently consists of three general stages: pre-consultation, application review, and decision (see Figure 4 below). Under the current process, the majority of time spent reviewing the proposal is during the application review stage. Figure 4: Current Development Review Process Due to the strict timeframes and refund penalties assigned to the application review stage, staff are proposing to shift the review portion of development proposals from the application stage to a new “pre-submission” stage (see Figure 5 below). Staff will continue to provide a prompt and thorough review, but will avoid “starting the clock” and avoid being at risk for application refunds. - 83 - PLN 47-22 December 5, 2022 Subject: Changes to Development Review Procedures and Application Fees Page 7 Figure 5: Proposed Development Review Process The City’s development review process will need to change to be more front-ended, requiring additional review and effort by all stakeholders prior to the formal submission of an application. This way, when an application is received, it will only be deemed complete after the review of the proposal has been completed by City staff and external agencies and the Proponent has made all necessary revisions. The following sections will provide a more detailed account of the proposed changes to each stage of the development review process. An illustrated summary of the development review stages is provided in Attachments #3 and #4 to this report. 2.2.2 Stage 1A – Pre-Consultation Stage The purpose of the pre-consultation stage is to review a development concept, confirm the appropriate planning and agency approvals that are needed, and provide a list of required materials that must be submitted as part of a complete application. Pre- consultation meetings are permitted by the Planning Act, but are not part of the legislated application review process, and therefore are not subject to the timeline refunds prescribed by Bill 109. 2.2.3 Stage 1B – The Pre-Submission Stage Following a pre-consultation meeting, Proponents will submit all required materials for review by staff and external agencies. The technical review of the proposal will occur during the pre-submission stage. During the pre-submission stage, “the clock” is not running. At the pre-submission stage, staff will circulate the development reports and drawings to all agencies and departments for technical review. A full review of all reports and studies will be completed to confirm accuracy and conformity with all requirements and standards. More detailed information, such as peer reviews, may also be required at this stage. The pre-submission stage will be an integrative process, allowing City Departments and external agencies the appropriate time to review complex studies and drawings, and allow the Proponent to address key technical issues prior to the submission of an application. This stage also requires consultation and engagement with the public. It is important to note that the prescribed timelines imposed by Bill 109 do not apply during the pre-submission review. - 84 - PLN 47-22 December 5, 2022 Subject: Changes to Development Review Procedures and Application Fees Page 8 2.2.3.1 Public Information Centre (Open House) The Planning Act requires that a Statutory Public Meeting be held before Council makes a decision on a variety of development applications, including Zoning By-law Amendments, but is not required for Site Plan Approvals. This allows the public to provide comments for Council to consider as part of their decision. In addition to the Statutory Public Meeting, it is not uncommon for a voluntary Public Information Centre (open house) to be held earlier in the process. These events are less formal and provide the public with the opportunity to directly engage with the Applicant, their consultants, and City staff. To meet the Planning Act timelines, all Applicants for Zoning By-law Amendment will now be required to host an open house prior to the submission of a formal application. One benefit to this early engagement is the identification of community concerns at the beginning of the process possibly leading to modifications of a proposal before it is formally submitted. For example, the Planning Rationale Report, traffic reports, and other supporting documents prepared by the Proponent will now be informed by public comments rather than exclusively relying on technical analysis that may not fully take into account the local context. Staff will be developing a set of procedures for Proponents to follow that outlines the requirements for open house events, which will include matters such as the type of venue/forum, how to give notice, how to record feedback, etc. In addition to requiring the applicant to host an open house meeting, City staff will ensure the information and materials submitted at the pre-submission stage are uploaded to the City’s website, allowing the public to review and offer comments on the proposal. 2.2.4 Stage 2 – Complete Application Submission Under the Planning Act, certain information or material is required to be provided as part of a complete application. The purpose of complete application requirements is to ensure that all the relevant and required information is available, at the time of formal submission, for staff to either issue an approval or provide a recommendation to Council. The complete application requirements are intended to make the review of an application faster and more efficient. To improve the review process, and manage the new legislated review timelines, staff propose to strengthen and expand the complete application requirements for planning applications. The Planning Act allows municipalities to request information or material if their Official Plan contains provisions relating to those requirements. In order to update the list of items that the City may request during a pre-consultation meeting, an amendment to the City’s Official Plan is required. The proposed amendments to the relevant policies in the Official Plan are contained in Appendix I. - 85 - PLN 47-22 December 5, 2022 Subject: Changes to Development Review Procedures and Application Fees Page 9 2.2.4.1 The Statutory Public Meeting The Planning Act outlines the required steps involved in reviewing an application. Certain applications, such as Zoning By-law Amendments, require that municipalities consult with the public at a Statutory Public Meeting (see Attachment #4). Once an application is received and deemed complete, a municipality will schedule a Statutory Public Meeting to be held at a Planning & Development Committee (Committee) meeting. Currently, an information report is provided to the Committee outlining the major elements of the development application, summarizing relevant land use policies and identifying key concerns to be addressed. After the first Committee meeting, staff continue to review the application and incorporate comments received from Council, the public, and external agencies. Once all information has been received and reviewed, a recommendation report is presented at a subsequent Committee meeting. It is at this meeting that Committee is requested to make a decision on the application, that is ratified at a subsequent Council meeting. As part of the revised strategy to meet the Planning Act timeline, City Development staff will no longer prepare an information report and host a Statutory Public Meeting on a separate evening, in advance of the Planning & Development Committee considering a recommendation report. The Committee will now have to make a decision on planning applications on the same night the Statutory Public Meeting is held. This reduces the ability for public comments, received in advance of the Statutory Public Meeting, to be incorporated into Committee’s decision. The public engagement, that is currently received at the Statutory Public Meeting stage, will now be captured earlier in the process, and in a different form, through the newly required Public Information Centre described in Section 2.2.3.1 of this report. The Public Information Centre will occur prior to the submission of the application. Bringing forward a recommendation report at the Statutory Public Meeting may require certain procedural changes to the format of that event that will be formulated in consultation with the City Clerk. 2.2.5 Proposed Transitional Provisions To assist the Proponents with implementing the revised development review process, the following transitional provisions are being proposed: 2.2.5.1 New Pre-consultation All applicants of future development proposals will be informed of the new development review process, and be provided with directions on how to proceed to a complete application. 2.2.5.2 Completed Pre-consultation, but no Application Where complete application requirements have already been determined through a formal pre-consultation meeting prior to January 1, 2023, City staff will either: - 86 - PLN 47-22 December 5, 2022 Subject: Changes to Development Review Procedures and Application Fees Page 10 a. amend the formal pre-consultation requirements; or b. require a new pre-consultation meeting. 2.2.5.3 Existing Application, but no Statutory Public Meeting These applications will follow the new development review process. An Open House will be held to provide information and gather public input. A subsequent Statutory Public Meeting will be held at the same time that a recommendation report is presented to Committee. 2.2.5.4 Existing Application and Statutory Public Meeting already held Since the statutory requirements of the Planning Act have already been met, a recommendation report will be presented to the Committee at the first opportunity. 2.2.6 Concurrent vs. Sequential Application Review Often development projects require more than one development approval (i.e., Official Plan Amendment, Zoning By-law Amendment and/or Site Plan applications). Currently, the City permits multiple applications to be submitted at the same time to benefit from the efficiency of circulating all materials once to external agencies and holding one joint Statutory Public Meeting. To respond to the strict requirements of Bill 109, certain applications will no longer be considered concurrently. Instead, Applicants will need to submit each application sequentially. For example, a Proponent requiring both a Zoning By-law Amendment and a Site Plan Approval will have to submit a Zoning By-law Amendment application first. Once the Zoning By-law Amendment has been approved and is in full force and effect, the Proponent may then submit a Site Plan Approval application. Staff regret that this will likely result in a lengthening of overall approval timelines for some projects. However, this is one of the unintended consequences of the changes brought forward by Bill 109. Reviewing applications sequentially will ensure that the City is not penalized with any refunds to site plan applications, while still finalizing prerequisite applications. 2.2.7 Application Denial and Re-Application Despite the benefits of a revised development review process, the City may still need to deny an application if all information is not provided within the prescribed timeline to avoid paying application fee refunds. In circumstances where denials are issued to “stop-the-clock”, Applicants may be able to submit their applications for reconsideration if the outstanding matters: • do not change the nature of the proposal; • are minor and technical in nature and are not expected to result in fundamental changes to the layout and design of the proposal; • do not involve re-engagement with the public; and • do not require recirculation of the application to external agencies. - 87 - PLN 47-22 December 5, 2022 Subject: Changes to Development Review Procedures and Application Fees Page 11 The decision on whether to accept an application for reconsideration will be at the discretion of the Director, City Development & CBO. A fee for the reconsideration of an application will be required. 2.2.8 Changes to the review of all development applications With minor differences, all development applications follow the same general pattern of development review. The recent changes to the Planning Act from Bill 109 only create potential refund scenarios for Zoning By-law Amendment and Site Plan applications. The changes to the development review process listed in this report are specifically needed for those two application types. However, there would be increased clarity for the public, the development industry, and Council if all development applications followed the same review and approval process. Therefore, staff propose to apply the new development review process to all applicable Planning applications. 2.3 Proposed Changes to the Development Review Fees In conjunction with the revised development review process that has been outlined in this report, staff are proposing to shift the development review fees to the appropriate stage of review where the corresponding amount of work is conducted. This will involve applying a fee at both the pre-submission stage, as well as a fee at the application stage. Prior to the introduction of Bill 109, the City retained Watson & Associates Economists Ltd. (Watson) to review the City’s current development application fees. The rationale for the proposed fee changes is contained in Attachment #2 and is further discussed in Section 2.3.5 of this report. 2.3.1 Stage 1A – Pre-consultation Currently, fees are collected by the City to review and comment on preliminary development concepts at the pre-consultation meeting. This fee represents only a small fraction of the staff time required to prepare and host this meeting. It is recommended that the current pre-consultation fee be maintained for the analysis of simple proposals (Pre-consultation Meeting Simple) and a new fee be created for the analysis of complex proposals (Pre-consultation Meeting Complex). It is intended that this new fee structure better reflect the amount of work completed by staff for this meeting. 2.3.2 Stage 1B – Pre-submission Under the new development review process, staff will spend a greater amount of time reviewing the development materials prior to the submission of the formal application. Therefore, review fees will be revised to reflect staff’s effort during each stage of review. A majority of the review fees will be collected at the new “pre-submission” stage, where staff will spend the largest portion of their time in the review and analysis of a proposal. The remaining part of the review fee will be collected at the submission of the complete application. Fees collected at the pre-submission stage are not subject to any refund requirements. - 88 - PLN 47-22 December 5, 2022 Subject: Changes to Development Review Procedures and Application Fees Page 12 The review of development proposals is a collaborative process that typically involves more than one submission by the Proponent to ensure that their proposal conforms with all policies, standards, and regulations of the City and the relevant commenting agencies. The pre-submission process presumes the original submission and two subsequent submissions by the Proponent. Each submission is thoroughly reviewed by staff and relevant agencies, and a list of missing or outstanding items is provided to the Proponent. The pre-submission fee is intended to cover the cost of the original submission and two resubmissions. In order to reflect the ongoing work required by staff, the fourth submission, and every submission thereafter, will be subject to a recirculation fee (see Table 1 below). Table 1: When Pre-submission and Recirculation Fees Apply Pre-submission Fee Recirculation Fee Original submission  N/A Submission Two N/A N/A Submission Three N/A N/A Submission Four, or more N/A  2.3.4 Stage 2 – Application After the pre-submission review has been completed, Proponents may then submit their complete application. An application review fee is payable at the time of application submission. This is when the legislated timelines in the Planning Act begin. If Council or staff are unable to reach a decision or provide approval within the legislated timeline, this is the fee that would be subject to any possible refund. 2.3.5 Overall Increase in Application Fees There is a general principle in Municipal planning and finance that development application fees should recover the City’s cost for reviewing those applications. The intent is to avoid having the existing tax base (residents and business owners) subsidize the costs to the City incurred from new development. Excluding City-initiated applications, Minor Variance, and Land Division applications, which are not intended to achieve cost recovery, the City’s current application fees only recover 78 percent of the costs of staff’s review of development application files. Watson was retained by the City to complete a comprehensive update to the development approval application process (D.A.A.P) fee reviews. One of the objectives of Watson’s review was to determine the fee increases necessary to achieve full cost recovery. The recommended fee increases included in Appendix III of this report will move the City’s fees for reviewing Planning Act applications closer to full cost recovery. Excluding Minor Variance, Land Division, and City-initiated applications, cost recovery performance will increase from 78 percent to almost 95 percent. For Official Plan Amendments, the move to full cost recovery was considered too great to be implemented through a one-time increase. Therefore, a more moderate fee increase is - 89 - PLN 47-22 December 5, 2022 Subject: Changes to Development Review Procedures and Application Fees Page 13 recommended at this time. Similarly, staff recommend not recovering the full cost for Minister Zoning Order Amendments, as these fees may be overly burdensome on residents that live in areas under these regulations. Details of the proposed fee increases are contained in Watson’s Planning Application Fee Review – Update Study, contained in Attachment #2 to this report, and summarized in Table 2. Table 2: Current and Proposed Cost Recovery by Application Type Application Type Current Cost Recovery Proposed Cost Recovery Subdivision 53% 100% Condominium 82% 100% Official Plan 37% 69% Zoning By-Law Amendment 89% 100% Site Plan 98% 100% Minor Variance and Land Division 11% 15% City Initiated Applications 0% 0% These fee increases are necessary if the City wants to ensure that the application and review fees better reflect the City’s costs for reviewing development applications. The alternative will be to shift a greater portion of the cost for reviewing development applications onto Municipal tax assessment revenue. 3. Notice of Proposed Official Plan Amendment 46 In accordance with the requirements of the Planning Act, a notice of the Statutory Public Meeting for proposed Amendment 46 to the Pickering Official Plan was provided in the Pickering News Advertiser. Notice of the Statutory Public Meeting was also posted on the City’s website and a separate notice was forwarded to the Building Industry and Land Development Association (BILD) and members of the local development industry. As of the date of this report, staff had received three public inquiries seeking clarity on the proposed amendment, or access to the background report, but no written or verbal comments have been received from the public. 4. Future Evaluation and Modification The proposed changes to the City’s development review process are intended to support the efficient review of development applications in light of recent changes to the Planning Act. Staff will track the result of the new processes and, as required, make necessary revisions to ensure that the intended outcomes are being achieved. Additional changes proposed by the Province under Bill 23 are still being evaluated and may also necessitate further modifications in the future. A summary of the changes from Bill 23 is contained in a separate report. It is recommended that a Council education session be held in the future to review all of the changes proposed to City processes as a consequence of current and forthcoming changes to the Planning Act. - 90 - PLN 47-22 December 5, 2022 Subject: Changes to Development Review Procedures and Application Fees Page 14 5. Conclusion Staff will continue to focus resources on effectively reviewing development proposals, while also meeting application timelines. A number of policy, procedure, and fee changes are needed in order for the City to avoid the refund requirements created by Bill 109: • no longer permit development applications to be submitted concurrently; • introduce a new “pre-submission” review stage; • revise the “complete application” requirements for development applications; • make public engagement a requirement for submitting a complete application; • provide recommendation reports for consideration by the Planning & Development Committee on the same day as the statutory public meeting; • recommend Council “refuse an application without prejudice”; to address minor issues that may arise during the formal Zoning By-law Amendment application stage, which cannot be resolved within the legislated timeframes; and • permit reconsideration of Zoning By-law Amendments in select circumstances. In addition to the procedural changes that will be instituted by staff, it is recommended that Council approve the corresponding changes. Staff recommends: (a) That Council approve Recommended Amendment 46 to the Pickering Official Plan by passing the by-law to adopt Amendment 46, as set out in Appendix I to Report PLN 47-22; (b) That Council approve an amendment to By-law 6942/09, Pre-consultation By-law; and (c) That Council approve an amendment to By-law 7918/22, General Municipal Fee and Charges By-law. Appendices Appendix I Draft By-law to adopt Amendment 46 to the Pickering Official Plan Appendix II Draft By-law to Amend By-law 6942/09, Pre-consultation By-law Appendix III Draft By-law to Amend By-law 7918/22, General Municipal Fees Attachments 1. Report PLN 22-22, Comments on proposed Bill 109, More Homes For Everyone 2. Planning Application Fee Review – Update Study, Watson & Associates 3. Current and Proposed Site Plan Approval process 4. Current and Proposed Zoning By-law Amendment process - 91 - PLN 47-22 December 5, 2022 Subject: Changes to Development Review Procedures and Application Fees Page 15 Prepared By: Original Signed By Paul Wirch, MCIP, RPP Principal Planner, Policy Original Signed By Déan Jacobs, MCIP, RPP Manager, Policy & Geomatics Original Signed By Nilesh Surti, MCIP, RPP Manager, Development Review & Urban Design Approved/Endorsed By: Original Signed By Catherine Rose, MCIP, RPP Chief Planner Original Signed By Kyle Bentley, P. Eng. Director, City Development & CBO PW :ld Recommended for the consideration of Pickering City Council Original Signed By Marisa Carpino, M.A. Chief Administrative Officer - 92 - Attachment #2 to Report PLN 09-23 Current Zoning By-law Amendment Process Zoning By-law Amendment Application 90 D a y s Su b m i s s i o n Recommend ation Report Stat. Public Meeting Voluntary Open House P& D C o m m i t t e e Co u n c i l Complete Application Pr e - c o n s u l t a t i o n P& D C o m m i t t e e Information Report - 93 - Attachment #3 to Report PLN 09-23 Proposed Zoning By-law Amendment Process Zoning By-law Amendment Application Pr e - c o n s u l t a t i o n Pre-Submission Pr e - s u b m i s s i o n 90 D a y s Su b m i s s i o n Recommend ation Report Stat. Public Meeting Public Engage. Report Mandatory Open House Voluntary Open House P& D C o m m i t t e e Co u n c i l Complete Application - 94 - Attachment #4 to Report PLN 09-23 234-2022-6136 December 22, 2022 Dear Head of Council: Ontario’s housing supply crisis is a problem which has been decades in the making. It will take both short-term strategies and long-term commitment from all levels of government, the private sector, and not-for-profits to drive change. Each entity will have to do their part to be part of the solution. To help support this important priority, I am pleased to provide you with an update on recent legislative and regulatory changes our government has made to help get 1.5 million homes built over the next 10 years. Bill 109, the More Homes for Everyone Act, 2022 Bill 109, the More Homes for Everyone Act, 2022, was introduced on March 30, 2022 and received Royal Assent on April 14, 2022. As part of the government’s More Homes for Everyone Plan, Schedule 5 of Bill 109 made changes to the Planning Act. Consequential changes were also made to the City of Toronto Act, 2006. Most of the Planning Act changes are now in effect except for the zoning and site plan control fee refund provisions, which are due to come into force on January 1, 2023. However, I am committed to bringing forward legislation to delay the effective date of the fee refund changes from January 1, 2023 to July 1, 2023. These legislative changes would be introduced in the new year. In the event that any fee refunds become due to applicants before these legislative changes are made, municipalities might consider not issuing refunds in the interim given my express commitment to introduce legislation that, if passed, would retroactively cancel the requirement. You can find more information about Bill 109 on the Environmental Registry of Ontario (019-5284), and the Ontario Legislative Assembly website. …/2 Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing Office of the Minister 777 Bay Street, 17th Floor Toronto ON M7A 2J3 Tel.: 416 585-7000 Ministère des Affaires municipales et du Logement Bureau du ministre 777, rue Bay, 17e étage Toronto (Ontario) M7A 2J3 Tél. : 416 585-7000 - 95 - -2- Bill 23, More Homes Built Faster, 2022 Bill 23, the More Homes Built Faster Act, 2022, was introduced on October 25, 2022, and received Royal Assent on November 28, 2022. To support More Homes Built Faster: Ontario’s Housing Supply Action Plan: 2022– 2023, Schedule 9 of Bill 23 made changes to the Planning Act. Schedule 1 of Bill 23 also made similar changes to the City of Toronto Act, 2006 related to site plan provisions. Schedule 3 of Bill 23 made changes to the Development Charges Act. The planning-related and municipal development-related charges changes came into force on November 28, 2022, except for provisions related to removal of planning responsibilities from certain upper-tier municipalities, certain provisions related to parkland dedication, and exemptions from municipal development-related charges for affordable and attainable housing, which will come into force on a day in the future to be named by proclamation. Provisions related to Conservation Authorities will take effect January 1, 2023. Bill 23 also made changes to legislation led by other ministries. Please see Appendix A for an overview of the effective dates of the Bill 23 changes by schedule. You can find more information about Bill 23 on the Environmental Registry of Ontario (019-6163), and the Ontario Legislative Assembly website. Bill 3, the Strong Mayors, Building Homes Act, 2022 and Bill 39, the Better Municipal Governance Act, 2022 Bill 3, the Strong Mayors, Building Homes Act, 2022, was introduced on August 10, 2022, and received Royal Assent on September 8, 2022. Bill 3 and associated regulations (O. Reg. 529/22 and O. Reg. 530/22) came into force on November 23, 2022. Bill 39, the Better Municipal Governance Act, 2022, was introduced on November 16, 2022, and received Royal Assent on December 8, 2022. Bill 39, amendments to associated regulations (O. Reg. 581/22 and O. Reg. 583/22), and additional regulations to prescribe provincial priorities (O. Reg. 580/22 and O. Reg. 582/22) came into force on December 20, 2022. Additional details can be found in Appendix B and on the Ontario Legislative Assembly’s website (Bill 3 and Bill 39). Sincerely, Steve Clark Minister c: Chief Administrative Officer - 96 - Appendix A Effective Dates for Bill 23, the More Homes Built Faster Act, 2022 Schedule Effective Date Schedule 1: City of Toronto Act, 2006 All of the changes in Schedule 1 (City of Toronto Act) came into force on the day the bill received Royal Assent. Note: The legislative changes to the City of Toronto Act include amendments that give the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing authority to make regulations imposing limits and conditions on how municipalities can regulate the demolition and conversion of residential rental properties of six units or more. No regulations have been made at this time. Schedule 2: Conservation Authorities Act Changes in Schedule 2 (Conservation Authorities Act) came into force the day the bill received Royal Assent, except for: • On January 1, sections related to streamlining disposition of lands for CAs comes into force which would allow CAs to sell or lease land without Minister’s approval provided they follow rules around public consultation and notifications. • Also on January 1, sections that enable the Minister’s ability to issue direction to freeze fees and ability to scope CA commenting on development applications and land use planning policies through regulation, would come into force but only have effect when the Minister issues direction on fees or if a regulation prescribing Act under which CA commenting roles is restricted is made. • Changes related to CA permitting (including removal of “conservation of land” and “pollution”, adding “unstable soil and bedrock”, regulation making powers to exempt development from a CA permit where it has been authorized under the Planning Act, etc.) take effect on a later date (upon proclamation) once a new regulation under Section 28 of the CA Act is in effect. MNRF continues to consult on that regulation through the Environmental Registry (#019-2927). Schedule 3: Development Charges Act, 1997 All of the changes in Schedule 3 (Development Charges Act) came into force on the day the bill received Royal Assent, with the exception of provisions relating to development charge exemptions for affordable and attainable housing units, which would take effect upon proclamation. Schedule 4: Municipal Act, 2001 All of the changes in Schedule 4 (Municipal Act) came into force on the day the bill received Royal Assent. Note: The legislative changes to the Municipal Act give the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing authority to make regulations imposing limits and conditions on how municipalities can regulate the demolition and conversion of residential rental properties of six units or more. No regulations have been made at this time. Schedule 5: New Home Construction Licensing Act, 2017 Many of the amendments in Schedule 5 (New Home Construction Licensing Act) came into force on the day the bill received Royal Assent. The amendments regarding the maximum fine that a court may impose for a subsequent conviction, as well as most of the amendments related - 97 - Schedule Effective Date to administrative penalties, will come into force on February 1, 2023. Schedule 6: Ontario Heritage Act Most of the amendments to the Ontario Heritage Act (OHA) made through the bill will be proclaimed into force on January 1, 2023. These include: • The new authorities under Part III.1 of the Act that relate to the Standards and Guidelines for Conservation of Provincial Heritage Properties. • Most of the changes to procedures related to municipal registers, including the process and requirements around inclusion of non- designated properties on the municipal registers. However, the requirement for municipalities to make their municipal registers available on a publicly accessible website will not come into force until July 1, 2023 to provide municipalities with time to ensure compliance. • Limiting the ability to issue a Notice of Intention to Designate a property subject to a prescribed event to only those properties included on a municipal register. • The authority to prescribe criteria for determining cultural heritage value or interest for the purposes of including non-designated properties on the municipal register and designating a Heritage Conservation District (HCD). • The authority to set out processes to amend and repeal HCD bylaw in regulation. Note, the Ministry of Citizenship and Multiculturalism will consult on the development of these processes to be set out in regulation in 2023. Regulatory amendments to O.Reg. 9/06: Criteria for Determining Cultural Heritage Value or Interest will also come into force on January 1, 2023. These changes establish that non-designated properties included on a register must meet one or more of the criteria outlined in the regulation, and that individual properties and HCDs must meet two or more of the criteria included in the regulation in order to be designated. The regulation also includes transitionary provisions to address matters underway at the time of the changes coming into force. The outstanding amendments to the OHA made through Bill 108, the More Homes, More Choice Act, 2019, will also be proclaimed into force on January 1, 2023. The amendments speak specifically to the demolition or removal of an attribute that is not a building or structure within an HCD. Regulatory amendments to O.Reg. 358/21: General will come into force on January 1, 2023. These amendments include consequential housekeeping amendments and transition provisions related to the above legislative amendments coming into force. Bill 23 included some minor housekeeping amendments to the OHA that came into force upon Royal Assent. These included repealing the alternative definition of “alter”. Schedule 7: Ontario Land Tribunal Act, 2001 The changes in Schedule 7 (More Homes Built Faster Act, 2022) will come into force on proclamation. - 98 - Schedule Effective Date Schedule 8: Ontario Underground Infrastructure Notification System Act, 2012 The changes in Schedule 8 (Ontario Underground Infrastructure Notification System Act, 2012) came into force on the day the bill received Royal Assent. Schedule 9: Planning Act The changes in Schedule 9 (Planning Act) all came into force on the day the bill received Royal Assent, with the following exceptions: • provisions related to removal of planning responsibilities from certain upper-tier municipalities, which would come into force on a day to be named by proclamation. • provisions related to the exemption of community benefits charge and parkland dedication requirements for affordable and attainable housing units • provisions related encumbered land to be conveyed to municipalities by developers for park or other recreational purposes • provisions related to Conservation Authorities (linked to the changes in Schedule 2) will take effect January 1, 2023 Schedule 10: Supporting Growth and Housing in York and Durham Regions Act, 2022 Except as otherwise provided, the Act set out in Schedule 10 came into force on the day bill received Royal Assent. • Sections 7 to 10, subsection 11 (5) and section 14 come into force on a day to be named by proclamation of the Lieutenant Governor. Once in force, these sections will require a prescribed municipality to develop, construct, and operate the Lake Simcoe phosphorus reduction project and allow the Ontario Clean Water Agency to undertake some or all of that project if ordered to do so by the Lieutenant Governor in Council. The project will also be exempt from the Environmental Assessment Act. • Subsection 85 (1) comes into force on the later of the day subsection 44 (1) of this Act comes into force and the day section 2 of Schedule 5 to the Accelerating Access to Justice Act, 2021 comes into force. Subsection 85 (1) makes consequential changes to the Act arising out of changes to the Expropriations Act in respect of alternative hearings processes. • Subsection 85 (2) comes into force on the later of the day section 61 of this Act comes into force and the day section 42 of Schedule 4 to the Comprehensive Ontario Police Services Act, 2019 comes into force. Subsection 85 (2) makes consequential changes to the Act arising out of the Comprehensive Ontario Police Services Act, 2019 consistent with other Ministry of the Environment, Conservation and Parks legislation. The change would allow a person undertaking an inspection to obtain the assistance of the local police force rather than the Ontario Provincial Police Force. - 99 - Appendix B Bill 3, the Strong Mayors, Building Homes Act, 2022 and Bill 39, the Better Municipal Governance Act, 2022 As a result of Bills 3 and 39, changes were made to the Municipal Act, 2001, City of Toronto Act, 2006 and the Municipal Conflict of Interest Act, and regulations were established to give the mayors in Toronto and Ottawa strong mayor powers to help advance shared provincial-municipal priorities, including building new homes. These powers include: • Choosing to appoint the municipality’s chief administrative officer, • Hiring certain municipal department heads, and establish and re-organize departments, • Creating committees of council, assigning their functions and appointing the Chairs and Vice-Chairs of committees of council, and • Proposing the municipal budget, subject to council amendments and a head of council veto and council override process. The mayors of Toronto and Ottawa can also use strong mayor powers related to provincial priorities. These include: • Vetoing certain by-laws if the mayor is of the opinion that all or part of the by-law could potentially interfere with a provincial priority, • Bringing forward matters for council consideration if the mayor is of the opinion that considering the matter could potentially advance a provincial priority, and • Proposing certain municipal by-laws if the mayor is of the opinion that the proposed by- law could potentially advance a provincial priority. Council can pass these by-laws if more than one-third of council members vote in favour. The provincial priorities for the purposes of strong mayor powers are prescribed in O. Reg. 580/22 and O. Reg. 582/22 and they are: 1. Building 1.5 million new residential units by December 31, 2031. 2. Constructing and maintaining infrastructure to support housing, including, transit, roads, utilities, and servicing. - 100 - Report to Planning & Development Committee Report Number: PLN 10-23 Date: April 3, 2023 From: Kyle Bentley Director, City Development & CBO Subject: Official Plan Amendment Application OPA 20-001/P Zoning By-law Amendment Application A 05/20 Draft Plan of Subdivision Application SP-2020-01 Brock Road Duffins Forest Inc. (2055 Brock Road) Recommendation: 1. That Official Plan Amendment Application OPA 20-001/P, submitted by Brock Road Duffins Forest Inc., to re-designate the subject lands municipally known as 2055 Brock Road from “Urban Residential Areas – Medium Density Areas” to “Urban Residential Areas – High Density Areas” and “Open Space System – Natural Areas”, and to add a site-specific policy for the portion of the lands designated as “Urban Residential Areas – High Density Areas”, to permit a maximum residential density of 286 units per net hectare, to facilitate a high-density residential development, be approved, and that the draft by-law to adopt Amendment 48 to the Pickering Official Plan, as set out in Appendix I to Report PLN 10-23, be finalized and forwarded to Council for enactment; 2. That Zoning By-law Amendment Application A 05/20, submitted by Brock Road Duffins Forest Inc., to permit a high-density residential development consisting of: a 20-storey building containing a total of 328 residential units; 34, 3-storey back-to-back townhouse units, and 10, 3-storey townhouse units; located at the southeast corner of Brock Road and Usman Road, be approved, and that the draft Zoning By-law Amendment, as set out in Appendix II to Report PLN 10-23, be finalized and forwarded to Council for enactment; and 3. That Draft Plan of Subdivision Application SP-2020-03, submitted by Brock Road Duffins Forest Inc., to establish a single development block, with the balance of the subject lands, containing a portion of the valleylands for the West Duffins Creek and the associated buffer, to be conveyed to the Toronto and Region Conservation Authority, as shown on Attachment #5 to Report PLN 10-23, and the implementing conditions of approval, as set out in Appendix III, be endorsed. Executive Summary: Brock Road Duffins Forest Inc. submitted applications for Official Plan Amendment, Zoning By-law Amendment and Draft Plan of Subdivision to facilitate a high-density, residential condominium development, located east side of Brock Road, south of Usman Road within the Brock Ridge Neighbourhood (see Location Map and Air Photo Map, Attachments #1 and #2). - 101 - PLN 10-23 April 3, 2023 Subject: Brock Road Duffins Forest Inc. (OPA 20-001/P, A 05/20 & SP-2020-01) Page 2 The applicant originally proposed a residential development consisting of an apartment building having a maximum height of 20-storeys; 9, 3-storey townhouses; and 64, 4-storey stacked townhouse units. In response to comments and concerns identified by City staff, external agencies, and members of the public, the applicant slightly revised the proposal from the initial submission. The following key changes have been made: • decreased the total number of residential units from 380 to 372 units (a reduction of 8), resulting in a reduced residential density from 290 units per net hectare to 286 units per net hectare; • replaced the stacked townhouse units with 34 back-to-back townhouse units; • increased the setback between the proposed townhouse and back-to-back townhouse buildings, and the north property line, from 5.3 metres to 7.0 metres; • enlarged the at-grade amenity space from 606 square metres to 660 square metres; and • converted the private at-grade amenity space to a privately-owned publicity accessible space (POPS). The application for Draft Plan of Subdivision proposes to create a single development block (Block 1), with the balance of the subject lands, containing a portion of the valleylands for the West Duffins Creek and the associated buffer, to be conveyed to the Toronto and Region Conservation Authority (TRCA) for long-term protection and preservation. The proposed Official Plan Amendment seeks to increase the maximum permitted residential density within Block 1. The Zoning By-law Amendment is intended to rezone Block 1 to an appropriate residential zone category and establish appropriate development standards. The valleylands will be rezoned to an appropriate open space zone category. City Development staff are in support of the revised proposal. The proposed residential density will facilitate a built form that has been demonstrated to achieve a compatible transition with the neighbourhood immediately to the north through the appropriate building siting, setback, separation distances, height and massing. The proposal will provide for a more diversified mix of housing forms and tenure and will assist the City in achieving its intensification targets, while providing at-grade amenity space for use by the broader community. The proposal is located along an arterial road and a collector road that can accommodate the traffic generated by this development. The proposed development provides for a compact form of development and the protection of the natural heritage features through the conveyance of the valleylands associated with the West Duffins Creek to the TRCA. The proposal is consistent with the policies of the Provincial Policy Statement, 2020, and conforms to A Place to Grow, (Office Consolidation 2020), and the Durham Regional Official Plan. The proposed development will be subject to site plan approval, in which detailed design, and architectural control will be addressed. Accordingly, staff recommends that Council approve Official Plan Amendment Application OPA 20-001/P, Zoning By-law Amendment Application A 05/20 and Draft Plan of Submission Application SP-2020-01. - 102 - PLN 10-23 April 3, 2023 Subject: Brock Road Duffins Forest Inc. (OPA 20-001/P, A 05/20 & SP-2020-01) Page 3 Financial Implications: No direct costs to the City are anticipated as a result of the proposed development. 1. Background 1.1 Property Description The subject lands are located on the east side of Brock Road, south of Usman Road and north of Finch Avenue, within the Brock Ridge Neighbourhood (see Location Map, Attachment #1). The subject lands have a total area of approximately 5.0 hectares, and consist of a developable portion having an area of approximately 1.3 hectares, and valleylands having an area of approximately 3.7 hectares. Surrounding land uses include(see Air Photo Map, Attachments #2): North: Across Usman Road, is the Pickering Islamic Centre, a residential subdivision consisting of detached and townhouse dwellings, and a village green (Usman Green). South: West Duffins Creek and associated valleylands, and further south are large lots containing detached dwellings fronting onto the north side of Finch Avenue. East: East Duffins Creek and associated valleylands, and the TransCanada Trail network. West: Across Brock Road is an established residential subdivision consisting of detached dwellings and the Brock Ridge Community Park. 1.2 Previous Applications and Approvals In 2010, Council approved a site-specific rezoning application, submitted by 2143087 Ontario Ltd. (Palwinder), subject to an “(H)” Holding provision to facilitate the development of the westerly portion of the developable lands, referred to as ‘Phase 1 Lands’, for a mixed-use development consisting of a 3-storey office building with ground-floor retail and 12 live-work townhouse units (see Previously Approved Site Plan (2010), Attachment #3). The valleylands associated with the West Duffins Creek were rezoned from a Greenbelt Zone “G” to an Open Space – Hazard Lands Zone “OS-HL”, and were to be conveyed to the Toronto and Region Conservation Authority (TRCA). Subsequently, the subject lands were sold to Fortress Munir 2013 Ltd. (“Fortress”). In 2016, a site plan agreement between the City and the new landowner was executed for the Phase 1 lands, the “(H)” Holding Symbol was removed, and building permit applications were submitted. However, the building permit applications were later abandoned by Fortress. Also in 2016, Fortress submitted applications for zoning by-law amendment and draft plan of condominium to facilitate the development of the rear developable portion (‘Phase 2 Lands’) of the subject lands for a common element condominium consisting of 25 townhouse units fronting onto an internal private road. Following the Statutory Public - 103 - PLN 10-23 April 3, 2023 Subject: Brock Road Duffins Forest Inc. (OPA 20-001/P, A 05/20 & SP-2020-01) Page 4 meeting, held on November 14, 2016, the subject lands were acquired by Brock Road Duffins Forest Inc., and the processing of the applications for the Phase 2 Lands was put on hold. In July 2017, Brock Road Duffins Forest Inc. submitted a revised proposal for all of the developable lands, which proposed a residential condominium consisting of 39 townhouse units with parking at the front of the units fronting onto an internal private road, and 20 rear-lane townhouse units (see Previously Submitted Conceptual Plan by Brock Road Duffins Forest Inc., Attachment #4). A Statutory Public meeting for this proposal was held on March 5, 2018. However, these applications were later withdrawn. 1.3 Applicant’s Proposals Brock Road Duffins Forest Inc. has submitted applications for Official Plan Amendment and Zoning By-law Amendment to facilitate a high-density residential condominium development within the developable portion of the subject lands. The applicant has also applied for a Draft Plan of Subdivision to create a single development block (Block 1). The balance of the subject lands, containing a portion of the valleylands for the West Duffins Creek and the associated buffer, is to be conveyed to the TRCA for long-term protection and preservation as a natural area (see Submitted Draft Plan of Subdivision, Attachment #5). The proposed Official Plan Amendment seeks to increase the maximum permitted residential density within Block 1. The Zoning By-law Amendment is intended to rezone Block 1 to a suitable zone category and establish appropriate development standards. The balance of the subject lands, containing the valleylands and buffers, is proposed to be rezoned to an appropriate open space zone category. The applicant’s initial submission, in 2020, proposed an apartment building with two towers having heights of 20 and 6-storeys connected by a 4-storey podium, containing 307 apartment units (Building A); 64, 4-storey stacked townhouse units (Buildings C & D); and 9, 3-storey townhouse units (Building B), (see Original Conceptual Site Plan, Attachment #6). - 104 - PLN 10-23 April 3, 2023 Subject: Brock Road Duffins Forest Inc. (OPA 20-001/P, A 05/20 & SP-2020-01) Page 5 Figure 1: Conceptual Rendering of Original Proposal In response to comments received from City departments, external agencies, area residents and members of the Planning & Development Committee, the applicant has revised the proposed development. The following is a summary of the key changes that have been made to the proposal (see Current Conceptual Site Plan, Attachment #7): • decreased the total number of residential units from 380 to 372 units, (a reduction of 8), thereby reducing the residential density from 290 units per net hectare to 286 units per net hectare; • replaced the 64, 4-storey stacked townhouse units with 34 back-to-back townhouse units; • increased the setback between the proposed townhouse units and the north property line from 5.3 metres to 7.0 metres; • enlarged the at-grade private amenity space from 606 square metres to 660 square metres, representing 5 percent of the developable area; and • converted the private at-grade amenity space to a privately-owned publicly accessible space (POPS). The 20-storey tower, (Tower 1), will have a maximum tower floorplate of 810 square metres, and will be located at the southwest corner of Block 1 adjacent to Brock Road. The 6-storey tower, (Tower 2), is sited parallel to Usman Road, located immediately to the south of the Pickering Islamic Centre (see Rendering of Current Proposal Attachment #8). The units within the apartment building will have a balcony, or an at-grade patio, as a private outdoor amenity space. The 2 towers will have a total separation distance of 15.0 metres and be connected by a 4-storey podium, which will accommodate indoor amenity areas and a rooftop outdoor amenity area. - 105 - PLN 10-23 April 3, 2023 Subject: Brock Road Duffins Forest Inc. (OPA 20-001/P, A 05/20 & SP-2020-01) Page 6 The 10 townhouse units, (Building B), will be 3 storeys in height, and will have a dedicated driveway and attached private garage, providing 2 parking spaces per unit, which will be accessed directly from the private road. Private rear yard outdoor amenity space will be provided for these units, which will abut the rear yards of the existing detached dwellings immediately to the north fronting Saffron Drive. The back-to-back townhouse units, (Buildings C & D), are proposed to be 3 storeys in height, and will have direct pedestrian access to an at-grade private walkway. Parking for the back-to-back townhouse units will be located within the underground parking garage. Pedestrian access to the underground is available through stairwells located on the north portion of Building C and the east portion of Building D. Vehicular access to the proposed development will be provided through a private road, accessed from the south side of Usman Road. The internal private road will provide access to a 2-level underground parking garage, surface parking areas, private driveways, and 2 loading spaces. The key statistical details between the initial proposal and the current proposal are summarized in Attachment #9 to this report. 2. Comments Received 2.1 Comments received in writing and expressed through the September 24, 2020, Electronic Public Open House Meeting, December 18, 2020 neighbourhood meeting and January 4, 2021, Electronic Statutory Public Meeting On September 24, 2020, an Electronic Public Open House meeting was hosted by the City Development Department to inform area residents about the development proposal. The City advertised the meeting by installing 2 development signs on the property, and a notice was distributed by mail to area residents within 150 metres. The radius was further extended in consultation with the Ward 3 Councillors. A total of 12 individuals participated in the meeting. A meeting between members of the neighbourhood and staff from the City Development Department was also organized by the City Councillor of Ward 3. The meeting was held at Usman Green on December 18, 2020, and attended by approximately 5 members of the community. An Electronic Statutory Public Meeting was held on January 4, 2021, where a total of 6 delegations provided comments. The following is a list of key comments and concerns that were verbally expressed by area residents at the Electronic Public Open House, Electronic Statutory Public meeting, neighbourhood meeting, and written submissions received: • commented that they support the proposed development; • commented that the proposal will increase traffic congestion on local roads within the neighbourhood, and along Brock Road, particularly during rush hours; • commented that the increase in vehicle traffic will result in additional noise throughout the neighbourhood; - 106 - PLN 10-23 April 3, 2023 Subject: Brock Road Duffins Forest Inc. (OPA 20-001/P, A 05/20 & SP-2020-01) Page 7 • commented that Usman Road cannot accommodate the additional vehicles generated by this development; • commented that the peak times chosen in the submitted transportation study do not adequately capture the impact on the neighbourhood, and do not address the mosque programming, which often falls outside of peak commuting times; • commented that the proposal will decrease their property value; • suggested that the lands should be directly accessed from Brock Road, not Usman Road; • commented that the proposed building height and density are not appropriate at this location, and are not compatible with the surrounding established low-density neighbourhood to the north; • commented that the proposed density should be limited to 40 units per net hectare, and the built form should be limited to townhouse and detached dwellings; • commented that the proposed buildings would create adverse privacy and shadow impacts on the adjacent dwellings; • commented that Usman Park cannot accommodate additional residents; • concerned that there is insufficient outdoor amenity space within this neighbourhood to accommodate the proposed future residents; • commented that the additional vehicles as a result of the proposal pose an increased risk to children and pedestrians within the neighbourhood, and at the existing park along Usman Road; • commented that the proposal will result in a negative impact on the adjacent natural area; • questioned if property owners who paid a premium for a lot adjacent to a natural area are going to be compensated; and • concerned that the proposed number of parking spaces for residents and visitors is insufficient to support the development, and will worsen existing parking issues within the surrounding neighbourhood. Key questions/comments raised by members of the Planning & Development Committee at the Electronic Statutory Public Meeting include: • questioned if the sun/shadow study conducted by the applicant considered the impact of shadows for the entire year; • emphasized the necessity of traffic signalization for Usman Road; • questioned if the City was pursuing open park space with the developer for residents of the proposed development; • questioned if the lands being dedicated to the TRCA had reduced over the course of time, and whether the lands located behind Saffron Drive were ever intended to be dedicated to the TRCA; • questioned if the reference to “greenbelt” in the Staff Information Report was in relation to the Ontario Greenbelt or greenbelt space generally and the rationale for removing that component; and • questioned if Durham Regional Police were included as a commenting agency on the application. - 107 - PLN 10-23 April 3, 2023 Subject: Brock Road Duffins Forest Inc. (OPA 20-001/P, A 05/20 & SP-2020-01) Page 8 The City has also received a petition signed by 308 individuals, residing within and outside of Pickering, expressing that the proposed development: • will result in a negative privacy impact on adjacent dwellings; • cannot be supported by the existing Usman Green, and should be required to have a new park dedicated for the new residents generated from the development; • will lead to significant traffic congestion along Usman Road, and increase the risk of pedestrian and vehicle accidents within the existing neighbourhood; • will result in safety issues for existing residents; and • will cause a negative impact on the adjacent open space and natural areas. 2.2 Agency Comments 2.2.1 Region of Durham • no objection to the approval of the proposed applications, subject to the applicant satisfying the Region’s conditions of draft plan subdivision approval related to various matters, including provision and installation of sanitary and water servicing, transportation, and noise and vibration; • the Official Plan Amendment application is exempt from Regional approval, in accordance with Regional By-law 11-2000; • a half signal is proposed by the Region of Durham, at the south portion of Usman Road and Brock Road, to accommodate pedestrian crossing to/from the Pickering Islamic Centre and the subdivision; • the traffic control signal will facilitate existing turning movements, and is planned for installation in 2023, subject to Regional Council approved funding; • water and sanitary sewage capacity is currently available from the existing supply from Usman Road; however, servicing capacity is only assigned and allocated upon execution of a development agreement with the Region of Durham; • the proposed development conforms to the Region of Durham Official Plan (ROP), as it will facilitate residential land uses at densities and heights along Brock Road, where higher density uses and larger/taller buildings are encouraged; • the Region of Durham encourages the re-use, revitalization, redevelopment and rehabilitation of urban areas, based on local needs and priorities; • the revised applications for a decrease in density, and a reduction in the number of units and parking spaces, do not pose a conformity issue with the ROP; • the proposed development will assist in contributing to increasing the overall long-term density of the Brock Road corridor by providing high-density residential development that is conducive to transit use, and is consistent with Provincial Policy Statement policies that encourage the efficient use of land, existing infrastructure, and in proximity to existing transit services; and • the applications conform with the intent of A Place to Grow, the Growth Plan for the Greater Golden Horseshoe, which supports building compact communities, helping to meet the City and Region’s intensification targets, and providing a compatible land use within the community. - 108 - PLN 10-23 April 3, 2023 Subject: Brock Road Duffins Forest Inc. (OPA 20-001/P, A 05/20 & SP-2020-01) Page 9 2.2.2 Toronto and Region Conservation Authority (TRCA) • no objection to the approval of the proposed development, subject to the open space block being rezoned to an Open Space – Natural Area zone category, and the applicant satisfying conditions of draft plan of subdivision approval required by the TRCA; • support the conveyance of the open space block to the TRCA, which will be secured through the conditions of draft plan approval; • based upon a site reconnaissance conducted by TRCA staff, and a review of the submitted Environmental Impact Study (EIS), the wetland boundary is acceptable as presented in the EIS and submitted drawings; and • the southern boundary defined by the EIS and its setback is acceptable as the limit of development. 2.2.3 Durham District School Board • no objections to the proposed development; and • students generated from this development will attend existing neighbourhood schools. 2.2.4 Durham Catholic District School Board • the submitted applications were circulated to the Durham Catholic District School Board; and • the school board did not express any comments or concerns with respect to the submitted application. 2.2.5 Durham Regional Police • the proposed development will pose no immediate obstruction issue for the Region’s NextGen radio system and associated microwave links. 2.3 Comments from City Departments 2.3.1 Engineering Services • no objection to the proposal; • the applicant will be required to lift a portion of the reserve adjacent to the site, known as Block 82, Plan 40M-2571 to accommodate the site entrance; • will be required to provide pre-condition surveys for the structures on the adjacent properties before dewatering and excavation activities at the site; • the developer of the adjacent lands immediately to the north installed certain works from which the applicant lands benefit, as such the applicant will be required to pay their proportionate share of the cost of these works (road construction and appurtenances, storm sewer oversizing and construction of a stormwater management pond), before registering the future subdivision agreement with the City; and • detailed design matters, such as the provision and installation of roads, services, grading, drainage, stormwater management, utilities, tree compensation, and construction management, be addressed through site plan approval, and through conditions of draft plan of subdivision approval. - 109 - PLN 10-23 April 3, 2023 Subject: Brock Road Duffins Forest Inc. (OPA 20-001/P, A 05/20 & SP-2020-01) Page 10 2.3.2 Fire Services • no objections to the applications. 2.3.3 Sustainability On September 20, 2022, City Council adopted new Integrated Sustainable Design Standards (ISDS) for all new development in the City to replace the 2007 Sustainable Development Guidelines. The new standards consist of 2 tiers of performance measures that promote sustainable site and building design. Tier 1 elements would be required for new development applications deemed complete on or after January 1, 2023. Applications submitted (deemed complete) prior to December 31, 2022, will continue to follow the 2007 Sustainable Development Guidelines and, at a minimum, achieve a minimum Level 1, or 19 points. Given that the applications were received in 2020, before the new standards were enacted, the 2007 guidelines apply. Sustainability staff have reviewed the Sustainable Development Report/Checklist, prepared by Dillon Consulting, dated April 2020, which is based on the Draft Sustainable Guidelines approved in 2007. Sustainability staff have no objection to the approval of the proposed Official Plan Amendment and Zoning By-law Amendment applications to facilitate the proposed development. The applicant has noted that the proposal aims to achieve a total of 65 points (Level 2), which exceeds the minimum Level 1 (19 points) required. The applicant has identified the proposal will provide the following optional sustainability elements: • evaluating environmental features through the submission of an Environmental Impact Study, and providing appropriate measures to protect and/or mitigate negative impacts to such features; • providing native landscape plantings; • providing dedicated bicycle parking and storage locations to encourage alternative modes of transportation; and • proposing a high-density use within a 400-metre walking distance of existing commercial/retail uses and recreational outdoor spaces (Brock Ridge Community Park). The development will be subject to Site Plan Approval. When an application for Site Plan Approval is received, the applicant will be required to provide a completed Integrated Sustainable Design Standards (ISDS) Checklist for both types of built forms (low-rise buildings and mid-high rise buildings) and, at a minimum, achieve Tier 1 performance standards. Sustainability staff are satisfied that the proposal complies with the Draft Sustainable Guidelines approved in 2007, and will continue to work with the applicant to ensure the proposal will comply with the City’s new ISDS standard. The final sustainable design features to be incorporated into the development will be presented to the Site Plan Advisory Committee for their feedback before the Director, City Development & CBO issues site plan approval. - 110 - PLN 10-23 April 3, 2023 Subject: Brock Road Duffins Forest Inc. (OPA 20-001/P, A 05/20 & SP-2020-01) Page 11 3. Planning Analysis 3.1 The proposal is consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement, and conforms to A Place to Grow, and the Durham Regional Official Plan The Provincial Policy Statement 2020, (PPS), provides provincial policy direction on land use planning. The PPS provides for appropriate development while protecting resources of provincial interest, public health and safety, and the quality of the natural and built environment. The PPS supports improved land use planning and management, which contributes to a more effective and efficient land-use planning system. The PPS indicates that healthy, livable and safe communities are to be sustained by, among other matters, promoting efficient development and land use patterns; accommodating an appropriate range and mix of residential; and avoiding development which may cause environmental concerns. The PPS outlines that new development should have a compact form, mix of uses and densities that allow for the efficient use of land, in areas that are supported by planned or existing transit services. The PPS also outlines that development shall not be permitted within natural areas, and that natural features are to be protected for the long term. The proposed development promotes residential intensification and provides appropriate density where existing infrastructure and public service facilities are available, and where rapid transit services are planned. The proposal provides for the protection of identified natural features (valleylands) through the conveyance of the natural areas, inclusive of required buffers, to the TRCA for long-term preservation. The proposed development is consistent with the PPS. A Place to Grow, (Office Consolidation 2020), sets out a planning vision for growth throughout the Greater Golden Horseshoe. The subject lands are located within the “built-up area” of the City of Pickering. The proposed high-density residential development will contribute to the achievement of more compact complete communities, and assist the City and Region to meet their respective intensification targets, which is to accommodate 50 percent of all growth within the existing limits of the currently built boundary of the Region and City. The proposed development provides for a compact form of development that is in keeping with the City’s growth management strategy to direct growth to regional corridors. The proposal will provide for the protection of the natural heritage features through the conveyance of the valleylands associated with the West Duffins Creek to the TRCA. Furthermore, the overall height, massing, and building form are sensitive to the surrounding residential land uses within the community. The proposal conforms to the Growth Plan. 3.2 The applicant’s site-specific Official Plan Amendment to increase maximum residential density is appropriate The subject lands are within the Brock Ridge Neighbourhood, and are designated “Urban Residential Areas – Medium Density Areas” and “Open Space System – Natural Areas”. The “Medium Density” designation is intended primarily for residential uses, and permits a maximum residential density of over 30 and up to and including 80 units per net hectare. The “Natural Areas” designation is intended primarily for conservation, environmental protection, preservation, education, and passive recreational uses. - 111 - PLN 10-23 April 3, 2023 Subject: Brock Road Duffins Forest Inc. (OPA 20-001/P, A 05/20 & SP-2020-01) Page 12 The Brock Ridge Neighbourhood policies encourage a variety of housing forms. The neighbourhood policies also state that in the review of development applications for the property situated north of the West Duffins Creek, east of Brock Road, (the subject lands), City Council shall acknowledge the landowners’ interest in maximizing the developable area of the property. Through the processing of the previous development applications, the limits of development have been determined in consultation with the previous landowners, the City and TRCA. The applicant will be required to convey approximately 3.7 hectares of valleyland to the TRCA for long-term preservation and conservation. As a result of the required conveyance of the valleylands, the applicant’s proposal will result in a residential density of approximately 286 units per net hectare, which exceeds the permitted density range of the designation. To facilitate the high-density residential development, the applicant is requesting to amend the Official Plan to re-designate the Block 1 lands to “Urban Residential Areas – High Density”, with a site-specific exception to permit a maximum residential density of 286 units per net hectare. The policies of the Official Plan state that City Council shall encourage a broad diversity of housing by form, location, size, tenure, and cost within the neighbourhoods and villages of the City, so that the housing needs of existing and future residents can be met as they evolve over time. The lands are located at the southeast corner of Brock Road and Usman Road. Brock Road is identified as Type “A” Arterial, and as Transit Spine, under the City’s Official Plan. These roads are recognized as having a higher level of transit service, and are intended to carry moderate volumes of traffic at moderate speeds, and provide access from local roads, collector roads, and arterial roads. To promote the development of a livable, transit-oriented community, the Official Plan directs higher-density development to be located along designated transit spines and arterial roads. Usman Drive is identified as a municipal collector road within the City’s Official Plan. These roads are intended to carry local and neighbourhood traffic in greater volumes than local roads, and provide access from local roads to other collector roads and to Type ‘C’ arterial roads. Brock Road is also designated High-Frequency Transit Network by the ROP. Development along High-Frequency Transit Networks is to provide for complementary higher density and mixed uses at an appropriate scale and context. The proposed density will facilitate a built form that has been demonstrated to achieve a compatible transition with the existing residential neighbourhood immediately to the north, by siting a built form that has similar building height and setbacks to the existing dwellings, providing appropriate building separation between the existing dwellings and the apartment building, and incorporating stepbacks in the height and massing of the apartment building. The proposal has been designed to maximize the separation between the tallest and most dense components of the development and existing residential properties to the north, which will limit any negative impacts with respect to privacy and shadowing. On the easterly portion of the subject lands, and nearest to existing detached dwellings, the proposed development provides for compatible building heights, and a less dense built form, through the placement of townhouse units with adjoining rear yards along the north property boundary. - 112 - PLN 10-23 April 3, 2023 Subject: Brock Road Duffins Forest Inc. (OPA 20-001/P, A 05/20 & SP-2020-01) Page 13 The proposal will provide for a more diversified mix of housing forms and tenure within this neighbourhood, and will assist the City in achieving its intensification targets. The proposal is located along an arterial road and a collector road that can accommodate the traffic generated by this development. Furthermore, siting the apartment building adjacent to Brock Road, which is identified as a transit spine, encourages the opportunity to reduce auto-dependency, and contribute to the development of a livable, transit-oriented community. Based on the foregoing, staff recommend that Council approve the Official Plan Amendment application submitted by the applicant, and adopt Amendment 48 (see Draft By-law to Adopt Amendment 48, Appendix I). 3.3 The proposal maintains the objectives of the Duffins Precinct Development Guidelines The Duffins Precinct Development Guidelines provide direction for detailed land use, transportation network, community design objectives, and servicing arrangements for the Precinct. The design objectives indicate that development in the Precinct must provide: • a range of housing types including detached, semi-detached, townhomes, and multi-unit dwellings; • building form adjacent to Brock Road that is sensitive to the potential impacts of the road, but does not turn its back to it; • streetscape and architectural designs that are aesthetically pleasing, diverse, encourage social interaction within a neighbourhood, and support safe environments; and • development that embraces the natural environment. The Precinct is divided into 5 Development Areas with the intent to establish the development of a varied scale throughout the Precinct. The subject property is delineated as Development Area 5 on the Tertiary Plan. Area 5 is intended to accommodate multi-unit, multi-floor buildings. Building heights permitted in Area 5 range from a minimum of 4 storeys to a maximum of 8 storeys. However, the policies outline that variations to the minimum and maximum building heights may be considered, if it can be demonstrated that the objectives of the guidelines will be achieved. The policies outline that the range of building heights is just one component of a variety of design parameters that guide the development of the precinct. The subject lands are located at the most southerly end of the precinct, and are located on the periphery of the existing neighbourhood, adjacent to open space lands. The proposed development maximizes the developable area within Area 5, and provides multi-unit, multi-floor buildings through the introduction of an apartment building, townhouses, and back-to-back townhouses. The proposal is consistent with the guidelines by: • providing for the conveyance of environmentally sensitive lands for long-term protection; • siting buildings to maximize views of the valleylands to the south; - 113 - PLN 10-23 April 3, 2023 Subject: Brock Road Duffins Forest Inc. (OPA 20-001/P, A 05/20 & SP-2020-01) Page 14 • providing a POPS adjacent to the south property line, which will assist in emphasizing visual connectivity to the valleylands and natural environment; • locating the POPS in a central location and visible from Usman Road promotes accessibility, and will encourage social interaction within the new development and the broader neighbourhood; • providing a mix of housing types, including apartment and back-to-back townhouse options, which are not currently provided for within the Precinct; • articulating the building at the corner of the Brock Road and Usman Road intersection improves the prominence of the site from the north, and establishes a strong building presence along the street lines; • siting the proposed apartment building to run parallel with both Brock Road and Usman Road will assist in mitigating negative visual and noise impacts on the common spaces within the proposal, and the rear yards of existing properties to the north; • providing a 4-storey podium between the proposed apartment towers will assist in creating a consistent and aesthetically pleasing pedestrian-scaled streetwall along Brock Road and Usman Road; • locating a primary building entrance facing Brock Road improves access to the building from the street, and creates a pedestrian-friendly and animated entryway; and • providing internal sidewalks and walkway connectivity throughout the site, and to existing walkways along Usman Road, promotes safe pedestrian environments and community connectivity. Based on the foregoing, staff are satisfied that the proposal reflects the intent of the Brock Precinct Development Guidelines. Through the site plan review process, staff will continue to ensure the site design and architectural treatment of the proposed buildings is consistent with the Guidelines for the Brock Precinct. 3.4 Proposal has been designed to provide an appropriate transition in built form from the adjacent residential areas Residents expressed concern that the building height and density are not appropriate at this location, and are not compatible with the surrounding established low-density neighbourhood to the north. Appropriate transition between the proposed development and the existing neighbourhood to the north is achieved through sympathetic massing, compatible building heights, setbacks and maximizing separation distances. The existing subdivision to the north is subject to a site-specific zoning by-law, previously approved by City Council, that permits detached and townhouse dwelling units with a maximum height ranging between 12.0 metres and 13.0 metres (3 storeys). On the south side of Saffron Drive are existing 3-storey detached dwellings with a rear yard setback of 7.0 metres. To allow for a compatible transition between the existing detached dwellings, the applicant is proposing 3-storey townhouse units adjacent to the mutual property line that will have a maximum height of 11.2 metres, and a rear yard - 114 - PLN 10-23 April 3, 2023 Subject: Brock Road Duffins Forest Inc. (OPA 20-001/P, A 05/20 & SP-2020-01) Page 15 setback of 7.0 metres. The proposed townhouse blocks will have similar building heights to the existing dwellings within the residential subdivision to the north. Due to the grading of the subject lands, the townhouse block will appear to be 2.5 storeys in height when viewed from the rear yards of the adjacent residential properties. The proposal replicates the existing building height and setbacks established immediately to the north, as shown in Figure 2, below. Figure 2: Cross Section Elevation viewed from the west To ensure a sensitive transition between the apartment building and the existing dwellings, the applicant has provided a progressive stepping of building heights, and has sited the tallest portion of the building to maximize separation from the detached dwellings. The 20-storey tower is proposed to be located at the southwest corner of the site, adjacent to Brock Road and the open space block, while the 6-storey building will be located parallel to Usman Road, immediately south of the Pickering Islamic Centre. In siting the proposed apartment buildings, the applicant has located the tallest building, adjacent to the open space area to the south and at the furthest possible distance from the existing detached dwellings along Usman Road and Saffron Drive. A minimum separation distance of approximately 35.0 metres is maintained between the closest portion of the 6-storey building and the nearest residential dwelling in the subdivision to the north. A separation distance of approximately 95.0 metres is maintained between the proposed 20-storey building and the nearest residential dwelling (see Figure 3, below). - 115 - PLN 10-23 April 3, 2023 Subject: Brock Road Duffins Forest Inc. (OPA 20-001/P, A 05/20 & SP-2020-01) Page 16 Figure 3: Distance Separation To further minimize the impact of the 20-storey tower, the applicant has limited the maximum tower floorplate to 810 square metres. The slender tower design will assist with reducing the visual impact of the building, and minimize shadow impacts on residential properties located immediately to the north. The following section of this report includes an analysis of the shadow impacts. Staff are satisfied that the scale, massing, and building heights of the proposed apartment buildings and townhouse blocks will achieve a compatible transition from the existing neighbourhood to the north. Furthermore, the building design incorporates various design elements and stepbacks to help create a visually appealing building mass that will not impose upon the existing neighbourhood. 3.5 The proposal will have minimal shadow impacts Residents also expressed concerns that the proposed apartment buildings will result in shadow impacts on neighbouring properties. A Sun/Shadow Study, prepared by Kohn Architects, dated April 3, 2020, has been submitted by the applicant in support of the proposal. It identifies the shadow impacts of the proposed development on the surrounding properties during the spring (March 21st), summer (June 21st), fall (September 21st), and winter (December 21st) seasons, for the period between 9:18 am and 6:18 pm. The best practice in assessing shadow impact is that shadows should not exceed two hours in duration on outdoor amenity areas during - 116 - PLN 10-23 April 3, 2023 Subject: Brock Road Duffins Forest Inc. (OPA 20-001/P, A 05/20 & SP-2020-01) Page 17 the spring, summer, and fall seasons. During the winter solstice, shadows are typically cast further, and are present for a longer period, given the sun is lower in the sky, and moves slower during this period. The study demonstrates that the majority of the shadows cast by the two towers during the spring, summer and fall will be directed onto the Usman Road right-of-way, and the easterly portion of the subject lands. During these seasons, shadows cast by the two towers will move quickly. The staggered tower heights proposed, with the mid-rise building to the north and the tallest tower to the south, will reduce shadow impact on the place of worship and the residential properties immediately to the north and east, as a significant portion of the shadows cast to the north by the 20-storey tower will be blocked by the 6-storey building. During the spring, summer and fall, the shadows cast over the residential area to the north from the proposed buildings are minimal, and do not appear to be present in the rear yards of the properties immediately to the north or west, for more than an hour. The proposed design minimizes shadow impact on surrounding properties and is considered appropriate. 3.6 Brock Road is expected to be widened to 6 lanes by the Region of Durham The Durham Transportation Master Plan, December 2017, indicates that Brock Road is proposed to be widened from 5 to 7 lanes between 2027-2031. The widening of Brock Road will also include the introduction of dedicated High Occupancy Vehicle (HOV) lanes intended to accommodate a High-Frequency Bus corridor. These improvements are expected to increase the road capacity, improve traffic flow, and ultimately reduce delays and queues throughout the road network. Figure 4: Future Brock Road Design Excerpt from Environmental Assessment The introduction of HOV lanes on Brock Road are intended to accommodate high-frequency transit with frequencies of 10-minutes or less. The planned improvements to transit services will assist in reducing the need for personal vehicles and associated parking space demand. - 117 - PLN 10-23 April 3, 2023 Subject: Brock Road Duffins Forest Inc. (OPA 20-001/P, A 05/20 & SP-2020-01) Page 18 3.7 The proposed development will contribute a similar volume of traffic trips as the current land use permission on the subject lands Several area residents expressed concerns that existing traffic levels along Usman Road are already high, and the proposal will only worsen the existing traffic issues experienced along this roadway. Additionally, area residents expressed concern that the submitted Transportation Impact Study did not address the programming conducted by the Pickering Islamic Centre, which does not coincide with peak traffic hours. In support of the revised proposal, the applicant has submitted a Transportation ImpactStudy (TIS), prepared by Crozer Consulting Engineers (Crozer), dated April 2020; a TIS Addendum dated September 2021; and a TIS update Letter, dated September 2022. Crozer investigated the traffic conditions, and effects of the proposed development on the surrounding area, and the intersections of: Brock Road and Usman Road (south); Brock Road and Usman Road/MajorOaks Road; and Brock Road and Finch Avenue. The study area also included the future full move access on Usman Road. The Study analyzed the total traffic conditions for both 2024 and 2029, which included existing traffic volumes, the traffic resulting from the proposed development, and projected future traffic from other projects. Due to the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic, 2020 traffic patterns were not typical, and would not reflect normal operating conditions, as employees were working remotely, and public indoor space capacity restrictions were in place across the Province. Therefore, available movement counts surveyed in October 2019 were utilized. The table below summarizes the proposed trip generation, during the peak morning and evening weekday hours. At the request of the Region and City, Crozer also assessed traffic volumes on Friday mid-day hours to capture peak traffic movements associated with the programming of the Pickering Islamic Centre. Weekdays Friday Mid-Day (PM) 12:00 to 4:00 (Pickering Islamic Centre Peak) AM 7:00 to 9:00 PM 4:00 to 6:00 In Out Total In Out Total In Out Total Total Site Trips 29 92 121 85 54 139 85 54 139 Based on the analysis, during the weekday morning peak period (7:00 am to 9:00 am), the development will generate approximately 121 trips (29 inbound and 92 outbound trips). During the evening (4:00 pm to 6:00 pm) and Friday mid-day peak periods (12:00 pm to 4:00 pm), the development will generate approximately 139 trips (85 inbound and 44 outbound). As outlined under Section 1.2, a zoning by-law amendment was previously approved in 2010, which permitted a mixed-use development consisting of a 3-storey office building with ground-floor retail, and 12 live-work townhouse units on the subject lands. Site plan approval for this proposal was issued in 2015. At the request of City staff, Crozer - 118 - PLN 10-23 April 3, 2023 Subject: Brock Road Duffins Forest Inc. (OPA 20-001/P, A 05/20 & SP-2020-01) Page 19 assessed the number of vehicle trips the previously approved development would generate. Below is the trip generation, during the peak morning, evening weekday and Friday mid-afternoon hours: Weekdays Friday Mid-Day (PM) 12:00 to 4:00 (Pickering Islamic Centre Peak) AM 7:00 to 9:00 PM 4:00 to 6:00 In Out Total In Out Total In Out Total Total Site Trips 43 14 57 63 81 144 63 81 144 When compared to the previously approved site plan, the proposed development is forecasted to generate 64 additional trips in the morning peak hour and 5 fewer trips in the evening and Friday mid-day peak hours. Crozer has identified that there will be increased congestion and delay in turning movements at select intersections in the study area during peak hours under existing, and future conditions. Notwithstanding the increase in traffic congestion, the consultant indicated that the proposed development does not materially affect traffic conditions, and would contribute a relatively small proportion to the overall traffic on the surrounding road network. The development is projected to be accommodated by the existing road network, signal timing changes, and the future widening of Brock Road. The study concludes that future traffic generated from the proposed development can be accommodated by the proposed access scheme, without any additional modification to the adjacent street systems, and outlines several Transportation Demand Management (TDM) measures to reduce reliance on single occupancy vehicles and minimize vehicle moments. The submitted Transportation Impact Study has been reviewed by the City’s Engineering Department and the Region of Durham. The City and the Region are satisfied with the findings of the traffic study. 3.8 Brock Road and Usman Road (south) will be partially signalized in 2024 At the Statutory Public Meeting, members of the Planning & Development Committee questioned if the Brock Road and Usman Road intersection could be signalized to support increased traffic flows. Additionally, on February 22, 2021, City Council adopted Resolution #533/21, which requested: 1. That the Region of Durham consider the expedited approval, and installation, of full traffic and pedestrian signals at the intersection of Brock Road (RR#1) and the southern leg of Usman Road, in place of the existing left-in, right-in and right-out only access; - 119 - PLN 10-23 April 3, 2023 Subject: Brock Road Duffins Forest Inc. (OPA 20-001/P, A 05/20 & SP-2020-01) Page 20 2. That the installation of signals be completed before the beginning of construction of the new development, to address construction traffic from having to drive through the existing neighbourhood; and 3. That a copy of this motion be sent to the Region of Durham Commissioner of Works and Chair of the Works Committee. At the request of City staff, Crozer, the applicant’s transportation consultant, undertook a signal warrant analysis for the Brock Road and Usman Road (south) intersection as a part of the TIS addendum. The analysis concluded that full signalization of the study intersection was not warranted based on current or future (2029) traffic volumes. Through a letter dated September 9, 2022, to the City Clerk, the Region of Durham Works Department provided a response to Council Resolution #533/21. The Region outlined that they assessed whether a full traffic control signal was warranted at the intersection based on warrant criteria prescribed in the Ontario Traffic Manual (OTM Book 12). The TIS Addendum prepared by Crozer was referenced to confirm site trip volumes based on full buildout conditions. It was assumed that most of the left turn volume at Usman Road/Major Oaks Drive would be reassigned to Usman Road south should a full-moves signalized intersection be provided. Based on these assumptions, the intersection still did not meet the necessary warrant thresholds to satisfy the requirements for a full traffic control signal. However, the Region did review the Brock Road and Usman Road (south) intersection for a dedicated pedestrian signal. An 8-hour pedestrian count was conducted on Friday, April 8th, 2022, during Ramadan prayer times, recording a total of 264 pedestrian crossings. Based on the number of pedestrian counts recorded, a controlled pedestrian crossing (mid-block or intersection pedestrian signal) is warranted according to criteria prescribed in the Ontario Traffic Manual (OTM Book 15). Based on the outcome of this study, and the feasibility of a controlled crossing at this location, the Region determined that a half-signal design was preferred to accommodate existing pedestrian crossings, while not adversely impacting traffic progression on Brock Road. The current turning movement restrictions would remain in place, and a pedestrian crossing would be installed on the south approach. Pedestrian push buttons would activate the traffic signal, and permit pedestrians to cross Brock Road simultaneously with the southbound left turn movement. All other traffic and pedestrian crossings would be prohibited during this phase. Outside of this phase, traffic would continue to operate as it does today. The Region has outlined they have allocated a budget in 2023, subject to Regional Council approval, to move forward with this construction and installation in 2024. 3.9 Implementation of Transportation Demand Management strategies, and future infrastructure improvements, will help to manage future traffic generated by this proposal Transit Demand Management (TDM) is a set of strategies that encourage people to use sustainable modes of transportation, rather than driving alone, or making fewer trips by car. An effective TDM program is successful at reducing peak-hour roadway demand. The applicant’s traffic consultant has proposed the following TDM measures: - 120 - PLN 10-23 April 3, 2023 Subject: Brock Road Duffins Forest Inc. (OPA 20-001/P, A 05/20 & SP-2020-01) Page 21 • Transit Incentives • applicant to consider providing a pre-loaded transit pass as an incentive to promote transit usage and decrease automobile dependency; • Real-Time Transit Information • applicant to consider providing real-time transit information, through dedicated screens in the main lobby or elevator area of the apartment building, to share transit schedules and service delays; • Parking Management • Unbundled parking: • unbundling of residential parking spaces from the unit is recommended since only residents requiring parking spaces will purchase the space; and • this strategy will reduce parking space demands, thus encouraging alternative modes of transportation; • parking stall cost to be priced variably by demand and supply; • Bicycle Parking & Facilities • the development provides dedicated bicycle parking spaces (minimum of 372 spaces); and • providing a small, compact bicycle repair station with a toolkit and pump, near bicycle parking, to increase confidence and reliability for prospective cyclists; • Priority Rideshare Pickup/Drop-off Areas • designated drop-off area near the entrance to the residential tower is proposed and will provide a convenient space for pick-up and drop-off, to facilitate taxi, rideshare (Uber, Lyft), small package or food deliveries, and carpool drop-off near the building entrance and is expected to contribute to reduced single vehicle trips; • Preparation of an Information package/communication strategy • provide an information package to first-time buyers that include information regarding public transportation options, active transportation network maps, and car-rental/carshare locations; and • promotional material to be readily available (and continuously updated) in the apartment building lobby. The above measures recommended by Crozer are appropriate. Staff will continue to work with the applicant to ensure that these measures, and any other appropriate measures, are reflected on the final site plan drawings and secured through the site plan agreement before approval. The implementation of the above-noted TDM measures and anticipated road widening improvements will assist in managing future traffic generated by this development. - 121 - PLN 10-23 April 3, 2023 Subject: Brock Road Duffins Forest Inc. (OPA 20-001/P, A 05/20 & SP-2020-01) Page 22 3.10 Adequate parking supply will be provided for residents, visitors, and commercial uses Concerns were expressed that the number of parking spaces proposed for residents and visitors, may not be sufficient to support the development. The table below outlines the minimum number of parking spaces required by the recommended site-specific zoning by-law contained in Appendix II: Type Proposed Parking Rate Number of Spaces Apartment Unit 328 units 1.0 space per unit 328 0.25 spaces per unit for visitors 82 Townhouse Unit 10 units 2.0 spaces per unit 20 0.25 spaces per unit for visitors 3 Back-to-back townhouse Unit 34 units 2.0 spaces per unit 68 0.25 space per unit 9 Total 509 The proposed parking ratios for apartment and townhouse uses are consistent with the parking requirements established through the previously approved site-specific zoning by-law amendment in 2010. The proposed parking ratios also exceed other recently approved mixed-use developments at the northeast corner of Brock Road and Kingston Road and the SmartCentre lands. The applicant has also identified that they intend to provide an additional 4 spaces above those required under the site-specific zoning by-law for a total of 513 spaces. Staff are supportive of the parking ratios proposed, and are satisfied that a sufficient number of parking spaces will be provided to accommodate this development. 3.11 Proposed outdoor private park has been enlarged and will be accessible to surrounding residents Several area residents outlined that there is insufficient outdoor amenity space within this neighbourhood to accommodate the proposed future residents and that Usman Park is too small to support the future population from this development. The original plan proposed an at-grade amenity space a 606 square metre private park abutting the south limit of the. The initial location of the private park was not desirable as the visibility and access to the area was obstructed by visitor parking spaces, a loading space, and an access ramp for the underground parking garage property (see Original Conceptual Site Plan, Attachment #6). - 122 - PLN 10-23 April 3, 2023 Subject: Brock Road Duffins Forest Inc. (OPA 20-001/P, A 05/20 & SP-2020-01) Page 23 To address concerns raised by City staff and residents, the revised plan increased the size of the park, and the applicant has proposed to provide the park as a privately owned publicly accessible space (POPS), available for those in future development as well as the broader community to utilize. All surface parking, loading spaces, and the underground garage ramp have been relocated away from the park. The proposed POPS is approximately 660 square metres, representing approximately 5.0 percent of the total site area. The location of the space is intended to maximize connectivity and accessibility with the existing community immediately to the north, as it will be visible and have a walkway connection from Usman Road. The park has been conceptually designed to provide passive seat areas and play equipment, as indicated in Figure 4 below. The final design details for the POPS will be confirmed through the Site Plan Approval process. Figure 4: Conceptual Configuration of POPS 3.12 Sufficient indoor and outdoor amenity spaces will be provided in addition to the private outdoor park In addition to the private outdoor park, the applicant will be required to have both private indoor and outdoor amenity spaces for the exclusive use of the residents within this development. The site-specific zoning by-law, attached as Appendix II to this report, contains minimum requirements for private indoor and outdoor common amenity areas. The zoning by-law outlines that a minimum of 2.0 square metres of common indoor and 2.0 square metres of common outdoor amenity areas are required for each dwelling unit. To achieve these requirements, the applicant is providing approximately 830 square metres of indoor common amenity space within the apartment building and a common patio on the rooftop of the 4th floor podium, which will be approximately 473 square metres in size. Programming and detailed design of the common amenity areas within the apartment building will be confirmed through the site plan review process. - 123 - PLN 10-23 April 3, 2023 Subject: Brock Road Duffins Forest Inc. (OPA 20-001/P, A 05/20 & SP-2020-01) Page 24 Additionally, dedicated private amenity space will be required for each apartment, townhouse and back-to-back townhouse units. A minimum of 3.0 square metres of continuous private outdoor amenity space is required for each apartment unit, and will be provided through a balcony or at-grade patio. A minimum of 4.5 square metres of outdoor amenity space is required for each back-to-back townhouse unit, and will be provided through a rooftop patio. Townhouse units will have private amenity space through at-grade rear yards, which will have a minimum depth of 7.0 metres. The revised proposal provides for a sufficient amount of common and private amenity space for residents, visitors, and the broader community. Additionally, the proposal provides for sufficient private indoor and outdoor amenity areas for future residents. 3.12 The proposal complies with the Duffins Precinct Environmental Servicing Plan In 2013, Council endorsed the recommendations of the Duffins Precinct Southern Lands Environmental Servicing Plan Update, Final Report (ESP Update), dated November 2012, prepared by Sernas Associates (now GHD). The ESP Update recommends detailed technical strategies to address water resource issues, including the protection of wetland features, hydrogeology and water balance, erosion sensitivity, aquatic habitat and headwater conditions, stormwater management strategies, phasing of stormwater facilities, and required monitoring. The revised proposal has been reviewed by the City’s Engineering Services Department to ensure compliance with the technical requirements and recommendations of the ESP Update. The Engineering Services Department has outlined they have no objections to the proposal, subject to the conditions of draft plan approval, contained within Appendix III of this Report. 3.13 Response to Additional Key Concerns As noted in Section 2.1 of this report, area residents, and members of the Planning & Development Committee, have identified various questions and concerns with the proposed development. The applicant has addressed matters concerning conformity with provincial, regional and municipal policies; building heights, density and transition; traffic and parking; loss of commercial space, and shadow impacts. The table below summarized other concerns raised by area residents throughout the planning process. Concerns Staff’s Response Negative impact on the environmental lands The applicant submitted an Environmental Impact Study (EIS), prepared by Dillon Consulting, dated March 2020. The Study assessed the quality and extent of natural heritage features found on and adjacent to the subject lands, and the potential impacts on these features from the proposed development. The EIS also provided a summary of the history of how the developable area was established in consultation with the TRCA. The EIS concludes that any potential impacts on the adjacent natural features as a result of the proposed - 124 - PLN 10-23 April 3, 2023 Subject: Brock Road Duffins Forest Inc. (OPA 20-001/P, A 05/20 & SP-2020-01) Page 25 Concerns Staff’s Response development can be mitigated through detailed design considerations, such as grading and stormwater management; sediment and erosion control plan; on-site replanting; and environmental monitoring plan. As outlined under Section 2.2.2, the TRCA has advised that they accept the proposed limit of development and are satisfied with the recommendations of the EIS, which will be implemented through the detailed design, as a condition of draft plan of subdivision approval and the site plan approval process. Site access should be solely from Brock Road Brock Road is designated as a Type ‘A’ Arterial Road and High-Frequency Transit Network in the Durham Regional Official Plan, and is designated a controlled access under Regional By-law #211-79. The Region of Durham has confirmed that access to the subject lands will not be permitted from Brock Road, given the site can be accessed from Usman Road, a non-arterial road. Additionally, the Region has identified that the subject lands have inadequate frontage on Brock Road to accommodate a new access that meets the minimum corner clearance between the intersection of Usman Road and a new driveway. Concerned regarding the future noise, dust, and vibration impact of future construction, and the potential damage the construction will cause to neighbouring properties Through the site plan review process, the applicant will be required to prepare and submit a Construction Management Plan to the satisfaction of the City’s Engineering Services, which addresses a variety of mitigation measures to be implemented during the construction process to minimize any negative noise, dust and traffic impacts. The mitigation measures could include a gravel mud mat and a construction staging area, sediment fencing and a tree protection zone. As part of the site plan approval, the applicant will be required to enter into a Site Plan Agreement with the City, which will require that the applicant implement the measures outlined in the submitted Construction Management and Erosion/Sediment Control Plan as approved by City staff. To minimize the adverse effects on adjacent buildings from demolition and construction, through the site plan review process, a vibration analysis will also be required to be submitted. The decline of property values of existing homes as a result of the property development Property value is influenced by several factors such as location, proximity to services and amenities, local economics, home improvements and condition, home and property size, and dwelling style. Impact on property value is not a consideration under the Planning Act in the review of - 125 - PLN 10-23 April 3, 2023 Subject: Brock Road Duffins Forest Inc. (OPA 20-001/P, A 05/20 & SP-2020-01) Page 26 Concerns Staff’s Response development applications. However, appropriate development that is compatible with the surrounding neighbourhood can positively contribute to the immediate area and the community as a whole. 3.14 Technical matters will be addressed through site plan approval Detailed design matters will be dealt with through the site plan approval process. These requirements will address matters such as, but not limited to: • cost sharing; • drainage and grading; • site servicing; • cash-in-lieu of parkland; • bird-friendly design; • design of public streets; • requirements for a Construction Management Plan; • vibration during demolition and construction; • landscaping; • resident, visitor and accessible parking spaces; • emergency vehicle access; • waste management collection; and • location of water meter room, hydro transformers, gas meters and other utilities. 4. By-law to adopt Official Plan Amendment 48 As noted in section 3.2, staff supports the site-specific Official Plan Amendment application submitted by the applicant, and recommends the by-law to adopt Amendment 48, as set out in Appendix I, be finalized and forwarded to Council for adoption. 5. Zoning By-law to be finalized and forwarded to Council for enactment The applicant is requesting site-specific exceptions to facilitate the high-density, mixed- use development. Staff supports the rezoning application, and recommends that the site-specific implementing by-law, containing the standards set out in Appendix II to this Report, be finalized and brought before Council for enactment. 6. Applicant’s Comments The applicant supports the recommendations of this report. - 126 - PLN 10-23 April 3, 2023 Subject: Brock Road Duffins Forest Inc. (OPA 20-001/P, A 05/20 & SP-2020-01) Page 27 Appendices Appendix I Draft By-law to Adopt Amendment 48 to the Pickering Official Plan Appendix II Draft Zoning By-law Amendment A 05/20 Appendix III Recommended Conditions of Approval for Draft Plan of Subdivision SP-2020-01 Attachments: 1. Location Map 2. Air Photo Map 3. Previously Approved Site Plan (2010) 4. Previously Submitted Conceptual Plan by Brock Road Duffins Forest Inc. 5. Submitted Draft Plan of Subdivision 6. Original Conceptual Site Plan 7. Current Conceptual Site Plan 8. Rendering of Current Proposal 9. Development Key Details Summary Prepared By: Original Signed By Cody Morrison Principal Planner, Development Review Original Signed By Catherine Rose For Nilesh Surti Nilesh Surti, MCIP, RPP Manager, Development Review & Urban Design Approved/Endorsed By: Original Signed By Catherine Rose, MCIP, RPP Chief Planner Original Signed By Kyle Bentley, P. Eng. Director, City Development & CBO CM:ld Recommended for the consideration of Pickering City Council Original Signed By Marisa Carpino, M.A. Chief Administrative Officer - 127 - Appendix I to Report PLN 10-23 Draft By-law to Adopt Amendment 48 to the Pickering Official Plan - 128 - The Corporation of the City of Pickering By-law No. XXXX/23 Being a By-law to adopt Amendment 48 to the Official Plan for the City of Pickering (OPA 20-001/P) Whereas pursuant to the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c.p. 13, subsections 17(22) and 21(1), the Council of The Corporation of the City of Pickering may, by by-law, adopt amendments to the Official Plan for the City of Pickering; And whereas pursuant to Section 17(10) of the Planning Act, the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing has by order authorized Regional Council to pass a by-law to exempt proposed area municipal official plan amendments from its approval; And whereas on February 23, 2000, Regional Council passed By-law 11/2000 which allows the Region to exempt proposed area municipal official plan amendments from its approval; And whereas the Region has advised that Amendment 48 to the City of Pickering Official Plan is exempt from Regional approval; Now therefore the Council of The Corporation of the City of Pickering hereby enacts as follows: 1.That Amendment 48 to the Official Plan for the City of Pickering, attached hereto as Exhibit “A”, is hereby adopted; 2.That the City Clerk is hereby authorized and directed to forward to the Regional Municipality of Durham the documentation required by Procedure: Area Municipal Official Plans and Amendments. 3.This By-law shall come into force and take effect on the day of the final passing hereof. By-law passed this 24th day of April, 2023. __________________________ Kevin Ashe, Mayor __________________________ Susan Cassel, City Clerk - 129 - Exhibit “A” to By-law XXXX/23 Recommended Amendment 48 to the City of Pickering Official Plan - 130 - Recommended Amendment 48 to the Pickering Official Plan Purpose: The purpose of this amendment is to re-designate lands at the southeast corner of Brock Road and Usman Road, municipally known as 2055 Brock Road, from “Urban Residential Areas – Medium Density Areas” to “Urban Residential Areas – High Density Areas” and “Open Space System – Natural Areas”, and to add a site-specific policy for the portion of the lands designated as “Urban Residential Areas – High Density Areas”, to permit a maximum residential density of 286 units per net hectare, to facilitate a high-density residential development. Location: The site specific amendment affects the lands located on the southeast corner of Brock Road and Usman Road, described as Part of Lot 18, Concession 2 South, Now Parts 1 to 12, 40R-28897, City of Pickering. Basis: Through the review of Official Plan Amendment Application OPA 20-001/P and Zoning By-law Amendment Application A 05/20, City Council determined that the Amendment facilitates a development that is compatible with the surrounding community, minimizes adverse impacts on the existing low density neighbourhood to the north and is an appropriate intensification project in Pickering’s urban area. The subject lands are located on Brock Road, which is designated as an arterial road and a Rapid Transit Spine under the Durham Regional Official Plan, which are intended to provide for higher density development. The Amendment is consistent with the policies of the Provincial Policy Statement 2020, and conforms to A Place to Grow: Growth Plan for the Greater Golden Horseshoe (2020) and the Durham Regional Official Plan. Actual Amendment: The City of Pickering Official Plan is hereby amended by: 1.Amending Schedule I – Land Use Structure by replacing the “Urban Residential Areas – Medium Density Areas” designation with “Urban Residential Areas – High Density Areas” and “Open Space System – Natural Areas” designation for lands located on the south-easterly corner Brock Road and Usman Road, municipally known as 2055 Brock Road, as illustrated on Schedule ‘A’ attached to this amendment. 2.Revising Policy 12.15 – Brock Ridge Neighbourhood Policies, by adding a new subsection 12.15(d): (h)despite Table 9 of Chapter 3, establish a maximum residential density of 286 units per net hectare for lands located on the southeast corner of Brock Road and Usman Road, described as Part of Lot 18, Concession 2 South, Now Part 1 to 11, 40R-28897, City of Pickering. Implementation: The provisions set forth in the City of Pickering Official Plan, as amended, regarding the implementation of the Plan shall apply in regard to this Amendment. Interpretation: The provisions set forth in the City of Pickering Official Plan, as amended, regarding the interpretation of the Plan shall apply in regard to this Amendment. OPA 20-001/P A 05/20 Brock Road Duffins Forest Inc. - 131 - Edition 9 TownsNpoflJxoodge City of Pickering City of Pickering City Development Department ~April,2023 This Map Forms Part of Edition 9 of the Pickering Official Plan and Must Be Read in Conjunction with the Other Schedules and the Text Schedule 'A' to Amendment '48' Existing Official Plan ,----,____, c Q) (.) en f-----,---------j ~ >---+-----, u r-----l--~ C ,-----.__, * >- f-----,---------j &. Extract of Schedule I to the Pickering Official Plan Land Use Structure Open Space System 1111 Active Recreational Areas 1111 Natural Areas Urban Residential Areas Low Density ELZJ Medium Density as-Medium Density Areas" reas-High Density Areas" Mixed Use Areas 1111 Mixed Corridor Freeways and Major Utilities ~ Potential Multi-use Area - 132 - Appendix II to Report PLN 10-23 Recommended Zoning By-law Provisions for Zoning By-law Amendment Application A 05/20 - 133 - The Corporation of the City of Pickering By-law No. XXXX/23 Being a By-law to amend Restricted Area (Zoning) By-law 3036, as amended, to implement the Official Plan of the City of Pickering, Region of Durham, Part of Lot 18, Concession 2 South, Now Parts 1 to 12 , 40R-28897, City of Pickering (A 05/20) Whereas the Council of The Corporation of the City of Pickering received an application to rezone the subject lands being Part of Part of Lot 18, Concession 2 South, Now Parts 1 to 12 , 40R-28897, in the City of Pickering to permit a high-density, residential development; And whereas an amendment to Zoning By-law 3036, as amended by By-law 7085/10, is therefore deemed necessary; Now therefore the Council of The Corporation of the City of Pickering hereby enacts as follows: 1. Schedules I, II, and III Schedules I, II, and III to this By-law with notations and references shown thereon are hereby declared to be part of this By-law. 2. Area Restricted The provisions of this By-law shall apply to those lands being Part of Lot 18, Concession 2 South, Now Parts 1 to 12, 40R-28897, in the City of Pickering, designated “RHII-6”, “RMI-7”, “OS-PP” & “OS-HL” on Schedule I to this By-law. 3. General Provisions No building, structure, land or part thereof shall hereafter be used, occupied, erected, moved or structurally altered except in conformity with the provisions of this By-law. 4. Definitions In this By-law, (1) “Amenity Space” means the total passive or active recreational area provided on a lot for the personal, shared or communal use of the residents of a building or buildings, and includes balconies, patios, rooftop gardens and other similar features, but does not include indoor laundry or locker facilities. (2) “Balcony” means an attached covered or uncovered platform projecting from the face of an exterior wall, including above a porch, which is only directly accessible from within a building, usually surrounded by a balustrade or railing, and does not have direct exterior access to grade. - 134 - By-law No. XXXX/23 Page 2 (3) “Bay Window” means a window with at least three panels set at different angles to create a projection from the outer wall of a building, and includes a bow window. (4) “Block” means all land fronting on one side of a street between the nearest streets, intersecting, meeting or crossing said street. (5) “Build-to-Zone” shall mean an area of land in which all or part of a building elevation of one or more buildings is to be located. (6) “Building” means a structure occupying an area greater than 10 square metres and consisting of any combination of walls, roof and floor but shall not include a mobile home. (7) “Building, Main” means a building in which is carried on the principal purpose for which the lot is used. (8) “Daylight Triangle” means an area free of buildings, structures, fences and hedges up to 0.9 metres in height and which area is to be determined by measuring, from the point of intersection of street lines on a corner lot, the distance required by this By-law along each such street line and joining such points with a straight line. The triangular-shaped land between the intersecting street lines and the straight line joining the points the required distance along the street lines is the daylight triangle. (9) “Development Agreement” means an executed contract between a developer/property owner and the City of Pickering that is required in order to implement development and may include a subdivision agreement, site plan agreement, or other similar agreements for development. (10) “Dwelling” includes: a) “Accessory Dwelling Unit” means a separate dwelling unit subsidiary to and located in the same building as an associated principal dwelling unit; and its creation does not result in the creation of a semi-detached dwelling, duplex dwelling, three-unit dwelling or converted dwelling. b) “Apartment Dwelling” means a residential use building containing four or more principal dwelling units where the units are connected by a common corridor or vestibule, other than a townhouse dwelling or stacked dwelling. c) “Back-to-Back Townhouse Dwelling” means a residential use building containing four or more attached principal dwelling units divided vertically where each unit is divided by common walls, including a common rear wall without a rear yard setback, and whereby each unit has an independent entrance to the unit from the outside accessed through the front yard or exterior side yard. - 135 - By-law No. XXXX/23 Page 3 d) “Block Townhouse Dwelling” means a residential use building containing three or more attached principal dwelling units divided vertically, and where all dwelling units are located on one lot and accessed from a private street, laneway or common condominium aisle. e) “Dwelling Unit” means a residential unit that: i) consists of a self-contained set of rooms located in a building or structure; ii) is used or intended for use as a residential premise; iii) contains kitchen and bathroom facilities that are intended for the use of the unit only; and iv) is not a mobile home or any vehicle. (11) “Existing” means existing as of the date of the enactment of the provision that contains that word. (12) “Floor Area” means the total area of all floors of a building within the outside walls. (13) “Floor Area, Net” means the total area of all floors of a building measured from the interior faces of the exterior walls or demising walls, but does not include the following areas: (a) Motor vehicle parking and bicycle parking below established grade; (b) Motor vehicle parking and bicycle parking at or above established grade; (c) Loading spaces and related corridors used for loading purposes; (d) Rooms for storage, storage lockers, washrooms, electrical, utility, mechanical and ventilation; (e) Indoor amenity space required by this By-law; (f) Elevator, garbage and ventilating shafts; (g) Mechanical penthouse; and (h) Stairwells in the building. (14) “Floor Space Index” means the total net floor area of all buildings on a lot divided by the total area of the lot. (15) “Grade” or “Established Grade” means the average elevation of the finished level of the ground adjoining all exterior walls of a building. (16) “Gross Floor Area” means the total area of each floor whether located above, at or below grade, measured between the exterior faces of the exterior walls of the building at each floor level but excluding any porch, veranda, cellar, mechanical room or penthouse, or areas dedicated to parking within the building. For the purposes of this definition, the walls of an inner court shall be deemed to be exterior walls. - 136 - By-law No. XXXX/23 Page 4 (17) “Gross Leasable Floor Area” means the total floor area designed for tenant occupancy and exclusive use, including basements, mezzanines and upper floor areas if any; expressed in square metres and measured from the centre line of joint partitions and from outside wall faces. (18) “Ground Floor” means the floor of a building at or first above grade. (19) “Ground Floor Area” means the gross floor area only on the ground floor. (20) “Height” means the vertical distance between the established grade, and in the case of a flat roof, the highest point of the roof surface or parapet wall, or in the case of a mansard roof the deck line, or in the case of a gabled, hip or gambrel roof, the mean height level between eaves and ridge. When the regulation establishes height in storeys, means the number of storeys. The height requirements of this By-law shall not apply to rooftop mechanical penthouses. (21) “Landscaped Area” means an outdoor area on a lot comprising trees, plants, decorative stonework, retaining walls, walkways, or other landscape or architectural elements, excluding aisles and areas for loading, parking or storing of vehicles. (22) “Lane” means a thoroughfare not intended for general traffic circulation that provides means of vehicular access to the rear of a lot where the lot also fronts or flanks onto a street, or where a lot fronts onto public or private open space. The lane may be maintained by a condominium corporation as a private road condominium or by a government authority. (23) “Loading Space” means an unobstructed area of land which is provided and maintained upon the same lot or lots upon which the principal use is located and which area is provided for the temporary parking of one commercial motor vehicle while merchandise or materials are being loaded or unloaded from such vehicles. (24) “Lot” means a parcel of land fronting on a street, whether or not occupied by a building or structure. (25) “Lot Area” means the total horizontal area of a lot. (26) “Lot Line” means a line delineating any boundary of a lot. (27) “Main Wall” means a primary exterior front, rear or side wall of a building, not including permitted projections. (28) “Park, Private” means an area of land not under the jurisdiction of a public authority that is designed or maintained for active or passive recreational purposes. (29) “Parking Area” means one or more parking spaces, including related aisles, for the parking or storage of vehicles. - 137 - By-law No. XXXX/23 Page 5 (30) “Parking Garage” means a building, or part thereof, used for the parking of vehicles and may include any permitted use in the first storey, but shall not include any area where vehicles for sale or repair are kept or stored. A parking garage includes underground parking and a parking structure. (31) “Parking Lot” means a lot or portion thereof provided for the parking of motor vehicles accessory or incidental to the main use. (32) “Parking Space” means an unobstructed area of land that is accessible by an aisle, having access to a street or lane that is reserved for the purpose of the temporary parking or storage of one motor vehicle. (33) “Parking Space, Bicycle” means an area used exclusively for parking or storing a bicycle. (34) “Parking Structure” means a building or portion thereof, containing one or more parking spaces. (35) “Patio” means an outdoor area where seating accommodation can be provided and/or where meals or refreshments are served to the public for consumption. (36) “Podium” means the base of a building, structure or part thereof located at or above established grade that projects from the tower portion of the building. (37) “Point Tower” means a compact and slender building form. (38) “Porch” means a roofed deck or portico structure with direct access to the ground that is attached to the exterior wall of a building. (39) “Premises” means the whole or part of lands, buildings or structures, or any combination of these. (40) “Primary Entrance Door” means the principal entrance by which the public enters or exits a building or individual retail/commercial unit or the resident enters or exits a dwelling unit. (41) “Primary Window” means all windows except bathroom, hallway, closet or kitchen windows. (42) “Setback” means the distance between a building and a lot line. In calculating the setback the horizontal distance from the respective lot line shall be used. (43) “Storey” means that portion of a building other than a basement, cellar, or attic, included between the surface of any floor, and the surface of the floor, roof deck or ridge next above it. (44) “Storey, First” means the storey with its floor closest to grade and its ceiling more than 1.8 metres above grade. - 138 - By-law No. XXXX/23 Page 6 (45) “Street” means a public highway but does not include a lane or a King’s Highway (Highway 401). Where a 0.3 metre reserve abuts a street, or where a daylight triangle abuts a street, for the purposes of determining setbacks the street shall be deemed to include the 0.3 metre reserve and/or the daylight triangle, however, nothing herein shall be interpreted as granting a public right of access over the 0.3 metre reserve or as an assumption of the 0.3 metre reserve as a public highway for maintenance purposes under the Municipal Act. (46) “Street Line” means the dividing line between a lot and a street. (47) “Street, Private” means: a) a right-of-way or roadway that is used by vehicles and is maintained by a condominium corporation; b) a private road condominium, which provides access to individual freehold lots; c) a roadway maintained by a corporation to provide vehicular and pedestrian access to parking lots and individual retail/commercial units; and d) a private right-of-way over private property, that affords access to lots abutting a private road, but is not maintained by a public body and is not a lane. (48) “Structure” means anything that is erected, built or constructed of parts joined together with a fixed location on the ground, or attached to something having a fixed location in or on the ground and shall include buildings, walls or any sign, but does not include fences below six feet in height or in-ground swimming pools. (49) “Tower” means the storeys within that portion of a building or structure or part thereof located above the podium. (50) “Tower Floor Plate” means the average floor area of all storeys within that portion of a building or structure or part thereof located above the podium, measured to the exterior faces of exterior walls of each storey of a building or structure. (51) “Uncovered Platform” means an attached or freestanding structure not covered by a roof, which is located on the same level as or lower than the first storey of the building associated with the platform. 5. Permitted Uses and Zone Regulations (1) Permitted Uses (“RHII-6” Zone) No person shall within the lands zoned “RHII-6” on Schedule I to this By- law, use any lot or erect, alter, or use any building or structure for any purpose except the following: a) Apartment Dwelling - 139 - By-law No. XXXX/23 Page 7 (2) Permitted Uses (“RMI-7” Zone) No person shall within the lands zoned “RMI-7” on Schedule I to this By-law, use any lot or erect, alter, or use any building or structure for any purpose except the following: a) Block Townhouse Dwelling b) Back-to-Back Townhouse Dwelling (3) Zone Regulations (“RHII-6” & “RMI-7” Zone) No person shall within the lands zoned “RHII-6” & “RMI-7” on Schedule I to this By-law, use any lot or erect, alter, or use any building or structure except in accordance with the following provisions: “RHII-6” “RMI-7” a) Floor Space Index (FSI) i) the area shown on Schedule I to this By-law, zoned “RHII- 6”, “RMI-7” and “OS-PP” shall be the extent of lands for the purposes of calculating FSI ii) minimum FSI – 0.75 iii) maximum FSI – 2.32 b) Number of Dwelling Units i) minimum 74 units ii) maximum 372 units c) Building Height i) the maximum height of a building is specified by the number following the HT symbol as shown on Schedule III to this By-law ii) notwithstanding section 5 (3) c) i) above, enclosed stairwells providing roof access may exceed the maximum building height as shown on schedule III to a maximum of 2.7 metres d) Building Location and Setbacks i) no building or part of a building, or structure shall be erected outside of a building envelope, as shown on Schedule II to this By-law ii) no building or portion of a building or structure shall be erected within the building envelope, unless a minimum of 80 percent of the entire length of the build-to-zone, as shown on Schedule II to this By-law, contains a continuous portion of the exterior wall of a building iii) notwithstanding section 5 (3) d) i) above, buildings or portions of buildings not exceeding 4.5 metres in height and used solely for stairwell access to an underground parking garage or waste collection are permitted to be located beyond the building envelope, provided such buildings are setback a minimum of 7.0 metres from all lots lines - 140 - By-law No. XXXX/23 Page 8 “RHII-6” “RMI-7” e) Setback for Below Grade Parking Structures i) minimum – 0.0 metres ii) notwithstanding Section 5 (3) e) i) above, a minimum setback of 1.5 metres shall be provided from a lot line abutting a “S4-11” zone f) Podium Requirements i) minimum height of podium – 10.5 metres (3- storeys) ii) maximum height of podium – 13.5 metres (4-storeys) Nil g) Tower Floor Plate i) maximum tower floor plate for a building greater than 37.5 metres in height – 810 square metres ii) notwithstanding Section 5 (3) g) i) above, balconies shall be excluded from the calculation of tower floor plate Nil h) Parking Requirements i) 1.0 parking space per dwelling unit i) 2.0 parking spaces per dwelling unit i) Visitor Parking Requirements i) 0.25 of a parking space per dwelling unit j) Private Amenity Requirements i) a minimum of one balcony, deck or private patio shall be provided for each dwelling unit ii) minimum area – 3.0 square metres i) a minimum of one balcony, deck, or rooftop patio shall be provided for each back-to-back townhouse dwelling unit, which shall have a minimum area of 4.5 square metres k) Common Amenity Space Requirements i) minimum – 2.0 square metres of indoor amenity space per dwelling unit ii) minimum – 2.0 square metres of outdoor amenity space per dwelling unit (a minimum contiguous area of 40.0 square metres must be provided in a common location) - 141 - By-law No. XXXX/23 Page 9 “RHII-6” “RMI-7” iii) lands zoned “OS-PP” on Schedule I to this By-law, are permitted to contribute to the common amenity space requirement outlined under Section 5 (3) k) ii) above l) Landscaped Area i) minimum - 10 percent of land area ii) the area shown on Schedule I to this By-law, zoned “RHII- 6” and “RMI-7” shall be the extent of lands for the purpose of calculating landscaped area (4) Permitted Uses (“OS-HL” Zone) No person shall within the lands designated “OS-HL” on Schedule I attached hereto use any lot or erect, alter or use any building or structure for any purpose except the following: (a) preservation and conservation of the natural environment, soil and wildlife; and (b) resource management. (5) Zone Requirements (“OS-HL” Zone) (a) No buildings or structures shall be permitted to be erected, nor shall the placing or removal of fill be permitted, except where buildings or structures are used only for purposes of flood and erosion control, resource management, or pedestrian trail and walkway purposes. (6) Permitted Uses (“OS-PP”) No person shall within the lands designated “OS-HL” on Schedule I attached hereto use any lot or erect, alter or use any building or structure for any purpose except the following: (a) Private Park 6. Special Provisions (“RHII-6” & “RMI-7” Zones) (1) Sections 5.21.1, 5.21.2(a) 5.21.2(b), 5.21.2(d), 5.21.2(e), 5.21.2(f), 5.22 and 6.4 of By-law 3036, as amended, shall not apply to the lands zoned “RHII-6” and “RMI-7” on Schedule I attached to this By-law (2) A private street shall have a minimum width of 6.5 metres. (3) Waste shall be stored within a fully enclosed building, structure or partially underground structure. (4) Air Conditioners are not permitted to be located between a building and a street, however are permitted to be located on a balcony or roof or on a private patio at or below grade. - 142 - By-law No. XXXX/23 Page 10 (5) Permitted Encroachments No part of the building envelope shall be obstructed except as follows: (a) Projections such as awnings, canopies, window sills, chimney breasts, fireplaces, belt courses, cornices, pilasters, eaves, piers, eave troughs, and other similar architectural features may be permitted to project a maximum of 2.0 metres beyond the building envelope as illustrated on Schedule II to this By-law, but shall maintain a minimum setback of 0.6 metres to a lot line. (b) Any stairs, including to a porch or any associated landing, uncovered platform, covered platform, and any unenclosed ramp for wheelchair access may encroach beyond the building envelope no closer than 0.45 metres to a lot line. (c) A balcony, porch, uncovered platform or covered platform may encroach beyond the building envelope to a maximum of 2.0 metres or half the distance of the required setback, whichever is less. (d) A bay, box or bow window, with or without foundation, having a maximum width of 4.0 metres may encroach beyond the building envelope to a maximum of 0.6 metres or half the distance, whichever is less. (6) Noise Attenuation (a) Notwithstanding Section 5 (3) d) related to Podium Requirements for Buildings greater than 37.5 metres, the following building elements may exceed the maximum podium height: (a) equipment used for the functional operation of the building and structures including electrical, utility, mechanical and ventilation equipment, enclosed stairwells roof access, maintenance equipment storage, chimneys, vents, and window washing equipment; (b) architectural features, parapets, elements and structures associated with a green roof; (c) planters, landscaping features, guard rails, divider screens on a balcony and/or terrace; and (d) trellises, pergolas and unenclosed structures providing safety or wind/noise protection to rooftop amenity space. (7) Yards Abutting Daylight Triangles Where a lot abuts a daylight triangle, the setback provisions shall be measured as if the daylight triangle did not exist, provided all buildings are setback 0.6 metres from the daylight triangle with the exception of window sills, belt courses, cornices, eaves, eave troughs and architectural elements, such as the architectural projections from the podium and canopies, which may project to within 0.3 metres of the daylight triangle. - 143 - By-law No. XXXX/23 Page 11 (8) Bicycle Parking Space Requirements a) Minimum number of bicycle parking spaces: i) 0.5 of a space per apartment dwelling unit; and ii) 1.0 space per block townhouse dwelling and back-to-back townhouse dwelling; b) Where the number of bicycle parking spaces exceeds 50 spaces, a minimum of 25 percent of the total required must be located within: i) a building or structure; ii) a secure area such as a supervised parking lot or enclosure; or iii) bicycle lockers. c) Where four or more bicycle parking spaces are provided in a common parking area, each space must contain a parking rack that is securely anchored to the ground and attached to a heavy base such as concrete. d) Dimensions: i) if located in a horizontal position (on the ground): a minimum length of 1.6 metres and a minimum width of 0.6 metres; ii) if located in a vertical position (on the wall): a minimum length of 1.5 metres and a minimum width of 0.5 metres; iii) if stacked: a minimum length of 1.5 metres and a minimum width of 0.45 metres. (9) Loading Standards Where a loading space is provided, the following regulations apply: (a) the minimum dimensions of a loading space are 3.5 metres in width and 12.0 metres in length, with a minimum vertical clearance of 4.2 metres; (b) a loading space shall abut the building for which the loading space is provided; (c) an unenclosed loading space located above established grade shall be set back a minimum of 10.0 metres from a street line; (d) an enclosed loading space located above established grade shall not be located beyond the building envelope as shown on Schedule III to this By-law. - 144 - By-law No. XXXX/23 Page 12 7. Special Provisions (“RMI-7” Zone) (1) Private Garage Requirements: (a) Minimum one private garage per block townhouse dwelling, the vehicular entrance of which shall be located not less than 6.0 metres from a private street. (b) A private garage shall have a minimum width of 3.0 metres and a minimum depth of 6.0 metres provided, however, the width may include one interior step and the depth may include two interior steps. (2) A driveway for a block townhouse dwelling shall not exceed the width of the unit to which it provides access. (3) Rooftop private amenity space shall not be permitted for block townhouse dwellings. 8. By-law 3036 By-law 3036, is hereby further amended only to the extent necessary to give effect to the provisions of this By-law as it applies to the area set out in Schedule I to this By-law. Definitions and subject matters not specifically dealt with in this By-law shall be governed by relevant provisions of By-law 3036. 9. Effective Date That this By-law shall come into force in accordance with the provisions of the Planning Act. By-law passed this 24th day of April, 2023. ___________________________________ Kevin Ashe, Mayor ___________________________________ Susan Cassel, City Clerk - 145 - Br o c k R o a d Saffron Drive Usman Road Clerk Mayor i N XXXX/23Schedule I to By-Law Passed This 24th Day of April 2023 OS-HL 88.7m 107.7m 10 . 4 m 16 . 3 m 21.8 m 1 6 . 9 m 75.0m 58 . 5 m 13. 7 m RHII-6 RMI-7 101.1m 2 9 . 5 m 22.5m 3 6 . 0 m 22.7m 3 0 . 7 m OS-PP 82.7m 15 6 . 4 m 12 7 . 7 m 304.6m - 146 - Br o c k R o a d Usman Road Saffron Drive Su n f l o w e r R o a d Clerk Mayor i N XXXX/23Schedule II to By-Law Passed This 24thDay of April 2023 6.4m 19.3m 10.0m 10.0m 3.7m3.7m 1.6m 3.7m 4.0m 3.5m 3.5m 5.5m 5.5m 7.0m 7.0m 90.5m 68.0m 24.6m 148.9m 38.6m 45 . 2 m 3.3m 3.0m 2.0m57 . 2 m Build-to-Zone (5.0 metres) Building Envelope 4.9m - 147 - Br o c k R o a d Usman Road Saffron Drive Su n f l o w e r R o a d Clerk Mayor i N XXXX/23Schedule III to By-Law Passed This 24th Day of April 2023 HT: 20.5m (Max: 6 Storeys) HT: 15.0m (Max: 4 Storeys) HT: 63.5m (Max: 20 Storeys) HT: 11.2m (Max: 3 Storeys) HT: 13.5m (Max: 3 Storeys) 10 . 4 m 16 . 3 m 21.8 m 1 6 . 9 m 13. 7 m 87.2m 70.7m 38.5m 71.5m 3 0 . 5 m 156.0m 42.6m 3 2 . 9 m 1 2 . 5 m 22 . 7 m 41.2m 52.7m 12 . 4 m 11 . 0 m 35 . 1 m 41.9m 8.5m - 148 - Appendix III to Report PLN 10-23 Recommended Conditions of Approval for Draft Plan of Subdivision SP-2020-01 - 149 - Recommended Conditions of Approval for Draft Plan of Subdivision SP-2020-01 General Conditions 1. That the Owner shall prepare the final plan and land use table generally on the basis of the Draft Plan of Subdivision, Verhaegen, Stubberfield, Hartley, Brewer, Bexaire Inc., identified File No. D-Pick.-2-18, dated November 1, 2021, revised March 8, 2022, which illustrates one block for 20-storey condominium apartment building containing 328 dwelling units, 10 townhouse units and 34 back-to-back townhouse units. Region of Durham 2. That the Owner shall submit plans showing the proposed phasing to the Regional Municipality of Durham and the City of Pickering for review and approval if this subdivision is to be developed by more than one registration. 3. That the Owner shall grant such easements as may be required to provide Regional services for this development. The easements shall be in locations and of such widths as determined by the Regional Municipality of Durham. 4. That the Owner shall provide for the extension of such sanitary sewer and water supply facilities which are external to, as well as within, the limits of this plan that are required to service this plan. In addition, the Owner shall provide for the extension of sanitary sewer and water supply facilities within the limits of this plan which are required to service other developments external to this subdivision. Such sanitary sewer and water supply facilities are to be designed and constructed according to the standards and requirements of the Regional Municipality of Durham. All arrangements, financial and otherwise, for said extensions are to be made to the satisfaction of the Region of Durham, and are to be completed prior to final approval of this plan. 5. That prior to entering into a subdivision agreement, the Region of Durham shall be satisfied that adequate water pollution control plant and water supply capacities are available to the proposed subdivision. 6. That the Owner shall satisfy all requirements, financial and otherwise, of the Region of Durham. This shall include, among other matters, the execution of a subdivision agreement between the Owner and the Region of Durham concerning the provision and installation of sanitary sewers, water supply, roads and other Regional Services. 7. That the Owner shall convey sufficient road allowance widening to provide a minimum of 0.3 metre reserve across the total frontage of the Regional Road (Brock Road). 8. That prior to the finalization of this plan of subdivision, the Owner shall provide satisfactory evidence to the Regional Municipality of Durham in accordance with the Region's Site Contamination Protocol to address site contamination matters. 9. That the Owner submit an updated Environmental Noise Assessment prepared by a qualified acoustical engineer which specifies noise attenuation measures for the revised development. The measures shall be, be included in the City’s Subdivision Agreement to the satisfaction of the Region of Durham and must also contain a full and complete reference to the updated noise report (i.e., author, title, date and any revisions/addenda) and shall include warning clauses identified in the study. - 150 - Conditions of Draft Plan Approval SP-2020-01 April 3, 2023 Page 2 Subdivision Agreement 10. That the Owner enters into a subdivision agreement with and to the satisfaction of the City of Pickering to ensure the fulfillment of the City’s requirements, financial and otherwise, which shall include, but not necessarily be limited to the conditions outlined in this document. 40M-Plan 11. That the Owner submits a Draft 40M-Plan to the satisfaction of the City Development Department. Zoning 12. That the implementing by-law for Zoning By-law Amendment Application A 08/20 becomes final and binding. Street Names 13. That street names and signage be provided to the satisfaction of the Region of Durham and the City. Development Charges & Development Review & Inspection Fee 14. That the Owner satisfies the City financially with respect to the Development Charges Act. 15. That the Owner satisfies the City with respect to payment for the Development Services Engineering Review Fee, Residential Lot Grading Review Fee, Road Degradation Fee, and Development Services Inspection Fees and any additional fees which may be applicable. Pre-Condition Survey 16. That the Owner submits a pre-condition survey for 2101, 2103, 2105, 2107, 2109, 2111, 2113, 2115, 2117, and 2119 to the satisfaction of the City. The surveys must be prepared by a qualified professional and must be undertaken prior to any site works commencing. Cost Recovery 17. That the Owner acknowledges that the developer of the adjacent lands immediately to the north installed certain Works (road construction and appurtenances, storm sewer oversizing and construction of a stormwater management pond), from which the applicant lands benefit. 18. That the Owner shall pay their proportionate share of the cost of works outlined under Condition #17 prior to registering the future Subdivision Agreement with the City. - 151 - Conditions of Draft Plan Approval SP-2020-01 April 3, 2023 Page 3 Stormwater 19. That the Owner satisfies the Director, Engineering Services respecting the stormwater drainage and management system to service all the lands in the subdivision and any provision regarding easements. 20. That the Owner satisfies the Director, Engineering Services for contributions for stormwater maintenance fees. 21. That the Owner satisfies the Director, Engineering Services for the design and implementation of stormwater management facilities and easements for outfalls and access to the outfalls. Grading 22. That the Owner satisfies the Director, Engineering Services respecting the submission and approval of a Grading Control Plan. 23. That the Owner satisfies the Director, Engineering Services respecting authorization from abutting landowners for all off-site grading. Geotechnical Investigation 24. That the Owner satisfies the Director, Engineering Services respecting the submission and approval of a geotechnical investigation. Fill & Topsoil 25. That the Owner acknowledges that the City’s Fill & Topsoil Disturbance By-law prohibits vegetation or soil disturbance, vegetation or soil removal or importation to the site. No on-site works prior to the City issuing authorization to commence works is permitted. 26. That the Owner satisfies the Director, Engineering Services respecting the removal of existing fill stockpiles located on the subject lands prior to prior to the City issuing authorization to commence works is permitted. Construction/Installation of City Works & Services 27. That the Owner satisfies the Director, Engineering Services respecting the construction of roads, storm sewers, sidewalks and boulevard designs through the submission and approval of a Site Servicing Plan. 28. That the Owner satisfy the City respecting arrangements for the provision of all services required by the City. 29. That the Owner satisfies the appropriate authorities respecting arrangements for the provision of underground wiring, street lighting, cable television, natural gas and other similar services. - 152 - Conditions of Draft Plan Approval SP-2020-01 April 3, 2023 Page 4 30. That the Owner agrees that the cost of any relocation, extension, alteration or extraordinary maintenance of existing services necessitated by this development shall be the responsibility of the Owner. Phasing & Development Coordination 31. That if this subdivision is to be developed by more than one registration, the Owner will be required to submit a plan showing the proposed phasing, all to the satisfaction of the Region of Durham and the City. Dedications/Transfers/Conveyances 32. That the Owner conveys to the City, at no cost, all road allowances with the proper corner roundings and sight triangles. 33. That the Owner lifts a portion of the reserve adjacent to the site, known as Block 82, Plan 40M-2571 to accommodate the site entrance through the submission of a letter to the City requesting that the portion of the reserve be lifted and that a draft reference plan which parts out the part of Block 82 that will be lifted is provided. Easements 34. That the Owner conveys, to the satisfaction of the City, at no cost, any required easement for works, facilities or user rights that are required by the City. 35. That the Owner conveys any easement to any utility provider to facilitate the installation of their services in a location(s) to the satisfaction of the City and the utility provider. 36. That the Owner arranges, at no cost to the City, any easements required on third party lands for servicing and such easements shall be in a location as determined by the City and/or the Region and are to be granted upon request any time after draft approval. Construction Management Plan 37. That the Owner satisfies the City respecting the submission and approval of a Construction Management/Erosion & Sediment Control Plan; with such Plan to contain, among other matters: (i) details of erosion and sedimentation controls during all phases of construction and provide maintenance requirements to maintain these controls as per the City’s Erosion & Sediment Control Guideline for Urban Construction; (ii) addressing the parking of vehicles and the storage of construction and building materials during servicing and construction and ensuring that such locations will not impede the flow of traffic or emergency vehicles on existing streets, or the proposed public street; (iii) assurance that the City’s Noise By-law will be adhered to and that all contractors, trades and suppliers are advised of this By-law; - 153 - Conditions of Draft Plan Approval SP-2020-01 April 3, 2023 Page 5 (iv) the provision of mud and dust control on all roads within and adjacent to the site; (v) type and timing of construction fencing; (vi) location of construction trailers; and (vii) details of the temporary construction access. Fencing 38. That the Owner satisfies the City with respect to the provision of temporary fencing around the entire perimeter of the subject lands during construction, prior to the commencement of any works. 39. That the Owner agrees to install a 1.8 metre high board-on-board wood privacy fence along the north property lines, where there is adjacent existing residential lot fronting onto Saffron Avenue. 40. That the Owner agrees to install a 1.8 metre high chain-link fence along the east and south property lines, where there are adjacent open space lands. Landscaping 41. That the Owner satisfies the Director, Engineering Services respecting the submission and approval of a Street Tree-Planting Plan. 42. That the Owner satisfies the Director, Engineering Services with the submission of a Tree Inventory & Preservation Plan which will illustrate the protection of trees and other natural features where appropriate, with specific attention to preservation in all public open spaces prior to the approval of a Preliminary Grading Plan. Tree Compensation 43. That the Owner agrees that prior to final approval of the draft plan, or any phase thereof, compensation for the loss of tree canopy will be required either through replacement planting or cash-in-lieu, to be paid to the City of Pickering. In accordance with Council Resolution #387/18, approved on January 15, 2018, tree removal compensation is to be calculated in accordance with the City of Pickering Tree Inventory, Preservation and Removal Compensation requirements. Where compensation through replanting is being considered, the Owner will be required to provide a Landscape Plan indicating the location, size and species of trees to the satisfaction of the Director, Engineering Services. Engineering Plans 44. That the Owner ensures that the engineering plans are coordinated with the streetscape/architectural control guidelines and further that the plans coordinate the driveway, street hardware and street trees to ensure that conflicts do not exist, asphalt is minimized and all objectives of the streetscape/siting and architectural design statement can be achieved. - 154 - Conditions of Draft Plan Approval SP-2020-01 April 3, 2023 Page 6 45. That the Owner satisfies the City respecting the submission of appropriate engineering drawings that detail, among other things: city services, roads, storm sewers, sidewalks, lot grading, streetlights, fencing, tree planting; and financially-secure such works. Noise Attenuation 46. That the owner agrees in the subdivision agreement to implement noise control measures and warning clauses as recommended in the "Environmental Noise Assessment – Revised, 390, 398, 402, 414, and 422 Finch Avenue", prepared by YCA Engineering Limited, dated May 2018, revised March 2020. Parkland Dedication 47. That the Owner satisfies the City with respect to the payment of cash-in-lieu in accordance with the parkland dedication requirements of the Planning Act. Fire 48. That the Owner agrees that no development will proceed on any land until adequate services are available including adequate water pressure to the satisfaction of the City’s Fire Services Department. Model Homes 49. That the Owner enters into a model home agreement with the City, if applicable for this draft plan. All model homes must satisfy all requirements of the siting and architectural design statement. Canada Post 50. That the Owner agrees to include on all offers of purchase and sale, a statement that advises the prospective purchaser that mail delivery will be from a designated Community Mailbox. 51. That the Owner agrees to consult with Canada Post Corporation to determine suitable location for the placement of Community Mailbox and to indicate these locations on appropriate servicing plans. 52. That the Owner agrees to provide an appropriately sized sidewalk section (concrete pad) for the Community Mailbox to be placed on, any required walkway across the boulevard and any required curb depression for barrier free access. 53. That the Owner agrees to determine and provide a suitable temporary Community Mailbox location(s), which may be utilized by Canada Post until the curbs, sidewalks and final grading have been completed at the permanent Community Mailbox location. - 155 - Conditions of Draft Plan Approval SP-2020-01 April 3, 2023 Page 7 Toronto and Region Conservation Authority (TRCA) 54. Prior to the initiation of final grading, and prior to the registration of this Draft Plan of Subdivision or any phase thereof, the owner shall submit the following to the Toronto and Region Conservation Authority and the City of Pickering for review and approval: a) A detailed Stormwater Management Report to include a detailed design for the storm drainage system for the proposed development including: i. plans illustrating how this drainage system will tie into surrounding drainage systems and stormwater management techniques which may be required to control minor or major flows; ii. appropriate Low Impact Development stormwater management practices to be used to treat stormwater, to mitigate the impacts of development on the quality and quantity of ground and surface water resources as it relates to terrestrial and aquatic habitat; iii. detailed design and maintenance plans for any stormwater management facilities; iv. an Erosion and Sediment Control Report and Plan, consistent with the Erosion and Sediment Control Guideline for Urban Construction (Greater Golden Horseshoe Area Conservation Authorities, 2006), as amended; v. location and description of all outlets and other facilities which may require a permit pursuant to Ontario Regulation 166/06, as amended or superseded. b) Overall grading plans for the lands within the Draft Plan of Subdivision illustrating, among others, how all vegetation in the natural heritage system will be protected from grading and construction impacts. c) Restoration planting plan associated with the meadow habitat and woodland boundary within the lands to be conveyed to TRCA. 55. That the owner agrees in the subdivision agreement, in wording acceptable to the TRCA: a) To carry out, or cause to be carried out, to the satisfaction of the TRCA, the recommendations of the technical reports referenced in Condition # 54; b) To agree to, and implement, the requirements of the TRCA's conditions in wording acceptable to the TRCA; c) To design and implement on and off-site erosion and sediment control; d) To maintain all stormwater management and erosion and sedimentation control structures operating and in good repair during the construction period, in a manner satisfactory to the TRCA; - 156 - Conditions of Draft Plan Approval SP-2020-01 April 3, 2023 Page 8 e) To obtain all necessary permits pursuant to Ontario Regulation 166/06, as amended, from the TRCA; f) To implement all water balance/infiltration measures identified in the approved SWM Report. g) To provide a letter of credit to the TRCA for the full cost of the landscaping identified in Condition No. 1(c). h) To install fences along the boundary of the development lots and Open Space Block (south and east property lines). 56. The owner shall gratuitously convey the Open Space Block, identified as “Lands to be Conveyed” on Drawing No. A1.00, prepared by Kohn, and dated October 25, 2022, Revision 6, Revised Sept 26, 2022, to the TRCA, concurrent with registration. A Draft R- Plan should be submitted to the TRCA identifying the parcel to be conveyed in a separate Open Space Block. a) A restrictive covenant shall be placed over the development Block(s) created adjacent to the Open Space Block. The restrictive covenant shall have the effect of prohibiting: 1) the removal of fences along the lot line of the development Block(s) and the Open Space Block; and 2) the installation of gates or other access through the fences along the lot line of the development Block(s) and the Open Space Block. b) An easement shall be provided at the Owner’s cost over lands identified as being 3 m south of the boundary between the development Block and the Open Space Block as illustrated on Drawing No. A1.00, prepared by Kohn, and dated October 25, 2022, Revision 6, Revised Sept 26, 2022. 57. The Draft Plan of Subdivision shall be subject to any redline revisions necessary to implement the above conditions. Other Approval Agencies 58. That any approvals which are required from the Region of Durham, the TRCA, or any utility for the development of this plan be obtained by the Owner and upon request written confirmation be provided to the City as verification of these approvals. Plan Revisions 59. That the Owner acknowledges and agrees that the draft plan of subdivision and associated conditions of approval may require revisions to the satisfaction of the City, to implement or integrate any recommendation resulting from studies required as conditions of approval. 60. That the Owner revises the draft plan as necessary to the satisfaction of the City, to accommodate any technical engineering issues which arise during the review of the final engineering drawings. Required revisions may include revising the number of residential building lots or reconfiguring the roads or lots to the City’s satisfaction. - 157 - Conditions of Draft Plan Approval SP-2020-01 April 3, 2023 Page 9 61. That the Owner agrees to implement the requirements of all studies that are required by the City for the development of this draft plan of subdivision to the satisfaction of the City. Notes to Draft Approval 1. As the Owner of the proposed subdivision, it is your responsibility to satisfy all conditions of draft approval in an expeditious manner. The conditions of draft approval will be reviewed periodically and may be amended at any time prior to final approval. The Planning Act provides that draft approval, may be withdrawn at any time prior to final approval. 2. All plans of subdivision must be registered in the Land Titles system within the Regional Municipality of Durham. 3. Where agencies' requirements are required to be included in the City of Pickering subdivision agreement, a copy of the agreement should be sent to the agencies in order to facilitate their clearance of conditions for final approval of this plan. The addresses and telephone numbers of these agencies are: (a) Commissioner of Planning and Economic Development, Planning Division, Regional Municipality of Durham, 605 Rossland Road East, P.O. Box 623, Whitby, ON L1N 6A3, 1.800.372.1102. (b) Associate Director, Development Planning and Permits, 101 Exchange Avenue, Vaughan, ON, L4K 5R6, 416.661.6600. 4. Prior to final approval of this plan for registration, the Director, City Development & CBO for the City of Pickering shall be advised in writing by: (a) The Region of Durham, how Conditions 1 to 9, inclusively have been satisfied; (b) The Toronto and Region Conservation Authority, how Conditions 56 and 57, have been satisfied. 5. This draft approval shall lapse three years from the date the draft approval has been granted if the noted conditions have not been fulfilled, or if it has not been extended by the City of Pickering. - 158 - Attachment #1 to Report PLN 10-23 Be a t o n W a y Finch Avenue Usma n Ro a d Sa f f r o n D r i v e Jade Street Major Oaks Road Br o c k R o a d B a i n b r i dge Drive Kingston R o a d Su n f l o w e r R o a d Mcbrady Crescent Ro y a l R o a d B luebird Cresc ent Sh a y D r i v e Ray leen Cresc ent BrockridgeCommunityPark 1:4,000 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 Location MapFile:Applicant:Property Description: OPA 20-001/P, A 05/20 and SP-2020-01 THIS IS NOT A PLAN OF SURVEY. Date: Dec. 14, 2020 ¯ Brock Road Duffins Forest Inc.Part of Lot 18, Concession 2, Now Parts 1 to 12, 40R-28897 (2055 Brock Road) E ProposedResidentialDevelopment Valleylandsto be Conveyedto TRCA - 159 - Attachment #2 to Report PLN 10-23 Be a t o n W a y Finch Avenue Usma n R o a d Az u r e M e w s Sa f f r o n D r i v e Magenta Road Jade Street Major Oaks Road Br o c k R o a d B a i n b r i dge D ri ve Kingston R o a d Su n f l o w e r R o a d Mcbrady Crescent Ro y a l R o a d B luebird C rescent Sh a y D r i v e Rayleen Crescent 1:4,000 SCALE: © The Corporation of the City of Pickering Produced (in part) under license from: © Queens Printer, Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources. All rights reserved.;© Her Majesty the Queen in Right of Canada, Department of Natural Resources. All rights reserved.; © Teranet Enterprises Inc. and its suppliers all rights reserved.; © Municipal Property Assessment Corporation and its suppliers all rights reserved.; City DevelopmentDepartment Air Photo MapFile:Applicant:Property Description: OPA 20-001/P, A 05/20 and SP-2020-01Brock Road Duffins Forest Inc.Part of Lot 18, Concession 2, Now Parts 1 to 12, THIS IS NOT A PLAN OF SURVEY. Date: Dec. 14, 2020 E 40R-28897 (2055 Brock Road) ¯ ProposedResidentialDevelopment Valleylandsto be Conveyedto TRCA - 160 - Attachment #3 to Report PLN 10-23 L:\Planning\01-MapFiles\OPA\2020 Dec. 14, 2020DATE: Applicant: Property Description: File No: Previously Approved Site Plan (2010) FULL SCALE COPIES OF THIS PLAN ARE AVAILABLE FOR VIEWING AT THE CITY OF PICKERING CITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT. City Development Department OPA 20-001/P, A 05/20 and SP-2020-01 Brock Road Duffins Forest Inc. Part of Lot 18, Concession 2, Now Parts 1 to 12, 40R-28897 (2055 Brock Road) - 161 - Attachment #4 to Report PLN 10-23 L:\Planning\01-MapFiles\OPA\2020 Dec. 14, 2020DATE: Applicant: Property Description: File No: Previously Submitted Conceptual Plan by Brock Road Duffins Forest Inc. FULL SCALE COPIES OF THIS PLAN ARE AVAILABLE FOR VIEWING AT THE CITY OF PICKERING CITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT. City Development Department OPA 20-001/P, A 05/20 and SP-2020-01 Brock Road Duffins Forest Inc. Part of Lot 18, Concession 2, Now Parts 1 to 12, 40R-28897 (2055 Brock Road) - 162 - Attachment #5 to Report PLN 10-23 L:\Planning\01-MapFiles\OPA\2020 Dec. 14, 2020DATE: Applicant: Property Description: File No: Submitted Draft Plan of Subdivision FULL SCALE COPIES OF THIS PLAN ARE AVAILABLE FOR VIEWING AT THE CITY OF PICKERING CITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT. City Development Department OPA 20-001/P, A 05/20 and SP-2020-01 Brock Road Duffins Forest Inc. Part of Lot 18, Concession 2, Now Parts 1 to 12, 40R-28897 (2055 Brock Road) - 163 - Attachment #6 to Report PLN 10-23 L:\Planning\01-MapFiles\OPA\2020 Dec. 14, 2020DATE: Applicant: Property Description: File No: Original Conceptual Site Plan FULL SCALE COPIES OF THIS PLAN ARE AVAILABLE FOR VIEWING AT THE CITY OF PICKERING CITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT. City Development Department OPA 20-001/P, A 05/20 and SP-2020-01 Brock Road Duffins Forest Inc. Part of Lot 18, Concession 2, Now Parts 1 to 12, 40R-28897 (2055 Brock Road) N BUILDING A - TOWER 2 BUILDING A - TOWER 1 BUILDING B EXISTING RESIDENTIAL BUILDING D B U I L D I N G C Valleylands to be conveyed to TRCA - 164 - Attachment #7 to Report PLN 10-23 L:\Planning\01-MapFiles\OPA\2020 Feb. 24, 2023DATE: Applicant: File No: Current Conceptual Site Plan FULL SCALE COPIES OF THIS PLAN ARE AVAILABLE FOR VIEWING AT THE CITY OF PICKERING CITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT. City Development Department OPA 20-001/P, A 05/20 and SP-2020-01 Brock Road Duffins Forest Inc. Municipal Address:2055 Brock Road N BUILDING A - TOWER 2 BUILDING A - TOWER 1 BUILDING B EXISTING RESIDENTIAL BUILDING D B U I L D I N G C Valleylands to be conveyed to TRCA - 165 - Attachment #8 to Report PLN 10-23 L:\Planning\01-MapFiles\OPA\2020 March 2, 2023DATE: Applicant: Municipal Address: File No: Rendering of Current Proposal FULL SCALE COPIES OF THIS PLAN ARE AVAILABLE FOR VIEWING AT THE CITY OF PICKERING CITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT. City Development Department OPA 20-001/P, A 05/20 and SP-2020-01 Brock Road Duffins Forest Inc. 2055 Brock Road - 166 - Attachment #9 to Report PLN 10-23Key Details Summary Original Proposal Current Proposal Total Number of Units Apartment Units – 307 Townhouse Units – 9 Stacked Townhouse Units – 64 Total – 380 units Apartment Units – 323 Townhouse Units – 10 Stacked Townhouse Units – 34 Total – 372 units Density 290 units per net hectare 286 units per net hectare No. of Storeys and Building Heights Building A – 20 storeys Building B – 3 storeys Buildings C & D – 3.5 storeys Building A – 20 storeys Building B – 3 storeys Buildings C & D – 3.0 storeys Vehicular Parking Resident – 405 spaces Visitor – 96 spaces Total – 502 spaces Resident – 416 spaces Visitor – 93 spaces Total – 509 spaces Vehicle Parking Ratios 1.0 space per apartment unit 1.25 spaces per stacked townhouse unit 2.0 spaces per street townhouse unit Visitor – 0.25 spaces per unit 1.0 space per apartment unit 2.0 spaces per back-to-back townhouse unit 2.0 spaces per street townhouse unit Visitor – 0.25 spaces per unit Bicycle Parking 218 spaces 372 spaces Amenity Area Indoor – 617 square metres Outdoor – 1,152 square metres (rooftop outdoor amenity and at grade central outdoor landscaped amenity area) Total – 1,769 square metres Indoor – 744 square metres Outdoor – 1,133 square metres (rooftop outdoor amenity and at grade central outdoor landscaped amenity area) Total – 1,769 square metres - 167 -