Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutJune 7, 2021 Planning & Development Committee Meeting Minutes June 7, 2021 Electronic Meeting – 7:00 pm Chair: Councillor Pickles Present: Mayor David Ryan Councillors: K. Ashe M. Brenner S. Butt I. Cumming B. McLean D. Pickles Also Present: M. Carpino - Chief Administrative Officer K. Bentley - Director, City Development & CBO P. Bigioni - Director, Corporate Services & City Solicitor F. Jadoon - Director, Economic Development & Strategic Projects S. Cassel - City Clerk C. Rose - Chief Planner N. Surti - Manager, Development Review & Urban Design D. Jacobs - Manager, Policy & Geomatics C. Morrison - Principal Planner, Development Review C. Blumenberg - Deputy Clerk E. Martelluzzi - Planner ll - Heritage 1. Roll Call The City Clerk certified that all Members of Council were present and participating electronically in accordance with By-law 7771/20. 2. Disclosure of Interest Councillor Ashe declared a conflict of interest under the Municipal Conflict of Interest Act regarding Information Report No. 11-21, 1970 Brock Road, as he is a property owner of acondominium immediately adjacent to the subject property. Councillor Ashe did not take part in the discussion on this matter. 3. Statutory Public Meetings Moved by Councillor Butt Seconded by Mayor Ryan 1 Planning & Development Committee Meeting Minutes June 7, 2021 Electronic Meeting – 7:00 pm Chair: Councillor Pickles 2 That the rules of procedure be suspended to allow one additional delegation, under Section 3 of the agenda regarding Information Report No. 10-21, and one additional delegation, with a presentation, under Section 4 of the agenda regarding Report PLN 29- 21. Carried on a Two-Thirds Vote Councillor Pickles, Chair, gave an outline of the requirements for a Statutory Public Meeting under the Planning Act. He outlined the notification process procedures and also noted that if a person or public body does not make oral or written submissions to the City before the By-law is passed, that person or public body are not entitled to appeal the decision of City Council to the Local Planning Appeal Tribunal (LPAT), and may not be entitled to be added as a party to the hearing unless, in the opinion of LPAT, there are reasonable grounds to do so. Catherine Rose, Chief Planner, appeared before the Committee to act as facilitator for the Statutory Public Meeting portion of the meeting, explaining t he process for discussion purposes as well as the order of speakers. 3.1 Information Report No. 10-21 Zoning By-law Amendment Application A 02/21 Draft Plan of Subdivision Application SP-2021-01 Draft Plan of Condominium Application CP-2021-01 Highcastle (1939 Altona Rd.) Inc. (1939 Altona Road) Cody Morrison, Principal Planner, Development Review, provided the Committee with an overview of Zoning By-law Amendment, Draft Plan of Subdivision and Draft Plan of Condominium, submitted by Highcastle Inc. to facilitate a residential condominium development. Through the aid of a PowerPoint presentation, Mr. Morrison outlined the purpose of the application, and provided an overview of the subject lands, noting that the lands currently support a landscaping and tree nursery business and various accessory buildings, including a 40.0-metre high telecommunications tower located at the far northeasterly quadrant of the subject lands, which are all proposed to be removed, should the lands be developed. He highlighted the submitted conceptual site plan, draft plan of subdivision, and draft plan of condominium that propose 48 stacked townhouse dwellings and a common element condominium consisting of 13 street townhouse dwellings accessed through an internal private road from the north side of Sparrow Circle. Mr. Morrison advised that resident parking for both the stacked townhouse and street townhouse units is provided at a ratio of 2 parking spaces per dwelling unit (1 parking space within a private garage and 1 space on a surface driveway). He Planning & Development Committee Meeting Minutes June 7, 2021 Electronic Meeting – 7:00 pm Chair: Councillor Pickles further added that visitor parking is provided at a rate of 0.25 spaces per unit for a total of 16 parking spaces and is located along the north property line. Mr. Morrison summarized the City staff comments, public comments received for further review, and next steps in the applications. Billy Tung, Kim Planning Partners Inc., joined the electronic meeting via audio connection and concurred with staff’s overview of the application. He noted he was available for questions from the Committee. Joseph Aquino, 1965 Roseland Road, joined the electronic meeting via audio connection and expressed concern regarding tree cutting, and asked if any trees being removed could be relocated by his property line for additional privacy and environmental purposes. Kim O'Hearn, 438 Sparrow Circle, joined the electronic meeting via audio connection and spoke to the proximity between her home and the subject lands. She asked where the road would be constructed and if an image could be shown to understand how it would look. Ms. O’Hearn inquired if the vacant land by Sparrow Circle could be spared and turned into a parkette, as it is currently used by many local children. She further expressed concerns regarding traffic, and where the proposed driveway would be situated r elative to her lot. Mike Dickey, Pickering Resident, joined the electronic meeting via audio connection and expressed concerns regarding traffic flow and additional vehicles accessing the area which is a school bus zone used by neighbourhood children. He asked if traffic calming measures could be implemented. Deborah Ring, 363 Sparrow Circle, was unable to be connected to the electronic Committee Meeting to provide her delegation. Cathy Rose, Chief Planner, noted Ms. Ring could provide written comments in lieu of a delegation should she wish to do so. Mr. Tung, Kim Planning P artners Inc., was invited to provide comment on the delegations and concerns raised. He stated that moving trees for additional privacy would be explored through the site plan control process. Through the aid of a PowerPoint presentation, Mr. Tung showed an aerial image of the potential location of the driveway across from the dwelling, a location not directly opposite of Ms. O’Hearn’s dwelling. Mr. Tung stated that the traffic assessment prepared for the existing subdivision showed that 50 units on the subject lands could be developed in the future, as such the updated traffic assessment results exemplified that the addition of the proposed units would not generate additional traffic during peak morning hours, and 2 more vehicle trips during af ternoon peak hours. He further spoke to traffic mitigation efforts. 3 Planning & Development Committee Meeting Minutes June 7, 2021 Electronic Meeting – 7:00 pm Chair: Councillor Pickles A question and answer period ensued between Members of the Committee, Billy Tung, and City Development Staff regarding: • the telecommunications tower, and whether it would be relocated. Mr. Tung noted that the existing lease of the tower has an option to remove the tower with 12 months’ notice, and the telecommunication provider would decidenext steps; • if Building 5 would include underground parking, Mr. Tung confirmed it is a street townhouse block with individual garage and driveway parking spaces; • whether the playground area near Building 5 was the proposed outdoor amenity area, with Mr. Tung noting that it is currently a conceptual amenity area that could be programmed into a playground area, and details could be determined as part of the site plan review process; • the tree planting plans, with Mr. Tung noting the conceptual plan is tocomplete landscaping and restoration within the buffer and peripheral areas. He noted the Toronto and Region Conservation Authority (TRCA) will provide comments on enhanced planting plans, and noted that heexpected it to include planting at amenity areas and boulevard trees; • clarification whether the applicant would proceed with a wetland risk assessment. Mr. Tung noted that comments have been obtained from the TRCA, and the applicant w ould provide a more robust wetland assessment report to ensure the assessment is completed to C ity and TRCA satisfaction, in addition to other robust mitigation efforts; • whether the wetland assessment report would form part of a forthcoming recommendation report. Catherine Rose, Chief Planner, advised that it would, and further added that storm water runoff from a site is an option toexplore that can aid wetlands. She advised that a robust description of the buffering plan would form part of the subsequent report; and, • whether the residual vacant lot is privately owned, with Ms. Rose advising that it may be acquired by the developer and it is a willing buyer, willing seller situation. 3.2 Information Report No. 11-21 Official Plan Amendment OPA 20-008/P Zoning By-law Amendment A 13/20 Brock & Kingston Holdings Inc. (1970 Brock Road) Having previously declared a conflict of interest, Councillor Ashe did not take part in part in the discussion of this item. 4 Planning & Development Committee Meeting Minutes June 7, 2021 Electronic Meeting – 7:00 pm Chair: Councillor Pickles A statutory public meeting was held under the Planning Act, for the purpose of informing the public with respect to the above-noted application. Elizabeth Martelluzzi, Planner ll – Heritage, provided the Committee with an overview of Official Plan Amendment OPA 20-008/P, and Zoning By-law Amendment A 13/20, submitted by Brock & Kingston Holdings Inc. Through the aid of a PowerPoint presentation, Ms. Martelluzzi outlined the purpose of the application to permit a high-density mixed-use residential condominium development. She provided an overview of the subject lands, and the planning policy framework, including the Kingston Road Corridor and Specialty Retailing Intensification Study. Ms. Martelluzzi advised that as part of the proposal, the applicant proposes to retain the Post Manor heritage building and move it to the northeast corner of the site fronting Brock Road, and that the application was presented to the Heritage Advisory Committee. She summarized the City staff comments, public comments received for further review, and next steps in the applications. She noted the proposal would be subject to site plan approval, and approvals as required under the Ontario Heritage Act. Michael Testaguzza, The Biglieri Group Ltd., and Emma Abramowicz, ERA Architects, joined the electronic meeting via audio connection to provide an overview of the application. Through the aid of a PowerPoint presentation, they spoke to the details of the subject lands and planning context. Mr. Testaguzza noted the site is designated as mixed use Type A, in a gateway, which permits towers up to 40 storeys in height. He spoke to the details of the mixed use proposal, highlighted the concept landscape plan, and shadowing strategy, noting that not one property would be shadowed for more than 2 hours completely. Mr. Testaguzza stated the proposed structure would have bicycle access, 817 parking spaces, and other amenities. Ms. Abramowicz spoke t o the her itage design aspects of the proposal, and relocation plans of the heritage building, known as the Post Manor. She noted a heritage impact assessment had been completed, and that the design would have a rural style gateway, with a multimedia plan to compliment the structure and highlight the heritage components. Maureen Schorn, Pickering Resident, joined the electronic meeting via audio connection and spoke to the importance of preserving the heritage structure. She noted that the signs posted of pending planning applications on subject lands are small, especially the size of the font that outlines the potential changes. Ms. Schorn noted the proposal is ambitious, with excess height for the location, and asked that the Post Manor be kept at its current location, due to it being a focal point. Alastair Taylor, 1701 Finch Avenue East, joined the electronic meeting via audio connection and noted that he is speaking on behalf of ‘Team United170’, a cohort 5 Planning & Development Committee Meeting Minutes June 7, 2021 Electronic Meeting – 7:00 pm Chair: Councillor Pickles of 30-40 concerned citizens. He expressed concern regarding shadowing, the wind tunneling effect, impact on wildlife, traffic, and pollution. He further added that the cohort is concerned for safety of children, and what the impact may be on property values due to the structures being adjacent to their properties. Mr. Taylor noted the potential loss of local retail availability and employment as a consequence of the application, and the impact of noise and vibration during construction. He noted the opposition t o this application of many residents and asked that the collective concerns of the cohort be addressed. John Roberts , 1995 Royal Road, joined the electronic meeting via audio connection and advised he is the President of the Condominium Board, representing 150 voters. He expressed concern for emergency vehicle access, traffic, and how the Bus Rapid Transit would impact the development. He noted there is insufficient parking proposed and asked where construction workers would park during construction. Mr. Roberts sought clarification on the plans in place to mitigate vibration and reimburse residents for any damage during construction. He stated the Post Manor building should stay in its current location and encouraged the Committee to refuse the application as presented. Oscar Packeer, President of Complex - Duffins Gate, joined the electronic meeting via audio connection and spoke in opposition to the application. He expressed concern with how foot traffic would be managed during and after the construction phase, construction vehicles utilizing access from Finch Avenue to Brock Road as a shortcut, and general safety of residents, especially children. Mr. Packeer asked how the City would mitigate these concerns. Ted Crabtree , 1701 Finch Avenue East, joined the electronic meeting via audio connection and spoke in opposition to the application. He stated the proposed development would have a negative impact on the community and surrounding area, including an increase in traffic. He noted the roads are currently congested throughout the day, and vehicles turning left must wait several light changes to make their turns. Mr. Crabtree noted the proposal is excessive and should be scaled back, and questioned the logistics of how the project would support two high rise towers, while relocating the Post Manor. He spoke in opposition to the proposal due to height, traffic, lack of adequate parking, and debris and noise during construction. Mr. Crabtree noted the scale of the proposal is unreasonable, and the high population density and relocation of a historic building would impact quality of life. Mary Hunt, 1701 Finch Avenue East, joined the electronic meeting via audio connection and thanked previous speakers for their delegations. She stated she has been a resident of the City for 45 years. Ms. Hunt expressed concern regarding the application due to the one sided nature of the report, excessive height, and how the proposal does not meet the intent of City guidelines. She 6 Planning & Development Committee Meeting Minutes June 7, 2021 Electronic Meeting – 7:00 pm Chair: Councillor Pickles noted the proposal also does not meet angular plane requirements for neighbours to the north as specified in the Council endorsed intensification plan. She further added that there is a lack of adequate parking. Ms. Hunt read a letter, on behalf of Tom Mohr, Pickering Township Historical Society, regarding how the Post Manor is a major heritage asset of the City’s rural past which is being put at risk by this development proposal. The letter stated that the Post Manor had retained most of its physical and cultural integrity while remaining in-situ on what is one of the busiest intersections in the City. Ms. Hunt noted the ERA Heritage Impact Assessment and multimedia plan is inadequate, and asked that the Post Manor remain in its current location. Joan Black and John Forde, 1995 Royal Road, joined the electronic meeting via audio connection and provided feedback on the transportation impact study. Ms. Black outlined the following concerns; how Royal Road is not included in the study however Guild Road is included, how the study includes COVID-19 data, not regular normal time data, and how the study states future total trip length is similar to the existing conditions. Ms. Black sought clarification on how the transportation impact study could state this due t o the i ntersection being more and more congested every year. She noted that turning allowances would force drivers to use Royal Road or Guild Road to access the site, which may cause congestion and safety concerns for children who use the school bus. Ms. Black sought assurances that Royal Road will not be used by construction personnel and asked that the C ommittee refuse the proposal as presented. John Forde echoed Ms. Black’s comments. Ed Sedlak,1995 Royal Road, joined the electronic meeting via audio connection and spoke to how the proposed application would affect his view. He expressed concern for the scope of the application and traffic congestion. Mr. Sedlack noted that the pr oposal does not take into account other high-density proposals and future growth in a cumulative manner. He stated that by using background data, it can easily be projected that traffic volume and travel times will be significantly higher. Mr. Sedlack stated the area is a high incident collision area, and traffic would be impacted, noting the three lanes of traffic that had to be crossed to access the site. He added that the ratio of 0.8 parking spots per residential unit should be met by the applicant, and that encouraging the use of transit is not realistic as most households have more than one vehicle. Mr. Sedlack further added that the subject lands are not big enough for this type of high density development. Steve Gilchrist,1995 Royal Road joined the electronic meeting via audio connection and noted the subject lands are currently a lovely greenspace with mature trees and a heritage building. He asked what the point of the Kingston Road Intensification guidelines were if the City had no intent of following them. He 7 Planning & Development Committee Meeting Minutes June 7, 2021 Electronic Meeting – 7:00 pm Chair: Councillor Pickles expressed concern regarding traffic, height, shadowing, the parking ratio being unsustainable, and that transit use be recorded on title as part of site plan approval. Mr. Gilchrist spoke about losing certain commercial businesses that would be impacted on Kingston Road, and encouraged the Committee to enforce the Kingston Intensification Road guidelines, as they permit developers to make a good return on investment while balancing the needs of residents. Linda Kellington and Robin Kellington, Pickering Residents, joined the electronic meeting via audio connection and expressed opposition to the application. They noted that the development is immediately to the rear of their property and echoed the comments of previous delegates. Mr. Kellington expressed concern regarding the narrow access to the underground parking, impact of construction on trees, and asked for a commitment to replace any damaged trees with similar trees. Michael Testaguzza, The Biglieri Group Ltd., was invited to provide comment on the delegations and concerns raised. He advised that the studies are done in consultation with the Region, City, and other commenting par tners. Mr. Testaguzza stated that the application strives to meet the intent of the intensification guidelines, and further added context on density targets. He stated that there is interest in keeping the Post Manor in a general setting and connecting it to Kingston Road. He noted that the buildings would be designed to mitigate the impact to wildlife. Mr. Testaguzza advised that the transportation impact study states that expected vehicular trips are projected to be 13 trips in the morning hour, and 46 in the evening hour, with methodology utilized included implementation of traffic in non-pandemic times. He noted that as many mature trees as possible would be maintained, and the proposal would provide commercial space on site, with access through both points of access to not limit the way people can access the development. Mr. Testaguzza encouraged delegates to reach out to discuss their concerns. Catherine Rose, Chief Planner, advised that there is a requirement to submit a construction management plan. Nilesh Surti, Manager, Development Review & Urban Design noted that staff will ensure documentation submitted complies with the intent and goals of intensification plans, and that staff would ensure the application minimizes traffic impact, and impacts to abutting property owners. He stated staff would review concerns identified by residents and commenting agencies. A question and answer period ensued between Members of the Committee, Michael Testaguzza, The Biglieri Group Ltd., and City Development Staff regarding: • whether there was flexibility with height and density, and whether the developer would enter into meaningful dialogue with concerned residents. 8 Planning & Development Committee Meeting Minutes June 7, 2021 Electronic Meeting – 7:00 pm Chair: Councillor Pickles Mr. Testaguzza noted there is flexibility with density and height, and that he would speak to his client on these matters and make revisions to the proposal, if required; • how the Kingston Road Intensification guidelines had notional heights identified, with the final product not including a defined maximum height; • confirmation that the Post Manor was in its original location, and that thedeveloper would preserve its heritage attributes; • how the density and proposed height would be reviewed by staff, prior tothe recommendation process; • how the applicant would relocate the heritage building during construction, and how the Post Manor would be protected with those details being sought from the applicant; • the amount of vibration during construction; • how Guild Road was not part of the Traffic Study, currently under review by City and Regional staff, including impacts on Royal Road and future growthof immediate area. Nilesh Surti, Manager, Development Review & UrbanDesign, confirmed that if the Study needed to be peer reviewed this wouldbe done as well as encouraging the developer to meet with neighbouring residents; • whether angular planes were appropriately addressed, with Mr. Surti responding that the 31 and 34 storey buildings were not included in the 45degree angular plane. Mr. Testaguzza noted that tall buildings along gateways and interpretation of the guidelines must be appropriately assessed with their intention. He further added that there needs to be 750square metre floor plates separated by 25 metre distances to protect sky views, and decrease shadowing; and, • confirmation that access to underground parking would be off of both Brock Road and Kingston R oad. Moved by Councillor Butt Seconded by Councillor Cumming That the Committee take a short recess. Carried The Committee recessed at 9:45 pm and reconvened at 9:55 pm. Upon reconvening, the City Clerk conducted a roll call and certified that all Members of the Committee were once again present, and participating electronically in accordance with By-law 7771/20. 9 Planning & Development Committee Meeting Minutes June 7, 2021 Electronic Meeting – 7:00 pm Chair: Councillor Pickles 4. Delegations 4.1 Michael May, North East Pickering Landowners Group Inc. Lucy Stocco, Tribute Communities Re: Report PLN 31-21 Northeast Pickering Area Request for Proposals Particulars for Preparation of a Community Plan for Northeast Pickering Funding Agreement for Consulting Assistance Funding Agreement for a Senior Project Manager Michael May, North East Pickering Landowners Group Inc. joined the electronic meeting via audio connection to speak in support of Report PLN 31-21. He noted that the group is committed to the funding requirements and would cover the non-recoverable Development Charges amount. Mr. May further stated the Group would cover the cost of a 3 year contract position for a senior project manager to coordinate the Northeast Pickering Community Plan process. The Plan would focus on the mental and physical well-being of the r esidents, and sustainability of the area. He advised that the group is actively participating in the Region’s Municipal Comprehensive Review (MCR) process and recently requested a sediment area expansion consistent with Council Resolution #140-19. He thanked staff fo r their efforts and noted his availability to answer questions. 4.2 Mike Borie Re: Report PLN 29-21 The Municipal Comprehensive Review of the Durham Regional Official Plan: Proposed Policy Directions Mike Borie, 1044 Escott Court, joined the electronic meeting via audio connection and spoke in opposition to Report PLN 29-21, recommendation 1. He noted that endorsing the recommendation would be questionable as no plans exist for an airport. He spoke to the COVID-19 Pandemic effect on the airline industry and noted Transport Canada demonstrated that there was no need for an airport until 2036 through the KPMG study. Mr. Borie highlighted that the airport is not needed and quoted the Envision Durham Stage 1 Public Survey results, noting that the results do not align with the need for a future Pickering airport. He asked where food would come from, and what portion of the Region’s carbon budget an airport would consume, and how emissions would be mitigated. He noted the lands are being held for a potential airport and nothing is concrete, noting that the choice of wording in Report PLN 29-21 was misleading and that the project would impact farmland, wildlife habitat, waterways, and Indigenous lands. Mr. Borie stated the lands border Rouge National Park and should be considered an asset, and the ecological integrity of the lands needed to be protected. He suggested the lands 10 Planning & Development Committee Meeting Minutes June 7, 2021 Electronic Meeting – 7:00 pm Chair: Councillor Pickles are better suited to agri-food tourism to meet ecological goals with agri- food as the foundation for economic development. Mr. Borie as ked that the City utilize resources on more pertinent items, and that the question of an airport should be decided after 2036, as there could be major changes from now until then. 4.3 Mary Delaney Re: Report PLN 29-21 The Municipal Comprehensive Review of the Durham Regional Official Plan: Proposed Policy Directions Mary Delaney, Pickering Resident, joined the electronic meeting via audio connection to expressed concern regarding Report PLN 29-21. She spoke about the airport being a Federal Government decision and that the KPMG study identified that there is currently no business case for an airport. Ms. Delaney asked why Council continues to embed the airport land in official planning documents when there are no plans for an airport. She spoke to the particulars of the KPMG study, and asked that the lands be promoted for a realistic use such agri-tourism, on agricultural soil adjacent to a Federal National Park. 4.4 Brandon Underwood Re: Report PLN 29-21 The Municipal Comprehensive Review of the Durham Regional Official Plan: Proposed Policy Directions Brandon Underwood, 1215 Bayly Street, joined the electronic meeting via audio connection and spoke to Report PLN 29-21. He sought clarification on why the City continues to encourage an airport on lands that it does not have jurisdiction over. Mr. Underwood stated young people are losing hope and feel a lack of purpose, and that progressives need hope for a prosperous future, and the pandemic has exasperated this need. Mr. Underwood spoke about the history of Easter Island and deforestation, which caused the ecosystem to collapse. Mr. Underwood spoke of the need for local sustainable food sources and asked the Committee to listen to residents and stop encouraging an unplanned airport. He spoke to the need for the City to create an Environmental Advisory Committee to provide input on environmental matters and build a true green economy to ensure the City and planet are sustainable. 4.5 Mark Brooks, Moderator Friends of Pickering Airport (PickeringAirport.org) Re: Report PLN 29-21 The Municipal Comprehensive Review of the Durham Regional Official Plan: Proposed Policy Directions 11 Planning & Development Committee Meeting Minutes June 7, 2021 Electronic Meeting – 7:00 pm Chair: Councillor Pickles Mark Brooks, Friends of Pickering Airport, joined the electronic meeting via audio connection and spoke in support of Report PLN 29-21 and the planned Pickering airport. Through the aid of a PowerPoint presentation, he highlighted that the flight school is out of space and is being removed to reduce congestion at the Oshawa Executive Airport. Mr. Brooks stated the airport would be transformational and critical to the Region. He noted that aviation is the cornerstone of a world capitalist economy and there are technologies being executed for net zero carbon efficiency in aviation. He spoke to the tax revenue that can be earned and generated through an airport, and need for aviation capacity and growth in the GTA, and the need for aviation infrastructure to support this growth. Mr. Brooks spoke to how Toronto aviation traffic has been growing at a fast rate, and there is a constant demand for aviation services as the GTA grows. Mr. Brooks noted the KPMG report includes a sound business case for the airport and the lands are ideally located for this use to relieve congestion, and be prepared for innovation in aviation. Mr. Brooks stated aviation is an efficient mode of transportation with net zero carbon aviation and new planes being developed to get better gas mileage, with electric and drone technology on the horizon to be carbon neutral and emissions free. He stated that local accessible airports are needed for this innovation. A question and answer period ensued between Members of the Committee and Mark Brooks regarding: • how the Friends of Pickering Airport is made up of aviation enthusiasts and commercial pilots, with volunteers who give their time and effort to dispel misinformation; • whether there had been discussions with the City’s economic development team, with Mr. Brooks confirming that he had met with them in passing and was willing to collaborate; • how the KPMG study commissioned by Transport Canada may have twodifferent visions, and confirmation that it outlines a need for a new airport insouthern Ontario; • how there is a plan for Regional electric and sustainable aviation withmodern equipment that is efficient and can be carbon-neutral; • how the site can be a global example to potentially connect modern f arming and aviation; and, • how sustainable aviation fuels with new technology and modern equipment would become the cheaper and more reliable mode of transportation, whichwould be emissions free and the need for land capacity for this innovative technology. 5. Planning & Development Reports 12 Planning & Development Committee Meeting Minutes June 7, 2021 Electronic Meeting – 7:00 pm Chair: Councillor Pickles 5.1 Director, City Development & CBO, Report PLN 28-21 Pickering Housing Strategy Study - Status Update, Phase 2 A question and answer period ensued between Members of the Committee and City Development Staff regarding: • the number of stages in the Housing Strategy Study, confirmation of the current phase, and timelines to commence phase 3 in the fall of 2021; • the need to measure the success of the Strategy and how project milestones would accomplish this. Kyle Bentley, Director, City Development & CBO, advised that staff are focusing on 6 key areas, and action plans would be developed with key performance measures; • confirmation that section 6.2 of Report PLN 28-21 outlined a monitoringplan that included measurable actions to meet the objectives of theStrategy; • how the Housing Strategy would complement the City’s Official Plan and Zoning By-Law, as well as the Regional Official Plan, and other documents, to ensure there are design guidelines, and potential housing tools such as requiring a percentage of housing to be consistent with recommendations for aging communities, affordable housing, and other implementation tools. Mr. Bentley noted that staff are considering these aspects in a multi-pronged approach during t he entirety of the planning pr ocess; and, • how the draft action plan relates to policy to see where amendments needto occur to strengthen housing policies, such as protecting rental stock, secondary units, and refining the definition of affordable housing to support implementation. Recommendation: Moved by Councillor Brenner Seconded by Councillor McLean That Report PLN 28-21 of the Director, City Development & CBO, providing an update on the status of the City of Pickering Housing Strategy Study, be received for information. Carried 5.2 Director, City Development & CBO, Report PLN 29-21 The Municipal Comprehensive Review of the Durham Regional Official Plan: Proposed Policy Directions 13 Planning & Development Committee Meeting Minutes June 7, 2021 Electronic Meeting – 7:00 pm Chair: Councillor Pickles A question and answer period ensued between Members of the Committee and Staff regarding: • how the purpose of the report was to provide City comments to the Envision Durham’s Proposed Policy Directions on the Regional’s comprehensive review of their Official Plan; • how the Envision Durham’s Proposed Policy Directions included references to proposed airport lands, as identified on their respective maps; • how at the City level, staff are not implying any changes, only reiterating what is captured in current documents that are publicly available; • how the Federal Government has jurisdiction over the lands. Mr. Bentley reiterated language in the current City Official Plan referencing the Federal lands for a proposed airport; • how the City has been approached by a silicon valley company that wouldlike to partner with a City company on green initiatives that would decrease carbon footprint, and wipe out acid rain and how this would be exploredfurther and br ought to Council at the applicable time; • how there is no new language being proposed, and that the lands arecurrently designated as an airport site with permission to use for agricultural purposes; • how the Region’s Official Plan proposed policy directions speak to anumber of initiatives such as growing the tree canopy, rural system connectivity and sustainable development; • whether there was a planned future Pickering airport. Mr. Fiaz Jadoon, Director, Economic Development & Strategic Projects, noted the lands are identified as a proposed site and designated for airport use, the lands have been reduced to 8,700 acres and a smaller airport is needed, with the additional land being used for economic development purposes; • how the KPMG report examined the types of airport and conducted ananalysis based on several different scenarios. The airport may be requiredahead of 2036 based on industry needs as there is no other commercial airports in the area, and that there may be a need for a passenger specialtytype of airport; • how a business case would be presented to Transport Canada and not the City, noting that a business case does not need to be focused on passenger growth and that a business case for an industrial based airport would align with the KPMG report; and, • clarification regarding the language in the report of it being a major catalyst for economic development and what funds would be needed to realize and promote a future planned airport, with Mr. Jadoon advising that there wasno funding pl anned for this purpose and that no further events had b eenheld in recent times to promote a proposed airport. 14 Planning & Development Committee Meeting Minutes June 7, 2021 Electronic Meeting – 7:00 pm Chair: Councillor Pickles Recommendation: Moved by Mayor Ryan Seconded by Councillor Ashe 1. That Council endorse the following recommendations regarding EnvisionDurham’s Proposed Policy Directions in support of a Prosperous Economy (Proposed Directions 1-4): a. That the City Centre, Kingston Road Corridor and Brock Mixed Node Intensification Areas, Employment Lands in Seaton and along Highway 407, and the planned employment hub surrounding theFederal Airport lands be prioritized for adequate servicing to support economic growth and diversification and to accommodate the 2051 growth forecasts; and, b. That the planned future Pickering Airport be recognized as a major catalyst for economic development and diversification; 2. That Council endorse the following recommendations regarding EnvisionDurham’s Proposed Policy Directions in support of Healthy Communities (Proposed Directions 5-28): a. That the Goals for Healthy Communities be expanded to: i. align with the Canadian Institute of Planners’ Healthy Communities Policy Statement to ensure individuals haveaccess to healthy built, social, economic, and natural environments that give them the opportunity to live to their fullest potential, regardless of their race, ethnicity, gender, income, age, abilities, or other circumstances; and, ii. align with objectives or outcomes from the Region’s Community Safety and Well-being P lan, Age-Friendly Durham Strategy; b. That the City supports the inclusion of policies regarding theimplementation of a region-wide building retrofit program, and recommends that the Regional Official Plan (ROP) include broader policy direction around additional initiatives and incentives toencourage and enable energy efficient construction and greenbuilding design, including net-zero and net-zero ready development; 15 Planning & Development Committee Meeting Minutes June 7, 2021 Electronic Meeting – 7:00 pm Chair: Councillor Pickles c. That the City supports the inclusion of tree canopy targets for urbanareas and rural areas in the ROP, following the identification of thecurrent baseline, as well as the inclusion of policy direction in support of Regional tree planting initiatives along regional roads and on regionally-owned properties where appropriate; d. That in addition to recognizing and supporting historic downtowns, the Region include robust policies in the ROP related to cultural heritage that conform with, and implement, provincial policy direction and other regional interests related to heritage; e. That with regard to the proposed policy directions related toHousing: i. the City supports the Region undertaking a Regional Housing Assessment Report (Assessment Report) and developing policies that would enable area municipalities to implement Inclusionary Zoning within their respective jurisdictions; ii. the City recommends the establishment of affordable housing targets for Strategic Growth Areas in the ROP be based onthe outcome of the Assessment Report, rather than assigning a 35 percent target prior to evaluation; iii. the City supports the policy direction to strengthen the rental to ownership housing conversion policies in the ROP andfurther recommends that when considering permission for conversion from a rental to ownership property, the Region: • consider increasing to greater than one year, thenumber of years required to maintain the minimum rental vacancy rate of 3 percent in both the region as a whole and the respective area municipality; and, • require a Regional Official Plan Amendment Application if the rental vacancy rate is below 3 percent; iv. the City supports the proposed policy direction to encouragearea municipalities to protect existing rental housing from demolition by using tools, such as a demolition control by-law, and recommend this be expanded upon, particularly in 16 Planning & Development Committee Meeting Minutes June 7, 2021 Electronic Meeting – 7:00 pm Chair: Councillor Pickles locations such as Strategic Growth Areas or areas in proximity to transit, where existing rental housing may be older and therefore more susceptible to demolition and redevelopment; and, v. the City recommends policies be included in in the ROP tosupport “co-ownership housing” and that enablemunicipalities to address this type of housing in a local andcontext-specific manner. 3. That Council endorse the following recommendations regarding EnvisionDurham’s Proposed Policy Directions regarding Supportive Infrastructure (Proposed Directions 29-33): a. That the City encourages the development of a Regional “Dig Once” policy as it would align with, and support, the City’s policy andinterest in broadband deployment; and, b. 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 andalternative energy projects; 4. That Council endorse the following recommendations regarding Envision Durham’s Proposed Policy Directions in support of a Vibrant Urban System (Proposed Directions 34-53): a. That the City supports the direction that Waterfront Places (e.g., Frenchman’s Bay) not be identified as Strategic Growth Areas and recommends that any policies referring t o minimum density targets for these areas be removed if this designation is retained in the ROP; b. That the City supports removal of the existing specific policy prohibition on Places of Worship within Employment Areas, and the proposed direction that area municipalities would regulate thelocation of these uses; c. That the City requests that the Employment Area Conversion submission for the Durham Live lands between Squires Beach Road and Church Street, which has been supported by City Council, beconsidered through the Land Needs Assessment; 17 Planning & Development Committee Meeting Minutes June 7, 2021 Electronic Meeting – 7:00 pm Chair: Councillor Pickles d. That the City requests that the Region have regard to Pickering Council Resolutions #140/19 and #173/19 (Attachments #2 and #3to Report PLN 29-21) requesting, among other things, the inclusionof northeast Pickering in an urban area boundary expansion; and, e. That the City recommends the Land Needs Assessment consider ascenario reflecting a future airport and the potential implications it may have in terms of population and employment allocation andgrowth; 5. That Council endorse the following recommendations regarding EnvisionDurham’s Proposed Policy Directions in support of a Thriving Rural System (Proposed Directions 54-65): a. That the City recommends the goals and directions with regard to the Thriving R ural System in Durham be expanded to also support the provision of reliable internet services to the rural area; and, b. That the City requests that the designation of High Potential Aggregate Resource Areas on lands within the limits of Settlement Areas (e.g., Barclay Estates) be removed; 6. That Council endorse the following recommendations regarding EnvisionDurham’s Proposed Policy Directions in support of a Protected Greenlands System (Proposed Directions 66-85): a. That the Region consider requesting the Province to make resources available to Indigenous Peoples to facilitate the sharing of Traditional Ecological Knowledge; and, b. That the City recommends the Region, through coordinatedrelationship-building and consultation with Indigenous communities, endeavour to provide guidance to local area municipalities in terms of establishing appropriate engagement processes to facilitate input on land use planning matters; 7. That the appropriate officials of the City of Pickering be authorized to takethe necessary actions as indicated in this report; and, 8. That a copy of Report PLN 29-21 and Council’s Resolution thereon be forwarded to the Regional Municipality of Durham and Durham Area Municipalities. 18 Planning & Development Committee Meeting Minutes June 7, 2021 Electronic Meeting – 7:00 pm Chair: Councillor Pickles Carried Later in the Meeting (See Following Motions): Moved by Councillor Brenner Seconded by Councillor McLean That Item 1 a and 1 b be divided from the m ain motion in order to deal with them separately. Lost on a Recorded Vote as Follows: Yes No Councillor Brenner Councillor Ashe Councillor McLean Councillor Butt Councillor Cumming Councillor Pickles Mayor Ryan Moved by Councillor Brenner Seconded by Councillor McLean That Item 1 a of the main motion be amended to read as follows: That the City Centre, Kington R oad Corridor and Brock Mixed Node Intensification Areas, Employment lands in Seaton and along Highway 407, and the planned employment hub surrounding the Federal lands that are proposed for a Pickering Airport, be prioritized for adequate servicing to support economic growth and diversification and to accommodate the 2051 growth forecasts. Lost on a Recorded Vote as Follows: Yes No Councillor Brenner Councillor Ashe Councillor McLean Councillor Butt Councillor Cumming Councillor Pickles Mayor Ryan A further question and answer period ensued between Members of the Committee, and Staff regarding: • whether the terminology being used was correct, and inconsistencies of language across several documents; 19 Planning & Development Committee Meeting Minutes June 7, 2021 Electronic Meeting – 7:00 pm Chair: Councillor Pickles • how discussion on the airport had overshadowed other pertinent andimportant items through Report PLN 29-21; • whether the proposed policy direction document from the Region speaks to Federal airport lands; • how the timeframe for the Regional Official Plan review is to 2051, and that no new information was being presented; • how the Federal Government regulations need to be incorporated in official planning documents for uniformity; and, • clarifying language at the staff level with the Region of Durham to provide for consistency and how to refer the Federal lands and their intended purpose. The Main Motion, was then Carried on a Recorded Vote as Follows: Ye s No Councillor Ashe Councillor Brenner Councillor Butt Councillor McLean Councillor Cumming Councillor Pickles Mayor Ryan Moved by Councillor McLean Seconded by Councillor Brenner That the Planning and Development Meeting be extended beyond midnight. Carried 5.3 Director, City Development & CBO, Report PLN 31-21 Northeast Pickering Area Request for Proposals Particulars for Preparation of a Community Plan for Northeast Pickering Funding Agreement for Consulting Assistance Funding Agreement for a Senior Project Manager A brief question and answer period ensued between Members of the Committee, and Catherine Rose, Chief Planner, regarding: • clarification on the timelines for the development of Northeast Pickering, with Ms. Rose noting there was a policy in the Region’s Official Plan 20 Planning & Development Committee Meeting Minutes June 7, 2021 Electronic Meeting – 7:00 pm Chair: Councillor Pickles regarding urban boundary expansion to outline a process to initiate a secondary plan for a new proposed community in Northeast Pickering but that it could not be completed until there was an update to the Carruthers Creek Watershed Plan and consideration of the build out of Seaton lands; • consideration of the development community in Seaton to allow them tobuild out before NE Pickering could being to develop; • how there are Provincial growth plans that identify existing built-up area, and designated greenfield areas and the use of the term Whitebelt as it relates to the NE Pickering lands; • confirmation that there would not be a burden to the taxpayers for the development of NE Pickering, only staff time, as it is being funded by the landowners group; and, • how shortage of available housing has created difficulties and longer planning horizons to be used for land use assessments. Recommendation: Moved by Mayor Ryan Seconded by Councillor Cumming 1. That Council approve the draft “Appendix D – Request for Proposals Particulars Northeast Pickering Community Plan”, which identifies thedeliverables, including scope of work, project management, consultationand engagement, and timetable, for the consulting assignment for thepreparation of an overall community plan for the Northeast Pickering Area for the consideration of Council, generally as set out in Appendix I to Report PLN 31-21; 2. That Council approve the funding agreement between the North East Pickering Landowners Group Inc. and the City of Pickering, for the hiring of a planning consulting team to prepare a Community Plan for the Northeast Pickering Area, generally as set out in Appendix II to Report PLN 31-21; 3. That Council approve the funding agreement between the North East Pickering Landowners Group Inc. and the City of Pickering, for the hiring of a Senior Project Manager (contract) dedicated to managing the preparation of the overall community plan for the Northeast Pickering Area, generally as set out in Appendix III to Report PLN 31-21; 4. That the Mayor and City Clerk be authorized to execute the funding agreements subject to any minor refinements acceptable to the Chief Administrative Officer, the Director, Corporate Services & City Solicitor and the Director, Finance & Treasurer; 21 Planning & Development Committee Meeting Minutes June 7, 2021 Electronic Meeting – 7:00 pm Chair: Councillor Pickles 5. That staff be authorized to issue Request for Proposals for the overall Northeast Pickering Community Plan, subject to any minor refinements to the project particulars acceptable to the Director, City Development & CBO and the Director, Economic Development & Strategic Projects, following the execution of the funding agreements and the hiring of the contract Senior Project Manager; 6. That staff report back to Council on the recommended planning consulting team; and, 7. That Council authorize the appropriate City officials to undertake the necessary actions required to implement the above recommendations. Carried on a Recorded Vote as Follows: Yes No Councillor Ashe Councillor McLean Councillor Brenner Councillor Butt Councillor Cumming Councillor Pickles Mayor Ryan 6. Other Business There was no other business. 7. Adjournment Moved by Mayor Ryan Seconded by Councillor Cumming That the meeting be adjourned. Carried The meeting adjourned at 12:17 am. 22