[3:25] Perfect. Thank you very much. Wonderful. Good evening, everyone. This

[3:32] is the planning and development committee. For June the 9th,

[3:37] 2025. I am your chair this evening. I am regional

[3:41] counselor Linda Cook. For the beautiful award two in the

[3:44] city of Pickering this evening. I'm going to call. This

[3:47] meeting to order. Madam clerk, if I could ask you

[3:49] to take roll call, please. Thank you. Madam chair, I

[3:53] can certify the attendance of all members of council save

[3:55] and except for. Councilor. Naggy and all members present are

[3:58] participating electronically. Thank you for that, Madam Clerk. Just for

[4:02] a viewing audience at home. Councilor Naggy is not able

[4:05] to join us this evening due to some personal family

[4:09] issues. If you could all keep councilor Naggy and her

[4:13] family in our thoughts. In your thoughts. That would be

[4:17] greatly appreciated. And we do wish her family. Some comfort

[4:21] this evening. And with that, I will move on to

[4:24] the second order of business, which. Is disclosures of interest

[4:27] from anyone on the committee. Seeing and hearing that, we

[4:31] will move on. We are at the delegation portion of

[4:34] our meeting. This evening and. I will just note for

[4:38] those following along at home, we have quite an exhaustive

[4:41] list. This evening. There are a number of delegations, so

[4:44] we will be moving through them. As efficiently as we

[4:48] can, allowing our delegations their allotted time, which is either

[4:53] ten minutes for group delegation or five for those who

[4:55] are solo. And then our committee will have opportunity to

[4:59] ask. Questions. So with that, we have a group delegation.

[5:04] I do have a point of order. I just like

[5:06] to ask. Of you. Okay, go ahead, Councilor Brun. It

[5:12] will be my intent following the delegations. To move, a

[5:16] motion to alter the agenda to move forward. I believe

[5:20] item 4.4 to the front of the agenda following delegations.

[5:25] Okay, noted. I would ask you to just speak up

[5:28] at the appropriate time at four point. In advance of

[5:33] 4.1 when we complete the delegations. To make sure that

[5:35] you have your mover in your seconder to alter the

[5:39] agenda. So thank you for that notice and I've made

[5:42] a note. Thanks, Councilor Robinson. Thank you, madam Chair. Sorry

[5:47] for interrupting. All good. No worries. We're going to be

[5:51] fluid this evening since we have a number. So back

[5:54] to what I was saying. Item 3.1 is a group

[5:58] delegation. It is. From Mike Pedigrew, Sandstone and South Stone,

[6:04] who are representing the big liare group. In respect to

[6:08] report PLN 1425, which is a zoning bylaw amendment to.

[6:15] Draft plan condominium CP 2024 five so I would oh,

[6:21] and they have a presentation. I see that's already up

[6:22] in regards to Palmer's sawmill road. So whoever is going

[6:27] to be the lead delegate to speak, welcome to our

[6:29] meeting. Mike and I guess you can take it away.

[6:33] Thank you very much. Madam chair, members of council, and

[6:37] to the public and staff that are here, Mike Pedigrew.

[6:40] I am partner at the big Leary group, and we're

[6:43] actually representing the other two. Gentlemen, the stone brothers, who

[6:46] are part of the Stone pay development group. Who are

[6:51] the owners and the official applicants? For this site. So,

[6:57] as you mentioned, there are two applications. There is a

[6:59] zoning bylaw amendment. And a draft plan of common element

[7:02] condominium. And this is for the second phase of their

[7:07] development. That is just to the west of Brock. And

[7:12] on what is now the new road that's going through,

[7:14] which is Palmer Sawmill. So if I could get the

[7:17] next slide. So the subject lands are outlined in red.

[7:24] Right. Immediately to the right or to the east is

[7:27] the phase one, which consists of stack townhouses. And block

[7:31] townhouses on a standard condominium. And I'll get to that

[7:35] when? We speak to the condominium application. And to the

[7:38] south is a public pond that will service these lands,

[7:42] as well as future lands to the north. In phases

[7:45] three and four. So the subject lands. On the west

[7:52] side of phase one is a continuation of that same

[7:55] development, mirroring a private road development. Instead of with stack

[8:01] townhouses. We are now seeking permission for street townhouses, which

[8:06] is slightly different because of the proposed condominium. Tenure, which

[8:11] is a common element, or you may have heard them

[8:13] as potles or parcels. Of tide land. It's a very

[8:17] similar pattern with how. Going to be facing palmers Sawmill

[8:21] Road with access to garages at the rear of the

[8:26] property. Very similar to phase one. Using the existing and

[8:30] you can see is the private road that splits these

[8:34] two phases as the main point of access and a

[8:38] second access off of tillings. Next slide, please. So in

[8:43] the staff report, which I'm sure all members of the

[8:46] committee here have read, The application that's before you. The

[8:52] zoning bylaw. Has had regard for the neighborhood development guidelines

[8:58] and conforms to the envision Durham and the Pickering official

[9:02] plan, so obviously no amendments are being sought. There. And

[9:07] it also is consistent and conforms to the provincial plans

[9:11] and policies. So where it differs is the zoning bylaw

[9:16] amendment. Originally, as part of the four phase development, there

[9:22] was a draft plan of subdivision and a zoning bylaw

[9:25] that was put together at that time. So we are

[9:29] seeking an amendment to what was a site exception zoning

[9:33] bylaw. And instead of stacks and block townhouses. The main

[9:38] change here is to change the tenure type, and thus

[9:42] it changes. The technical form for the zoning. So what

[9:47] has been brought forward today has gone through a site

[9:51] plan approval process. Has actually gone to the site plan

[9:54] committee. And is nearly complete from a site plan perspective.

[10:00] And then, through conversations with staff, this was the appropriate

[10:03] time to bring forward both the condominium and the zoning

[10:06] application. In order to solidify the right provisions to match

[10:11] what staff have deemed acceptable in a site plan application.

[10:18] And following this approval, if that were to be granted.

[10:22] We would be working with staff to finalize and wrap

[10:24] up the site plan approval process. Shortly thereafter. So, next

[10:29] slide, please. So the difference between. A common element condominium

[10:37] and a standard condominium is that. The future purchasers will

[10:42] own the property beneath their townhouse outright, and they will

[10:47] be sharing common elements which. Are private roads, private sidewalks.

[10:53] It's very similar to a standard condominium. Typically, standard condominiums

[10:56] are when you have stacked townhouses and you actually have

[10:59] no land underneath your unit. You are sharing more than

[11:03] just the common elements. You are actually sharing the. And

[11:06] so because the type of unit, street, town has changed.

[11:11] Thus we had to go forward with. A common element

[11:13] condominium, and we are proposing 85 of those three story

[11:18] townhouses. In terms of the other provisions of the zoning

[11:22] bylaw, almost everything remains the same. We are maintaining the

[11:26] same parking rates. There's two spaces per unit. One in

[11:30] a garage, one in a driveway and there is. 0.2

[11:35] spaces per unit for visitors, which is matching what was

[11:38] there in the previous site. Exception. Zoning. In terms of

[11:42] the lot frontages, lot areas, instead of the site being

[11:46] viewed as one large block. They're now viewed as individual

[11:49] townhouses, and so the zoning is now then changed. To

[11:52] reflect that. But the townhouses that are being proposed are

[11:57] similar in their size and nature to the block. Townhouses

[12:01] that. Were in phase one. One of the other big

[12:06] changes. Is a response to some questions from councilors from

[12:11] phase one, which is relating to the air. Conditioner units.

[12:14] And so, working with staff and with the counselor, councilor

[12:19] Butt, I brought this. Up. We have now put the

[12:22] air conditioner units on the ground level, and they're adequately

[12:25] screened with the ornamental screening. And landscaping to hide those

[12:31] as well. So those are now on the ground level.

[12:34] And for the units that are facing Palmer sawmill. They

[12:36] are on that palmer sawmill side. And thus it was

[12:40] most appropriate to screen them for the other units. They

[12:43] are also still on the ground level, which allows for

[12:46] those units. Any balconies on the second or third. Floors.

[12:51] To not have an air conditioner unit on that balcony,

[12:53] which allows them to maximize that amenity. Area. So that

[12:57] was in response to what we heard, and our clients

[13:00] were happy to oblige that. So that's now reflected in

[13:04] the current zoning bylaw. That's before you. Next slide, please.

[13:09] So this is the plan? The individual units are shown

[13:14] either in pink or in yellow, and that indicates. The

[13:18] individual homeowner's property and then all the other areas of

[13:20] the site that are whites. Within that sort of dashed

[13:24] black boundary are all the shared items. So any of

[13:26] the landscaping, the visitor parking, the sidewalks. The water meter

[13:32] room. All of that around the edges of the site.

[13:36] Is all part of the common elements. And to the

[13:38] right hand side is the existing private row. Which they

[13:41] also share for access. And then you can see in

[13:44] the top left, the access that goes out. To Palmer

[13:48] Sawmill Road, which in the ultimate alignment with tillings. Will

[13:52] be revised for that intersection. But that's where the third

[13:56] access is for the site. Next slide, please. There were

[14:01] also a few questions that councilors brought up at our

[14:04] public meeting on March 3. One of them was from

[14:11] an email. That the staff had received from the Mississaugas

[14:14] of Scogog Island, First Nation. Requesting that any wood lots,

[14:20] wetlands and other features that are proposed to be cleared.

[14:25] Be fully compensated. We did address this at that public

[14:29] meeting. And I just want to again reiterate, because it's

[14:31] in the dashboard as well, is that this application is

[14:34] not seeking to do anything. Within those valley lands. In

[14:38] fact, that was all dealt with at the draft plan

[14:40] stage and through this application. We're actually implementing the compensation

[14:44] and edge management plans that were already approved at. That

[14:48] time. And staff from the city reached out. To the

[14:52] Mississaugas, and they agreed that they are satisfied now with

[14:56] that response and they understand that that has been taken

[15:00] into account with the draft plan. I've already mentioned as

[15:04] well the air conditioner units. On a slide that's coming

[15:07] up. I'll show you what a rendering looks like. Of

[15:10] the screening and landscaping that we're proposing. But based on

[15:14] those changes, staff have reviewed those and they are satisfied.

[15:19] And there was also a question about the future intersection

[15:22] at Brock Road and Palmer Sawmill and when that would

[15:24] be upgraded. The region has responded as determined that based

[15:28] on this application, which actually has slightly fewer units than

[15:33] what was proposed in the original plans when there were

[15:35] stack townhouses. They determined that this is not the appropriate

[15:38] time for the signal upgrades at Palmer Sawmill and Brock.

[15:43] Road. And so. The region's determination is that that was

[15:47] not warranted at this time. Other than that, at that

[15:52] public meeting, there were no public delegates that came out

[15:55] to speak on behalf of residents in the area. And

[16:01] so there were no additional comments there to address. And

[16:04] since that application and circulation, there's been no other department

[16:09] or agency comments that have any concerns with council approving

[16:14] our planning committee proving this zoning bylaw application tonight. So

[16:19] next. Slide, please. And Mr. Pedigrew, I just need to

[16:24] let you know you are at time. If I could

[16:26] ask you to wrap up. I know you wanted to

[16:28] show councilor about where that screen would go. So if

[16:31] you could do so, that would be terrific. And we

[16:33] can handle the rest within questions from the committee. That's

[16:36] it right here. So this is the screening and the

[16:38] landscaping. Thank you. Chair. Cook. This is the example. And

[16:45] we can bring this back up through questions. If there

[16:47] are any other than that, I want. To say that

[16:50] we and our clients have reviewed the staff report and

[16:53] the recommendations. We agree and we support the recommendation for

[16:57] approval tonight, and I'm happy to answer any questions that

[17:00] you may have. And thank you. And I see councilor

[17:05] Butt had his hand up first, so I will start.

[17:07] A list, councilor butt. Thank you, chair cook. Questions. Mike.

[17:14] Mike. On the map currently, I didn't see any green

[17:19] space or park area. Now, I know there was between

[17:23] the discussion between phase one and two, maybe could you

[17:26] point out. On the map. Where? How in the green

[17:30] space is. Certainly. Maybe if slide two could be brought

[17:34] up again. If that's councilor's wish. Okay.

[17:48] So the fold development. Thank you very much. So the

[17:51] full development spans between four seasons on the right hand

[17:56] side and tillings, and it goes up to the hydro

[17:59] corridor, which. Is that area by the wood lot to

[18:02] the north. And I apologize, because I can't. Point on

[18:04] the screen. But at the very top of the page

[18:07] and about the center there is a village green that

[18:10] will be a public park that was secured as part

[18:13] of the draft plan approval. And from what I understand.

[18:18] That's going out to tender right now for construction. And

[18:21] so hopefully that will be constructed in the near future.

[18:25] But that park right there. Was the full 5% of

[18:29] the required land at that time of the draft plan.

[18:33] And that's going to be going forward. Within. The actual.

[18:38] Phase two lands. There are pedestrian muse, which are just

[18:44] pedestrian walkways with landscaping and seating on the sides that

[18:47] are actually running through the center of the site, very

[18:50] similar to what you see in phase one. And then

[18:53] there is going to be landscape areas around where. The

[18:56] visitor parking is on the caps of these private roads,

[19:00] and so there'll be additional landscaping there and then all

[19:04] along the south and west end of the site, adjacent

[19:07] to that large valley area and wooded area. That's where

[19:11] that edge management and edge enhancement will be with additional

[19:15] landscaping. It's quite significantly sloped as you get towards that

[19:20] value, as you can imagine. So. There will be some

[19:23] retaining walls that are going to be put into that

[19:24] space as well, but that will be maintained by the.

[19:28] Mike, the other question I had was apparently the switch

[19:31] from the back townhouses to street townhouses. Has the numbers

[19:37] increase or decreased? Would that change? The number of units

[19:41] overall has decreased. Because the stack townhouses, obviously, number of

[19:46] units that you can have when you put one or

[19:48] two on top. So it has dramatically dropped from the

[19:54] original application. To this application tier now. In terms of

[20:00] the original zoning bylaw, it contemplated a number of traditional

[20:04] towns as it was called throughout the entire development, and

[20:08] we're now just by this phase alone, far exceeding that.

[20:11] Minimum requirement of traditional town, so it's greeting a much

[20:14] larger and greater mix of housing. Types, which we thought

[20:18] was important as well. That's great. And I'm actually happy

[20:21] that. You have made some changes in order to reflect

[20:25] the air condition to be out in the exteriors. And

[20:28] I think with many residents in the phase one feedback

[20:31] that came up to me and constraint pickles. And that's

[20:34] very welcoming news. Thank you so much for your presentation,

[20:37] Mike. Thank you. Thank you, Bennett. You are very welcome.

[20:43] Councilor pickles. Yes. I thought I did see your hand

[20:45] up. Okay, you are next. Thank you. Thank you, madam

[20:49] Chair. Thanks for the presentation, Mike. At the end of

[20:55] your answer to councilor Butt's concerns, you mentioned. A retaining

[21:02] wall and I think a few other. Elements there. So

[21:06] are those going to be common elements or. Those private

[21:10] property elements. And maybe you could just go over what

[21:15] the common elements are again. Certainly. So, through the chair.

[21:22] The retaining walls that are going to be proposed. Along

[21:25] the edge of the development towards the valley. Those will

[21:29] be maintained by the condominium. And so the wall itself

[21:33] and any of the landscaping that's around them will be

[21:36] also maintained by the condominium. And so the difference between

[21:41] common elements and these potles, these parcels of tide land,

[21:44] which are basically a person's individual lot. Whatever is their

[21:49] individual property, which we saw in that figure that had

[21:52] the pink and the yellow. Indication of the different lots.

[21:56] Outside of those, those are the common elements. So any

[22:00] sidewalks, the private sidewalks going through development adjacent to the

[22:04] private roads, any of the landscaping? That is on the

[22:08] pedestrian muse, any of the visitor parking areas, any of

[22:12] the edge management, any of the vegetation, the retaining walls,

[22:16] that sort of infrastructure that's along the edge, those are.

[22:18] All common elements. As well as a common water meter

[22:22] room, which is located adjacent to the first block near

[22:26] Palmer. Sawmill. Those are all part of these common elements.

[22:31] Common elements. Which is similar to phase one. Standard condos

[22:36] have common elements as well. So when you're there and

[22:39] visiting the site, It will look and feel very similar.

[22:44] From that perspective, it's only almost technicality on paper that

[22:47] you will see a difference. And there'll be a super

[22:49] mailbox there, I assume. There are. So there's actually two

[22:53] different locations where we've located. So just to spread it

[22:57] out so it's not in one spot. We have a

[22:59] couple of locations for the mailboxes near visitor parking areas.

[23:04] Okay. And just with respect to the signalization, that Palmer

[23:08] Sawmill and Brock Road, it's. An item. Myself and councilor

[23:12] butt have brought up many times that it's necessary there's.

[23:15] Been a number of accidents at that intersection. But I

[23:18] think now. With the tolls being removed east of Brock

[23:22] Road, we're seeing a lot more traffic. On Rock Road.

[23:27] And. Your principles and the future residents may appreciate. Having

[23:33] signalization there, so it's something that I'm going to. Be.

[23:38] Continuing to pursue with the region, but thank you. Excellent.

[23:43] Thank you, council. Anyone else? Questions of the delegate? If

[23:50] not. I thank you, Mike, for representing your delegation. And.

[23:57] We will. Address your item when it hits the floor.

[24:00] Item 4.3. So we are moving on to item 3.2.

[24:04] Thank you. Which is another group? Delegation, this is Adam

[24:08] Layton, who's associate principal for the Goldberg Group and Will

[24:12] Maria, transportation planning lead for GHD. This is in reference

[24:17] to 720. Granite court, which is item 4.4 on the

[24:22] agenda. Report number PLN 1525. Good. Evening, gentlemen. And as

[24:27] this is a group delegation, you also do have ten

[24:30] minutes as well, so. You may proceed. Thank you, madam

[24:34] Chair. Hopefully I'm coming through loud and clear. Perfect. Excellent.

[24:39] So thank you for the introductions. As noted, we are

[24:41] here tonight to discuss the application at 720. Granite court.

[24:45] I do apologize. I noted a typo on the cover

[24:48] slide, so I have sent the corrected version to Andy,

[24:50] which hopefully can be reflected in the final agenda package.

[24:55] But in any event. We are very happy to be

[24:57] here tonight. To discuss a recommendation for approval by staff

[25:03] for the proposed development of this property. Just actually two

[25:06] years plus one day since we made this initial submission.

[25:10] In June 2023. Moving to the next slide. I'll re

[25:15] familiarize council with. The context of the subject site, so

[25:19] it is within a local node at the northwest corner

[25:21] of the intersection of granite Court and Whites Road. The

[25:25] rail corridor does cross the property to the north. And

[25:29] west. Creating a triangular shaped parcel on the west side

[25:33] of the rail corridor or employment lands Whites Road itself

[25:36] to Bailey is an artsier road and a high frequency

[25:41] transit route. And then to the southwest and east. Are

[25:46] additional low density residential areas. Moving to the next slide.

[25:51] We can see. The site statistics comparing the initial proposal

[25:56] from 2023 to the revised proposal before you tonight. Again.

[26:00] We've had. A robust public consultation process. Including. Two community

[26:06] meetings, as well as one public meeting, which you may

[26:09] recall from November 2023. And before you tonight is a

[26:14] revised proposal which has reduced the overall height of the

[26:18] development from twelve stories down to ten has reduced the

[26:22] overall unit count from 262 down to 252s or reduction

[26:27] of ten units. A reconfiguration of the unit mix to

[26:32] provide a greater proportion of larger units. And some minor

[26:36] amendments to the site plan with respect to the layout

[26:38] of amenity areas. And no change to the FSI, which

[26:43] is still consistent with the official plan at 1.7 FSI

[26:47] but are a corresponding reduction in the units per hectare

[26:49] measure. At just under 213 units per hectare, and then

[26:54] parking and bike parking. Are generally remain generally the same.

[27:01] On the next slide you'll see a comparison of the

[27:05] initial proposal. On the left side of the screen. And

[27:09] the revised proposal. Again, the layout of the building, the

[27:13] access. From granite court, which is separated from the intersection

[27:18] by about 74 meters, remains largely consistent. There has been

[27:23] some reconfiguration of amenity, spaces and whatnot in order to

[27:27] reduce the height. We've elongated the development along Whites Road

[27:31] and that's probably best shown. On the next slide, which

[27:33] is a rendered land. Landscape plan showing the relationship of

[27:36] the ground floor. In this instance, north would be to

[27:39] the right. Side of the page. So if you tilt

[27:41] your head, you'd get the same sort of view as

[27:44] on the prior slide and this shows the anticipated public

[27:47] realm treatment along Whites Road and granite court, the location

[27:51] of the driveway, the proposed plantings and amenity space layout

[27:54] as well as the. Relationship to the ground floor, as

[27:57] noted in the staff report, which, again, I do thank

[27:59] staff for. Being extremely thorough. In their description of the

[28:02] proposal. What we had previously contemplated as a privately owned,

[28:07] publicly accessible space, or pop space along the granite road

[28:11] frontage we heard loud and clear that there were some

[28:13] concerns about the appropriateness of that programming. So we removed

[28:17] that and are just contemplating it more as sort of

[28:19] a passive outdoor landscaped area, the orange areas that are

[28:23] highlighted. On the building are residential use areas, and that

[28:27] includes outdoor terraces facing the public realm. We have yellow

[28:31] area, which I'll get to on the next slide, and

[28:33] then the blue area is. Your loading and back of

[28:36] house operations. Moving on to the next slide. Is one

[28:41] other addition. We've included some non residential floor area into

[28:45] the building, so we've got about 81 m² or just

[28:48] under about 1000 sqft. Of non residential floor area, which

[28:55] we've included appropriate permissions for in the draft zoning bylaw

[28:58] that could be locally oriented. Retail, day nursery, something of

[29:02] that nature. Obviously, we're just trying to establish flexibility at

[29:07] this point. And then moving on to the next slide,

[29:10] I think is one of the primary issues that people

[29:13] raised during the consultation. So this is an aerial view

[29:18] of the existing intersection. We've done significant analysis of the

[29:23] traffic intersection operations. If there's questions, Mr. Maria who's the

[29:27] transportation lead at GHD, who wrote the transportation impact study

[29:31] with his colleagues. Can go into more detail than I,

[29:33] but I'll just summarize it at a high level. One

[29:36] of the main concerns, obviously, is the backing up of

[29:39] traffic. At the peak hours. During the afternoon rush hour.

[29:46] More than anything. For people leaving the employment area. We

[29:50] actually had GHD set up some cameras to. Get continuous

[29:54] monitoring and live stream feeds of the traffic operations to

[29:59] be able to fully vet the situation, and what it

[30:02] determined was that there might be a potential to convert.

[30:06] The intersection operations. To a dual northbound left turn. So

[30:13] the existing northbound left would remain, and then the through

[30:15] lane, or at least what is currently a through lane

[30:18] could be converted to allow through left and right turns,

[30:22] and in doing so, as described in the staff report

[30:25] quite succinctly, we would hopefully see a significant reduction in

[30:30] the queuing length along granite court. This has been passed

[30:34] by and analyzed by a region of Durham staff as

[30:37] well as city staff. And they have advised that. It

[30:41] can be successfully implemented through the proposed development. I'll move

[30:46] on to the next slide. I'm assuming if there are

[30:48] questions, we. Can ask Ms. Maria once I've through the

[30:50] slide deck. This is just an updated rendered view showing.

[30:55] The proposed development in situ. This is looking northwest from

[30:58] the southeast corner of the intersection of Whites Road and

[31:01] Granite Court. You'll see some of the built form changes

[31:04] that we've implemented, including the reduced height, the location of

[31:08] entrances and the new sidewalks. The long granite court in

[31:10] Whites Road. The building steps as one increases in height

[31:15] in order to provide. An appropriate transition. And then on

[31:17] the following slides, we just have the angular plane drawings,

[31:20] which are provided in the staff report as well, but

[31:23] I think do serve. Sorry, I got one ahead. We

[31:27] do have some alternative views not rendered, but these are

[31:30] very just showing details of the proposed building. Massing, which

[31:34] obviously will be further detailed through the. Site plan process

[31:37] the view on the right looking from granted court the

[31:39] view on the vice versa. Left from Granite court, right

[31:43] from Whites Road, and then on the following slides, we

[31:46] have the angular plane images showing, if you may recall,

[31:50] at the twelve stories, there was a slight encroachment of

[31:52] the angular plane through mechanical pentos, obviously by dropping two.

[31:56] Stories. We are now significantly below the projected angular plane,

[32:00] which is that red dash line. So this is the

[32:02] view that would be looking up white's road or the

[32:05] east angular plane and then the next slide shows the

[32:08] southern angular plane. From granite court. That concludes my presentation.

[32:14] I'm happy to answer any questions. And again, I do

[32:17] thank staff and councilor for the opportunity to work together

[32:22] on this project for the robust community consultation and for

[32:27] the opportunity to speak here tonight. Thank you very much,

[32:31] Mr. Layton. We will certainly take questions now from committee.

[32:37] I can start a list. Mr. Pickles, you are first.

[32:41] Go ahead, councilor. Thank you, madam Chair. The dual turn

[32:48] lane, the dual left hand turn lane going east on

[32:52] Bailey north onto Whites Road. You mentioned would alleviate some

[32:57] traffic, but. In the second lane, which. Would be the

[33:03] left turn through lane or right turn lane if there

[33:07] was one car waiting to go through the throughling. That

[33:11] would impede other cars from using that as a left

[33:15] hand. Turn lane, would it not? Well, the left would

[33:18] only occur on a green light, at which point. The

[33:20] through lane could that car would clear? The through lane

[33:23] by just going through the green light and the left

[33:24] could continue. Okay. All right, so I see how that

[33:29] works. Retail. You're proposing. I think you said 1000 think

[33:37] you said. In. 81 m², slightly less than 1000 sqft.

[33:45] You suggested it would be something like a daycare. Would

[33:48] it be something like. Could it be. Something like a

[33:51] convenience store. Certainly. I'm just pulling up the zoning bylaw

[33:55] to see exactly what uses we've. Permitted. But what we

[33:59] have contemplated, in addition to the apartment, dwellings, animal care

[34:03] establishment, art gallery, and studio convenience store dry cleaning distribution

[34:07] center financial institution office personal service shop restaurant veterinary clinic

[34:13] so. Those sort of compatible non residential uses that could

[34:17] coexist harmoniously at grade in an apartment building. Okay, that's

[34:21] there. Any questions? I add. Thank you. Thanks. Thank you

[34:24] very much. Councilor pickles. Councilor butt. Thank you. My question

[34:28] was in terms of parking ratios. I'm not sure if

[34:32] you addressed that, could you address the parking ratios do

[34:35] you have in your complex? Certainly. If we could pull

[34:38] up, I. Believe it was slide three. Statistics we are

[34:43] consistent with. The city's comprehensive zoning bylaw. We're providing about

[34:50] one. Point. A blended 1.6 basis per unit. Or about

[34:56] 1.35 for residential and just under zero point 26 for

[35:01] visitor. In fact, there's a slight oversupply. I see. Like

[35:06] Bachelor A, for example, 3.1 percentage and then one bedroom,

[35:12] 68%. Sorry, council, I believe you're looking at the prior

[35:17] proposal. The revised proposal, which would be. To the right.

[35:20] Oh, yes, that's right. That's what I was going to

[35:22] say. So that's much better now. So obviously. At one

[35:27] bedroom 103. So it's gone down now? Yes. We've readjusted

[35:33] the unit mix so that there was a larger proportion.

[35:37] Of larger units, so. We've introduced some three bedroom units.

[35:42] There's almost 5% of those. And then obviously skewed more

[35:46] towards the one bedroom plus den, two bedroom and two

[35:48] bedroom plus dense. What about amenities? What kind of amenities

[35:52] are you offering? So, at grade currently, maybe if we

[35:56] go. To. What page is it? Slide. Five. We're providing

[36:03] both programmed and unprogrammed spaces, so if you zoom in,

[36:06] maybe. Towards. The right side of the page or on

[36:08] the north side of the building. While this does need

[36:10] to still go through the site plan process. We're contemplating

[36:14] that there would be a variety of outdoor areas. We've

[36:17] contemplated some community gardens. A dedicated kids play area, or

[36:21] what we call a tot lot. Some passive seating. And

[36:25] then as well, on the far west side of the

[36:28] site is a large unprogrammed area, which we foresee leaving

[36:32] in more of a passive landscape sawted area that could

[36:36] be used for a variety of purposes. And that's. Sorry.

[36:40] In addition to the interior amenity spaces, which are also

[36:43] provided, so. The green areas that I see. Is that

[36:46] a planted tree areas? It's a bit of both. So

[36:52] perhaps. Are you looking at the north side of the

[36:55] building or the west? The north side. Of the building,

[36:57] north side of the building. So there is the more

[37:00] active use areas. Which. Sorry. If we could go to

[37:03] the. Whoever's controlling the screen, I think you need. To

[37:06] go. One slide prior. Yes. So you'll see it here.

[37:10] There is an area that's enclosed by a noise barrier,

[37:14] which would be the more active areas, which would consist

[37:17] of seating areas, community gardens, the taut lots, dog off

[37:21] leash, play areas, things of that nature, and then the

[37:24] rest of the site. Where it's shown in green. Would

[37:29] just be left sided or unprogrammed for. More wider variety

[37:35] of uses. Okay. That's all the questions I had. Thank

[37:40] you. Thank you, madam Chair. You are very welcome, councilor,

[37:45] but I'm not seeing any additional hands from council, so.

[37:49] I thank you very much, Mr. Layton, for your delegation

[37:52] and. We will get to this particular item and do

[37:56] the course. Thank you, madam Chair. You're very welcome. 3.3

[38:01] is Pickering resident Mr. Craig Bamford, who will be speaking

[38:04] on Report Pln. 1625, which is item 4.2 on the

[38:09] agenda, which is a project update and completed growth management

[38:13] strategy. Welcome, Mr. Bamford, back to our chambers, virtual though

[38:18] they are, and you will have five minutes for your

[38:20] delegation. Thank you. Thank you. My presentation is titled five

[38:26] ways to make homes more affordable. And pickering, tonight, I

[38:30] would like to introduce you to the work of the.

[38:38] Alliance for Livable Ontario, a multidiscipline group of interested Ontario

[38:43] residents and volunteers who came together to research best practices

[38:48] for creating affordable housing in Ontario. The report advisors included

[38:53] recognizable names like Anne Golden, David Cromby, Greg saber. Sabera

[38:59] from the building industry, Tim Gray from environmental defense and

[39:03] many others. The report has also been endorsed by planners,

[39:07] including former Toronto planning chief Jennifer Keysmat. Other professional planners,

[39:13] including a gentleman from the region of Durham who headed

[39:16] up their planning department, Victor Doyle, who has well been

[39:20] on to all of us and a number. Of environmental,

[39:23] agricultural and community groups. During the recent provincial election campaign.

[39:30] The report was packaged up and each provincial party was

[39:33] asked to endorse the report. Which was titled for that

[39:38] purpose. And five ways home. And each of the leaders

[39:43] of the Liberal NDP and Green parties endorsed the report.

[39:48] I'd be happy to provide their letters to you. Andy.

[39:54] Thank you for arranging to show the introductory video titled.

[40:00] Five ways to make homeless more affordable. You probably know

[40:10] someone who can't find a home they can afford. It

[40:17] wasn't always like this. And while we can argue and

[40:19] debate about what happened and didn't happen. Talking won't make

[40:24] affordable homes happen. So a bunch of us got together

[40:28] and found five. Ways that will. Number one. Gutting farmland

[40:32] and nature to build McMansions in places where you need

[40:36] two cars and have to install expensive infrastructure is not

[40:40] the answer. We need to build in the right places,

[40:44] affordable livable neighborhoods where people already live and want to

[40:48] live, and we already have enough ready to build room.

[40:52] Inside our towns and cities to do it. Number two,

[40:56] while everyone needs something different and affordable, too. Many of

[41:01] these are being built. We need to build a wide

[41:04] variety of housing types, low rise. Mid rise, not for

[41:08] profit, multi unit, multifamily, multibedroom. A multiplex of more affordable,

[41:14] appropriate options for every stage of life. Number three. The

[41:20] way most homes are built and the laws around building

[41:23] them are not built for affordability. Or speed. We need

[41:27] to build smarter and faster, like more wood frame and

[41:31] prefab panel. Homes and updating old rules like high rises

[41:35] needing parking for everyone. We can cut costs and time.

[41:40] With faster and smarter rules, approvals and building methods. Number

[41:46] four. For decades, our government's built and operated affordable nonmarket

[41:51] housing. Then affordable housing stopped going. Up, but rents didn't.

[41:58] We need to invest heavily in non market, affordable housing.

[42:03] And we is our governments builders will build it coops

[42:07] and other groups will run it, but. Our governments must

[42:10] invest in it because almost no one else is. Number

[42:14] five, we can't. Be hurrying like mad to approve and

[42:18] demolish and build without stopping to think about neighborhoods. We.

[42:23] Need to make housing not just affordable, but part of

[42:27] livable communities. Affordable deans building in the right places, building

[42:32] smarter and faster, and building more choices and more non

[42:37] market homes. While livable means building neighborhoods, close convenient communities

[42:44] that bring everything we need together, including each other. These

[42:49] are our five ways to affordability. But there's actually one

[42:53] more. We need everyone, governments, the private sector and nonprofit

[42:59] housing providers, to work together to fix this and we

[43:03] need you to tell your MPp that they've got five

[43:07] things to do to help everyone have an affordable, livable

[43:11] home. Now. Learn all that you can do at five

[43:16] wayshome, Ca. At this point.

[43:27] We're at a crossroads. Sell. Houses are not selling in

[43:31] Seaton. We're not sure what the market is for. Housing

[43:35] and intensification in the downtown core. I think we really

[43:41] need to get everybody in one room. They mentioned various

[43:46] types of new construction methods. What happens if you put

[43:50] those. Construction methods in that some of the neighborhoods that

[43:54] haven't been started in the Satan area. What would the

[43:57] numbers be in the watch and report? I'm sorry to

[44:00] interrupt you, but you are at your five minutes, so

[44:02] I'm. Going to give you a little latitude with an

[44:04] extra 30 seconds to wrap up, and then there may

[44:07] be some questions from committee. I really do think that

[44:12] we should not race ahead with the official plan process

[44:17] as is requested. Effectively, if you look at your motion,

[44:20] they're asking you to endorse. The development in northeast Pickering?

[44:27] I don't think that's the answer. I don't. Think that's

[44:30] the least affordable housing. I would request that you have

[44:38] a 7th public information session that focuses on. The business

[44:44] community and. An 8th. Public information report at which the

[44:50] Watson report was published. Was discussed and questions and answers

[44:55] were presented and answered by the consultants. Thank you. You're

[44:59] welcome, Mr. Bamford. Questions from the committee. Thank you. Thank

[45:04] you, Mr. Bamford, for coming back. Interesting video. I quite

[45:10] enjoyed that, actually. Thanks for coming in tonight. We're going

[45:14] to move on to our next delegation, which is also

[45:16] a group delegation. It is item 3.4. The group is

[45:21] Nick and Elise Zamora who are presenting on behalf of

[45:26] Greenwood community association as Pickering residents. On PLN 1325, which

[45:32] is also the Northeast Pickering secondary plan. Good evening. Good

[45:37] evening. How are you? Oh, there we go. We got

[45:41] your presentation up, and you do have ten minutes to

[45:44] delegate together. You might go ahead. Thank you. And we

[45:47] also are delegating on, I think it's, 4.4 as well.

[45:52] We can jam it all together if you like. Yeah.

[45:55] Awesome. Thank you. You bet. So, thank you. Very much

[45:58] for giving us the time to speak with you again.

[46:00] We are here about a year. Ago. And just wanted

[46:04] to start with a statement. And somebody once said, once

[46:08] upon a time, there was a hamlet called Greenwood. But

[46:13] this is something we don't want to hear. And we're

[46:16] hoping we're here today to talk about. Some recommendations that

[46:21] we hope will make sure that we don't hear that

[46:23] statement ever. So. It was about a year ago that

[46:28] we came to this group and we spoke about collaborating

[46:31] and engagement, and we're going to bring you an update

[46:35] on how that's gone, so. Far from a perspective of

[46:37] northeast pickering and from a perspective. Of Greenwood. The Greenwood

[46:43] community. So first off, you can go to the next

[46:46] slide, please. Growth should be balanced and for the better.

[46:53] We are committed as a community and we've been active

[46:56] in the Pickering official plan. At the public information. Engagement

[47:03] events. And in fact, I found them extremely informative and

[47:10] really appreciating meeting other residents. Of pickering and their input.

[47:15] When we were here a year ago, we advocated for

[47:17] growth that was sustainable, that it was affordable. For taxpayers.

[47:21] That we learned from past projects, that we learned from

[47:24] experts, that we take advantage of the gifts that Pickering

[47:27] has a natural and cultural heritage that we sustain. A

[47:33] balanced rural and urban lifestyle for current and future generations

[47:39] and that we are going to support. The existing but

[47:42] strained agricultural industry, hopefully, so that it is not so

[47:46] strained. We also believe that the northeast Pickering lands should

[47:51] stay agricultural, that that is an industry, that is worth

[47:56] growing, and there can be some very creative ways of

[47:59] doing that. But we also believe there is really no

[48:02] credible business case, and not one that we've seen yet

[48:04] to further expand. Land designation for development that would include

[48:09] northeast Pickering. And finally, we presented a vision that where

[48:14] Greenwood could play a role as Pickering's natural and cultural

[48:18] heritage hub. And at least do you want to kind

[48:22] of provide a bit of an update from the next

[48:24] slide for sure. There we go. Sorry. So, despite significant

[48:32] public feedback, The secondary plan for northeast Pickering is still

[48:36] being pushed forward without a sound business case and without

[48:39] community support. Let's be precise about what's happening. There's no

[48:43] financial analysis, nothing showing. Whether Pickering can even afford this.

[48:47] The entire plan is built upon a developer led vision.

[48:51] Bild scenario two a, not one. Guided by urban planning's

[48:56] best practices or public interest, it assumes we must urbanize

[49:00] northeast, pickering, to meet pop. Population targets, but that's not

[49:03] accurate. In fact, Pickering's own housing strategy says the opposite.

[49:07] Let me quote directly. There is sufficient capacity within existing

[49:11] designated greenfield areas and the built up area of Pickering

[49:15] to meet the city's population and housing needs to 2051.

[49:20] Without requiring the urbanization of northeast Pickering land that's from

[49:24] the city's housing strategy and action plan 2021 to 2031

[49:28] on page three. So the idea that northeast Pickering must

[49:33] be developed, it isn't supported by evidence. It's. A myth,

[49:36] and it's not in the data, and it's not in

[49:38] our collective interests. What the plan actually does is push

[49:41] 35% to 60% of Pickering's growth into the greenfield zone.

[49:46] That would more than double the city's size in 25

[49:49] years. In a place without. Any preexisting infrastructure to support

[49:53] it and the cost, our natural and cultural heritage erased.

[49:57] Are groundwater, drinking water and flood mitigation put at risk,

[50:01] our wildlife and ecosystems destroyed or pushed into conflict with

[50:04] humans and our class one farmland bulldozed for warehouses filled

[50:09] with robots. Or high. Turnover rate jobs. And once these

[50:13] lands are gone, future generations can't get them back. Next

[50:18] slide, please. So I threw up a couple of quotes,

[50:21] and hopefully the mayor recognizes these quotes. We're looking for

[50:28] true engagement. And these quotes indicate, obviously, that's everybody around

[50:34] here, everybody who's on this call. In this meeting, and

[50:38] I want to really emphasize some of the keywords. Building

[50:41] connections, sharing knowledge. And all in the favor of contributing

[50:47] to the city's success. Which is clearly a goal of

[50:51] the current official plan. And I particularly like. The quote

[50:56] around ratepayers associations that the residents get a chance to

[51:00] collaborate with its neighbors. Discuss local opportunities and challenges for

[51:06] the community. And all for the sake of let's build.

[51:09] A better future. For us. The Greenwood has resurrected its

[51:15] ratepayers association. Which is strong and has a healthy voice,

[51:20] and that's why we're here today. The next slide, please.

[51:24] Is. Providing what we think about when we think of

[51:28] collaboration. I'm stealing a bit from the best practices from

[51:34] the city of Hamilton, because. It had some really interesting

[51:40] elements that I think might be useful in adapting the

[51:43] current official plan. Process. Want to emphasize the fact that

[51:48] this is a four element process. On the bottom you

[51:52] have inform and then across you've got consult, involve, collaborate

[51:57] in the various stages. Of public engagement. Now, this is

[52:01] an overall model that was borrowed from the international association

[52:05] of public participation. It's a canadian chapter. And in each

[52:11] one of these, the city of Hamilton has made promises.

[52:15] And on the bottom, under inform. The promises are they

[52:19] will ensure that the citizens are aware and knowledgeable about

[52:23] the project. That you are able to provide input. And

[52:28] that you'll be aware of any decisions or recommendations that

[52:31] have been made. So this is about. A shared engagement.

[52:38] A sharing of information. When we look at the collaborate

[52:41] on the right, I'm going to go all the way

[52:42] to there and emphasize underneath the promise. The promise is

[52:46] that they will ask for our advice, which we see

[52:49] that and in those public engagements. That is awesome. That's

[52:52] happening. Our concern is what happens with that information. In

[52:57] Hamilton's promise, they incorporate. They will incorporate your advice into

[53:01] the project as much as possible, and they'll provide feedback

[53:05] to the citizens on how their advice was contributed to

[53:08] decisions and recommendations. So traceability, that's what I want to

[53:12] make sure. Because when it comes to change management. In

[53:15] fact, that's what this is about. Is understanding that future

[53:18] state and having a trust in the process and that

[53:21] level of engagement. Is really important, and I think there's

[53:25] the model and there's more details on the model, but

[53:27] I think those are the key elements that we would

[53:29] really encourage the city to think about adding next slide,

[53:32] please. So the other is. Of course, I talk about

[53:37] the trusted process. The city council here was brought into

[53:44] was voted in by citizens because of your abilities, integrity

[53:47] and character. What does that mean for us as citizens?

[53:52] That means we're looking for. An authentic and transparent and

[53:57] a reliable process and engagement. And if I zero in

[54:00] on transparency, this is about sharing information openly and candidly,

[54:05] that. There are not unrecognizable processes that make their way

[54:10] on or off. The planning process, that there is regular

[54:15] constructive feedback that is actionable. That there is an encouragement

[54:21] of open dialogue, where ideas are generated by citizens, but

[54:25] they're not wasted and thrown away. And on a reliability.

[54:30] It's really just as plain as it says there. Walk

[54:32] the talk. It's about when commitments are made and talked

[54:36] about, their follow through on that expertise is used when

[54:39] decisions are made. And that ultimately the future. Is all

[54:45] about the citizens and where we're going, and not just

[54:48] about if the developers are able to bring some money

[54:51] to the table or they've got an agenda on their

[54:53] own. Some sort of urgency. So if we flip to

[54:57] the next slide. Excellent. So we're here tonight because Greenwood

[55:03] is at the front lines of these decisions, and. Frankly,

[55:07] right now we're uncertain about our future. This is our

[55:10] current experience. Yes, we have had kind and productive meetings

[55:13] with the mayor and the city staff, and it was

[55:15] a good start. But still no action has followed. The

[55:22] loss of our postal code during the pandemic hurt deeply.

[55:25] And now another Greenwood community is being created right next

[55:28] to us without any consent or any. Connection to our

[55:32] hamlet. We even lost the hamlet designation in a recent

[55:36] zoning bylaw. Quietly and without any real. Discussion the Greenwood

[55:40] Community center is being demolished with no plan to replace

[55:44] it, and it was the heart of our community. The

[55:47] new Pickering Heritage and community center, instead of supporting Greenwood,

[55:50] treats us like any other applicant. There's no special consideration

[55:54] for our historic groups like karate Club or the weavers

[55:57] who serve the city for over 50 years. We've heard

[56:00] that the word heritage may even be removed from the

[56:03] name and replaced with Dorsey and our proposal to become

[56:07] Pickering's heritage hub. It's still not acknowledged. Not embraced, but

[56:10] we are looking forward to picking it up. We're not

[56:13] exaggerating when we say that the dismantling of a thriving

[56:16] community feels to be in full swing. Next slide, please.

[56:22] So, in summary, We're looking for. An authentic and collaborative

[56:30] engagement process. Hoping to kind of see that commitment to

[56:34] promises on both sides. Being transparent. And providing and having

[56:39] an even playing field. Being reliable so that when commitments

[56:44] are made that they're followed through on. And ultimately that

[56:47] citizens, when they come up with their ideas that they

[56:50] see them, they see them. In the plans, and if

[56:54] there's an adjustment, then we understand why they've been adjusted

[56:57] that best practices and business cases are going to be

[56:59] used as we move forward in our planning. And that

[57:03] there is accountability, which means, as I said, back to

[57:06] the financials, because that's, a big concern of all citizens

[57:10] that we take advantage of Pickering's gifts. We spoke about

[57:13] the urban and rural balance. It's there. The farmland, the

[57:16] amazing history of natural heritage. And ultimately the energy. We

[57:21] don't have. The citizens. Of the city. We're not being

[57:26] paid to do these things. It's because we love where

[57:29] we live, and we want to see it be even

[57:31] better as we move forward, so that kind of commitment,

[57:33] taking advantage of things and of our energy. We're hoping.

[57:39] Will be utilized, but not wasted. Next slide.

[57:49] Let's end with questions not regarding dialogue, but for commitments.

[57:56] What promises can you make to us tonight? Will you

[57:58] commit to a collaborative, evidence based process for this growth

[58:01] strategy and the official plan, will you ensure development happens

[58:05] in the right places in the right way and in

[58:08] the right order, with financial implications fully accounted for. Will

[58:14] you support a phasing strategy for the Northeast, Pickering? One

[58:17] that's guided by. Actual research and fiscal analysis as recommended

[58:21] on page 137 of the growth strategy itself. Will you

[58:26] support our collaborative engagement with the planning department to develop

[58:30] and incorporate shared ideas? We're not here to resist change.

[58:34] We are here to help shape it and to ensure

[58:36] that change reflects both our values and our commitments. Long

[58:39] term well being. We want the community to do well.

[58:43] We want in, and let's get this right together. Thank

[58:46] you. Questions. All of the above, right? I just want

[58:56] to make sure that you didn't have a second presentation

[58:59] since. We joined the ten minute. Yeah, absolutely. Okay. Fantastic.

[59:04] Well done. I'm going to open the floor for both

[59:07] of you to take questions from committee, if anyone would

[59:10] like. To chime in. Mr. Pickles, please. Go ahead, councilor.

[59:17] Thanks for the presentation. And. There has been. A number

[59:26] of. Public opportunities. I know you've been out to a

[59:29] couple of them yourselves, and I was. Out to unfairly

[59:32] recently at the Greenwood Community Center. So have you been

[59:36] engaged in all of those, and are you advising. You've

[59:40] had at least one person from Greenwood at every single

[59:42] one of the meetings, okay? So that's good. So you're

[59:44] participating in the many public opportunities that's. Good. So you

[59:50] spoke about the community center in Greenwood. Being torn down

[59:56] and not replaced. But then in your next point, you

[59:58] spoke to. The Pickering Heritage and Community Center. So that

[1:00:05] has a lot more amenities, public amenities. Than the aged

[1:00:11] and. Unaccessible. Greenwood Community center, so I'm not sure. Where

[1:00:18] you're having concern that one is being removed and not

[1:00:21] being replaced because there is a brand new community center

[1:00:23] built. That seems to be the misconception we've heard. From

[1:00:26] a number of people. When people from Greenwood have discussed

[1:00:29] it seems to be like people think that building. As

[1:00:34] I mentioned, at that point, there's been no designation for

[1:00:37] anything to actually be available. To support our community and

[1:00:41] to replace what the building is doing for us right

[1:00:43] now. Right now. It has permanent space for the weaving.

[1:00:53] Infrastructure, their looms. We have full access for all of

[1:00:56] our community events. People regularly use it. So all of

[1:01:02] the space and availability and anything we use it for

[1:01:05] now is actually not being replaced. And to clarify. We've

[1:01:11] put in a request. For time and events, and we're

[1:01:15] waiting to hear back on those things. But. As we

[1:01:20] say, that community center is used on a regular basis

[1:01:24] for so many things, ad hoc. And it has a

[1:01:26] long history. And we've spoken about the fact that we

[1:01:29] have, we do. I can list them all if you'd

[1:01:34] like. Talk about the scouting. The regular hockey rink that

[1:01:39] we have the ability to host events and to cook

[1:01:44] food. To have our own activities. It's a building that.

[1:01:50] We're able. To raise money for the Pickering Rec association.

[1:01:55] So those meetings have come on, but we've. Talked about

[1:01:58] a replacement building that doesn't look exactly like that, but

[1:02:02] something that allows us to do some of these events.

[1:02:06] But. We've had this. We've said this over and over

[1:02:08] again. It is not a replacement. For groups like the

[1:02:12] weavers. We cannot. There's no commitment. Around hockey and other

[1:02:18] activities, et cetera. We can go on. But there's no

[1:02:21] commitment as like a discrete community for agreement about that

[1:02:25] building itself. But. I will say there will be a

[1:02:28] lot more. Community amenities and use in the new building.

[1:02:32] We'll sort that out with staff as that comes along.

[1:02:36] The weavers we spoke to, and I know the mayor

[1:02:39] spoke to a number of times. The issue is they

[1:02:42] need a large, dedicated space for the looms. If I

[1:02:46] got the word, right? Which we just can't take up

[1:02:50] in a new facility because it can be used for.

[1:02:52] So many other people. But anyway, let's keep the dialogue

[1:02:55] going. You're coming to? Public meetings. We are working with

[1:02:59] staff about the use of. The. Community center. And thanks

[1:03:04] for coming out tonight. And I'm sure. Staff will have

[1:03:09] more to say as we get to the item itself.

[1:03:12] So thank you very much. Thank you. Anyone else in

[1:03:16] the committee have a question? Councilor Robinson? Thank you very

[1:03:20] much, Madam Sheriff. That was a great presentation. Thank you,

[1:03:23] guys. Thank you. Just quickly. How many people are coming

[1:03:27] out and participating at these meetings that you've had? It

[1:03:31] depends on which ones. Typically. When we have our. Greenwood

[1:03:39] Community association meetings anywhere from 50 to 40 people. That's

[1:03:46] a pretty good turnout. That's impressive. Very impressive. And I

[1:03:50] have another question. Why do you believe that this plan

[1:03:54] is reflecting vision of developers rather than the will of

[1:03:58] the people. I believe you had said that. You see

[1:04:03] us being a developer's vision? Because. When we looked at.

[1:04:10] Any plan that's been submitted. It was actually through. The

[1:04:15] developers. They proposed the plan and then had three to

[1:04:17] pick from. Even the person on staff who. Was actually,

[1:04:25] I think half or majority of his salary was also

[1:04:29] paid by the developers. Well, I'm going to say that

[1:04:31] specifically. You're going to hear that coming up, probably because

[1:04:35] as we indicated, there's a history of the back and

[1:04:37] forth between, and it did feel like a bit of

[1:04:40] a shell game between the region and the city, and

[1:04:44] there were Dec. Decisions. And the decision at one point

[1:04:48] was to go to not include northeast Pickering and then

[1:04:51] all of a sudden there's a new plan that's put

[1:04:53] on the table that's put on. By planners, and it

[1:04:58] didn't go through. A process like we're going through now

[1:05:02] to have it evaluated by the community and. That's actually

[1:05:06] the process at one that the regional council agreed to

[1:05:11] the brand new plan. That showed up. And that's the

[1:05:14] thing that kind of provides a traceability around that. And.

[1:05:21] It certainly hasn't. I haven't seen it been included. In

[1:05:24] this particular process where the community could weigh in and

[1:05:27] say, does that make sense? And that's why we're really

[1:05:30] emphasizing the fact that thinking about. Is that necessary? Right

[1:05:35] now is really important because we haven't really even asked

[1:05:39] citizens. All right. Thank you very much for those. I

[1:05:43] really appreciate the two of you being here today. And

[1:05:45] thank you for your insight. Thank you. Thanks. Thank you,

[1:05:49] Councilor Robinson. Anyone else in committee? If not, I do

[1:05:55] have one question myself. Just one of the. Final summary

[1:06:00] points that you also had brought up in your presentation,

[1:06:03] which I echo. My fellows, I thought was excellent. You

[1:06:08] did have one line in there. About the naming convention

[1:06:11] for PHCC changing to include. In our last councils. That,

[1:06:18] actually. Was defeated and the question was sent back to

[1:06:21] staff to refer that back for. Additional naming inclusions and.

[1:06:29] We did push to have the word heritage put back

[1:06:32] in there, so that will be coming back. Before council

[1:06:36] at the end of the month with some additional. Name

[1:06:39] recommendations being brought before council. I'm not sure if you

[1:06:42] were aware of that. No. Does that mean that that

[1:06:47] issue is gone, or does it mean it just will

[1:06:49] come back? Again, a number of us on council flag

[1:06:52] that as being an issue for us as well. We

[1:06:55] have called it thcc. And a naming request was changed

[1:06:59] because we did ask our staff to undertake. An exercise

[1:07:04] on naming rights for our facilities, so it was well

[1:07:07] within their purview to do that. It just wasn't sitting

[1:07:11] right with me personally and some of the other members

[1:07:13] of council. That we didn't have the name quite right,

[1:07:15] so quite confident staff will come back with some options

[1:07:18] for us that. People feel. We've heard you, and that

[1:07:23] will be included. Great. Thanks. I have a quick question,

[1:07:27] sort of a follow up. The fact that. We indicated

[1:07:31] that. There is another community that's been called Greenwood. That

[1:07:36] is serious. Is there any reaction to that? Any thoughts

[1:07:38] on that? Any advice on that? So as chair. This

[1:07:44] is not generally back and forth on debate with questions

[1:07:47] from a delegate back to council. What we can do

[1:07:50] is if anyone else on council who hasn't spoken would

[1:07:53] like to. Ask that question back. But there's no staff

[1:07:57] involvement at this point. So what you could also do

[1:08:01] is submit that question directly. Back. To any of us

[1:08:07] on council, and we can have staff direct that and

[1:08:10] answer that question. Thank you. Thanks. Sense. Okay. Nice to

[1:08:14] see you both. Thank you for coming back. We appreciate

[1:08:17] your community involvement in representing Greenwood. And. We are going

[1:08:22] to move on to our next delegate, who's also staying.

[1:08:26] On northeast Pickering secondary plan. We are going to welcome

[1:08:29] James Blair, Pickering resident. Good evening, Mr. Blair. As soon

[1:08:35] as I see you pop up on my screen here.

[1:08:38] You will also have five minutes with which to delegate.

[1:08:41] There we go. We're getting your presentation ready. Good. We're

[1:08:45] good to go. All right, Mr. Blair, you do have

[1:08:51] five minutes to begin your delegation. Do you want

[1:09:01] to let him know that we can't hear him? Yep.

[1:09:07] There we go. Now we've got. Thank you very much,

[1:09:09] councilor. Cook and assembled. Okay. Thank you. Yeah, I'll get

[1:09:17] directly into it. This is in regards to northeast Petra

[1:09:19] and I'm. Concerned about the agricultural impact assessment itself. I've

[1:09:22] just thrown together a quick slide here. To keep the

[1:09:25] points concise, the idea of getting it right, because I

[1:09:28] do truly believe we will not have a second chance

[1:09:31] here in the city of Pickering if we allow what

[1:09:33] is going on or to take phase. In the east

[1:09:37] side of Pickering. It's going to metastasize itself across the

[1:09:41] whole official plan. That's my concern. So if we go

[1:09:44] to the second slide, please. Andrew, these are some key

[1:09:49] things that I pulled out. Of the plan, and I

[1:09:52] was quite concerned by the two indications that I put

[1:09:55] in red. I would wonder if there's somebody at some

[1:09:58] point either on council there or city staff, that you

[1:10:01] have that could provide any indication. What are the layman's

[1:10:05] terms of these two? Points in red, I'm concerned. It

[1:10:09] basically suggests that. If I'm reading this, as I believe

[1:10:13] it is, that there is not much we can do

[1:10:16] to put agriculture not at the second step, opposed to

[1:10:20] building. And I see that as a very big concern.

[1:10:23] And it mentions here. The second one in red. Future

[1:10:27] developments. We need to consider the mitigating impacts on agriculture.

[1:10:30] Not the impact of agriculture on community development. And so

[1:10:36] I see that. And again, I would appreciate. Having a

[1:10:39] bit more insight onto this slide, or specifically those two

[1:10:41] points. Andy, could I ask you. To move to the

[1:10:44] second slide as well. Or the third slide. Pardon me?

[1:10:48] In a recent town hall meeting that you folks had

[1:10:52] to engage the public. There is a question that it

[1:10:59] seemingly through this report, still is not answered. In the

[1:11:03] spring of 2023, 200 participants showed up as reaper. So

[1:11:06] this is what we heard. We need to engage directly

[1:11:09] with farmers in agriculture. Communities support small and large scale

[1:11:12] operations. Integrate opportunities such as ecotourism. Education. That stuff is

[1:11:18] great. But what is some of these engagements? I've. In

[1:11:22] the last two and a half weeks, I've taken a

[1:11:24] task to connect with as many scaled farmers as I

[1:11:28] can. And. I have not got one farmer. Specifically farming

[1:11:34] families that have been in the areas for, I would

[1:11:36] say, two to three generations. Nobody can actually give me

[1:11:40] a direct time and date that the city of kickering

[1:11:43] has ever reached. Out to them to ask what can

[1:11:45] we do to help? And as I said here, what

[1:11:48] type of support is being rendered to the agricultural community.

[1:11:52] So I find it concerning. That in 2023 we are

[1:11:56] asking these questions. You'll see in one of the last

[1:12:00] slides here. I've been kind of kicking. At this can

[1:12:02] since 2009 2010. And nothing seems to be developing. If

[1:12:08] in many ways it's actually getting worse, Andrew, can I

[1:12:11] ask you to move to the next slide, please. So.

[1:12:16] In the discussion. We are looking at. What are the

[1:12:18] big ideas here? And again, there's a lot of talk,

[1:12:22] and I would like to appreciate. Or mention my appreciation.

[1:12:27] To the previous folks. They really hit the issue here.

[1:12:32] Where is the metrics that something is actually taking place

[1:12:34] here and the people that are putting forward ideas and

[1:12:37] where concerns are actually being listened to. And there's some

[1:12:41] type of substantial steps being put into practice where people

[1:12:45] can see, okay? I see the work here. So I

[1:12:49] would ask again, where are we with this? They're asking

[1:12:52] here in 2023. That we need to get buy in

[1:12:56] from active farmers. I'll ask for the next slide. Andy,

[1:12:59] please. So. Going through. And again, here's a specific issue.

[1:13:09] Talking about food security, maintain farmlands, the need for buffer,

[1:13:12] distance in speaking with farmers. Which I found really interesting.

[1:13:17] They've mentioned about the road allowances. They mentioned about the

[1:13:20] equipment they need to move. They've mentioned about trees. Road

[1:13:24] signage is actually being put in agricultural communities which actually

[1:13:27] inhibit them using certain roads with their machinery because they

[1:13:31] can't occupy the whole road. They can't move it to

[1:13:34] the side and specifically with sprayers, combines and multi use

[1:13:38] equipment. They're running, basically the possibility of knocking down signs,

[1:13:42] which they're not interested in. Damaging their equipment and or

[1:13:45] destroying public property. The last thing I would go to

[1:13:49] say here, this whole, I think it was 670 some

[1:13:52] page. Report or, sorry, 685 that I have noted here.

[1:13:57] There was less than one full page dedicated. To agriculture

[1:14:01] if we took out the two graphs, which you'll see

[1:14:05] in the next slide. Is kind of interesting. It actually

[1:14:07] speaks here. How? A special comment that I've had rated

[1:14:10] the interest in specific consulting with existing communities, especially those

[1:14:15] agriculture or in the food production area. Again, I don't

[1:14:20] know and or who has been consultant. If we go

[1:14:22] to the next side. Andy and Mr. Blair, you are

[1:14:26] at your five minutes. Okay, I'll finish off with this.

[1:14:29] One if it's possible. There is a concern. That what

[1:14:34] is taking place here and. Who is actually listening to

[1:14:38] who's being talked to. My main issue is. What is

[1:14:44] actually happening in the city of Pifring and northeast pippering

[1:14:48] that's? Going to set a template that is going to

[1:14:50] roll to the west. That's my concern. Thank you, Ms.

[1:14:53] Cook. You are welcome, Mr. Blair. Questions committee of the

[1:15:01] delegate. Seeing none. I will. Thank you, Mr. Blair, for

[1:15:05] your delegation. You're welcome. Have a good evening. You too.

[1:15:11] Thank you for showing up. We will move on to

[1:15:14] our next delegate, 3.7, which is Mr. Abdul Lamir Pickering.

[1:15:18] Reset. Speaking as well. To report PLN 1625, which is

[1:15:24] the Pickering official plan review, project update and completed growth

[1:15:28] management study. Good evening, Abdullah. I'm just going to make

[1:15:31] sure. You can hear us and see us. I can

[1:15:36] hear you. Fantastic. And you have no presentation, correct. I

[1:15:41] am the presentation. Well with that, Abdullah, welcome back to

[1:15:45] our chambers. And you have five minutes. Thank you. My

[1:15:50] name is Abdul Lamir. As you mentioned, I'm a resident

[1:15:52] of ward. One pickering and the co chair of Stopspirl

[1:15:55] Durham, a city planning advocacy organization here. Tonight representing myself

[1:16:01] and over 2000 residents across Durham region through stop Sprol

[1:16:04] Durham. Now, I did want to talk about. Report pLN

[1:16:07] 1625. Specifically, I was disappointed reading this report. Because I

[1:16:13] feel that this report really singularly focuses on northeast Pickering

[1:16:18] as the end all be all of all, future development.

[1:16:20] And pickering, when we know that is not necessarily the

[1:16:24] case, the population of Pickering is projected to go from

[1:16:27] approximately 100,000 people right now to just over 250,000. People

[1:16:32] by 2000 and. 51 so, of course, we need to

[1:16:34] build more. We need more development to accommodate that growth.

[1:16:38] But it must be done in a responsible and sustainable

[1:16:41] way. Development in northeast Pickering is a bad idea. For

[1:16:46] three main reasons. Number one, developing northeast. Pickering is a

[1:16:50] textbook example of urban sprawl. Which is low density, car

[1:16:55] dependent spread of housing and commercial uses into undeveloped fringe

[1:16:59] areas beyond the urban boundary. These lands are far from

[1:17:03] the urban center and pardon the colloquialism, these. Lands are

[1:17:06] really in the middle of nowhere. Sprawl paves over farmland.

[1:17:09] An ecosystem drives up traffic and greenhouse gas emissions, and

[1:17:13] most critically. Leaves municipalities with costly roads, pipes and services

[1:17:19] that outstrip the tax base. I fear that development into

[1:17:22] Northeast pick ring will result in a significant unnecessary and

[1:17:26] unfair tax burden for the people of Pickering and Durham.

[1:17:30] Region number two. The Northeast Pickering lands are on declutters

[1:17:35] creek. Headwaters and watershed. A watershed is an area that's

[1:17:39] drained by a river and its tributaries. Healthy watersheds, support

[1:17:43] biodiversity, reduced flooding, protect water quality and sustained drinking water

[1:17:48] sources. Development on the watershed. And particularly in this case,

[1:17:52] the headwaters of Cruthers Creek, which are underneath and adjacent

[1:17:56] to the northeast bickering lens will result in flooding in

[1:17:59] downstream Ajax and possibly in Pickering, according to the 2021

[1:18:03] Toronto Region Conservation Authority Watershed study. And number three, perhaps

[1:18:09] the most compelling reason. That development in northeast Pickering is

[1:18:13] not a good idea is that it is wholly unnecessary.

[1:18:18] We have enough land to meet our targets. Pickering can

[1:18:20] meet its 50 51 growth targets without expanding into northeast

[1:18:24] Pickering, the largely unbuilt seat and community alone still holds

[1:18:28] room for approximately 70,000 more residents and 30,000. More jobs

[1:18:32] while already planned. Intensification around the ghost station, Kingston Road

[1:18:36] and South Pickering can add another 90,000 or so residents

[1:18:41] and tens of thousands of more jobs when these capacities

[1:18:44] are combined with the remaining greenfield parcels south of Tanton

[1:18:47] Road and the fully service innovation corridor the city can.

[1:18:52] Comfortably accommodate the approximate projected 150,000 additional residents and the

[1:18:57] approximately 50,000 jobs to keep up with these projections. In

[1:19:03] short, with higher density build out of existing land and

[1:19:05] adherence to its own intensification. Policies. Pickering has more than

[1:19:09] enough room, making northeast Pickering expansion a matter of choice

[1:19:14] rather than necessity. These are all public figures from publicly

[1:19:18] available materials, including the Durham region Growth Management study phase

[1:19:23] two. The Alternative Land needs Scenarios Assessment summary report for

[1:19:27] Durham region and the Perkin official plan review growth management

[1:19:31] and urban structure. Discussion paper of November 2024. If all

[1:19:36] goes well, God willing, I'm still going to be here

[1:19:38] in 2051 and. In 2051, I'm still going to be

[1:19:43] younger than most members of council are today. I bring

[1:19:46] that up to make a very important point. That this

[1:19:49] is not just an abstract visioning exercise for me and

[1:19:52] people in my age group. And younger. It is a

[1:19:55] very real situation that I and many others in my

[1:19:58] generation will contend with and live through, and its ramifications

[1:20:03] will affect us directly. The decisions of today. Will affect

[1:20:09] me and my generation tomorrow. We have to live with

[1:20:11] the very real consequences of the decisions made by all

[1:20:14] levels of government today. Therefore, it is important to make

[1:20:19] good, responsible, sustainable decisions, especially as it pertains to planning.

[1:20:24] Such that they balance the needs of today without sacrificing

[1:20:28] the needs of tomorrow. Developing northeast Pickering would not be

[1:20:32] one such decision. And as such, I strongly urge counsel

[1:20:35] to please consider alternatives that exist within the urban boundary,

[1:20:39] such as. Intensification along transit corridors and fully building out

[1:20:44] Satan. Let's think creatively and collaboratively in the context of

[1:20:49] what is best for the people, the environment, and the

[1:20:53] land of pickering, rather than being driven by those who

[1:20:57] may wish to gain or profit at our expense. Chair

[1:21:01] Cook. Members of council, thank you very much for your

[1:21:04] time this evening and for the opportunity to address you

[1:21:07] on this matter. Thank you, Abdullah. Questions of the delegate

[1:21:12] from the committee. And seeing none. Thank you, Abdullah. Thank

[1:21:19] you for being right on time. Pleasure seeing you again.

[1:21:22] We will move on to our next delegate who is

[1:21:25] also Pickering resident Eric Leecher also speaking on report, PLN

[1:21:30] 20 15 25 which is official plan amendment Opa. 23.

[1:21:39] Four, which is in reference to 720 granite court. Eric,

[1:21:44] I just want to confirm that we can. Hear you

[1:21:47] and see you and confirm that you are not pulling

[1:21:50] up presentation this evening. Yeah. I do not have a

[1:21:54] presentation tonight. Okay, perfect. And we can hear you, so

[1:21:57] I will. Commence with your five minutes. You may go

[1:21:59] ahead. Okay. Thank you, council, for letting me have this.

[1:22:01] Time. I just want to bring up a couple of

[1:22:04] points about. The development of. 720 granite. The number of

[1:22:12] parking spots. I want to start with that. The reassessment

[1:22:18] that I've seen in the presentation also that was handed

[1:22:21] out. In an email, I noted that the number of

[1:22:25] spaces has gone up. So this would, for me, it

[1:22:29] would reflect. That number of cars would go up. This

[1:22:35] is stemming from the last council meeting which was regarding.

[1:22:40] The traffic issues that people were complaining about. There was

[1:22:44] many different things that people were wrapping around. As far

[1:22:48] as the access coming off of granite, I saw the

[1:22:52] renderings with the two lanes. Coming around the corner. I

[1:22:56] also want to put a note that nothing was ever

[1:22:59] addressed being a resident. On the opposite side being. On

[1:23:04] the Oklahoma side, that if you do put a double

[1:23:08] lane on the granite side during rush hour. That gives

[1:23:13] almost no opportunity for anybody leaving. On the Oklahoma site

[1:23:18] to get around the corner. And if anybody knows anything

[1:23:20] about traffic. Around rush hour, it does get backed up

[1:23:24] really quickly. From Bailey back to the Oklahoma. Granite area.

[1:23:30] So the double lane going around the corner, that's advantageous

[1:23:33] for the people. From the granite side, but the Oklahoma

[1:23:36] side. Almost has gridlock for us. Also another point for

[1:23:42] traffic. I've heard everything for the building. The amendments that

[1:23:48] I hear for the building, the. Number of units, the

[1:23:54] changes in the units. As much as they emphasize that

[1:23:58] we brought down the number of units. It doesn't look

[1:24:02] like. The style. Of. The units that are actually going

[1:24:09] in there is going to bring down the number of

[1:24:11] residents going in there. Thus factoring that it doesn't sound

[1:24:15] like anything has changed to the number of people that

[1:24:17] are actually going to be living into that building, even

[1:24:20] though it's come down two. Stories. It doesn't sound like

[1:24:24] there's going to be any less people going to be

[1:24:26] living in that building. Another point that I also like

[1:24:30] to make. Is the reasoning for a condo in the

[1:24:36] actual area. Just actually taking a walk over across the

[1:24:41] highway. I've noticed that. The retail area. Around that area,

[1:24:49] there is a proposal going over there. For, I think,

[1:24:53] three to five buildings, condo buildings, going over there, that's

[1:24:56] going to take out that plaza. So I'm just trying

[1:25:00] to understand that. You have a proposal of all those

[1:25:05] condos going up over there, yet you want another condo?

[1:25:08] On the other side. I do not see anything that

[1:25:10] is helping the infrastructure. Of whites road. The overpass and

[1:25:17] the number of exits coming off the 401. If you're

[1:25:20] talking about rush hour. If anybody has actually seen rush

[1:25:24] hour. In the last at least couple weeks, coming off

[1:25:28] the Whites Road exit has been absolutely horrendous and that's

[1:25:31] without any changes. Now, I've noticed also that the exit

[1:25:36] for Brock Road had an issue with going north. And

[1:25:40] thus forced a lot of people to go off at

[1:25:41] whites, if that is any indication of the number of

[1:25:44] people that are going to be coming off of Whites

[1:25:46] Road before these complexes go. Up. Any resident would just

[1:25:51] rip their hair out just thinking about. The traffic that

[1:25:55] we're going to see. And I don't even know. If

[1:26:00] that's like, the area is going to actually even support

[1:26:01] that many people coming around. There. Also, I noticed that.

[1:26:08] Another presentation. Somebody was mentioning about the 407 opening up.

[1:26:13] Just recently. If you think Brock Road is a good

[1:26:17] exit to go up to the 407 people are now

[1:26:21] starting to use White's road. To also go up north

[1:26:25] and start to go across Taunton to go up rock.

[1:26:29] So people are going to be using both exits. To

[1:26:33] actually facilitate themselves to get up to that. 407 now.

[1:26:36] So I think the traffic pattern changes with that 407

[1:26:39] change is going to be causing a lot of different

[1:26:41] issues with that, too. And then lastly, like I say,

[1:26:45] with infrastructure, If infrastructure has not changed or is not

[1:26:49] going to be changing around the area. I don't. Think

[1:26:51] that any new buildings are going to be able to

[1:26:53] be supported by the current infrastructure. That's around here right

[1:26:57] now. I think that is everything that I wanted to

[1:27:01] address. And you are right on time. Perfect. Sure. I

[1:27:06] appreciate that. Questions of the delegate from the committee. And

[1:27:12] seeing none. Thank you very much for your delegation this

[1:27:14] evening. Welcome. We will move forward with our next delegation,

[1:27:19] which is a group. Delegation. We are an item. 3.9.

[1:27:25] This is a group of landowners, Rakesh Gupta and Mohit

[1:27:27] Gupta, with respect to northeast Pickering. Which is PLN 1325.

[1:27:33] Good evening. Oh, there we go. We have your presentation

[1:27:36] up because. This is a group delegation. You do have

[1:27:38] ten minutes to present. And I can see you. Let's

[1:27:42] just make sure we can hear you before I start.

[1:27:44] My timer. Hello? Can you hear me? Yes. Perfect. You

[1:27:48] may go ahead. Thank you. Good evening. Chair. Council member.

[1:27:52] And member of the planning and development committee. Thank you

[1:27:55] for giving me this opportunity to speak my name is

[1:27:58] Mohit Gupta and my family owns roughly eleven acre on

[1:28:01] the east side of Salom. Road between 7th concession and

[1:28:05] highway. 407. My purpose here tonight is to voice support

[1:28:09] for the plant's complete community vision and to suggest a

[1:28:13] few practical measures that will help small, independent owners like

[1:28:16] me take part fairly. Next slide. Thank you. So as

[1:28:25] you can see, my part of fits where the new

[1:28:28] roads, parks and the proposed east. West transit border will

[1:28:33] converge. Clear. Upfront development guidelines will help keep small parts

[1:28:38] of the mind workable and smoothly integrated. Into the overall

[1:28:42] plan. Next slide, please. Here are some suggestions that I

[1:28:48] believe will make the process more fair, workable for small

[1:28:52] landowners. Like myself. I would like to suggest that we

[1:28:57] have one independent, small landowner seat to the technical steering

[1:29:01] committee. The decisions balance all interest. Two to circulate every

[1:29:06] draft map, cost, table and meeting invite to all affected

[1:29:09] owners at no charge and to release a final preferred

[1:29:12] plan map which schedule c cost table ideally 60 days

[1:29:17] before council adoption. Three give each owner a parcel level

[1:29:23] overlay of the preferred plan and enable land swap options.

[1:29:27] Before any acquisition. Four to keep an open book. Cost

[1:29:31] disclosure. And payment only at the building permit stage versus

[1:29:37] upon rezoning. And five to allow small parcels to develop

[1:29:43] or partner voluntarily without for sale and provide city led

[1:29:46] mediation or phase approval if neighborhood plan talks. Stall. In

[1:29:52] short, I support the plan. And I'm simply asking that

[1:29:55] a few safeguards. Be included now. So independent owners can

[1:29:59] move forward confidently and help bring the shared vision for

[1:30:02] a complete mixed youth. Community to life. Thank you for

[1:30:05] your time. Thank you very much, Mr. Gupta. That was

[1:30:15] short and sweet. And I see that we have councilor.

[1:30:17] Pickles with the first set of questions. Deliot. Mr. Pickles.

[1:30:23] Thanks Mohit, for your presentation. Have you met? With our

[1:30:29] planning staff. And talked about. Your. I'll say perspective. And

[1:30:37] comments on how you might fit into that process. Yes,

[1:30:41] I have exchanged a few emails, and up until now.

[1:30:45] It was quite early. The final details weren't put in

[1:30:50] place, so we were waiting for some more progression on

[1:30:53] the overall plans, which. We now see are happening. So,

[1:30:57] yes, now we would like to be more involved. And

[1:31:00] open that dialogue. Okay, so you would be amenable to

[1:31:04] councilor, but. Arranging such a meeting to have a discussion

[1:31:10] with our planning staff. Yeah, that would be very appreciated.

[1:31:15] Yes, we will ensure we follow up with you. Thank

[1:31:18] you. Thank you council. Thank you, Councilor Pickles. Anyone else

[1:31:23] in the committee questions? Okay, seeing none. Thank you very

[1:31:28] much. Mr. Gupta. Interesting perspective. I'm sure there's a lot

[1:31:31] of people out there who hadn't considered. Small landowners like

[1:31:36] yourself, so I thank you for bringing that forward. Into

[1:31:40] the mix and we will say good evening. Thank you.

[1:31:44] You're very welcome. Next on three point ten. Is Helen

[1:31:47] Brenner returning? Helen Brenner, who's been with us multiple times.

[1:31:52] Nice to see you again, Helen. You are also speaking

[1:31:55] on Pickering's official plan review, project update and completed growth

[1:31:59] management strategy. And I do believe you are not pulling.

[1:32:03] Up a presentation, so. We will just make sure that

[1:32:06] we can hear you. Andy, do we have sound for

[1:32:11] Helen? Helen, you're still on mute. Perhaps we could reach

[1:32:20] out to her, Andy, to make sure that. Ellen knows

[1:32:26] that it's her delegation time. Sure thing. I'll reach out

[1:32:29] to her. In the background. We'll just give it a

[1:32:32] minute, folks, just to see if we can raise Helen.

[1:32:35] If. Not. What we can do is move on. To

[1:32:39] our next delegation and then come back to Helen.

[1:32:58] Right. Then, in the interest of time. While Andy attempts

[1:33:07] to reach. Helen Brenner is our delegation. We will circle

[1:33:13] back to her and I will see if Mr. James

[1:33:16] Grundy, who's? Our next delegation is also available on the

[1:33:19] line. See if. We can raise one of the other

[1:33:24] individuals. Mr. Grundy, are you with us? Okay, perfect. I

[1:33:30] can see you. Let's just make sure we can take

[1:33:32] you off mute. And I will make note to circle

[1:33:36] back to Helen once Andy indicates whether he can raise

[1:33:39] her. Thank you for coming in tonight, Mr. Grundy. We

[1:33:42] do have you speaking to Northwest plan. Secondary update as

[1:33:45] well. You are on mute. So let's just make sure.

[1:33:51] You can get yourself off mute. Or

[1:34:01] I can assist with that. See if I can unmute

[1:34:05] you, sir. Hi. Kent, you are going to have to

[1:34:09] unmute yourself. We

[1:34:19] seem to have lost Mr. Grundy. I can see him

[1:34:22] on the video, but I can't hear him. No. I'm

[1:34:30] not having a lot of luck here. That last two

[1:34:31] delegates. James, are you able to hear us? You are.

[1:34:36] Are you able to take yourself off mute so that

[1:34:38] we can do your delegation? It's a little microphone. It's

[1:34:43] probably got a little flash through it. It's. Probably in

[1:34:45] the upper top right of your screen. There you go.

[1:34:51] Thought we had you for a second there. How's that?

[1:34:56] Yes. There you go. Okay. Perfect. Wonderful. Okay. This is

[1:35:01] fantastic. We've got both Helen, who will be next, and

[1:35:04] Mr. Grundy, now that we've confirmed. You. We will move

[1:35:07] forward with your delegation. You do have five minutes to

[1:35:11] begin. Thank you very much. Good evening. My name is

[1:35:18] Jim Grundy. I'm a longtime resident of Greenwood and. A

[1:35:21] member of the Greenwood Community Association. I'm here to discuss

[1:35:25] the financial implications to the taxpayers of the city of

[1:35:28] Pickering in the event that lands a northeast pickering where

[1:35:31] to be developed. My understanding is that the minimum number

[1:35:34] of new residents to live in this development would be

[1:35:37] approximately 45,000. And with no maximum number at this point

[1:35:41] in time. Based on a review of the verain website,

[1:35:45] the number of new residents would be in excess. Of

[1:35:47] 100,000. So basically, they double the size of the current

[1:35:50] population of the city of Pickering. As a bit of

[1:35:54] background, I think we should take a look at Pickering's

[1:35:56] current financial situation as we look at moving forward with

[1:35:59] northeast Pickering or not. I went back to the city's

[1:36:03] 2025 budget presentation made by Stan Carloski, the director of

[1:36:08] finance and treasure. He stated that the city's capital forecast

[1:36:11] for 26 to 34 is not financially sustainable as it

[1:36:15] relies on an excessive amount of debt to fund these

[1:36:18] projects. This high level of debt will have an impact

[1:36:21] on the city's debt capacity. As measured by the annual

[1:36:24] repayment limit plan. Capital expenditures for the 26 to 34

[1:36:29] period estimated at one point. 14 billion, keeping in mind

[1:36:34] that the budgeted number does not include any capital costs

[1:36:36] for the proposed development of the northeast Pickering lands. The

[1:36:41] most recent audited financial statements that are publicly available December

[1:36:45] 23 indicate long term debt for the city to be

[1:36:48] approximately 39 million, and with that growing in 2026 to

[1:36:53] 300 and 2300. And 12 million. 727% increase from 2024

[1:36:59] to 2026, along with a 374% increase in debt servicing

[1:37:05] driven primarily by the proposed seat and recreation complex and

[1:37:08] library. The Director of finance indicated in his 2025 budget

[1:37:13] presentation that capital projects will have to be deferred, revised,

[1:37:17] reduced in size to meet the financial budget. The next

[1:37:20] term of council, Pickering will probably have one of the

[1:37:23] highest debt per capita among all. Municipalities in Ontario. As

[1:37:27] we all know, the capital project that is driving the

[1:37:29] significant increase in 26 is the. Seat and rec complex

[1:37:33] and library. At an estimated cost of 242,000,000. 69% to

[1:37:39] be funded with DC funding and the balance funded by

[1:37:42] the city. Given the comments from the director of finance

[1:37:45] and treasurer noted above. It was not no surprise when

[1:37:48] a special meeting took place on April 22, where staff

[1:37:52] were requesting a pause on this project. Until later this

[1:37:55] year. Given the economic turmoil caused by tariffs from the

[1:37:58] us administration along with federal and Ontario elections. For whatever

[1:38:02] reason. It was good to see this project. Pause not

[1:38:05] so good for the seat and residents, but certainly good

[1:38:07] for the city of Pickering, taxpayers as a group. Given

[1:38:11] the 15% to 20% estimated. Development completion of Seaton to

[1:38:15] date. The development charges collected to date are not there

[1:38:18] to fund this project and funding the project with debt

[1:38:22] is not sustainable. Having watched the video of the special

[1:38:26] Council meeting of April 2225 again, I did learn that

[1:38:29] the Chestnut Hill rec center needs to be replaced within

[1:38:31] the next five years. And this might have been one

[1:38:34] of the motivating factors to move forward with Seed and

[1:38:36] rec project. Timing and services related to the Northeast Pickering

[1:38:41] land development. I felt it was important to provide this

[1:38:44] financial background about the city of Pickering's current financial situation

[1:38:48] when looking at taking on more significant development beyond Seaton.

[1:38:52] Given that the Seaton project has provided all of us

[1:38:54] with some tough learning when it comes to the pace

[1:38:57] or lack. Thereof of build out. So now let's turn

[1:39:01] our minds to when the proposed Northeast Pickering Land development

[1:39:05] project might commence. Mayor Ash indicated at a meeting with

[1:39:09] the Greenwood Community association in March 25 that the shovels

[1:39:12] could be in the ground within six years, so that

[1:39:16] would require both water and sewer services being brought to

[1:39:18] unservice farmland. In the not too distant future who will

[1:39:22] pay the cost per providing these services? Also, it is

[1:39:27] my understanding that Durham region's current water treatment facilities will

[1:39:30] not handle this. Population increase and will require further investment

[1:39:34] to increase capacity, something that is not in their plans

[1:39:37] for the next ten years. Keep close eye on the

[1:39:40] Durham region portion of your property tax bill. Moving forward.

[1:39:43] The cost of these services will be paid by all

[1:39:45] the taxpayers of Durham region. As for the infrastructure costs

[1:39:49] related to the northeast, Pickering lands being fire, parks, library,

[1:39:53] bylaw, transportation, community centers, et cetera, et cetera that would

[1:39:58] normally be covered by development. Charges. I would expect that

[1:40:00] there will be a timing issue as well as to

[1:40:03] when the full belt. Full build out of the NEP

[1:40:06] lands occurs and the cost for the infrastructure will need

[1:40:10] to be incurred. So who will fund the timing issue

[1:40:13] over the decades of development? Major Ash suggested at our

[1:40:16] March 25 meeting that the developers will need to fund

[1:40:19] all the infrastructure related to the development of the northeast

[1:40:22] Pickering lands through development charge credits. Well, that would be

[1:40:27] welcome news to the city of Pickering. Cox pairs. I

[1:40:30] expect that the developers may not be willing to take

[1:40:32] on all or a portion of this financial burden. Unless

[1:40:36] there's a pot of funding from either the federal or

[1:40:38] provincial governments to fund urban sprawl infrastructure that I'm not

[1:40:42] aware of at this point in time, I would offer

[1:40:45] the opinion that the city of Pickering is not in

[1:40:47] a position either now or in the future to fund

[1:40:50] the required infrastructure for the northeast Pickering lands without putting

[1:40:54] an undue stra. Strain on both the city of echoring

[1:40:58] taxpayers and the Durham region taxpayers for water and sewer

[1:41:01] services. So where do we go from here? Prior to

[1:41:06] spending any more money on external consultants, I think it

[1:41:09] is time to undertake a full detailed financial analysis business

[1:41:13] case of the development of the Northeast Pickering lands that

[1:41:17] would involve the developers the adjacent landowners, communities such as

[1:41:22] Greenwood who are on the front line in the city

[1:41:24] planning staff if we. Are not able to make this

[1:41:26] proposed development mark work from a financial perspective for all

[1:41:30] involved, then it's time to move on from this proposal.

[1:41:33] As you may have heard from some of the other

[1:41:35] delegations this evening. Given the significant cost of taking raw

[1:41:39] farmland with no services and trying to turn it into

[1:41:42] a city within the city. I think we should take

[1:41:44] a look at development within the city of Pickering where

[1:41:47] the services and some infrastructure already exist. And finally, there

[1:41:51] was mentioned in the report of a phasing strategy. Which

[1:41:54] I am fully in support of. And when this ever

[1:41:57] moves forward, thank you very much. You're very welcome, Mr.

[1:42:02] Grundy. I am remiss. I should have noted that you

[1:42:06] had ten minutes on your delegation because. You had. Two

[1:42:10] submitted. So that notwithstanding, you do have an additional four

[1:42:14] minutes remaining of time unless you have concluded both your

[1:42:17] presentations. On. We're good. Okay, fantastic. And I will turn

[1:42:22] it back to committee to ask questions of the delegate.

[1:42:26] And that is councilor pickles. Hi, James. We've communicated a

[1:42:32] number of times, so thank you for participating this evening.

[1:42:36] You made a lot of good points. I just wanted

[1:42:38] to revisit a couple of things. I don't think you

[1:42:42] meant to say that. Our chestnut Hill Recreation center needs

[1:42:47] to be replaced. I think what you might be referring

[1:42:50] to is that the swimming pools themselves have to be

[1:42:54] refurbished. Therefore, we want to have the new pools and

[1:42:57] the Satan Recreation center in place before we have to

[1:43:01] take the other ones out to refurbish them. Are you

[1:43:03] aware of that? That isn't what I heard. In the

[1:43:08] video I watched today. But you could be right, okay.

[1:43:13] And you referred to. Who was going to build the

[1:43:18] infrastructure. In northeast Pickering. And you didn't think it would

[1:43:22] be the developers, and I'll tell you, the developers would

[1:43:24] probably not want to. But you're aware, in the case

[1:43:27] of Seaton that that's, in fact, what the developers are

[1:43:30] doing. They're building much of the road and other infrastructure.

[1:43:36] There on behalf of the region of the city, and

[1:43:38] they get credits to development charges for that. But in

[1:43:41] fact they are building it. I didn't know if you

[1:43:43] were aware of that. Yeah, I was actually aware that

[1:43:45] they were doing the roads. I watched the development charge

[1:43:49] study presentation. Today and the consultant. And I understood that

[1:43:54] because there's a different development charge, a lower one for

[1:43:57] season than the rest of pickering, correct? And I just

[1:44:01] wanted to go back to. You were supportive of phasing.

[1:44:05] Can you tell? Us quickly. Why you would support phasing

[1:44:08] what you like about it. Well, I think the reality

[1:44:11] is, my understanding of it is you're not trying to

[1:44:14] do it all at once. You bite it off in

[1:44:15] chunks. And you do one chunk, see how it did,

[1:44:20] see what you learned from it, and then you. Move

[1:44:21] on, potentially. Or not, to the next one. Okay. Thanks

[1:44:26] again, James. Any other comments from the committee to ask

[1:44:30] for the delegate? Okay, thank you. Thank you, James, for

[1:44:34] coming in. Appreciate your comments. Thank you. You're very welcome.

[1:44:44] Helen, we're going to go back to you. Let me

[1:44:47] make sure that. We've got. You, Ms. Brenner. No relation

[1:44:53] to Councilor Brenner. As we like to say when Helen

[1:44:56] appears before us. Andy, were you able to reach Helen

[1:45:00] to confirm her delegation? Okay. She's coming in again. Coming

[1:45:09] in again. There we go. Hi, Helen. Hello? There you

[1:45:15] go. We can hear you now. Okay. I seem to

[1:45:18] be having technical problems. I'm sorry. Good evening. Thank you.

[1:45:23] Chair Cook, you can go ahead. We can hear you

[1:45:26] and see you and. You do have five minutes to

[1:45:28] speak on your delegation, which is also on Pickering's official.

[1:45:32] Plan review, you can go ahead. Great. Well, thank you

[1:45:34] very much and good evening, everybody. I'm Helen Brenner. I'm

[1:45:37] resident of Pickering and co lead of Stop Sprawl. Durham,

[1:45:40] which Abdullah spoke to. Earlier, and I'm very pleased to

[1:45:44] be here to speak this evening. I am here to

[1:45:46] raise serious concerns about how the northeast Pickering lands were

[1:45:50] added to the urban boundary, a decision not rooted in

[1:45:54] transparent planning, public consultation, or environmental stewardship. Let's start with

[1:46:00] the facts in 2018. The region launched in Vision Durham,

[1:46:05] a comprehensive review of the regional official plan to guide

[1:46:08] growth to 2051. Staff developed five land needs assessment scenarios,

[1:46:15] non included northeast Pickley. Yet long before that planning work

[1:46:19] concluded efforts were to develop these lands were already underway.

[1:46:24] In June 2021, two years before the region finalized its

[1:46:29] new official plan, Pickering Council directed staff to begin a

[1:46:33] secondary plan for a proposed community in northeast Pickering aimed

[1:46:38] at supporting. A future official plan amendment. So development planning

[1:46:44] was moving forward for lands not included in any official

[1:46:48] growth scenario at that time. And here's how we got

[1:46:52] there. Way back in 2014, Dorsey development began working closely

[1:46:57] with Pickering and Durham region to promote a 4000 acre

[1:47:01] community called Brain. In June 2020, Dorsey Development submitted a

[1:47:07] request for an MzTO the city of Pickering supported it.

[1:47:11] Durham region opposed it. Citing planning concerns. Ajax also raised

[1:47:17] objections. In his July 2020 letter to pick ring, Mayor

[1:47:23] Collier warned of, quote, justified and real concerns regarding downstream

[1:47:28] flooding impacts associated with urbanization of the headwaters of Crothers

[1:47:33] creek, unquote. In late 2022, Mayor Ash sent another letter

[1:47:39] to the province. Requesting an MZTO for Northeast pick ring

[1:47:43] that did not succeed. Then came the turning point in

[1:47:47] the regional process. In May 2022, Durham's planning commissioner recommended

[1:47:53] scenario four, which was identified through the envision Durham process,

[1:47:58] emphasizing compact, walkable, transit friendly communities. It met growth targets

[1:48:05] and didn't require expansion into northeast pick ring. Instead, Durham

[1:48:10] Council adopted build scenario two A, which included 6178 acres

[1:48:16] of new community land. Far more than the 2348 acres

[1:48:23] recommended by the staff through the envision durham process for

[1:48:27] scenario four. This wasn't just a numbers issue. Scenario four

[1:48:31] exceeded density targets, achieving. 65 people in jobs per hectare

[1:48:37] as opposed to. The scenario. Two a at 57 jobs

[1:48:42] and people per hectare. A memo from then commissioner Brian

[1:48:46] Bridgeman. Warned that scenario two, a failed to follow Envision

[1:48:51] Durham's evaluation framework. Lack transparency, promoted low density sprawl and

[1:48:59] higher emissions. And undermined farm and climate goals. Planning staff,

[1:49:05] advisory committees and the public, including stops for all Durham

[1:49:10] all raised concerns. Yet on May 25, 2022. Regional council

[1:49:16] voted 16 to 1111 in favor of scenario two a

[1:49:20] with councilor pickles and ash voting a res. Resounding yes.

[1:49:26] Why? Because scenario two a was. The only path to

[1:49:30] approve the 4000 acres needed for the Pickering, the northeast

[1:49:35] Pickering development. Without it those lands would not meet the

[1:49:40] growth plans planning tests. This was not evidence based planning.

[1:49:46] It appears. To have proprietained developer interest. Interests over sound,

[1:49:50] transparent planning. Today, northeast Pickering secondary plan continues. Des. Despite

[1:49:57] lacking a foundation in any transparent, publicly vetted process, That

[1:50:03] erodes public trust and raises serious concerns about integrity and

[1:50:08] land use decisions. So I leave you with the following

[1:50:13] what is the cost of development in northeast Pickering to

[1:50:17] taxpayers? To infrastructure and to our climate future. We asked

[1:50:24] for this information back in 2022. When we delegate it

[1:50:28] then, it has never been provided. I urge council to

[1:50:32] demand this data now. Responsible planning demands transparency and accountability

[1:50:39] to the taxpayers. The people of Pickering deserve better. We

[1:50:43] ask that council show integrity, courage and commitment to real

[1:50:47] planning, not politics. Thank you very much. I appreciate your

[1:50:52] time. Thank you very much. Ms. Helen. Any questions of

[1:50:56] the delegate from members of committee this evening. Thank you

[1:51:00] very much. Thank you, Helen, for coming forward with your

[1:51:04] comments. We do appreciate it. That concludes our list of

[1:51:10] delegates. And before we move on, There has been a

[1:51:13] request to take. A short five minute bio break since

[1:51:16] we've been at this now almost 2 hours. So we

[1:51:21] are going to call a five minute break. Mover secondary

[1:51:25] to agree. I'm going to go with Maurice and Lisa.

[1:51:32] Who are councilor Robinson and councilor Brenner? As moving. That.

[1:51:36] And all in favor? Ten minutes, madam chair. I just

[1:51:39] want, for clarification. Do they say five minutes or ten

[1:51:41] minutes? Ten minutes, sir. Ten minutes. Ten minutes. So we

[1:51:46] are. Going to come back at the top of the

[1:51:48] hour. We will resume just before 09:00 so for those.

[1:51:53] Taking. Got their swatch. Watch out. 858. We will resume.

[1:51:57] We'll see you then.

[2:01:43] All right. Welcome back. We're coming up to 09:00. And

[2:01:47] when we started this journey this evening. There was a

[2:01:50] request. Duly moved and seconded from councilor Brenner with support

[2:01:58] from councilor Robinson, to. Alter our agenda this evening to

[2:02:02] move up item 4.4, to move it up to the

[2:02:08] top of the order, which will require a vote in

[2:02:12] support of two thirds of majority, which in this case,

[2:02:14] since there's only. Six of us tonight will require a

[2:02:15] vote of four. So duly moved and seconded on a

[2:02:20] request to alter the agenda to bring it forward. If

[2:02:22] I could call the question. All those in favor. And

[2:02:26] we have 412345, Counselor Butt. Thank you for that. All

[2:02:31] right. Councilor Brennan, I do believe that you provided the

[2:02:36] clerk with a motion. Andy, if I could. Ask you

[2:02:40] to perhaps put that up on screen. For all of

[2:02:43] us to follow along. And Councilor Brenner, if you would

[2:02:47] like to read that out, please. And note that it

[2:02:53] is seconded by Councilor Robinson. Thank you. I'm asking that

[2:02:59] the official plan amendment OPA 230, zero, four p and

[2:03:04] zoning bylaw Amendment application. 1023. Submitted by 133-4281 Ontario Limited

[2:03:12] for the lands located at 720 Granite Court be refused,

[2:03:17] and that should the official plan amendment OPA 23004 POPA

[2:03:23] 23. Four p and zoning bylaw amendment application A 1023.

[2:03:31] ZBA a 1023 submitted by 133-4281 Ontario Limited for the

[2:03:38] lands located at 720. Granite court be appealed to the

[2:03:43] Ontario Municipal Ontario Land Tribunal that the council authorized city

[2:03:48] staff its outside legal council and outside experts in the

[2:03:51] fields of planning, transportation, environment, urban design and other specialties

[2:03:56] as may be requested, to present and defend council's position

[2:03:59] on Opa. 230 zero four P and a 1023 at

[2:04:05] the Olt. If I might speak to it, madam chair.

[2:04:13] You're muted. You're muted. Thank you. Just for those at

[2:04:20] home. Noted, of course. Councilor Brenner, you can speak. To

[2:04:22] this, but. We're only seeing the first two items in

[2:04:26] the motion. It's not clear. We can't see the latter

[2:04:32] part, but. You can speak to that now, Councilor brother.

[2:04:36] Thank you very much, madam Chair. I don't want to

[2:04:40] prolong. This. I'd like to put this dog out of

[2:04:45] its misery. If I can use a paraphrase. Basically. The

[2:04:52] situation as it sits. We have received a letter from,

[2:04:56] and I want to start with that. First, we've received

[2:04:58] a letter from Limbrook Industries on Granite court. And along

[2:05:05] with all the concerns that we have heard from residents

[2:05:09] throughout this process. And I want to start first with

[2:05:12] businesses because Granite court is critical in terms of employment

[2:05:16] base, in terms of trying to work to achieve. A

[2:05:22] balanced approach to our non residential taxes, so. When you

[2:05:27] get a group of companies that have been the backbone

[2:05:30] for many, many years, and this municipality saying we don't

[2:05:35] agree. It would behoove us not to hear and listen

[2:05:39] to what they're saying. They are concerned that will have

[2:05:43] significant impact regarding the transportation of goods. From the various

[2:05:50] industries along granite cord. Yeah, I know that. There's been

[2:05:53] a traffic study. I'm not an expert, but I am

[2:05:58] relying on the expertise and the knowledge of our businesses.

[2:06:04] These are multimillion dollar businesses that know what they're doing.

[2:06:09] They would not normally object. To anything that pertains to

[2:06:14] planning and residential if they did not believe it would

[2:06:17] be detrimental. And I have to concur with them. It

[2:06:21] will be detrimental. I do not want to see us

[2:06:25] lose the confidence of the business communities. Granite court with

[2:06:31] one of our first industrial core areas. That was trident

[2:06:35] by the city of pickering. When it was built. I

[2:06:39] get it. I understand what the land use is. And

[2:06:44] what it says currently. But I also know that in

[2:06:48] these circumstances, That it would behoove us not. To support

[2:06:54] business. I remind all members of committee that. While. The

[2:07:01] applicant may be citing the provincial policy statement as it

[2:07:04] relates to housing. There are a couple of factors that

[2:07:08] don't quite fit into that one is first and foremost.

[2:07:12] Jobs, jobs, jobs. And that's what industry does in our

[2:07:17] city, and that's what business does in our city. Secondly,

[2:07:22] this is not the Kingston Road corridor. I know that

[2:07:25] we've had many, many debates. And we'll continue to have

[2:07:27] healthy debates regarding intensification along Kingston Road and in particular

[2:07:33] the city center. That's where development needs to happen when

[2:07:37] we talk about intensification. This really does not fit into

[2:07:43] the community. Earlier tonight, we had a presentation, not about

[2:07:46] this, from Craig Bamford, and there was that short little

[2:07:50] video. We would be creating a community that would be

[2:07:53] cut off. Yes, it would be able to cross. The

[2:07:57] street and walk into another community. But this would be

[2:08:00] isolated. This would be. A residential complex. In the middle

[2:08:07] of an industrial area. That is not good planning. And

[2:08:13] then finally. There was no affordability. I heard nothing throughout.

[2:08:21] This process that would suggest to me that this was.

[2:08:25] Going to help alleviate our rental crises, help alleviate the

[2:08:30] lack of affordable housing in terms of the middle areas.

[2:08:33] I heard nothing. So for all of those reasons, I'm

[2:08:38] opposed. And I want to thank my seconder. For supporting

[2:08:41] this and also the councilors that have also been getting

[2:08:45] the same communications that I have been getting from the

[2:08:48] community. And ask for your support to defeat this tonight.

[2:08:52] And, madam chair, I'll ask for a recorded vote. Recorded

[2:08:56] vote noted. Thank you, Councilor Brenner. Other members of committee

[2:08:59] wishing to speak to this. Councilor pickles. Thank you, madam

[2:09:07] Chair. I have to say, I'm a bit on the

[2:09:11] fence on this one. Mr. Kyle. I keep saying. I

[2:09:19] keep thinking of Dr. Kyle at the region. Sorry. Mr.

[2:09:22] Bentley. If the staff report. Supports this residential development on

[2:09:31] this piece of land, correct? That's correct. So. If it

[2:09:39] isn't? Residential. Or maybe the question is what form of

[2:09:44] residential. Or other use. Could staff conceive. Would be appropriate

[2:09:52] for the site audit. Be commercial, because I know we've

[2:09:56] had a proposal. For commercial data that wasn't received by

[2:09:58] the neighborhood. Or could it be an industrial use? If

[2:10:05] council refuses this this evening, what would you suggest goes

[2:10:08] there? I think you're asking us to speculate, councilor, to

[2:10:12] some degree, but we can. Give some context. I believe

[2:10:14] there was a previous nonresidential application and maybe Neilish can

[2:10:18] speak to that. That wasn't that long ago. Thank you,

[2:10:22] Mr. Bentley. Councilor Pickles. If councilor chooses to deny these

[2:10:27] applications, the current zoning permits for commercial plaza on the

[2:10:30] site. So Foodstore retail stores that would be the default.

[2:10:34] Sort of current uses. The applicant could come back. And

[2:10:39] look to do a rezoning application for a residential residential

[2:10:43] development in accordance with our official plan policies. That may

[2:10:47] be a townhouse type development or a staff type of

[2:10:49] development with a reduced overall density. So that would be

[2:10:53] another option that they could come back or look to

[2:10:56] do alternative sort. Of land uses, like office buildings or

[2:11:01] something along that line. If I recall, wasn't the previous

[2:11:06] application for a major food store? Or retail. There was.

[2:11:14] A concern to the neighborhood. And I think even in

[2:11:17] this report, it cited that vehicle movements, traffic. Would be

[2:11:24] eight times greater than. What this proposed residential would be,

[2:11:29] so it wasn't well received by the neighborhood either. Am

[2:11:32] I correct? That is correct. There were multiple iterations. There

[2:11:36] was originally a residential proposal for high density that was

[2:11:40] turned down subsequently. Later, there was. To do a commercial,

[2:11:46] and then we received the site plan application to do

[2:11:48] the commercial component as well. That plan was sort of

[2:11:53] abandoned eventually. So now the April has come back to

[2:11:56] relook. At it for a residential development. You're correct. From

[2:12:01] a transportation and traffic perspective. Commercial development would generate. Significantly

[2:12:07] more traffic than a residential development, and typically the pattern

[2:12:11] of traffic flows are different. Compared to a residential and

[2:12:17] a commercial development as well. What if it were converted

[2:12:22] to more of. A commercial industrial use like. The industrial

[2:12:31] plaza to the west. Another Landbrook or something like that.

[2:12:36] When you introduce commercial and residential or industrial residential within

[2:12:40] the same land use that there may be land use

[2:12:42] compatibility issues. From that context perspective, There could be an

[2:12:48] opportunity to do mixed use development, some residential and some

[2:12:51] commercial on that property. In accordance with their official plan

[2:12:55] policies. But all of them, all of those type of

[2:12:59] developments do generate some form of traffic and a level

[2:13:02] of traffic. It is a developable parcel of land. At

[2:13:06] the end of the day. Okay. Thank you for that.

[2:13:17] I'll probably support Councilor Brenner in this, but I'm very

[2:13:20] close. To being on the fence, and I'll probably have

[2:13:22] some. Further discussions between now. And the council meeting, but

[2:13:29] I'll wait to hear from other members of the committee

[2:13:32] before. I make my final decision this evening. Thank you.

[2:13:36] Thank you, Councilor Pickles. Anyone else on committee? Councilor robinson.

[2:13:44] Yes. Thank you, madam Chair. I think this is a

[2:13:49] great proposal. To finally put this to rest. I mean,

[2:13:53] the people have been speaking about this for the last

[2:13:55] couple of years. How much they do not want to

[2:13:58] have this here. I'm going to come with a different,

[2:14:00] a little bit of a different approach than councillor Brenner

[2:14:03] did. More of safety. As a resident who lives right

[2:14:08] here in the immediate area, someone who drives this intersection

[2:14:11] every single day and sees firsthand what's happening on the

[2:14:14] ground. I don't need a consultant's traffic model because I

[2:14:19] live the reality, and this proposal is a disaster waiting

[2:14:24] to happen. In my opinion, as it goes through, you

[2:14:27] will be putting lives at risk. The traffic study provided,

[2:14:31] I think, is flawed. It's out of touch and it's

[2:14:34] frankly insulting to anyone who drives these streets. Here, in

[2:14:37] this neighborhood, they say traffic congestion is acceptable. But of

[2:14:42] course they do, because they're the ones that are profiting

[2:14:45] from the project. And I really don't want to sugarcoat

[2:14:48] this because I just think that. Is a lot of

[2:14:51] Bs. The truth is, cars are already backed up. Sometimes

[2:14:55] they're backed up all the way to the storage facility.

[2:14:59] I have, like 40 cars in front of me. Sometimes

[2:15:01] just when I'm going to the school. The left turns

[2:15:05] require multiple green light sometimes to get through the intersection.

[2:15:10] And even though they want to put in a double

[2:15:12] left lane, it's going to cause a lot of accidents

[2:15:15] on that corner from people making right turns with the

[2:15:17] advance going from the opposite direction. Emergency vehicles would be

[2:15:23] trapped because there is so much congestion. And residents. Your

[2:15:30] constituents. They're stuck in gridlock with no solution in sight.

[2:15:33] And what really happens? In this community is when there's

[2:15:35] a minor accident on the 401. It doesn't. Even have

[2:15:38] to be a major one. It could just be a

[2:15:40] minor one. Kingston Road gets gridlocked. Bran at Twainville, Rose

[2:15:44] bank, white throat all the way over Rouge mount. Get

[2:15:47] all lucked up and residents. Can't even get out of

[2:15:50] their driveways. I've sat there for ten minutes trying to

[2:15:53] get out of my driveway and there's. Been other times

[2:15:56] where I've just gone to the catholic school and it's.

[2:15:58] Taken me almost 50 minutes to get home, which normally

[2:16:02] takes less than 60 seconds. Well, two minutes. Really? It's

[2:16:07] because West Shore and South Rosebank, they become parking lots.

[2:16:11] Now you want a 252 units and hundreds of more

[2:16:15] cars right on the choke point. I think it's reckless.

[2:16:18] And I think it's dangerous. And from there, it even

[2:16:21] gets worse because there's only two ways in and out

[2:16:24] of Seth Rose bank. Two. Ways. That's it. So we

[2:16:28] also know at the other entrance, At Kingston Road and

[2:16:31] Rouge Mount. They want to put up a couple of

[2:16:34] condo towers there as well. So you're basically boxing people

[2:16:40] in. If we go ahead with this, you're cutting off

[2:16:43] escape routes, and in the event of a fire, a

[2:16:46] crash, or even a nuclear emergency, people will die because

[2:16:51] you will not be able to get out. And that's

[2:16:54] not an exaggeration. That is a reality when roads are

[2:16:56] bl. Blocked and time is running out in those situations.

[2:17:01] So this isn't about traffic flow, this is about public

[2:17:05] safety. And it being a failure in the making. West

[2:17:09] Shore doesn't want this south rose bank. Residents. They clearly

[2:17:13] don't want this. Knowing in the community has asked for

[2:17:17] this. So. Why do we even have zoning bylaws if

[2:17:23] developers can just walt in, ask for 165% density increase

[2:17:28] and get a green light. What is the point of

[2:17:30] even having these bylaws? Zoning bylaws are supposed to protect

[2:17:33] us. They're meant to reflect our community's. Vision, our infrastructure

[2:17:38] limits and our. Emergency preparedness. If we keep bending them,

[2:17:44] then they're going to mean nothing. This proposal isn't a

[2:17:47] gentle intensification, as they call it. It's irresponsible. It's overdevelopment

[2:17:52] in a choke point corridor during the time when we

[2:17:54] need smart growth, not developer windfalls, we should be building

[2:17:58] communities and not congesting them. And I would really hope

[2:18:03] that we can get all of council's support on this

[2:18:06] and. For what you were speaking to before about other

[2:18:10] uses in the area, I mean, sure, a great little

[2:18:12] townhouse complex would be great in that area. Or, yes,

[2:18:16] maybe even a grocery store if we could figure that

[2:18:19] dynamic out because. There are no grocery stores in this

[2:18:23] area. Seth, of the 401. But those are just my

[2:18:27] suggestions. But thank you very much, madam Chair, for your

[2:18:29] time. I appreciate it. And thank you very much, Councilor

[2:18:32] Brenner, for bringing this forward. Thank you, councilor. Robinson. Really

[2:18:36] great and valid points there, councilor, but I did see

[2:18:39] you with your hand. Up as well. Yes, ma'am. Thank

[2:18:43] you. Just. My few cents on this one here. I

[2:18:47] believe the award counselors are not in favor of. This

[2:18:51] application. And if we can recall this, I think at

[2:18:54] the time of our council chambers, When many residents. With

[2:18:59] the same application came in, and there were many, many

[2:19:01] delegates who spoke against this application here. So I think

[2:19:06] one of the delegates, when I spoke on it, there

[2:19:08] hasn't been much changes other than maybe, perhaps slight adjustment

[2:19:12] to the building and structure itself. And I quite agree

[2:19:16] with councilor Brenda when he speaks about our businesses, I

[2:19:20] think. They've been here, and I think we want to

[2:19:23] be loyal to them, and we want to make sure

[2:19:25] that we honor them, because I think many businesses are

[2:19:29] out there and have been there for quite some time,

[2:19:31] so I am going to support Constant Brennan's motion here

[2:19:35] tonight. Thank you, madam chair. Thank you, councilor, but. I

[2:19:40] just have one point as well that I think the

[2:19:43] majority of us have already touched on. And councilor Robinson

[2:19:48] brought forward is the density. Fundamentally, I have always had

[2:19:53] an issue. When we see requests to make significant. Alterations

[2:20:00] to density and in this particular. Recommendation if you read

[2:20:05] the initial. Number one. The request is to increase the

[2:20:11] maximum net residential density from 80 to 213 units per

[2:20:16] hectare. That is more than. Double. I mean, that is

[2:20:20] a significant increase, from 80 to 213. That's not gentle.

[2:20:26] That is high intensification in an area, as my colleagues

[2:20:30] have pointed out. Is really not optimal to handle. A

[2:20:36] significant density increase like this. And I pointed this out

[2:20:40] before and made comments to our planning department that once

[2:20:43] we open this door. An increased density of this nature

[2:20:48] for one particular development. Where does it begin or where

[2:20:51] does it end rather, because it changes the ceiling of

[2:20:53] what is the art of the possible when we're. Talking

[2:20:56] about density, so I have a fundamental issue with that.

[2:20:59] I won't belabor. The point. I think we all know

[2:21:02] where we are on this, and Councilor Brenner. Has requested.

[2:21:06] A recorded vote. So, madam. Oh, I'm sorry. Councilor pickles.

[2:21:09] Yes, sir. At the beginning, one councilor Brunner began speaking.

[2:21:17] You had made comment that you didn't see the entire

[2:21:19] motion on the screen. I've got it. Okay, I see

[2:21:24] it. So there is items one too. There isn't any

[2:21:27] others, and I'm. Not missing anything. You're not missing anything?

[2:21:30] No. I apologize. It's the view that I have as

[2:21:33] chair of the meeting. It's just a slight clarity I

[2:21:35] wanted. To make sure I wasn't missing anything. Thank you.

[2:21:37] I appreciate that. Thank you for taking care of me.

[2:21:41] Madam Clerk, if I could ask you to take the

[2:21:44] recorded vote role, please. Councilor brenner. On refusal. Yes. Councilor

[2:21:52] butt. Same on refusal. Yes, councilor Cook. Yes. On this

[2:21:58] proposed motion, which is a refusal. Yes. Councilor pickles. Yes.

[2:22:03] Councilor Robinson. On refusal. Yes, Mayor hash? Yes. Madam Chair.

[2:22:10] That's carried unanimously. Thank you all for your participation. We

[2:22:14] are going to go back to the regular order of

[2:22:17] things. We do have three additional items this evening. That

[2:22:22] are on our agenda. So we are going to go

[2:22:25] back to what would now be item 4.1, which. Is.

[2:22:32] Our recommendation from our directors. City development and CBO report

[2:22:37] PLM 1325 and with that. We do have a delegation.

[2:22:43] From paul lowe's, who is the principal for sgl planning

[2:22:47] and design, inc. In reference to pln 1325. And paul.

[2:22:55] You are free to begin your delegation. I see we've

[2:22:57] got. Your proposal up. Let's just make sure we can

[2:23:01] hear from you. Yes. Can you hear me? Madam chair.

[2:23:04] We can. Thank you very much, sir. You can go

[2:23:06] ahead. Fantastic. Thank you. Good evening, madam chair, members of

[2:23:10] planning committee. My name is Paul Lowe's. And I'm a

[2:23:13] principal of SEO planning and design, and we've been retained

[2:23:16] by the city of Pickering as a project managers for

[2:23:19] the Northeast Pickering secondary plan study. So we've been working

[2:23:22] closely. With city staff over the last couple of years

[2:23:25] on moving. This secondary plan forward. So next slide, please.

[2:23:32] Thank you. So just so everybody's aware, and I'm sure.

[2:23:34] Certainly, sure you are. Because we've been at this for

[2:23:37] a while. The project area, of course, is in northeast.

[2:23:41] Pickering. As shown on the map in the brown area.

[2:23:45] It comprises approximately 16 land. And these lands, as you've

[2:23:51] heard earlier tonight from other delegates, were included in envision.

[2:23:54] Durham the Durham Region official plan as a settlement area

[2:23:58] boundary expansion with the intent to accommodate growth to 2051.

[2:24:03] So what we're doing is the next step. Now, that's

[2:24:06] included. In the urban area as a settlement expansion. We're

[2:24:10] looking at trying to create what the land uses will

[2:24:12] be the secondary plan. The more detailed lanyards for this

[2:24:16] new community. Next slide, please. So what is the outcome

[2:24:20] of the project? Well, is to develop detailed land uses

[2:24:24] and a framework. For how these lands will develop. It

[2:24:32] will create. A new complete community comprising both of residential

[2:24:36] community lands, those supporting lands of commercial parks, community facilities

[2:24:42] as well as employment opportunities. And. It's been developed through

[2:24:48] detailed work of environmental servicing and transportation work, including a

[2:24:53] subwashed study that's still ongoing. More fulsome servicing and transportation

[2:24:58] work. Will be undertaken for the preferred plan that will

[2:25:02] be presented to you tonight. Next slide, please. So where

[2:25:07] we're at is in phase two. Phase one? Was development

[2:25:14] of vision and principles and we had a pic. Public

[2:25:18] information center in phase one, then phase two, we developed

[2:25:21] a whole series of background studies and we came up

[2:25:24] with three land use options and evaluation criteria, which I'm

[2:25:27] going to briefly. Present to you tonight. And we had

[2:25:29] another public information center last year on that, and now

[2:25:33] we've been evaluating those options and come up with a

[2:25:35] preferred land use option, which. We're going to have a

[2:25:39] third pic later this month. The next phase. Phase three

[2:25:43] will be developing the secondary plan policies and the detailed

[2:25:46] land use schedule. Having. A public statutory public meeting at

[2:25:51] that time, and then finally having council adopt the secondary

[2:25:55] plan in phase four. Next slide, please. So, as I

[2:25:59] said, we've had two public information centers so far, one

[2:26:02] in May 2023. One in March 2024. We presented those

[2:26:07] alternatives. So far we've had responses from over 200 people.

[2:26:14] What we've heard so far was items such as prior

[2:26:17] toys of protection, not your heritage. Ensure balanced mix of

[2:26:20] employment and residential. Promote a walkable downtown, which means creating

[2:26:25] a walkable downtown. And sure, Greenwood community, which we have

[2:26:28] heard about tonight, is well connected. We've also heard about

[2:26:31] trying to create a transition in housing form. Forms and

[2:26:34] density between the new urban area and the existing Greenwood

[2:26:38] community. Promote east west connections to address traffic engagement, indigenous

[2:26:43] communities, and promote commercial employment uses along 407. Next slide,

[2:26:48] please. More specifically on the three concepts, things that we

[2:26:53] heard. On each of the concepts. I won't go through

[2:26:56] each. Matter. But what we heard was support and option

[2:27:01] one for Centralized regional center and walkability. Support for more

[2:27:07] concentrated amenities. Option two. We heard support for walkability along

[2:27:13] the medium density corridors, which you'll see. We also heard

[2:27:16] support for integration of employment areas adjacent to Highway 407

[2:27:20] interchanges and concept three we heard about. Support for straddling

[2:27:25] the employment along Highway 407. Also preference for smaller parks

[2:27:30] for walkable communities. So we've heard a lot of input.

[2:27:33] That we've taken into account in our review and evaluation

[2:27:36] of the options. Next slide, please. Before I get into

[2:27:40] the options, I just want to recap. Some of the

[2:27:43] key elements we've presented before. One is the vision, and

[2:27:46] the vision hasn't changed since the phase one, which is

[2:27:49] the area is to be a holistically planned the complete

[2:27:52] community focusing on well being, sustainability of the natural environment.

[2:27:58] Accomplished through innovative approaches to community center design, really alternative

[2:28:02] approaches to community design stewardship. And it's to be a

[2:28:06] multi, multi generational community, economic, diverse community, vibrant public spaces

[2:28:11] and walkable neighborhoods. And this is really important because it

[2:28:14] is separate from the rest of pick, ring and it

[2:28:16] really needs to. Stand on its own. As a unique,

[2:28:20] standalone, complete community. Next slide, please. And as part of

[2:28:25] that phase one, we developed a series of principles. As

[2:28:30] you see here, multigenerational, vibrant public spaces connected, walkable land

[2:28:34] stewardship, economic diversity. Those principles have guided us through the

[2:28:38] development of the options and the evaluation. Next slide, please.

[2:28:43] So we've developed three land use concepts last year, which

[2:28:46] we presented to the public at our last pic, and

[2:28:51] these were based on three different themes generally. One was

[2:28:55] a more of environmental focused, although. All options contain the

[2:29:03] same amount of protected natural features. Second was the transit

[2:29:07] focused and the third was a neighborhood focus. So I

[2:29:09] just want to quickly walk you through those options, and

[2:29:11] then quickly. Walk you through our preferred option. So, next

[2:29:14] slide, please. What you find similar in all options. Is

[2:29:18] that based on Envision Durham? We had to provide for

[2:29:21] basically a minimum of 45,000 persons and 4300 jobs in

[2:29:26] the community areas. Meeting a minimum density of 52 persons

[2:29:31] and jobs overall, the community actually can achieve on all

[2:29:35] three of these options in around 70,000 people, so we're

[2:29:38] well in excess of the minimum that vision derm envisioned.

[2:29:42] We also were providing for 6600 jobs in the employment

[2:29:46] area. Now that employment area definitions change, but basically was

[2:29:51] to accommodate 249 ha as identified through envision. Durham. What's

[2:29:57] also the same in all options is a natural heritage

[2:29:59] system, as you see here. Which has been developed through

[2:30:01] the subwatershed study that's underway, and it's entering phase two

[2:30:05] of the subwatership study. We also have a minimum of

[2:30:09] approximately 62 parkland that we calculated based on parkland dedication.

[2:30:14] Requirements. And we're also envisioning a higher order transit along

[2:30:18] Highway 407. Or as you can see some of the

[2:30:21] options north of 407 on a new transit quarter, so

[2:30:25] let's walk through quickly. Those three options. Next slide, please.

[2:30:29] First of all, the concept one, which is an environmental

[2:30:31] focus, what we're trying to do here is preserve and

[2:30:34] enhance as much as possible in natural hair system. So

[2:30:37] you see a lot. Fewer collector roads. Them trying not

[2:30:42] to across the natural heritage system and keep that natural

[2:30:45] herrier system more. Unaffected. We have one large residential community

[2:30:51] north of Highway 407 and. A smaller residential community around

[2:30:56] Greenwood, which is a much lower, it would be much

[2:30:58] lower density around that area and the linear employment area

[2:31:01] on the south side of 407. We have a center,

[2:31:05] regional center at 7th concession in Salem, basically, where the

[2:31:10] regional Fisher plan vision Derma already had a regional center.

[2:31:15] So recognizing that, and then we have a very large

[2:31:19] park, community park right next to it in a high

[2:31:22] school, so real central location for community facilities and our

[2:31:27] higher density mixed use development. The parks are generally located

[2:31:32] adjacent to the natural hair system. To build on that

[2:31:34] green space and new collectors provide connectivity to larger blocks,

[2:31:39] but you'll see a lot fewer of them than in

[2:31:41] other options. Go to option two, please. Next slide. An

[2:31:47] option two or concept two. We call it transit focused,

[2:31:50] and so it's focused on a couple of matters. One,

[2:31:53] we have. East West New arterior road north of Highway

[2:32:00] 407 between 407 and 7th, concession. This will be a

[2:32:03] transit spine in this location. And then you'll see a

[2:32:08] lot more collector Nartera roads creating a real fine grid

[2:32:11] of collecting arterial roads to create more transit supportive through

[2:32:14] busways. So it's a kind of opposite of option one

[2:32:18] in terms of the amount of collector roads. So creating

[2:32:20] that dense network. You also see two separate employment areas

[2:32:24] in this one. Adjacent to Lake Ridge Road and the

[2:32:28] interchange there and adjacent to Westney Road and a potential

[2:32:31] future interchange in that location. And the central area being

[2:32:36] all one community rate right through from highway seven up

[2:32:39] to the 8th. Concession. Next slide, please. In concept three,

[2:32:44] the neighborhood focus option. This option. What we've done is

[2:32:50] created basically two communities, a southern community, which is around

[2:32:55] Greenwood and Long highway seven and then employment on north

[2:33:01] and south sides of 407. Take advantage of wherever that

[2:33:05] new interchange may be, whether it's at Salem or at

[2:33:07] Westney. And focus. Focusing that on the employment along the

[2:33:11] highway to take advantage of that visibility. This option. Rather

[2:33:15] than one regional downtown center, we've come up with three

[2:33:19] different community nodes. Two in the north. Community. One in

[2:33:24] the southern community, you see one's long Salem. The other

[2:33:27] two are along. The 7th concession. And a few or

[2:33:31] more roads than option one, but fewer new roads than

[2:33:36] an option. Two. So, next slide, please. So from those

[2:33:42] concepts, we presented those to the public last spring. A

[2:33:47] year ago March. We've been working on the subwatershed study

[2:33:51] in that time. And we also been evaluating the options.

[2:33:54] So we created up a series of criteria based on

[2:33:58] the five principles that I outlined earlier, and we've evaluated

[2:34:03] those options. And the preferred option is not necessarily concept

[2:34:06] one, two or three. But it ended up being a

[2:34:09] hybrid of each, and I'm not going to go through

[2:34:12] in detail the evaluation criteria at all, because it's quite

[2:34:14] lengthy and it's in our report, but I'm just going

[2:34:16] to highlight some of the criteria in the next slide.

[2:34:19] Please. So you'll see in each one. We've got the

[2:34:23] principles, like multigenerational, and then we have a series of

[2:34:26] criteria under it. Connect in walkabille. That principle. A series

[2:34:29] of criteria. Next slide, please. The same.

[2:34:39] for the other three principles we have criterion measures for

[2:34:43] each that went into in a detailed evaluation matrix and

[2:34:48] what we had did in that valuation it was identified

[2:34:50] the key elements In each concept that really we wanted

[2:34:48] to bring out and bring forward into a preferred option,

[2:34:52] so we go to the next slide, please? Next slide

[2:34:55] results and the preliminary preferred concept. I say preliminary because

[2:34:59] we need public input on this. This may still change

[2:35:01] with through public input. We've already seen some tonight. There

[2:35:05] are some correspondence you received from some of the landowners,

[2:35:09] and we'll hear more from the public in our pic,

[2:35:11] so this may change a little bit, but. Really? Let

[2:35:16] me focus on a couple of the key elements. One,

[2:35:18] we thought a centralized regional center. We call it a

[2:35:21] regional center because it's not downtown Pickering, but it's going

[2:35:25] to be a new downtown centered to this area, and

[2:35:28] that's along Salem Road, the second major concept is this

[2:35:33] new east west transit corridor. So bringing the transit. That

[2:35:37] new future higher order transit up from Highway 407 onto

[2:35:40] a new east west Artura Road. Which is seen the

[2:35:43] dashed black line halfway between general. Halfway between 407 and

[2:35:47] the 7th concession. It shows, ending at Lake Ridge, but

[2:35:51] it will actually extend over and line up with a.

[2:35:56] Avenue. As in Whitby and Brooklyn. It'll line up nicely

[2:36:01] with that. You'll also see that 7th concession. Extending into

[2:36:06] whippy. Will then line up with Columbus Road, so veer

[2:36:10] down and line up with Columbus Road, so. There'll be

[2:36:14] a continual extension between Whippy and Pickering for these new

[2:36:17] roads. We also have one large employment area rather than

[2:36:22] multiple or two and rather in south we've. Straddled along

[2:36:26] 407. It seemed to be the more preferred alignment. And

[2:36:32] then we have medium density and mixed quarters proposed along

[2:36:35] the collector roads. What I'm going to do is just

[2:36:39] briefly walk you through each of those elements, so it's

[2:36:41] a little bit easier to understand because there's a lot

[2:36:43] going on this maps. We're using the same. Also highlight

[2:36:46] we're using the same designations that are in your official

[2:36:50] plan, so we're using those same designation categories except for

[2:36:54] the regional center, which is new. So let's go through

[2:36:56] the next slide, please. So, as I indicated, center to

[2:37:00] the community regional center will be. The downtown permit the

[2:37:03] highest densities, widest range of use. Uses commercial, institutional, cultural,

[2:37:09] really to create that walkable downtown. In this new community.

[2:37:14] Next slide, please. Then we have two community nodes. We

[2:37:20] put those on as basically like barbells on that. Transit

[2:37:24] cord or each end of the transit order. Maybe in

[2:37:27] the future those might be a major transit station areas.

[2:37:31] There's some comments. Maybe we're missing them further in the

[2:37:34] north. Maybe we need another. Community center to the north.

[2:37:38] From one of the comments from the landowners, they might

[2:37:40] be right. It does. Really waited along that transit quarter.

[2:37:46] Maybe we need to move one of those up for.

[2:37:47] Their north. But the objective is to try and create

[2:37:51] these three centers of higher densities. Commercial retail uses that

[2:37:55] can morph over time, intensify over time. When the higher

[2:38:00] order transit comes along that transit spine. Next slide, please.

[2:38:05] Then we have a mix along that transit quarter. We

[2:38:07] have mixed corridor, which is one of your. Designations in

[2:38:09] your official plan. It's really promoting a broad range of

[2:38:12] higher density. Residential and mixed juices, so it provides lots

[2:38:19] of flexibility along that transit quarter for lots to happen

[2:38:22] in terms of activities. We also have a bit of

[2:38:27] Salem to the south, just north of highway seven. Up

[2:38:32] to east west collector Road. Next slide, please. Then we

[2:38:36] have a business area. So I indicated to you that

[2:38:39] Vision Durham called for 249 employment. Now under the provincial

[2:38:44] planning statement. We can't permit some of the uses we

[2:38:50] used to permit in the employment area, restaurants. Offices, personal

[2:38:54] service. We can't permit that. Under Vision Durham. That was

[2:39:00] estimated to be about 10% of the land area, or

[2:39:02] about 20% of the employment. So we've created new designation

[2:39:05] called Business Area. To accommodate that, we put it on.

[2:39:08] The south side of the transit quarter, recognizing that this

[2:39:11] area may intensify over the future. But provided for that

[2:39:14] broader range of uses and provides a buffer between the

[2:39:18] residential and the. Employment to the south. Next slide, please.

[2:39:23] So then the next area is the prestige employment. We

[2:39:27] go, which is a long highway 407 south of that

[2:39:30] business area down to a new east. West collector road

[2:39:33] that really provides a buffer between the residential to the

[2:39:37] south and the employment provides a nice land use bar.

[2:39:40] Fern transition between the two areas. Next slide, please. And

[2:39:46] we have the higher density areas. We have a series

[2:39:48] of high density areas, one mostly along 7th concession because

[2:39:51] we see that as another important east west transit area.

[2:39:55] So we identified that and then next slide, please. And

[2:39:58] then the high density air, of course, is apartments. Key

[2:40:00] intersections. And then. Along all of our arterial and collector

[2:40:04] roads, decrying. Create a transit supportability. It's a mix of

[2:40:09] medium density uses. We mix of townhouses, other multiplexes, apartments.

[2:40:14] Broad range of ground related and higher density uses to

[2:40:18] really support. That transit. Next slide, please. And then the

[2:40:25] remainder of the area is low density area. So you'll

[2:40:28] see that there's. A couple of new collector roads, an

[2:40:32] extension of arterials. The other one I didn't mention is

[2:40:35] a new east west collector Road at the north end.

[2:40:40] As well as a couple of smaller. Collectors and arterials

[2:40:45] to link up, so make sure we have a porous

[2:40:49] system. As dictated by our transportation consultant. I also have

[2:40:53] failed to mention on all three options and into the

[2:40:56] preferred. You'll see. There's a bypass of Westney Road around

[2:41:00] Greenwood. Greenwood? Hamlet so provide that. That's been planned for

[2:41:04] a long time. In vision, Durham. We're reflecting that. West

[2:41:10] of that area, you can see a nice transition of

[2:41:13] lower density area surrounding that hamlet to try and protect

[2:41:17] that character of that hamlet. Next slide, please. So what's

[2:41:22] next? Well, the next is. We're going to have a

[2:41:29] pic. In a couple of weeks. We're then going to

[2:41:34] be preparing our secondary plan policies, making any changes that

[2:41:37] we hear. From the public. On this preferred plan. Find

[2:41:41] an exile transportation and servicing studies. The subwatershed study will

[2:41:44] go into the next phase. And then we'll be having

[2:41:46] a statutory public meeting in the fall of 2025. And

[2:41:52] that's finished. Madam chair of the presentation. Thank you. Thank

[2:41:57] you very much, Mr. Lowe's. That was certainly a lot

[2:42:00] of information to digest. Certainly was. Very cohesively put together,

[2:42:08] though. I appreciate that. So that means that. We can

[2:42:15] now ask questions of you as the delegates. I'm going

[2:42:17] to open it up. I'm going to start a list.

[2:42:20] Councilor, but followed by councilor Brenner. Yes. Thank you, madam.

[2:42:25] Chair. Thank you for your presentation. Louis, I want to

[2:42:28] ask you in terms of heritage. Lands you talk about.

[2:42:36] Do we know in terms of how much, what is

[2:42:38] the hectors in terms of heritage lands? That we have.

[2:42:46] I can't recall off the top. It's in our report.

[2:42:47] are you referring to natural heritage natural heritage But there

[2:42:51] is extensive natural heritage identify through the subwatership study. But

[2:42:55] I'm sorry. I don't have that right at the tip

[2:42:57] of my fingertips. No worries. Certainly can provide. That too,

[2:43:00] if you need it. When you did a public engagement.

[2:43:05] Previously. Obviously. Concept one, concept two, concept three were presented

[2:43:10] to them. Right. Do you have any numbers? In terms

[2:43:13] of how the public reacted to those three concepts. We

[2:43:18] have a summary report that's available. I believe it's online.

[2:43:22] Of that public consultation, so there wasn't any voting of

[2:43:25] it. We had people work together in small groups at

[2:43:29] small tables and identified what they liked, disliked, and how

[2:43:33] they would like to change each of the options. So

[2:43:35] we had really good feedback on that. But. It wasn't

[2:43:38] like a voting of one versus two versus three. It

[2:43:41] really was identical, and what they liked and disliked of

[2:43:43] each option. So your vision, when you talk about slides,

[2:43:47] about the visions, you talked about sustainability. You talked about

[2:43:51] it, that it stands alone. When you talk about standalone.

[2:43:56] What do you mean by standalone? Could you elaborate on

[2:43:59] that, please? Yeah. Certainly. Through you, Madam chair to a

[2:44:03] counselor. This new community. Will not be attached to seat,

[2:44:09] and it will not be attached to Soth Pickering. It

[2:44:12] will be attached in small part to the expansion of

[2:44:15] Brooklyn, but other than that, it's. Really going to be

[2:44:17] a standalone new community. As part of the city of

[2:44:21] Pickering, but separated from the rest of the urban area

[2:44:25] and Pickering. So we really need to make sure. We

[2:44:30] create a sustainable, complete community in that people get their

[2:44:33] day to day, weekly needs in this community. Sure, they're

[2:44:36] going to go shopping in downtown Pickering, should they go

[2:44:39] shopping elsewhere? But really? You don't want everybody having to

[2:44:42] leave this community and drive to get things they need.

[2:44:45] So there's employment in this community. There's going to be

[2:44:49] jobs in this community, there's going to be recreation in

[2:44:50] this community that's going to be shopping in this community,

[2:44:53] you need to make sure it's a full sum community

[2:44:55] which for people to live and work and play in

[2:44:58] this community. We had a delegation tonight, and I think.

[2:45:04] If I can stand corrected. I think they talked about.

[2:45:08] The watershed areas and flooding. Maybe, perhaps. If that development

[2:45:14] takes place in there, would you share your feedback in

[2:45:18] terms. Of flooding and how and watershed areas. Would you

[2:45:23] want to reflect something on that? Certainly. Thank you. To

[2:45:27] you, madam chair to the councilor. So that subwater should

[2:45:29] study. That's being undertaken by Montrose, and there's a committee

[2:45:33] that includes the Toronto region conservation authority here, ca includes.

[2:45:38] A ton of ajaxes involved, the regions involved, and what

[2:45:42] it's looking at is not only the protection of natural

[2:45:44] heritage, but exactly that. The flooding issues and. How do

[2:45:48] we minimize flooding? How do we control that? How do

[2:45:51] we provide the correct stormwater management to make sure that.

[2:45:56] There's no impacts downstream from this new community. Right in

[2:46:01] terms of engagements now. How many? I believe you've done

[2:46:05] two engagements prior to this. Correct? And a third on.

[2:46:09] The 18th. That's great. How many more to come? After

[2:46:14] that, it's the statutory public meeting in the fall. So

[2:46:18] the public still risen? Still. Have opportunities to moisturize. Give

[2:46:25] their feedback. In such quite a few. Yeah, it's two

[2:46:29] more for sure. Okay, very well. Thanks for addressing my

[2:46:32] question. Thank you, madam Chair. Thank you, Councilor Butt. Councilor

[2:46:38] Brenner. You are next to my list. Thank you. Very

[2:46:41] much, madam chair. Mr. Loz, I want to start first

[2:46:49] with. When you presented in your report, you had three

[2:46:54] concepts. And. I want to ask you first about. The

[2:47:01] I guess it would be concept one. And if I

[2:47:04] understood correct, concept one had more of an had more

[2:47:07] of an environmental focus to it, would that be correct?

[2:47:11] I should say the council. That is correct. Although all

[2:47:14] three options had the same natural heritage system. Protected. But.

[2:47:23] What option one did. It had fewer crossings of it,

[2:47:25] and we had a few restoration areas. We identified as

[2:47:28] well. When you were preparing. I'm going to call it

[2:47:31] your hybrid, which is. Your recommended concept. When you were

[2:47:37] preparing that. Was any consideration given to how to incorporate

[2:47:42] any of the agricultural lands, any of the class soils.

[2:47:48] Into. The vision. If you put forward. I see your

[2:47:54] meditation councilor? No. And I'll say that because these lands

[2:47:59] were all. Identified for urban uses. There's not anticipated to

[2:48:05] be. Any protection, any protection within that new urban area

[2:48:10] of agriculture land. So agricultural continuation of agricultural lands. Now,

[2:48:15] that's not to say that urban agriculture can occur, community

[2:48:19] gardens can occur. That type of thing. But. We're looking

[2:48:24] at this as a full urban community. And trying to

[2:48:28] maximize densities. For hitting the housing required housing. That the

[2:48:35] municipality and the promise are looking for. With that. The

[2:48:39] higher the density you have, the more you're protecting agricultural

[2:48:42] lands outside this. Area. Maybe. It's not for me to

[2:48:47] debate with you. I know that. So let me try

[2:48:49] this. For a question. Then, from what you just explained.

[2:48:54] And understanding that there's no agricultural lands within the areas

[2:48:57] that you are presenting tonight. Where those lands abut agricultural

[2:49:03] lands. How do you see the transition from the agricultural

[2:49:09] lands to where the developer lens will go? I mean,

[2:49:13] they're going to connect the. Absolutely. Madam chair to the

[2:49:19] council. You're absolutely right. There is going to be an

[2:49:23] interface, particularly on to the north. To the south. And

[2:49:28] somewhat. To the west. Although there's some more green belt

[2:49:33] and natural features to the, to the west, but there

[2:49:36] will be agriculture interfaces, and we'll have to have policies

[2:49:39] to deal with agulture. Interfaces. We'll also have policies on

[2:49:43] phasing because we recognize this community is not all going

[2:49:47] to happen one year, there's going to be agriculture that's

[2:49:50] going to remain on those lands until the community fully.

[2:49:53] Develops over. A period of time and we need to

[2:49:56] create phasing policies ensure that that agricultural land can continue

[2:50:00] to be used for that purposes until it's needed for

[2:50:03] that urban usage. So we'll have policies that talk about

[2:50:06] that agriculture interface and the phasing of development. In the

[2:50:11] area as you're going forward. In the next phase, you'll

[2:50:14] be developing those type of policies that would be part

[2:50:17] of this, right? Thank you. The next question I had

[2:50:22] had to do. With the, I guess it was the

[2:50:25] concept that you have incorporated, and that would be the

[2:50:28] high order transit the east west. That would be parallel

[2:50:32] to the Highway 407. Can you elaborate a little bit

[2:50:36] more on where they will connect outside the city of

[2:50:40] Pickley? Because if you rightfully point out. This abuts more

[2:50:45] to the Brooklyn community, which would be whitby, than it

[2:50:48] does to South Pickering or into Seaton. So do you

[2:50:53] envision that the high order transit would have connectivity links,

[2:50:56] for example, to the college and university. As across as

[2:51:01] Simcoe. Do you envision that it would go to the

[2:51:03] hospital as an example that's badly needed on the border

[2:51:07] of Brooklyn in the city of Picarin. Council. Yes, exactly.

[2:51:12] So the transit right now is proposed by the provinces

[2:51:15] along the highway 407. What? We're suggesting where? When it

[2:51:20] enters northeast, Pickering. From the west, it veers up to.

[2:51:23] Long. This new transit corridor goes along this new transit

[2:51:26] quarter, hits Lake Ridge, and then. Comes down back to.

[2:51:32] Highway 407 and Highway 412. But I think the great

[2:51:37] opportunity is to bring it down Lake Ridge. Road by

[2:51:39] the new hospital, then along highway seven and then back

[2:51:42] up to 407. So you'll. Be able to access this

[2:51:45] new hospital as well, and it can continue further east

[2:51:49] towards the college at Semco along highway four. Hundred and

[2:51:53] seven. Great. Thank you. Madam chair, if I could just

[2:51:57] give a little bit more information to Councilor Brenner. On

[2:52:00] that point. Councilor Brenner, there's been conversations with the region

[2:52:04] regarding this. Transit way corridor as well. Especially with looking

[2:52:09] at how the synergies between DRT and to York transit

[2:52:14] to the west could also. Fit into all of this.

[2:52:19] Your question is valid in terms of the connectivity from

[2:52:21] northeast Peerkerin to South Pickering and that is something that

[2:52:24] is under consideration between the consulting group that the north

[2:52:29] pickering developers have hired. And they partnered with the developers

[2:52:33] in Brooklyn to look at it. North Pickering, North Durham

[2:52:37] transit study and all of this is being considered as

[2:52:40] part of that. Thank you. The final question that I

[2:52:45] have has to do more with the intensification. As you

[2:52:50] pointed out, there was quite a change in terms of

[2:52:53] the original. I guess one of the concepts that looked

[2:52:56] at low to medium density housing designation. And it's now

[2:53:02] gone to the. High density in terms of high rise

[2:53:06] development. When you referenced that. And I'm going to paraphrase

[2:53:12] what I thought you said, in a sense that. Northeast

[2:53:15] pipeline would have more in common with Brooklyn than it

[2:53:19] would, obviously, than it would with Sud. Pickering and Seaton.

[2:53:23] That being said, if I'm correct, How do you see

[2:53:26] high rise development? Fitting in abutting Brooklyn. To the best

[2:53:33] of my knowledge, I haven't seen. The magnitude of high

[2:53:37] rise developments that are being proposed. In your preferred concept

[2:53:43] in Brooklyn, which basically has it standing on its own.

[2:53:48] I see you. To the councilor. So where we've shown

[2:53:51] the high densities along the 7th concession. Which was identified

[2:53:55] in one of the previous options as a regional corridor

[2:53:57] and was identified in vision. Durham as a regional corridor,

[2:54:00] so that. Going with the regional official plan, going by

[2:54:06] the wayside and being incorporated in your official plan. We

[2:54:08] looked at different designations running the colony regional corridor, the

[2:54:11] same intent of the regional corridors for higher density development,

[2:54:15] you'll find the same thing. In the Brooklyn expansion area,

[2:54:19] and I'm actually working for the town of Whitby. On

[2:54:21] the Brooklyn expansion area and along Columbus Road. We also

[2:54:25] have. Ad intersections of higher density development being proposed along

[2:54:29] Columbus Road, which would connect in the proposals to connect

[2:54:33] it in with. The 7th concession. So you'll see that

[2:54:37] continuation of medium density and then higher density at key

[2:54:41] intersections. At those key transit locations. In both Brooklyn expansion

[2:54:47] area and in northeast Brickering. Have you had feedback on

[2:54:52] this concept? From the town of Whitby. Yes, and it's

[2:54:57] available for the public to comment on now on their

[2:55:01] website. Can you share with us what the feedback was

[2:55:03] from the town itself? We had a public meeting last.

[2:55:12] Pic last November. And the final preferred is out, with

[2:55:16] statutory public meeting being planned for October. So it hasn't

[2:55:20] gone to council with council endorsement. The town of Whitby

[2:55:25] comment on. This concept? Or is that what you're referring

[2:55:29] to? On the Brooklyn concept. The Brooklyn official plan. Northeast

[2:55:36] Pickering, since it butts the town of Whitby. Have public

[2:55:39] comments. Yeah, the big comments. That's what I meant. Sorry.

[2:55:42] I'm sorry. That I'm confused. There has been no comment

[2:55:47] about northeast pickering at the tunnel would be yet. Okay,

[2:55:51] thank you very much. Thank you, madam chair. And I

[2:55:53] appreciate the latitude of the questions. And thank you, fias.

[2:55:56] For stepping in to clarify as well. Excellent questions. Thank

[2:56:00] you, Councilor Brenner. Any further. Councilor Robinson and Councilor Pickles.

[2:56:06] I see you. Okay. Councilor Robinson. Thank you very much.

[2:56:09] Madam chair, just one quick question. Have you quantified the

[2:56:13] traffic impact on the streets in Ajax, like throughout West

[2:56:17] Knee and Salem at all. For the people that are

[2:56:20] moving north south. Through you, madam chair to the councilor.

[2:56:25] So the background transportation report was done at the beginning.

[2:56:29] Of phase two. Just so the existing conditions and some

[2:56:31] of the issues right now, we're doing a translation study

[2:56:35] on the preferred option, so we'll be looking at that

[2:56:37] exact matter. About the impact on the existing transportation network.

[2:56:41] So that's being undertaken right now on this. Preferred. Option.

[2:56:44] Okay, and when do you think we might be able

[2:56:45] to get the results of that? Would that be four.

[2:56:48] We go move ahead with any more meetings. Will you

[2:56:51] have that? Not before the open house. On the 18th,

[2:56:57] but before your statutory public meeting. For sure. Yes. Okay,

[2:57:00] great. Thank you very much. Thank you, madam chair. You're

[2:57:03] very welcome. Councilor Robinson, councilor Pickles. Thank you, madam Chair.

[2:57:11] And thank you, Paul, for the presentation. Very thorough. So

[2:57:15] what we have in front of us tonight is to

[2:57:18] receive this report. And then forward it to. Public. Sorry.

[2:57:23] To the public agencies, landowners. Others engage in the process.

[2:57:29] So really, we're continuing the public consultation process. Would that

[2:57:35] be correct? Councilor? Absolutely. That's what we're doing. Getting into

[2:57:39] the next phase of that. And you heard a number

[2:57:42] of comments this evening from delegates. And I think you've

[2:57:49] heard some comments. From committee members. And you'll be hearing

[2:57:53] some more comments, I'm sure. So, to be clear, the

[2:57:56] comments you received tonight are both from the delegates and

[2:58:00] from members of committee will be taken into account. As

[2:58:05] you proceed through this process. Madam chair to the council.

[2:58:09] Absolutely. That's a key element of the process. And then

[2:58:12] there will be. In addition to all that consultation, there

[2:58:16] be a statutory public meeting held in the fall. Once

[2:58:20] again, where people can provide comments. Absolutely. I want to

[2:58:27] clarify what the scope. Of this work is. So this

[2:58:33] is a secondary plan. So if I want to put

[2:58:37] that in, Layman turns. What I say that we're designing

[2:58:42] what the build out of the community would look like.

[2:58:46] How it would function and perhaps a little bit about.

[2:58:51] The time frame. Or that it would be undertaken. Would

[2:58:56] that through you, madam chair to the councilor. Yes, that's

[2:58:58] a good way to. Put it. I would also add

[2:59:00] a caveat. It will be at a high level, so

[2:59:03] we start with the regional official plan. It just says

[2:59:05] this is community employment. Now we're going. To move down.

[2:59:10] Into some more detail. After the community plan, there's going

[2:59:12] to be a series of neighborhood plans that are going

[2:59:14] to get really down in the detail of what that

[2:59:17] little neighborhood is going to look like. And then the

[2:59:19] developers will come forward with their draft plans of subdivision.

[2:59:22] So it's a step of getting more and more detail.

[2:59:25] So we're starting at a high level and we're refining

[2:59:28] it and getting to a greater level of detail as

[2:59:31] we go along through the process, as we get closer.

[2:59:34] To actually building out the community. That's correct. Okay. Just

[2:59:40] before I ask some more questions, I want to go

[2:59:43] back to what it is not. So it's not within

[2:59:46] the scope of the study to reconsider. The provincial approval

[2:59:52] of the urban area or the regional approval of the

[2:59:55] urban area. We've had a couple delegates tonight. Say. More

[3:00:02] or less. Scrap the whole thing. Take it out of

[3:00:06] the urban area. That's not part of the scope of

[3:00:09] this project. Would that be fair to say? That's correct,

[3:00:13] yes. Okay, so just back to this level of doing

[3:00:17] more detail as we go along. A couple of the

[3:00:20] delegates spoke to phasing. Can you tell us what phasing

[3:00:29] would mean in the context of the secondary planner implementation?

[3:00:33] Of a secondary plan. And whether you agree with it

[3:00:36] or not. Certainly. Chair to the councilor. So phasing, what

[3:00:42] we usually do is we look at. The extension of

[3:00:45] infrastructure. So we're going to need new trunk water mains.

[3:00:49] We're? Going to need trunk sewers, we're going to need

[3:00:51] new roads built, and we need to make sure the

[3:00:54] development is in line with that extension of those roads,

[3:00:57] so we may say that. In this neighborhood. This is

[3:01:01] all the infrastructure you need to bring on to bring

[3:01:03] that neighborhood on. And we'll have that parsed out for

[3:01:09] each of those new neighbors to say what? Infrastructure needs

[3:01:11] to be phased in line. We'll also be looking at

[3:01:14] schools and parks. We need those to come on at

[3:01:16] the same time, so that's usually the phasing. We look

[3:01:19] at? What is all the infrastructure? Community facilities, public uses

[3:01:24] that we need. In each of those neighborhoods to be

[3:01:27] brought on when. It's to be developed. Okay, so you

[3:01:33] support phasing, and that's probably language we might see. As

[3:01:38] the study. Progresses. That's correct. Yes. In your presentation. You

[3:01:47] spoke of Greenwood a number of times, and I wanted

[3:01:49] to go back. There was a couple. Of delegates from

[3:01:52] Greenwood. And. I forget how they express it, but they

[3:01:56] were concerned that the hamlet of Greenwood was being. Erased.

[3:02:03] That's probably not the word they use, but I'll say

[3:02:05] race. But yet. You mentioned Greenwood a number of times.

[3:02:10] So in the secondary plan as it's developed, You still

[3:02:15] see Greenwood as a recognized. Definable community. That will have

[3:02:22] some special attention. Paid to preserving its nature. Or at

[3:02:29] least I'm hoping. Let me put it that way through

[3:02:32] you, ma'am. Chairing a counselor. Yes. And I see this,

[3:02:35] councilor pickles, I see this very much. Like White Valley

[3:02:39] as I did the Seaton. Secondary plan. And neighborhood plans

[3:02:44] for the city. We paid special attempts to wait for

[3:02:47] to make sure that seaton developed that Weightville Hammock was

[3:02:51] be able to maintain and maintain that key historic character

[3:02:54] it has today, so we'll be looking the same thing

[3:02:56] at Greenwood, although. It's just the secondary plan doesn't include

[3:03:00] it. We'll have policies on. That, to talk about that

[3:03:03] transition to ensure that that Greenwood hamlet remains as a

[3:03:06] hamlet and. Continues a hammlet and what uses maybe need

[3:03:11] to be. Maybe there's a little neighborhood center to help

[3:03:13] provide a little bit more commercial uses to the residents

[3:03:17] of Greenwood. Just in a new urban area. So we'll

[3:03:20] be looking at that and how to transition to make

[3:03:22] sure that Hammlet is maintained and protected. If I can

[3:03:26] just add to the commentary as well, councilor Pickles. I

[3:03:31] recognize some of the concerns raised by the residents there

[3:03:34] and just wanted to clarify a couple of things. First

[3:03:36] of all, Greenwood does have status in the official plan.

[3:03:41] Currently amongst a bunch of other. Rural settlements. But just

[3:03:47] in the context of our consolidated zoning bylaw, which council

[3:03:50] may be aware we had gone through that process. And

[3:03:55] with the previous zoning bylaw, the hamlet of Greenwood had

[3:03:59] a particular zone v for village. Zone within that previous

[3:04:04] bylaw framework. And through our consolidation work, the village zone

[3:04:10] was actually consolidated within the restructured residential zones. Certainly staff

[3:04:16] would be interested in considering perhaps an exception to that

[3:04:20] zoning bylaw. If that's of interest. That was something. That

[3:04:25] was done quite some time ago for. Kinsail in an

[3:04:28] older set of bylaws. So that's something that could be

[3:04:30] done to provide a little more clarity, but it still

[3:04:34] remains within. The new consolidated zoing ball. I just want

[3:04:38] to clarify that. Thank you, Mr. Mendelia. I was going

[3:04:40] to come back to you later because I do think

[3:04:42] there is some confusion. By the delegation with respect to

[3:04:45] the consolidation of the zoning bylaws. And the OP exercises

[3:04:51] and the secondary plan exercises, so Greenwood is not being

[3:04:54] erased from. The scope of our planning exercises. So, Paul,

[3:05:00] I just had one more question. Although. Greenwood. Any of

[3:05:08] the committees like to see it preserved. I want to

[3:05:11] be clear that. We're still weirdly identifying. A bypass. The

[3:05:19] west Neuro bypass through Greenwood. That remains part of the

[3:05:24] time frame. And I guess. Would be considered when we

[3:05:28] talk about phasing and traffic studies to ensure that the

[3:05:31] hamlet isn't overrun by traffic. Correct. Good way to put

[3:05:35] it, yes. That will be addressed through the transportation study

[3:05:41] to look at and when we do the neighborhood plan.

[3:05:43] For that area. Be a little bit more detail when

[3:05:45] that's going to occur. Okay, well, I'm not sure our

[3:05:50] delegations are still online at this late hour, but. Hopefully

[3:05:54] that clarifies some of the concerns that they had. And

[3:05:57] thank you for answering my questions, Paul. Thank you. Welcome.

[3:06:01] Thank you, Councilor Pickles. I have two questions. Unless mayor

[3:06:08] ash also has comments to make otherwise. I will ask

[3:06:12] my two questions. So I'll be fairly expedient. With the

[3:06:17] three concepts designs presented. Paul, you noted that. Your preferred

[3:06:25] concept. Is the one that will receive the studies. So,

[3:06:30] to councilor Robinson's point. Traffic studies on Salem, how will

[3:06:35] they be looked at? And I'm assuming that these studies

[3:06:38] will only be done based on the preferred concept you're

[3:06:40] bringing forward. So my question is. Thus, of those three

[3:06:44] concepts, what if that's not the one that the public.

[3:06:48] Prefers. Personally, and I liked your number one the best.

[3:06:52] I'm not so thrilled with the other ones, but that

[3:06:54] would also mean that as we move forward in this,

[3:06:57] there will be no studies applicable to the alternate concepts

[3:07:00] that were presented. Is that fair to say? In part.

[3:07:04] We're having our pic. In a week and a half.

[3:07:11] We'll hear from the public whether, what they think about

[3:07:13] their concept. We've heard from one of the delegates. Letters

[3:07:17] from the landlords. They don't like all the art. The

[3:07:19] collector roads. So our transportation consultant will take that into

[3:07:22] account and look at that and say, yeah, I still

[3:07:24] think we need those. Or. No, you're right, we don't.

[3:07:27] Or. Whatever the public may say in terms of what

[3:07:30] they think. Of the preferred, so we still have time.

[3:07:34] To take that into account, make some refinements and make

[3:07:37] sure that. The final option that we present to at

[3:07:40] a statutory public meeting is fully documented. And evaluated by

[3:07:46] those transportation and servicing studies. And that's what I should

[3:07:50] study. So we still have time to make sure that

[3:07:52] all lines up appropriately. Okay. Thanks very much, Paul. You

[3:07:56] actually answered my next question. In your response there. So

[3:07:59] I have no additional questions. Which means we've exhausted the

[3:08:03] speakers. List. So we will move forward and we need

[3:08:08] to move this and second it in order to get

[3:08:11] it on the floor in order to receive for information.

[3:08:14] Do I have a mover and seconder? Councilor Pickles and

[3:08:17] councilor butt. Councilor pickles, as mover councillor Butt. As seconder.

[3:08:22] So we will open up this motion now for. Further

[3:08:26] questions and debate, and I'll start a list. The first

[3:08:28] is councilor Pickles. Followed by Councillor Bhatt. Thank you, chair

[3:08:34] cook. I wanted to address a couple of matters to

[3:08:39] Mr. Bentley. And I think it's important to take a

[3:08:44] step back here. Two steps back. Mr. Bentley, I think

[3:08:49] a lot of people, a lot of residents are of

[3:08:52] the misconception that. The mayor of the city and its

[3:08:57] council decide. We want a whole bunch more people in

[3:09:01] Pickering. And we need to go expand our boundaries and

[3:09:03] build and build and build and do this, but. It's

[3:09:06] really a top down process. The province does provincial among

[3:09:10] federal government does. Then the province looks at what the

[3:09:14] trends are, how many people are being attracted to Ontario,

[3:09:17] how many people are going to be attracted to the

[3:09:19] greater Toronto area. And they try to prescribe where that

[3:09:23] population is going to be, how people are going to

[3:09:26] be housed. And. They do good or bad jobs, depending

[3:09:31] how things like that work, but basically. This process is

[3:09:35] top driven. And it's been made mention of. Pickering has

[3:09:40] been directed that by 2051 there's going to be about

[3:09:45] 250,000. People. In region of Durham and city of Pickering.

[3:09:49] It's now your responsibility to figure out how that's going

[3:09:52] to be accomplished and where they're going to go. Am

[3:09:55] I correct? In saying that it is a top down

[3:09:59] process. It's not a bottom up process. When it comes

[3:10:02] to determining the ultimate populations of municipalities. Yeah, Casper. Because

[3:10:07] I think that's some fair comments. We're definitely getting clear

[3:10:10] direction. From the province that we need to provide more

[3:10:12] housing and accommodate. Increased population and all of that stuff.

[3:10:18] And we are also working with Envision Durham, which was

[3:10:21] approved by regional council. It was approved by the province.

[3:10:25] And that's in place. We work on that basis to

[3:10:29] keep on going with. This. Okay. Thank you. I want

[3:10:34] to speak a little bit about Greenwood because, and I

[3:10:37] know you jumped in and I. Appreciate that, Mr. Penley,

[3:10:39] but. I think in our official plan. Is not Greenwood

[3:10:47] clearly identified as a hamlet in community, and that's going

[3:10:51] to remain that. Way. In our official plan. But there

[3:10:56] was another parallel process going on with respect to the

[3:10:59] consolidation of bylaws. There were many zoning bylaws in pickering,

[3:11:05] and we're coming up. We're consolidating them. Do you think

[3:11:09] there's maybe a misunderstanding there? About. The racing. Of the

[3:11:17] hamlet of Greenwood that it exists in our official plan.

[3:11:20] We've heard from the northeast peckering plan, it will continue

[3:11:23] to exist as identifiable. Community, although in the consolidated zoning

[3:11:28] bylaws, it was somewhat assumed. So. Can you provide a

[3:11:31] little clarity there because I think a couple of the

[3:11:33] delegations legitimately had a concern, but I think they might

[3:11:37] have mixed up two processes. And you've already spoken to

[3:11:41] this a little bit, but I'm giving you a little

[3:11:42] more opportunity. I'll try and provide a bit more. Yes.

[3:11:47] Just again, to reiterate. The current official plan identifies Greenwood

[3:11:53] and that surrounding area. We call it settlement five. In

[3:11:56] our official plan. And I can certainly welcome planning staff

[3:12:00] if they want to add more content here. But as

[3:12:03] far as I understand it, that's the intention, to keep

[3:12:05] that. Existing area recognized within those documents. And again with

[3:12:11] our consolidated zoning Bilay review process, looking for opportunities to

[3:12:15] consolidate all the bylaws into one user friendly bylaw. The

[3:12:20] intention is really to make things easier. To work with.

[3:12:25] However, you may recall. I think. There was hundreds and

[3:12:30] hundreds of exceptions within the zoning bylaw to recognize some

[3:12:34] existing conditions and that sort of thing. So there could

[3:12:38] certainly be an opportunity to recognize an exception within the

[3:12:42] zoning bylaw that recognizes a bit more clearly. Greenwood again.

[3:12:46] That's been done before and years past. But it wasn't

[3:12:51] eliminated. It just was consolidated under a bigger umbrella of

[3:12:55] residential. Permissible uses, so I hope that provides a bit

[3:12:58] of clarity about what was done. Separate process there will

[3:13:02] be an opportunity. When we finish the Pickering forward official

[3:13:06] plan review process and have a new official plan in

[3:13:09] place. There will be an opportunity to revisit the zoning

[3:13:14] bylaws to have regard for any adjustments or updates that

[3:13:19] have been made to the Pickering official plans. I hope

[3:13:21] that provides a bit of context. So. The community of

[3:13:25] Greenwood is identifiable. Community is still there, and it's going

[3:13:28] to continue to be there. Yes. Okay. The consultant made

[3:13:34] mention of another. Public information meeting coming up. I'm not

[3:13:38] sure he mentioned the date, but it's June 18. June

[3:13:42] 18 that's correct. So one organization, and I don't think

[3:13:46] it's a secret to note their name. Land over landings

[3:13:49] happens to coincidentally have their annual general meeting on the

[3:13:53] same date. So some of their membership and some of

[3:13:57] their followers, I suppose, are not going to be able

[3:14:00] to attend that public information meeting. You and I have

[3:14:03] spoken a couple of times, and I've spoken with the

[3:14:04] mayor and spoken with land over landings. Following this meeting.

[3:14:10] And presumably they could have come on here tonight and

[3:14:12] viewed the presentation and heard some of the discussion, but

[3:14:15] if they have any. Additional comments, questions or want to

[3:14:19] have a discussion. We're able to reach out with them

[3:14:23] and make some sort of arrangement, noting that they had

[3:14:25] a conflict that evening. A scoped presentation or a discussion

[3:14:30] with them. To allow them the same opportunity that they

[3:14:37] happen to miss because of the conflicting of the two

[3:14:39] dates. That would be correct, yes. We're certainly happy to

[3:14:42] follow up with the appropriate representatives. With land of our

[3:14:45] landings after this meeting, not tonight, but tomorrow. Or soon

[3:14:50] thereafter and certainly welcome their input. Whatever we land on,

[3:14:55] if they're comfortable. Either through teams or if they want

[3:15:00] a meeting of some sort. We can certainly discuss that

[3:15:03] and what that looks like. As an alternative to the

[3:15:06] June 18. Any information that we'd be providing would be

[3:15:10] very similar to what would be provided this evening and

[3:15:13] on the 18th as well. Okay. Much appreciated. And. My

[3:15:19] last comment or question, madam chair, and I just want

[3:15:21] to go back to what the consultant said, and that

[3:15:24] is that this is a continuing process of public consultation.

[3:15:29] We've noted a number of upcoming public consultation opportunities and.

[3:15:35] That this continues to go from a higher level to

[3:15:37] a lower level, and there be many opportunities. For public

[3:15:43] consultation before any shovel hits the ground and any plan

[3:15:47] is approved that there'd be many opportunities, Mr. Bentley. Would

[3:15:50] that be correct? Yes, and I believe Paulos had mentioned

[3:15:54] that. Earlier this evening that there'd be at least two

[3:15:56] opportunities, and perhaps a third one if we are able

[3:15:59] to fashion another meeting with lender landings. In this context,

[3:16:03] and certainly outside of those structured meetings, We're more than

[3:16:08] happy to take any additional feedback or commentary. From the

[3:16:13] public as well. Thank you.

[3:16:22] Oh, that's it for me, madam. Chair. Thank you. Yes,

[3:16:25] thank you. Cancer. Bike. Can you hear us? Yeah, now

[3:16:33] I can hear you. That's fine. Thank you. Madam chair.

[3:16:39] Mr. Bessley, if I can probably have your. Maybe, perhaps

[3:16:43] other staff member could maybe answer. A couple of my

[3:16:46] questions, too, as well. From the delegation that we had

[3:16:50] on the Greenwood community. They addressed in terms of the

[3:16:54] Greenwood Community Hall. Will be demolished. We know that there

[3:16:59] is a new community center being built, and I think

[3:17:02] they also mentioned that they had credit club, they had

[3:17:05] scouting, they had other events, birthday parties, community. Events that

[3:17:10] the community was using. Even if, though, that Greenwood Community

[3:17:15] center is being demolished, maybe you want to speak to

[3:17:18] it. I know the answers. What are we being replaced

[3:17:23] with and what will the Greenwood community will have access

[3:17:26] to? Well. I think it was kind of spoken to

[3:17:31] earlier this evening, but the pickering or the PHCC's? Pickering

[3:17:34] Heritage Community center, which is under construction, I believe is

[3:17:37] intended to be that option. To serve the Greenwood community.

[3:17:42] My understanding and I see Marissa's put her camera on

[3:17:45] feel. Free to chime in. I believe there's been some

[3:17:47] active discussions between the city. And members of the Greenwood

[3:17:52] community to try and find some solutions as it relates

[3:17:54] to that, but I haven't been directly involved in that.

[3:17:56] And perhaps if Marissa wants to chime in. And add

[3:17:58] some more details that might be appreciated. Certainly through the

[3:18:02] chair to councilor Butt, the director of community services has

[3:18:07] been. In discussions with agreement recreation association for some time

[3:18:13] to facilitate the transition of their activities from the Greenwood

[3:18:16] Community center to the Pickering Heritage and community center. Of

[3:18:21] course, that form would take a little bit of a

[3:18:24] different shape than it currently does in the sense that

[3:18:26] PHCC will be. Operated and managed by the city. However,

[3:18:30] we want to ensure that the activities that they're used

[3:18:33] to enjoying at the Greenwood Community Center. Are activities that

[3:18:37] we can offer through the city. And so we continue

[3:18:40] to have those discussions and it does include. Their continued

[3:18:45] participation in the community grant program that they currently participate

[3:18:49] in. It allows them to receive funds from the city.

[3:18:53] And then those funds go towards the rental of the

[3:18:56] Greenwood Community center in the future, it would be the

[3:18:58] rental of the Pickering heritage community center to operate. Those

[3:19:03] community hamlet activities. They're used to having, whether they be

[3:19:07] community events or festivals, so. We are in conversations with

[3:19:12] them to facilitate that transition. And enable similar uses at

[3:19:17] the new facility. But there is no at any point

[3:19:21] that we will probably take away from any of the

[3:19:25] activities. They do presently in order to accommodate in our

[3:19:29] new facilities. So we're looking at the suite of activities

[3:19:33] that they normally run to see what we can accommodate

[3:19:36] and our intent. Is to facilitate and accommodate all those

[3:19:40] that we can. There is, as was mentioned earlier, A

[3:19:46] challenge in accommodating the weavers, as the weavers would like

[3:19:49] the weavers would like dedicated space, and this facility is

[3:19:52] going to be open to all users, and so there

[3:19:54] isn't an opportunity to provide them with dedicated space. We

[3:19:57] have a space for them. But it won't be dedicated

[3:20:01] space. So we're continuing those discussions. But if they have

[3:20:04] a dance class or. I understand they've had karate operating

[3:20:08] there for a number of years and we'd love to

[3:20:11] speak to the karate instructor and maintain that arrangement. We

[3:20:16] just want to have those discussions to facilitate that transition.

[3:20:19] Okay, that's great. Thank you. Ms. Maurice for addressing that.

[3:20:26] Mr. Bentley, I know the questions about watershed came up

[3:20:30] in one of the delegates. And when we built a

[3:20:34] new subdivision, we take every proaction. Action preventive in terms

[3:20:41] of flooding watershed. I know city does and have done

[3:20:46] a good job. In terms of looking after and maintaining

[3:20:50] a watershed area, maybe could you speak a little bit

[3:20:53] on that. How this process works. So thank you, councilor,

[3:20:59] but. It's been an ongoing process, and as you heard

[3:21:03] this evening, there is a working group that's comprised of

[3:21:06] a bunch of different. People with interest in this, including

[3:21:11] the town of Ajax. And going through that, and with

[3:21:15] conservation authority at the table, it's important to have that.

[3:21:17] Expertise there. In the room working through that process. And

[3:21:22] that's still ongoing. I see Fiaz has put his camera

[3:21:24] on to maybe add some more details there, but certainly

[3:21:28] it's important to identify with the preferred scenario. That's ultimately

[3:21:33] chosen to. Address impacts from flooding and how that could

[3:21:38] be mitigated through the design of the community. But Fias,

[3:21:42] if you want to add in more to that, please.

[3:21:44] Sure. Through you, madam chair. To councilor, but councilor, but

[3:21:48] you can appreciate that the area of Northeast pick Green

[3:21:51] there's. A lot of focus around the watershed work. And

[3:21:55] so when we initiated the process for hiring SGL and

[3:22:00] the planning experts, Paul Lowe's and his team. One of

[3:22:04] the things we made sure we did was to bring

[3:22:06] in the subject matter experts to help us with the

[3:22:08] scope of work when it came to watershed study works.

[3:22:13] And other similar studies. And the TRCA is really. The

[3:22:18] experts in understanding what are the necessities, what are the.

[3:22:23] Mitigating factors. And another critical piece to that, especially related

[3:22:26] to Pickering, was our neighbors and Ajax. So we engaged

[3:22:29] our neighbors in Ajax, and we made sure we sat

[3:22:33] down with them and went through the process. Of how

[3:22:35] the watershed study would ultimately be driven, the scope of

[3:22:39] work. And to date. We are having ongoing dialogue with

[3:22:46] the town of Ajax, their staff, and along with the

[3:22:48] other stakeholders, who have raised it as a concern. But

[3:22:52] ultimately, when you bring in the subject matter experts to

[3:22:54] help you with the scope of work, help you work

[3:22:57] with your consultant and city staff and staff. Across the

[3:23:01] region, especially in the. Town of Ajax. It really helps

[3:23:05] eliminate some of the concerns that people may have and

[3:23:08] that's the approach we've taken and we've seen it work

[3:23:11] with our relationship building. On this matter with the count

[3:23:14] of Ajax. So the town of Ajax is fully engaged.

[3:23:19] Yeah, that's great. Thank you, Fias, for addressing that Madam

[3:23:22] chair. Those are the questions. I had. Thank you. Appreciate

[3:23:24] that. You're welcome, councilor. But Councilor Brenner of two. Thank

[3:23:30] you very much. Madam Chair. Through you to our staff.

[3:23:36] And then I have some comments as well. Mr. Bentley.

[3:23:42] Am I correct in understanding tonight is a motion to

[3:23:44] receive? The report, correct? Yeah. So specifically to receive for

[3:23:51] information. That would enable us to share that with the

[3:23:55] commenting agencies and other interested parties to comment on this.

[3:24:02] I understand correctly, because this is. An important question that

[3:24:06] I'm asking you very specifically. Is tonight also the. Opportunity.

[3:24:13] That while we're receiving the report. That staff will be

[3:24:17] taken away. Comments that we have heard tonight, be it

[3:24:21] from members of committee. Or and from the public delegations,

[3:24:24] would that be correct as well? Yes. Despite the June

[3:24:30] 18 meeting coming up, this is another equal opportunity. For

[3:24:35] comments that we've heard this evening, to take that in

[3:24:37] and factor that in. So absolutely. Hey with that, then.

[3:24:41] What I would like to get from you is some

[3:24:43] assurances that, number one, That the staff are taken away

[3:24:50] and will in fact provide information regarding and it would

[3:24:54] raise by councilor pickles, and it was raised by the

[3:24:57] public. A phasing. Of northeast Pickering. That the comments that

[3:25:06] were made is you can't do it all at once.

[3:25:10] So some elaboration and clarification in terms of a policy

[3:25:13] that, in fact builds the phasing component in number two.

[3:25:19] I would like to see something that talks about the

[3:25:21] transitioning from agricultural lands to the urban envelope of northeast

[3:25:26] Pickering. There's the acknowledgment that it's there, but I would

[3:25:31] like to see some policies that are built into it

[3:25:35] that talk about the transition, the transition there's no point

[3:25:39] in having agricultural lands on one side of the road,

[3:25:42] having urban develop on the other side of a road

[3:25:44] because the agricultural lens aren't going to survive. So transition.

[3:25:48] Transitioning is really key and critical to see that. The

[3:25:53] other part. That I would like to see, having just

[3:25:57] recently come back. From a visit to Granville island in

[3:26:00] Vancouver. I would like to see some policy clarification. As

[3:26:03] it relates to design guidelines. When I think of what

[3:26:08] I saw in Vancouver in particular, I saw a mesh

[3:26:12] of high rise developments that had interesting designs. That were

[3:26:18] pieces of art, the way they were designed. As an

[3:26:21] example, they abutted other medium. Density housing. But always they

[3:26:28] had policies in place that talked about housing, farm. Architectural

[3:26:33] control. I recognize that the planning act does not give

[3:26:36] us that power, but I would like to see some

[3:26:38] policies that will certainly encourage it. And I certainly know

[3:26:42] that from dialogue with the Dorsey people from northeast Pickering

[3:26:46] that is certainly receptive to looking at creative designs that

[3:26:50] make this a very unique community. Finally, what I would

[3:26:53] like to see. Is. Included in that would be something

[3:26:59] that talks about massing as well. I'd like to see

[3:27:04] something that while we're going to be doing intensification going

[3:27:06] to be tribe and achieving. The targets. I'd also like

[3:27:11] to get some idea in terms of massing of some

[3:27:14] kind of controls and footprint size. So that there's a

[3:27:18] range of not just slim and trim, but also the

[3:27:23] opportunity to. Have flatter and more, I guess more medium

[3:27:29] type density as well, but all blending together. Do I

[3:27:34] have assurances that that, in fact, will be part of,

[3:27:36] or can be part of. Where staff look at incorporating

[3:27:42] that into policies for consideration. Not asking me to commit

[3:27:46] to anything tonight. I'm asking for assurances that you've. Heard

[3:27:49] loud and clear. The importance of that. Council. Brenner. I've

[3:27:54] been taking notes as you've been speaking, and we've. Got

[3:27:57] the video recording that we can refer back to. We

[3:27:59] will definitely be taking this. Back to our team. Wonderful.

[3:28:02] And the other question that I do have. And it

[3:28:06] has to do with the high order of transit, and

[3:28:08] I know that. The consultants did comment and FIas did

[3:28:12] comment. While it's outside of the North Pickering area. Do

[3:28:17] we? And I guess this would be more our staff.

[3:28:20] Either Fiaz or yourself, Mr. Bentley. We are still pursuing.

[3:28:27] I'm hoping to have a high frequency. Hike Wood rail

[3:28:33] station in the city of Pickering in Greenwood or Green

[3:28:37] River. Do we see this as tying into that as

[3:28:41] part of the high order transit quarter system and how

[3:28:44] do you envision that to look like? Yes. Do you

[3:28:47] want to take that? Sure. Thanks, Kyle. Through you, madam

[3:28:50] chair to Councilor Brenner. Councilor Brennan, that's a great question.

[3:28:53] Something that I anticipated you asking tonight. If you can

[3:28:58] imagine the fact that the high frequency rail system. We

[3:29:03] are anticipating that to be on the existing right of

[3:29:07] way of the Havelock line that does intercept the 407

[3:29:11] right of way, which is on the south side. So

[3:29:13] the work that has been done is to see how

[3:29:16] there could be synergies between both of those systems. Now,

[3:29:21] As you can appreciate. We are in the infancy stages

[3:29:25] of understanding where the highest. Rail is going to operate

[3:29:31] through and whether or not picking will be successful in

[3:29:35] getting a station. Stop or not with respect to the

[3:29:38] transertway corridor. It's always been as a policy document, going

[3:29:43] back to the early 2000s with respect to Seaton and

[3:29:46] the 407 Yi expansion through Durham. So we're hoping that.

[3:29:51] Transitway corridor could serve the purpose it's always meant to

[3:29:55] serve, and that is to help with not only bringing

[3:29:59] traffic from the south to the north of transit users,

[3:30:02] but also traffic from the north to the south as

[3:30:05] well. You have the GO transit station on the south

[3:30:08] side of Pickering, Amber trying to see how the two

[3:30:11] can. Work together and adapt with each other, but that's

[3:30:15] definitely something that we've had. Conversation with MTO, Metrolinks, and

[3:30:20] obviously. With the Alto team, which is the team that

[3:30:23] is federally running the high frequency speed. High speed. Rail

[3:30:27] project now. Thank you very much, Fiaz and thank you,

[3:30:31] Mr. Benton, for your comments and your response to mine

[3:30:36] with that. Sorry. And councilor Brunner, just one more point.

[3:30:38] I wanted to just. Add to what Kyle mentioned. As

[3:30:44] part of the last question, when it comes to the

[3:30:46] phasing of Northeast Pickering, I just want to make sure

[3:30:49] that it's clear that. The phasing of a community like

[3:30:53] northeast Pickering is driven by the infrastructure that comes to

[3:30:56] the community. So. There has to be a phasing process

[3:31:00] in place for infrastructure, for water, sanitary utilities and all

[3:31:05] those other key elements to help drive growth, so. It's

[3:31:09] almost. A confirmed idea that exists when it comes to

[3:31:14] these types of new urban and boundary expansions. Where you

[3:31:17] have to phase the development, and we're seeing that right

[3:31:19] now in Seaton. As well. Where? Seat? The servicing and

[3:31:23] all the different elements are being expended from the east

[3:31:25] to the west. To get a scene up and running

[3:31:28] so we can expect a scene for northeast Pickering as

[3:31:30] well. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Bentley. And thank you

[3:31:34] very much. Fiaz with that madam chair, I guess my

[3:31:38] comments on this basically are very simple. Tonight is to

[3:31:42] receive a report for information I have no problem supporting

[3:31:45] receiving for information. With the caveat and understanding that we

[3:31:50] do have that commitment from staff that we're far from

[3:31:53] the end of this journey and. There's still opportunities. Whether

[3:31:58] we to either disagree with it. But you can't disagree

[3:32:00] with something until we know. What the final product is

[3:32:03] going to be proposed. So tonight is to receive your

[3:32:06] information. And I'm certainly prepared to do that. I look

[3:32:11] forward to hearing how staff have incorporated. The very important

[3:32:15] comments that we heard from the community tonight and from

[3:32:18] also members of this committee. Great. Thank you, Councilor Brenner.

[3:32:22] Thank you very much. You're very welcome. And. With that.

[3:32:27] We will call the vote. Unless, councilor Robinson, you did

[3:32:31] want to comment. Before you move on to comments, and

[3:32:33] I am going to remind this council we are at

[3:32:35] the bottom of the hour. We have 30 minutes until.

[3:32:37] We will need to call for an extension and we

[3:32:40] have not completed this item and have two more remaining.

[3:32:44] So before we hit the top of the hour, I

[3:32:46] may interrupt the next delegation in order to. Ask for

[3:32:50] an extension. Go ahead. Councilor Robinson, you have the floor.

[3:32:53] Super. Thank you so much. It's no surprise that I

[3:32:58] am against this. And I'll give you some reasons why,

[3:33:02] and I'm hoping that they make them. Into the comments

[3:33:04] as well. The first one is because Seaton is nowhere

[3:33:08] near being fully built out. Satan's only approximately 20% to

[3:33:13] 25% built out based on recent growth reports and development

[3:33:17] activity. Thousands of residential units, employment lands and mixed use

[3:33:21] spaces are already approved in service, but. They're still sitting

[3:33:26] undeveloped. There is ample capacity at Seaton to meet Pickerings

[3:33:31] near and midterm housing and employment needs without touching northeast

[3:33:35] peckering. There's no population pressure that justifies immediate expansion. Developing

[3:33:44] northeast Pickering before Seaton is built out with strange city

[3:33:48] resources. That would undermine smart growth principles. It will increase

[3:33:53] the burden on taxpayer payers to service new, fragmented, fragmented

[3:33:57] communities and is going to accelerate farmland loss, any environmental

[3:34:03] disruption unnecessarily. And that, as we know, we've all been,

[3:34:08] there's been a lot of talk. And concerns about that.

[3:34:12] The proposed development relies heavily on infrastructure. That is not

[3:34:17] yet built or funded. They're talking about type C arterial

[3:34:21] roads that are proposed. But that remains conceptual. Transit plants

[3:34:27] are not supported or confirmed by agency involvements or financial

[3:34:31] commitments. Water, wastewater and stormwater systems will need to be

[3:34:36] constructed from the ground up because they are not there.

[3:34:39] And there's no clear plan for expanding fire, police or

[3:34:43] emergency medical services for the area as well. For the

[3:34:48] environmental impact that it's going to have, although. One of

[3:34:53] the concepts a label as being environment focused. The plan

[3:34:58] includes road crossings through the natural heritage system. Fragmentation of

[3:35:04] ecological corridors and restorate words like restoration and compensation areas

[3:35:10] that appear to offset rather than prevent environmental loss, I

[3:35:16] think we should be cautious of plans that present development

[3:35:19] as environmental protection without. A transparent ecological impact study. Or

[3:35:25] conservation authority endorsement at this time. And then there's the

[3:35:30] farmland. We hear a lot. Of talk about the farmland.

[3:35:33] This area includes some of Dura region's most productive agricultural

[3:35:37] land according to the city's own agriculture impact assessment. Irreversible

[3:35:43] conversion of farmland is expected. And in the time when

[3:35:48] food security and local food systems are critical. Protecting arable

[3:35:52] land must remain one of our top priorities here in

[3:35:56] pictoring. The preferred land use concept was shaped in part

[3:36:02] by landowners input, not by the community. Many of whom

[3:36:06] are developers or their land speculators. While stakeholders engagement is

[3:36:12] important, the balance or inflows must be transparent, and I

[3:36:15] think it needs to be equitable. There is concern that

[3:36:20] economic interests have overshowered community feedback and shaping this financial

[3:36:25] layout. And then. If you want to talk about the

[3:36:31] lack of financial transparency within this report, like who's going

[3:36:34] to find the necessary infrastructure and services will exist. Will

[3:36:37] existing taxpayers be asked to subsidize this growth, or what

[3:36:41] happens if development outpaces revenues? Long term financial liability must

[3:36:46] be clearly identified before council makes a decision. That's going

[3:36:50] to bind future budgets. We're already stressed in that department

[3:36:55] already. That's pretty much all I really want to say.

[3:37:01] I think that. A responsible approach to this would be.

[3:37:06] To proceed very cautiously. I think we need to reassess

[3:37:11] community needs, and I think we need to ensure full

[3:37:14] transparency before we're committing to something that is going to

[3:37:17] be an irreversible. Irreversible development. So I would like to

[3:37:25] get a recorded vote with this. I know we're just

[3:37:28] receiving. It today, but I'd still like to have a

[3:37:30] recorded vote if I'm madam. Chair and madam clerk. Thank

[3:37:34] you. You are welcome and recorded vote is always in

[3:37:37] order. Before we move to that, I do just have

[3:37:41] one comment. As well. I won't belabor the point because

[3:37:45] I think all of my colleagues have made. Outstanding points.

[3:37:49] Surrounding the entire issue. I've said it before, I have

[3:37:53] some fundamental issues with how. We. Expend our boundaries and

[3:37:59] change things permanently. I would also like to point out

[3:38:02] one of the key points in the report, since we

[3:38:04] didn't really dig into reading some of that. Just so

[3:38:07] the public is aware that item three. Point. 33 in

[3:38:12] a report. Notes that envision Durham was passed by the

[3:38:16] regional council in September 2024, and then in January of

[3:38:20] 2025, the province announced that the region would be deemed.

[3:38:25] As an upper term municipality. With no planning. Responsibility, which

[3:38:31] means that the final approval. On all of the plans

[3:38:35] that we are discussing today. Remain the purview of the

[3:38:38] province, and there the final arbiter of approval on this.

[3:38:41] That being said, I am going to support this because

[3:38:45] it is received for information. I think it is important

[3:38:47] that we continue with public input and continue to hold

[3:38:52] the public meetings on this. So that we can continue

[3:38:55] to have that dialogue. As it's very important. Just one

[3:39:01] other further question that I'm unclear on. I'm not sure

[3:39:04] if this is a Kyle point or politics is for

[3:39:08] you. I noted. There was a question on indigenous consultation.

[3:39:15] That has been completed, yes. And we will continue to

[3:39:19] engage them as we move through the next couple of

[3:39:21] public information sessions. I can speak to that a little

[3:39:26] bit. Councilor Cook. Certainly. The city of Pickering, we're committed

[3:39:32] to fostering a meaningful engagement. With msifn miss sagas of

[3:39:36] skug island, first nation and. It's been a journey. It

[3:39:41] continues to be, and certainly. We've got an agreement working

[3:39:45] with msifn. For them to be at the table and

[3:39:50] to provide comments input to us. And this structured engagement

[3:39:54] in that way, and we continue to do that. So

[3:39:58] we will continue in the coming weeks as well. To

[3:40:03] make sure that we're hearing what they have to say

[3:40:05] and that we're factoring that into our review of this

[3:40:08] fiat. Did you want to add anything to that? Yeah.

[3:40:11] Sure, madam chair. We have had communications with. The first

[3:40:18] nations. From the onset, we've continued to have dialogue. Through

[3:40:23] our consultant, Sgl. And Dylan as well. And we are

[3:40:28] also having dialogue through. The idea that. We will continue

[3:40:35] to have the consultation. And the communications with the MSifn.

[3:40:41] Not only through this process of the next couple of

[3:40:44] months, but also following. The approval of the northeast. Pickering

[3:40:52] secondary plan and moving forward, and then eventually. That responsibility

[3:40:57] becomes far greater for the landowners group as well. For

[3:40:59] them to have continued dialogue with MsIFn as well, and

[3:41:04] all the other first station crews, because that is something

[3:41:07] that the city has requested. As part of our. Ongoing

[3:41:11] commitment to work with the first nations because we feel

[3:41:14] it's critical. But as part of the city driven process,

[3:41:18] which is the secondary plan we are committed to doing.

[3:41:21] That, and we will continue to have the open dialogue.

[3:41:24] But following the northeast pickering secondary plan process, When it's

[3:41:29] really driven by the landowners. We encourage, and I've asked

[3:41:34] landowners to have that memorandum of understanding, to have a

[3:41:38] commitment. To work with them and to listen to their

[3:41:41] concerns as well as you heard our consultant talk. About

[3:41:44] neighborhood planning and subdivision planning and all those different factors

[3:41:47] that would happen after the fact. We have asked our

[3:41:50] landowners to make sure that the first. Nations are part

[3:41:53] of those conversations as well. Great. Thank you for that.

[3:41:57] Madam Clerk, I believe councilor Robinson called for recorded governments.

[3:42:01] If you could kindly take the role. Councilor Robinson. No.

[3:42:06] Councilor Brenner. Yes. Councilor butt. Yes. Councilor pickles. Yes, Mayor

[3:42:16] Ash. Yes, madam Chair. That's carried five to one. Thank

[3:42:22] you, Madam Clerk. Now, before we move on to our

[3:42:25] next item, which is 4.2. We do have. Joint delegation.

[3:42:31] For an extension. Yes, thank you. Moving for an extension.

[3:42:35] I was seconding that motion. Thank you for the clarity.

[3:42:38] On that. So for the audience at home, councilor Bot

[3:42:41] has just moved. An extension seconded by Councilor Brunner, and

[3:42:47] we're going to vote on. That it does require a

[3:42:49] majority to extend 1 hour to midnight, which is as

[3:42:52] late as this. Meeting can go. So, all those in

[3:42:55] favor? And we have one opposed. So that carries. We

[3:43:00] are going to carry on. All right. Thank you for

[3:43:04] that. Hopefully we still have our next two delegates on

[3:43:09] the line. For item 4.2, which is Jamie Cook and

[3:43:13] Bobby Gotier. Jamie Cook? No relations myself. His managing partner,

[3:43:20] a land planning in land economics at Watson and associates

[3:43:23] economist, and joining him as Bobby Gotier from WSP and

[3:43:27] they will be speaking on Pickering official plan review. Gentlemen.

[3:43:32] Okay, your presentation is up. You may go ahead. Thank

[3:43:37] you and good evening. Can you hear me okay? Yes,

[3:43:40] absolutely. We can hear you fine, thank you. Thank you.

[3:43:43] So, good evening, madam chair members of council. It's a

[3:43:45] pleasure to be able to speak to you tonight to

[3:43:47] present you the draft or, sorry, the final results of

[3:43:51] our Pickering City Pickering growth management strategy. If we could

[3:43:56] go to the introduction. Slide on slide two. So just

[3:44:00] to start off, we were retained back in 2024 along

[3:44:05] with WSP to develop a growth management strategy for the

[3:44:08] city of Pickering, and the purpose of the study is

[3:44:11] to comprehensively assess the city's long term population, housing and

[3:44:15] employment growth outlook. Looking at the 2051 we've also looked

[3:44:19] at residential. Intensification opportunities as well as an assessment of

[3:44:24] urban land needs. To that same time period. A key

[3:44:27] component of the GMS is also to assess a series

[3:44:30] of or provide a series of policy recommendations as well

[3:44:33] as broad planning direction for the seat and employment area,

[3:44:36] which I'll speak to. Next slide. So it's important to

[3:44:41] first acknowledge that this Pickering GMS study was conducted within

[3:44:45] the context of the current provincial planning policy framework. So

[3:44:48] back in 2024, in October. The new provincial planning statement,

[3:44:55] the PPS, came into effect. This document essentially integrates the

[3:45:01] former growth plan for the greater golden horseshoe and the

[3:45:04] 2020 pps. Into one integrated document and. A key outcome

[3:45:10] of that process was to ultimately provide a more outcome

[3:45:12] based, less prescriptive approach to planning in Ontario. As you

[3:45:18] mentioned earlier, it's also important to note that through. This

[3:45:23] bill. Bill 185. A key outcome of that was the

[3:45:27] removal of the Germ region as an aperture planning authority.

[3:45:32] And so, as envisionderm, which is now approved, provides the

[3:45:36] growth management framework to be integrated into the city's official

[3:45:40] plan. Where appropriate. It is noted that, however, That significant

[3:45:47] changes have occurred through the provincial planning framework since that

[3:45:49] time, and so this work ultimately considers both envision Durham

[3:45:53] as well as the recent provincial changes in developing the

[3:45:57] city's gms and ultimately the direction to the official plan.

[3:46:02] Next slide. So if we can go to slide five,

[3:46:06] I wanted to provide a bit of an overview of.

[3:46:09] The population, housing and employment growth forecast assessment. So as

[3:46:13] part of this work, We did provide a very comprehensive

[3:46:18] assessment of the city's long term population growth outlook to

[3:46:21] the year 2051. And as it was mentioned earlier, the

[3:46:25] top down process that's involved with doing this. It's ultimately,

[3:46:29] in our opinion, a top down process, but also a

[3:46:31] bottom. Up process. There is a lot of. Macro and

[3:46:35] broader work that needs to be done first to understand

[3:46:38] how the growth for pickering fits within the broader context

[3:46:41] of Durham. And the GTA and beyond. And so we

[3:46:44] did that comprehensive assessment, and we identified. That essentially. The

[3:46:50] city is ultimately tracking. Closely to envision Derm and that

[3:46:54] envisionderm population forecast 2051 is still an appropriate long term

[3:46:58] projection for the city. We did some minor tweaking to

[3:47:03] the near term projections, but ultimately. We're still planning for

[3:47:06] 256,400 people by 2051. That's an increase of about 152,600

[3:47:14] new residents. That represents a growth rate of about 3.1%

[3:47:18] annually, so it's a very strong. Population growth rate. Quite

[3:47:23] a bit higher than the Durham region growth rate, which

[3:47:25] is 2%, which is also strong. Growth rate, so. We're

[3:47:29] looking at an area that's located within a very fast

[3:47:32] growing. Larger city region. And it is one of the

[3:47:37] fastest growing areas within that larger, fast growing area. So

[3:47:43] to accommodate this amount of population, we've identified a need

[3:47:46] for about 1840 additional households. Annually over the next 30

[3:47:50] years. Through a variety of different types of low, medium,

[3:47:54] and high density housing. On the next slide, I wanted

[3:47:58] to just summarize the employment forecast. We've also conducted a

[3:48:01] review of the city's long term employment forecast, and similar

[3:48:04] to the population analysis, we have concluded that. The long

[3:48:09] term. Employment forecast set out by Vision Durham is still

[3:48:13] an appropriate long term forecast that identifies a total employment

[3:48:17] base of 93,800 employees by 2051. That's an increase of

[3:48:23] over 50,000 jobs between 2024 and 2051. It's an annual

[3:48:28] growth rate of just under. 3%. Again, that's a strong

[3:48:33] growth rate, higher than the average growth rate for the

[3:48:37] region as a whole. And we've also identified an employment

[3:48:40] activity rate, which is the ratio of jobs to population.

[3:48:43] Of about 37%. And you can see that over the

[3:48:47] long term, the activity rate. Is. Expected to stay relatively

[3:48:52] stable. It's expected to grow over the near term, but

[3:48:55] then fall gradually over the long term, as the population

[3:48:58] ages, it puts downward pressure on that population. Employment to

[3:49:03] population ratio as more people are leaving the labor force

[3:49:07] pool. So it is. An encouraging sign that we do

[3:49:11] feel that over the long term we will maintain that

[3:49:14] relative average or ratio. The next slide gets into. Some

[3:49:20] of the analysis that builds on these population, housing and

[3:49:23] employment projections. So as part of this work, we conducted

[3:49:27] a series of long term growth scenarios, and so, given

[3:49:31] some of the recent interest in development of some of

[3:49:34] the key strategic growth areas within the city. Areas like.

[3:49:39] The city center and the Kingston Road corridor. And potential

[3:49:43] higher densities for these areas. As well as. Higher development

[3:49:48] potential in Seaton. We did conduct three long term growth

[3:49:52] scenarios beyond just their scenario. One and vision derm scenario.

[3:49:57] So those scenarios looked at higher rates of intensification as

[3:50:00] well as potentially higher average greenfield density. Levels over the

[3:50:05] long term, and these scenarios were not necessarily meant. To

[3:50:09] ultimately provide a different outcome than envision derm, but we

[3:50:12] did want to assess the sensitivity to show. How variations

[3:50:17] in intensification and Greenfield density would affect the overall need

[3:50:21] for urban lands within the city over the long term.

[3:50:24] And so the three long term scenarios that we've prepared

[3:50:28] are scenario one, which is essentially the envision derm scenario

[3:50:31] that sets out a 40% intensification target and 52 people

[3:50:36] in job. Jobs per hectare for community air expansion lands.

[3:50:40] For scenario two, we increase that intensification target to 45%

[3:50:45] and increase the overall greenfield density target to 65 people

[3:50:48] in jobs per hectare. We also looked at a third

[3:50:52] scenario which increased further increase the intensification target the 50%.

[3:50:57] And kept the overall density target at 65 people in

[3:51:00] jobs per hectare. And so. On the next slide provide

[3:51:06] you the results of that work. Scenario one ultimately. Provides

[3:51:12] us with the outcome of the envision Durham work, which

[3:51:15] generates a land requirement of 948 ha. For community area

[3:51:22] land. And I just want to back up for a

[3:51:23] second. Then when we were looking at? Urban lands. We

[3:51:27] generally divide these lands or allocate them into two broad

[3:51:30] buckets. The first is community area lands, which is what

[3:51:32] I'm speaking to now. So this is essentially where we

[3:51:35] accommodate people. And jobs to support. To support the daily

[3:51:40] function of residents. So that's retail, institutional uses and other

[3:51:44] commercial uses. So these land numbers that I'm quoting now

[3:51:49] refer to those community area lands. We also looked at

[3:51:52] employment area lands, which is essentially where people work. And

[3:51:57] we've heard a little bit about some of the changes

[3:51:59] to the provincial policy with respect to the definition of

[3:52:02] employment areas, the province is now taking a more narrow

[3:52:05] scope or definition of employment area largely being industrial, with

[3:52:09] some ancillary. And supportive uses that would be permitted, provided

[3:52:16] that they are ancillary or accessory to the industrial use.

[3:52:19] So those are the two broad buckets, and I'll just

[3:52:21] get back to. This slide here. So the first slide

[3:52:24] was or. Sorry, the first scenario was. If we can

[3:52:28] go back. I'm going to just finish that slide. Thank

[3:52:31] you. So the first scenario was the envision Durham scenario,

[3:52:35] and then you can see in scenario two. When we

[3:52:37] increase that intensification target to 45%. And the increase in

[3:52:42] density to 65 people in jobs per hectare, that does

[3:52:46] have a fairly. Significant increase, or, sorry, I should say

[3:52:49] decrease on the overall land requirement results in a 45%.

[3:52:53] Reduction in the long term land requirement. Going to scenario

[3:52:57] three, a further increase to the intensification target. Holding that

[3:53:00] density target the same results in a further reduction to

[3:53:04] the overall land requirement. Down to 360. Ha. Which. Is

[3:53:08] about a 60% reduction in the long term land need

[3:53:11] relative to scenario one. So it does give you. Some

[3:53:15] sense of how sensitive these assumptions are. Our general opinion

[3:53:18] on looking at these scenarios, and I was directly involved

[3:53:22] with the envision durham work working for the region is

[3:53:25] that we think that these intensification targets, particularly the base

[3:53:30] target is. An appropriate target for intensification for the city.

[3:53:36] We do need to make sure that we're providing a

[3:53:38] balanced mix of housing by structure types, so we need

[3:53:41] low density forms of housing, medium density forms of housing

[3:53:44] and high density forms. We can't do that. If we.

[3:53:50] Overshoot the intensification target. So we do think that's an

[3:53:54] appropriate target. The Greenfield density target, in our opinion, is

[3:53:58] low. We've recognized that in our work. And we have

[3:54:03] acknowledged that it could take longer for, ultimately for. The

[3:54:09] Northeast victory area to build out, and that has been

[3:54:11] acknowledged through the secondary plan work that. That growth that's

[3:54:15] being planned for is a minimum amount of growth, and

[3:54:17] ultimately the area could accommodate. A greater amount of population

[3:54:24] and housing, particularly. Next slide. So, moving on to the

[3:54:31] employment area forecast and landing's assessment. The employment area. Forecast

[3:54:39] is about 22,000 jobs. That represents about 44% of the

[3:54:43] overall. Future. Job growth within the city from 2024 to

[3:54:49] 2051. About 15,600 of those jobs are anticipated to be

[3:54:54] accommodated in existing designated employment area land so the majority

[3:54:59] of those lands are vacant. Lands within Seaton. There's still

[3:55:02] some remaining. Lands and intensification opportunities in South Pickering and

[3:55:07] then the remaining 6600 jobs would be accommodated through urban

[3:55:12] expansion in northeast Pickering. At a density of about 28

[3:55:17] jobs per hectare. That results in a land requirement of

[3:55:19] about 235 ha. Next slide. So on the following slide.

[3:55:29] I wanted to just point out that. As part of

[3:55:33] this gms work. A specific consideration was given to the

[3:55:36] seat and employment area as this area represents the location

[3:55:40] of almost all of the city's remaining designated greenfield, or

[3:55:43] growth area. The DJ lands outside of any future urban

[3:55:49] expansion lands by 2051, the seat in urban areas forecast

[3:55:54] to accommodate. A revised population based on our analysis of

[3:55:57] 65,000 people and just under 30,000. Jobs. The seat and

[3:56:02] employment areas anticipate to play a significant role within the

[3:56:05] city and the region. In accommodating high quality employment opportunities

[3:56:08] over the next several decades. Given this, the significant changes

[3:56:13] to provincial policy, the long term vision for the seat

[3:56:17] and employment area has been a key focus of this

[3:56:19] gms. And on the next slide, I just wanted to

[3:56:22] summarize. That focus. So as part of the GMS work,

[3:56:28] and given this revised provincial planning. Direction with respect to

[3:56:34] employment areas. We did complete a review of the preliminary

[3:56:38] incedin. A key focus of that was looking at there's

[3:56:43] two designated employment nodes within the seat. And employment area.

[3:56:46] The innovation corridor. Those employment nodes restricts some land use.

[3:56:51] Uses that are permitted in the prestigious employment designation. They

[3:56:56] generally focus on. A more major office or standalone office

[3:57:02] component. With supportive commercial and other employment supportive uses. Those

[3:57:08] uses would no longer be permitted as an employment area

[3:57:11] under the definition. So that required us to take a

[3:57:14] look at. The designation to provide recommendations. And so that

[3:57:19] work has been done. It's been done within the framework

[3:57:22] of. The current. Planning. Policy direction. With again specific focus

[3:57:31] placed on the prestige employment nodes as well as some

[3:57:34] other employment area lands. Within. The Seaton innovation corridor. And

[3:57:40] those details are provided in the GMS report. In addition

[3:57:46] to that policy, those policy recognitions, we also prepared a

[3:57:49] series of broader policy recommendations. For the city, which my

[3:57:53] colleague Bobby Goche is going to briefly summarize for you.

[3:57:57] Now. Thank you. Thank you, Jamie. Good evening, everyone. Good

[3:58:02] to see you. Let's move to the next slide. Please.

[3:58:06] And the one after that. Okay, great. So my slide

[3:58:13] is intended really to give a summary of section nine

[3:58:17] of the growth management strategy. Report. And section nine is

[3:58:21] an evaluation of the kinds of updates to the current

[3:58:23] official plan that will be needed to support the growth

[3:58:26] management strategy. And I think that there's essentially four themes

[3:58:29] of policy updates that are going to be required. So

[3:58:32] if you have a chance to look at section nine.

[3:58:35] In some cases. It's recommended policies because there are some

[3:58:39] mandatory requirements expected by the province to be included. In

[3:58:43] the new official plan. But I also think that there

[3:58:45] are some optional policies that the city can use as

[3:58:48] tools to better implement its growth management strategy. So the

[3:58:53] first theme of policies which I'll just speak to briefly

[3:58:56] on this slide. Is related to growth forecasting. I think

[3:58:59] it kind of goes without saying that the new official

[3:59:02] plan will have an updated planning horizon. If you could

[3:59:05] go back, please. I'll stay on. This slide. Thanks. So

[3:59:08] the new official plan will have an updated. Growth planning

[3:59:12] horizon of 2051. There's going to be a need to

[3:59:15] acknowledge that. Updated horizon. But there's also going to be

[3:59:17] a need to incorporate the population and employment projections. That

[3:59:22] Jamie's gone over. So at a minimum, that section should

[3:59:26] include some of those statements. In conducting some best practice

[3:59:30] review in other municipalities. There are some other things the

[3:59:33] city could do. In the official plan, so we put

[3:59:35] out some other options. I won't go over it in

[3:59:38] detail now, but, for example. You could include specific housing

[3:59:42] forecasts to give a bit more clarity around what those

[3:59:45] population forecasts mean, but not every municipality does that. And

[3:59:50] the second theme of policy updates pertains to the urban

[3:59:54] area, and I think we've heard and heard a lot

[3:59:56] of extensive discussion. Around northeast pickering, and I think that

[3:59:59] would be sort of. The main required change to implement

[4:00:03] the province's approval of the Durham region official plan, which

[4:00:06] would be to add the northeast Pickering lands into the

[4:00:09] urban area. On that policy topic, too. I would kind

[4:00:12] of point out some of the good themes of the

[4:00:14] provincial policy statement which speak to matters like ensuring orderly,

[4:00:20] logical progression of development. And I think the discussion earlier

[4:00:23] around, including some phasing policies in northeast Pickering will serve

[4:00:27] to advance implementation of those expectations. The third theme of

[4:00:32] policy updates. Relates to an intensification strategy. So when I

[4:00:38] say intensification, I'm referring. To development within the existing built

[4:00:43] up area. So places like the city center. We kind

[4:00:47] of envision, and it'll dip to the city, but we

[4:00:49] kind of envision a section on intensification strategy to acknowledge.

[4:00:55] What the different expectations will be as intensification comes forward.

[4:00:59] And Jamie's pointed out a very key aspect of that,

[4:01:01] which will be to include. A minimum residential intensification policy

[4:01:06] and through the growth management work that Jamie's recommended. A

[4:01:10] minimum target of 40% of units. Would intend to be

[4:01:15] intended to be accommodated through intensification. So that's kind of.

[4:01:19] A recommended minimum, and the provincial policy statement does require

[4:01:22] that. There be a residential intensification target in the official

[4:01:26] plan that is mandatory. Additionally, there's some other requirements. For

[4:01:30] example, City center being a major transit station area with

[4:01:35] high order transit access. It needs to have a minimum

[4:01:39] density. That may already be reflected in the official plan,

[4:01:41] but a minimum of 150 people in jobs per hectare

[4:01:45] needs to be stated for that. And there could be

[4:01:47] some other tools. And we kind of get into that

[4:01:49] in the report as well. We looked at some other

[4:01:51] municipalities that are a little more aggressive on ensuring intensification

[4:01:56] will achieve their broader. Visions. They might include things like

[4:01:59] minimum building height or minimum density requirements as development moves

[4:02:03] forward. So there is an option to include policies like

[4:02:06] that. But it may not be necessary. And I would

[4:02:10] also say too that setting policies around density and height

[4:02:13] is also an urban design topic, so I kind of

[4:02:16] stopped a little bit short of giving definitive recommendations on

[4:02:19] that, knowing that the city will be doing some more

[4:02:22] in depth urban design work. Down the road. And then

[4:02:25] the last theme of policy updates. Pertain to the employment

[4:02:29] areas. We've talked about that a little bit. We heard

[4:02:31] from Paul Lowe's earlier on this, too, which is that

[4:02:34] the provincial policy statement was updated to redefine employment areas.

[4:02:38] There's a new set of what's allowed and not allowed

[4:02:41] in the employment areas. Our section of the report gives

[4:02:45] a little bit of guidance around what's next in that

[4:02:48] and essentially, I think the staff report does a great

[4:02:50] job of explaining. That. What it really means is that

[4:02:53] the city will have to look at the extent of

[4:02:55] the employment area designations. Jamie has spoken to that in

[4:02:59] the context of Seaton, but there also will be a

[4:03:02] need to look at that in more detail. Within South

[4:03:05] Pickering, so that'll be some work forthcoming. So I think

[4:03:10] that kind of just at a high level wraps up

[4:03:12] my summary of some of the policy recommendations. And I

[4:03:16] think if we go to the next slide. I know.

[4:03:17] Jamie, do you want to take. It back and offer

[4:03:19] some thoughts. Thanks, Bobby. Yeah, I think we are actually

[4:03:22] at the end of our presentation, so I will turn

[4:03:25] it over back to the chair for any questions. Thank

[4:03:29] you both. And I'll start a list. And I see

[4:03:31] councilor butt with his hand up first. Council brennan. Thank

[4:03:39] you, madam. Thank you, madam Chair. Thank you. To the

[4:03:43] delegates here and questions in relations to the housing. I

[4:03:51] believe you talked about. We have forecast 1800 homes annually.

[4:04:01] I believe in 1840, homes that we have built annually.

[4:04:06] Are we all projections? Do you know of? Are we

[4:04:08] on track? Are we building less? Are we building more.

[4:04:12] Yeah. Thank you. Through the chair. We are actually tracking

[4:04:16] quite well. To the envision driven forecast. We saw. A

[4:04:23] fairly significant surge. In development activity, building permits and completions

[4:04:29] through the Covid period from 2021 to 2023. Things have

[4:04:33] started to taper off now in 2024, but they're still

[4:04:38] well above the historical average. We do think that the

[4:04:42] next. Twelve to, say one to two years is going

[4:04:45] to be a slower time period, particularly in the high

[4:04:47] density market, but overall, we are tracking quite closely to

[4:04:51] that envision driven forecast. Your presentation highlighted. A lot of

[4:04:59] population growth, expansion, land. Employment. With all this comes also

[4:05:07] with infrastructure as well. I'm just wondering if that would

[4:05:11] have been your topic of discussion as well. When I

[4:05:15] talk about infrastructure, I'm talking about roads, transportations, public transportations.

[4:05:21] Would that cover under. Your search. Thank you. Through the

[4:05:28] chair. So, clearly, providing infrastructure to accommodate the growth is

[4:05:32] critical. It's not the focus of this study per se.

[4:05:36] We typically rely on other foundational documents like master planning

[4:05:41] studies. As well as development charges. Background studies also take

[4:05:46] those master plans and look at ultimately what the required

[4:05:49] infrastructure is for hard and soft services. And you look

[4:05:52] at how. That ultimately will be funded and what the

[4:05:55] impacts are on development charges. Our firm does that work?

[4:05:58] And I work with our company. To do those studies,

[4:06:02] but we have not done a further analysis of infrastructure,

[4:06:06] detailed infrastructure requirements to accommodate the growth forecast. But again,

[4:06:10] we would note that. The forecast is in line with

[4:06:13] the envision Durham work. And. The math planning work that

[4:06:20] would support that analysis. When you talk about employment, you

[4:06:25] talk about employment, and you talk about large numbers of

[4:06:27] 15,000 20,000, whatever. What employment jobs do you think will

[4:06:32] be? Creating in our municipality. Thank you to the chair

[4:06:37] again. So, as I mentioned, About just over 40% of

[4:06:42] the jobs are identified within the employment area category, so

[4:06:44] those are industrial jobs. Those are jobs like advanced manufacturing,

[4:06:49] logistics, warehousing, jobs related to energy. Remediation.

[4:06:59] Construction. Those are all sort of the core industrial jobs

[4:07:02] we note in the report, the Pickering nuclear plant refurbishment.

[4:07:09] Is a big anticipated big employer in the near term,

[4:07:12] about 6600 jobs, and they get identified with that refurbishment,

[4:07:16] some of those jobs are going to be temporary. But

[4:07:19] there's a significant amount of employment related to the nuclear

[4:07:22] refurbishment. But we would expect. To see. Steady amount of

[4:07:27] jobs. In. A range of industrial sectors. Also knowledge base

[4:07:34] sectors related to research. And innovation. Plus, with the significant

[4:07:39] amount of population growth, we expect to see a significant

[4:07:42] amount of retail and what we call population related employment,

[4:07:47] which would also include jobs in healthcare and education to

[4:07:51] accommodate that population growth. And then just one last point

[4:07:55] on the employment forecast. To vote. I think just under

[4:07:59] 30% of the overall employment projections are anticipated to beans

[4:08:02] in work at home or off site employment. So these

[4:08:05] are people who. Are working at home or those who

[4:08:09] don't go to the same place of work every day.

[4:08:13] Could be traveling sales, and then it could be truck

[4:08:15] drivers. It could be freelance, it specialists, things like that.

[4:08:19] So those are, that gives you some sense of. The

[4:08:21] kind of jobs we expect to see. Thank you. Appreciate

[4:08:24] that, Mr. Cook. Thanks for addressing me. Thank you, madam

[4:08:27] Chair. You are welcome, councilor. But just to make sure

[4:08:31] everyone at home understands what we're doing, since we've extended

[4:08:34] beyond eleven. We did pass the extension to continue until

[4:08:38] midnight. At which time we will have a hard stop.

[4:08:43] Councilor Brenner, thank you very much. Madam Chair, can you

[4:08:46] hear me okay? Absolutely. I wanted to ask and it

[4:08:50] really picks up. I'll pick up where councilor Butt. Left

[4:08:53] off with the consultant. You talk about? A growth management

[4:09:01] study and the emphasis on population growth. And yes, there

[4:09:04] is reference to employment. What I don't see and I'm

[4:09:08] wondering why. Or if you can look at. Is growth

[4:09:12] in the area of non residential. And I guess what

[4:09:15] I'm trying to focus on is. A growth management study

[4:09:20] that incorporates. A roadmap and target for pickering to rebalance

[4:09:28] the tax ratios, which currently are very high in terms

[4:09:32] of the residential versus the non residential, I think it's

[4:09:35] about. What if I'm correct about 81, 82% residential? Do

[4:09:43] you have any comment in terms of can you look

[4:09:46] at. Or is it possible for you to look at

[4:09:50] that if you're moving forward? To incorporate the non residential

[4:09:56] aspect into the growth side of it, not just population,

[4:09:59] because if you've got population. You need to have nonresidential

[4:10:04] in order to make it much more affordable. Thank you

[4:10:08] for that question. And through the chair, so. I do

[4:10:15] want to emphasize that this analysis that we've undertaken does

[4:10:18] a comprehensive look at both residential and nonresidential. It looks

[4:10:23] at the employment projections by sector and by broad land

[4:10:27] use category, and we had identified in the previous slide.

[4:10:33] A significant amount of employment in the range of just

[4:10:35] over 50,000 jobs. One thing the study doesn't do is

[4:10:39] it doesn't get into a detailed assessment of commercial land.

[4:10:41] Needs or specific retail. And population related lands within the

[4:10:46] community area. When we do landing's assessments such as this

[4:10:50] one, we typically assign a certain provision for lands to

[4:10:54] accommodate. Those retail and commercial uses. But we have done

[4:11:00] a very detailed review of the employment outlook by sector.

[4:11:03] And there's quite a bit of detail in the report

[4:11:05] that discusses this, where we spend more time is on

[4:11:08] the employment area analysis. For the employment lands. What are

[4:11:14] now essentially referred to as the industrial lands. We've looked

[4:11:19] at the supply of those lands within south Pickering. We've

[4:11:22] looked at. Seaton. And we've looked at the vision for

[4:11:24] Seaton, given that that is the next area that you'll

[4:11:27] be building, looking to develop and build out over time

[4:11:31] along that innovation corridor. So a significant amount of time

[4:11:35] and efforts gone into looking at the vision for employment.

[4:11:38] Within. Seaton. With respect to your comment about the res

[4:11:42] non res tax ratio, it's a question that I often

[4:11:44] get. I've had this over decades in my career. And

[4:11:49] it's a very valid question. It's important that we want

[4:11:52] to ensure that. We have a sustainable or. A progressive

[4:11:57] residential, non residential tax base. It's very tricky to significantly

[4:12:02] move that needle when. You're growing at the pace that.

[4:12:07] Picking forecast to grow at. So while even though you're

[4:12:11] receiving or you're intended to accommodate a lot of employment

[4:12:15] growth. Because the population is growing so fast, it's very

[4:12:18] hard to move that ratio. And it wouldn't be appropriate

[4:12:21] for us to try to develop scenarios that would force

[4:12:24] that ratio. Beyond what we think. We could support from

[4:12:30] an economic and market standpoint. So we have looked at

[4:12:35] the broader picture, the forecasts that are put out there,

[4:12:40] they have a level of ambitiousness to them, including the

[4:12:44] employment forecast. We do think that they are defensible over

[4:12:46] the long term, and we think that they strike the

[4:12:49] right balance. But the reality is that it's going to.

[4:12:53] Be very hard for the city. To significantly make that

[4:12:57] shift towards a higher tax assessment to non residential, you're

[4:13:01] going to see lots of non residential tax assessments, but

[4:13:03] that shift is likely going to. Be very slow to

[4:13:07] inch over because of the significant amount of population growth.

[4:13:12] Thank you. My next question. Is similar to one that

[4:13:16] I asked with the Northeast Pickering people consultant. And what

[4:13:23] I'm interested in knowing. As part of your process, did

[4:13:27] you reach out to any of the farmers to get

[4:13:30] any input? From that sector into the growth management study.

[4:13:37] Through the chair. I didn't specifically reach out. To any

[4:13:43] members of the agricultural community. The city did prepare. And

[4:13:49] a growth strategy. Growth management strategy discussion paper. That was

[4:13:53] broadly circulated. But to my knowledge, we have not reached

[4:13:58] out to the agricultural community directly as part of this.

[4:14:01] Work. Is there still that possibility to reach out? I

[4:14:05] mean, Durham does have the agricultural advisory committee, both myself

[4:14:10] and councilor, but I actually had an opportunity to. Have

[4:14:14] a virtual meeting with them a couple of weeks ago,

[4:14:16] and I know that they certainly would. Be very interested

[4:14:20] in providing some input into the growth management component of

[4:14:25] the city of pickering. That is something that ultimately, I

[4:14:28] think, staff could recommend or provide, but I would leave

[4:14:32] it with fair enough to make that reserve. We get

[4:14:35] the report on the floor. I'll talk to staff about

[4:14:37] it. Thank you. And Madam Chair, thank you very much

[4:14:40] for the opportunity to ask those questions and the latitude.

[4:14:43] You are very welcome. Excellent questions, anyone? Else in committee

[4:14:48] wishing to speak. All right? And so, as Councilor Brenner

[4:14:53] mentioned, we need to get this on the floor. With

[4:14:57] a mover and a seconder in order to move this

[4:14:59] forward, and I'm going to see councilor bot as the

[4:15:02] mover and councilor pickles as the seconder. It is now

[4:15:06] open for discussion and debate. Councilor brenner. You're in. Mute.

[4:15:12] There we go. Thank you, madam. Chair through you. To

[4:15:20] staff, and this would be probably to, I guess, Mr.

[4:15:23] Bentley. You heard the thrust of my question of the

[4:15:28] consultant, and then he's deferred. Back to staff. Just want

[4:15:33] to hone in a little bit on the agricultural sector.

[4:15:39] And the fact being that. We know that. Agriculture in

[4:15:44] Durham Region. Is second only to the, in terms of

[4:15:49] jobs and economics to OPG, which tells us. It has

[4:15:54] a huge impact in terms of the economic well being

[4:15:58] of the whole region, let alone the city of pickering.

[4:16:02] Can you maybe elaborate? Or are you willing to reach

[4:16:06] out further? Prior to the final stages of this study

[4:16:11] and when it comes back is in the report. It

[4:16:13] talks about. I guess picking up some of the comments.

[4:16:19] And reaching out for additional comments prior to the final

[4:16:22] phase. Can you elaborate on how you're going to access?

[4:16:27] And are you prepared to access? The members of the

[4:16:31] Durham Regional. Agricultural Advisory Committee, and I believe they also

[4:16:35] delegated as well to the City of pickering. If I

[4:16:37] recall. One of our residents are on it. Sure. Sorry.

[4:16:46] Yeah. Thanks. Councilor Brenner. Yes. And the consultants had spoken

[4:16:49] a bit to this in your question. We as staff

[4:16:53] have provided some background research. Documents for a variety of

[4:16:57] topics and held meetings both in person and electronically. And

[4:17:03] one of those was agricultural and rural areas. You may

[4:17:07] recall, we had that. Up in Claremont. Community. I think.

[4:17:14] The Claremont Church, if I recall correctly. Very good engagement

[4:17:18] from residents and farmers in that area. Most certainly. And

[4:17:24] we certainly take that input in from the stakeholders and

[4:17:27] interested parties for all their different topics. Including agricultural and

[4:17:31] rural areas, and we'll continue to do so in. The

[4:17:37] coming weeks and months as we go to the next

[4:17:39] stage. I would certainly. Welcome Dion Jacobs in attendance to.

[4:17:44] If there's anything else you'd want to add. To that,

[4:17:46] but certainly we're interested in input from farmers and from

[4:17:50] the different committees that are offering. Offering their input. But

[4:17:56] I guess my question very simply. Are you prepared to

[4:17:58] reach out to the advisory, the agricultural advisory committee. We

[4:18:03] may have to reach out to them rather than reaching

[4:18:05] out to us. Yeah. And I think part of the

[4:18:09] appeal of having some of. These public meetings. In community

[4:18:15] areas was to meet them at their level as well,

[4:18:18] not just at the ReC complexes. Where we normally hold

[4:18:21] meetings, but certainly. Happy to reach out to those groups.

[4:18:25] I don't know, Dion, if you have anything more. You

[4:18:26] can add to that. If you just meet yourself.

[4:18:38] Can you hear me? Yes. Okay. Yes, councilor. Through human.

[4:18:49] Chair to councilor Brena. We are about to. Conclude. Our

[4:18:58] first phase of our official plan review, which were the

[4:19:01] discussion papers of various topics. Now it is a question

[4:19:05] of. Listening. To or assessing what we've heard. And start

[4:19:12] drafting policies, and we plan to do that through. The

[4:19:16] summer, but at the same time. There will be further

[4:19:20] engagement opportunities. With key stakeholders. And if this is a

[4:19:25] specific request, by all means. We will reach out to

[4:19:30] them, but. There will be opportunities. When we bring those

[4:19:35] draft policies forward. And then also at the end of

[4:19:39] the day, we bring. A final. Official plan amendment forward

[4:19:45] for council's consideration. I should add as well, Councilor Brenner.

[4:19:50] We're fortunate. Our heritage planner, actually. Has a lot of

[4:19:54] experience in agricultural matters as a farmer and sits on

[4:19:59] the duramag. Group as well, so we would most certainly.

[4:20:03] Be having Matt involved in this as well. Excellent. Thank

[4:20:06] you very much. Thank you, madam Chair. You are most

[4:20:10] welcome, Mr. Brenner. Councilor. Butt, you are next on the

[4:20:13] list. And if I could just ask. We employ some

[4:20:17] brevity in our questions, try to. Ask direct questions so

[4:20:21] we can get through the agenda this evening. Madam chair,

[4:20:24] in all due respects, I will only ask one question

[4:20:27] if that's the case. Mr. Bensley for clarifications and I

[4:20:33] know construct pickles and I, we receive. A lot of

[4:20:36] notes in terms of saying when they talk about intensification,

[4:20:41] They're under the impression that. If the city guides them,

[4:20:44] directs them, we is our plan. But correct me if

[4:20:49] I'm wrong, and maybe for our viewers point of view,

[4:20:52] we are also being dictated by the province in order

[4:20:55] to build more homes and expand. Am I correct in

[4:21:00] few words. Could you please clarify that? Yeah, I think

[4:21:03] that's been sort of a common. Theme this evening. About.

[4:21:07] The province's role, and certainly they set targets and define

[4:21:11] areas in the city. And we're an urban growth center.

[4:21:15] Certainly, as well. So there's definitely targets that we need

[4:21:19] to be mindful of, and I think the consultant had

[4:21:21] done a great job speaking to some of that stuff

[4:21:22] this evening as well. So need to be aware of

[4:21:25] that. Can things change along the way? Sure, depending on

[4:21:28] circumstances. Because the future can be unknown sometimes, but I

[4:21:31] think we're trying to work with. The parameters that the

[4:21:35] province has set down through their potential planning statement that

[4:21:38] was recently revised. Certainly when it comes to. Bit off

[4:21:42] topic, but just with the downloading responsibilities from the region

[4:21:45] planning folks to the city. We take on Envision Durham.

[4:21:50] And all the OP policies that come along with that

[4:21:52] as well. That speaks to some of this. Stuff, so

[4:21:53] I hope I've answered your question. You have. And I

[4:21:58] thank you. Thank you, madam Chair. You're welcome, councilor, but

[4:22:04] anyone else wishing to debate on this topic or ask

[4:22:06] questions. Otherwise. We will call the question. And the directive.

[4:22:13] Here is a recommendation on report PLN 1625 regarding the

[4:22:18] perked official plan. Review to be received. And that the

[4:22:22] City of Pickering Growth management strategy funnel report prepared by

[4:22:26] Watson Socialist Economists Limited in association with WSP, who we

[4:22:30] heard from this evening dated may 28, 2025, provided as

[4:22:34] attachment one be received and that the staff be directed

[4:22:37] to implement the growth projections contain therein that staff consider.

[4:22:42] The comments received from phase one, the background and research

[4:22:45] of the official plan review on key outcomes. And recommendations

[4:22:49] of the City Pickering Growth management Strategy final report in

[4:22:52] preparation of phase two. Policy drafting of the Pickering official

[4:22:57] plan process and finally that a copy of the city

[4:23:00] of Pickering Growth Management strategy final report be made available

[4:23:04] to all interested parties throughout the project website. And with

[4:23:09] that, I will call the question. All those in favor?

[4:23:12] We just get a recorded vote? Please, madam chair? Absolutely.

[4:23:15] Councilor Robinson calls her recorded vote. So, Madam Clerk, if

[4:23:19] you could please do the rule. Councilor Robinson. Councilor Brenner.

[4:23:26] Yes, Councilor Bett. Yes, Councilor Cook. Yes, Councilor Pickles. Yes,

[4:23:34] Mayor Ash. Yes, madam. Chairs carried five to one. Thank

[4:23:38] you very much. For .3 and second it. Okay. Moved

[4:23:43] by councilor Pickles. A seconded by councilor. Butt, which is

[4:23:49] the zoning bylaw amendment AO 624, draft plan condominium. We

[4:23:54] heard. Earlier from the delegation this evening regarding 1635 Palmer's.

[4:24:01] Saw Mill Road. There is a recommendation before us. Zoning

[4:24:05] bylaw amendment application submitted by 900-4807 Canada, Inc. Or stone

[4:24:12] pay to permit a condominium development containing 85 townhouse units

[4:24:16] be approved and that the draft zoning bylaw amendment as

[4:24:19] set out in appendix one to report PLM 1425 be

[4:24:22] finalized and boarded to council. Because those two have moved

[4:24:26] it. Are there any of us wishing to speak to

[4:24:30] this item? No. Councilor Butt, you are now making the

[4:24:35] decision for everyone. Okay? And that is a no, which.

[4:24:39] Is a fair statement to make since we did talk

[4:24:41] about this earlier this evening with our delegation. Before us.

[4:24:44] So I'm going to call a question on this particular

[4:24:46] piece unless anyone wants a recorded vote. Are we good?

[4:24:54] Okay. Thank you. All those in favor? We're going to

[4:24:57] vote. That item is carried. That brings. Us. To item

[4:25:02] five, which is member updates from committees. Are there any

[4:25:05] updates from other committees? Seeing and hearing them. We will

[4:25:09] move on to what I'm sure everyone is waiting for.

[4:25:12] Now item number six. Adjournment moved by councilor, but seconded

[4:25:16] by councilor. Pickles. All those in favor?

Planning and Development Committee

Agenda

Transcript