Perfect. Thank you very much. Wonderful. Good evening, everyone. This
is the planning and development committee. For June the 9th,
2025. I am your chair this evening. I am regional
counselor Linda Cook. For the beautiful award two in the
city of Pickering this evening. I'm going to call. This
meeting to order. Madam clerk, if I could ask you
to take roll call, please. Thank you. Madam chair, I
can certify the attendance of all members of council save
and except for. Councilor. Naggy and all members present are
participating electronically. Thank you for that, Madam Clerk. Just for
a viewing audience at home. Councilor Naggy is not able
to join us this evening due to some personal family
issues. If you could all keep councilor Naggy and her
family in our thoughts. In your thoughts. That would be
greatly appreciated. And we do wish her family. Some comfort
this evening. And with that, I will move on to
the second order of business, which. Is disclosures of interest
from anyone on the committee. Seeing and hearing that, we
will move on. We are at the delegation portion of
our meeting. This evening and. I will just note for
those following along at home, we have quite an exhaustive
list. This evening. There are a number of delegations, so
we will be moving through them. As efficiently as we
can, allowing our delegations their allotted time, which is either
ten minutes for group delegation or five for those who
are solo. And then our committee will have opportunity to
ask. Questions. So with that, we have a group delegation.
I do have a point of order. I just like
to ask. Of you. Okay, go ahead, Councilor Brun. It
will be my intent following the delegations. To move, a
motion to alter the agenda to move forward. I believe
item 4.4 to the front of the agenda following delegations.
Okay, noted. I would ask you to just speak up
at the appropriate time at four point. In advance of
4.1 when we complete the delegations. To make sure that
you have your mover in your seconder to alter the
agenda. So thank you for that notice and I've made
a note. Thanks, Councilor Robinson. Thank you, madam Chair. Sorry
for interrupting. All good. No worries. We're going to be
fluid this evening since we have a number. So back
to what I was saying. Item 3.1 is a group
delegation. It is. From Mike Pedigrew, Sandstone and South Stone,
who are representing the big liare group. In respect to
report PLN 1425, which is a zoning bylaw amendment to.
Draft plan condominium CP 2024 five so I would oh,
and they have a presentation. I see that's already up
in regards to Palmer's sawmill road. So whoever is going
to be the lead delegate to speak, welcome to our
meeting. Mike and I guess you can take it away.
Thank you very much. Madam chair, members of council, and
to the public and staff that are here, Mike Pedigrew.
I am partner at the big Leary group, and we're
actually representing the other two. Gentlemen, the stone brothers, who
are part of the Stone pay development group. Who are
the owners and the official applicants? For this site. So,
as you mentioned, there are two applications. There is a
zoning bylaw amendment. And a draft plan of common element
condominium. And this is for the second phase of their
development. That is just to the west of Brock. And
on what is now the new road that's going through,
which is Palmer Sawmill. So if I could get the
next slide. So the subject lands are outlined in red.
Right. Immediately to the right or to the east is
the phase one, which consists of stack townhouses. And block
townhouses on a standard condominium. And I'll get to that
when? We speak to the condominium application. And to the
south is a public pond that will service these lands,
as well as future lands to the north. In phases
three and four. So the subject lands. On the west
side of phase one is a continuation of that same
development, mirroring a private road development. Instead of with stack
townhouses. We are now seeking permission for street townhouses, which
is slightly different because of the proposed condominium. Tenure, which
is a common element, or you may have heard them
as potles or parcels. Of tide land. It's a very
similar pattern with how. Going to be facing palmers Sawmill
Road with access to garages at the rear of the
property. Very similar to phase one. Using the existing and
you can see is the private road that splits these
two phases as the main point of access and a
second access off of tillings. Next slide, please. So in
the staff report, which I'm sure all members of the
committee here have read, The application that's before you. The
zoning bylaw. Has had regard for the neighborhood development guidelines
and conforms to the envision Durham and the Pickering official
plan, so obviously no amendments are being sought. There. And
it also is consistent and conforms to the provincial plans
and policies. So where it differs is the zoning bylaw
amendment. Originally, as part of the four phase development, there
was a draft plan of subdivision and a zoning bylaw
that was put together at that time. So we are
seeking an amendment to what was a site exception zoning
bylaw. And instead of stacks and block townhouses. The main
change here is to change the tenure type, and thus
it changes. The technical form for the zoning. So what
has been brought forward today has gone through a site
plan approval process. Has actually gone to the site plan
committee. And is nearly complete from a site plan perspective.
And then, through conversations with staff, this was the appropriate
time to bring forward both the condominium and the zoning
application. In order to solidify the right provisions to match
what staff have deemed acceptable in a site plan application.
And following this approval, if that were to be granted.
We would be working with staff to finalize and wrap
up the site plan approval process. Shortly thereafter. So, next
slide, please. So the difference between. A common element condominium
and a standard condominium is that. The future purchasers will
own the property beneath their townhouse outright, and they will
be sharing common elements which. Are private roads, private sidewalks.
It's very similar to a standard condominium. Typically, standard condominiums
are when you have stacked townhouses and you actually have
no land underneath your unit. You are sharing more than
just the common elements. You are actually sharing the. And
so because the type of unit, street, town has changed.
Thus we had to go forward with. A common element
condominium, and we are proposing 85 of those three story
townhouses. In terms of the other provisions of the zoning
bylaw, almost everything remains the same. We are maintaining the
same parking rates. There's two spaces per unit. One in
a garage, one in a driveway and there is. 0.2
spaces per unit for visitors, which is matching what was
there in the previous site. Exception. Zoning. In terms of
the lot frontages, lot areas, instead of the site being
viewed as one large block. They're now viewed as individual
townhouses, and so the zoning is now then changed. To
reflect that. But the townhouses that are being proposed are
similar in their size and nature to the block. Townhouses
that. Were in phase one. One of the other big
changes. Is a response to some questions from councilors from
phase one, which is relating to the air. Conditioner units.
And so, working with staff and with the counselor, councilor
Butt, I brought this. Up. We have now put the
air conditioner units on the ground level, and they're adequately
screened with the ornamental screening. And landscaping to hide those
as well. So those are now on the ground level.
And for the units that are facing Palmer sawmill. They
are on that palmer sawmill side. And thus it was
most appropriate to screen them for the other units. They
are also still on the ground level, which allows for
those units. Any balconies on the second or third. Floors.
To not have an air conditioner unit on that balcony,
which allows them to maximize that amenity. Area. So that
was in response to what we heard, and our clients
were happy to oblige that. So that's now reflected in
the current zoning bylaw. That's before you. Next slide, please.
So this is the plan? The individual units are shown
either in pink or in yellow, and that indicates. The
individual homeowner's property and then all the other areas of
the site that are whites. Within that sort of dashed
black boundary are all the shared items. So any of
the landscaping, the visitor parking, the sidewalks. The water meter
room. All of that around the edges of the site.
Is all part of the common elements. And to the
right hand side is the existing private row. Which they
also share for access. And then you can see in
the top left, the access that goes out. To Palmer
Sawmill Road, which in the ultimate alignment with tillings. Will
be revised for that intersection. But that's where the third
access is for the site. Next slide, please. There were
also a few questions that councilors brought up at our
public meeting on March 3. One of them was from
an email. That the staff had received from the Mississaugas
of Scogog Island, First Nation. Requesting that any wood lots,
wetlands and other features that are proposed to be cleared.
Be fully compensated. We did address this at that public
meeting. And I just want to again reiterate, because it's
in the dashboard as well, is that this application is
not seeking to do anything. Within those valley lands. In
fact, that was all dealt with at the draft plan
stage and through this application. We're actually implementing the compensation
and edge management plans that were already approved at. That
time. And staff from the city reached out. To the
Mississaugas, and they agreed that they are satisfied now with
that response and they understand that that has been taken
into account with the draft plan. I've already mentioned as
well the air conditioner units. On a slide that's coming
up. I'll show you what a rendering looks like. Of
the screening and landscaping that we're proposing. But based on
those changes, staff have reviewed those and they are satisfied.
And there was also a question about the future intersection
at Brock Road and Palmer Sawmill and when that would
be upgraded. The region has responded as determined that based
on this application, which actually has slightly fewer units than
what was proposed in the original plans when there were
stack townhouses. They determined that this is not the appropriate
time for the signal upgrades at Palmer Sawmill and Brock.
Road. And so. The region's determination is that that was
not warranted at this time. Other than that, at that
public meeting, there were no public delegates that came out
to speak on behalf of residents in the area. And
so there were no additional comments there to address. And
since that application and circulation, there's been no other department
or agency comments that have any concerns with council approving
our planning committee proving this zoning bylaw application tonight. So
next. Slide, please. And Mr. Pedigrew, I just need to
let you know you are at time. If I could
ask you to wrap up. I know you wanted to
show councilor about where that screen would go. So if
you could do so, that would be terrific. And we
can handle the rest within questions from the committee. That's
it right here. So this is the screening and the
landscaping. Thank you. Chair. Cook. This is the example. And
we can bring this back up through questions. If there
are any other than that, I want. To say that
we and our clients have reviewed the staff report and
the recommendations. We agree and we support the recommendation for
approval tonight, and I'm happy to answer any questions that
you may have. And thank you. And I see councilor
Butt had his hand up first, so I will start.
A list, councilor butt. Thank you, chair cook. Questions. Mike.
Mike. On the map currently, I didn't see any green
space or park area. Now, I know there was between
the discussion between phase one and two, maybe could you
point out. On the map. Where? How in the green
space is. Certainly. Maybe if slide two could be brought
up again. If that's councilor's wish. Okay.
So the fold development. Thank you very much. So the
full development spans between four seasons on the right hand
side and tillings, and it goes up to the hydro
corridor, which. Is that area by the wood lot to
the north. And I apologize, because I can't. Point on
the screen. But at the very top of the page
and about the center there is a village green that
will be a public park that was secured as part
of the draft plan approval. And from what I understand.
That's going out to tender right now for construction. And
so hopefully that will be constructed in the near future.
But that park right there. Was the full 5% of
the required land at that time of the draft plan.
And that's going to be going forward. Within. The actual.
Phase two lands. There are pedestrian muse, which are just
pedestrian walkways with landscaping and seating on the sides that
are actually running through the center of the site, very
similar to what you see in phase one. And then
there is going to be landscape areas around where. The
visitor parking is on the caps of these private roads,
and so there'll be additional landscaping there and then all
along the south and west end of the site, adjacent
to that large valley area and wooded area. That's where
that edge management and edge enhancement will be with additional
landscaping. It's quite significantly sloped as you get towards that
value, as you can imagine. So. There will be some
retaining walls that are going to be put into that
space as well, but that will be maintained by the.
Mike, the other question I had was apparently the switch
from the back townhouses to street townhouses. Has the numbers
increase or decreased? Would that change? The number of units
overall has decreased. Because the stack townhouses, obviously, number of
units that you can have when you put one or
two on top. So it has dramatically dropped from the
original application. To this application tier now. In terms of
the original zoning bylaw, it contemplated a number of traditional
towns as it was called throughout the entire development, and
we're now just by this phase alone, far exceeding that.
Minimum requirement of traditional town, so it's greeting a much
larger and greater mix of housing. Types, which we thought
was important as well. That's great. And I'm actually happy
that. You have made some changes in order to reflect
the air condition to be out in the exteriors. And
I think with many residents in the phase one feedback
that came up to me and constraint pickles. And that's
very welcoming news. Thank you so much for your presentation,
Mike. Thank you. Thank you, Bennett. You are very welcome.
Councilor pickles. Yes. I thought I did see your hand
up. Okay, you are next. Thank you. Thank you, madam
Chair. Thanks for the presentation, Mike. At the end of
your answer to councilor Butt's concerns, you mentioned. A retaining
wall and I think a few other. Elements there. So
are those going to be common elements or. Those private
property elements. And maybe you could just go over what
the common elements are again. Certainly. So, through the chair.
The retaining walls that are going to be proposed. Along
the edge of the development towards the valley. Those will
be maintained by the condominium. And so the wall itself
and any of the landscaping that's around them will be
also maintained by the condominium. And so the difference between
common elements and these potles, these parcels of tide land,
which are basically a person's individual lot. Whatever is their
individual property, which we saw in that figure that had
the pink and the yellow. Indication of the different lots.
Outside of those, those are the common elements. So any
sidewalks, the private sidewalks going through development adjacent to the
private roads, any of the landscaping? That is on the
pedestrian muse, any of the visitor parking areas, any of
the edge management, any of the vegetation, the retaining walls,
that sort of infrastructure that's along the edge, those are.
All common elements. As well as a common water meter
room, which is located adjacent to the first block near
Palmer. Sawmill. Those are all part of these common elements.
Common elements. Which is similar to phase one. Standard condos
have common elements as well. So when you're there and
visiting the site, It will look and feel very similar.
From that perspective, it's only almost technicality on paper that
you will see a difference. And there'll be a super
mailbox there, I assume. There are. So there's actually two
different locations where we've located. So just to spread it
out so it's not in one spot. We have a
couple of locations for the mailboxes near visitor parking areas.
Okay. And just with respect to the signalization, that Palmer
Sawmill and Brock Road, it's. An item. Myself and councilor
butt have brought up many times that it's necessary there's.
Been a number of accidents at that intersection. But I
think now. With the tolls being removed east of Brock
Road, we're seeing a lot more traffic. On Rock Road.
And. Your principles and the future residents may appreciate. Having
signalization there, so it's something that I'm going to. Be.
Continuing to pursue with the region, but thank you. Excellent.
Thank you, council. Anyone else? Questions of the delegate? If
not. I thank you, Mike, for representing your delegation. And.
We will. Address your item when it hits the floor.
Item 4.3. So we are moving on to item 3.2.
Thank you. Which is another group? Delegation, this is Adam
Layton, who's associate principal for the Goldberg Group and Will
Maria, transportation planning lead for GHD. This is in reference
to 720. Granite court, which is item 4.4 on the
agenda. Report number PLN 1525. Good. Evening, gentlemen. And as
this is a group delegation, you also do have ten
minutes as well, so. You may proceed. Thank you, madam
Chair. Hopefully I'm coming through loud and clear. Perfect. Excellent.
So thank you for the introductions. As noted, we are
here tonight to discuss the application at 720. Granite court.
I do apologize. I noted a typo on the cover
slide, so I have sent the corrected version to Andy,
which hopefully can be reflected in the final agenda package.
But in any event. We are very happy to be
here tonight. To discuss a recommendation for approval by staff
for the proposed development of this property. Just actually two
years plus one day since we made this initial submission.
In June 2023. Moving to the next slide. I'll re
familiarize council with. The context of the subject site, so
it is within a local node at the northwest corner
of the intersection of granite Court and Whites Road. The
rail corridor does cross the property to the north. And
west. Creating a triangular shaped parcel on the west side
of the rail corridor or employment lands Whites Road itself
to Bailey is an artsier road and a high frequency
transit route. And then to the southwest and east. Are
additional low density residential areas. Moving to the next slide.
We can see. The site statistics comparing the initial proposal
from 2023 to the revised proposal before you tonight. Again.
We've had. A robust public consultation process. Including. Two community
meetings, as well as one public meeting, which you may
recall from November 2023. And before you tonight is a
revised proposal which has reduced the overall height of the
development from twelve stories down to ten has reduced the
overall unit count from 262 down to 252s or reduction
of ten units. A reconfiguration of the unit mix to
provide a greater proportion of larger units. And some minor
amendments to the site plan with respect to the layout
of amenity areas. And no change to the FSI, which
is still consistent with the official plan at 1.7 FSI
but are a corresponding reduction in the units per hectare
measure. At just under 213 units per hectare, and then
parking and bike parking. Are generally remain generally the same.
On the next slide you'll see a comparison of the
initial proposal. On the left side of the screen. And
the revised proposal. Again, the layout of the building, the
access. From granite court, which is separated from the intersection
by about 74 meters, remains largely consistent. There has been
some reconfiguration of amenity, spaces and whatnot in order to
reduce the height. We've elongated the development along Whites Road
and that's probably best shown. On the next slide, which
is a rendered land. Landscape plan showing the relationship of
the ground floor. In this instance, north would be to
the right. Side of the page. So if you tilt
your head, you'd get the same sort of view as
on the prior slide and this shows the anticipated public
realm treatment along Whites Road and granite court, the location
of the driveway, the proposed plantings and amenity space layout
as well as the. Relationship to the ground floor, as
noted in the staff report, which, again, I do thank
staff for. Being extremely thorough. In their description of the
proposal. What we had previously contemplated as a privately owned,
publicly accessible space, or pop space along the granite road
frontage we heard loud and clear that there were some
concerns about the appropriateness of that programming. So we removed
that and are just contemplating it more as sort of
a passive outdoor landscaped area, the orange areas that are
highlighted. On the building are residential use areas, and that
includes outdoor terraces facing the public realm. We have yellow
area, which I'll get to on the next slide, and
then the blue area is. Your loading and back of
house operations. Moving on to the next slide. Is one
other addition. We've included some non residential floor area into
the building, so we've got about 81 m² or just
under about 1000 sqft. Of non residential floor area, which
we've included appropriate permissions for in the draft zoning bylaw
that could be locally oriented. Retail, day nursery, something of
that nature. Obviously, we're just trying to establish flexibility at
this point. And then moving on to the next slide,
I think is one of the primary issues that people
raised during the consultation. So this is an aerial view
of the existing intersection. We've done significant analysis of the
traffic intersection operations. If there's questions, Mr. Maria who's the
transportation lead at GHD, who wrote the transportation impact study
with his colleagues. Can go into more detail than I,
but I'll just summarize it at a high level. One
of the main concerns, obviously, is the backing up of
traffic. At the peak hours. During the afternoon rush hour.
More than anything. For people leaving the employment area. We
actually had GHD set up some cameras to. Get continuous
monitoring and live stream feeds of the traffic operations to
be able to fully vet the situation, and what it
determined was that there might be a potential to convert.
The intersection operations. To a dual northbound left turn. So
the existing northbound left would remain, and then the through
lane, or at least what is currently a through lane
could be converted to allow through left and right turns,
and in doing so, as described in the staff report
quite succinctly, we would hopefully see a significant reduction in
the queuing length along granite court. This has been passed
by and analyzed by a region of Durham staff as
well as city staff. And they have advised that. It
can be successfully implemented through the proposed development. I'll move
on to the next slide. I'm assuming if there are
questions, we. Can ask Ms. Maria once I've through the
slide deck. This is just an updated rendered view showing.
The proposed development in situ. This is looking northwest from
the southeast corner of the intersection of Whites Road and
Granite Court. You'll see some of the built form changes
that we've implemented, including the reduced height, the location of
entrances and the new sidewalks. The long granite court in
Whites Road. The building steps as one increases in height
in order to provide. An appropriate transition. And then on
the following slides, we just have the angular plane drawings,
which are provided in the staff report as well, but
I think do serve. Sorry, I got one ahead. We
do have some alternative views not rendered, but these are
very just showing details of the proposed building. Massing, which
obviously will be further detailed through the. Site plan process
the view on the right looking from granted court the
view on the vice versa. Left from Granite court, right
from Whites Road, and then on the following slides, we
have the angular plane images showing, if you may recall,
at the twelve stories, there was a slight encroachment of
the angular plane through mechanical pentos, obviously by dropping two.
Stories. We are now significantly below the projected angular plane,
which is that red dash line. So this is the
view that would be looking up white's road or the
east angular plane and then the next slide shows the
southern angular plane. From granite court. That concludes my presentation.
I'm happy to answer any questions. And again, I do
thank staff and councilor for the opportunity to work together
on this project for the robust community consultation and for
the opportunity to speak here tonight. Thank you very much,
Mr. Layton. We will certainly take questions now from committee.
I can start a list. Mr. Pickles, you are first.
Go ahead, councilor. Thank you, madam Chair. The dual turn
lane, the dual left hand turn lane going east on
Bailey north onto Whites Road. You mentioned would alleviate some
traffic, but. In the second lane, which. Would be the
left turn through lane or right turn lane if there
was one car waiting to go through the throughling. That
would impede other cars from using that as a left
hand. Turn lane, would it not? Well, the left would
only occur on a green light, at which point. The
through lane could that car would clear? The through lane
by just going through the green light and the left
could continue. Okay. All right, so I see how that
works. Retail. You're proposing. I think you said 1000 think
you said. In. 81 m², slightly less than 1000 sqft.
You suggested it would be something like a daycare. Would
it be something like. Could it be. Something like a
convenience store. Certainly. I'm just pulling up the zoning bylaw
to see exactly what uses we've. Permitted. But what we
have contemplated, in addition to the apartment, dwellings, animal care
establishment, art gallery, and studio convenience store dry cleaning distribution
center financial institution office personal service shop restaurant veterinary clinic
so. Those sort of compatible non residential uses that could
coexist harmoniously at grade in an apartment building. Okay, that's
there. Any questions? I add. Thank you. Thanks. Thank you
very much. Councilor pickles. Councilor butt. Thank you. My question
was in terms of parking ratios. I'm not sure if
you addressed that, could you address the parking ratios do
you have in your complex? Certainly. If we could pull
up, I. Believe it was slide three. Statistics we are
consistent with. The city's comprehensive zoning bylaw. We're providing about
one. Point. A blended 1.6 basis per unit. Or about
1.35 for residential and just under zero point 26 for
visitor. In fact, there's a slight oversupply. I see. Like
Bachelor A, for example, 3.1 percentage and then one bedroom,
68%. Sorry, council, I believe you're looking at the prior
proposal. The revised proposal, which would be. To the right.
Oh, yes, that's right. That's what I was going to
say. So that's much better now. So obviously. At one
bedroom 103. So it's gone down now? Yes. We've readjusted
the unit mix so that there was a larger proportion.
Of larger units, so. We've introduced some three bedroom units.
There's almost 5% of those. And then obviously skewed more
towards the one bedroom plus den, two bedroom and two
bedroom plus dense. What about amenities? What kind of amenities
are you offering? So, at grade currently, maybe if we
go. To. What page is it? Slide. Five. We're providing
both programmed and unprogrammed spaces, so if you zoom in,
maybe. Towards. The right side of the page or on
the north side of the building. While this does need
to still go through the site plan process. We're contemplating
that there would be a variety of outdoor areas. We've
contemplated some community gardens. A dedicated kids play area, or
what we call a tot lot. Some passive seating. And
then as well, on the far west side of the
site is a large unprogrammed area, which we foresee leaving
in more of a passive landscape sawted area that could
be used for a variety of purposes. And that's. Sorry.
In addition to the interior amenity spaces, which are also
provided, so. The green areas that I see. Is that
a planted tree areas? It's a bit of both. So
perhaps. Are you looking at the north side of the
building or the west? The north side. Of the building,
north side of the building. So there is the more
active use areas. Which. Sorry. If we could go to
the. Whoever's controlling the screen, I think you need. To
go. One slide prior. Yes. So you'll see it here.
There is an area that's enclosed by a noise barrier,
which would be the more active areas, which would consist
of seating areas, community gardens, the taut lots, dog off
leash, play areas, things of that nature, and then the
rest of the site. Where it's shown in green. Would
just be left sided or unprogrammed for. More wider variety
of uses. Okay. That's all the questions I had. Thank
you. Thank you, madam Chair. You are very welcome, councilor,
but I'm not seeing any additional hands from council, so.
I thank you very much, Mr. Layton, for your delegation
and. We will get to this particular item and do
the course. Thank you, madam Chair. You're very welcome. 3.3
is Pickering resident Mr. Craig Bamford, who will be speaking
on Report Pln. 1625, which is item 4.2 on the
agenda, which is a project update and completed growth management
strategy. Welcome, Mr. Bamford, back to our chambers, virtual though
they are, and you will have five minutes for your
delegation. Thank you. Thank you. My presentation is titled five
ways to make homes more affordable. And pickering, tonight, I
would like to introduce you to the work of the.
Alliance for Livable Ontario, a multidiscipline group of interested Ontario
residents and volunteers who came together to research best practices
for creating affordable housing in Ontario. The report advisors included
recognizable names like Anne Golden, David Cromby, Greg saber. Sabera
from the building industry, Tim Gray from environmental defense and
many others. The report has also been endorsed by planners,
including former Toronto planning chief Jennifer Keysmat. Other professional planners,
including a gentleman from the region of Durham who headed
up their planning department, Victor Doyle, who has well been
on to all of us and a number. Of environmental,
agricultural and community groups. During the recent provincial election campaign.
The report was packaged up and each provincial party was
asked to endorse the report. Which was titled for that
purpose. And five ways home. And each of the leaders
of the Liberal NDP and Green parties endorsed the report.
I'd be happy to provide their letters to you. Andy.
Thank you for arranging to show the introductory video titled.
Five ways to make homeless more affordable. You probably know
someone who can't find a home they can afford. It
wasn't always like this. And while we can argue and
debate about what happened and didn't happen. Talking won't make
affordable homes happen. So a bunch of us got together
and found five. Ways that will. Number one. Gutting farmland
and nature to build McMansions in places where you need
two cars and have to install expensive infrastructure is not
the answer. We need to build in the right places,
affordable livable neighborhoods where people already live and want to
live, and we already have enough ready to build room.
Inside our towns and cities to do it. Number two,
while everyone needs something different and affordable, too. Many of
these are being built. We need to build a wide
variety of housing types, low rise. Mid rise, not for
profit, multi unit, multifamily, multibedroom. A multiplex of more affordable,
appropriate options for every stage of life. Number three. The
way most homes are built and the laws around building
them are not built for affordability. Or speed. We need
to build smarter and faster, like more wood frame and
prefab panel. Homes and updating old rules like high rises
needing parking for everyone. We can cut costs and time.
With faster and smarter rules, approvals and building methods. Number
four. For decades, our government's built and operated affordable nonmarket
housing. Then affordable housing stopped going. Up, but rents didn't.
We need to invest heavily in non market, affordable housing.
And we is our governments builders will build it coops
and other groups will run it, but. Our governments must
invest in it because almost no one else is. Number
five, we can't. Be hurrying like mad to approve and
demolish and build without stopping to think about neighborhoods. We.
Need to make housing not just affordable, but part of
livable communities. Affordable deans building in the right places, building
smarter and faster, and building more choices and more non
market homes. While livable means building neighborhoods, close convenient communities
that bring everything we need together, including each other. These
are our five ways to affordability. But there's actually one
more. We need everyone, governments, the private sector and nonprofit
housing providers, to work together to fix this and we
need you to tell your MPp that they've got five
things to do to help everyone have an affordable, livable
home. Now. Learn all that you can do at five
wayshome, Ca. At this point.
We're at a crossroads. Sell. Houses are not selling in
Seaton. We're not sure what the market is for. Housing
and intensification in the downtown core. I think we really
need to get everybody in one room. They mentioned various
types of new construction methods. What happens if you put
those. Construction methods in that some of the neighborhoods that
haven't been started in the Satan area. What would the
numbers be in the watch and report? I'm sorry to
interrupt you, but you are at your five minutes, so
I'm. Going to give you a little latitude with an
extra 30 seconds to wrap up, and then there may
be some questions from committee. I really do think that
we should not race ahead with the official plan process
as is requested. Effectively, if you look at your motion,
they're asking you to endorse. The development in northeast Pickering?
I don't think that's the answer. I don't. Think that's
the least affordable housing. I would request that you have
a 7th public information session that focuses on. The business
community and. An 8th. Public information report at which the
Watson report was published. Was discussed and questions and answers
were presented and answered by the consultants. Thank you. You're
welcome, Mr. Bamford. Questions from the committee. Thank you. Thank
you, Mr. Bamford, for coming back. Interesting video. I quite
enjoyed that, actually. Thanks for coming in tonight. We're going
to move on to our next delegation, which is also
a group delegation. It is item 3.4. The group is
Nick and Elise Zamora who are presenting on behalf of
Greenwood community association as Pickering residents. On PLN 1325, which
is also the Northeast Pickering secondary plan. Good evening. Good
evening. How are you? Oh, there we go. We got
your presentation up, and you do have ten minutes to
delegate together. You might go ahead. Thank you. And we
also are delegating on, I think it's, 4.4 as well.
We can jam it all together if you like. Yeah.
Awesome. Thank you. You bet. So, thank you. Very much
for giving us the time to speak with you again.
We are here about a year. Ago. And just wanted
to start with a statement. And somebody once said, once
upon a time, there was a hamlet called Greenwood. But
this is something we don't want to hear. And we're
hoping we're here today to talk about. Some recommendations that
we hope will make sure that we don't hear that
statement ever. So. It was about a year ago that
we came to this group and we spoke about collaborating
and engagement, and we're going to bring you an update
on how that's gone, so. Far from a perspective of
northeast pickering and from a perspective. Of Greenwood. The Greenwood
community. So first off, you can go to the next
slide, please. Growth should be balanced and for the better.
We are committed as a community and we've been active
in the Pickering official plan. At the public information. Engagement
events. And in fact, I found them extremely informative and
really appreciating meeting other residents. Of pickering and their input.
When we were here a year ago, we advocated for
growth that was sustainable, that it was affordable. For taxpayers.
That we learned from past projects, that we learned from
experts, that we take advantage of the gifts that Pickering
has a natural and cultural heritage that we sustain. A
balanced rural and urban lifestyle for current and future generations
and that we are going to support. The existing but
strained agricultural industry, hopefully, so that it is not so
strained. We also believe that the northeast Pickering lands should
stay agricultural, that that is an industry, that is worth
growing, and there can be some very creative ways of
doing that. But we also believe there is really no
credible business case, and not one that we've seen yet
to further expand. Land designation for development that would include
northeast Pickering. And finally, we presented a vision that where
Greenwood could play a role as Pickering's natural and cultural
heritage hub. And at least do you want to kind
of provide a bit of an update from the next
slide for sure. There we go. Sorry. So, despite significant
public feedback, The secondary plan for northeast Pickering is still
being pushed forward without a sound business case and without
community support. Let's be precise about what's happening. There's no
financial analysis, nothing showing. Whether Pickering can even afford this.
The entire plan is built upon a developer led vision.
Bild scenario two a, not one. Guided by urban planning's
best practices or public interest, it assumes we must urbanize
northeast, pickering, to meet pop. Population targets, but that's not
accurate. In fact, Pickering's own housing strategy says the opposite.
Let me quote directly. There is sufficient capacity within existing
designated greenfield areas and the built up area of Pickering
to meet the city's population and housing needs to 2051.
Without requiring the urbanization of northeast Pickering land that's from
the city's housing strategy and action plan 2021 to 2031
on page three. So the idea that northeast Pickering must
be developed, it isn't supported by evidence. It's. A myth,
and it's not in the data, and it's not in
our collective interests. What the plan actually does is push
35% to 60% of Pickering's growth into the greenfield zone.
That would more than double the city's size in 25
years. In a place without. Any preexisting infrastructure to support
it and the cost, our natural and cultural heritage erased.
Are groundwater, drinking water and flood mitigation put at risk,
our wildlife and ecosystems destroyed or pushed into conflict with
humans and our class one farmland bulldozed for warehouses filled
with robots. Or high. Turnover rate jobs. And once these
lands are gone, future generations can't get them back. Next
slide, please. So I threw up a couple of quotes,
and hopefully the mayor recognizes these quotes. We're looking for
true engagement. And these quotes indicate, obviously, that's everybody around
here, everybody who's on this call. In this meeting, and
I want to really emphasize some of the keywords. Building
connections, sharing knowledge. And all in the favor of contributing
to the city's success. Which is clearly a goal of
the current official plan. And I particularly like. The quote
around ratepayers associations that the residents get a chance to
collaborate with its neighbors. Discuss local opportunities and challenges for
the community. And all for the sake of let's build.
A better future. For us. The Greenwood has resurrected its
ratepayers association. Which is strong and has a healthy voice,
and that's why we're here today. The next slide, please.
Is. Providing what we think about when we think of
collaboration. I'm stealing a bit from the best practices from
the city of Hamilton, because. It had some really interesting
elements that I think might be useful in adapting the
current official plan. Process. Want to emphasize the fact that
this is a four element process. On the bottom you
have inform and then across you've got consult, involve, collaborate
in the various stages. Of public engagement. Now, this is
an overall model that was borrowed from the international association
of public participation. It's a canadian chapter. And in each
one of these, the city of Hamilton has made promises.
And on the bottom, under inform. The promises are they
will ensure that the citizens are aware and knowledgeable about
the project. That you are able to provide input. And
that you'll be aware of any decisions or recommendations that
have been made. So this is about. A shared engagement.
A sharing of information. When we look at the collaborate
on the right, I'm going to go all the way
to there and emphasize underneath the promise. The promise is
that they will ask for our advice, which we see
that and in those public engagements. That is awesome. That's
happening. Our concern is what happens with that information. In
Hamilton's promise, they incorporate. They will incorporate your advice into
the project as much as possible, and they'll provide feedback
to the citizens on how their advice was contributed to
decisions and recommendations. So traceability, that's what I want to
make sure. Because when it comes to change management. In
fact, that's what this is about. Is understanding that future
state and having a trust in the process and that
level of engagement. Is really important, and I think there's
the model and there's more details on the model, but
I think those are the key elements that we would
really encourage the city to think about adding next slide,
please. So the other is. Of course, I talk about
the trusted process. The city council here was brought into
was voted in by citizens because of your abilities, integrity
and character. What does that mean for us as citizens?
That means we're looking for. An authentic and transparent and
a reliable process and engagement. And if I zero in
on transparency, this is about sharing information openly and candidly,
that. There are not unrecognizable processes that make their way
on or off. The planning process, that there is regular
constructive feedback that is actionable. That there is an encouragement
of open dialogue, where ideas are generated by citizens, but
they're not wasted and thrown away. And on a reliability.
It's really just as plain as it says there. Walk
the talk. It's about when commitments are made and talked
about, their follow through on that expertise is used when
decisions are made. And that ultimately the future. Is all
about the citizens and where we're going, and not just
about if the developers are able to bring some money
to the table or they've got an agenda on their
own. Some sort of urgency. So if we flip to
the next slide. Excellent. So we're here tonight because Greenwood
is at the front lines of these decisions, and. Frankly,
right now we're uncertain about our future. This is our
current experience. Yes, we have had kind and productive meetings
with the mayor and the city staff, and it was
a good start. But still no action has followed. The
loss of our postal code during the pandemic hurt deeply.
And now another Greenwood community is being created right next
to us without any consent or any. Connection to our
hamlet. We even lost the hamlet designation in a recent
zoning bylaw. Quietly and without any real. Discussion the Greenwood
Community center is being demolished with no plan to replace
it, and it was the heart of our community. The
new Pickering Heritage and community center, instead of supporting Greenwood,
treats us like any other applicant. There's no special consideration
for our historic groups like karate Club or the weavers
who serve the city for over 50 years. We've heard
that the word heritage may even be removed from the
name and replaced with Dorsey and our proposal to become
Pickering's heritage hub. It's still not acknowledged. Not embraced, but
we are looking forward to picking it up. We're not
exaggerating when we say that the dismantling of a thriving
community feels to be in full swing. Next slide, please.
So, in summary, We're looking for. An authentic and collaborative
engagement process. Hoping to kind of see that commitment to
promises on both sides. Being transparent. And providing and having
an even playing field. Being reliable so that when commitments
are made that they're followed through on. And ultimately that
citizens, when they come up with their ideas that they
see them, they see them. In the plans, and if
there's an adjustment, then we understand why they've been adjusted
that best practices and business cases are going to be
used as we move forward in our planning. And that
there is accountability, which means, as I said, back to
the financials, because that's, a big concern of all citizens
that we take advantage of Pickering's gifts. We spoke about
the urban and rural balance. It's there. The farmland, the
amazing history of natural heritage. And ultimately the energy. We
don't have. The citizens. Of the city. We're not being
paid to do these things. It's because we love where
we live, and we want to see it be even
better as we move forward, so that kind of commitment,
taking advantage of things and of our energy. We're hoping.
Will be utilized, but not wasted. Next slide.
Let's end with questions not regarding dialogue, but for commitments.
What promises can you make to us tonight? Will you
commit to a collaborative, evidence based process for this growth
strategy and the official plan, will you ensure development happens
in the right places in the right way and in
the right order, with financial implications fully accounted for. Will
you support a phasing strategy for the Northeast, Pickering? One
that's guided by. Actual research and fiscal analysis as recommended
on page 137 of the growth strategy itself. Will you
support our collaborative engagement with the planning department to develop
and incorporate shared ideas? We're not here to resist change.
We are here to help shape it and to ensure
that change reflects both our values and our commitments. Long
term well being. We want the community to do well.
We want in, and let's get this right together. Thank
you. Questions. All of the above, right? I just want
to make sure that you didn't have a second presentation
since. We joined the ten minute. Yeah, absolutely. Okay. Fantastic.
Well done. I'm going to open the floor for both
of you to take questions from committee, if anyone would
like. To chime in. Mr. Pickles, please. Go ahead, councilor.
Thanks for the presentation. And. There has been. A number
of. Public opportunities. I know you've been out to a
couple of them yourselves, and I was. Out to unfairly
recently at the Greenwood Community Center. So have you been
engaged in all of those, and are you advising. You've
had at least one person from Greenwood at every single
one of the meetings, okay? So that's good. So you're
participating in the many public opportunities that's. Good. So you
spoke about the community center in Greenwood. Being torn down
and not replaced. But then in your next point, you
spoke to. The Pickering Heritage and Community Center. So that
has a lot more amenities, public amenities. Than the aged
and. Unaccessible. Greenwood Community center, so I'm not sure. Where
you're having concern that one is being removed and not
being replaced because there is a brand new community center
built. That seems to be the misconception we've heard. From
a number of people. When people from Greenwood have discussed
it seems to be like people think that building. As
I mentioned, at that point, there's been no designation for
anything to actually be available. To support our community and
to replace what the building is doing for us right
now. Right now. It has permanent space for the weaving.
Infrastructure, their looms. We have full access for all of
our community events. People regularly use it. So all of
the space and availability and anything we use it for
now is actually not being replaced. And to clarify. We've
put in a request. For time and events, and we're
waiting to hear back on those things. But. As we
say, that community center is used on a regular basis
for so many things, ad hoc. And it has a
long history. And we've spoken about the fact that we
have, we do. I can list them all if you'd
like. Talk about the scouting. The regular hockey rink that
we have the ability to host events and to cook
food. To have our own activities. It's a building that.
We're able. To raise money for the Pickering Rec association.
So those meetings have come on, but we've. Talked about
a replacement building that doesn't look exactly like that, but
something that allows us to do some of these events.
But. We've had this. We've said this over and over
again. It is not a replacement. For groups like the
weavers. We cannot. There's no commitment. Around hockey and other
activities, et cetera. We can go on. But there's no
commitment as like a discrete community for agreement about that
building itself. But. I will say there will be a
lot more. Community amenities and use in the new building.
We'll sort that out with staff as that comes along.
The weavers we spoke to, and I know the mayor
spoke to a number of times. The issue is they
need a large, dedicated space for the looms. If I
got the word, right? Which we just can't take up
in a new facility because it can be used for.
So many other people. But anyway, let's keep the dialogue
going. You're coming to? Public meetings. We are working with
staff about the use of. The. Community center. And thanks
for coming out tonight. And I'm sure. Staff will have
more to say as we get to the item itself.
So thank you very much. Thank you. Anyone else in
the committee have a question? Councilor Robinson? Thank you very
much, Madam Sheriff. That was a great presentation. Thank you,
guys. Thank you. Just quickly. How many people are coming
out and participating at these meetings that you've had? It
depends on which ones. Typically. When we have our. Greenwood
Community association meetings anywhere from 50 to 40 people. That's
a pretty good turnout. That's impressive. Very impressive. And I
have another question. Why do you believe that this plan
is reflecting vision of developers rather than the will of
the people. I believe you had said that. You see
us being a developer's vision? Because. When we looked at.
Any plan that's been submitted. It was actually through. The
developers. They proposed the plan and then had three to
pick from. Even the person on staff who. Was actually,
I think half or majority of his salary was also
paid by the developers. Well, I'm going to say that
specifically. You're going to hear that coming up, probably because
as we indicated, there's a history of the back and
forth between, and it did feel like a bit of
a shell game between the region and the city, and
there were Dec. Decisions. And the decision at one point
was to go to not include northeast Pickering and then
all of a sudden there's a new plan that's put
on the table that's put on. By planners, and it
didn't go through. A process like we're going through now
to have it evaluated by the community and. That's actually
the process at one that the regional council agreed to
the brand new plan. That showed up. And that's the
thing that kind of provides a traceability around that. And.
It certainly hasn't. I haven't seen it been included. In
this particular process where the community could weigh in and
say, does that make sense? And that's why we're really
emphasizing the fact that thinking about. Is that necessary? Right
now is really important because we haven't really even asked
citizens. All right. Thank you very much for those. I
really appreciate the two of you being here today. And
thank you for your insight. Thank you. Thanks. Thank you,
Councilor Robinson. Anyone else in committee? If not, I do
have one question myself. Just one of the. Final summary
points that you also had brought up in your presentation,
which I echo. My fellows, I thought was excellent. You
did have one line in there. About the naming convention
for PHCC changing to include. In our last councils. That,
actually. Was defeated and the question was sent back to
staff to refer that back for. Additional naming inclusions and.
We did push to have the word heritage put back
in there, so that will be coming back. Before council
at the end of the month with some additional. Name
recommendations being brought before council. I'm not sure if you
were aware of that. No. Does that mean that that
issue is gone, or does it mean it just will
come back? Again, a number of us on council flag
that as being an issue for us as well. We
have called it thcc. And a naming request was changed
because we did ask our staff to undertake. An exercise
on naming rights for our facilities, so it was well
within their purview to do that. It just wasn't sitting
right with me personally and some of the other members
of council. That we didn't have the name quite right,
so quite confident staff will come back with some options
for us that. People feel. We've heard you, and that
will be included. Great. Thanks. I have a quick question,
sort of a follow up. The fact that. We indicated
that. There is another community that's been called Greenwood. That
is serious. Is there any reaction to that? Any thoughts
on that? Any advice on that? So as chair. This
is not generally back and forth on debate with questions
from a delegate back to council. What we can do
is if anyone else on council who hasn't spoken would
like to. Ask that question back. But there's no staff
involvement at this point. So what you could also do
is submit that question directly. Back. To any of us
on council, and we can have staff direct that and
answer that question. Thank you. Thanks. Sense. Okay. Nice to
see you both. Thank you for coming back. We appreciate
your community involvement in representing Greenwood. And. We are going
to move on to our next delegate, who's also staying.
On northeast Pickering secondary plan. We are going to welcome
James Blair, Pickering resident. Good evening, Mr. Blair. As soon
as I see you pop up on my screen here.
You will also have five minutes with which to delegate.
There we go. We're getting your presentation ready. Good. We're
good to go. All right, Mr. Blair, you do have
five minutes to begin your delegation. Do you want
to let him know that we can't hear him? Yep.
There we go. Now we've got. Thank you very much,
councilor. Cook and assembled. Okay. Thank you. Yeah, I'll get
directly into it. This is in regards to northeast Petra
and I'm. Concerned about the agricultural impact assessment itself. I've
just thrown together a quick slide here. To keep the
points concise, the idea of getting it right, because I
do truly believe we will not have a second chance
here in the city of Pickering if we allow what
is going on or to take phase. In the east
side of Pickering. It's going to metastasize itself across the
whole official plan. That's my concern. So if we go
to the second slide, please. Andrew, these are some key
things that I pulled out. Of the plan, and I
was quite concerned by the two indications that I put
in red. I would wonder if there's somebody at some
point either on council there or city staff, that you
have that could provide any indication. What are the layman's
terms of these two? Points in red, I'm concerned. It
basically suggests that. If I'm reading this, as I believe
it is, that there is not much we can do
to put agriculture not at the second step, opposed to
building. And I see that as a very big concern.
And it mentions here. The second one in red. Future
developments. We need to consider the mitigating impacts on agriculture.
Not the impact of agriculture on community development. And so
I see that. And again, I would appreciate. Having a
bit more insight onto this slide, or specifically those two
points. Andy, could I ask you. To move to the
second slide as well. Or the third slide. Pardon me?
In a recent town hall meeting that you folks had
to engage the public. There is a question that it
seemingly through this report, still is not answered. In the
spring of 2023, 200 participants showed up as reaper. So
this is what we heard. We need to engage directly
with farmers in agriculture. Communities support small and large scale
operations. Integrate opportunities such as ecotourism. Education. That stuff is
great. But what is some of these engagements? I've. In
the last two and a half weeks, I've taken a
task to connect with as many scaled farmers as I
can. And. I have not got one farmer. Specifically farming
families that have been in the areas for, I would
say, two to three generations. Nobody can actually give me
a direct time and date that the city of kickering
has ever reached. Out to them to ask what can
we do to help? And as I said here, what
type of support is being rendered to the agricultural community.
So I find it concerning. That in 2023 we are
asking these questions. You'll see in one of the last
slides here. I've been kind of kicking. At this can
since 2009 2010. And nothing seems to be developing. If
in many ways it's actually getting worse, Andrew, can I
ask you to move to the next slide, please. So.
In the discussion. We are looking at. What are the
big ideas here? And again, there's a lot of talk,
and I would like to appreciate. Or mention my appreciation.
To the previous folks. They really hit the issue here.
Where is the metrics that something is actually taking place
here and the people that are putting forward ideas and
where concerns are actually being listened to. And there's some
type of substantial steps being put into practice where people
can see, okay? I see the work here. So I
would ask again, where are we with this? They're asking
here in 2023. That we need to get buy in
from active farmers. I'll ask for the next slide. Andy,
please. So. Going through. And again, here's a specific issue.
Talking about food security, maintain farmlands, the need for buffer,
distance in speaking with farmers. Which I found really interesting.
They've mentioned about the road allowances. They mentioned about the
equipment they need to move. They've mentioned about trees. Road
signage is actually being put in agricultural communities which actually
inhibit them using certain roads with their machinery because they
can't occupy the whole road. They can't move it to
the side and specifically with sprayers, combines and multi use
equipment. They're running, basically the possibility of knocking down signs,
which they're not interested in. Damaging their equipment and or
destroying public property. The last thing I would go to
say here, this whole, I think it was 670 some
page. Report or, sorry, 685 that I have noted here.
There was less than one full page dedicated. To agriculture
if we took out the two graphs, which you'll see
in the next slide. Is kind of interesting. It actually
speaks here. How? A special comment that I've had rated
the interest in specific consulting with existing communities, especially those
agriculture or in the food production area. Again, I don't
know and or who has been consultant. If we go
to the next side. Andy and Mr. Blair, you are
at your five minutes. Okay, I'll finish off with this.
One if it's possible. There is a concern. That what
is taking place here and. Who is actually listening to
who's being talked to. My main issue is. What is
actually happening in the city of Pifring and northeast pippering
that's? Going to set a template that is going to
roll to the west. That's my concern. Thank you, Ms.
Cook. You are welcome, Mr. Blair. Questions committee of the
delegate. Seeing none. I will. Thank you, Mr. Blair, for
your delegation. You're welcome. Have a good evening. You too.
Thank you for showing up. We will move on to
our next delegate, 3.7, which is Mr. Abdul Lamir Pickering.
Reset. Speaking as well. To report PLN 1625, which is
the Pickering official plan review, project update and completed growth
management study. Good evening, Abdullah. I'm just going to make
sure. You can hear us and see us. I can
hear you. Fantastic. And you have no presentation, correct. I
am the presentation. Well with that, Abdullah, welcome back to
our chambers. And you have five minutes. Thank you. My
name is Abdul Lamir. As you mentioned, I'm a resident
of ward. One pickering and the co chair of Stopspirl
Durham, a city planning advocacy organization here. Tonight representing myself
and over 2000 residents across Durham region through stop Sprol
Durham. Now, I did want to talk about. Report pLN
1625. Specifically, I was disappointed reading this report. Because I
feel that this report really singularly focuses on northeast Pickering
as the end all be all of all, future development.
And pickering, when we know that is not necessarily the
case, the population of Pickering is projected to go from
approximately 100,000 people right now to just over 250,000. People
by 2000 and. 51 so, of course, we need to
build more. We need more development to accommodate that growth.
But it must be done in a responsible and sustainable
way. Development in northeast Pickering is a bad idea. For
three main reasons. Number one, developing northeast. Pickering is a
textbook example of urban sprawl. Which is low density, car
dependent spread of housing and commercial uses into undeveloped fringe
areas beyond the urban boundary. These lands are far from
the urban center and pardon the colloquialism, these. Lands are
really in the middle of nowhere. Sprawl paves over farmland.
An ecosystem drives up traffic and greenhouse gas emissions, and
most critically. Leaves municipalities with costly roads, pipes and services
that outstrip the tax base. I fear that development into
Northeast pick ring will result in a significant unnecessary and
unfair tax burden for the people of Pickering and Durham.
Region number two. The Northeast Pickering lands are on declutters
creek. Headwaters and watershed. A watershed is an area that's
drained by a river and its tributaries. Healthy watersheds, support
biodiversity, reduced flooding, protect water quality and sustained drinking water
sources. Development on the watershed. And particularly in this case,
the headwaters of Cruthers Creek, which are underneath and adjacent
to the northeast bickering lens will result in flooding in
downstream Ajax and possibly in Pickering, according to the 2021
Toronto Region Conservation Authority Watershed study. And number three, perhaps
the most compelling reason. That development in northeast Pickering is
not a good idea is that it is wholly unnecessary.
We have enough land to meet our targets. Pickering can
meet its 50 51 growth targets without expanding into northeast
Pickering, the largely unbuilt seat and community alone still holds
room for approximately 70,000 more residents and 30,000. More jobs
while already planned. Intensification around the ghost station, Kingston Road
and South Pickering can add another 90,000 or so residents
and tens of thousands of more jobs when these capacities
are combined with the remaining greenfield parcels south of Tanton
Road and the fully service innovation corridor the city can.
Comfortably accommodate the approximate projected 150,000 additional residents and the
approximately 50,000 jobs to keep up with these projections. In
short, with higher density build out of existing land and
adherence to its own intensification. Policies. Pickering has more than
enough room, making northeast Pickering expansion a matter of choice
rather than necessity. These are all public figures from publicly
available materials, including the Durham region Growth Management study phase
two. The Alternative Land needs Scenarios Assessment summary report for
Durham region and the Perkin official plan review growth management
and urban structure. Discussion paper of November 2024. If all
goes well, God willing, I'm still going to be here
in 2051 and. In 2051, I'm still going to be
younger than most members of council are today. I bring
that up to make a very important point. That this
is not just an abstract visioning exercise for me and
people in my age group. And younger. It is a
very real situation that I and many others in my
generation will contend with and live through, and its ramifications
will affect us directly. The decisions of today. Will affect
me and my generation tomorrow. We have to live with
the very real consequences of the decisions made by all
levels of government today. Therefore, it is important to make
good, responsible, sustainable decisions, especially as it pertains to planning.
Such that they balance the needs of today without sacrificing
the needs of tomorrow. Developing northeast Pickering would not be
one such decision. And as such, I strongly urge counsel
to please consider alternatives that exist within the urban boundary,
such as. Intensification along transit corridors and fully building out
Satan. Let's think creatively and collaboratively in the context of
what is best for the people, the environment, and the
land of pickering, rather than being driven by those who
may wish to gain or profit at our expense. Chair
Cook. Members of council, thank you very much for your
time this evening and for the opportunity to address you
on this matter. Thank you, Abdullah. Questions of the delegate
from the committee. And seeing none. Thank you, Abdullah. Thank
you for being right on time. Pleasure seeing you again.
We will move on to our next delegate who is
also Pickering resident Eric Leecher also speaking on report, PLN
20 15 25 which is official plan amendment Opa. 23.
Four, which is in reference to 720 granite court. Eric,
I just want to confirm that we can. Hear you
and see you and confirm that you are not pulling
up presentation this evening. Yeah. I do not have a
presentation tonight. Okay, perfect. And we can hear you, so
I will. Commence with your five minutes. You may go
ahead. Okay. Thank you, council, for letting me have this.
Time. I just want to bring up a couple of
points about. The development of. 720 granite. The number of
parking spots. I want to start with that. The reassessment
that I've seen in the presentation also that was handed
out. In an email, I noted that the number of
spaces has gone up. So this would, for me, it
would reflect. That number of cars would go up. This
is stemming from the last council meeting which was regarding.
The traffic issues that people were complaining about. There was
many different things that people were wrapping around. As far
as the access coming off of granite, I saw the
renderings with the two lanes. Coming around the corner. I
also want to put a note that nothing was ever
addressed being a resident. On the opposite side being. On
the Oklahoma side, that if you do put a double
lane on the granite side during rush hour. That gives
almost no opportunity for anybody leaving. On the Oklahoma site
to get around the corner. And if anybody knows anything
about traffic. Around rush hour, it does get backed up
really quickly. From Bailey back to the Oklahoma. Granite area.
So the double lane going around the corner, that's advantageous
for the people. From the granite side, but the Oklahoma
side. Almost has gridlock for us. Also another point for
traffic. I've heard everything for the building. The amendments that
I hear for the building, the. Number of units, the
changes in the units. As much as they emphasize that
we brought down the number of units. It doesn't look
like. The style. Of. The units that are actually going
in there is going to bring down the number of
residents going in there. Thus factoring that it doesn't sound
like anything has changed to the number of people that
are actually going to be living into that building, even
though it's come down two. Stories. It doesn't sound like
there's going to be any less people going to be
living in that building. Another point that I also like
to make. Is the reasoning for a condo in the
actual area. Just actually taking a walk over across the
highway. I've noticed that. The retail area. Around that area,
there is a proposal going over there. For, I think,
three to five buildings, condo buildings, going over there, that's
going to take out that plaza. So I'm just trying
to understand that. You have a proposal of all those
condos going up over there, yet you want another condo?
On the other side. I do not see anything that
is helping the infrastructure. Of whites road. The overpass and
the number of exits coming off the 401. If you're
talking about rush hour. If anybody has actually seen rush
hour. In the last at least couple weeks, coming off
the Whites Road exit has been absolutely horrendous and that's
without any changes. Now, I've noticed also that the exit
for Brock Road had an issue with going north. And
thus forced a lot of people to go off at
whites, if that is any indication of the number of
people that are going to be coming off of Whites
Road before these complexes go. Up. Any resident would just
rip their hair out just thinking about. The traffic that
we're going to see. And I don't even know. If
that's like, the area is going to actually even support
that many people coming around. There. Also, I noticed that.
Another presentation. Somebody was mentioning about the 407 opening up.
Just recently. If you think Brock Road is a good
exit to go up to the 407 people are now
starting to use White's road. To also go up north
and start to go across Taunton to go up rock.
So people are going to be using both exits. To
actually facilitate themselves to get up to that. 407 now.
So I think the traffic pattern changes with that 407
change is going to be causing a lot of different
issues with that, too. And then lastly, like I say,
with infrastructure, If infrastructure has not changed or is not
going to be changing around the area. I don't. Think
that any new buildings are going to be able to
be supported by the current infrastructure. That's around here right
now. I think that is everything that I wanted to
address. And you are right on time. Perfect. Sure. I
appreciate that. Questions of the delegate from the committee. And
seeing none. Thank you very much for your delegation this
evening. Welcome. We will move forward with our next delegation,
which is a group. Delegation. We are an item. 3.9.
This is a group of landowners, Rakesh Gupta and Mohit
Gupta, with respect to northeast Pickering. Which is PLN 1325.
Good evening. Oh, there we go. We have your presentation
up because. This is a group delegation. You do have
ten minutes to present. And I can see you. Let's
just make sure we can hear you before I start.
My timer. Hello? Can you hear me? Yes. Perfect. You
may go ahead. Thank you. Good evening. Chair. Council member.
And member of the planning and development committee. Thank you
for giving me this opportunity to speak my name is
Mohit Gupta and my family owns roughly eleven acre on
the east side of Salom. Road between 7th concession and
highway. 407. My purpose here tonight is to voice support
for the plant's complete community vision and to suggest a
few practical measures that will help small, independent owners like
me take part fairly. Next slide. Thank you. So as
you can see, my part of fits where the new
roads, parks and the proposed east. West transit border will
converge. Clear. Upfront development guidelines will help keep small parts
of the mind workable and smoothly integrated. Into the overall
plan. Next slide, please. Here are some suggestions that I
believe will make the process more fair, workable for small
landowners. Like myself. I would like to suggest that we
have one independent, small landowner seat to the technical steering
committee. The decisions balance all interest. Two to circulate every
draft map, cost, table and meeting invite to all affected
owners at no charge and to release a final preferred
plan map which schedule c cost table ideally 60 days
before council adoption. Three give each owner a parcel level
overlay of the preferred plan and enable land swap options.
Before any acquisition. Four to keep an open book. Cost
disclosure. And payment only at the building permit stage versus
upon rezoning. And five to allow small parcels to develop
or partner voluntarily without for sale and provide city led
mediation or phase approval if neighborhood plan talks. Stall. In
short, I support the plan. And I'm simply asking that
a few safeguards. Be included now. So independent owners can
move forward confidently and help bring the shared vision for
a complete mixed youth. Community to life. Thank you for
your time. Thank you very much, Mr. Gupta. That was
short and sweet. And I see that we have councilor.
Pickles with the first set of questions. Deliot. Mr. Pickles.
Thanks Mohit, for your presentation. Have you met? With our
planning staff. And talked about. Your. I'll say perspective. And
comments on how you might fit into that process. Yes,
I have exchanged a few emails, and up until now.
It was quite early. The final details weren't put in
place, so we were waiting for some more progression on
the overall plans, which. We now see are happening. So,
yes, now we would like to be more involved. And
open that dialogue. Okay, so you would be amenable to
councilor, but. Arranging such a meeting to have a discussion
with our planning staff. Yeah, that would be very appreciated.
Yes, we will ensure we follow up with you. Thank
you. Thank you council. Thank you, Councilor Pickles. Anyone else
in the committee questions? Okay, seeing none. Thank you very
much. Mr. Gupta. Interesting perspective. I'm sure there's a lot
of people out there who hadn't considered. Small landowners like
yourself, so I thank you for bringing that forward. Into
the mix and we will say good evening. Thank you.
You're very welcome. Next on three point ten. Is Helen
Brenner returning? Helen Brenner, who's been with us multiple times.
Nice to see you again, Helen. You are also speaking
on Pickering's official plan review, project update and completed growth
management strategy. And I do believe you are not pulling.
Up a presentation, so. We will just make sure that
we can hear you. Andy, do we have sound for
Helen? Helen, you're still on mute. Perhaps we could reach
out to her, Andy, to make sure that. Ellen knows
that it's her delegation time. Sure thing. I'll reach out
to her. In the background. We'll just give it a
minute, folks, just to see if we can raise Helen.
If. Not. What we can do is move on. To
our next delegation and then come back to Helen.
Right. Then, in the interest of time. While Andy attempts
to reach. Helen Brenner is our delegation. We will circle
back to her and I will see if Mr. James
Grundy, who's? Our next delegation is also available on the
line. See if. We can raise one of the other
individuals. Mr. Grundy, are you with us? Okay, perfect. I
can see you. Let's just make sure we can take
you off mute. And I will make note to circle
back to Helen once Andy indicates whether he can raise
her. Thank you for coming in tonight, Mr. Grundy. We
do have you speaking to Northwest plan. Secondary update as
well. You are on mute. So let's just make sure.
You can get yourself off mute. Or
I can assist with that. See if I can unmute
you, sir. Hi. Kent, you are going to have to
unmute yourself. We
seem to have lost Mr. Grundy. I can see him
on the video, but I can't hear him. No. I'm
not having a lot of luck here. That last two
delegates. James, are you able to hear us? You are.
Are you able to take yourself off mute so that
we can do your delegation? It's a little microphone. It's
probably got a little flash through it. It's. Probably in
the upper top right of your screen. There you go.
Thought we had you for a second there. How's that?
Yes. There you go. Okay. Perfect. Wonderful. Okay. This is
fantastic. We've got both Helen, who will be next, and
Mr. Grundy, now that we've confirmed. You. We will move
forward with your delegation. You do have five minutes to
begin. Thank you very much. Good evening. My name is
Jim Grundy. I'm a longtime resident of Greenwood and. A
member of the Greenwood Community Association. I'm here to discuss
the financial implications to the taxpayers of the city of
Pickering in the event that lands a northeast pickering where
to be developed. My understanding is that the minimum number
of new residents to live in this development would be
approximately 45,000. And with no maximum number at this point
in time. Based on a review of the verain website,
the number of new residents would be in excess. Of
100,000. So basically, they double the size of the current
population of the city of Pickering. As a bit of
background, I think we should take a look at Pickering's
current financial situation as we look at moving forward with
northeast Pickering or not. I went back to the city's
2025 budget presentation made by Stan Carloski, the director of
finance and treasure. He stated that the city's capital forecast
for 26 to 34 is not financially sustainable as it
relies on an excessive amount of debt to fund these
projects. This high level of debt will have an impact
on the city's debt capacity. As measured by the annual
repayment limit plan. Capital expenditures for the 26 to 34
period estimated at one point. 14 billion, keeping in mind
that the budgeted number does not include any capital costs
for the proposed development of the northeast Pickering lands. The
most recent audited financial statements that are publicly available December
23 indicate long term debt for the city to be
approximately 39 million, and with that growing in 2026 to
300 and 2300. And 12 million. 727% increase from 2024
to 2026, along with a 374% increase in debt servicing
driven primarily by the proposed seat and recreation complex and
library. The Director of finance indicated in his 2025 budget
presentation that capital projects will have to be deferred, revised,
reduced in size to meet the financial budget. The next
term of council, Pickering will probably have one of the
highest debt per capita among all. Municipalities in Ontario. As
we all know, the capital project that is driving the
significant increase in 26 is the. Seat and rec complex
and library. At an estimated cost of 242,000,000. 69% to
be funded with DC funding and the balance funded by
the city. Given the comments from the director of finance
and treasurer noted above. It was not no surprise when
a special meeting took place on April 22, where staff
were requesting a pause on this project. Until later this
year. Given the economic turmoil caused by tariffs from the
us administration along with federal and Ontario elections. For whatever
reason. It was good to see this project. Pause not
so good for the seat and residents, but certainly good
for the city of Pickering, taxpayers as a group. Given
the 15% to 20% estimated. Development completion of Seaton to
date. The development charges collected to date are not there
to fund this project and funding the project with debt
is not sustainable. Having watched the video of the special
Council meeting of April 2225 again, I did learn that
the Chestnut Hill rec center needs to be replaced within
the next five years. And this might have been one
of the motivating factors to move forward with Seed and
rec project. Timing and services related to the Northeast Pickering
land development. I felt it was important to provide this
financial background about the city of Pickering's current financial situation
when looking at taking on more significant development beyond Seaton.
Given that the Seaton project has provided all of us
with some tough learning when it comes to the pace
or lack. Thereof of build out. So now let's turn
our minds to when the proposed Northeast Pickering Land development
project might commence. Mayor Ash indicated at a meeting with
the Greenwood Community association in March 25 that the shovels
could be in the ground within six years, so that
would require both water and sewer services being brought to
unservice farmland. In the not too distant future who will
pay the cost per providing these services? Also, it is
my understanding that Durham region's current water treatment facilities will
not handle this. Population increase and will require further investment
to increase capacity, something that is not in their plans
for the next ten years. Keep close eye on the
Durham region portion of your property tax bill. Moving forward.
The cost of these services will be paid by all
the taxpayers of Durham region. As for the infrastructure costs
related to the northeast, Pickering lands being fire, parks, library,
bylaw, transportation, community centers, et cetera, et cetera that would
normally be covered by development. Charges. I would expect that
there will be a timing issue as well as to
when the full belt. Full build out of the NEP
lands occurs and the cost for the infrastructure will need
to be incurred. So who will fund the timing issue
over the decades of development? Major Ash suggested at our
March 25 meeting that the developers will need to fund
all the infrastructure related to the development of the northeast
Pickering lands through development charge credits. Well, that would be
welcome news to the city of Pickering. Cox pairs. I
expect that the developers may not be willing to take
on all or a portion of this financial burden. Unless
there's a pot of funding from either the federal or
provincial governments to fund urban sprawl infrastructure that I'm not
aware of at this point in time, I would offer
the opinion that the city of Pickering is not in
a position either now or in the future to fund
the required infrastructure for the northeast Pickering lands without putting
an undue stra. Strain on both the city of echoring
taxpayers and the Durham region taxpayers for water and sewer
services. So where do we go from here? Prior to
spending any more money on external consultants, I think it
is time to undertake a full detailed financial analysis business
case of the development of the Northeast Pickering lands that
would involve the developers the adjacent landowners, communities such as
Greenwood who are on the front line in the city
planning staff if we. Are not able to make this
proposed development mark work from a financial perspective for all
involved, then it's time to move on from this proposal.
As you may have heard from some of the other
delegations this evening. Given the significant cost of taking raw
farmland with no services and trying to turn it into
a city within the city. I think we should take
a look at development within the city of Pickering where
the services and some infrastructure already exist. And finally, there
was mentioned in the report of a phasing strategy. Which
I am fully in support of. And when this ever
moves forward, thank you very much. You're very welcome, Mr.
Grundy. I am remiss. I should have noted that you
had ten minutes on your delegation because. You had. Two
submitted. So that notwithstanding, you do have an additional four
minutes remaining of time unless you have concluded both your
presentations. On. We're good. Okay, fantastic. And I will turn
it back to committee to ask questions of the delegate.
And that is councilor pickles. Hi, James. We've communicated a
number of times, so thank you for participating this evening.
You made a lot of good points. I just wanted
to revisit a couple of things. I don't think you
meant to say that. Our chestnut Hill Recreation center needs
to be replaced. I think what you might be referring
to is that the swimming pools themselves have to be
refurbished. Therefore, we want to have the new pools and
the Satan Recreation center in place before we have to
take the other ones out to refurbish them. Are you
aware of that? That isn't what I heard. In the
video I watched today. But you could be right, okay.
And you referred to. Who was going to build the
infrastructure. In northeast Pickering. And you didn't think it would
be the developers, and I'll tell you, the developers would
probably not want to. But you're aware, in the case
of Seaton that that's, in fact, what the developers are
doing. They're building much of the road and other infrastructure.
There on behalf of the region of the city, and
they get credits to development charges for that. But in
fact they are building it. I didn't know if you
were aware of that. Yeah, I was actually aware that
they were doing the roads. I watched the development charge
study presentation. Today and the consultant. And I understood that
because there's a different development charge, a lower one for
season than the rest of pickering, correct? And I just
wanted to go back to. You were supportive of phasing.
Can you tell? Us quickly. Why you would support phasing
what you like about it. Well, I think the reality
is, my understanding of it is you're not trying to
do it all at once. You bite it off in
chunks. And you do one chunk, see how it did,
see what you learned from it, and then you. Move
on, potentially. Or not, to the next one. Okay. Thanks
again, James. Any other comments from the committee to ask
for the delegate? Okay, thank you. Thank you, James, for
coming in. Appreciate your comments. Thank you. You're very welcome.
Helen, we're going to go back to you. Let me
make sure that. We've got. You, Ms. Brenner. No relation
to Councilor Brenner. As we like to say when Helen
appears before us. Andy, were you able to reach Helen
to confirm her delegation? Okay. She's coming in again. Coming
in again. There we go. Hi, Helen. Hello? There you
go. We can hear you now. Okay. I seem to
be having technical problems. I'm sorry. Good evening. Thank you.
Chair Cook, you can go ahead. We can hear you
and see you and. You do have five minutes to
speak on your delegation, which is also on Pickering's official.
Plan review, you can go ahead. Great. Well, thank you
very much and good evening, everybody. I'm Helen Brenner. I'm
resident of Pickering and co lead of Stop Sprawl. Durham,
which Abdullah spoke to. Earlier, and I'm very pleased to
be here to speak this evening. I am here to
raise serious concerns about how the northeast Pickering lands were
added to the urban boundary, a decision not rooted in
transparent planning, public consultation, or environmental stewardship. Let's start with
the facts in 2018. The region launched in Vision Durham,
a comprehensive review of the regional official plan to guide
growth to 2051. Staff developed five land needs assessment scenarios,
non included northeast Pickley. Yet long before that planning work
concluded efforts were to develop these lands were already underway.
In June 2021, two years before the region finalized its
new official plan, Pickering Council directed staff to begin a
secondary plan for a proposed community in northeast Pickering aimed
at supporting. A future official plan amendment. So development planning
was moving forward for lands not included in any official
growth scenario at that time. And here's how we got
there. Way back in 2014, Dorsey development began working closely
with Pickering and Durham region to promote a 4000 acre
community called Brain. In June 2020, Dorsey Development submitted a
request for an MzTO the city of Pickering supported it.
Durham region opposed it. Citing planning concerns. Ajax also raised
objections. In his July 2020 letter to pick ring, Mayor
Collier warned of, quote, justified and real concerns regarding downstream
flooding impacts associated with urbanization of the headwaters of Crothers
creek, unquote. In late 2022, Mayor Ash sent another letter
to the province. Requesting an MZTO for Northeast pick ring
that did not succeed. Then came the turning point in
the regional process. In May 2022, Durham's planning commissioner recommended
scenario four, which was identified through the envision Durham process,
emphasizing compact, walkable, transit friendly communities. It met growth targets
and didn't require expansion into northeast pick ring. Instead, Durham
Council adopted build scenario two A, which included 6178 acres
of new community land. Far more than the 2348 acres
recommended by the staff through the envision durham process for
scenario four. This wasn't just a numbers issue. Scenario four
exceeded density targets, achieving. 65 people in jobs per hectare
as opposed to. The scenario. Two a at 57 jobs
and people per hectare. A memo from then commissioner Brian
Bridgeman. Warned that scenario two, a failed to follow Envision
Durham's evaluation framework. Lack transparency, promoted low density sprawl and
higher emissions. And undermined farm and climate goals. Planning staff,
advisory committees and the public, including stops for all Durham
all raised concerns. Yet on May 25, 2022. Regional council
voted 16 to 1111 in favor of scenario two a
with councilor pickles and ash voting a res. Resounding yes.
Why? Because scenario two a was. The only path to
approve the 4000 acres needed for the Pickering, the northeast
Pickering development. Without it those lands would not meet the
growth plans planning tests. This was not evidence based planning.
It appears. To have proprietained developer interest. Interests over sound,
transparent planning. Today, northeast Pickering secondary plan continues. Des. Despite
lacking a foundation in any transparent, publicly vetted process, That
erodes public trust and raises serious concerns about integrity and
land use decisions. So I leave you with the following
what is the cost of development in northeast Pickering to
taxpayers? To infrastructure and to our climate future. We asked
for this information back in 2022. When we delegate it
then, it has never been provided. I urge council to
demand this data now. Responsible planning demands transparency and accountability
to the taxpayers. The people of Pickering deserve better. We
ask that council show integrity, courage and commitment to real
planning, not politics. Thank you very much. I appreciate your
time. Thank you very much. Ms. Helen. Any questions of
the delegate from members of committee this evening. Thank you
very much. Thank you, Helen, for coming forward with your
comments. We do appreciate it. That concludes our list of
delegates. And before we move on, There has been a
request to take. A short five minute bio break since
we've been at this now almost 2 hours. So we
are going to call a five minute break. Mover secondary
to agree. I'm going to go with Maurice and Lisa.
Who are councilor Robinson and councilor Brenner? As moving. That.
And all in favor? Ten minutes, madam chair. I just
want, for clarification. Do they say five minutes or ten
minutes? Ten minutes, sir. Ten minutes. Ten minutes. So we
are. Going to come back at the top of the
hour. We will resume just before 09:00 so for those.
Taking. Got their swatch. Watch out. 858. We will resume.
We'll see you then.
All right. Welcome back. We're coming up to 09:00. And
when we started this journey this evening. There was a
request. Duly moved and seconded from councilor Brenner with support
from councilor Robinson, to. Alter our agenda this evening to
move up item 4.4, to move it up to the
top of the order, which will require a vote in
support of two thirds of majority, which in this case,
since there's only. Six of us tonight will require a
vote of four. So duly moved and seconded on a
request to alter the agenda to bring it forward. If
I could call the question. All those in favor. And
we have 412345, Counselor Butt. Thank you for that. All
right. Councilor Brennan, I do believe that you provided the
clerk with a motion. Andy, if I could. Ask you
to perhaps put that up on screen. For all of
us to follow along. And Councilor Brenner, if you would
like to read that out, please. And note that it
is seconded by Councilor Robinson. Thank you. I'm asking that
the official plan amendment OPA 230, zero, four p and
zoning bylaw Amendment application. 1023. Submitted by 133-4281 Ontario Limited
for the lands located at 720 Granite Court be refused,
and that should the official plan amendment OPA 23004 POPA
23. Four p and zoning bylaw amendment application A 1023.
ZBA a 1023 submitted by 133-4281 Ontario Limited for the
lands located at 720. Granite court be appealed to the
Ontario Municipal Ontario Land Tribunal that the council authorized city
staff its outside legal council and outside experts in the
fields of planning, transportation, environment, urban design and other specialties
as may be requested, to present and defend council's position
on Opa. 230 zero four P and a 1023 at
the Olt. If I might speak to it, madam chair.
You're muted. You're muted. Thank you. Just for those at
home. Noted, of course. Councilor Brenner, you can speak. To
this, but. We're only seeing the first two items in
the motion. It's not clear. We can't see the latter
part, but. You can speak to that now, Councilor brother.
Thank you very much, madam Chair. I don't want to
prolong. This. I'd like to put this dog out of
its misery. If I can use a paraphrase. Basically. The
situation as it sits. We have received a letter from,
and I want to start with that. First, we've received
a letter from Limbrook Industries on Granite court. And along
with all the concerns that we have heard from residents
throughout this process. And I want to start first with
businesses because Granite court is critical in terms of employment
base, in terms of trying to work to achieve. A
balanced approach to our non residential taxes, so. When you
get a group of companies that have been the backbone
for many, many years, and this municipality saying we don't
agree. It would behoove us not to hear and listen
to what they're saying. They are concerned that will have
significant impact regarding the transportation of goods. From the various
industries along granite cord. Yeah, I know that. There's been
a traffic study. I'm not an expert, but I am
relying on the expertise and the knowledge of our businesses.
These are multimillion dollar businesses that know what they're doing.
They would not normally object. To anything that pertains to
planning and residential if they did not believe it would
be detrimental. And I have to concur with them. It
will be detrimental. I do not want to see us
lose the confidence of the business communities. Granite court with
one of our first industrial core areas. That was trident
by the city of pickering. When it was built. I
get it. I understand what the land use is. And
what it says currently. But I also know that in
these circumstances, That it would behoove us not. To support
business. I remind all members of committee that. While. The
applicant may be citing the provincial policy statement as it
relates to housing. There are a couple of factors that
don't quite fit into that one is first and foremost.
Jobs, jobs, jobs. And that's what industry does in our
city, and that's what business does in our city. Secondly,
this is not the Kingston Road corridor. I know that
we've had many, many debates. And we'll continue to have
healthy debates regarding intensification along Kingston Road and in particular
the city center. That's where development needs to happen when
we talk about intensification. This really does not fit into
the community. Earlier tonight, we had a presentation, not about
this, from Craig Bamford, and there was that short little
video. We would be creating a community that would be
cut off. Yes, it would be able to cross. The
street and walk into another community. But this would be
isolated. This would be. A residential complex. In the middle
of an industrial area. That is not good planning. And
then finally. There was no affordability. I heard nothing throughout.
This process that would suggest to me that this was.
Going to help alleviate our rental crises, help alleviate the
lack of affordable housing in terms of the middle areas.
I heard nothing. So for all of those reasons, I'm
opposed. And I want to thank my seconder. For supporting
this and also the councilors that have also been getting
the same communications that I have been getting from the
community. And ask for your support to defeat this tonight.
And, madam chair, I'll ask for a recorded vote. Recorded
vote noted. Thank you, Councilor Brenner. Other members of committee
wishing to speak to this. Councilor pickles. Thank you, madam
Chair. I have to say, I'm a bit on the
fence on this one. Mr. Kyle. I keep saying. I
keep thinking of Dr. Kyle at the region. Sorry. Mr.
Bentley. If the staff report. Supports this residential development on
this piece of land, correct? That's correct. So. If it
isn't? Residential. Or maybe the question is what form of
residential. Or other use. Could staff conceive. Would be appropriate
for the site audit. Be commercial, because I know we've
had a proposal. For commercial data that wasn't received by
the neighborhood. Or could it be an industrial use? If
council refuses this this evening, what would you suggest goes
there? I think you're asking us to speculate, councilor, to
some degree, but we can. Give some context. I believe
there was a previous nonresidential application and maybe Neilish can
speak to that. That wasn't that long ago. Thank you,
Mr. Bentley. Councilor Pickles. If councilor chooses to deny these
applications, the current zoning permits for commercial plaza on the
site. So Foodstore retail stores that would be the default.
Sort of current uses. The applicant could come back. And
look to do a rezoning application for a residential residential
development in accordance with our official plan policies. That may
be a townhouse type development or a staff type of
development with a reduced overall density. So that would be
another option that they could come back or look to
do alternative sort. Of land uses, like office buildings or
something along that line. If I recall, wasn't the previous
application for a major food store? Or retail. There was.
A concern to the neighborhood. And I think even in
this report, it cited that vehicle movements, traffic. Would be
eight times greater than. What this proposed residential would be,
so it wasn't well received by the neighborhood either. Am
I correct? That is correct. There were multiple iterations. There
was originally a residential proposal for high density that was
turned down subsequently. Later, there was. To do a commercial,
and then we received the site plan application to do
the commercial component as well. That plan was sort of
abandoned eventually. So now the April has come back to
relook. At it for a residential development. You're correct. From
a transportation and traffic perspective. Commercial development would generate. Significantly
more traffic than a residential development, and typically the pattern
of traffic flows are different. Compared to a residential and
a commercial development as well. What if it were converted
to more of. A commercial industrial use like. The industrial
plaza to the west. Another Landbrook or something like that.
When you introduce commercial and residential or industrial residential within
the same land use that there may be land use
compatibility issues. From that context perspective, There could be an
opportunity to do mixed use development, some residential and some
commercial on that property. In accordance with their official plan
policies. But all of them, all of those type of
developments do generate some form of traffic and a level
of traffic. It is a developable parcel of land. At
the end of the day. Okay. Thank you for that.
I'll probably support Councilor Brenner in this, but I'm very
close. To being on the fence, and I'll probably have
some. Further discussions between now. And the council meeting, but
I'll wait to hear from other members of the committee
before. I make my final decision this evening. Thank you.
Thank you, Councilor Pickles. Anyone else on committee? Councilor robinson.
Yes. Thank you, madam Chair. I think this is a
great proposal. To finally put this to rest. I mean,
the people have been speaking about this for the last
couple of years. How much they do not want to
have this here. I'm going to come with a different,
a little bit of a different approach than councillor Brenner
did. More of safety. As a resident who lives right
here in the immediate area, someone who drives this intersection
every single day and sees firsthand what's happening on the
ground. I don't need a consultant's traffic model because I
live the reality, and this proposal is a disaster waiting
to happen. In my opinion, as it goes through, you
will be putting lives at risk. The traffic study provided,
I think, is flawed. It's out of touch and it's
frankly insulting to anyone who drives these streets. Here, in
this neighborhood, they say traffic congestion is acceptable. But of
course they do, because they're the ones that are profiting
from the project. And I really don't want to sugarcoat
this because I just think that. Is a lot of
Bs. The truth is, cars are already backed up. Sometimes
they're backed up all the way to the storage facility.
I have, like 40 cars in front of me. Sometimes
just when I'm going to the school. The left turns
require multiple green light sometimes to get through the intersection.
And even though they want to put in a double
left lane, it's going to cause a lot of accidents
on that corner from people making right turns with the
advance going from the opposite direction. Emergency vehicles would be
trapped because there is so much congestion. And residents. Your
constituents. They're stuck in gridlock with no solution in sight.
And what really happens? In this community is when there's
a minor accident on the 401. It doesn't. Even have
to be a major one. It could just be a
minor one. Kingston Road gets gridlocked. Bran at Twainville, Rose
bank, white throat all the way over Rouge mount. Get
all lucked up and residents. Can't even get out of
their driveways. I've sat there for ten minutes trying to
get out of my driveway and there's. Been other times
where I've just gone to the catholic school and it's.
Taken me almost 50 minutes to get home, which normally
takes less than 60 seconds. Well, two minutes. Really? It's
because West Shore and South Rosebank, they become parking lots.
Now you want a 252 units and hundreds of more
cars right on the choke point. I think it's reckless.
And I think it's dangerous. And from there, it even
gets worse because there's only two ways in and out
of Seth Rose bank. Two. Ways. That's it. So we
also know at the other entrance, At Kingston Road and
Rouge Mount. They want to put up a couple of
condo towers there as well. So you're basically boxing people
in. If we go ahead with this, you're cutting off
escape routes, and in the event of a fire, a
crash, or even a nuclear emergency, people will die because
you will not be able to get out. And that's
not an exaggeration. That is a reality when roads are
bl. Blocked and time is running out in those situations.
So this isn't about traffic flow, this is about public
safety. And it being a failure in the making. West
Shore doesn't want this south rose bank. Residents. They clearly
don't want this. Knowing in the community has asked for
this. So. Why do we even have zoning bylaws if
developers can just walt in, ask for 165% density increase
and get a green light. What is the point of
even having these bylaws? Zoning bylaws are supposed to protect
us. They're meant to reflect our community's. Vision, our infrastructure
limits and our. Emergency preparedness. If we keep bending them,
then they're going to mean nothing. This proposal isn't a
gentle intensification, as they call it. It's irresponsible. It's overdevelopment
in a choke point corridor during the time when we
need smart growth, not developer windfalls, we should be building
communities and not congesting them. And I would really hope
that we can get all of council's support on this
and. For what you were speaking to before about other
uses in the area, I mean, sure, a great little
townhouse complex would be great in that area. Or, yes,
maybe even a grocery store if we could figure that
dynamic out because. There are no grocery stores in this
area. Seth, of the 401. But those are just my
suggestions. But thank you very much, madam Chair, for your
time. I appreciate it. And thank you very much, Councilor
Brenner, for bringing this forward. Thank you, councilor. Robinson. Really
great and valid points there, councilor, but I did see
you with your hand. Up as well. Yes, ma'am. Thank
you. Just. My few cents on this one here. I
believe the award counselors are not in favor of. This
application. And if we can recall this, I think at
the time of our council chambers, When many residents. With
the same application came in, and there were many, many
delegates who spoke against this application here. So I think
one of the delegates, when I spoke on it, there
hasn't been much changes other than maybe, perhaps slight adjustment
to the building and structure itself. And I quite agree
with councilor Brenda when he speaks about our businesses, I
think. They've been here, and I think we want to
be loyal to them, and we want to make sure
that we honor them, because I think many businesses are
out there and have been there for quite some time,
so I am going to support Constant Brennan's motion here
tonight. Thank you, madam chair. Thank you, councilor, but. I
just have one point as well that I think the
majority of us have already touched on. And councilor Robinson
brought forward is the density. Fundamentally, I have always had
an issue. When we see requests to make significant. Alterations
to density and in this particular. Recommendation if you read
the initial. Number one. The request is to increase the
maximum net residential density from 80 to 213 units per
hectare. That is more than. Double. I mean, that is
a significant increase, from 80 to 213. That's not gentle.
That is high intensification in an area, as my colleagues
have pointed out. Is really not optimal to handle. A
significant density increase like this. And I pointed this out
before and made comments to our planning department that once
we open this door. An increased density of this nature
for one particular development. Where does it begin or where
does it end rather, because it changes the ceiling of
what is the art of the possible when we're. Talking
about density, so I have a fundamental issue with that.
I won't belabor. The point. I think we all know
where we are on this, and Councilor Brenner. Has requested.
A recorded vote. So, madam. Oh, I'm sorry. Councilor pickles.
Yes, sir. At the beginning, one councilor Brunner began speaking.
You had made comment that you didn't see the entire
motion on the screen. I've got it. Okay, I see
it. So there is items one too. There isn't any
others, and I'm. Not missing anything. You're not missing anything?
No. I apologize. It's the view that I have as
chair of the meeting. It's just a slight clarity I
wanted. To make sure I wasn't missing anything. Thank you.
I appreciate that. Thank you for taking care of me.
Madam Clerk, if I could ask you to take the
recorded vote role, please. Councilor brenner. On refusal. Yes. Councilor
butt. Same on refusal. Yes, councilor Cook. Yes. On this
proposed motion, which is a refusal. Yes. Councilor pickles. Yes.
Councilor Robinson. On refusal. Yes, Mayor hash? Yes. Madam Chair.
That's carried unanimously. Thank you all for your participation. We
are going to go back to the regular order of
things. We do have three additional items this evening. That
are on our agenda. So we are going to go
back to what would now be item 4.1, which. Is.
Our recommendation from our directors. City development and CBO report
PLM 1325 and with that. We do have a delegation.
From paul lowe's, who is the principal for sgl planning
and design, inc. In reference to pln 1325. And paul.
You are free to begin your delegation. I see we've
got. Your proposal up. Let's just make sure we can
hear from you. Yes. Can you hear me? Madam chair.
We can. Thank you very much, sir. You can go
ahead. Fantastic. Thank you. Good evening, madam chair, members of
planning committee. My name is Paul Lowe's. And I'm a
principal of SEO planning and design, and we've been retained
by the city of Pickering as a project managers for
the Northeast Pickering secondary plan study. So we've been working
closely. With city staff over the last couple of years
on moving. This secondary plan forward. So next slide, please.
Thank you. So just so everybody's aware, and I'm sure.
Certainly, sure you are. Because we've been at this for
a while. The project area, of course, is in northeast.
Pickering. As shown on the map in the brown area.
It comprises approximately 16 land. And these lands, as you've
heard earlier tonight from other delegates, were included in envision.
Durham the Durham Region official plan as a settlement area
boundary expansion with the intent to accommodate growth to 2051.
So what we're doing is the next step. Now, that's
included. In the urban area as a settlement expansion. We're
looking at trying to create what the land uses will
be the secondary plan. The more detailed lanyards for this
new community. Next slide, please. So what is the outcome
of the project? Well, is to develop detailed land uses
and a framework. For how these lands will develop. It
will create. A new complete community comprising both of residential
community lands, those supporting lands of commercial parks, community facilities
as well as employment opportunities. And. It's been developed through
detailed work of environmental servicing and transportation work, including a
subwashed study that's still ongoing. More fulsome servicing and transportation
work. Will be undertaken for the preferred plan that will
be presented to you tonight. Next slide, please. So where
we're at is in phase two. Phase one? Was development
of vision and principles and we had a pic. Public
information center in phase one, then phase two, we developed
a whole series of background studies and we came up
with three land use options and evaluation criteria, which I'm
going to briefly. Present to you tonight. And we had
another public information center last year on that, and now
we've been evaluating those options and come up with a
preferred land use option, which. We're going to have a
third pic later this month. The next phase. Phase three
will be developing the secondary plan policies and the detailed
land use schedule. Having. A public statutory public meeting at
that time, and then finally having council adopt the secondary
plan in phase four. Next slide, please. So, as I
said, we've had two public information centers so far, one
in May 2023. One in March 2024. We presented those
alternatives. So far we've had responses from over 200 people.
What we've heard so far was items such as prior
toys of protection, not your heritage. Ensure balanced mix of
employment and residential. Promote a walkable downtown, which means creating
a walkable downtown. And sure, Greenwood community, which we have
heard about tonight, is well connected. We've also heard about
trying to create a transition in housing form. Forms and
density between the new urban area and the existing Greenwood
community. Promote east west connections to address traffic engagement, indigenous
communities, and promote commercial employment uses along 407. Next slide,
please. More specifically on the three concepts, things that we
heard. On each of the concepts. I won't go through
each. Matter. But what we heard was support and option
one for Centralized regional center and walkability. Support for more
concentrated amenities. Option two. We heard support for walkability along
the medium density corridors, which you'll see. We also heard
support for integration of employment areas adjacent to Highway 407
interchanges and concept three we heard about. Support for straddling
the employment along Highway 407. Also preference for smaller parks
for walkable communities. So we've heard a lot of input.
That we've taken into account in our review and evaluation
of the options. Next slide, please. Before I get into
the options, I just want to recap. Some of the
key elements we've presented before. One is the vision, and
the vision hasn't changed since the phase one, which is
the area is to be a holistically planned the complete
community focusing on well being, sustainability of the natural environment.
Accomplished through innovative approaches to community center design, really alternative
approaches to community design stewardship. And it's to be a
multi, multi generational community, economic, diverse community, vibrant public spaces
and walkable neighborhoods. And this is really important because it
is separate from the rest of pick, ring and it
really needs to. Stand on its own. As a unique,
standalone, complete community. Next slide, please. And as part of
that phase one, we developed a series of principles. As
you see here, multigenerational, vibrant public spaces connected, walkable land
stewardship, economic diversity. Those principles have guided us through the
development of the options and the evaluation. Next slide, please.
So we've developed three land use concepts last year, which
we presented to the public at our last pic, and
these were based on three different themes generally. One was
a more of environmental focused, although. All options contain the
same amount of protected natural features. Second was the transit
focused and the third was a neighborhood focus. So I
just want to quickly walk you through those options, and
then quickly. Walk you through our preferred option. So, next
slide, please. What you find similar in all options. Is
that based on Envision Durham? We had to provide for
basically a minimum of 45,000 persons and 4300 jobs in
the community areas. Meeting a minimum density of 52 persons
and jobs overall, the community actually can achieve on all
three of these options in around 70,000 people, so we're
well in excess of the minimum that vision derm envisioned.
We also were providing for 6600 jobs in the employment
area. Now that employment area definitions change, but basically was
to accommodate 249 ha as identified through envision. Durham. What's
also the same in all options is a natural heritage
system, as you see here. Which has been developed through
the subwatershed study that's underway, and it's entering phase two
of the subwatership study. We also have a minimum of
approximately 62 parkland that we calculated based on parkland dedication.
Requirements. And we're also envisioning a higher order transit along
Highway 407. Or as you can see some of the
options north of 407 on a new transit quarter, so
let's walk through quickly. Those three options. Next slide, please.
First of all, the concept one, which is an environmental
focus, what we're trying to do here is preserve and
enhance as much as possible in natural hair system. So
you see a lot. Fewer collector roads. Them trying not
to across the natural heritage system and keep that natural
herrier system more. Unaffected. We have one large residential community
north of Highway 407 and. A smaller residential community around
Greenwood, which is a much lower, it would be much
lower density around that area and the linear employment area
on the south side of 407. We have a center,
regional center at 7th concession in Salem, basically, where the
regional Fisher plan vision Derma already had a regional center.
So recognizing that, and then we have a very large
park, community park right next to it in a high
school, so real central location for community facilities and our
higher density mixed use development. The parks are generally located
adjacent to the natural hair system. To build on that
green space and new collectors provide connectivity to larger blocks,
but you'll see a lot fewer of them than in
other options. Go to option two, please. Next slide. An
option two or concept two. We call it transit focused,
and so it's focused on a couple of matters. One,
we have. East West New arterior road north of Highway
407 between 407 and 7th, concession. This will be a
transit spine in this location. And then you'll see a
lot more collector Nartera roads creating a real fine grid
of collecting arterial roads to create more transit supportive through
busways. So it's a kind of opposite of option one
in terms of the amount of collector roads. So creating
that dense network. You also see two separate employment areas
in this one. Adjacent to Lake Ridge Road and the
interchange there and adjacent to Westney Road and a potential
future interchange in that location. And the central area being
all one community rate right through from highway seven up
to the 8th. Concession. Next slide, please. In concept three,
the neighborhood focus option. This option. What we've done is
created basically two communities, a southern community, which is around
Greenwood and Long highway seven and then employment on north
and south sides of 407. Take advantage of wherever that
new interchange may be, whether it's at Salem or at
Westney. And focus. Focusing that on the employment along the
highway to take advantage of that visibility. This option. Rather
than one regional downtown center, we've come up with three
different community nodes. Two in the north. Community. One in
the southern community, you see one's long Salem. The other
two are along. The 7th concession. And a few or
more roads than option one, but fewer new roads than
an option. Two. So, next slide, please. So from those
concepts, we presented those to the public last spring. A
year ago March. We've been working on the subwatershed study
in that time. And we also been evaluating the options.
So we created up a series of criteria based on
the five principles that I outlined earlier, and we've evaluated
those options. And the preferred option is not necessarily concept
one, two or three. But it ended up being a
hybrid of each, and I'm not going to go through
in detail the evaluation criteria at all, because it's quite
lengthy and it's in our report, but I'm just going
to highlight some of the criteria in the next slide.
Please. So you'll see in each one. We've got the
principles, like multigenerational, and then we have a series of
criteria under it. Connect in walkabille. That principle. A series
of criteria. Next slide, please. The same.
for the other three principles we have criterion measures for
each that went into in a detailed evaluation matrix and
what we had did in that valuation it was identified
the key elements In each concept that really we wanted
to bring out and bring forward into a preferred option,
so we go to the next slide, please? Next slide
results and the preliminary preferred concept. I say preliminary because
we need public input on this. This may still change
with through public input. We've already seen some tonight. There
are some correspondence you received from some of the landowners,
and we'll hear more from the public in our pic,
so this may change a little bit, but. Really? Let
me focus on a couple of the key elements. One,
we thought a centralized regional center. We call it a
regional center because it's not downtown Pickering, but it's going
to be a new downtown centered to this area, and
that's along Salem Road, the second major concept is this
new east west transit corridor. So bringing the transit. That
new future higher order transit up from Highway 407 onto
a new east west Artura Road. Which is seen the
dashed black line halfway between general. Halfway between 407 and
the 7th concession. It shows, ending at Lake Ridge, but
it will actually extend over and line up with a.
Avenue. As in Whitby and Brooklyn. It'll line up nicely
with that. You'll also see that 7th concession. Extending into
whippy. Will then line up with Columbus Road, so veer
down and line up with Columbus Road, so. There'll be
a continual extension between Whippy and Pickering for these new
roads. We also have one large employment area rather than
multiple or two and rather in south we've. Straddled along
407. It seemed to be the more preferred alignment. And
then we have medium density and mixed quarters proposed along
the collector roads. What I'm going to do is just
briefly walk you through each of those elements, so it's
a little bit easier to understand because there's a lot
going on this maps. We're using the same. Also highlight
we're using the same designations that are in your official
plan, so we're using those same designation categories except for
the regional center, which is new. So let's go through
the next slide, please. So, as I indicated, center to
the community regional center will be. The downtown permit the
highest densities, widest range of use. Uses commercial, institutional, cultural,
really to create that walkable downtown. In this new community.
Next slide, please. Then we have two community nodes. We
put those on as basically like barbells on that. Transit
cord or each end of the transit order. Maybe in
the future those might be a major transit station areas.
There's some comments. Maybe we're missing them further in the
north. Maybe we need another. Community center to the north.
From one of the comments from the landowners, they might
be right. It does. Really waited along that transit quarter.
Maybe we need to move one of those up for.
Their north. But the objective is to try and create
these three centers of higher densities. Commercial retail uses that
can morph over time, intensify over time. When the higher
order transit comes along that transit spine. Next slide, please.
Then we have a mix along that transit quarter. We
have mixed corridor, which is one of your. Designations in
your official plan. It's really promoting a broad range of
higher density. Residential and mixed juices, so it provides lots
of flexibility along that transit quarter for lots to happen
in terms of activities. We also have a bit of
Salem to the south, just north of highway seven. Up
to east west collector Road. Next slide, please. Then we
have a business area. So I indicated to you that
Vision Durham called for 249 employment. Now under the provincial
planning statement. We can't permit some of the uses we
used to permit in the employment area, restaurants. Offices, personal
service. We can't permit that. Under Vision Durham. That was
estimated to be about 10% of the land area, or
about 20% of the employment. So we've created new designation
called Business Area. To accommodate that, we put it on.
The south side of the transit quarter, recognizing that this
area may intensify over the future. But provided for that
broader range of uses and provides a buffer between the
residential and the. Employment to the south. Next slide, please.
So then the next area is the prestige employment. We
go, which is a long highway 407 south of that
business area down to a new east. West collector road
that really provides a buffer between the residential to the
south and the employment provides a nice land use bar.
Fern transition between the two areas. Next slide, please. And
we have the higher density areas. We have a series
of high density areas, one mostly along 7th concession because
we see that as another important east west transit area.
So we identified that and then next slide, please. And
then the high density air, of course, is apartments. Key
intersections. And then. Along all of our arterial and collector
roads, decrying. Create a transit supportability. It's a mix of
medium density uses. We mix of townhouses, other multiplexes, apartments.
Broad range of ground related and higher density uses to
really support. That transit. Next slide, please. And then the
remainder of the area is low density area. So you'll
see that there's. A couple of new collector roads, an
extension of arterials. The other one I didn't mention is
a new east west collector Road at the north end.
As well as a couple of smaller. Collectors and arterials
to link up, so make sure we have a porous
system. As dictated by our transportation consultant. I also have
failed to mention on all three options and into the
preferred. You'll see. There's a bypass of Westney Road around
Greenwood. Greenwood? Hamlet so provide that. That's been planned for
a long time. In vision, Durham. We're reflecting that. West
of that area, you can see a nice transition of
lower density area surrounding that hamlet to try and protect
that character of that hamlet. Next slide, please. So what's
next? Well, the next is. We're going to have a
pic. In a couple of weeks. We're then going to
be preparing our secondary plan policies, making any changes that
we hear. From the public. On this preferred plan. Find
an exile transportation and servicing studies. The subwatershed study will
go into the next phase. And then we'll be having
a statutory public meeting in the fall of 2025. And
that's finished. Madam chair of the presentation. Thank you. Thank
you very much, Mr. Lowe's. That was certainly a lot
of information to digest. Certainly was. Very cohesively put together,
though. I appreciate that. So that means that. We can
now ask questions of you as the delegates. I'm going
to open it up. I'm going to start a list.
Councilor, but followed by councilor Brenner. Yes. Thank you, madam.
Chair. Thank you for your presentation. Louis, I want to
ask you in terms of heritage. Lands you talk about.
Do we know in terms of how much, what is
the hectors in terms of heritage lands? That we have.
I can't recall off the top. It's in our report.
are you referring to natural heritage natural heritage But there
is extensive natural heritage identify through the subwatership study. But
I'm sorry. I don't have that right at the tip
of my fingertips. No worries. Certainly can provide. That too,
if you need it. When you did a public engagement.
Previously. Obviously. Concept one, concept two, concept three were presented
to them. Right. Do you have any numbers? In terms
of how the public reacted to those three concepts. We
have a summary report that's available. I believe it's online.
Of that public consultation, so there wasn't any voting of
it. We had people work together in small groups at
small tables and identified what they liked, disliked, and how
they would like to change each of the options. So
we had really good feedback on that. But. It wasn't
like a voting of one versus two versus three. It
really was identical, and what they liked and disliked of
each option. So your vision, when you talk about slides,
about the visions, you talked about sustainability. You talked about
it, that it stands alone. When you talk about standalone.
What do you mean by standalone? Could you elaborate on
that, please? Yeah. Certainly. Through you, Madam chair to a
counselor. This new community. Will not be attached to seat,
and it will not be attached to Soth Pickering. It
will be attached in small part to the expansion of
Brooklyn, but other than that, it's. Really going to be
a standalone new community. As part of the city of
Pickering, but separated from the rest of the urban area
and Pickering. So we really need to make sure. We
create a sustainable, complete community in that people get their
day to day, weekly needs in this community. Sure, they're
going to go shopping in downtown Pickering, should they go
shopping elsewhere? But really? You don't want everybody having to
leave this community and drive to get things they need.
So there's employment in this community. There's going to be
jobs in this community, there's going to be recreation in
this community that's going to be shopping in this community,
you need to make sure it's a full sum community
which for people to live and work and play in
this community. We had a delegation tonight, and I think.
If I can stand corrected. I think they talked about.
The watershed areas and flooding. Maybe, perhaps. If that development
takes place in there, would you share your feedback in
terms. Of flooding and how and watershed areas. Would you
want to reflect something on that? Certainly. Thank you. To
you, madam chair to the councilor. So that subwater should
study. That's being undertaken by Montrose, and there's a committee
that includes the Toronto region conservation authority here, ca includes.
A ton of ajaxes involved, the regions involved, and what
it's looking at is not only the protection of natural
heritage, but exactly that. The flooding issues and. How do
we minimize flooding? How do we control that? How do
we provide the correct stormwater management to make sure that.
There's no impacts downstream from this new community. Right in
terms of engagements now. How many? I believe you've done
two engagements prior to this. Correct? And a third on.
The 18th. That's great. How many more to come? After
that, it's the statutory public meeting in the fall. So
the public still risen? Still. Have opportunities to moisturize. Give
their feedback. In such quite a few. Yeah, it's two
more for sure. Okay, very well. Thanks for addressing my
question. Thank you, madam Chair. Thank you, Councilor Butt. Councilor
Brenner. You are next to my list. Thank you. Very
much, madam chair. Mr. Loz, I want to start first
with. When you presented in your report, you had three
concepts. And. I want to ask you first about. The
I guess it would be concept one. And if I
understood correct, concept one had more of an had more
of an environmental focus to it, would that be correct?
I should say the council. That is correct. Although all
three options had the same natural heritage system. Protected. But.
What option one did. It had fewer crossings of it,
and we had a few restoration areas. We identified as
well. When you were preparing. I'm going to call it
your hybrid, which is. Your recommended concept. When you were
preparing that. Was any consideration given to how to incorporate
any of the agricultural lands, any of the class soils.
Into. The vision. If you put forward. I see your
meditation councilor? No. And I'll say that because these lands
were all. Identified for urban uses. There's not anticipated to
be. Any protection, any protection within that new urban area
of agriculture land. So agricultural continuation of agricultural lands. Now,
that's not to say that urban agriculture can occur, community
gardens can occur. That type of thing. But. We're looking
at this as a full urban community. And trying to
maximize densities. For hitting the housing required housing. That the
municipality and the promise are looking for. With that. The
higher the density you have, the more you're protecting agricultural
lands outside this. Area. Maybe. It's not for me to
debate with you. I know that. So let me try
this. For a question. Then, from what you just explained.
And understanding that there's no agricultural lands within the areas
that you are presenting tonight. Where those lands abut agricultural
lands. How do you see the transition from the agricultural
lands to where the developer lens will go? I mean,
they're going to connect the. Absolutely. Madam chair to the
council. You're absolutely right. There is going to be an
interface, particularly on to the north. To the south. And
somewhat. To the west. Although there's some more green belt
and natural features to the, to the west, but there
will be agriculture interfaces, and we'll have to have policies
to deal with agulture. Interfaces. We'll also have policies on
phasing because we recognize this community is not all going
to happen one year, there's going to be agriculture that's
going to remain on those lands until the community fully.
Develops over. A period of time and we need to
create phasing policies ensure that that agricultural land can continue
to be used for that purposes until it's needed for
that urban usage. So we'll have policies that talk about
that agriculture interface and the phasing of development. In the
area as you're going forward. In the next phase, you'll
be developing those type of policies that would be part
of this, right? Thank you. The next question I had
had to do. With the, I guess it was the
concept that you have incorporated, and that would be the
high order transit the east west. That would be parallel
to the Highway 407. Can you elaborate a little bit
more on where they will connect outside the city of
Pickley? Because if you rightfully point out. This abuts more
to the Brooklyn community, which would be whitby, than it
does to South Pickering or into Seaton. So do you
envision that the high order transit would have connectivity links,
for example, to the college and university. As across as
Simcoe. Do you envision that it would go to the
hospital as an example that's badly needed on the border
of Brooklyn in the city of Picarin. Council. Yes, exactly.
So the transit right now is proposed by the provinces
along the highway 407. What? We're suggesting where? When it
enters northeast, Pickering. From the west, it veers up to.
Long. This new transit corridor goes along this new transit
quarter, hits Lake Ridge, and then. Comes down back to.
Highway 407 and Highway 412. But I think the great
opportunity is to bring it down Lake Ridge. Road by
the new hospital, then along highway seven and then back
up to 407. So you'll. Be able to access this
new hospital as well, and it can continue further east
towards the college at Semco along highway four. Hundred and
seven. Great. Thank you. Madam chair, if I could just
give a little bit more information to Councilor Brenner. On
that point. Councilor Brenner, there's been conversations with the region
regarding this. Transit way corridor as well. Especially with looking
at how the synergies between DRT and to York transit
to the west could also. Fit into all of this.
Your question is valid in terms of the connectivity from
northeast Peerkerin to South Pickering and that is something that
is under consideration between the consulting group that the north
pickering developers have hired. And they partnered with the developers
in Brooklyn to look at it. North Pickering, North Durham
transit study and all of this is being considered as
part of that. Thank you. The final question that I
have has to do more with the intensification. As you
pointed out, there was quite a change in terms of
the original. I guess one of the concepts that looked
at low to medium density housing designation. And it's now
gone to the. High density in terms of high rise
development. When you referenced that. And I'm going to paraphrase
what I thought you said, in a sense that. Northeast
pipeline would have more in common with Brooklyn than it
would, obviously, than it would with Sud. Pickering and Seaton.
That being said, if I'm correct, How do you see
high rise development? Fitting in abutting Brooklyn. To the best
of my knowledge, I haven't seen. The magnitude of high
rise developments that are being proposed. In your preferred concept
in Brooklyn, which basically has it standing on its own.
I see you. To the councilor. So where we've shown
the high densities along the 7th concession. Which was identified
in one of the previous options as a regional corridor
and was identified in vision. Durham as a regional corridor,
so that. Going with the regional official plan, going by
the wayside and being incorporated in your official plan. We
looked at different designations running the colony regional corridor, the
same intent of the regional corridors for higher density development,
you'll find the same thing. In the Brooklyn expansion area,
and I'm actually working for the town of Whitby. On
the Brooklyn expansion area and along Columbus Road. We also
have. Ad intersections of higher density development being proposed along
Columbus Road, which would connect in the proposals to connect
it in with. The 7th concession. So you'll see that
continuation of medium density and then higher density at key
intersections. At those key transit locations. In both Brooklyn expansion
area and in northeast Brickering. Have you had feedback on
this concept? From the town of Whitby. Yes, and it's
available for the public to comment on now on their
website. Can you share with us what the feedback was
from the town itself? We had a public meeting last.
Pic last November. And the final preferred is out, with
statutory public meeting being planned for October. So it hasn't
gone to council with council endorsement. The town of Whitby
comment on. This concept? Or is that what you're referring
to? On the Brooklyn concept. The Brooklyn official plan. Northeast
Pickering, since it butts the town of Whitby. Have public
comments. Yeah, the big comments. That's what I meant. Sorry.
I'm sorry. That I'm confused. There has been no comment
about northeast pickering at the tunnel would be yet. Okay,
thank you very much. Thank you, madam chair. And I
appreciate the latitude of the questions. And thank you, fias.
For stepping in to clarify as well. Excellent questions. Thank
you, Councilor Brenner. Any further. Councilor Robinson and Councilor Pickles.
I see you. Okay. Councilor Robinson. Thank you very much.
Madam chair, just one quick question. Have you quantified the
traffic impact on the streets in Ajax, like throughout West
Knee and Salem at all. For the people that are
moving north south. Through you, madam chair to the councilor.
So the background transportation report was done at the beginning.
Of phase two. Just so the existing conditions and some
of the issues right now, we're doing a translation study
on the preferred option, so we'll be looking at that
exact matter. About the impact on the existing transportation network.
So that's being undertaken right now on this. Preferred. Option.
Okay, and when do you think we might be able
to get the results of that? Would that be four.
We go move ahead with any more meetings. Will you
have that? Not before the open house. On the 18th,
but before your statutory public meeting. For sure. Yes. Okay,
great. Thank you very much. Thank you, madam chair. You're
very welcome. Councilor Robinson, councilor Pickles. Thank you, madam Chair.
And thank you, Paul, for the presentation. Very thorough. So
what we have in front of us tonight is to
receive this report. And then forward it to. Public. Sorry.
To the public agencies, landowners. Others engage in the process.
So really, we're continuing the public consultation process. Would that
be correct? Councilor? Absolutely. That's what we're doing. Getting into
the next phase of that. And you heard a number
of comments this evening from delegates. And I think you've
heard some comments. From committee members. And you'll be hearing
some more comments, I'm sure. So, to be clear, the
comments you received tonight are both from the delegates and
from members of committee will be taken into account. As
you proceed through this process. Madam chair to the council.
Absolutely. That's a key element of the process. And then
there will be. In addition to all that consultation, there
be a statutory public meeting held in the fall. Once
again, where people can provide comments. Absolutely. I want to
clarify what the scope. Of this work is. So this
is a secondary plan. So if I want to put
that in, Layman turns. What I say that we're designing
what the build out of the community would look like.
How it would function and perhaps a little bit about.
The time frame. Or that it would be undertaken. Would
that through you, madam chair to the councilor. Yes, that's
a good way to. Put it. I would also add
a caveat. It will be at a high level, so
we start with the regional official plan. It just says
this is community employment. Now we're going. To move down.
Into some more detail. After the community plan, there's going
to be a series of neighborhood plans that are going
to get really down in the detail of what that
little neighborhood is going to look like. And then the
developers will come forward with their draft plans of subdivision.
So it's a step of getting more and more detail.
So we're starting at a high level and we're refining
it and getting to a greater level of detail as
we go along through the process, as we get closer.
To actually building out the community. That's correct. Okay. Just
before I ask some more questions, I want to go
back to what it is not. So it's not within
the scope of the study to reconsider. The provincial approval
of the urban area or the regional approval of the
urban area. We've had a couple delegates tonight. Say. More
or less. Scrap the whole thing. Take it out of
the urban area. That's not part of the scope of
this project. Would that be fair to say? That's correct,
yes. Okay, so just back to this level of doing
more detail as we go along. A couple of the
delegates spoke to phasing. Can you tell us what phasing
would mean in the context of the secondary planner implementation?
Of a secondary plan. And whether you agree with it
or not. Certainly. Chair to the councilor. So phasing, what
we usually do is we look at. The extension of
infrastructure. So we're going to need new trunk water mains.
We're? Going to need trunk sewers, we're going to need
new roads built, and we need to make sure the
development is in line with that extension of those roads,
so we may say that. In this neighborhood. This is
all the infrastructure you need to bring on to bring
that neighborhood on. And we'll have that parsed out for
each of those new neighbors to say what? Infrastructure needs
to be phased in line. We'll also be looking at
schools and parks. We need those to come on at
the same time, so that's usually the phasing. We look
at? What is all the infrastructure? Community facilities, public uses
that we need. In each of those neighborhoods to be
brought on when. It's to be developed. Okay, so you
support phasing, and that's probably language we might see. As
the study. Progresses. That's correct. Yes. In your presentation. You
spoke of Greenwood a number of times, and I wanted
to go back. There was a couple. Of delegates from
Greenwood. And. I forget how they express it, but they
were concerned that the hamlet of Greenwood was being. Erased.
That's probably not the word they use, but I'll say
race. But yet. You mentioned Greenwood a number of times.
So in the secondary plan as it's developed, You still
see Greenwood as a recognized. Definable community. That will have
some special attention. Paid to preserving its nature. Or at
least I'm hoping. Let me put it that way through
you, ma'am. Chairing a counselor. Yes. And I see this,
councilor pickles, I see this very much. Like White Valley
as I did the Seaton. Secondary plan. And neighborhood plans
for the city. We paid special attempts to wait for
to make sure that seaton developed that Weightville Hammock was
be able to maintain and maintain that key historic character
it has today, so we'll be looking the same thing
at Greenwood, although. It's just the secondary plan doesn't include
it. We'll have policies on. That, to talk about that
transition to ensure that that Greenwood hamlet remains as a
hamlet and. Continues a hammlet and what uses maybe need
to be. Maybe there's a little neighborhood center to help
provide a little bit more commercial uses to the residents
of Greenwood. Just in a new urban area. So we'll
be looking at that and how to transition to make
sure that Hammlet is maintained and protected. If I can
just add to the commentary as well, councilor Pickles. I
recognize some of the concerns raised by the residents there
and just wanted to clarify a couple of things. First
of all, Greenwood does have status in the official plan.
Currently amongst a bunch of other. Rural settlements. But just
in the context of our consolidated zoning bylaw, which council
may be aware we had gone through that process. And
with the previous zoning bylaw, the hamlet of Greenwood had
a particular zone v for village. Zone within that previous
bylaw framework. And through our consolidation work, the village zone
was actually consolidated within the restructured residential zones. Certainly staff
would be interested in considering perhaps an exception to that
zoning bylaw. If that's of interest. That was something. That
was done quite some time ago for. Kinsail in an
older set of bylaws. So that's something that could be
done to provide a little more clarity, but it still
remains within. The new consolidated zoing ball. I just want
to clarify that. Thank you, Mr. Mendelia. I was going
to come back to you later because I do think
there is some confusion. By the delegation with respect to
the consolidation of the zoning bylaws. And the OP exercises
and the secondary plan exercises, so Greenwood is not being
erased from. The scope of our planning exercises. So, Paul,
I just had one more question. Although. Greenwood. Any of
the committees like to see it preserved. I want to
be clear that. We're still weirdly identifying. A bypass. The
west Neuro bypass through Greenwood. That remains part of the
time frame. And I guess. Would be considered when we
talk about phasing and traffic studies to ensure that the
hamlet isn't overrun by traffic. Correct. Good way to put
it, yes. That will be addressed through the transportation study
to look at and when we do the neighborhood plan.
For that area. Be a little bit more detail when
that's going to occur. Okay, well, I'm not sure our
delegations are still online at this late hour, but. Hopefully
that clarifies some of the concerns that they had. And
thank you for answering my questions, Paul. Thank you. Welcome.
Thank you, Councilor Pickles. I have two questions. Unless mayor
ash also has comments to make otherwise. I will ask
my two questions. So I'll be fairly expedient. With the
three concepts designs presented. Paul, you noted that. Your preferred
concept. Is the one that will receive the studies. So,
to councilor Robinson's point. Traffic studies on Salem, how will
they be looked at? And I'm assuming that these studies
will only be done based on the preferred concept you're
bringing forward. So my question is. Thus, of those three
concepts, what if that's not the one that the public.
Prefers. Personally, and I liked your number one the best.
I'm not so thrilled with the other ones, but that
would also mean that as we move forward in this,
there will be no studies applicable to the alternate concepts
that were presented. Is that fair to say? In part.
We're having our pic. In a week and a half.
We'll hear from the public whether, what they think about
their concept. We've heard from one of the delegates. Letters
from the landlords. They don't like all the art. The
collector roads. So our transportation consultant will take that into
account and look at that and say, yeah, I still
think we need those. Or. No, you're right, we don't.
Or. Whatever the public may say in terms of what
they think. Of the preferred, so we still have time.
To take that into account, make some refinements and make
sure that. The final option that we present to at
a statutory public meeting is fully documented. And evaluated by
those transportation and servicing studies. And that's what I should
study. So we still have time to make sure that
all lines up appropriately. Okay. Thanks very much, Paul. You
actually answered my next question. In your response there. So
I have no additional questions. Which means we've exhausted the
speakers. List. So we will move forward and we need
to move this and second it in order to get
it on the floor in order to receive for information.
Do I have a mover and seconder? Councilor Pickles and
councilor butt. Councilor pickles, as mover councillor Butt. As seconder.
So we will open up this motion now for. Further
questions and debate, and I'll start a list. The first
is councilor Pickles. Followed by Councillor Bhatt. Thank you, chair
cook. I wanted to address a couple of matters to
Mr. Bentley. And I think it's important to take a
step back here. Two steps back. Mr. Bentley, I think
a lot of people, a lot of residents are of
the misconception that. The mayor of the city and its
council decide. We want a whole bunch more people in
Pickering. And we need to go expand our boundaries and
build and build and build and do this, but. It's
really a top down process. The province does provincial among
federal government does. Then the province looks at what the
trends are, how many people are being attracted to Ontario,
how many people are going to be attracted to the
greater Toronto area. And they try to prescribe where that
population is going to be, how people are going to
be housed. And. They do good or bad jobs, depending
how things like that work, but basically. This process is
top driven. And it's been made mention of. Pickering has
been directed that by 2051 there's going to be about
250,000. People. In region of Durham and city of Pickering.
It's now your responsibility to figure out how that's going
to be accomplished and where they're going to go. Am
I correct? In saying that it is a top down
process. It's not a bottom up process. When it comes
to determining the ultimate populations of municipalities. Yeah, Casper. Because
I think that's some fair comments. We're definitely getting clear
direction. From the province that we need to provide more
housing and accommodate. Increased population and all of that stuff.
And we are also working with Envision Durham, which was
approved by regional council. It was approved by the province.
And that's in place. We work on that basis to
keep on going with. This. Okay. Thank you. I want
to speak a little bit about Greenwood because, and I
know you jumped in and I. Appreciate that, Mr. Penley,
but. I think in our official plan. Is not Greenwood
clearly identified as a hamlet in community, and that's going
to remain that. Way. In our official plan. But there
was another parallel process going on with respect to the
consolidation of bylaws. There were many zoning bylaws in pickering,
and we're coming up. We're consolidating them. Do you think
there's maybe a misunderstanding there? About. The racing. Of the
hamlet of Greenwood that it exists in our official plan.
We've heard from the northeast peckering plan, it will continue
to exist as identifiable. Community, although in the consolidated zoning
bylaws, it was somewhat assumed. So. Can you provide a
little clarity there because I think a couple of the
delegations legitimately had a concern, but I think they might
have mixed up two processes. And you've already spoken to
this a little bit, but I'm giving you a little
more opportunity. I'll try and provide a bit more. Yes.
Just again, to reiterate. The current official plan identifies Greenwood
and that surrounding area. We call it settlement five. In
our official plan. And I can certainly welcome planning staff
if they want to add more content here. But as
far as I understand it, that's the intention, to keep
that. Existing area recognized within those documents. And again with
our consolidated zoning Bilay review process, looking for opportunities to
consolidate all the bylaws into one user friendly bylaw. The
intention is really to make things easier. To work with.
However, you may recall. I think. There was hundreds and
hundreds of exceptions within the zoning bylaw to recognize some
existing conditions and that sort of thing. So there could
certainly be an opportunity to recognize an exception within the
zoning bylaw that recognizes a bit more clearly. Greenwood again.
That's been done before and years past. But it wasn't
eliminated. It just was consolidated under a bigger umbrella of
residential. Permissible uses, so I hope that provides a bit
of clarity about what was done. Separate process there will
be an opportunity. When we finish the Pickering forward official
plan review process and have a new official plan in
place. There will be an opportunity to revisit the zoning
bylaws to have regard for any adjustments or updates that
have been made to the Pickering official plans. I hope
that provides a bit of context. So. The community of
Greenwood is identifiable. Community is still there, and it's going
to continue to be there. Yes. Okay. The consultant made
mention of another. Public information meeting coming up. I'm not
sure he mentioned the date, but it's June 18. June
18 that's correct. So one organization, and I don't think
it's a secret to note their name. Land over landings
happens to coincidentally have their annual general meeting on the
same date. So some of their membership and some of
their followers, I suppose, are not going to be able
to attend that public information meeting. You and I have
spoken a couple of times, and I've spoken with the
mayor and spoken with land over landings. Following this meeting.
And presumably they could have come on here tonight and
viewed the presentation and heard some of the discussion, but
if they have any. Additional comments, questions or want to
have a discussion. We're able to reach out with them
and make some sort of arrangement, noting that they had
a conflict that evening. A scoped presentation or a discussion
with them. To allow them the same opportunity that they
happen to miss because of the conflicting of the two
dates. That would be correct, yes. We're certainly happy to
follow up with the appropriate representatives. With land of our
landings after this meeting, not tonight, but tomorrow. Or soon
thereafter and certainly welcome their input. Whatever we land on,
if they're comfortable. Either through teams or if they want
a meeting of some sort. We can certainly discuss that
and what that looks like. As an alternative to the
June 18. Any information that we'd be providing would be
very similar to what would be provided this evening and
on the 18th as well. Okay. Much appreciated. And. My
last comment or question, madam chair, and I just want
to go back to what the consultant said, and that
is that this is a continuing process of public consultation.
We've noted a number of upcoming public consultation opportunities and.
That this continues to go from a higher level to
a lower level, and there be many opportunities. For public
consultation before any shovel hits the ground and any plan
is approved that there'd be many opportunities, Mr. Bentley. Would
that be correct? Yes, and I believe Paulos had mentioned
that. Earlier this evening that there'd be at least two
opportunities, and perhaps a third one if we are able
to fashion another meeting with lender landings. In this context,
and certainly outside of those structured meetings, We're more than
happy to take any additional feedback or commentary. From the
public as well. Thank you.
Oh, that's it for me, madam. Chair. Thank you. Yes,
thank you. Cancer. Bike. Can you hear us? Yeah, now
I can hear you. That's fine. Thank you. Madam chair.
Mr. Bessley, if I can probably have your. Maybe, perhaps
other staff member could maybe answer. A couple of my
questions, too, as well. From the delegation that we had
on the Greenwood community. They addressed in terms of the
Greenwood Community Hall. Will be demolished. We know that there
is a new community center being built, and I think
they also mentioned that they had credit club, they had
scouting, they had other events, birthday parties, community. Events that
the community was using. Even if, though, that Greenwood Community
center is being demolished, maybe you want to speak to
it. I know the answers. What are we being replaced
with and what will the Greenwood community will have access
to? Well. I think it was kind of spoken to
earlier this evening, but the pickering or the PHCC's? Pickering
Heritage Community center, which is under construction, I believe is
intended to be that option. To serve the Greenwood community.
My understanding and I see Marissa's put her camera on
feel. Free to chime in. I believe there's been some
active discussions between the city. And members of the Greenwood
community to try and find some solutions as it relates
to that, but I haven't been directly involved in that.
And perhaps if Marissa wants to chime in. And add
some more details that might be appreciated. Certainly through the
chair to councilor Butt, the director of community services has
been. In discussions with agreement recreation association for some time
to facilitate the transition of their activities from the Greenwood
Community center to the Pickering Heritage and community center. Of
course, that form would take a little bit of a
different shape than it currently does in the sense that
PHCC will be. Operated and managed by the city. However,
we want to ensure that the activities that they're used
to enjoying at the Greenwood Community Center. Are activities that
we can offer through the city. And so we continue
to have those discussions and it does include. Their continued
participation in the community grant program that they currently participate
in. It allows them to receive funds from the city.
And then those funds go towards the rental of the
Greenwood Community center in the future, it would be the
rental of the Pickering heritage community center to operate. Those
community hamlet activities. They're used to having, whether they be
community events or festivals, so. We are in conversations with
them to facilitate that transition. And enable similar uses at
the new facility. But there is no at any point
that we will probably take away from any of the
activities. They do presently in order to accommodate in our
new facilities. So we're looking at the suite of activities
that they normally run to see what we can accommodate
and our intent. Is to facilitate and accommodate all those
that we can. There is, as was mentioned earlier, A
challenge in accommodating the weavers, as the weavers would like
the weavers would like dedicated space, and this facility is
going to be open to all users, and so there
isn't an opportunity to provide them with dedicated space. We
have a space for them. But it won't be dedicated
space. So we're continuing those discussions. But if they have
a dance class or. I understand they've had karate operating
there for a number of years and we'd love to
speak to the karate instructor and maintain that arrangement. We
just want to have those discussions to facilitate that transition.
Okay, that's great. Thank you. Ms. Maurice for addressing that.
Mr. Bentley, I know the questions about watershed came up
in one of the delegates. And when we built a
new subdivision, we take every proaction. Action preventive in terms
of flooding watershed. I know city does and have done
a good job. In terms of looking after and maintaining
a watershed area, maybe could you speak a little bit
on that. How this process works. So thank you, councilor,
but. It's been an ongoing process, and as you heard
this evening, there is a working group that's comprised of
a bunch of different. People with interest in this, including
the town of Ajax. And going through that, and with
conservation authority at the table, it's important to have that.
Expertise there. In the room working through that process. And
that's still ongoing. I see Fiaz has put his camera
on to maybe add some more details there, but certainly
it's important to identify with the preferred scenario. That's ultimately
chosen to. Address impacts from flooding and how that could
be mitigated through the design of the community. But Fias,
if you want to add in more to that, please.
Sure. Through you, madam chair. To councilor, but councilor, but
you can appreciate that the area of Northeast pick Green
there's. A lot of focus around the watershed work. And
so when we initiated the process for hiring SGL and
the planning experts, Paul Lowe's and his team. One of
the things we made sure we did was to bring
in the subject matter experts to help us with the
scope of work when it came to watershed study works.
And other similar studies. And the TRCA is really. The
experts in understanding what are the necessities, what are the.
Mitigating factors. And another critical piece to that, especially related
to Pickering, was our neighbors and Ajax. So we engaged
our neighbors in Ajax, and we made sure we sat
down with them and went through the process. Of how
the watershed study would ultimately be driven, the scope of
work. And to date. We are having ongoing dialogue with
the town of Ajax, their staff, and along with the
other stakeholders, who have raised it as a concern. But
ultimately, when you bring in the subject matter experts to
help you with the scope of work, help you work
with your consultant and city staff and staff. Across the
region, especially in the. Town of Ajax. It really helps
eliminate some of the concerns that people may have and
that's the approach we've taken and we've seen it work
with our relationship building. On this matter with the count
of Ajax. So the town of Ajax is fully engaged.
Yeah, that's great. Thank you, Fias, for addressing that Madam
chair. Those are the questions. I had. Thank you. Appreciate
that. You're welcome, councilor. But Councilor Brenner of two. Thank
you very much. Madam Chair. Through you to our staff.
And then I have some comments as well. Mr. Bentley.
Am I correct in understanding tonight is a motion to
receive? The report, correct? Yeah. So specifically to receive for
information. That would enable us to share that with the
commenting agencies and other interested parties to comment on this.
I understand correctly, because this is. An important question that
I'm asking you very specifically. Is tonight also the. Opportunity.
That while we're receiving the report. That staff will be
taken away. Comments that we have heard tonight, be it
from members of committee. Or and from the public delegations,
would that be correct as well? Yes. Despite the June
18 meeting coming up, this is another equal opportunity. For
comments that we've heard this evening, to take that in
and factor that in. So absolutely. Hey with that, then.
What I would like to get from you is some
assurances that, number one, That the staff are taken away
and will in fact provide information regarding and it would
raise by councilor pickles, and it was raised by the
public. A phasing. Of northeast Pickering. That the comments that
were made is you can't do it all at once.
So some elaboration and clarification in terms of a policy
that, in fact builds the phasing component in number two.
I would like to see something that talks about the
transitioning from agricultural lands to the urban envelope of northeast
Pickering. There's the acknowledgment that it's there, but I would
like to see some policies that are built into it
that talk about the transition, the transition there's no point
in having agricultural lands on one side of the road,
having urban develop on the other side of a road
because the agricultural lens aren't going to survive. So transition.
Transitioning is really key and critical to see that. The
other part. That I would like to see, having just
recently come back. From a visit to Granville island in
Vancouver. I would like to see some policy clarification. As
it relates to design guidelines. When I think of what
I saw in Vancouver in particular, I saw a mesh
of high rise developments that had interesting designs. That were
pieces of art, the way they were designed. As an
example, they abutted other medium. Density housing. But always they
had policies in place that talked about housing, farm. Architectural
control. I recognize that the planning act does not give
us that power, but I would like to see some
policies that will certainly encourage it. And I certainly know
that from dialogue with the Dorsey people from northeast Pickering
that is certainly receptive to looking at creative designs that
make this a very unique community. Finally, what I would
like to see. Is. Included in that would be something
that talks about massing as well. I'd like to see
something that while we're going to be doing intensification going
to be tribe and achieving. The targets. I'd also like
to get some idea in terms of massing of some
kind of controls and footprint size. So that there's a
range of not just slim and trim, but also the
opportunity to. Have flatter and more, I guess more medium
type density as well, but all blending together. Do I
have assurances that that, in fact, will be part of,
or can be part of. Where staff look at incorporating
that into policies for consideration. Not asking me to commit
to anything tonight. I'm asking for assurances that you've. Heard
loud and clear. The importance of that. Council. Brenner. I've
been taking notes as you've been speaking, and we've. Got
the video recording that we can refer back to. We
will definitely be taking this. Back to our team. Wonderful.
And the other question that I do have. And it
has to do with the high order of transit, and
I know that. The consultants did comment and FIas did
comment. While it's outside of the North Pickering area. Do
we? And I guess this would be more our staff.
Either Fiaz or yourself, Mr. Bentley. We are still pursuing.
I'm hoping to have a high frequency. Hike Wood rail
station in the city of Pickering in Greenwood or Green
River. Do we see this as tying into that as
part of the high order transit quarter system and how
do you envision that to look like? Yes. Do you
want to take that? Sure. Thanks, Kyle. Through you, madam
chair to Councilor Brenner. Councilor Brennan, that's a great question.
Something that I anticipated you asking tonight. If you can
imagine the fact that the high frequency rail system. We
are anticipating that to be on the existing right of
way of the Havelock line that does intercept the 407
right of way, which is on the south side. So
the work that has been done is to see how
there could be synergies between both of those systems. Now,
As you can appreciate. We are in the infancy stages
of understanding where the highest. Rail is going to operate
through and whether or not picking will be successful in
getting a station. Stop or not with respect to the
transertway corridor. It's always been as a policy document, going
back to the early 2000s with respect to Seaton and
the 407 Yi expansion through Durham. So we're hoping that.
Transitway corridor could serve the purpose it's always meant to
serve, and that is to help with not only bringing
traffic from the south to the north of transit users,
but also traffic from the north to the south as
well. You have the GO transit station on the south
side of Pickering, Amber trying to see how the two
can. Work together and adapt with each other, but that's
definitely something that we've had. Conversation with MTO, Metrolinks, and
obviously. With the Alto team, which is the team that
is federally running the high frequency speed. High speed. Rail
project now. Thank you very much, Fiaz and thank you,
Mr. Benton, for your comments and your response to mine
with that. Sorry. And councilor Brunner, just one more point.
I wanted to just. Add to what Kyle mentioned. As
part of the last question, when it comes to the
phasing of Northeast Pickering, I just want to make sure
that it's clear that. The phasing of a community like
northeast Pickering is driven by the infrastructure that comes to
the community. So. There has to be a phasing process
in place for infrastructure, for water, sanitary utilities and all
those other key elements to help drive growth, so. It's
almost. A confirmed idea that exists when it comes to
these types of new urban and boundary expansions. Where you
have to phase the development, and we're seeing that right
now in Seaton. As well. Where? Seat? The servicing and
all the different elements are being expended from the east
to the west. To get a scene up and running
so we can expect a scene for northeast Pickering as
well. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Bentley. And thank you
very much. Fiaz with that madam chair, I guess my
comments on this basically are very simple. Tonight is to
receive a report for information I have no problem supporting
receiving for information. With the caveat and understanding that we
do have that commitment from staff that we're far from
the end of this journey and. There's still opportunities. Whether
we to either disagree with it. But you can't disagree
with something until we know. What the final product is
going to be proposed. So tonight is to receive your
information. And I'm certainly prepared to do that. I look
forward to hearing how staff have incorporated. The very important
comments that we heard from the community tonight and from
also members of this committee. Great. Thank you, Councilor Brenner.
Thank you very much. You're very welcome. And. With that.
We will call the vote. Unless, councilor Robinson, you did
want to comment. Before you move on to comments, and
I am going to remind this council we are at
the bottom of the hour. We have 30 minutes until.
We will need to call for an extension and we
have not completed this item and have two more remaining.
So before we hit the top of the hour, I
may interrupt the next delegation in order to. Ask for
an extension. Go ahead. Councilor Robinson, you have the floor.
Super. Thank you so much. It's no surprise that I
am against this. And I'll give you some reasons why,
and I'm hoping that they make them. Into the comments
as well. The first one is because Seaton is nowhere
near being fully built out. Satan's only approximately 20% to
25% built out based on recent growth reports and development
activity. Thousands of residential units, employment lands and mixed use
spaces are already approved in service, but. They're still sitting
undeveloped. There is ample capacity at Seaton to meet Pickerings
near and midterm housing and employment needs without touching northeast
peckering. There's no population pressure that justifies immediate expansion. Developing
northeast Pickering before Seaton is built out with strange city
resources. That would undermine smart growth principles. It will increase
the burden on taxpayer payers to service new, fragmented, fragmented
communities and is going to accelerate farmland loss, any environmental
disruption unnecessarily. And that, as we know, we've all been,
there's been a lot of talk. And concerns about that.
The proposed development relies heavily on infrastructure. That is not
yet built or funded. They're talking about type C arterial
roads that are proposed. But that remains conceptual. Transit plants
are not supported or confirmed by agency involvements or financial
commitments. Water, wastewater and stormwater systems will need to be
constructed from the ground up because they are not there.
And there's no clear plan for expanding fire, police or
emergency medical services for the area as well. For the
environmental impact that it's going to have, although. One of
the concepts a label as being environment focused. The plan
includes road crossings through the natural heritage system. Fragmentation of
ecological corridors and restorate words like restoration and compensation areas
that appear to offset rather than prevent environmental loss, I
think we should be cautious of plans that present development
as environmental protection without. A transparent ecological impact study. Or
conservation authority endorsement at this time. And then there's the
farmland. We hear a lot. Of talk about the farmland.
This area includes some of Dura region's most productive agricultural
land according to the city's own agriculture impact assessment. Irreversible
conversion of farmland is expected. And in the time when
food security and local food systems are critical. Protecting arable
land must remain one of our top priorities here in
pictoring. The preferred land use concept was shaped in part
by landowners input, not by the community. Many of whom
are developers or their land speculators. While stakeholders engagement is
important, the balance or inflows must be transparent, and I
think it needs to be equitable. There is concern that
economic interests have overshowered community feedback and shaping this financial
layout. And then. If you want to talk about the
lack of financial transparency within this report, like who's going
to find the necessary infrastructure and services will exist. Will
existing taxpayers be asked to subsidize this growth, or what
happens if development outpaces revenues? Long term financial liability must
be clearly identified before council makes a decision. That's going
to bind future budgets. We're already stressed in that department
already. That's pretty much all I really want to say.
I think that. A responsible approach to this would be.
To proceed very cautiously. I think we need to reassess
community needs, and I think we need to ensure full
transparency before we're committing to something that is going to
be an irreversible. Irreversible development. So I would like to
get a recorded vote with this. I know we're just
receiving. It today, but I'd still like to have a
recorded vote if I'm madam. Chair and madam clerk. Thank
you. You are welcome and recorded vote is always in
order. Before we move to that, I do just have
one comment. As well. I won't belabor the point because
I think all of my colleagues have made. Outstanding points.
Surrounding the entire issue. I've said it before, I have
some fundamental issues with how. We. Expend our boundaries and
change things permanently. I would also like to point out
one of the key points in the report, since we
didn't really dig into reading some of that. Just so
the public is aware that item three. Point. 33 in
a report. Notes that envision Durham was passed by the
regional council in September 2024, and then in January of
2025, the province announced that the region would be deemed.
As an upper term municipality. With no planning. Responsibility, which
means that the final approval. On all of the plans
that we are discussing today. Remain the purview of the
province, and there the final arbiter of approval on this.
That being said, I am going to support this because
it is received for information. I think it is important
that we continue with public input and continue to hold
the public meetings on this. So that we can continue
to have that dialogue. As it's very important. Just one
other further question that I'm unclear on. I'm not sure
if this is a Kyle point or politics is for
you. I noted. There was a question on indigenous consultation.
That has been completed, yes. And we will continue to
engage them as we move through the next couple of
public information sessions. I can speak to that a little
bit. Councilor Cook. Certainly. The city of Pickering, we're committed
to fostering a meaningful engagement. With msifn miss sagas of
skug island, first nation and. It's been a journey. It
continues to be, and certainly. We've got an agreement working
with msifn. For them to be at the table and
to provide comments input to us. And this structured engagement
in that way, and we continue to do that. So
we will continue in the coming weeks as well. To
make sure that we're hearing what they have to say
and that we're factoring that into our review of this
fiat. Did you want to add anything to that? Yeah.
Sure, madam chair. We have had communications with. The first
nations. From the onset, we've continued to have dialogue. Through
our consultant, Sgl. And Dylan as well. And we are
also having dialogue through. The idea that. We will continue
to have the consultation. And the communications with the MSifn.
Not only through this process of the next couple of
months, but also following. The approval of the northeast. Pickering
secondary plan and moving forward, and then eventually. That responsibility
becomes far greater for the landowners group as well. For
them to have continued dialogue with MsIFn as well, and
all the other first station crews, because that is something
that the city has requested. As part of our. Ongoing
commitment to work with the first nations because we feel
it's critical. But as part of the city driven process,
which is the secondary plan we are committed to doing.
That, and we will continue to have the open dialogue.
But following the northeast pickering secondary plan process, When it's
really driven by the landowners. We encourage, and I've asked
landowners to have that memorandum of understanding, to have a
commitment. To work with them and to listen to their
concerns as well as you heard our consultant talk. About
neighborhood planning and subdivision planning and all those different factors
that would happen after the fact. We have asked our
landowners to make sure that the first. Nations are part
of those conversations as well. Great. Thank you for that.
Madam Clerk, I believe councilor Robinson called for recorded governments.
If you could kindly take the role. Councilor Robinson. No.
Councilor Brenner. Yes. Councilor butt. Yes. Councilor pickles. Yes, Mayor
Ash. Yes, madam Chair. That's carried five to one. Thank
you, Madam Clerk. Now, before we move on to our
next item, which is 4.2. We do have. Joint delegation.
For an extension. Yes, thank you. Moving for an extension.
I was seconding that motion. Thank you for the clarity.
On that. So for the audience at home, councilor Bot
has just moved. An extension seconded by Councilor Brunner, and
we're going to vote on. That it does require a
majority to extend 1 hour to midnight, which is as
late as this. Meeting can go. So, all those in
favor? And we have one opposed. So that carries. We
are going to carry on. All right. Thank you for
that. Hopefully we still have our next two delegates on
the line. For item 4.2, which is Jamie Cook and
Bobby Gotier. Jamie Cook? No relations myself. His managing partner,
a land planning in land economics at Watson and associates
economist, and joining him as Bobby Gotier from WSP and
they will be speaking on Pickering official plan review. Gentlemen.
Okay, your presentation is up. You may go ahead. Thank
you and good evening. Can you hear me okay? Yes,
absolutely. We can hear you fine, thank you. Thank you.
So, good evening, madam chair members of council. It's a
pleasure to be able to speak to you tonight to
present you the draft or, sorry, the final results of
our Pickering City Pickering growth management strategy. If we could
go to the introduction. Slide on slide two. So just
to start off, we were retained back in 2024 along
with WSP to develop a growth management strategy for the
city of Pickering, and the purpose of the study is
to comprehensively assess the city's long term population, housing and
employment growth outlook. Looking at the 2051 we've also looked
at residential. Intensification opportunities as well as an assessment of
urban land needs. To that same time period. A key
component of the GMS is also to assess a series
of or provide a series of policy recommendations as well
as broad planning direction for the seat and employment area,
which I'll speak to. Next slide. So it's important to
first acknowledge that this Pickering GMS study was conducted within
the context of the current provincial planning policy framework. So
back in 2024, in October. The new provincial planning statement,
the PPS, came into effect. This document essentially integrates the
former growth plan for the greater golden horseshoe and the
2020 pps. Into one integrated document and. A key outcome
of that process was to ultimately provide a more outcome
based, less prescriptive approach to planning in Ontario. As you
mentioned earlier, it's also important to note that through. This
bill. Bill 185. A key outcome of that was the
removal of the Germ region as an aperture planning authority.
And so, as envisionderm, which is now approved, provides the
growth management framework to be integrated into the city's official
plan. Where appropriate. It is noted that, however, That significant
changes have occurred through the provincial planning framework since that
time, and so this work ultimately considers both envision Durham
as well as the recent provincial changes in developing the
city's gms and ultimately the direction to the official plan.
Next slide. So if we can go to slide five,
I wanted to provide a bit of an overview of.
The population, housing and employment growth forecast assessment. So as
part of this work, We did provide a very comprehensive
assessment of the city's long term population growth outlook to
the year 2051. And as it was mentioned earlier, the
top down process that's involved with doing this. It's ultimately,
in our opinion, a top down process, but also a
bottom. Up process. There is a lot of. Macro and
broader work that needs to be done first to understand
how the growth for pickering fits within the broader context
of Durham. And the GTA and beyond. And so we
did that comprehensive assessment, and we identified. That essentially. The
city is ultimately tracking. Closely to envision Derm and that
envisionderm population forecast 2051 is still an appropriate long term
projection for the city. We did some minor tweaking to
the near term projections, but ultimately. We're still planning for
256,400 people by 2051. That's an increase of about 152,600
new residents. That represents a growth rate of about 3.1%
annually, so it's a very strong. Population growth rate. Quite
a bit higher than the Durham region growth rate, which
is 2%, which is also strong. Growth rate, so. We're
looking at an area that's located within a very fast
growing. Larger city region. And it is one of the
fastest growing areas within that larger, fast growing area. So
to accommodate this amount of population, we've identified a need
for about 1840 additional households. Annually over the next 30
years. Through a variety of different types of low, medium,
and high density housing. On the next slide, I wanted
to just summarize the employment forecast. We've also conducted a
review of the city's long term employment forecast, and similar
to the population analysis, we have concluded that. The long
term. Employment forecast set out by Vision Durham is still
an appropriate long term forecast that identifies a total employment
base of 93,800 employees by 2051. That's an increase of
over 50,000 jobs between 2024 and 2051. It's an annual
growth rate of just under. 3%. Again, that's a strong
growth rate, higher than the average growth rate for the
region as a whole. And we've also identified an employment
activity rate, which is the ratio of jobs to population.
Of about 37%. And you can see that over the
long term, the activity rate. Is. Expected to stay relatively
stable. It's expected to grow over the near term, but
then fall gradually over the long term, as the population
ages, it puts downward pressure on that population. Employment to
population ratio as more people are leaving the labor force
pool. So it is. An encouraging sign that we do
feel that over the long term we will maintain that
relative average or ratio. The next slide gets into. Some
of the analysis that builds on these population, housing and
employment projections. So as part of this work, we conducted
a series of long term growth scenarios, and so, given
some of the recent interest in development of some of
the key strategic growth areas within the city. Areas like.
The city center and the Kingston Road corridor. And potential
higher densities for these areas. As well as. Higher development
potential in Seaton. We did conduct three long term growth
scenarios beyond just their scenario. One and vision derm scenario.
So those scenarios looked at higher rates of intensification as
well as potentially higher average greenfield density. Levels over the
long term, and these scenarios were not necessarily meant. To
ultimately provide a different outcome than envision derm, but we
did want to assess the sensitivity to show. How variations
in intensification and Greenfield density would affect the overall need
for urban lands within the city over the long term.
And so the three long term scenarios that we've prepared
are scenario one, which is essentially the envision derm scenario
that sets out a 40% intensification target and 52 people
in job. Jobs per hectare for community air expansion lands.
For scenario two, we increase that intensification target to 45%
and increase the overall greenfield density target to 65 people
in jobs per hectare. We also looked at a third
scenario which increased further increase the intensification target the 50%.
And kept the overall density target at 65 people in
jobs per hectare. And so. On the next slide provide
you the results of that work. Scenario one ultimately. Provides
us with the outcome of the envision Durham work, which
generates a land requirement of 948 ha. For community area
land. And I just want to back up for a
second. Then when we were looking at? Urban lands. We
generally divide these lands or allocate them into two broad
buckets. The first is community area lands, which is what
I'm speaking to now. So this is essentially where we
accommodate people. And jobs to support. To support the daily
function of residents. So that's retail, institutional uses and other
commercial uses. So these land numbers that I'm quoting now
refer to those community area lands. We also looked at
employment area lands, which is essentially where people work. And
we've heard a little bit about some of the changes
to the provincial policy with respect to the definition of
employment areas, the province is now taking a more narrow
scope or definition of employment area largely being industrial, with
some ancillary. And supportive uses that would be permitted, provided
that they are ancillary or accessory to the industrial use.
So those are the two broad buckets, and I'll just
get back to. This slide here. So the first slide
was or. Sorry, the first scenario was. If we can
go back. I'm going to just finish that slide. Thank
you. So the first scenario was the envision Durham scenario,
and then you can see in scenario two. When we
increase that intensification target to 45%. And the increase in
density to 65 people in jobs per hectare, that does
have a fairly. Significant increase, or, sorry, I should say
decrease on the overall land requirement results in a 45%.
Reduction in the long term land requirement. Going to scenario
three, a further increase to the intensification target. Holding that
density target the same results in a further reduction to
the overall land requirement. Down to 360. Ha. Which. Is
about a 60% reduction in the long term land need
relative to scenario one. So it does give you. Some
sense of how sensitive these assumptions are. Our general opinion
on looking at these scenarios, and I was directly involved
with the envision durham work working for the region is
that we think that these intensification targets, particularly the base
target is. An appropriate target for intensification for the city.
We do need to make sure that we're providing a
balanced mix of housing by structure types, so we need
low density forms of housing, medium density forms of housing
and high density forms. We can't do that. If we.
Overshoot the intensification target. So we do think that's an
appropriate target. The Greenfield density target, in our opinion, is
low. We've recognized that in our work. And we have
acknowledged that it could take longer for, ultimately for. The
Northeast victory area to build out, and that has been
acknowledged through the secondary plan work that. That growth that's
being planned for is a minimum amount of growth, and
ultimately the area could accommodate. A greater amount of population
and housing, particularly. Next slide. So, moving on to the
employment area forecast and landing's assessment. The employment area. Forecast
is about 22,000 jobs. That represents about 44% of the
overall. Future. Job growth within the city from 2024 to
2051. About 15,600 of those jobs are anticipated to be
accommodated in existing designated employment area land so the majority
of those lands are vacant. Lands within Seaton. There's still
some remaining. Lands and intensification opportunities in South Pickering and
then the remaining 6600 jobs would be accommodated through urban
expansion in northeast Pickering. At a density of about 28
jobs per hectare. That results in a land requirement of
about 235 ha. Next slide. So on the following slide.
I wanted to just point out that. As part of
this gms work. A specific consideration was given to the
seat and employment area as this area represents the location
of almost all of the city's remaining designated greenfield, or
growth area. The DJ lands outside of any future urban
expansion lands by 2051, the seat in urban areas forecast
to accommodate. A revised population based on our analysis of
65,000 people and just under 30,000. Jobs. The seat and
employment areas anticipate to play a significant role within the
city and the region. In accommodating high quality employment opportunities
over the next several decades. Given this, the significant changes
to provincial policy, the long term vision for the seat
and employment area has been a key focus of this
gms. And on the next slide, I just wanted to
summarize. That focus. So as part of the GMS work,
and given this revised provincial planning. Direction with respect to
employment areas. We did complete a review of the preliminary
incedin. A key focus of that was looking at there's
two designated employment nodes within the seat. And employment area.
The innovation corridor. Those employment nodes restricts some land use.
Uses that are permitted in the prestigious employment designation. They
generally focus on. A more major office or standalone office
component. With supportive commercial and other employment supportive uses. Those
uses would no longer be permitted as an employment area
under the definition. So that required us to take a
look at. The designation to provide recommendations. And so that
work has been done. It's been done within the framework
of. The current. Planning. Policy direction. With again specific focus
placed on the prestige employment nodes as well as some
other employment area lands. Within. The Seaton innovation corridor. And
those details are provided in the GMS report. In addition
to that policy, those policy recognitions, we also prepared a
series of broader policy recommendations. For the city, which my
colleague Bobby Goche is going to briefly summarize for you.
Now. Thank you. Thank you, Jamie. Good evening, everyone. Good
to see you. Let's move to the next slide. Please.
And the one after that. Okay, great. So my slide
is intended really to give a summary of section nine
of the growth management strategy. Report. And section nine is
an evaluation of the kinds of updates to the current
official plan that will be needed to support the growth
management strategy. And I think that there's essentially four themes
of policy updates that are going to be required. So
if you have a chance to look at section nine.
In some cases. It's recommended policies because there are some
mandatory requirements expected by the province to be included. In
the new official plan. But I also think that there
are some optional policies that the city can use as
tools to better implement its growth management strategy. So the
first theme of policies which I'll just speak to briefly
on this slide. Is related to growth forecasting. I think
it kind of goes without saying that the new official
plan will have an updated planning horizon. If you could
go back, please. I'll stay on. This slide. Thanks. So
the new official plan will have an updated. Growth planning
horizon of 2051. There's going to be a need to
acknowledge that. Updated horizon. But there's also going to be
a need to incorporate the population and employment projections. That
Jamie's gone over. So at a minimum, that section should
include some of those statements. In conducting some best practice
review in other municipalities. There are some other things the
city could do. In the official plan, so we put
out some other options. I won't go over it in
detail now, but, for example. You could include specific housing
forecasts to give a bit more clarity around what those
population forecasts mean, but not every municipality does that. And
the second theme of policy updates pertains to the urban
area, and I think we've heard and heard a lot
of extensive discussion. Around northeast pickering, and I think that
would be sort of. The main required change to implement
the province's approval of the Durham region official plan, which
would be to add the northeast Pickering lands into the
urban area. On that policy topic, too. I would kind
of point out some of the good themes of the
provincial policy statement which speak to matters like ensuring orderly,
logical progression of development. And I think the discussion earlier
around, including some phasing policies in northeast Pickering will serve
to advance implementation of those expectations. The third theme of
policy updates. Relates to an intensification strategy. So when I
say intensification, I'm referring. To development within the existing built
up area. So places like the city center. We kind
of envision, and it'll dip to the city, but we
kind of envision a section on intensification strategy to acknowledge.
What the different expectations will be as intensification comes forward.
And Jamie's pointed out a very key aspect of that,
which will be to include. A minimum residential intensification policy
and through the growth management work that Jamie's recommended. A
minimum target of 40% of units. Would intend to be
intended to be accommodated through intensification. So that's kind of.
A recommended minimum, and the provincial policy statement does require
that. There be a residential intensification target in the official
plan that is mandatory. Additionally, there's some other requirements. For
example, City center being a major transit station area with
high order transit access. It needs to have a minimum
density. That may already be reflected in the official plan,
but a minimum of 150 people in jobs per hectare
needs to be stated for that. And there could be
some other tools. And we kind of get into that
in the report as well. We looked at some other
municipalities that are a little more aggressive on ensuring intensification
will achieve their broader. Visions. They might include things like
minimum building height or minimum density requirements as development moves
forward. So there is an option to include policies like
that. But it may not be necessary. And I would
also say too that setting policies around density and height
is also an urban design topic, so I kind of
stopped a little bit short of giving definitive recommendations on
that, knowing that the city will be doing some more
in depth urban design work. Down the road. And then
the last theme of policy updates. Pertain to the employment
areas. We've talked about that a little bit. We heard
from Paul Lowe's earlier on this, too, which is that
the provincial policy statement was updated to redefine employment areas.
There's a new set of what's allowed and not allowed
in the employment areas. Our section of the report gives
a little bit of guidance around what's next in that
and essentially, I think the staff report does a great
job of explaining. That. What it really means is that
the city will have to look at the extent of
the employment area designations. Jamie has spoken to that in
the context of Seaton, but there also will be a
need to look at that in more detail. Within South
Pickering, so that'll be some work forthcoming. So I think
that kind of just at a high level wraps up
my summary of some of the policy recommendations. And I
think if we go to the next slide. I know.
Jamie, do you want to take. It back and offer
some thoughts. Thanks, Bobby. Yeah, I think we are actually
at the end of our presentation, so I will turn
it over back to the chair for any questions. Thank
you both. And I'll start a list. And I see
councilor butt with his hand up first. Council brennan. Thank
you, madam. Thank you, madam Chair. Thank you. To the
delegates here and questions in relations to the housing. I
believe you talked about. We have forecast 1800 homes annually.
I believe in 1840, homes that we have built annually.
Are we all projections? Do you know of? Are we
on track? Are we building less? Are we building more.
Yeah. Thank you. Through the chair. We are actually tracking
quite well. To the envision driven forecast. We saw. A
fairly significant surge. In development activity, building permits and completions
through the Covid period from 2021 to 2023. Things have
started to taper off now in 2024, but they're still
well above the historical average. We do think that the
next. Twelve to, say one to two years is going
to be a slower time period, particularly in the high
density market, but overall, we are tracking quite closely to
that envision driven forecast. Your presentation highlighted. A lot of
population growth, expansion, land. Employment. With all this comes also
with infrastructure as well. I'm just wondering if that would
have been your topic of discussion as well. When I
talk about infrastructure, I'm talking about roads, transportations, public transportations.
Would that cover under. Your search. Thank you. Through the
chair. So, clearly, providing infrastructure to accommodate the growth is
critical. It's not the focus of this study per se.
We typically rely on other foundational documents like master planning
studies. As well as development charges. Background studies also take
those master plans and look at ultimately what the required
infrastructure is for hard and soft services. And you look
at how. That ultimately will be funded and what the
impacts are on development charges. Our firm does that work?
And I work with our company. To do those studies,
but we have not done a further analysis of infrastructure,
detailed infrastructure requirements to accommodate the growth forecast. But again,
we would note that. The forecast is in line with
the envision Durham work. And. The math planning work that
would support that analysis. When you talk about employment, you
talk about employment, and you talk about large numbers of
15,000 20,000, whatever. What employment jobs do you think will
be? Creating in our municipality. Thank you to the chair
again. So, as I mentioned, About just over 40% of
the jobs are identified within the employment area category, so
those are industrial jobs. Those are jobs like advanced manufacturing,
logistics, warehousing, jobs related to energy. Remediation.
Construction. Those are all sort of the core industrial jobs
we note in the report, the Pickering nuclear plant refurbishment.
Is a big anticipated big employer in the near term,
about 6600 jobs, and they get identified with that refurbishment,
some of those jobs are going to be temporary. But
there's a significant amount of employment related to the nuclear
refurbishment. But we would expect. To see. Steady amount of
jobs. In. A range of industrial sectors. Also knowledge base
sectors related to research. And innovation. Plus, with the significant
amount of population growth, we expect to see a significant
amount of retail and what we call population related employment,
which would also include jobs in healthcare and education to
accommodate that population growth. And then just one last point
on the employment forecast. To vote. I think just under
30% of the overall employment projections are anticipated to beans
in work at home or off site employment. So these
are people who. Are working at home or those who
don't go to the same place of work every day.
Could be traveling sales, and then it could be truck
drivers. It could be freelance, it specialists, things like that.
So those are, that gives you some sense of. The
kind of jobs we expect to see. Thank you. Appreciate
that, Mr. Cook. Thanks for addressing me. Thank you, madam
Chair. You are welcome, councilor. But just to make sure
everyone at home understands what we're doing, since we've extended
beyond eleven. We did pass the extension to continue until
midnight. At which time we will have a hard stop.
Councilor Brenner, thank you very much. Madam Chair, can you
hear me okay? Absolutely. I wanted to ask and it
really picks up. I'll pick up where councilor Butt. Left
off with the consultant. You talk about? A growth management
study and the emphasis on population growth. And yes, there
is reference to employment. What I don't see and I'm
wondering why. Or if you can look at. Is growth
in the area of non residential. And I guess what
I'm trying to focus on is. A growth management study
that incorporates. A roadmap and target for pickering to rebalance
the tax ratios, which currently are very high in terms
of the residential versus the non residential, I think it's
about. What if I'm correct about 81, 82% residential? Do
you have any comment in terms of can you look
at. Or is it possible for you to look at
that if you're moving forward? To incorporate the non residential
aspect into the growth side of it, not just population,
because if you've got population. You need to have nonresidential
in order to make it much more affordable. Thank you
for that question. And through the chair, so. I do
want to emphasize that this analysis that we've undertaken does
a comprehensive look at both residential and nonresidential. It looks
at the employment projections by sector and by broad land
use category, and we had identified in the previous slide.
A significant amount of employment in the range of just
over 50,000 jobs. One thing the study doesn't do is
it doesn't get into a detailed assessment of commercial land.
Needs or specific retail. And population related lands within the
community area. When we do landing's assessments such as this
one, we typically assign a certain provision for lands to
accommodate. Those retail and commercial uses. But we have done
a very detailed review of the employment outlook by sector.
And there's quite a bit of detail in the report
that discusses this, where we spend more time is on
the employment area analysis. For the employment lands. What are
now essentially referred to as the industrial lands. We've looked
at the supply of those lands within south Pickering. We've
looked at. Seaton. And we've looked at the vision for
Seaton, given that that is the next area that you'll
be building, looking to develop and build out over time
along that innovation corridor. So a significant amount of time
and efforts gone into looking at the vision for employment.
Within. Seaton. With respect to your comment about the res
non res tax ratio, it's a question that I often
get. I've had this over decades in my career. And
it's a very valid question. It's important that we want
to ensure that. We have a sustainable or. A progressive
residential, non residential tax base. It's very tricky to significantly
move that needle when. You're growing at the pace that.
Picking forecast to grow at. So while even though you're
receiving or you're intended to accommodate a lot of employment
growth. Because the population is growing so fast, it's very
hard to move that ratio. And it wouldn't be appropriate
for us to try to develop scenarios that would force
that ratio. Beyond what we think. We could support from
an economic and market standpoint. So we have looked at
the broader picture, the forecasts that are put out there,
they have a level of ambitiousness to them, including the
employment forecast. We do think that they are defensible over
the long term, and we think that they strike the
right balance. But the reality is that it's going to.
Be very hard for the city. To significantly make that
shift towards a higher tax assessment to non residential, you're
going to see lots of non residential tax assessments, but
that shift is likely going to. Be very slow to
inch over because of the significant amount of population growth.
Thank you. My next question. Is similar to one that
I asked with the Northeast Pickering people consultant. And what
I'm interested in knowing. As part of your process, did
you reach out to any of the farmers to get
any input? From that sector into the growth management study.
Through the chair. I didn't specifically reach out. To any
members of the agricultural community. The city did prepare. And
a growth strategy. Growth management strategy discussion paper. That was
broadly circulated. But to my knowledge, we have not reached
out to the agricultural community directly as part of this.
Work. Is there still that possibility to reach out? I
mean, Durham does have the agricultural advisory committee, both myself
and councilor, but I actually had an opportunity to. Have
a virtual meeting with them a couple of weeks ago,
and I know that they certainly would. Be very interested
in providing some input into the growth management component of
the city of pickering. That is something that ultimately, I
think, staff could recommend or provide, but I would leave
it with fair enough to make that reserve. We get
the report on the floor. I'll talk to staff about
it. Thank you. And Madam Chair, thank you very much
for the opportunity to ask those questions and the latitude.
You are very welcome. Excellent questions, anyone? Else in committee
wishing to speak. All right? And so, as Councilor Brenner
mentioned, we need to get this on the floor. With
a mover and a seconder in order to move this
forward, and I'm going to see councilor bot as the
mover and councilor pickles as the seconder. It is now
open for discussion and debate. Councilor brenner. You're in. Mute.
There we go. Thank you, madam. Chair through you. To
staff, and this would be probably to, I guess, Mr.
Bentley. You heard the thrust of my question of the
consultant, and then he's deferred. Back to staff. Just want
to hone in a little bit on the agricultural sector.
And the fact being that. We know that. Agriculture in
Durham Region. Is second only to the, in terms of
jobs and economics to OPG, which tells us. It has
a huge impact in terms of the economic well being
of the whole region, let alone the city of pickering.
Can you maybe elaborate? Or are you willing to reach
out further? Prior to the final stages of this study
and when it comes back is in the report. It
talks about. I guess picking up some of the comments.
And reaching out for additional comments prior to the final
phase. Can you elaborate on how you're going to access?
And are you prepared to access? The members of the
Durham Regional. Agricultural Advisory Committee, and I believe they also
delegated as well to the City of pickering. If I
recall. One of our residents are on it. Sure. Sorry.
Yeah. Thanks. Councilor Brenner. Yes. And the consultants had spoken
a bit to this in your question. We as staff
have provided some background research. Documents for a variety of
topics and held meetings both in person and electronically. And
one of those was agricultural and rural areas. You may
recall, we had that. Up in Claremont. Community. I think.
The Claremont Church, if I recall correctly. Very good engagement
from residents and farmers in that area. Most certainly. And
we certainly take that input in from the stakeholders and
interested parties for all their different topics. Including agricultural and
rural areas, and we'll continue to do so in. The
coming weeks and months as we go to the next
stage. I would certainly. Welcome Dion Jacobs in attendance to.
If there's anything else you'd want to add. To that,
but certainly we're interested in input from farmers and from
the different committees that are offering. Offering their input. But
I guess my question very simply. Are you prepared to
reach out to the advisory, the agricultural advisory committee. We
may have to reach out to them rather than reaching
out to us. Yeah. And I think part of the
appeal of having some of. These public meetings. In community
areas was to meet them at their level as well,
not just at the ReC complexes. Where we normally hold
meetings, but certainly. Happy to reach out to those groups.
I don't know, Dion, if you have anything more. You
can add to that. If you just meet yourself.
Can you hear me? Yes. Okay. Yes, councilor. Through human.
Chair to councilor Brena. We are about to. Conclude. Our
first phase of our official plan review, which were the
discussion papers of various topics. Now it is a question
of. Listening. To or assessing what we've heard. And start
drafting policies, and we plan to do that through. The
summer, but at the same time. There will be further
engagement opportunities. With key stakeholders. And if this is a
specific request, by all means. We will reach out to
them, but. There will be opportunities. When we bring those
draft policies forward. And then also at the end of
the day, we bring. A final. Official plan amendment forward
for council's consideration. I should add as well, Councilor Brenner.
We're fortunate. Our heritage planner, actually. Has a lot of
experience in agricultural matters as a farmer and sits on
the duramag. Group as well, so we would most certainly.
Be having Matt involved in this as well. Excellent. Thank
you very much. Thank you, madam Chair. You are most
welcome, Mr. Brenner. Councilor. Butt, you are next on the
list. And if I could just ask. We employ some
brevity in our questions, try to. Ask direct questions so
we can get through the agenda this evening. Madam chair,
in all due respects, I will only ask one question
if that's the case. Mr. Bensley for clarifications and I
know construct pickles and I, we receive. A lot of
notes in terms of saying when they talk about intensification,
They're under the impression that. If the city guides them,
directs them, we is our plan. But correct me if
I'm wrong, and maybe for our viewers point of view,
we are also being dictated by the province in order
to build more homes and expand. Am I correct in
few words. Could you please clarify that? Yeah, I think
that's been sort of a common. Theme this evening. About.
The province's role, and certainly they set targets and define
areas in the city. And we're an urban growth center.
Certainly, as well. So there's definitely targets that we need
to be mindful of, and I think the consultant had
done a great job speaking to some of that stuff
this evening as well. So need to be aware of
that. Can things change along the way? Sure, depending on
circumstances. Because the future can be unknown sometimes, but I
think we're trying to work with. The parameters that the
province has set down through their potential planning statement that
was recently revised. Certainly when it comes to. Bit off
topic, but just with the downloading responsibilities from the region
planning folks to the city. We take on Envision Durham.
And all the OP policies that come along with that
as well. That speaks to some of this. Stuff, so
I hope I've answered your question. You have. And I
thank you. Thank you, madam Chair. You're welcome, councilor, but
anyone else wishing to debate on this topic or ask
questions. Otherwise. We will call the question. And the directive.
Here is a recommendation on report PLN 1625 regarding the
perked official plan. Review to be received. And that the
City of Pickering Growth management strategy funnel report prepared by
Watson Socialist Economists Limited in association with WSP, who we
heard from this evening dated may 28, 2025, provided as
attachment one be received and that the staff be directed
to implement the growth projections contain therein that staff consider.
The comments received from phase one, the background and research
of the official plan review on key outcomes. And recommendations
of the City Pickering Growth management Strategy final report in
preparation of phase two. Policy drafting of the Pickering official
plan process and finally that a copy of the city
of Pickering Growth Management strategy final report be made available
to all interested parties throughout the project website. And with
that, I will call the question. All those in favor?
We just get a recorded vote? Please, madam chair? Absolutely.
Councilor Robinson calls her recorded vote. So, Madam Clerk, if
you could please do the rule. Councilor Robinson. Councilor Brenner.
Yes, Councilor Bett. Yes, Councilor Cook. Yes, Councilor Pickles. Yes,
Mayor Ash. Yes, madam. Chairs carried five to one. Thank
you very much. For .3 and second it. Okay. Moved
by councilor Pickles. A seconded by councilor. Butt, which is
the zoning bylaw amendment AO 624, draft plan condominium. We
heard. Earlier from the delegation this evening regarding 1635 Palmer's.
Saw Mill Road. There is a recommendation before us. Zoning
bylaw amendment application submitted by 900-4807 Canada, Inc. Or stone
pay to permit a condominium development containing 85 townhouse units
be approved and that the draft zoning bylaw amendment as
set out in appendix one to report PLM 1425 be
finalized and boarded to council. Because those two have moved
it. Are there any of us wishing to speak to
this item? No. Councilor Butt, you are now making the
decision for everyone. Okay? And that is a no, which.
Is a fair statement to make since we did talk
about this earlier this evening with our delegation. Before us.
So I'm going to call a question on this particular
piece unless anyone wants a recorded vote. Are we good?
Okay. Thank you. All those in favor? We're going to
vote. That item is carried. That brings. Us. To item
five, which is member updates from committees. Are there any
updates from other committees? Seeing and hearing them. We will
move on to what I'm sure everyone is waiting for.
Now item number six. Adjournment moved by councilor, but seconded
by councilor. Pickles. All those in favor?