Members of Pickering’s Planning & Development Committee refused a condominium development proposal for Liverpool Road south.
This unanimous decision on Monday night will be formalized at the July 27 City Council meeting, said a city statement.
The applicant, Pickering Harbour Company Ltd., originally proposed a mixed-use development at 505 and 591 Liverpool Road, consisting of two 23-storey buildings, containing 498 residential units, and 1,900 square metres of grade related commercial uses, which was subsequently revised to two 15-storey buildings, containing 377 residential units, and 1,400 square metres of commercial space.
Despite calls to reject the proposal outright back in February, it was critical that city development staff were given the opportunity to consult with impacted agencies, engage with the public, and review the applications thoroughly. This allowed staff to make a professional recommendation based on data, analysis, evaluation of key criteria, and implementation of policy. It also allowed staff to ensure that the public was engaged throughout the process and that their voice was factored into the decision, said the statement.
“Our waterfront is one of our most treasured and irreplaceable assets. We have been consistent from the start stating that the bar was going to be very high,” said Deputy Mayor Kevin Ashe. “As a municipality, we are obligated to accept and process every application that comes through our doors. That should never be confused with endorsement. We rely on our professional staff, and the rigorous planning process they oversee, to guide these decisions. We rely on the public to provide input and participate in the process. We will have a successful city when we build it together.”
Right to appeal
Every developer has the right to appeal council’s decision on a planning application to the province’s Local Planning Appeal Tribunal – also known as LPAT. Staff also recommended to council that staff and its agents be authorized to defend council’s position at the LPAT should this occur.
“Had the city rejected the proposal back in February, we would be ill-equipped to defend ourselves at the LPAT,” said Marisa Carpino, Interim CAO. “Instead, we gave staff the necessary time to review all of the information and generate a comprehensive report. As a result, we are prepared to defend our decision should the matter be appealed.”
Staff concluded that the proposal was too large, too dense, too tall, and of a form that was not compatible with, or complementary to, the surrounding area. The proposal is not appropriate for the development of the subject lands for the following eight planning reasons:
- The proposal is not consistent with the growth policies of the PPS which requires that growth and intensification be directed by local municipalities to appropriate locations based on local context;
- The proposal does not conform to the growth management policies of the Growth Plan which also requires that municipalities strategically plan for growth by identifying appropriate areas for growth and intensification;
- The proposal is not reflective of the scale and intensity of the neighbourhood, and therefore, does not conform to the Waterfront Places policies of the Durham Region Official Plan which require that development reflect the characteristics of the Waterfront Places in which it is located;
- The proposal does not conform to the growth and intensification policies of the City of Pickering Official Plan which directs major intensification and high density development to the City Centre and to mixed use nodes and corridors;
- The proposal is not in keeping with the neighbourhood character and vision as planned by the policies developed for the Liverpool Road Waterfront Node and does not appropriately address the Liverpool Road Waterfront Node Development Guidelines
- OPG is not in support of the applications and advises it is premature for the City to consider the applicant’s request given that the proposal introduces permissions for sensitive residential land uses within the existing federally related exclusion zone;
- The submitted Traffic Impact Study includes several deficiencies to assess whether the proposal can be accommodated on the existing road network and the parking supply proposed is insufficient to support the development; and
- Consistency with the TRCA Living City Policies has not been demonstrated as the location of the shoreline hazard has not been identified.
ALSO READ: