Pickering condo proposal under fire
Residents, councillors say waterfront development inappropriate for the area
A large group of residents and the local councillors have banded together to fight a proposal for an eight-storey condo building on the Pickering waterfront.
South Pickering residents packed council chambers at the latest planning and development committee meeting to hear an information report on a proposal for a condo building on Wharf St., west of Liverpool Rd. and steps away from Frenchman’s Bay.
But council will not decide on this matter; it’s going straight to the Ontario Municipal Board.
The developer, a numbered company, 2388116 Ontario Inc., is proposing 119 units and a three-level parking structure. The area is currently composed of detached dwellings, boat and other storage facilities and overflow parking for Port restaurant.
The applicant had applied to the city for an Official Plan amendment to redesignate the lands from Open Space System (Marina Areas) and Urban Residential Areas (Low Density Areas) to Urban Residential Areas (High Density Areas).
The developer’s representative John McDermott, of McDermott and Associates Ltd., noted the city did not make a decision in the required 180-day time frame, so they filed an appeal with the board.
Ward 2 regional Councillor Bill McLean said extenuating circumstances resulted in this, which included the summer break when there are no meetings.
“It’s a slap in the face to the community that you wouldn’t even listen to them without making the decision to go to the board,” McLean said.
He shared concerns from residents who claimed that a packed information meeting on the proposal in October left them with the impression from the developer’s team that the plan was a done deal.
“There was nothing threatening about it,” McDermott responded. “There was nothing that was said this was a done deal.”
Gwyneth Dalzell has lived in the area her entire life.
“As a younger member of this community and someone who is concerned about the development that I see in my area, I would just like to express for myself, and speaking for many of the other youth in Pickering, that we love this community, we love Pickering and we want to make sure there is a place for us in the future in this community,” she said.
More than 100 residents were part of a task force that mapped out the future of Pickering’s waterfront from both a recreational and residential outlook in the late 1990s. Large condos were not part of the vision.
“The applicant’s residential condominium proposal would be more appropriately located in a location where high-density development is appropriate, such as the Pickering Urban Growth Centre or along Kingston Rd.,” said David Steele, who was chair of the task force.
The report was endorsed by council and the city has invested in significant projects, including Progress Frenchman’s Bay Park — the nautically themed streetscape — and Millennium Square.
Steele noted the provincial and federal governments and the city have invested $9 million in a safe harbour entrance to Frenchman’s Bay to support boating, tourism and recreation in the area.
“Given the magnitude of investments made by various levels of government, it is imperative that any future development ensure that marina and uses continue to function successfully,” he said.
Resident Gary Peck said the proposal does not protect the character of the village and it does not meet many criteria for development standards.
For example, he said buildings south of Annland St., where the building would go, should be three storeys maximum.
He also noted Frenchman’s Bay has a long history as an unregistered wa- ter aerodrome. An eight-storey building could pose a problem for the flight path.
Peck, like many others, feels a condo building of this size will set a new precedent.
“If one gets built, many will get built,” he said.
Jeff O’Donnell has lived in Bay Ridges since 1971 and said the proposal saddens him.
“Frenchman’s Bay is a ‘provincially significant wetland’ and considered an environmentally significant area and should be protected at all costs.”
He also wants council to reinstate a restriction that was removed from some of the lands in 2006.
Before then, Pickering council had zoned the properties in question as subject to a holding provision that prevented any new development until council was satisfied with the site design.
Staff will put forward a report with recommendations. Council’s direction from that report will be presented at the board hearing. No date has been set for it at this time.