Hello Pickering.
Redevelopment Plan at Glenanna and Liverpool
Tonight I attended the Pickering public meeting about the proposed redevelopment at Glenanna Road and Liverpool Road, and I wanted to share my understanding of what was discussed and why so many residents are concerned.
The proposal
The proposal is to replace two existing detached homes at the northwest corner of Glenanna and Liverpool with a three-storey, 51-unit stacked townhouse development. The plan includes 56 underground parking spaces, 56 bicycle parking spaces, one loading space, and just over 173 square metres of outdoor amenity space. It would also require both an Official Plan amendment for a site-specific density increase and a zoning by-law amendment from R1 to R3, with several site-specific exceptions.
The meeting was described as an early public consultation, not a final decision. I understand that the city is required to review the application because the landowner has the right to apply for changes to the zoning and Official Plan. But understanding the process does not mean residents have to accept the proposal as reasonable.
Size matters
What stood out to me most was that people were not simply opposing development for the sake of it. The concern was much more specific: this scale, on this corner, in this neighbourhood, with the traffic and safety issues that already exist.
Should city justify its plans?
The applicant’s team spoke about housing targets, intensification policies, and the need for more housing in Pickering. They also explained parts of the design, including the stacked townhouses, underground parking, bicycle parking, outdoor amenity area, and proposed access from Glenanna. But from my perspective, the presentation never really answered the most important question: why is a 51-unit development appropriate on two lots in this particular location?
Congestion and safety concerns
Traffic and safety were among the biggest concerns raised. Residents spoke about Glenanna, Liverpool, and Glendale already being busy and difficult, especially around school times. People raised concerns about speeding, awkward turning movements, poor visibility, children and teenagers walking through the area, cars cutting through from Kingston Road, and vehicles using the bike lane to get around turning traffic. One resident said they had waited through five lights trying to move through the area, and another described cars passing through the bike lane at roughly 50 to 60 km/h when traffic backs up.
Adding dozens of new units, with a new driveway near an already difficult intersection, does not seem like a small impact. There was also concern that vehicles leaving the development may struggle to turn left and may instead be pushed through nearby streets like Glendale, Walnut, and others.
Parking was another major issue. The applicant stated that the proposal includes 56 underground parking spaces for 51 units. A concern was raised that a higher standard, discussed as 77 parking spaces, would normally be expected for this area. That means the concern is not just that there are “only” 56 spaces. The concern is that the proposal appears to rely on a reduced parking standard that may be more appropriate in a higher-density urban area, even though this site is not in the city centre.
Parking availability, a legitimate concern
Residents also pointed out the real-world parking pressure this could create. Fifty-six spaces leaves very little room for visitors, second vehicles, caregivers, deliveries, service vehicles, or overflow parking. Nearby townhouse developments already create street parking problems, including cars parked on both sides of the street, cars overhanging driveways, and reduced visibility. It is hard to see how this proposal would not make that worse.
Environment and green space concerns
The tree issue was also very serious. A resident who reviewed the arborist report stated that 25 trees are proposed to be removed and that, based on replacement requirements, this would require 74 replacement trees. The obvious question is: where would 74 trees actually go on this site?
There does not appear to be enough room on the property to replace that many trees in any meaningful way, especially with the proposed building footprint, underground parking, driveway, walkways, retaining walls, and limited open space. There were also concerns about border trees and neighbouring trees, especially on the north side of the property. Even if some trees are not technically removed, excavation, grading, underground construction, and retaining walls could damage the root systems and cause those trees to die later.
The applicant’s response was that trees would be replaced on site where possible, but that where they cannot be replaced on site, the applicant may work with the city through cash-in-lieu or by planting trees elsewhere in the city. That answer did not reassure me. Planting trees somewhere else in Pickering, or paying a fee, does not replace the mature trees, shade, privacy, wildlife habitat, and neighbourhood character that would be lost at this specific location.
Neighbourhood loses neighbhourhood feeling
Neighbourhood character was another major theme. North of Glenanna is mostly detached homes, larger lots, mature trees, and quieter residential streets. One resident pointed out that many lots in the area are large, with examples around 75 by 200 feet, 84 by 179 feet, or roughly 15,000 square feet. While there are townhouses in the broader area, that does not automatically mean this site should be treated like a high-density location. To me, 51 stacked townhouse units on two lots feels like too much of a jump for this corner.
Other concerns
Other numbers also stood out. The proposed building height was stated as 10.8 metres, while the existing zoning allows 9 metres. That is about 1.8 metres higher than what is currently permitted. The current lot coverage is 25%, while the application is asking for 50% dwelling coverage, not including driveways or other hard surfaces.
Exceptions conflict with community concerns
The proposal also requires several site-specific exceptions, including for density, lot area, lot frontage, landscaped open space, amenity area, parking, and built form. To me, that is one of the clearest signs that the proposal is trying to force too much onto this site. If this many exceptions are needed to make it work, maybe the issue is not the rules. Maybe the proposal is simply too intense for the property.
Future planning influenced by the precedents here
There was also concern about precedent. Residents repeatedly came back to the fact that this would take two detached-home lots and turn them into 51 units. If this is approved, it could create pressure for similar applications on other large lots nearby. Even if each application is reviewed separately, approvals matter. Developers watch what gets approved, and residents understand that one decision can change the expectations for an entire area.
Waste collection, another concern
Another concern raised was waste collection. The applicant clarified that garbage pickup would be private, not city pickup. The proposed setup would involve a private waste truck entering the site, backing into the loading area, and collecting bins from a garbage room or bin area. Given the tightness of the site and the number of units, residents were understandably concerned about whether those truck movements would be practical and safe.
Are residents being heard?
One thing I took away from the meeting is that many residents are worried the planning process favours developers and that public input may not carry enough weight. Whether that feeling is fair or not, it was clearly present in the room. People want to know that their concerns will actually matter before decisions are made.
Mentality conflict: residents vs developers
ResidentsThe applicant may be able to point to planning policies, housing targets, and technical studies, but residents are looking at the real-world impact: more cars, more congestion, less safety, less parking, fewer mature trees, more pressure on schools and services, and a major change to the character of the neighbourhood.
My overall takeaway is that this proposal feels like it was designed around how many units could fit on the site, rather than what actually fits the neighbourhood.
The bottom line
I am not opposed to thoughtful development, and I understand that Pickering needs housing. But this proposal, as presented, is far too large for this location. At minimum, it needs to be significantly reduced and redesigned with proper attention to traffic safety, parking, tree preservation, neighbourhood character, and the impact on nearby residents.
The city should not approve this application as submitted.
John Meloche
