Community action tracker

Liverpool Road Development Proposal

I have submitted formal written comments to the City regarding the Liverpool Road Limited Partnership proposal near Annland Street and Wharf Street.

This site was previously approved for 51 units. The current application is now asking for 91 units.

My concern is not whether this land should develop. My concern is whether this level of increase has been properly justified, especially with the traffic, parking, emergency access, waterfront congestion and neighbourhood concerns residents have been raising.

I have spent time in this area, spoken with residents, and seen the traffic concerns firsthand. Growth is going to happen, but it needs to be planned responsibly and with the surrounding community in mind.

Below is the full submission I sent to the City. I will continue to follow this file closely and share updates as it moves through the planning process.

Written Submission 7/22/2026

Please accept the following as my written comments on the Liverpool Road Limited Partnership applications, File Nos. A 03/26 and CP-2026-02.

Dear Ms. Lima,

I am writing to submit comments on the applications by Liverpool Road Limited Partnership for 640 Liverpool Road and the related Annland Street and Wharf Street properties.

I understand that these applications remain under review, that no decision has been made, and that written comments submitted at this stage will be considered as part of the future recommendation report to Council or Committee.

I want to be clear at the outset. My concern is not whether these lands should develop at all. Council already approved an earlier framework for this site in 2024 based on a 51-unit townhouse proposal.

My concern is that the current application is a very significant change from that earlier approval. The proposal has increased from 51 units to 91 units, with a proposed density of 80 units per net hectare. As I understand it, that places the proposal at the top end of the Medium Density range.

An increase of that scale should require a much stronger explanation of how the added traffic, parking, servicing, emergency access, and neighbourhood impacts will be handled.

The most serious concern remains traffic.

Liverpool Road is already a constrained corridor, especially during summer, waterfront, restaurant, park, and event-related peak periods. I have spent time in this area, spoken with residents, and observed the traffic conditions directly. Residents are not raising this concern in the abstract. It is something they are already dealing with.

The filed Transportation Brief relies on traffic counts from September 12, 2023 and analyzes weekday AM and PM peak periods. That may be useful information, but it does not fully reflect how this area operates during summer and waterfront peak conditions.

The City’s own Information Report identifies the need for updated traffic work, including peak summer traffic volumes, additional summer counts, and appropriate mitigation measures to address safety, congestion, and emergency vehicle access. Until that work is completed and publicly reviewed, I do not believe Council has a sufficient basis to support the current 91-unit proposal.

I am also concerned about cumulative traffic impacts.

This application should not be reviewed in isolation. The City is also processing a separate application by Plaza 6 Inc. immediately north of this site at 666, 668, 672, 678 and 682 Liverpool Road, proposing 21 townhouse units.

Taken together, those two applications would add 112 proposed residential units along this portion of the Liverpool Road corridor, before considering existing waterfront activity, restaurant traffic, public parking demand, seasonal traffic, and other pressures already being experienced in the area.

Residents experience the combined impact of these decisions, not each application separately. For that reason, I believe the City should require a more complete review of cumulative traffic and parking impacts before making any recommendation on this file.

Parking is also a concern.

The public materials do not appear to present a fully consistent picture of the parking requirement. The Transportation Brief calculates a total requirement of 166 parking spaces and notes that the development proposes 163 spaces, which is a shortfall of three spaces. The City’s Information Report also records resident concerns that garages may be used for storage, that visitor and commercial parking may be absorbed by residents, and that spillover parking may affect nearby streets and properties.

Given the existing seasonal and waterfront parking pressures in this area, I ask that the City require a clearer explanation of the applicable parking standard, the true parking demand for the proposed unit mix, and the measures that would prevent overflow parking from being pushed onto surrounding streets, public parking areas, or neighbouring properties.

I am also concerned that some of the environmental and technical materials appear to be tied to the earlier concept or have been carried forward rather than fully refreshed for the 91-unit proposal.

The public Coastal Study was prepared in relation to the earlier 51-unit concept. The Environmental Impact Study also describes the earlier 51-unit proposal, and the 2026 reliance letter indicates that no additional field surveys were completed for the revised layout. If staff intend to rely on those materials for the current proposal, I ask that the recommendation report clearly explain why they remain sufficient for the increased density and revised built form.

I am not suggesting that every study must automatically be redone from scratch. I am asking that the public and Council be given a clear explanation of why older or carried-forward technical work is sufficient for a proposal that has increased so substantially in scale.

I also note that the City’s Information Report identifies a number of matters still requiring review, including:

1. conformity with the Provincial Planning Statement, the Regional Official Plan, the Pickering Official Plan, and Bay Ridges Neighbourhood policies;

2. consistency with the Liverpool Road Waterfront Node Development Guidelines;

3. transition to the low-density neighbourhood to the north;

4. whether the proposed built form reflects the Waterfront Node and Great Lakes Nautical Village theme;

5. parking ratios and the potential for spillover parking;

6. internal garage sizes;

7. updated traffic work reflecting peak summer conditions;

8. the Annland Street and Pleasant Street access alignment;

9. emergency planning concerns raised by OPG;

10. waste collection, utilities, snow storage, water meter room, mailboxes, and related site operations; and

11. accessibility and aging-in-place considerations.            

Those are not minor details. They go directly to whether this proposal works on this site, at this scale, in this neighbourhood.

The key question is not whether housing should be added here. The key question is whether the applicant has justified increasing the approved development framework from 51 units to 91 units in an area where residents are already experiencing traffic, parking, waterfront, and neighbourhood pressures.

For these reasons, I respectfully request that City staff not recommend approval of the 91-unit proposal in its current form.

If the applicant wishes to proceed, I ask that the City require:

1. updated transportation analysis that reflects summer, weekend, waterfront, and cumulative traffic conditions;

2. a clear reconciliation of parking supply, parking demand, visitor parking, commercial parking, and potential spillover impacts;

3. confirmation that the environmental, coastal, servicing, stormwater, and related technical materials remain sufficient for the revised 91-unit concept;

4. a clearer response to emergency access and OPG emergency-planning considerations;

5. further review of the proposal’s fit with the Liverpool Road Waterfront Node Development Guidelines and the surrounding neighbourhood context; and

6. a revised lower-intensity concept that better addresses traffic, parking, emergency access, neighbourhood transition, and waterfront design objectives before any recommendation of approval is brought forward.      

Please keep me advised of all future meetings, reports, and decisions on this file.

Sincerely,

Sam Snyders

Ward 2 Resident

PETITION: Have Your Say on the Proposed Liverpool / Glenanna Development

The proposed development at 1884 Liverpool Road / 1885 Glendale Drive has generated significant discussion within our community.

Many residents have raised questions regarding:

• Traffic and congestion
• Parking
• Emergency access
• Water, sewer and stormwater infrastructure
• Tree preservation
• Cyclist safety
• Neighbourhood compatibility
• The scale of the proposed intensification

This petition does not oppose development. Instead, it asks Pickering Council to ensure these issues are fully addressed before any approval is granted.

If you are a Pickering resident, we invite you to review the petition and, if you agree, add your name.

Estimated completion time:
Less than one minute.

Community Action Update: Tree Inspection

Location: Progress Frenchman's Bay East Park

Status: Removal complete

Resident Concern
A resident contacted me regarding a deteriorated tree located in the park near the parking area, walkway and hydro lines.

Action Taken

• Visited the site
• Submitted a service request
• Spoke with City Representative
• Followed up with the City's arborist
• Requested a review of the proposed timeline

Current Status
The City has confirmed that the tree has been removed. Following discussions about its location and surrounding conditions, the anticipated timeline was reduced from approximately six months to approximately two weeks.

Community Action Update: Bike Lane Markings

Location: Glenanna Road

Status: Service Request Submitted

Resident Concern
The painted buffer markings separating cyclists from vehicle traffic have faded significantly, reducing the visual definition of the bike lane.

Action Taken

• Visited the location
• Documented the condition
• Submitted a service request to the City

Current Status
Awaiting the City's response.