The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutFebruary 2, 2026 Addendum Planning and Development Committee Meeting Agenda Electronic Meeting February 02, 2026 - 07:00 PM Chair: Councillor Pickles Please be advised that in accordance with Section 10.04 of the Procedure By-law, the City of Pickering is holding Council and Committee Meetings in an electronic format until further notice. Members of the public may observe the meeting proceedings by viewing the livestream on the HTML Agenda or the archived video available on the City's website. How to Participate Individuals looking to make a verbal delegation may do so in accordance with the City’s Procedure By-law. In lieu of a verbal delegation, individuals may also submit written comments to clerks@pickering.ca. To register as a delegation, please submit a Delegation Request Form by visiting pickering.ca/meetings. Please note that matters marked with an asterisk (*) have been amended or added. For inquiries related to accessibility, please contact Legislative Services Phone: 905.420.4611 | Email: clerks@pickering.ca. Call to Order/Roll Call Disclosure of Interest Delegations Helena Shao, Shao Law Professional Corporation and Ahmed Choudhury, Owner, 681 Pleasant Street Report PLN 01-26 681 Pleasant Street Notice of Intention to Designate a Property under Part IV, Section 29 of the 1. 2. 3. *3.1 Ontario Heritage Act (Refer to Item 4.1) Constance Ratelle, Korsiak Urban Planning Report PLN 02-26 Draft Plan of Subdivision Application SP-2025-01 Zoning By-law Amendment Application A 01/25 Taccgate Developments Inc. Part of Lot 22, Concession 4, East side of Peter Matthews Drive, south of Alexander Knox Road (Refer to Item 4.2) Vince Figliomeni, TACCGATE Developments Inc. Report PLN 02-26 Draft Plan of Subdivision Application SP-2025-01 Zoning By-law Amendment Application A 01/25 Taccgate Developments Inc. Part of Lot 22, Concession 4, East side of Peter Matthews Drive, south of Alexander Knox Road (Refer to Item 4.2) Planning and Development Reports Director, City Development & CBO, Report PLN 01-26 Page 4 681 Pleasant Street Notice of Intention to Designate a Property under Part IV, Section 29 of the Ontario Heritage Act Recommendation: That Council endorse the recommendations of the Heritage Pickering Advisory Committee, dated October 22, 2025, to designate the property located at 681 Pleasant Street under Section 29, Part IV of the Ontario Heritage Act; 1. That Council direct staff to serve a Notice of Intention to Designate the property municipally known as 681 Pleasant Street as a property of cultural heritage value or interest, pursuant to Section 29 of the Ontario Heritage Act; 2. That, should no Notice of Objection be received by the City Clerk within 30 days of the publication of the Notice of Intention to Designate, the Designation By-law for 681 Pleasant Street be forwarded to Council for enactment, and that staff be directed to carry out the notice requirements as prescribed under Section 29(8) of the Ontario Heritage Act; and, 3. *3.2 *3.3 4. 4.1 Addendum Planning and Development Committee Meeting Agenda February 02, 2026 - 2 - That the appropriate officials of the City of Pickering be authorized to take such actions as necessary to give effect to this report. 4. Director, City Development & CBO, Report PLN 02-26 Page 113 Draft Plan of Subdivision Application SP-2025-01 Zoning By-law Amendment Application A 01/25 Taccgate Developments Inc. Part of Lot 22, Concession 4 East side of Peter Matthews Drive, south of Alexander Knox Road Recommendation: That Draft Plan of Subdivision Application SP-2025-01, submitted by Taccgate Developments Inc., to establish a residential plan of subdivision, consisting of 6 blocks for 76 detached dwellings, 3 blocks for 28 street townhouse units, 1 open space block, 1 trailhead block, 1 overland flow block, 1 stormwater management facility block, and municipal roads, as shown on Attachment 4 to Report PLN 02-26, be endorsed; 1. That the conditions of draft plan of subdivision approval to implement Draft Plan of Subdivision SP-2025-01, as set out in Attachment 5 to Report PLN 02- 26, be endorsed; and, 2. That Zoning By-law Amendment Application A 01/25, submitted by Taccgate Developments Inc., to implement Draft Plan of Subdivision SP-2025-01, on the lands being Part of Lot 22, Concession 4, be approved, and that the draft Zoning By-law Amendment, as set out in Attachment 6 to Report PLN 02-26, be finalized and forwarded to Council for enactment. 3. Member Updates on Committees Adjournment 4.2 5. 6. Addendum Planning and Development Committee Meeting Agenda February 02, 2026 - 3 - Report to Planning & Development Committee Report Number: PLN 01-26 Date: February 2, 2026 From: Kyle Bentley Director, City Development & CBO Subject: 681 Pleasant Street Notice of Intention to Designate a Property under Part IV, Section 29 of the Ontario Heritage Act File: A-3300-109 Recommendation: 1. That Council endorse the recommendations of the Heritage Pickering Advisory Committee, dated October 22, 2025, to designate the property located at 681 Pleasant Street under Section 29, Part IV of the Ontario Heritage Act; 2. That Council direct staff to serve a Notice of Intention to Designate the property municipally known as 681 Pleasant Street as a property of cultural heritage value or interest, pursuant to Section 29 of the Ontario Heritage Act; 3. That, should no Notice of Objection be received by the City Clerk within 30 days of the publication of the Notice of Intention to Designate, the Designation By-law for 681 Pleasant Street be forwarded to Council for enactment, and that staff be directed to carry out the notice requirements as prescribed under Section 29(8) of the Ontario Heritage Act; and 4. That the appropriate officials of the City of Pickering be authorized to take such actions as necessary to give effect to this report. Executive Summary: The purpose of this report is to obtain Council’s approval to designate 681 Pleasant Street under Section 29 of the Ontario Heritage Act (see Location Map, Attachment 1). At its meeting held on October 22, 2025, the Heritage Pickering Advisory Committee (HPAC) passed a motion recommending that City Council designate 681 Pleasant Street under Part IV of the Ontario Heritage Act and serve the property owner with a Notice of Intention to Designate (see Notice of Intention to Designate, Attachment 2). The proposed designation is recommended to ensure the long-term conservation of a rare, surviving, nineteenth-century brick dwelling within the historic Village of Fairport. Pursuant to Ontario Regulation 9/06, Criteria for Determining Cultural Heritage Value or Interest, City staff determined that the property satisfies multiple criteria across all three value categories. The dwelling is a well-preserved example of a vernacular Gothic Revival residence dating to circa 1872 and is directly associated with Thomas Mansfield Sr., a prominent Fairport merchant and postmaster, and contributes to the historic village streetscape near the intersection of - 4 - PLN 01-26 February 2, 2026 Page 2 Pleasant Street and Commerce Street. Together, these attributes illustrate Fairport’s historical development as Pickering’s original maritime port and commercial centre on Frenchman’s Bay. Designation under Part IV of the Ontario Heritage Act will provide Council with the authority to review demolition and alterations to the property through the heritage permit process, thereby preventing the loss of a significant cultural heritage resource and reinforcing the historic character of the Fairport village core. Relationship to the Pickering Strategic Plan: The recommendations in this report respond to the Pickering Strategic Plan Priorities of Champion Economic Leadership & Innovation; Advocate for an Inclusive, Welcoming, Safe & Healthy Community; and Strengthen Existing & Build New Partnerships. Financial Implications: No direct financial implications for the City are associated with the recommended action to designate. Discussion: The purpose of this report is to obtain Council’s approval to designate 681 Pleasant Street under Section 29 of the Ontario Heritage Act. The subject property is located on the east side of Pleasant Street, north of Commerce Street, within the historic port community of Fairport (see Location Map, Attachment 1). The property has an area of approximately 0.10 of a hectare and is situated within the original nineteenth- century village street grid. It is surrounded by residential properties to the north, east, and south. The property contains a one-and-a-half storey, red-brick dwelling constructed circa 1872. The building is representative of the vernacular Gothic Revival style, and is sited close to the street with a shallow front-yard setback, reflecting historic village development patterns. Vehicular access is provided by a short driveway located at the northwest corner of the lot, with a narrow pedestrian walkway leading to the enclosed front porch. The subject property is included in the City of Pickering’s 2002 Heritage Property Inventory, which identifies properties with potential heritage value. However, it is not currently included on the City of Pickering’s Heritage Register under Section 27 of the Ontario Heritage Act, and therefore does not benefit from interim protection. - 5 - PLN 01-26 February 2, 2026 Page 3 Photograph 1: View of 681 Pleasant Street (LHC, 2024) 1. Previous Land Severance Application In 2022, the owner of 681 Pleasant Street applied to sever the property into two residential lots. The proposal included demolishing the existing dwelling and constructing two new three- storey, single-detached houses. The application was reviewed by Durham Region Planning staff, who recommended that it be supported in principle, subject to several conditions, including zoning compliance, environmental review, and the preparation of a Heritage Impact Assessment. On May 9, 2022, the Regional Land Division Committee considered the application. During the hearing, the owner confirmed their intention to demolish the existing house. In response to concerns raised by City staff and members of the public regarding zoning deficiencies and the potential heritage value of the dwelling, the Committee tabled the application for a period of up to two years to allow the owner to address zoning matters and heritage considerations prior to any approval of the severance. Upon the expiry of the two-year deferral period, the severance application was returned to the City of Pickering Committee of Adjustment on May 8, 2024. City Development staff reiterated that the proposed lots did not meet the minimum lot frontage requirements of the zoning by-law and would therefore require minor variances. Staff also advised that the dwelling at 681 Pleasant Street had been identified on the City’s 2002 Inventory of Heritage Properties as one of the remaining nineteenth-century dwellings in Fairport exhibiting Gothic Revival influences. Accordingly, staff recommended that the application remain tabled pending the submission of a Heritage Impact Assessment acceptable to the City. - 6 - PLN 01-26 February 2, 2026 Page 4 2. Review of submitted Cultural Heritage Evaluation Report In response to the City’s comments, the owner retained LHC Heritage Planning & Archaeology Inc. to prepare a Cultural Heritage Evaluation Report (CHER), dated November 2024 (see Cultural Heritage Evaluation Report, Attachment 3). The CHER was undertaken to assess whether the existing dwelling met the criteria for determining cultural heritage value or interest under Ontario Regulation 9/06, and to inform the City’s review of the proposed severance and potential demolition. The CHER identified the dwelling as a two-storey, red-brick residence constructed circa 1872, and recognized its association with nineteenth-century development in Fairport. The consultant concluded that the property satisfied one criterion under Ontario Regulation 9/06, namely design or physical value as a representative example of a vernacular Gothic Revival house. However, LHC determined that the property did not meet additional criteria related to historical, associative, or contextual value, and therefore concluded that it did not meet the threshold for designation under Part IV of the Ontario Heritage Act. In particular, the CHER placed limited weight on the associative relationship between the dwelling and the Mansfield family’s commercial activities in Fairport, and characterized the surrounding area as having experienced sufficient change to diminish the property’s contextual value. As a result, the consultant did not recommend designation and advised that demolition could be considered from a heritage perspective. 3. Staff undertook supplemental heritage research Recognizing the potential significance of one of Fairport’s few remaining nineteenth-century dwellings, City heritage staff undertook an independent review of the CHER and conducted additional heritage research to assess whether the conclusions reached by the consultant fully captured the property’s cultural heritage value or interest. The staff review included a broader examination of archival materials, historical mapping, assessment rolls, and secondary historical sources available through local archives and the Pickering Public Library, as well as consultation with local historians familiar with the historic development of Fairport. This supplementary research focused on the early evolution of Fairport as Pickering’s original port community, the historic relationship between residential and commercial uses in the village core, and the Mansfield family’s role in the community's social and economic life. The following section provides additional historical information regarding the community and the impact of the Mansfield family, which staff consider significant to the property's potential heritage value. 4. Historical context and evolution of Fairport The development of Fairport, a lakeshore port community situated at Frenchman’s Bay, began in the mid-nineteenth century. Initially, it served as a strategic location for shipping and trade, as Indigenous peoples and later settlers had long used the area due to its naturally sheltered inland harbour. Frenchman’s Bay, originally known as Gandatsetiagon by the Seneca, provided access to Lake Ontario while offering protection from direct exposure to the lake. - 7 - PLN 01-26 February 2, 2026 Page 5 In the early 1800s, the surrounding forests were cleared for farming, and by the 1840s, Fairport had established itself as a regional port. The opening of a channel into the bay in 1843 by William Edwards and William Henderson, using a horse-drawn dredge, significantly enhanced the harbour’s utility. By 1845, piers had been installed, which are still visible in the bay, and the Port began shipping significant quantities of masts, pine logs, and square timber. By the mid-nineteenth century, the area was particularly active in the export of lumber, reportedly over three million board feet annually, as well as substantial quantities of barley export to the United States. Photograph 2: The Pickering Harbour Company Grain Elevator, 1890 Fairport’s prosperity reached its peak in the 1870s following government investment in port infrastructure, including a lighthouse, wharf, and a 50,000-bushel grain elevator. These improvements bolstered the village’s role in international trade, particularly to Oswego, New York, via the Erie Canal. The creation of the Pickering Harbour Company in 1853 further formalized port operations. However, increased competition from Toronto, and the shift from ship-based to rail-based, led to a gradual decline in commercial shipping activity by the 1880s. During its economic peak, Fairport developed a compact commercial core containing a general store, boarding houses, a hotel, a post office, and related maritime support buildings. One of the most prominent families of this period was the Mansfield family. Thomas Mansfield Sr. immigrated to Canada in 1867 and later operated a general store and post office at 1291 Commercial Street. The residence at 681 Pleasant Street, built in 1872 by John Fisher, is illustrative of the historical pattern of merchants residing in close proximity to their businesses for security and operational reasons. The nineteenth-century village grid formed by Commerce Street and Pleasant Street remains intact, and the contextual relationship between the former store and the residence is still discernible today. - 8 - PLN 01-26 February 2, 2026 Page 6 Photograph 3: Thomas Mansfield Sr. General Store, 1900 Photograph 4: the New Mansfield General Store, 1924 In addition to shipping and commerce, Fairport supported niche industries such as stone hooking. From the 1820s through the early 20th century, schooners operating from Frenchman’s Bay extracted flat stones from the lakebed for use in urban construction. This labour-intensive industry played an important role in Ontario’s early building-material economy, and linked Fairport to a broader regional network that included Port Credit, Whitby, and Oakville. Fairport was also home to the Lake Simcoe Ice and Fuel Company, which harvested ice from Frenchman’s Bay each winter for sale and distribution prior to the advent of electric refrigeration. Large sawdust-insulated icehouses allowed the ice to be preserved through the summer months, supporting regional demand for cold storage in the early twentieth century. - 9 - PLN 01-26 February 2, 2026 Page 7 By the late nineteenth century, Fairport began transitioning into a seasonal destination for urban vacationers, particularly from Toronto and Rochester. Its lakefront setting and recreation opportunities drew cottagers and day-trippers, supported by amenities such as the Glen-Avis Pavilion, boat liveries, and regular train service. Many seasonal visitors later became permanent residents, contributing to the gradual densification of the community. One notable household during this transition period was the O’Brien family at 1279 Commerce Street. From the 1920s to the 1960s, May O’Brien operated the local post office and soda shop, which functioned not only as a mail service but also as an important community gathering space. Her husband, William O’Brien, previously served as the lighthouse keeper and worked at the grain elevator before his death in a work-related accident at the Fairport Granary. These stories underscore the strong historical relationship between Fairport’s port functions and its local residents. By the mid-twentieth century, Fairport’s port-related activities had largely ceased. Postwar suburban expansion transformed surrounding neighbourhoods, such as Bay Ridges and West Shore, into residential neighbourhoods. Today, the surviving streets and heritage structures clustered around the intersection of Pleasant Street and Commerce Street serve as important reminders of Fairport’s historical and nautically oriented identity. This concentration of potential heritage properties includes: 1. 681 Pleasant Street (c.1872) – subject property 2. 1291 Commerce Street – Fairport General Store (c.1921) – not currently on heritage register 3. 1279 Commerce Street – former Lighthouse Keeper’s Home/Post Office/Ice Cream Shop (c.1860s/1920s) – land severance approved; existing dwelling intended for demolition 4. 1285 Commerce Street (c.1880s) – not currently on heritage register 5. 1290 Commerce Street (c.1870s) – not currently on heritage register - 10 - PLN 01-26 February 2, 2026 Page 8 5. Staff recommendation relating to Part IV designation Staff reviewed the CHER prepared by LHC Heritage Planning & Archaeology Inc., conducted additional historical research, and met with the owner and their representatives. Based on this work, staff recommended to the HPAC on October 22, 2025, that the property municipally known as 681 Pleasant Street be designated under Part IV, Section 29 of the Ontario Heritage Act. While the owner’s consultant concluded that the property met only one of the criteria under Ontario Regulation 9/06, staff’s independent review identified additional design/physical, historical or associative, and contextual values that were not fully addressed in the original evaluation. Staff determined that the dwelling represents one of the remaining nineteenth- century residences within the historic port community of Fairport, retains a high degree of physical integrity, and is directly associated with the Mansfield family, whose commercial activities were integral to Fairport’s historical development as Pickering’s original maritime community. Staff further concluded that the property contributes to the historic village streetscape along Pleasant Street, and remains physically, functionally, and historically linked to the former Mansfield General Store site and the original nineteenth-century street grid. In staff’s opinion, the loss of the dwelling would further erode the remaining historic fabric of the Fairport village core. Table 1 below summarizes how the property meets the criteria set out in Ontario Regulation 9/06 under the Ontario Heritage Act for determining whether a property merits designation. Table 1: Summary of potential heritage value of 681 Pleasant Street under Ontario Regulation 9/06 Criteria O. Reg. 9/06 Criteria Y/N Comments 1. The property has design value or physical value because, it i. is a rare, unique, representative or early example of a style, type, expression, material or construction method, Y The dwelling is a well-preserved and increasingly rare example of a vernacular Gothic Revival brick residence dating to circa 1872. Its form, materials, massing, and stylistic features are representative of mid- to late-nineteenth-century vernacular rural architecture in Ontario. ii. displays a high degree of craftsmanship or artistic merit, Y The building exhibits a high level of period craftsmanship, including refined red brick masonry, buff brick detailing, segmental- arched window openings with decorative brick voussoirs, and coherent Gothic Revival architectural detailing typical of the era. iii. demonstrates a high degree of technical or scientific achievement. N - 11 - PLN 01-26 February 2, 2026 Page 9 O. Reg. 9/06 Criteria Y/N Comments 2. The property has historical value or associative value because, it i. has direct associations with a theme, event, belief, person, activity, organization or institution that is significant to a community, Y The property is directly associated with Thomas Mansfield Sr., a prominent Fairport merchant and postmaster, and his family. The Mansfield family operated the nearby Fairport General Store and post office at 1291 Commerce Street, playing a key role in Fairport’s commercial development during its peak as Pickering’s original port community. ii. yields, or has the potential to yield, information that contributes to an understanding of a community or culture, or Y The property contributes to an understanding of nineteenth-century life in Fairport, particularly the historic live–work relationship in which merchants resided within walking distance of their businesses for functional, social, and security reasons. iii. demonstrates or reflects the work or ideas of an architect, artist, builder, designer or theorist who is significant to a community. N 3. The property has contextual value because, it i. is important in defining, maintaining or supporting the character of an area, Y The dwelling supports and reinforces the historic character of Fairport’s core through its scale, shallow front-yard setback, and relationship to Pleasant and Commerce Streets, consistent with the original nineteenth-century lotting patterns. ii. is physically, functionally, visually or historically linked to its surroundings, or Y The property is physically and historically linked to nearby heritage resources, including the former Mansfield General Store site. Together, these two properties illustrate the historical pattern of merchants residing near their places of business. iii. is a landmark. N Accordingly, staff recommended that the HPAC support the designation of 681 Pleasant Street under Part IV of the Ontario Heritage Act to ensure the long-term conservation of the property and to enable Council to review demolition and alterations through the heritage permit process. - 12 - PLN 01-26 February 2, 2026 Page 10 6. Staff and owner explored alternative heritage and context sensitive development options Throughout the review of the proposed land severance, the submitted CHER, and the evaluation of the property’s cultural heritage value or interest, staff maintained ongoing communication with the owner to ensure they were informed of staff’s heritage considerations and to understand their objectives for the property better. As noted earlier in this report, there was a lack of staff support for the severance application, as the proposed lot widths were well below the minimum width requirement in the zoning by-law. In light of these concerns, staff met with the owner to discuss alternative approaches that could address their stated objectives while retaining the existing house. During these discussions, the owner indicated that their primary objective was to redevelop the property to allow them to reside on the site while also providing a separate dwelling for a family member. In response, staff explored and presented alternative site-intensification strategies that would avoid demolition of the existing dwelling and retain its heritage attributes. These alternatives included retaining the historic house, accommodating a sensitively designed rear addition, and introducing a separate coach house or ancillary residential unit at the rear of the property, subject to applicable zoning, planning approvals, and heritage review. These concepts were supported by zoning staff and presented to the owner in the spring of 2025 as part of staff’s efforts to identify a potential solution that balanced the owner’s objectives with the conservation of the property’s cultural heritage value or interest. The owner has indicated that they do not wish to pursue these alternatives. 7. The designation of the property aligns with the City of Pickering's Official Plan policies Chapter 8 of the Official Plan outlines the City’s cultural heritage goal, which is for City Council to respect and conserve important cultural heritage resources from all time periods and integrate them into the community. In consultation with its heritage committee, where warranted, City Council shall implement the provisions of the Ontario Heritage Act, including the designation of heritage sites. When considering the use and reuse of heritage resources, City Council shall maintain, if possible, the original use of heritage structures and sites, and if possible, retain their original location and orientation. City Council shall work to prevent, to the extent possible, the demolition, destruction, or inappropriate alteration of significant cultural heritage resources. Additionally, where possible, Council shall restore, rehabilitate, maintain, and enhance heritage resources owned by the City, and encourage private owners to do the same. - 13 - PLN 01-26 February 2, 2026 Page 11 8. The Heritage Pickering Advisory Committee review and recommendation On October 22, 2025, City heritage staff consulted with HPAC. The committee passed a motion recommending that Council designate the property under Section 29 of the Ontario Heritage Act. 9. Notice of Intention to Designate The Notice of Intention to Designate has been prepared in accordance with the requirements of the Ontario Heritage Act and is subject to Council’s approval. If adopted, a Notice of Intent to Designate will be sent to the owner, published on the City’s website and a copy sent to the Ontario Heritage Trust (see Notice of Intention to Designate, Attachment 2). If no objection is received by the City Clerk within the 30-day timeframe, staff recommend that Council enact the draft designation by-law (see Draft Designation By-law – 681 Pleasant Street, Attachment 4) and serve a Notice of Passing in accordance with Section 29(8) of the Ontario Heritage Act. 10. Conclusion The designation of a property under Part IV of the Ontario Heritage Act gives the Council authority to prevent the demolition of a building or structure on a heritage property. The owner of a designated property must obtain written consent from Council before demolishing any building on a heritage property. Additionally, owners of properties designated under Part IV of the Ontario Heritage Act must acquire a Heritage Permit for most alterations, the construction of new buildings, and hard landscaping. To ensure its conservation, and to enable the City to provide resources to the owner through the heritage permitting process, City staff recommend proceeding with serving a Notice of Intention to Designate the property. It is recommended that Council designate 681 Pleasant Street under Section 29, Part IV of the Ontario Heritage Act, in accordance with the Draft Designation By-law. Attachments: 1. Location Map 2. Notice of Intention to Designate 3. Cultural Heritage Evaluation Report (CHER), 681 Pleasant Street, prepared by LHC Heritage Planning & Archaeology Inc., dated November 2024 4. Draft Designation By-law – 681 Pleasant Street - 14 - PLN 01-26 February 2, 2026 Page 12 Prepared By: Original Signed By Matthew Somerville Senior Planner, Heritage Original Signed By Nilesh Surti, MCIP, RPP Division Head, Development Review & Urban Design Approved/Endorsed By: Original Signed By Catherine Rose, MCIP, RPP Chief Planner Original Signed By Kyle Bentley, P. Eng. Director, City Development & CBO MS:NS:ld Recommended for the consideration of Pickering City Council Original Signed By Marisa Carpino, M.A. Chief Administrative Officer - 15 - af:j of PlCKERlNG City Development Department C "' (/) "' Q) ii >¢,~ J' Location Map ~ Commerce Street ~ ~ ~ ~ ~-- Subject Lands Annland Street Municipal Address:681 Pleasant Street © Th e Corporation of the City of Pickering Produced (in part) under license from : © King's Printer, Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources. All rights reserved.,© His Majesty the King in Right of Canada , Department of Natura l Resources. All rights rese rved .;© Teranet Enterprises In c. and its suppl iers. All rights reserved.,© Mun icipa l Property Assessment Corporation and its suppl iers. All rights rese rved. L:\PLANNI NGIO 1-MapFiles\01 -City Development\A-3300 Historical Heritage Conservation\681 Pleasant St_ LocationMap\681 PleasantSt_ LocationMap.aprx "O "' 0 a:: 0 0 C. .; > :.:::; Cl C (/) (/) e () ::, (9 Broadview Street /y >----A Date: Sep. 05, 2025 SCALE: 1:1,500 I THIS ISNOTAPLANa= SURVEY. Attachment 1 to Report PLN 01-26 - 16 - Attachment 2 to Report PLN 01-26 Notice of Intent to Designate Property Of Cultural Heritage Value or Interest Take Notice that the Council of the City of Pickering intends to designate the following property as a property of cultural heritage value or interest under Part IV of the Ontario Heritage Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. 0.18 681 Pleasant Street, Pickering Ontario Lot 6, Block D, Plan 65 Description of Property 681 Pleasant Street is located on the east side of Pleasant Street, north of Commerce Street, within the historic Village of Fairport. Reason for Designation 681 Pleasant Street is of cultural heritage value or interest as a well-preserved example of a nineteenth-century Gothic Revival farmhouse. It is significant for its architectural design, its direct associations with prominent historical figures in Fairport’s development, and its integral role in defining the character of the village core. The property exhibits design or physical value as an increasingly rare example of a vernacular Gothic Revival residence, characterized by its T-shaped plan and steeply pitched gable with a pointed-arch window. The building is representative of mid-to-late nineteenth century village and rural architecture in Ontario. It demonstrates a high degree of period craftsmanship through its use of refined red brick masonry, buff brick detailing, and segmental-arched openings with decorative brick voussoirs, which illustrate stylistic expression and architectural integrity. The property also has historical and associative value through its connections with Thomas Mansfield Sr., a key merchant and community leader in Fairport, and its long- term relationship with the nearby Mansfield General Store. The house embodies the nineteenth-century pattern of merchant-residence integration in small lakeport villages. Description of Key Heritage Attributes Exterior Design / Physical Attributes: •original form, scale, and massing •red brick construction with buff brick detailing •steeply pitched front gable with pointed-arch window •segmental-arched window openings with decorative voussoirs •tall, narrow windows and symmetrical front façade •bracketed eaves •orientation of the house towards Pleasant Street with a shallow setback consistent with the historic village grid, and •the property’s visual and historical relationship with the Mansfield General Store at 1291 Commerce Street - 17 - Historical / Associative Attributes: • association with Thomas Mansfield Sr., a prominent early local merchant in Fairport, and • historical associations between Thomas Mansfield Sr., his place of residence at 681 Pleasant Street and his place of work nearby at 1291 Commercial Street Contextual Attributes: • proximity and visual relationship to 1291 Commercial Street • location within the historic core of Fairport, and • contribution to the streetscape and understanding of village life in the late 1800s Any person may, within 30 days of the publication of this Notice, send to the City Clerk, by email to clerks@pickering.ca, a notice of their objection to the proposed designation, together with a statement of reasons for the objection and all relevant facts. A copy of the Historical/Architectural Designation Report PLN 01-26 is available at the Clerk’s Office, Pickering Civic Complex, One The Esplanade, Monday to Friday, 8:30 am to 4:30 pm or by calling 905.420.4611 or by email at clerks@pickering.ca. DATED at the City of Pickering this XX day of XXXX, 2026 Susan Cassel, City Clerk City of Pickering One The Esplanade Pickering, ON L1V 6K7 - 18 - CULTURAL HERITAGE EVALUATION REPORT 681 Pleasant Street, Pickering, ON FINAL REPORT Date: 22 November 2024 Project #: LHC0476 LHC Heritage Planning & Archaeology Inc. 400-837 Princess Street Kingston, Ontario K7L 1G8 Phone: (613)507-7817 Toll Free: 1-833-210-7817 Email: info@lhcheritage.com Web: www.lhcheritage.com Attachment 3 to Report PLN 01-26 - 19 - Project # LHC0476 November 2024 ii This page has been left blank deliberately - 20 - Project # LHC0476 November 2024 iii Report prepared for: Ahmed Chowdhury Banalata Consultants Ltd. 3400 Danforth Avenue, Unit #5 Scarborough, ON M1L 1E1 Report prepared by: Diego Maenza, MPl CAHP-Intern Graphics prepared by: Jordan Greene, BA (Hons.) Reviewed by: Benjamin Holthof, MPl MMA RPP MCIP CAHP Christienne Uchiyama, MA CAHP - 21 - Project # LHC0476 November 2024 iv RIGHT OF USE The information, recommendations, and opinions expressed in this report are for the sole benefit of Banalata Consultants Ltd. Any other use of this report by others without permission is prohibited and is without responsibility to LHC. The report, all plans, data, drawings, and other documents as well as all electronic media prepared by LHC are considered its professional work product and shall remain the copyright property of LHC, who authorizes only Banalata Consultants Ltd., and approved users (including municipal review and approval bodies) to make copies of the report, but only in such quantities as are reasonably necessary for the use of the report by those parties. Unless otherwise stated, the suggestions, recommendations, and opinions given in this report are intended only for the guidance of Banalata Consultants Ltd. and approved users. REPORT LIMITATIONS The qualifications of the heritage consultants who authored this report are provided in Appendix A. This report reflects the professional opinion of the authors and the requirements of their membership in various professional and licensing bodies. All comments regarding the condition of any buildings on the Property are based on a superficial visual inspection and are not a structural engineering assessment of the buildings unless directly quoted from an engineering report. The findings of this report do not address any structural or physical condition related issues associated with any buildings on the property or the condition of any heritage attributes. Concerning historical research, the purpose of this report is to evaluate the cultural heritage value or interest and heritage attributes the property at 681 Pleasant Street, and the surrounding area. The authors are fully aware that there may be additional historical information that has not been included. Nevertheless, the information collected, reviewed, and analyzed is sufficient to conduct this assessment. The review of policy and legislation was limited to that information directly related to cultural heritage management and is not a comprehensive planning review. Additionally, soundscapes, cultural identity, and sense of place analyses were not integrated into this report. Archaeological potential has not been assessed as part of this CHER. A separate archaeological assessment may be required as part of a complete application. - 22 - Project # LHC0476 November 2024 v EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The Executive Summary only provides key points from the report. The reader should examine the complete report including background, results, as well as limitations. LHC Heritage Planning & Archaeology Inc. (LHC) was retained by Banalata Consultants Ltd. (the Client) on 18 September 2024 to prepare a Cultural Heritage Evaluation Report (CHER) to evaluate the cultural heritage value or interest of the property at 681 Pleasant Street (the Property), in the City of Pickering (the City), in the Regional Municipality of Durham (the Region). This CHER was completed in accordance with the City of Pickering Official Plan (OP). It follows cultural heritage best practices drawing upon applicable frameworks, such as the Ministry of Citizenship and Multiculturalism’s (MCM) Ontario Heritage Tool Kit, Heritage Property Evaluation (2006). The purpose of this CHER is to evaluate the Property for Cultural Heritage Value or Interest (CHVI). It has been prepared in response to a municipal request for a third-party evaluation of the Property for heritage value. In our professional opinion, LHC finds that the Property at 681 Pleasant Street meets one criterion of O. Reg. 9/06 (criterion 1). The Property is not eligible for designation under Part IV Section 29 of the OHA. - 23 - Project # LHC0476 November 2024 vi TABLE OF CONTENTS 1 Introduction............................................................................................................................ 1 1.1 Introduction to the Property .......................................................................................... 1 1.2 Report Purpose .............................................................................................................. 1 1.3 Description of the Property............................................................................................ 1 1.4 Heritage Recognition...................................................................................................... 1 2 Study Approach ...................................................................................................................... 4 2.1 Legislation and Policy Review ....................................................................................... 4 2.2 Historical Research ......................................................................................................... 4 2.3 Enquiries ......................................................................................................................... 5 2.4 Site Visit .......................................................................................................................... 5 3 Legislative and Policy Context ............................................................................................... 6 3.1 Provincial Context .......................................................................................................... 6 3.1.1 Ontario Heritage Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. O.18 ................................................................. 6 3.1.1.1 Ontario Regulation 9/06 ..................................................................................... 6 3.1.2 Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990 ........................................................................................... 8 3.1.3 Provincial Planning Statement (2024) ....................................................................... 8 3.1.4 Provincial Planning Context Summary ..................................................................... 9 3.2 Local Framework .......................................................................................................... 10 3.2.1 Durham Region Official Plan (1991) ......................................................................... 10 3.2.2 City of Pickering Official Plan (1997, 2022 Consolidation) ...................................... 10 3.2.3 Local Planning Context Summary ........................................................................... 11 4 Background Research and Analysis ..................................................................................... 12 4.1 Early Indigenous History .............................................................................................. 12 4.1.1 Paleo Period (9500 – 8000 BCE) ............................................................................... 12 4.1.2 Archaic Period (8000 – 1000 BCE) ............................................................................ 13 4.1.3 Woodland Period (1000 BCE – 1650 CE) .................................................................. 13 4.2 Seventeenth- and Eighteenth-Century Historic Context (1600s and 1700s) ............. 14 4.3 The Johnson-Butler Purchase and Williams Treaty .................................................... 15 - 24 - Project # LHC0476 November 2024 vii 4.4 Post Euro-Canadian Contact History ........................................................................... 16 4.5 Survey and European Settlement in the Area ............................................................. 16 4.5.1 Township of Pickering .............................................................................................. 16 4.5.2 Village of Fairport ..................................................................................................... 18 4.6 Property History ........................................................................................................... 19 4.6.1 People Associated with the Property ...................................................................... 27 4.6.1.1 John Fisher (1836-1900) ................................................................................... 27 4.6.1.2 Thomas Mansfield Sr. (1851-1927) ................................................................... 28 4.6.1.3 James C. Clark (1908-1998) .............................................................................. 30 5 Assessment of Existing Conditions ...................................................................................... 31 5.1 Surrounding Context .................................................................................................... 31 5.2 The Property ................................................................................................................. 34 5.2.1 Front Yard .................................................................................................................. 34 5.2.2 The Rear Yard and Shed Structure ........................................................................... 35 5.2.3 Main House Exterior ................................................................................................. 38 5.2.4 Main House Interior .................................................................................................. 43 5.2.4.1 Basement .......................................................................................................... 43 5.2.4.2 First Floor .......................................................................................................... 51 5.2.4.3 Second Floor ..................................................................................................... 56 5.3 Design ........................................................................................................................... 60 5.3.1 Ontario Farmhouse / Gothic Revival Style (1850-1900) .......................................... 60 5.3.2 Prevalence of local Ontario Farmhouse / Gothic Revival Style Buildings .............. 61 6 Evaluation of Cultural Heritage Value or Interest ................................................................ 62 6.1 Heritage Status ............................................................................................................. 62 6.2 Ontario Regulation 9/06 Evaluation ............................................................................ 62 6.2.1 Summary of Evaluation ............................................................................................ 62 7 Conclusion ............................................................................................................................ 67 8 Signatures ............................................................................................................................. 68 9 References ............................................................................................................................ 69 - 25 - Project # LHC0476 November 2024 viii List of Tables Table 1. Chain of Property Ownership for 681 Pleasant Street. ................................................. 19 Table 2. Ontario Regulation 9/06 Evaluation for the Property at 681 Pleasant Street............... 62 Table 3: City of Pickering Relevant Official Plan Policies ............................................................ 81 List of Images Image 1. View east of Commerce Street and Pleasant Street with the Property at centre, annotated by LHC, 1920. ................................................................................................ 21 Image 2. View southeast of the T-intersection of Commerce Street and Pleasant Street with the Property at centre-left, annotated by LHC, 1923. ................................................... 21 Image 3. View of the south elevation of the house, 1940. .......................................................... 22 Image 4. View of the west elevation of the house, 2012. ............................................................ 22 Image 5. View of the west elevation of the house, 2014. ............................................................ 23 Image 6. Thomas Mansfield Sr.’s general store on Lot 7, Block E on the south side of Commercial Street, 1900s. ............................................................................................. 29 Image 7. Thomas Mansfield Sr.’s general store on Lot 7, Block E, 1291 Commercial Street, 1924. ....................................................................................................................................................... 30 Image 8. Illustration of a suburban villa or farmhouse, 1864. .................................................... 61 List of Figures Figure 1. Location of the Property. ................................................................................................ 2 Figure 2. Current Conditions of the Property ................................................................................ 3 Figure 3: Map of Williams Treaties and Pre-Confederation Treaties. ......................................... 17 Figure 4. 1837, 1860, 1874, and 1877 Historic Mapping Showing the Property. ........................ 24 Figure 5. 1914 and 1943 Historic Topographic Maps Showing the Property. ............................. 25 Figure 6. 1961 and 2002 Aerial Photographs Showing the Property. ......................................... 26 - 26 - Project # LHC0476 November 2024 ix List of Photos Photo 1. View west towards Frenchman’s Bay. ........................................................................... 32 Photo 2. View south along Pleasant Street. ................................................................................ 32 Photo 3. View north along Pleasant Street towards Commercial Street. .................................. 33 Photo 4. View east along Commercial Street. ............................................................................. 33 Photo 5. View west along Commercial Street. ............................................................................ 34 Photo 6. View northeast at the front of the Property .................................................................. 35 Photo 7. View east of the rear yard. ............................................................................................. 36 Photo 8. View north of a well in the rear yard. ............................................................................ 36 Photo 9. View east of the west and south elevations of the shed structure............................... 37 Photo 10. View east of the north and west elevations of the shed structure. ............................ 37 Photo 11. View of the interior of the shed structure. .................................................................. 38 Photo 12. View east of the west (front) elevation. ....................................................................... 39 Photo 13. View north of the south elevation. .............................................................................. 40 Photo 14. View south of the north elevation. .............................................................................. 41 Photo 15. View northwest of the south and east rear wing elevations. ..................................... 41 Photo 16. View west of the east rear wing elevation. .................................................................. 42 Photo 17. View west of the east elevation and the rear wing. .................................................... 42 Photo 18. View south of the north elevation. .............................................................................. 43 Photo 19. View of the wooden staircase from the first floor to the basement. .......................... 44 Photo 20. View of the warped wooden boards of the first floor. ................................................ 45 Photo 21. View of rusticated CMU blocks supporting the wooden staircase. ............................ 45 Photo 22. View of a parged cement wall and two three-pane windows with wooden surrounds. ....................................................................................................................................................... 46 Photo 23. View of the fieldstone foundation wall with concrete wall below. ............................ 46 Photo 24. View of the fieldstone foundation wall with concrete wall below. ............................ 47 Photo 25. View of the fieldstone foundation parged with cement. ............................................ 47 Photo 26. View of rusticated CMU blocks, heating equipment and metal ductwork. ............... 48 - 27 - Project # LHC0476 November 2024 x Photo 27. A chimney plate stamped “J. Smart Manufacturing Co. Limited Brockville Ont.”, pre- 1912. ............................................................................................................................. 48 Photo 28. Sill plate beams. ........................................................................................................... 49 Photo 29. View of a large square hewn timber beam adjacent to a steel beam supported by a steel pillar. .................................................................................................................... 49 Photo 30. View of a wooden board supported by a steel beam. ................................................ 50 Photo 31. View of a wooden sill plate. ......................................................................................... 50 Photo 32. View of the ceiling boards supported on wooden joists. ........................................... 51 Photo 33. View of the enclosed porch. ........................................................................................ 52 Photo 34. View of the red brick voussoirs with cracks. ............................................................... 52 Photo 35. View of cracked and chipped brick below the windowsill. ........................................ 53 Photo 36. View of the parlour room. ............................................................................................ 53 Photo 37. View of the bay window. .............................................................................................. 54 Photo 38. View of the fireplace in the living room area. ............................................................. 54 Photo 39. View towards the living room with the access door to the basement at right. ......... 55 Photo 40. View of the stamped pattern ceiling. .......................................................................... 55 Photo 41. View of the kitchen. ..................................................................................................... 56 Photo 42. View of the warped wooden second floor staircase. .................................................. 57 Photo 43. View of the second-floor staircase with handrails and newel posts. ......................... 57 Photo 44. View of the corridor to various bedrooms. ................................................................. 58 Photo 45. View of a bedroom. ...................................................................................................... 58 Photo 46. View of a bedroom. ...................................................................................................... 59 Photo 47. View of the washroom. ................................................................................................ 59 - 28 - Project # LHC0476 November 2024 1 1 INTRODUCTION 1.1 INTRODUCTION TO THE PROPERTY LHC Heritage Planning & Archaeology Inc. (LHC) was retained by Banalata Consultants Ltd. (the Client) on 18 September 2024 to prepare a Cultural Heritage Evaluation Report (CHER) to evaluate the cultural heritage value or interest of the property at 681 Pleasant Street (the Property), in the City of Pickering (the City), in the Regional Municipality of Durham (the Region). This CHER was completed in accordance with objectives of the City of Pickering Official Plan (OP). It follows cultural heritage best practices drawing upon applicable frameworks, such as the Ministry of Citizenship and Multiculturalism’s (MCM) Ontario Heritage Tool Kit, Heritage Property Evaluation (2006). 1.2 REPORT PURPOSE The purpose of this CHER is to evaluate the Property for Cultural Heritage Value or Interest (CHVI). It has been prepared in response to a municipal request for a third-party evaluation of the Property for cultural heritage value. 1.3 DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPERTY The Property is in the geographic Pickering Township in the City of Pickering. It is on the east side of Pleasant Street, to the south of Commerce Street and to the north of Annland Street (Figure 1). The Property is legally described as “LT 6, BLK D, PL 65 (PIN 26320-0307)”. The Property is a long, deep, rectangle-shaped lot. It is in a block bound by Pleasant Street to the west, Commerce Street to the north, Liverpool Road to the east and Annland Street to the south. The Property is bound by Pleasant Street to the west and residential properties to the north, east and south. Surrounding residential properties include 685 Pleasant Street on the north, part of 1295 Commer Street on the east, part of 682 Liverpool Road on the east and 675 Pleasant Street to the south (Figure 2). 1.4 HERITAGE RECOGNITION The Property is not Listed on the City of Pickering MHR under Part IV Section 27 of the OHA. It is not Designated under Part IV Section 29 of the OHA. It is not designated as part of a Heritage Conservation District under Part V Section 41 of the OHA. - 29 - - 30 - - 31 - Project # LHC0476 November 2024 4 2 STUDY APPROACH LHC follows a three-step approach to understanding and planning for cultural heritage resources based on the understanding, planning and intervening guidance from the Canada’s Historic Places Standards and Guidelines for the Conservation of Historic Places in Canada and the Ontario Heritage Tool Kit.0F 1 Understanding the cultural heritage resource involves: • Understanding the significance of the cultural heritage resource (known and potential) through research, consultation and evaluation–when necessary. • Understanding the setting, context and condition of the cultural heritage resource through research, site visit and analysis. • Understanding the heritage planning regulatory framework around the cultural heritage resource. This CHER is guided by the Ontario Heritage Tool Kit, Heritage Property Evaluation. The evaluation considers the Property against the Criteria for Determining Cultural Heritage Value or Interest from Ontario Regulation 9/06 (O. Reg. 9/06) under the Ontario Heritage Act (OHA). Evaluation is based on research conducted into the history of the area and the property along with a site visit to understand the design, construction and current condition of the buildings on the Property. A glossary of terms used in this CHER is provided in Appendix B. 2.1 LEGISLATION AND POLICY REVIEW This CHER includes a review of provincial legislation, plans and cultural heritage guidance, and relevant municipal policy and plans. This review outlines the cultural heritage legislative and policy framework that applies to the Property (Section 3). 2.2 HISTORICAL RESEARCH Historical research for this CHER included local history research. LHC consulted primary and secondary research sources including: • Local histories; • Historic maps; • Aerial photographs; and, • Online sources about local history. 1 Canada’s Historic Places, “Standards and Guidelines for the Conservation of Historic Places in Canada”, 2010, 3; Ministry of Heritage, Sport, Tourism and Culture Industries, “Heritage Property Evaluation”, Ontario Heritage Tool Kit, 2006, 18. - 32 - Project # LHC0476 November 2024 5 Online sources consulted included (but was not limited to): • The Archives of Ontario; • Library and Archives Canada; • The Ontario Council of University Libraries, Historical Topographic Map Digitization Project; • The Canadian County Atlas Digital Project; • City of Pickering; • Pickering Public Library; • University of Toronto Library; • McMaster University Library; • Ancestry; • FamilySearch; and, • The Internet Archive. 2.3 ENQUIRIES LHC contacted: • Pickering Public Library on 12 November 2024 for archival research. 2.4 SITE VISIT A site visit was conducted on 5 November 2024 by Senior Heritage Planner, Benjamin Holthof and Heritage Planner, Diego Maenza. The purpose of this site visit was to document the current conditions of the Property, adjacent properties, and their surrounding context. Unless otherwise attributed all photographs in this CHER were taken during the site visit. A selection of photographs from the site visit that document the Property are included in Section 5. - 33 - Project # LHC0476 November 2024 6 3 LEGISLATIVE AND POLICY CONTEXT 3.1 PROVINCIAL CONTEXT In Ontario, cultural heritage is considered a matter of provincial interest and cultural heritage resources are managed under Provincial legislation, policy, regulations, and guidelines. Cultural heritage is established as a key provincial interest directly through the provisions of the OHA, Planning Act, the Provincial Policy Statement (PPS), and the Environmental Assessment Act. Other provincial legislation deals with cultural heritage indirectly or in specific cases. These various acts and the policies under these acts indicate broad support for the protection of cultural heritage by the Province. 3.1.1 ONTARIO HERITAGE ACT, R.S.O. 1990, C. O.18 The OHA (consolidated on 1 July 2024) and associated regulations set minimum standards for the evaluation of heritage resources in the province and give municipalities power to identify and conserve individual properties, districts, or landscapes of cultural heritage value or interest.1F 2 Part I (2) of the OHA enables the Minister to determine policies, priorities, and programs for the conservation, protection, and preservation of the heritage of Ontario. Part IV, Section 27(1) requires the clerk of a municipality to keep a register of property in the municipality that is of cultural heritage value or interest—often known as a Municipal Heritage Register (MHR). A Property may be Listed on the MHR if it meets one or more of the prescribed criteria for determining cultural heritage value or interest. A municipality may Designate individual properties under Section 29 Part IV of the OHA if the property meets two or more of the criteria of O. Reg. 9/06. An OHA designation applies to real property rather than individual structures. An evaluation of the Property using the criteria from O. Reg. 9/06 under the OHA is outlined in Section 6. 3.1.1.1 ONTARIO REGULATION 9/06 O. Reg. 9/06 identifies the criteria for determining cultural heritage value or interest under Part IV Section 27(3), 29(1)(a) and Part V Section 41(1)(b) of the OHA.2F 3 A Statement of Cultural Heritage Value or Interest (SCHVI) is created based on evaluation using these criteria. These criteria are used in determining if an individual property or HCD has CHVI. The regulation has 2 Province of Ontario, Ontario Heritage Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. O.18, last modified 1 July 2024, accessed 30 October 2024, https://www.ontario.ca/laws/statute/90o18. 3 Province of Ontario, Ontario Regulation 9/06 Criteria for Determining Cultural Heritage Value or Interest, last modified 1 January 2023, accessed 30 October 2024, https://www.ontario.ca/laws/regulation/060009. - 34 - Project # LHC0476 November 2024 7 nine criteria for evaluation of individual properties and nine criteria for evaluation of properties in HCDs. The two sets of criteria are substantially similar. The criteria for evaluation of individual properties under Part IV of the OHA are: 1. The property has design value or physical value because it is a rare, unique, representative or early example of a style, type, expression, material or construction method. 2. The property has design value or physical value because it displays a high degree of craftsmanship or artistic merit. 3. The property has design value or physical value because it demonstrates a high degree of technical or scientific achievement. 4. The property has historical value or associative value because it has direct associations with a theme, event, belief, person, activity, organization or institution that is significant to a community. 5. The property has historical value or associative value because it yields, or has the potential to yield, information that contributes to an understanding of a community or culture. 6. The property has historical value or associative value because it demonstrates or reflects the work or ideas of an architect, artist, builder, designer or theorist who is significant to a community. 7. The property has contextual value because it is important in defining, maintaining or supporting the character of an area. 8. The property has contextual value because it is physically, functionally, visually or historically linked to its surroundings. 9. The property has contextual value because it is a landmark.3F 4 Properties that meet one of these criteria may be listed on a MHR under Part IV, Section 27 of the OHA. Properties that meet at least two of these criteria may be designated under Part IV, Section 29 of the OHA. 4 Province of Ontario, “Ontario Regulation 9/06 Criteria for Determining Cultural Heritage Value or Interest”, last modified 1 January 2023. - 35 - Project # LHC0476 November 2024 8 3.1.2 PLANNING ACT, R.S.O. 1990 The Planning Act is the primary document for municipal and provincial land use planning in Ontario and was consolidated on 1 July 2024. This Act sets the context for provincial interest in heritage. It states under Part I (2, d): The Minister, the council of a municipality, a local board, a planning board and the Municipal Board, in carrying out their responsibilities under this Act, shall have regard to, among other matters, matters of provincial interest such as…the conservation of features of significant architectural, cultural, historical, archaeological or scientific interest.4F 5 Details about provincial interest as it relates to land use planning and development in the province are outlined in the PPS, which is used under the authority of Part 1 (3). 3.1.3 PROVINCIAL PLANNING STATEMENT (2024) The PPS provides direction for municipalities regarding provincial requirements. The PPS includes cultural heritage in its Vision for shaping how communities grow and prosper, indicating that “cultural heritage and archaeology in Ontario will provide people with a sense of place (Chapter 1).” Section 4.6 of the PPS outlines provincial policy regarding cultural heritage and archaeology (relevant definitions are outlined in Appendix B of this CHER). The subsections state: 4.6.1 Protected heritage property, which may contain built heritage resources or cultural heritage landscapes, shall be conserved. 4.6.2. Planning authorities shall not permit development and site alteration on lands containing archaeological resources or areas of archaeological potential unless the significant archaeological resources have been conserved. 4.6.3. Planning authorities shall not permit development and site alteration on adjacent lands to protected heritage property unless the heritage attributes of the protected heritage property will be conserved. 4.6.4. Planning authorities are encouraged to develop and implement: a) archaeological management plans for conserving archaeological resources; and b) proactive strategies for conserving significant built heritage resources 5 Province of Ontario, Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P.13, last modified 20 October 2024, accessed 30 October 2024, https://www.ontario.ca/laws/statute/90p13, Part I (2, d). - 36 - Project # LHC0476 November 2024 9 and cultural heritage landscapes. 4.6.5 Planning authorities shall engage early with Indigenous communities and ensure their interests are considered when identifying, protecting and managing archaeological resources, built heritage resources and cultural heritage landscapes.5F 6 Land use planning decisions made by municipalities, planning boards, the Province, or a commission or agency of the government must be consistent with the PPS. The PPS makes the consideration of cultural heritage equal to all other considerations in relation to planning and development within the province. The PPS definition of a Protected heritage property is property designated under Part IV or VI of the Ontario Heritage Act; property included in an area designated as a heritage conservation district under Part V of the Ontario Heritage Act; property subject to a heritage conservation easement or covenant under Part II or IV of the Ontario Heritage Act; property identified by a provincial ministry or a prescribed public body as a property having cultural heritage value or interest under the Standards and Guidelines for the Conservation of Provincial Heritage Properties; property protected under federal heritage legislation; and UNESCO World Heritage Sites.6F 7 The Property is not a Protected Heritage Property as defined in the PPS. 3.1.4 PROVINCIAL PLANNING CONTEXT SUMMARY In summary, cultural heritage resources are considered an essential part of the land use planning process with their own unique considerations. As directed by the province, these policies and guidelines must be considered by the local planning context. In general, the province requires significant cultural heritage resources to be conserved. The Property is not a Protected Heritage Property. This CHER is intended to determine if it meets the relevant criteria for heritage Listing or Designation and if it could be eligible to become a Protected Heritage Property. 6 Province of Ontario, Provincial Policy Statement, 2024: Under the Planning Act, 2024, accessed 28 October 2024, 28, https://www.ontario.ca/files/2024-10/mmah-provincial-planning-statement-en-2024-10-23.pdf. 7 Province of Ontario, PPS, 2024, pg. 50. - 37 - Project # LHC0476 November 2024 10 3.2 LOCAL FRAMEWORK 3.2.1 DURHAM REGION OFFICIAL PLAN (1991) The Durham Regional Official Plan (ROP) was adopted by Regional Council on 5 June 1991 and approved by the Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing on 24 November 1993. The ROP was most recently consolidated on 26 May 2020. The ROP serves to guide growth and land use decisions to 2031. Section 2 includes cultural heritage resource policies with the goal “to preserve and foster the attributes of communities and the historic and cultural heritage of the Region”.7F 8 Policy 2.3.49 states that: Regional Council shall encourage Councils of the area municipalities to utilize the Ontario Heritage Act to conserve, protect, and enhance the built and cultural heritage resources of the municipality, to establish Municipal Heritage Committees to consult regarding matters relating to built and cultural heritage resources planning and, the designation of heritage conservation districts and properties as provided for in the Ontario Heritage Act.8F 9 The ROP does not include a section dedicated to cultural heritage resources and directs the development of these policies to the area municipalities. 3.2.2 CITY OF PICKERING OFFICIAL PLAN (1997, 2022 CONSOLIDATION) The City of Pickering Official Plan (OP) (1997, 2022 Consolidation) was approved by Council on 3 March 1997 and approved by the Ontario Municipal Board on 21 October 1997. The OP was most recently consolidated in March 2022. A new Draft OP is currently being prepared. The OP provides a long-term set of visions, goals, and direction for the City to help appropriately address changes resulting from anticipated growth. Cultural heritage policies are addressed in Chapter 8 with the goal to conserve Pickering’s heritage in coordination with the City’s planning needs. The OP cultural heritage objectives are: 8 Durham Region, Durham Regional Official Plan. 1997, last modified 26 May 2020, accessed 30 October 2024, 3, https://www.durham.ca/en/doing-business/resources/Documents/PlanningandDevelopment/Official- Plan/2020-Durham-Regional-Official-Plan-Consolidation---Revised-1.pdf. 9 Durham Region, Durham Regional Official Plan, 15. - 38 - Project # LHC0476 November 2024 11 8.2 City Council shall: (a) identify important cultural heritage resources from all time periods, so that they can be appropriately conserved and integrated into the community fabric, including:  significant heritage structures, features and sites;  buildings, sites, and artifacts of historical, archaeological and architectural significance including modern or recent architecture;  significant landscape features and characteristics, including vistas and ridge lines; and  other locally important cultural heritage resources; (b) foster public awareness and appreciation of the City’s cultural heritage; (c) prevent the demolition, destruction or inappropriate alteration of important cultural heritage resources to the extent possible; (d) where possible, restore, rehabilitate, maintain and enhance important cultural heritage resources owned by the City, and encourage the same for those owned by others; (e) where possible, ensure development, infrastructure, capital works and other private and public projects conserve, protect and enhance important cultural heritage resources; and (f) involve the public, business-people, landowners, local heritage experts, heritage committees, relevant public agencies, and other interested groups and individuals in cultural heritage decisions affecting the City.9F 10 Commentary on the Property and the City’s broad cultural heritage policies is in Appendix C (Table 3 ). The Property has not been identified by the City as a significant or important heritage structure or cultural heritage resource. 3.2.3 LOCAL PLANNING CONTEXT SUMMARY The Region and the City consider cultural heritage resources to be of value to the community and value them in the land use planning process. Through ROP and OP policies, the Region and the City have committed to identifying and conserving cultural heritage resources. However, the Property is not a Protected Heritage Property and has not been added to the Municipal Heritage Register. It is not identified by the municipality as a cultural heritage resource. 10 City of Pickering, Pickering Official Plan, Edition 9, 1997, office consolidation March 2022, accessed 30 October 2024, https://www.pickering.ca/en/city-hall/resources/Official-Plan---Main-Page/Edition-9/OP9ACC.pdf - 39 - Project # LHC0476 November 2024 12 4 BACKGROUND RESEARCH AND ANALYSIS 4.1 EARLY INDIGENOUS HISTORY The City of Pickering website includes the following Indigenous Territorial Land Acknowledgment: We acknowledge that the City of Pickering resides on land within the Treaty and Traditional Territories of the Mississauga, the Scugog Island First Nation, and Williams Treaty signatories, the Mississauga and Chippewa Nations. Pickering is also home to many Indigenous persons and communities who represent other diverse, distinct, and autonomous Indigenous nations. This acknowledgement reminds us of our responsibilities and relationships with the First Peoples of Canada, and to the ancestral lands of which we share, learn, work, and live.10F 11 The following section provides a brief overview of early Indigenous history of the general area, followed by a general overview of early Euro-Canadian settlement. The pre-European contact (pre-contact) history of this area is long and diverse. Archaeologists generally divide the chronology of pre-contact land use in Southern Ontario into three primary periods based on characteristics of settlement patterns and material culture: Paleo, Archaic, and Woodland. 4.1.1 PALEO PERIOD (9500 – 8000 BCE) The cultural history of southern Ontario began around 11,000 years ago following the retreat of the Laurentide Ice Sheet.11F 12 During this archaeological period, known as the Paleo period (9500-8000 BCE), the climate was similar to the present-day sub-arctic and vegetation was largely spruce and pine forests.12F 13 The initial occupants of the province had distinctive stone tools. They were nomadic big-game hunters (i.e., caribou, mastodon, and mammoth) who lived in small groups and travelled over vast areas, possibly migrating hundreds of kilometres in a single year.13F 14 11 City of Pickering, “Council Meeting, November 27”, 27 November 2023, accessed 12 November 2024, https://www.viddler.com/v/18753fba?secret=57115818. 12 Christopher Ellis and D. Brian Deller, “Paleo-Indians”, in The Archaeology of Southern Ontario to A.D. 1650, ed. Christopher Ellis and Neal Ferris, London, ON: Ontario Archaeological Society, London Chapter, 1990, 37. 13 Toronto Region Conservation Authority, “Chapter 3: First Nations”, in Greening Our Watersheds: Revitalization Strategies for Etobicoke and Mimico Creeks, prepared by the Toronto Region Conservation Authority, 2001, http://www.trca.on.ca/dotAsset/37523.pdf 14 Toronto Region Conservation Authority, “Chapter 3: First Nations”, 2001. - 40 - Project # LHC0476 November 2024 13 4.1.2 ARCHAIC PERIOD (8000 – 1000 BCE) During the Archaic archaeological period (8000-1000 BCE) the occupants of southern Ontario continued their migratory lifestyles, although they lived in larger groups and over time occupied smaller territories of land – possibly remaining within specific watersheds. People refined their stone tools during this period and developed polished or ground stone tool technologies. Evidence of long-distance trade has been found on archaeological sites from the Middle and Later Archaic times; including items such as copper from Lake Superior, and marine shells from the Gulf of Mexico.14F 15 4.1.3 WOODLAND PERIOD (1000 BCE – 1650 CE) The Woodland archaeological period in southern Ontario (1000 BCE – CE 1650) represents a marked change in subsistence patterns, burial customs, and tool technologies, as well as the introduction of pottery making. The Woodland period is sub-divided into the Early Woodland (1000–400 BCE), Middle Woodland (400 BCE – CE 500) and Late Woodland (CE 500 - 1650).15F 16 The Early Woodland is defined by the introduction of clay pots which allowed for preservation and easier cooking.16F 17 During the Early and Middle Woodland, communities grew and were organized at a band level. Peoples continued to follow subsistence patterns focused on foraging and hunting. Woodland populations transitioned from a foraging subsistence strategy towards a preference for agricultural village-based communities around during the Late Woodland. During this period people began cultivating maize in southern Ontario. The Late Woodland period is divided into three distinct stages: Early Iroquoian (CE 1000–1300); Middle Iroquoian (CE 1300– 1400); and Late Iroquoian (CE 1400–1650).17F 18 The Late Woodland is generally characterised by an increased reliance on cultivation of domesticated crop plants, such as corn, squash, and beans, and a development of palisaded village sites which included more and larger longhouses. By the 1500s, Iroquoian communities in southern Ontario – and more widely across northeastern North America –organized themselves politically into tribal confederacies. South of Lake Ontario, the Haudenosaunee Confederacy comprised the Mohawks, Oneidas, Onondagas, Cayugas, and Senecas, while Iroquoian communities in southern Ontario included the Petun, Huron, and Neutral Confederacies.18F 19 15 Toronto Region Conservation Authority, “Chapter 3: First Nations”, 2001. 16 Toronto Region Conservation Authority, “Chapter 3: First Nations”, 2001. 17 Toronto Region Conservation Authority, “Chapter 3: First Nations”, 2001. 18 Toronto Region Conservation Authority, “Chapter 3: First Nations”, 2001. 19 Toronto Region Conservation Authority, “Chapter 3: First Nations”, 2001; Haudenosaunee Confederacy, “Who Are We”, Haudenosaunee Confederacy, 2020, https://www.haudenosauneeconfederacy.com/who-we-are/ - 41 - Project # LHC0476 November 2024 14 Adjacent to the Pickering border, an intact late 1600s village was founded by Seneca peoples by the Rouge River and is known as the Bead Hill National Historic Site of Canada. It was designated a National Historic Site of Canada in 1991.19F 20 4.2 SEVENTEENTH- AND EIGHTEENTH-CENTURY HISTORIC CONTEXT (1600S AND 1700S) French explorers and missionaries began arriving in southern Ontario during the first half of the 17th century, bringing with them diseases for which the Indigenous peoples had no immunity, contributing to the collapse of the three southern Ontario Iroquoian confederacies. Also contributing to the collapse and eventual dispersal of the Huron, Petun, and Attiwandaron, was the movement of the Haudenosaunee Confederacy from south of Lake Ontario. Between 1649 and 1655, the Haudenosaunee Confederacy waged war on the Huron, Petun, and Attiwandaron, pushing them out of their villages and the general area.20F 21 As the Haudenosaunee Confederacy moved across a large hunting territory in southern Ontario, they began to threaten communities further from Lake Ontario, specifically the Ojibway (Anishinaabe). The Anishinaabe had occasionally engaged in conflict with the Haudenosaunee Confederacy over territories rich in resources and furs, as well as access to fur trade routes; but in the early 1690s, the Ojibway, Odawa and Patawatomi, allied as the Three Fires, initiated a series of offensive attacks on the Haudenosaunee Confederacy, eventually forcing them back to the south of Lake Ontario.21F 22 Oral tradition indicates that the Mississauga played an important role in the Anishinaabe attacks against the Haudenosaunee.22F 23 A large group of Mississauga established themselves in the area between present-day Toronto and Lake Erie around 1695, the descendants of whom are the Mississaugas of the Credit.23F 24 Artifacts from all major Indigenous communities have been discovered in the Greater Toronto Area at over 300 archaeological sites.24F 25 20 Parks Canada, “Bead Hill National Historic Site of Canada”, Directory of Federal Heritage Designations, accessed 30 October 2024, https://www.pc.gc.ca/apps/dfhd/page_nhs_eng.aspx?id=531. 21 Mississaugas of the Credit First Nation, “The History of the Mississaugas of the New Credit First Nation,” Mississaugas of the New Credit First Nation, 2018, http://mncfn.ca/wp-content/uploads/2018/04/The- History-of-MNCFN-FINAL.pdf 22 Mississaugas of the Credit First Nation, “History”, 3-4. 23 Mississaugas of the Credit First Nation, “History”, 3-4. 24 Mississaugas of the Credit First Nation, “History”, 3-4. 25 Toronto Region Conservation Authority, “Archaeology Opens a Window on the History of Indigenous Peoples in the GTA,” News, 2018, https://trca.ca/news/archaeology-indigenous-peoples-gta/ - 42 - Project # LHC0476 November 2024 15 In 1669, Sulpician missionary priests, Francois de Fenelon and Michel Trouve, explored the Rouge River and Gandatsekwyagon.25F 26 The Rouge River Portage extended from the mouth of the Rouge River northwards on the east bank along the river. 4.3 THE JOHNSON-BUTLER PURCHASE AND WILLIAMS TREATY The Johnson-Butler Purchase, or “Gunshot Treaty” was entered into in 1788 by representatives of the Crown and certain Anishinaabe peoples.26F 27 The Treaty contained no exact description of the land covered and was meant to cover land as far as a person could hear a gunshot from the shore of Lake Ontario. The treaty covers the north shore of Lake Ontario, beginning at the eastern boundary of the Toronto Purchase and continuing east to the Bay of Quinte, where it meets the Crawford Purchase. As the Williams Treaties First Nations write: The Gunshot Treaty was made in a series of Councils, first in 1787 with Sir John Johnson and in 1788 with Lt. Colonel John Butler and then confirmed with Lt. Governor Simcoe between the Chippewas of Lake Huron and Lake Simcoe and the Mississaugas of Rice Lake, Mud Lake and Scugog, circa 1794-1795. This treaty concerned lands along the shore of Lake Ontario west of the Crawford Purchase and south of Lake Simcoe.27F 28 Due to the uncertainty of land surrendered and breach of terms from European settlers, several Indigenous groups contested the earlier Treaty. A commission was set up by the Crown in 1916, led by R.V. Sinclair.28F 29 Sinclair concluded: The Indian title to these lands has never been extinguished and I am of the opinion that some arrangement should be made for quieting the title by the payment to the claimants of compensation in the same way that the Crown has dealt with other Indians whose title has been extinguished by treaty.29F 30 In 1923, to settle the matters as quickly as possible, A.S. Williams set out to resolve the land claim issues and offered the provincial limit of $500,000.30F 31 The Williams Treaty encompassed 26 Melba E. McKay, Pickering Women’s Institute, 1957, 11. 27 Government of Ontario, “Johnson-Butler Purchase”, 23 April 2024, accessed 30 October 2024, https://www.ontario.ca/page/map-ontario-treaties -and-reserves#t4. 28 Williams Treaties First Nations, “Gunshot Treaty,” Pre-Confederation Treaties, n.d. 29 Robert J. Surtees, “Treaty Research Report: The Williams Treaties”, Treaties and Historical Research Centre, Indian and Northern Affairs Canada, 1986. 30 Robert J. Surtees, “Treaty Research Report: The Williams Treaties”, Treaties and Historical Research Centre, Indian and Northern Affairs Canada, 1986. 31 Robert J. Surtees, “Treaty Research Report: The Williams Treaties”, Treaties and Historical Research Centre, Indian and Northern Affairs Canada, 1986, 19. - 43 - Project # LHC0476 November 2024 16 approximately 52,000 km2 and was signed by seven Anishinaabe Nations and Crown representatives in 1923 (Figure 3). The haste to sign the Williams Treaty was in part due to European settlement on land that was not yet ceded by the First Nations groups. The unforeseen problem with the Williams Treaty was it overlapped with earlier Treaties, including Treaty 20, and omitted hunting and fishing rights – that were covered in earlier Treaties.31F 32 4.4 POST EURO-CANADIAN CONTACT HISTORY Prior to the nineteenth century, the area saw only limited European or Euro-Canadian activity. French fur traders and Jesuit missionaries travelled with and lived with Indigenous communities in what would become Ontario from the early seventeenth-century until the British gained control of the area in the late eighteenth-century.32F 33 International conflicts including the Seven Years War (1756-1763) between Great Britain and France, leading to the 1763 Royal Proclamation, and the American Revolution (1775-1783) lead to a push by the British Crown for greater settlement in Canada which in turn led to efforts to sign treaties with Indigenous peoples.33F 34 The western part of the Province of Quebec, west of the Ottawa River (which would eventually become Ontario) saw little settlement until Loyalists moved north following the American Revolution. 4.5 SURVEY AND EUROPEAN SETTLEMENT IN THE AREA 4.5.1 TOWNSHIP OF PICKERING In 1791, the Township of Pickering was first surveyed by Provincial Land Surveyor, Augustus Jones. It was initially known as Township No. 9, and then given the name Edinburgh. The Township was primarily settled after Asa Danforth completed construction of Kingston Road in 1796. This was a major road from Ancaster to Kingston, which was designed to be two rods wide to accommodate horses and situated a safe distance from Lake Ontario. The crossing of the Rouge River was across a rudimentary wooden bridge constructed by 1811. A majority of the Township was taken up by military and additional grants allocated to largely absentee landholders. Large portions of Township, in particular desirable lands along the shoreline, remained wild well into the 1800s when the original landowners began selling off parcels to new settlers. 32 Robert J. Surtees, “Treaty Research Report: The Williams Treaties”, Treaties and Historical Research Centre, Indian and Northern Affairs Canada, 1986, 20. 33 Toronto Public Library, “Local History & Genealogy, Selections and Full PDFs of “The Jesuit Relations”: Sainte- Marie among the Hurons and Beyond,” accessed 30 October 2024, https://torontopubliclibrary.typepad.com/local-history-genealogy/2020/01/sainte-marie-among-the-hurons- selections-from-the-jesuit-relations-and-allied-documents.html 34 Peel Art Gallery, Museum, and Archives [PAMA], “About Peel,” 2022, accessed 30 October 2024, https://peelarchivesblog.com/about-peel/. - 44 - Project # LHC0476 November 2024 17 Figure 3: Map of Williams Treaties and Pre -Confederation Treaties.34F 35 The first Euro-Canadian settler in Pickering was William Peak, who arrived in 1798 and settled along the lakeshore at the mouth of Duffins Creek, working as a trader and interpreter with Indigenous peoples.35F 36 By the beginning of the nineteenth century, the southeastern portion of the Township began to be settled by Quakers from the eastern United States. In 1809, the population of the Township numbered at 180 inhabitants.36F 37 In 1811, Pickering Township became a separate municipality. In 1821, the Township was included in the East Riding of York County. As the Township was characterized by rolling hills covered in hardwood trees, settlement of the area flourished. By 1846, approximately 63,061 acres of land out of the total 74,660 acres in the Township were taken up and in use.37F 38 35 Williams Treaties First Nations, Map of William Treaties and Pre-Confederation Treaties, accessed 30 October 2024, https://williamstreatiesfirstnations.ca/maps-of-our-treaties/. 36 J.E. Farewell, Ontario County: A Short Sketch of Its Settlement, Physical Features, and Resources with Brief Historical Notes, Whitby, ON: Gazette-Chronicle Press, 1907, 11-13; William R. Wood, Past Years in Pickering: Sketches of the History of the Community, Toronto, ON: William Briggs, 1911, 16-18. 37 W.C. Murkar, “Early Settlers in Pickering”, Pickering News, 29 June 1961. 38 William H. Smith, Smith’s Canadian Gazetteer: Comprising Statistical and General Information Respecting All Parts of the Upper Province, or Canada West, Toronto, C.W.: H. & W. Rowsell, 1846, 146. - 45 - Project # LHC0476 November 2024 18 In 1842, the population increased to 3,752 inhabitants.38F 39 By 1850, it had increased to 6,385 inhabitants.39F 40 Throughout the 1850s, in part due to the Crimean War and the resulting economic boom in Canada, the Township was considered one of the best settled townships in the County of Ontario and contained a number of fine farms. The economic centres were Audley and Duffins Creek (later Pickering Village).40F 41 4.5.2 VILLAGE OF FAIRPORT With the continuation of settlement along the north shore of Lake Ontario, the lake itself became a highway of communication and exports. At Frenchman’s Bay, a natural enclosed harbour was proposed as a location for a commercial harbour. It became increasingly important as a port for the export of ship’s masts, pine logs, cordwood, and squared timber. In the 1840s, the Pickering Harbour Company was formed for the development and management of the harbour. By 1845, a channel was opened along the gravel bar that enclosed the harbour, and within a few years, Pickering Harbour, or Port of Liverpool, was a busy port exporting pine logs, timber and agricultural products.41F 42 In 1848, the Village of Fairport was surveyed by John Shier, Provincial Land Surveyor with each rectangular lot in Block D being 1 chain (20.11 m) in length by 2.50 chains (50.29 m) in width, and 0.25 acres in area. When the Grand Trunk Railway (GTR) was opened through Pickering Township in 1856, use of Frenchman’s Bay as a port declined sharply.42F 43 The 1873 Lovell’s Gazetteer of British North America noted that Frenchman’s Bay had a population of 100 inhabitants.43F 44 However, the provincial government funded an upgrade of port facilities in 1875. A new wharf replaced the old one, a lighthouse was built, a new channel was dredged, and a 50 000-bushel elevator was constructed.44F 45 These improvements allowed for the export of large quantities of barley grown in the Township to the United States. 39 William H. Smith, Smith’s Canadian Gazetteer: Comprising Statistical and General Information Respecting All Parts of the Upper Province, or Canada West, Toronto, C.W.: H. & W. Rowsell, 1846, 146. 40 William H. Smith, Canada: Past, Present and Future, Being A Historical, Geographical, Geological and Statistical Account of Canada West, Vol. II, Toronto, C.W.: Thomas Maclear, 1851, 21. 41 R.A. Murison, The Village of Pickering 1800-1970, Pickering, ON: The Corporation of the Village of Pickering, 1970, 3. 42 William R. Wood, Past Years in Pickering: Sketches of the History of the Community, Toronto, ON: William Briggs, 1911, 163-164. 43 John W. Sabean, “A Capsule History of the Township of Pickering”, Pickering Township Historical Society, Pathmaster, Vol. 1, No. 1, 7 May 1997, 9, accessed 14 November 2024, https://corporate.pickering.ca/PLHCWebLink/0/edoc/171049/191.pdf. 44 John Lovell, Lovell’s Gazetteer of British North America, Montreal, QC: John Lovell, 1873. 121. 45 Pickering Township Historical Society, Pathmaster, No. 7, Fall 2022, 10, accessed 11 November 2024, https://corporate.pickering.ca/PLHCWeblink/DocView.aspx?id=254410&dbid=0&repo=PICKERING&searchid=41c e09cc-f1d7-4882-b6e8-d6f6c73c8ca9 - 46 - Project # LHC0476 November 2024 19 Other businesses survived for short periods in Frenchman’s Bay including commercial fisheries and especially the harvesting of ice in wintertime. In the early 1900s, Fairport began to develop as a centre for recreation. In time, many of the cottages were winterized and the number of residents stabilized.45F 46 4.6 PROPERTY HISTORY Table 1. Chain of Property Ownership for 681 Pleasant Street. Property Owner Years of Ownership Instrument Remarks Captain George Hill 1796-1834 Crown Patent All Richard Gardiner 1834-1852 Inst. 1737. ¼ acres. James Youmans 1854 --- Scott James 1854-1866 Inst. 17007. --- William Taylor 1866 Inst. 28010. Through Court of Chancery George White 1866-1868 Inst. 28010. --- John Fisher 1868-1874 Inst. 106. --- Patrick Ure 1874 Inst. 2100. --- John and Susan Fisher 1875-1888 Inst. 3238. --- William Palmer 1888-1893 Inst. 8472. --- Charles Palmer 1893-1895 Inst. 7165. --- Elizabeth Taylor 1895-1897 --- --- Thomas Mansfield Sr. 1897-1906 Inst. 9064. --- Julia Dunn 1906-1917 Inst. 11537. $425. Charles Clarke and Annie A. Clarke 1917-1944 Inst. 14211. $1,400. James C. Clark 1944-1999 Inst. 24221. $3,000. James Peter Russell 1999-2010 Inst. LT892085. All. Kiera Brown 2010-2021 Inst. DR914723. All. Ahmed Chowdhury 2021-Present Inst. DR2033191. All. 46 Pickering Township Historical Society, Pathmaster, No. 7, Fall 2022, 10, accessed 11 November 2024. - 47 - Project # LHC0476 November 2024 20 The Crown Patent for Township Lot 23, Broken Front, Concession 3 was granted to Captain George Hill in 1796. The Township Lot was sold to Richard Gardiner in 1834 and he subdivided and surveyed the Township Lot into smaller lots, including the Property as Lot 6, Block D under Plan 65 in 1848. In 1854, the Property was sold to James Youmans and then sold again to Scott James the same year. In 1866, it was foreclosed and sold to William Taylor through the Court of Chancery, who then sold it to George White the same year. In 1868, the Property was purchased by John Fisher. Around 1872, he had the two-storey red brick residential building constructed. The 1874 Kingford Map of Frenchman’s Bay shows the Property at the south side of Commerce Street and Pleasant Street is unmarked. The Property including the adjacent Lot 8 and Lot 9 were sold to Patrick Ure in 1874, and the following year, it was purchased by Susan Fisher. In 1888, the Property was purchased by William Palmer. The 1888 tax assessment roll notes that William Palmer owned Block D, Lots 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 12; Block E Lots 1 & 12, and Water Lot 1, totalling 2.75 acres valued at $500.46F 47 During the 1890s, the Property changed hands multiple times. In 1897, the Property was purchased by Thomas Mansfield Sr, a local general store merchant. In 1906, he sold the Property to Julia Dunn for a sum of $425. The 1914 topographic map illustrates the Property as being one of two brick or stone buildings in Fairport Village (the other building was located at the southeast corner of Liverpool Road and Wharf Street). In 1917, the Property was purchased by Charles Clarke and Annie A. Clarke for a sum of $1,400. The 1921 Census notes that Charles Clarke and Annie A. Clarke were living in a single- detached brick house and his occupation was manufacturer.47F 48 Photographs from 1920 and 1923 demonstrate the location of the Property within Fairport (Image 1 and Image 2). A 1940 photograph shows the south elevation of the house on the Property with a symmetrical fenestration pattern, a crowning wooden finial above the gable roof end, a red brick chimney centered at the main gable roof, and a red brick chimney at the rear wing gable end (Image 3). In 1944, the Property was purchased by James C. Clarke for a sum of $3,000 who resided there for over 50 years. In 1999, the Property was sold to James P. Russell. In 2010, the Property was sold to Kiera Brown. Photos from 2012 and 2014 demonstrate the addition of decorative bargeboard (gingerbread) to the west (front) elevation of the gable roof and removal of the finials. In 2021, the Property was sold to the current owner. 47 Assessment Roll for the Township of Pickering, 1888. Line 1229. 48 Library and Archives Canada, Sixth Census of Canada, 1921, Enumeration District No. 109 Ontario South, Sub- district No. 3 Pickering, 4, Line 7, accessed 8 November 2024, https://www.ancestry.ca/discoveryui- content/view/2220182:8991. - 48 - Project # LHC0476 November 2024 21 Image 1. View east of Commerce Street and Pleasant Street with the Property at centre, annotated by LHC, 1920.48F 49 Image 2. View southeast of the T-intersection of Commerce Street and Pleasant Street with the Property at centre-left, annotated by LHC, 1923.49F 50 49 “Frenchman’s Bay – Fairport, Ontario”, Pickering Public Library, The P.E.S.C.A. Collection, Item ID: 96-01660, 1920, accessed 8 November 2024, https://corporate.pickering.ca/PLHCWeblink/DocView.aspx?id=166942&dbid=0&repo=PICKERING&searchid=ff98 146d-6e13-49de-8f78-dc5a62f388cd. 50 “An Aeroplane View of Frenchman’s Bay, Ont”, Canadian Post Card Co., Frenchmans Bay 01. Pickering Public Library, Item ID: 2009-00175, July 1923, accessed 11 November 2024, https://corporate.pickering.ca/PLHCWeblink/DocView.aspx?id=171324&dbid=0&repo=PICKERING. - 49 - Project # LHC0476 November 2024 22 Image 3. View of the south elevation of the house, 1940.50F 51 Image 4. View of the west elevation of the house, 2012.51F 52 51 Brian Winter, “Frenchman’s Bay, Ontario”, Pickering Public Library, The P.E.S.C.A. Collection, Item ID: 96-01657, 1940, accessed 6 November 2024, https://corporate.pickering.ca/PLHCWeblink/DocView.aspx?id=166947&dbid=0&repo=PICKERING. 52 Google Street View, August 2012, accessed 8 November 2024. - 50 - Project # LHC0476 November 2024 23 Image 5. View of the west elevation of the house, 2014.52F 53 53 Google Street View, August 2014, accessed 8 November 2024. - 51 - - 52 - - 53 - - 54 - Project # LHC0476 November 2024 27 4.6.1 PEOPLE ASSOCIATED WITH THE PROPERTY 4.6.1.1 JOHN FISHER (1836-1900) John Fisher was born in Stonegrave, North Yorkshire, England to parents Joseph Fisher (1800- 1848) and Elizabeth Fisher (née Snowden) (1807-1888). He emigrated with his parents and siblings to Pickering Township in 1842, where they settled on 100 acres of Lot 33, Concession 1. After his father's early death in 1848, John and his mother continued to farm. The 1860 Tremaine’s Map illustrates the ownership of Lot 33, Concession 1 by John Fisher. The 1861 Census notes that he lived in a one storey log building with his family.53F 54 He married Susan Bellchambers (1839-1926) in 1861 at Dunbarton & Canton Church in Pickering Township. They had 6 children and continued to live in Pickering. The 1865 Tax Assessment Roll for the Township of Pickering notes that he worked as a sailor and owned 0.25 acres of land in Broken Front, Township Lot 23 valued at $200.54F 55 In 1866, he along with James Hiltz purchased Water Lot 1 in Fairport. After selling 50 acres of the family farm, he and his wife moved to Fairport Village in 1868 where John worked as a wharfinger and sailed a schooner.55F 56 The 1868 Tax Assessment roll for Pickering Township notes that he worked as a wharfinger and owned 1.5 acres of land valued at $925.56F 57 That same year, he purchased the Property on Lot 6, Block D, and other properties including Lot 8 and Lot 9, Block D which fronted Liverpool Road, and Lot 1 and Lot 12, Block E on the south side of Pleasant Street. Lot 1 and Lot 12 of Block E was the location of a large two-storey hotel and adjacent wharf known as the Fairport House or Fairport Hotel upon which he purchased the land with James Hiltz.57F 58 In 1869, he received a hotel licence.58F 59 The 1869 Conner and Coltson’s County of Ontario Directory notes that he worked as a wharfinger.59F 60 In 1870, a contract was awarded by Pickering Township Council to John Fisher and William Bellchambers for the construction of a bridge over Lot 20 and Lot 21 on what is now Sandy Beach Road.60F 61 The 1870 Tax Assessment Roll notes that he worked as an innkeeper and his property was valued at $925.61F 62 54 Library and Archives Canada, Personal Census, Enumeration District Pickering Township, 1861, 105, 29, accessed 7 November 2024, https://www.ancestry.ca/imageviewer/collections/1570/images/4391564_00367?pId=797977095 55 Assessment Roll for the Township of Pickering, 1865, Line 67. 56 “Highland Creek”, The Pickering News, 26 January 1900, 8. 57 Assessment Roll for the Township of Pickering, 1868, Line 368. 58 Land Registry Ontario, Durham (LRO 40), Book 348, Plan 65, Lot 1, Block E, 1868. Inst. 28300.; Lot 12, Block E, 1867; Water Lot 1, 1866. 59 “Pickering Township Council”, Whitby Chronicle, 11 March 1869, 2. 60 J.W. Coltson and J.C. Conner, The County of Ontario Directory for 1869-70, Toronto, ON: Conner and Coltson, 1870, 123. 61 “Whitby Chronicle 10 September 1870. 62 Assessment Roll for the Township of Pickering, 1870, Line 313. - 55 - Project # LHC0476 November 2024 28 The 1871 Census notes that his occupation was tavern keeper.62F 63 The 1871 Tax Assessment Roll notes that he worked as an innkeeper and his property was valued at $1,200. In 1872, he received a tavern licence as the owner and proprietor of the Fairport Hotel.63F 64 The 1876 Tax Assessment Roll notes that he worked as a sailor and owned Block D, Lots 6, 8, 9, and Block E, Lot 1 and 12 (1.5 acres) valued at $1,200.64F 65 The 1877 Tax Assessment Roll notes that he worked as a sailor and owned 1.75 acres of land which included Water Lot 1, valued at $1,200. The 1877 H. Belden & Co. Illustrated Historical Atlas of the County of Ontario notes that he continued to own 50 acres of Lot 33, Concession 1 which was his family’s farmstead.65F 66 The 1881 Tax Assessment Roll noted that he owned the south ½ of Lot 23, Broken Front known as the “Whiteside Property”, totalling 10.5 acres valued at $1,500; and Block D, Lots 1, 2, 4, 5, 6, 7; Block E, Lot 1, 12, Water Lot 1, totalling 2.75 acres valued at $400.66F 67 The 1885 Tax Assessment Roll (Lot 1-7), 500. And south half Lot 23, 9.5 acres values at $1,200.67F 68 The 1886 Tax Assessment Roll notes he worked as a sailor and owned Block D, Lots 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7; Block E, Lot 1, 12, Water Lot 1, totalling 2.75 acres valued at $600.68F 69 He moved to Toronto around 1887 and worked as a grocer.69F 70 In 1888, the Property and Lot 1, Block E were sold. He passed away in 1900 and was buried in Highland Creek Wesleyan Cemetery in Scarborough. 4.6.1.2 THOMAS MANSFIELD SR. (1851-1927) Thomas Mansfield Sr. was born in London, United Kingdom to parents Henry Mansfield. His family immigrated to Canada in 1867. In the 1870s and 1880s, he worked as a sailor and fisherman. He married Ardelia Mansfield (née Marks) (1858-1929) and they had three sons and six daughters. Until 1914, he operated a general store located at 1291 Commercial Street, which was taken over by his son Thomas Mansfield Jr. (Image 6).70F 71 In 1922, he constructed the 63 Library and Archives Canada, Census of 1871, Enumeration District South Ontario, Sub-district Pickering, 1871, 46, Line 20, accessed 6 November 2024, https://www.ancestry.ca/discoveryui-content/view/1934820:1578. 64 City of Pickering, “Frenchman’s Bay History 1763-1965”, X2023-013-070, 27, accessed 22 October 2024, https://corporate.pickering.ca/PLHCWeblink/DocView.aspx?id=252387&dbid=0&repo=PICKERING. 65 Assessment Roll for the Township of Pickering, 1876, Line 379. 66 H. Belden., Illustrated Historical Atlas of the County of Ontario, Ont., Toronto, ON: H. Belden & Co., 1877. 67 Assessment Roll for the Township of Pickering, 1881, Line 429. 68 Assessment Roll for the Township of Pickering, 1885, Line 475. 69 Assessment Roll for the Township of Pickering, 1886, Line 527. 70 Find-a-Grave, “John Fisher (1836-1900), n.d., accessed 22 October 2024, https://www.findagrave.com/memorial/58800954/john-fisher. 71 “Death of Thomas Mansfield”, Pickering News, 28 October 1927, 4, accessed 8 November 2024, https://corporate.pickering.ca/PLHCWebLink/0/edoc/179470/PN1927_10_28.pdf. - 56 - Project # LHC0476 November 2024 29 current building at 1291 Commercial Street which was used as a general store, post office, and residence (Image 7).71F 72 He passed away in 1927 and was buried at Fairport United Cemetery.72F 73 Image 6. Thomas Mansfield Sr.’s general store on Lot 7, Block E on the south side of Commercial Street, 1900s. 72 “Fairport”, Pickering News, 26 May 1922, 1, accessed 11 November 2024, https://corporate.pickering.ca/PLHCWeblink/DocView.aspx?id=179179&page=1&dbid=0&repo=PICKERING&sear chid=94856b80-93a0-4604-8f8e-b0022eeac325. 73 Find-a-Grave. “Thomas Mansfield (1851-1927) accessed 15 November 2024, https://www.findagrave.com/memorial/137433331/thomas-mansfield. - 57 - Project # LHC0476 November 2024 30 Image 7. Thomas Mansfield Sr.’s general store on Lot 7, Block E, 1291 Commercial Street, 1924.73F 74 4.6.1.3 JAMES C. CLARK (1908-1998) James C. Clark was born in Toronto and grew up in England. From 1925 until the 1960s, he worked at Consumers Gas Company and was a Member of the Chemical Institute of Canada. In 1933, he married Fanny Bond and they moved to Fairport Village in 1944. In the 1950s, he was president and a charter member of the Rouge Hill Lions Club, a member of the Frenchman’s Bay Ratepayer and Community Association, secretary of the Frenchman’s Bay Yacht Club, and the Toronto Foreman’s Club.74F 75 He also helped assist with local municipal elections as a returning officer.75F 76 74 Pickering Public Library, “Fairport Village 1”, Item ID: 2009-00168, n.d. accessed 11 November 2024, https://corporate.pickering.ca/PLHCWeblink/DocView.aspx?id=171318&dbid=0&repo=PICKERING. 75 “To Head Rouge Lions Club.”, The Pickering News, 22 June 1956, 1. 76 The Corporation of the Township of Pickering, By-law No. 4072/71. 15 November 1971, 2. - 58 - Project # LHC0476 November 2024 31 5 ASSESSMENT OF EXISTING CONDITIONS 5.1 SURROUNDING CONTEXT The Property is located in Peel Plain physiographic region. The Peel Plain is characterized by level-to-undulating clay soils, gently rolling topography which slopes westerly towards the Rouge River valley from the Property. The Credit, Humber, Don, and Rouge Rivers and streams such as the Bronte, Oakville, and Etobicoke Creeks have cut deep valleys across the plain. Soils in the area are predominantly imperfectly drained and stone-free clay loam. The Property is in the Rouge River watershed and the most prominent natural feature, Frenchman’s Bay is found 100 metres to the west. The surrounding area can be characterised as urban with a mixture of commercial and residential properties. Commercial properties are clustered along Liverpool Road to the south. Residential buildings are located immediately around the Property along Pleasant Street and Commercial Street. They are generally one-to - two storeys in height. Many residential buildings are of contemporary construction. However, there are several buildings that appear to have been constructed during the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries. Pleasant Street is a two-lane street which runs in a north-to-south direction. It has utility poles, light fixtures, concrete curbs, and concrete sidewalks on the west and east sides of the street (Photo 1 and Photo 2 ). Commercial Street is a two-lane street which runs in a north-to - south direction. It has utility poles, light fixtures, concrete curbs, and concrete sidewalks on the west and east sides of the street (Photo 3 and Photo 4). - 59 - Project # LHC0476 November 2024 32 Photo 1. View west towards Frenchman’s Bay.76F 77 Photo 2. View south along Pleasant Street. 77 HouseSigma, “681 Pleasant St Pickering - Bay Ridges”, Listing ID: E5202121, 23 April 2021, accessed 8 November 2024, https://housesigma.com/on/pickering-real-estate/681-pleasant- st/home/gJRv53KJnrx7VPW4?id_listing=dXze3eKzgMgy8m9K&utm_campaign=listing&utm_source=user- share&utm_medium=desktop&ign=. - 60 - Project # LHC0476 November 2024 33 Photo 3. View north along Pleasant Street towards Commercial Street. Photo 4. View east along Commercial Street. - 61 - Project # LHC0476 November 2024 34 Photo 5. View west along Commercial Street. 5.2 THE PROPERTY 5.2.1 FRONT YARD The front yard of the Property includes a parking space, sidewalk to the front door, small area of grass, a birch tree and some shrubs (Photo 6). The house has a short, approximately 7 m, setback from the street edge. A narrow concrete sidewalk extends straight from the street to the front door. The Property includes a short, narrow asphalt driveway in the northwest corner and a wood gate blocking access to the side yard north of the house. Concrete pavers extend along the front of the house to a wide concrete step in front of the front door. - 62 - Project # LHC0476 November 2024 35 Photo 6. View northeast at the front of the Property 5.2.2 THE REAR YARD AND SHED STRUCTURE The Property contains a large rear yard (Photo 7) with a well (Photo 8) and a wood-frame shed structure. The shed structure has a gable roof with a rectangular red brick chimney and the exterior cladding is comprised of horizontal wood siding and vertical metal siding (Photo 9 through Photo 11). - 63 - Project # LHC0476 November 2024 36 Photo 7. View east of the rear yard. Photo 8. View north of a well in the rear yard. - 64 - Project # LHC0476 November 2024 37 Photo 9. View east of the west and south elevations of the shed structure. Photo 10. View east of the north and west elevations of the shed structure. - 65 - Project # LHC0476 November 2024 38 Photo 11. View of the interior of the shed structure. 5.2.3 MAIN HOUSE EXTERIOR The c.1872 red brick building is two-storeys in height and on an irregular T-shaped plan with a rear wing. The foundation of the house is stone and concrete. The front foundation wall is even coursed cut stone (Photo 12). The north and south walls of the house have a coursed rubble foundation with rough mortar (Photo 13). The rear wing appears to be a slab on grade section. The exterior brickwork is laid in a common bond pattern. The mortar has been scribed with a double line mark. The house has an offset gable roof clad in asphalt shingles. It has projecting eaves with a plain fascia and soffit over most of the house and decorated fascia (bargeboard trim) on the front (west) and south elevations. As mentioned in Section 4.6 the decorated fascia elements are recent additions to the house (2012-2014). There is evidence of partial removal of wooden finials above the roof line after 1940 and before 2021 (See Image 3 and Image 4 in Section 4.6). The plain fascia and soffit are covered in metal flashing. The building contains an enclosed wooden porch with a hipped roof (Photo 12 ). The front door to the porch is an aluminum storm door. One-over-one sash windows line the front porch with fixed narrow top lites over the door and each window. The wood wall panel sections of the porch are tongue and groove. The base of the porch is concrete. - 66 - Project # LHC0476 November 2024 39 Typical windows on the house include two-over-two, wood sash windows with segmental brick arches and concrete sills (Photo 12 and Photo 13). One window on the façade and on the second floor, north side are two-over-one sash pointed arch (lancet shape) windows with pointed brick arches (Photo 12 and Photo 14). False shutters have been added to house walls next to two of the front windows and one second storey window on the south elevation (Photo 12 and Photo 13). On the south elevation there is a large, modern, three-pane bay window (Photo 13). Evidence of the historic window and a former eaves trough are still present on the wall. The rear wing includes a narrow porch with shed roof on the south side (Photo 15). Windows on the rear wing are rectangular, fixed windows with flat concrete headers and sills (Photo 15 and Photo 16). Photo 12. View east of the west (front) elevation. - 67 - Project # LHC0476 November 2024 40 Photo 13. View north of the south elevation. - 68 - Project # LHC0476 November 2024 41 Photo 14. View south of the north elevation. Photo 15. View northwest of the south and east rear wing elevations. - 69 - Project # LHC0476 November 2024 42 Photo 16. View west of the east rear wing elevation. Photo 17. View west of the east elevation and the rear wing. - 70 - Project # LHC0476 November 2024 43 Photo 18. View south of the north elevation. 5.2.4 MAIN HOUSE INTERIOR 5.2.4.1 BASEMENT The basement is accessed from the first floor via a narrow wooden staircase (Photo 19). The staircase is supported on rusticated CMU blocks and the first floor appears warped (Photo 20 and Photo 21). The fieldstone foundation (Photo 23) has been dug out with a formed concrete wall underneath—with wide concrete form board marks present—and parged with cement (Photo 22 through Photo 25). Rusticated CMU blocks (c. 1905-1930s) appear to support the structure in other areas of the basement (Photo 26). A pre-1912 chimney stamp is marked “J. Smart Manufacturing Co. Limited Brockville Ont” (Photo 27). The sill plate of the house appears to be large hewn timber beams (Photo 28). Large square hewn timber beams, milled timbers—laid on their sides—(Photo 29) and steel beams (Photo 30) support milled wooden joists and support the wooden floor boards above (Photo 31 and Photo 32). Some steel and timber beams are supported with steel jack posts. The rusticated CMU blocks, chimney plate, concrete foundations with form marks indicate modifications in the early twentieth century. This may indicate that the house had a crawl space which was excavated into a deeper basement. The steel beams, timber laid on their sides, jack posts and rusticated CMU blocks may also indicate various attempts to renovate the basement over time to attempt to stabilize the house or correct sagging or sloping floors. - 71 - Project # LHC0476 November 2024 44 Photo 19. View of the wooden staircase from the first floor to the basement. - 72 - Project # LHC0476 November 2024 45 Photo 20. View of the warped wooden boards of the first floor. Photo 21. View of rusticated CMU blocks supporting the wooden staircase. - 73 - Project # LHC0476 November 2024 46 Photo 22. View of a parged cement wall and two three-pane windows with wooden surrounds. Photo 23. View of the fieldstone foundation wall with concrete wall below. - 74 - Project # LHC0476 November 2024 47 Photo 24. View of the fieldstone foundation wall with concrete wall below. Photo 25. View of the fieldstone foundation parged with cement. - 75 - Project # LHC0476 November 2024 48 Photo 26. View of rusticated CMU blocks, heating equipment and metal ductwork. Photo 27. A chimney plate stamped “J. Smart Manufacturing Co. Limited Brockville Ont.”, pre - 1912. - 76 - Project # LHC0476 November 2024 49 Photo 28. Sill plate beams. Photo 29. View of a large square hewn timber beam adjacent to a steel beam supported by a steel pillar. - 77 - Project # LHC0476 November 2024 50 Photo 30. View of a wooden board supported by a steel beam. Photo 31. View of a wooden sill plate. - 78 - Project # LHC0476 November 2024 51 Photo 32. View of the ceiling boards supported on wooden joists. 5.2.4.2 FIRST FLOOR The first floor is accessed through an enclosed porch which leads to the front of the house. The enclosed porch is constructed out of wood and features long vertical sash windows and smaller stained glass transom windows above (Photo 31). The red brick masonry wall features a double line scribe mark in the mortar. However, there are cracks evident above the brick window voussoirs, cracks and chipped brick below the window sills (Photo 32 and Photo 33). Inside the front door a hall leads to stairs to the second floor. Two doorways lead to other rooms. The house includes a large parlour room with windows that look out towards Pleasant Street (Photo 34). In the living room there is a large bay window with a view towards the side yard (Photo 35), a large red brick fireplace (Photo 36 and Photo 37), and a stamped patterned ceiling (Photo 38. The kitchen contains plain, painted, shaker style cabinetry, access to an attic space, and access to the rear yard through a side door (Photo 39). - 79 - Project # LHC0476 November 2024 52 Photo 33. View of the enclosed porch. Photo 34. View of the red brick voussoirs with cracks. - 80 - Project # LHC0476 November 2024 53 Photo 35. View of cracked and chipped brick below the windowsill. Photo 36. View of the parlour room. - 81 - Project # LHC0476 November 2024 54 Photo 37. View of the bay window. Photo 38. View of the fireplace in the living room area. - 82 - Project # LHC0476 November 2024 55 Photo 39. View towards the living room with the access door to the basement at right. Photo 40. View of the stamped pattern ceiling. - 83 - Project # LHC0476 November 2024 56 Photo 41. View of the kitchen. 5.2.4.3 SECOND FLOOR The second floor is accessed from the first floor via a wooden staircase which has warped treads at the top landing (Photo 40). It has wooden handrails and newel posts (Photo 41). A corridor (Photo 42) provides access to four bedrooms (Photo 43 and Photo 44)and a washroom constructed from a converted closet (Photo 45). - 84 - Project # LHC0476 November 2024 57 Photo 42. View of the warped wooden second floor staircase. Photo 43. View of the second-floor staircase with handrails and newel posts. - 85 - Project # LHC0476 November 2024 58 Photo 44. View of the corridor to various bedrooms. Photo 45. View of a bedroom. - 86 - Project # LHC0476 November 2024 59 Photo 46. View of a bedroom. Photo 47. View of the washroom. - 87 - Project # LHC0476 November 2024 60 5.3 DESIGN The c. 1872 building on the Property includes design elements of the Gothic Revival architectural style. This style was popularized in Ontario during the mid-nineteenth century through a vernacular form known as the Ontario Farmhouse. 5.3.1 ONTARIO FARMHOUSE / GOTHIC REVIVAL STYLE (1850-1900) The Ontario Farmhouse (also known as the Ontario Cottage/Gothic Cottage) is a subset of Gothic Revival architecture, commonly found in Ontario and throughout the northeastern United States. The Gothic Revival architectural style was developed by early British settlers to Ontario. Architectural details were translated from English Gothic and medieval stone architecture into wood, creating an eclectic and ornate appearance. The Gothic Revival or Gothic Cottage architectural style was the most pervasive Ontario residential style between 1850 and 1900.77F 78 The growing focus on the rural Picturesque was due to the conditions of workers’ housing in cities and the respect given to the aesthetics of the rural landscape.78F 79 An 1864 article in The Canada Farmer journal from the architect James Avon Smith (1832-1918) (of the firm Smith and Gemmell) provides a study on the ‘suburban villa or farmhouse’ with subtle Gothic elements that could be constructed from brick or stone.79F 80 Being rather larger than Gothic Cottage, his design featured two floors, a cross-gable roof configuration with exterior gingerbread bargeboard, multiple bedrooms, rooms for lounging, second-storey Gothic lancet windows, an asymmetrical front elevation with projecting bay window and verandah on an L- shaped plan.80F 81 This particular design was introduced in pattern-books and proved to be versatile, found in many vernacular manifestations across Ontario in which this design was added to or simplified depending on location and cost concerns.81F 82 These buildings showed that the farmer and his family were very successful. These homes reflected the prosperity of the time, as a result of high grain and livestock prices during the Crimean and American Civil War periods and concerns for style and appearance (Image 8).82F 83 78 Shannon Kyles, “Gothic Revival”, OntarioArchitecture, accessed 15 November 2024, http://www.ontarioarchitecture.com/gothicrevival.html. 79 Jessica Mace, Beautifying the Countryside: Rural and Vernacular Gothic in Late Nineteenth-Century Ontario, JSSAC, Vol 38, No. 1, 2013, 30. 80 The Canada Farmer, Rural Architecture, Vol. 1, No. 9, 16 May 1864, accessed 21 November 2022, https://www.canadiana.ca/view/oocihm.8_04206_9/5. 81 The Canada Farmer, Rural Architecture, Vol. 1, No. 9, 16 May 1864, accessed 21 November 2022, https://www.canadiana.ca/view/oocihm.8_04206_9/5. 82 Jessica Mace, Beautifying the Countryside: Rural and Vernacular Gothic in Late Nineteenth-Century Ontario, JSSAC, Vol 38, No. 1, 2013, 34. 83 Shannon Kyles, “Gothic Revival”, OntarioArchitecture, accessed 15 November 2024, http://www.ontarioarchitecture.com/gothicrevival.html. - 88 - Project # LHC0476 November 2024 61 Image 8. Illustration of a suburban villa or farmhouse, 1864.83F 84 5.3.2 PREVALENCE OF LOCAL ONTARIO FARMHOUSE / GOTHIC REVIVAL STYLE BUILDINGS The City of Pickering Municipal Heritage Register includes four properties with Heritage Value descriptions that describe houses with Gothic Revival style influences. Other entries describe Victorian or Ontario Cottage designs, which based on a Google Streetview review of the addresses appear to be consistent with Ontario Farmhouse / Gothic Revival designs. Several designated heritage properties in the City, including 2390 Rosebank Road, 2319 Wildwood Court, 1505 Whitevale Road, 1200 Whitevale Road and 1860 7th Concession Road appear –based on a Google Streetview review—to have Gothic Revival influences in their form, massing, roof style, gables, window designs and materials. Furthermore, the Heritage Building Inventory in the Whitevale Heritage Conservation District Guidelines shows several properties that appear to be in the Gothic Revival style or demonstrate influences from the style. 84 The Canada Farmer, Rural Architecture, Vol. 1, No. 9, 16 May 1864, accessed 15 November 2024. - 89 - Project # LHC0476 November 2024 62 6 EVALUATION OF CULTURAL HERITAGE VALUE OR INTEREST 6.1 HERITAGE STATUS 6.2 ONTARIO REGULATION 9/06 EVALUATION The Property at 681 Pleasant Street was evaluated against O. Reg. 9/06 under the OHA using research and analysis presented in Sections 4.5.2, 4.6, and 5 of this CHER. The findings are presented in Table 2 below. 6.2.1 SUMMARY OF EVALUATION In our professional opinion, LHC finds that the Property at 681 Pleasant Street meets one criterion of O. Reg. 9/06 (criterion 1). The Property is not eligible for designation under Part IV Section 29 of the OHA. Table 2. Ontario Regulation 9/06 Evaluation for the Property at 681 Pleasant Street Criteria Criteria Met Justification 1. The property has design value or physical value because it is a rare, unique, representative or early example of a style, type, expression, material or construction method. Yes The Property meets this criterion. The 1872 red-brick vernacular farmhouse building contains Gothic Revival influences. However, it is not an early example of the style—which first appeared in Ontario approximately 20 years earlier. It is not rare or unique. As described in Section 5.3.2 Gothic Revival style buildings are common throughout the City. The Property is representative of a Gothic Revival vernacular farmhouse building. It includes features of the Gothic Revival style including the T-shaped plan, brick cladding, segmental arch window openings and pointed arch window openings and gable roof. However as discussed in Sections 4.6 and 5, the significant alteration to the building have been made over time. Finials have been removed from the peaks of the gables, modern metal flashing has been installed over the fascia and soffits, the parlour window has been replaced with a modern bay - 90 - Project # LHC0476 November 2024 63 Criteria Criteria Met Justification window, a chimney was removed from the rear wing, contemporary decorative wooden bargeboard has been added to some -but not all—of the gables, and a red brick chimney has been added in the centre of the roof. 2. The property has design value or physical value because it displays a high degree of craftsmanship or artistic merit. No The Property does not meet this criterion. The Property does not display a high degree of craftsmanship or artistic merit. There is no evidence to suggest that the 1872 two-storey brick building has greater craftsmanship than a standard residential brick building at its time of construction (see Section 4.6). The warped floors and various interventions in the basement to stabilize and support the house indicate that it does not demonstrate a high level of craftsmanship. Features to make the house look more historic such as the bargeboard and shutters are contemporary. 3. The property has design value or physical value because it demonstrates a high degree of technical or scientific achievement. No The Property does not meet this criterion. The Property does not demonstrate a high degree of technical or scientific achievement. There is no evidence to suggest that the 1872 two-storey brick building meets this criterion. 4. The property has historical value or associative value because it has direct associations with a theme, event, belief, person, activity, organization or institution that is significant to a community. No The Property does not meet this criterion. The building on the Property is one of last remaining brick buildings from Fairport Village in the 1870s However, there are no direct associations between this Property and specific events, activities, organizations or institutions that are significant to Fairport Village, to the wider Pickering Township or to the City of Pickering. Historic research found that the Property is connected to John Fisher (built the house in 1872), - 91 - Project # LHC0476 November 2024 64 Criteria Criteria Met Justification Thomas Mansfield Sr. and James C. Clark. These men participated in community affairs but no evidence has been found that suggests any of these men were historically significant figures for Fairport Village or the wider Pickering community. 5. The property has historical value or associative value because it yields, or has the potential to yield, information that contributes to an understanding of a community or culture. No The Property does not meet this criterion. The Property does not yield, or have the potential to yield, information that contributes to an understanding of a community or culture. There is no evidence to suggest that the Property meets this criterion. 6. The property has historical value or associative value because it demonstrates or reflects the work or ideas of an architect, artist, builder, designer or theorist who is significant to a community. No The Property does not meet this criterion. The 1872 red brick building on the Property does not demonstrate or reflect the work or ideas of an architect, artist, builder, designer, or theorist who is important to a community. There is no evidence to suggest that John Fisher may have designed or constructed the building in 1872. An architect, artist, builder, designer, or theorist was not identified. Plans or designs for the building were not identified. 7. The property has contextual value because it is important in defining, maintaining or supporting the character of an area. No The Property does not meet this criterion. As discussed in Sections 4.5.2 and 5.1, the character of the village of Fairport is identified as being a mix of properties with buildings dating from the nineteenth, twentieth, and twenty-first centuries. Buildings from the twentieth century and contemporary buildings are predominant in the area. The area can be - 92 - Project # LHC0476 November 2024 65 Criteria Criteria Met Justification described as an evolved, largely 20th and 21st century residential area instead of a 19th century village. Surrounding and adjacent properties along the west and east sides of Pleasant Street and along the north and south sides of Commerce Street maintain similar 0.25-acre lot sizes, setbacks, vegetation, massing and lot patterns to the Property due to being situated on lots surveyed under the 1848 Plan of the Village of Fairport. However, the building on the Property does not define, maintain, or support the local character of the area. 8. The property has contextual value because it is physically, functionally, visually or historically linked to its surroundings. No The Property does not meet this criterion. The Inventory of heritage properties, City of Pickering, prepared by Unterman McPhail Associates for the City of Pickering in 2002, notes that the Property is one of the few historic buildings remaining from the settlement of Fairport Village in the 1870s. However, due to surrounding contemporary developments around the Property, no significant historical links between the Property and a 19th century village context are present. The Property is not physically, functionally, visually or historically linked in a meaningful way to the surrounding area, to the wider Pickering Township, or the City of Pickering. 9. The property has contextual value because it is a landmark. No The Property does not meet this criterion. The MCM defines landmark as: …a recognizable natural or human-made feature used for a point of reference that helps orienting in a - 93 - Project # LHC0476 November 2024 66 Criteria Criteria Met Justification familiar or unfamiliar environment; it may mark an event or development; it may be conspicuous.84F 85 There is no evidence to suggest that the Property is a landmark. 85 Ministry of Citizenship and Multiculturalism, “Standards & Guidelines for Conservation of Provincial Heritage Properties, Heritage Identification & Evaluation Process.” - 94 - Project # LHC0476 November 2024 67 7 CONCLUSION LHC was retained by Banalata Consultants Ltd. on 18 September 2024 to prepare a CHER to evaluate the cultural heritage value or interest of the Property at 681 Pleasant Street, in the City of Pickering, in the Regional Municipality of Durham. This CHER was completed in accordance with objectives of the City of Pickering Official Plan. It follows cultural heritage best practices drawing upon applicable frameworks, such as the MCM’s Ontario Heritage Tool Kit, Heritage Property Evaluation (2006). The purpose of this CHER is to evaluate the Property for CHVI. It has been prepared in response to a municipal request for a third-party evaluation of the Property for heritage value. In our professional opinion, LHC finds that the Property at 681 Pleasant Street meets one criterion of O. Reg. 9/06 (criterion 1). The Property is not eligible for designation under Part IV Section 29 of the OHA. - 95 - Project # LHC0476 November 2024 68 8 SIGNATURES Sincerely, Benjamin Holthof, MPl, MMA, RPP, MCIP, CAHP Senior Heritage Planner LHC Heritage Planning & Archaeology Inc. Diego Maenza, MPl, CAHP Intern Heritage Planner LHC Heritage Planning & Archaeology Inc. - 96 - Project # LHC0476 November 2024 69 9 REFERENCES Archives of Ontario. 2015. The Changing Shape of Ontario. “The Evolution of Ontario’s Boundaries 1774-1912”. Accessed 31 October 2024. http://www.archives.gov.on.ca/en/maps/ontario-boundaries.aspx. City of Pickering. 1997. Pickering Official Plan. Edition 9, Office consolidation March 2022. Accessed 30 October 2024. https://www.pickering.ca/en/city-hall/resources/Official-Plan---Main- Page/Edition-9/OP9ACC.pdf 27 November 2023. “Council Meeting, November 27”. Accessed 12 November 2024. https://www.viddler.com/v/18753fba?secret=57115818. Coltson, J.W. and Conner, J.C. 1870. The County of Ontario Directory for 1869-70, Toronto, ON: Conner and Coltson, 123. The Corporation of the Township of Pickering. 15 November 1971. By-law No. 4072/71. 2. Durham Region. 1997. Durham Regional Official Plan. Last modified 26 May 2020. Accessed 30 October 2024. https://www.durham.ca/en/doing- business/resources/Documents/PlanningandDevelopment/Official-Plan/2020- Durham-Regional-Official-Plan-Consolidation---Revised-1.pdf. Farewell, J.E. 1907. Ontario County: A Short Sketch of Its Settlement, Physical Features, and Resources with Brief Historical Notes. Whitby, ON: Gazette-Chronicle Press. Find-a-Grave. N.d. “John Fisher (1836-1900). Accessed 22 October 2024. https://www.findagrave.com/memorial/58800954/john-fisher. Find-a-Grave. “Thomas Mansfield (1851-1927). Accessed 15 November 2024. https://www.findagrave.com/memorial/137433331/thomas-mansfield. Government of Ontario. 3 April 2024. “Johnson-Butler Purchase”. Accessed 30 October 2024. https://www.ontario.ca/page/map-ontario-treaties-and-reserves#t4. H. Belden & Co. 1878. Illustrated Historical Atlas of the Counties of Northumberland and Durham Ont. Toronto, ON: H. Belden & Co. Kyles, Shannon. “Gothic Revival”. OntarioArchitecture. Accessed 15 November 2024. http://www.ontarioarchitecture.com/gothicrevival.html. Land Registry Ontario. Durham (LRO 40), “Lot 23, Concession 3, Broken Front”, Pickering Township. - 97 - Project # LHC0476 November 2024 70 Durham (LRO 40), “Lot 6, Block D, Plan 65”, Pickering Township, Book 348. Library and Archives Canada. 1861. Personal Census, Enumeration District Pickering Township, 105, 29. Accessed 7 November 2024. https://www.ancestry.ca/imageviewer/collections/1570/images/4391564_00367?pId= 797977095. 1871. Census of 1871. Enumeration District South Ontario, Sub-district Pickering. 46, Line 20. Accessed 6 November 2024. https://www.ancestry.ca/discoveryui- content/view/1934820:1578. 1921. Sixth Census of Canada. Enumeration District No. 109 Ontario South, Sub-district No. 3 Pickering. 4, Line 7. Accessed 8 November 2024. https://www.ancestry.ca/discoveryui-content/view/2220182:8991. Lovell, John Lovell. 1873. Lovell’s Gazetteer of British North America. Montreal, QC: John Lovell. Mace, Jessica. 2013. Beautifying the Countryside: Rural and Vernacular Gothic in Late Nineteenth- Century Ontario. JSSAC. Vol 38, No. 1. 30. 2 September 2022. “A Cheap Farm House”, c. 1864-onward”. SmartHistory. 2 September 2022. Accessed 15 November 2024. https://smarthistory.org/a-cheap-farm- house-1864-onward/. Ministry of Northern Development and Mines. N.d. Physiography. Google Earth Pro extension. Accessed 11 July 2024. https://www.geologyontario.mndm.gov.on.ca/ogsearth.html. N.d. Surficial Geology. Google Earth Pro extension. Accessed 11 July 2024. https://www.geologyontario.mndm.gov.on.ca/ogsearth.html. Ministry of Public and Business Service Delivery. N.d. “The Changing Shape of Ontario: Early Districts and Counties 1788-1899.” Accessed 11 July 2024. http://www.archives.gov.on.ca/en/maps/ontario-districts.aspx. Mississaugas of the Credit First Nation. N.d. “History.” Accessed 8 August 2024. https://mncfn.ca/about-mncfn/community- profile/. - 98 - Project # LHC0476 November 2024 71 2018. “The History of the Mississaugas of the New Credit First Nation”. Accessed 30 October 2024. http://mncfn.ca/wp-content/uploads/2018/04/The-History-of-MNCFN- FINAL.pdf. Murison, R.A. 1970. The Village of Pickering 1800-1970. Pickering, ON: The Corporation of the Village of Pickering. Parks Canada. N.d. “Bead Hill National Historic Site of Canada”, Directory of Federal Heritage Designations. Accessed 30 October 2024. https://www.pc.gc.ca/apps/dfhd/page_nhs_eng.aspx?id=531. Peel Art Gallery, Museum, and Archives [PAMA], “About Peel,” 2022, accessed 30 October 2024, https://peelarchivesblog.com/about-peel. Pickering Public Library. 1865. Assessment Roll for the Township of Pickering. Line 67. 1868. Assessment Roll for the Township of Pickering. Line 368. 1870. Assessment Roll for the Township of Pickering. Line 313. 1876. Assessment Roll for the Township of Pickering. Line 379. 1881. Assessment Roll for the Township of Pickering. Line 429. 1885. Assessment Roll for the Township of Pickering. Line 475. 1886. Assessment Roll for the Township of Pickering. Line 527. 1888. Assessment Roll for the Township of Pickering. Line 1229. 1920. “Frenchman’s Bay – Fairport, Ontario”. The P.E.S.C.A. Collection, Item ID: 96- 01660,. Accessed 8 November 2024. https://corporate.pickering.ca/PLHCWeblink/DocView.aspx?id=166942&dbid=0&repo= PICKERING&searchid=ff98146d-6e13-49de-8f78-dc5a62f388cd. July 1923. “An Aeroplane View of Frenchman’s Bay, Ont”. Canadian Post Card Co. Frenchmans Bay 01, Item ID: 2009-00175. Accessed 11 November 2024. https://corporate.pickering.ca/PLHCWeblink/DocView.aspx?id=171324&dbid=0&repo= PICKERING. N.d. “Fairport Village 1”. Item ID: 2009-00168. Accessed 11 November 2024. https://corporate.pickering.ca/PLHCWeblink/DocView.aspx?id=171318&dbid=0&repo= PICKERING. - 99 - Project # LHC0476 November 2024 72 N.d. “Frenchman’s Bay History 1763-1965”. X2023-013-070, 27. Accessed 22 October 2024. https://corporate.pickering.ca/PLHCWeblink/DocView.aspx?id=252387&dbid=0&repo= PICKERING. Winter, Brian. 1940. “Frenchman’s Bay, Ontario”. The P.E.S.C.A. Collection, Item ID: 96- 01657. Accessed 6 November 2024. https://corporate.pickering.ca/PLHCWeblink/DocView.aspx?id=166947&dbid=0&repo= PICKERING. Pickering News. 26 January 1900. “Highland Creek”, 8. 26 May 1922. “Fairport”. 1. 28 October 1927. “Death of Thomas Mansfield”, 4. 22 June 1956. “To Head Rouge Lions Club”. 1. W.C. Murkar. 29 June 1961. “Early Settlers in Pickering”. Pickering Township Historical Society. Pathmaster. No. 7, Fall 2022. 10. Accessed 11 November 2024. https://corporate.pickering.ca/PLHCWeblink/DocView.aspx?id=254410&dbid=0&repo= PICKERING&searchid=41ce09cc-f1d7-4882-b6e8-d6f6c73c8ca9. Province of Ontario. “Map of Ontario Treaties and Reserves.” Last updated 23 April 2024. Accessed 30 October 2024. https://www.ontario.ca/page/map-ontario-treaties-and-reserves. 1990. Ontario Heritage Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. O.18. Last modified 20 October 2024. Accessed 30 October 2024. https://www.ontario.ca/laws/statute/90o18. 1990. Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P.13. Last modified 20 October 2024. Accessed 30 October 2024. https://www.ontario.ca/laws/statute/90p13. 2005. Places to Grow Act, 2005, S.O. 2005, c. 13. Last modified 22 February 2024. Accessed 28 October 2024. 2006. Ontario Regulation 9/06 Criteria for Determining Cultural Heritage Value or Interest. Last modified 1 January 2023. Accessed 30 October 2024. https://www.ontario.ca/laws/regulation/060009. 2021. Ontario Regulation 385/21. Last modified 1 July 2024. Accessed 30 October 2024. https://www.ontario.ca/laws/regulation/210385. - 100 - Project # LHC0476 November 2024 73 2024. Provincial Policy Statement, 2024: Under the Planning Act. Accessed 28 October 2024. https://www.ontario.ca/files/2024-10/mmah-provincial-planning-statement-en- 2024-10-23.pdf. Roberts, Arthur. 1984. “Paleo-Indian on the North Shore of Lake Ontario”. Archaeology of Eastern North America. No. 8. 28-45. 1985. Paleo-Indian, “Preceramic Occupations Along the North Shore of Lake Ontario”. National Museum of Man, Archaeological Survey of Canada, Mercury Series, Paper 132. Sabean, John W. 7 May 1997. “A Capsule History of the Township of Pickering”, Pickering Township Historical Society. Pathmaster. Vol. 1, No. 1, 9. Accessed 14 November 2024. https://corporate.pickering.ca/PLHCWebLink/0/edoc/171049/191.pdf. Six Nations Elected Council. “About,” Six Nations of the Grand River. Accessed 30 October 2024. https://www.sixnations.ca/about. Smith, William H. 1846. Smith’s Canadian Gazetteer: Comprising Statistical and General Information Respecting All Parts of the Upper Province, or Canada West. Toronto, C.W.: H. & W. Rowsell. 1851. Canada: Past, Present and Future, Being A Historical, Geographical, Geological and Statistical Account of Canada West. Vol. II, Toronto, C.W.: Thomas Maclear. Surtees, Robert J. 1986. “Treaty Research Report: The Williams Treaties”, Treaties and Historical Research Centre, Indian and Northern Affairs Canada. The Canada Farmer. 16 May 1864. Rural Architecture. Vol. 1, No. 9. Accessed 15 November 2024. https://www.canadiana.ca/view/oocihm.8_04206_9/5 Toronto Public Library, “Local History & Genealogy, Selections and Full PDFs of “The Jesuit Relations”: Sainte-Marie among the Hurons and Beyond,” accessed 30 October 2024, https://torontopubliclibrary.typepad.com/local-history-genealogy/2020/01/sainte- marie-among-the-hurons-selections-from-the-jesuit-relations-and-allied- documents.html. Toronto Region Conservation Authority. 2018. “Archaeology Opens a Window on the History of Indigenous Peoples in the GTA,” News. Accessed 30 October 2024. https://trca.ca/news/archaeology-indigenous-peoples-gta. - 101 - Project # LHC0476 November 2024 74 University of Waterloo. “Land acknowledgment,” Faculty Association. Accessed 30 October 2024. https://uwaterloo.ca/faculty-association/about/land-acknowledgement. Watson, Gordon. Prehistoric Peoples of the Rideau Waterway. (Ontario Archaeology 1982), 5- 26. Accessed 30 October 2024. https://ontarioarchaeology.org/Resources/Publications/oa50-1-watson.pdf. Whitby Chronicle. March 1869. “Pickering Township Council”. 10 September 1870. White, Randall. 1985. Ontario 1610-1985 a political and economic history, Toronto, ON: Dundurn Press Limited. Williams Treaties First Nations. N.d. “Gunshot Treaty,” Pre-Confederation Treaties. N.d. Map of William Treaties and Pre-Confederation Treaties. Accessed 30 October 2024. https://williamstreatiesfirstnations.ca/maps-of-our-treaties/. Wood, William R. 1911. Past Years in Pickering: Sketches of the History of the Community. Toronto, ON: William Briggs. - 102 - Project # LHC0476 November 2024 75 APPENDIX A Qualifications Christienne Uchiyama, MA CAHP - Principal, LHC Christienne Uchiyama MA CAHP is Principal and Manager - Heritage Consulting Services with LHC. She is a Heritage Consultant and Professional Archaeologist (P376) with two decades of experience working on heritage aspects of planning and development projects. She is currently Past President of the Board of Directors of the Canadian Association of Heritage Professionals and received her MA in Heritage Conservation from Carleton University School of Canadian Studies. Her thesis examined the identification and assessment of impacts on cultural heritage resources in the context of Environmental Assessment. Chris has provided archaeological and heritage conservation advice, support and expertise as a member of numerous multi-disciplinary project teams for projects across Ontario and New Brunswick, including such major projects as: all phases of archaeological assessment at the Canadian War Museum site at LeBreton Flats, Ottawa; renewable energy projects; natural gas pipeline routes; railway lines; hydro powerline corridors; and highway/road realignments. She has completed more than 300 cultural heritage technical reports for development proposals at all levels of government, including cultural heritage evaluation reports, heritage impact assessments, and archaeological licence reports. Her specialties include the development of Cultural Heritage Evaluation Reports, under both O. Reg. 9/06 and 10/06, and Heritage Impact Assessments. Diego Maenza, MPl CAHP Intern – Heritage Planner Diego Maenza is a Heritage Planner with LHC Heritage Planning & Archaeology Inc. He holds a B.A. in Human Geography and Urban Studies from the University of Toronto and a Master of Planning degree from Dalhousie University. His thesis considered the urban morphological changes of railway infrastructure, landscapes, and neighbourhoods before and after the 1917 Halifax Explosion. Diego is a heritage professional with three years of public sector experience in Alberta, Nova Scotia, and Ontario through team-based and independent roles. He is an intern member of the Canadian Association of Heritage Professionals (CAHP) and a candidate member of the Ontario Professional Planners Institute (OPPI). At LHC, Diego has worked on numerous projects dealing with all aspects of Ontario’s cultural heritage. He has been lead author or co-author of over twelve cultural heritage technical reports for development proposals including Cultural Heritage Evaluation Reports, Heritage Impact Assessments, and Heritage Documentation Reports. Diego has also provided heritage planning advisory support for the Town of Niagara-on-the-Lake and the Municipality of Port - 103 - Project # LHC0476 November 2024 76 Hope which included work on heritage permit applications and work with municipal heritage committees. His work has involved a wide range of cultural heritage resources including institutional, infrastructural, industrial, agricultural. and residential sites in urban, suburban, and rural settings. Benjamin Holthof, MPl, MMA, MCIP, RPP, CAHP – Senior Heritage Planner Ben Holthof is a heritage consultant, planner and marine archaeologist with experience working in heritage consulting, archaeology and not-for-profit museum sectors. He has a Master of Urban and Regional Planning degree from Queens University; a Master of Maritime Archaeology degree from Flinders University of South Australia; a Bachelor of Arts degree in Archaeology from Wilfrid Laurier University; and a certificate in Museum Management and Curatorship from Fleming College. Ben has consulting experience in heritage planning, cultural heritage screening, evaluation, heritage impact assessment, cultural strategic planning, cultural heritage policy review, historic research and interpretive planning. He has been a project manager for heritage consulting projects including archaeological management plans and heritage conservation district studies. Ben has also provided heritage planning support to municipalities including work on heritage permit applications, work with municipal heritage committees, along with review and advice on municipal cultural heritage policy and process. His work has involved a wide range of cultural heritage resources including on cultural landscapes, institutional, industrial, commercial, and residential sites as well as infrastructure such as wharves, bridges and dams. Ben spent over 7 years working in museums as a curator which included caring for collections and exhibit development. He has experience with museum strategic planning, interpretive planning and policy development. His experience includes caring for historic museum buildings, sites and specialized large artifacts such as ships, boats and railway cars. Ben is also a maritime archaeologist having worked on terrestrial and underwater sites in Ontario and Australia. He has an Applied Research archaeology license from the Government of Ontario (R1062). Jordan Greene, B.A. (Hons) – Mapping Technician Jordan Greene, B.A., joined LHC as a mapping technician following the completion of her undergraduate degree. In addition to completing her B.A. in Geography at Queen’s University, Jordan also completed certificates in Geographic Information Science and Urban Planning Studies. During her work with LHC Jordan has been able to transition her academic training into professional experience and has deepened her understanding of the applications of GIS in the fields of heritage planning and archaeology. Jordan has contributed to over 100 - 104 - Project # LHC0476 November 2024 77 technical studies and has completed mapping for projects including, but not limited to, cultural heritage assessments and evaluations, archaeological assessments, environmental assessments, hearings, and conservation studies. In addition to GIS work she has completed for studies Jordan has begun developing interactive maps and online tools that contribute to LHC’s internal data management. In 2021 Jordan began acting as the health and safety representative for LHC. - 105 - Project # LHC0476 November 2024 78 APPENDIX B Glossary Definitions are based on those provided in the Provincial Policy Statement 2024 (PPS), Ontario Heritage Act (OHA), the Ministry of Citizenship and Multiculturalism Standards & Guidelines for Conservation of Provincial Heritage Properties – Heritage Identification & Evaluation Process (I&E Process), and the Durham Region Official Plan (OP). Adjacent lands: means for the purposes of policy 4.6.3, those lands contiguous to a protected heritage property or as otherwise defined in the municipal official plan. (PPS) Archaeological resources: includes artifacts, archaeological sites and marine archaeological sites, as defined under the Ontario Heritage Act. The identification and evaluation of such resources are based upon archaeological assessments carried out by archaeologists licensed under the Ontario Heritage Act. (PPS) Built heritage: means one or more significant buildings (including fixtures or equipment located in or forming part of a building), structures, monuments, installations, or remains associated with architectural, cultural, social, political, economic, or military history and identified as being important to a community. For the purposes of these Standards and Guidelines, “structures” does not include roadways in the provincial highway network and in- use electrical or telecommunications transmission towers. (I&E Process) Built heritage resource: means a building, structure, monument, installation or any manufactured or constructed part or remnant that contributes to a property’s cultural heritage value or interest as identified by a community, including an Indigenous community. (PPS) Character the combination of physical elements that together provide a place with a distinctive sense of identity. It may include geomorphology, natural features, pattern of roads, open spaces, buildings and structures, but it may also include the activities or beliefs that support the perceptions associated with the character. (I&E Process) Conserved: means the identification, protection, management and use of built heritage resources, cultural heritage landscapes and archaeological resources in a manner that ensures their cultural heritage value or interest is retained. This may be achieved by the implementation of recommendations set out in a conservation plan, archaeological assessment, and/or heritage impact assessment that has been approved, accepted or adopted by the relevant planning authority and/or decision-maker. Mitigative measures and/or alternative development approaches should be included in these plans and assessments. (PPS) - 106 - Project # LHC0476 November 2024 79 Cultural heritage landscape: means a defined geographical area that may have been modified by human activity and is identified as having cultural heritage value or interest by a community, including an Indigenous community. The area may include features such as buildings, structures, spaces, views, archaeological sites or natural elements that are valued together for their interrelationship, meaning or association. (PPS) Development means the creation of a new lot, a change in land use, or the construction of buildings and structures requiring approval under the Planning Act, but does not include: a) activities that create or maintain infrastructure authorized under an environmental assessment process; b) works subject to the Drainage Act; or c) for the purposes of policy 2.1.4(a), underground or surface mining of minerals or advanced exploration on mining lands in significant areas of mineral potential in Ecoregion 5E, where advanced exploration has the same meaning as under the Mining Act. Instead, those matters shall be subject to policy 2.1.5(a). (PPS) Development: means the creation of a new lot, a change in land use, or the construction of buildings and structures, any of which require approval under the Planning Act, or that are subject to the Environmental Assessment Act, but does not include: a) the construction of facilities for transportation, infrastructure and utilities used by a public body; b) activities or works under the Drainage Act. (In the case of lands on the Oak Ridges Moraine, this applies only to the reconstruction, repair or maintenance of an existing drain approved under the Drainage Act.); and c) the carrying out of agricultural practices on land that continues to be used for agriculture uses. (ROP) Heritage attributes means, in relation to real property, and to the buildings and buildings on the real property, the attributes of the property, buildings and buildings that contribute to their cultural heritage value or interest (“attributs patrimoniaux”). (OHA) Heritage attributes: means, as defined under the Ontario Heritage Act, in relation to real property, and to the buildings and structures on the real property, the attributes of the property, buildings and structures that contribute to their cultural heritage value or interest. (PPS) Heritage attributes means the physical features or elements that contribute to a property’s cultural heritage value or interest, and may include the property’s built or manufactured elements, as well as natural landforms, vegetation, water features, and its visual setting. (I&E Process) - 107 - Project # LHC0476 November 2024 80 Integrity means the degree to which a property retains its ability to represent or support the cultural heritage value or interest of the property. (I&E Process) Landmark means a recognizable natural or human-made feature used for a point of reference that helps orienting in a familiar or unfamiliar environment; it may mark an event or development; it may be conspicuous (I&E Process) Protected heritage property: means property designated under Part IV or VI of the Ontario Heritage Act; property included in an area designated as a heritage conservation district under Part V of the Ontario Heritage Act; property subject to a heritage conservation easement or covenant under Part II or IV of the Ontario Heritage Act; property identified by a provincial ministry or a prescribed public body as a property having cultural heritage value or interest under the Standards and Guidelines for the Conservation of Provincial Heritage Properties; property protected under federal heritage legislation; and UNESCO World Heritage Sites. (PPS) Qualified person(s) means individuals – professional engineers, architects, archaeologists, etc. – having relevant, recent experience in the conservation of cultural heritage resources. (I&E Process) Significant: means in regard to cultural heritage and archaeology, resources that have been determined to have cultural heritage value or interest. Processes and criteria for determining cultural heritage value or interest are established by the Province under the authority of the Ontario Heritage Act. While some significant resources may already be identified and inventoried by official sources, the significance of others can only be determined after evaluation. (PPS) Spatial configuration means the arrangement of a property’s elements in relation to each other, to the site and to adjacent sites. (I&E Process) Statement of Cultural Heritage Value means a concise statement explaining why a property is of heritage interest; this statement should reflect one or more of the criteria found in Ontario Heritage Act O. Regs. 9/06 and 10/06. (I&E Process) View means a visual setting experienced from a single vantage point, and includes the components of the setting at various points in the depth of field. (I&E Process) - 108 - Project # LHC0476 November 2024 81 APPENDIX C Policy Tables City of Pickering Official Plan Table 3: City of Pickering Relevant Official Plan Policies85F 86 Policy Policy Text Commentary 8.4 (Ontario Heritage Act) City Council, in consultation with its heritage committee, where warranted shall implement the provisions of the Ontario Heritage Act, including the designation under the Act of heritage sites and heritage districts. The Property is not Designated or Listed under provisions of the OHA. 8.7 (Cultural Heritage Inventory) City Council, in association with its heritage committee, shall: (a)conduct an inventory of heritage resources owned by the City, its boards and commissions, and establish an overall program for the maintenance, use, reuse or, if warranted, disposal of these resources; (b)maintain an inventory of heritage resources designated or worthy of designation under the Ontario Heritage Act; and (c) store and disseminate cultural heritage resource inventories and databases in convenient and publicly accessible locations and formats, and maintain an archive of heritage conservation information. The Property is not Designated or Listed under provisions of the OHA. 86 City of Pickering, Pickering Official Plan, 1997 (2022), 109 - 109 - Attachment 4 to Report PLN 01-06 The Corporation of the City of Pickering By-law No. XXXX/26 Being a by-law that designates the lands legally described as Lot 6, Block D, Plan 65 (the “Mansfield House”) and municipally known as 681 Pleasant Street (Fairport), Pickering, as being cultural heritage value or interest. Whereas the Ontario Heritage Act authorizes the Council of a municipality to enact a by-law to designate real property, including all buildings and structures thereon, to be of cultural heritage value or interest; and Whereas on XXXX XX, 2026, Council endorsed the recommendations of its Heritage Advisory Committee to designate 681 Pleasant Street as being of cultural heritage value or interest; and Whereas the Reasons for Designation are set out in Schedule “A” to this by-law; and Whereas the Council of The Corporation of the City of Pickering has caused to be served on the owners of 681 Pleasant Street and upon the Ontario Heritage Trust, Notice of Intention to designate the property, and has caused the Notice of Intention to be published in a newspaper having general circulation in the municipality as requested by the Ontario Heritage Act; and Now therefore the Council of The Corporation of the City of Pickering enacts as follows: 1. The Mansfield House, municipally known as 681 Pleasant Street, is designated as being of cultural heritage value or interest for reasons set out in Schedule “A” attached hereto. 2.The City Solicitor is hereby authorized to cause a copy of this by-law to be registered on title to 681 Pleasant Street (the Mansfield House). 3.The City Clerk is authorized to cause a copy of this by-law to be served upon the owner of 681 Pleasant Street and the Ontario Heritage Trust and to publish notice of this by-law on the City’s website, in accordance with the City of Pickering’s Public Notice Policy ADM100. By-law passed on this XX of XXXX, 2026. ________________________________ Kevin Ashe, Mayor ________________________________ Susan Cassel, City Clerk - 110 - Schedule “A” By-law No. XXXX/26 Reasons for Designation Description of Property 681 Pleasant Street is located on the east side of Pleasant Street, south of Commerce Street, within the historic Village of Fairport. Reason for Designation 681 Pleasant Street is of cultural heritage value or interest as a well-preserved example of a nineteenth-century Gothic Revival farmhouse. It is significant for its architectural design, its direct associations with prominent historical figures in Fairport’s development, and its integral role in defining the character of the village core. The property exhibits design or physical value as an increasingly rare example of a vernacular Gothic Revival residence, characterized by its T-shaped plan and steeply pitched gable with a pointed-arch window. The building is representative of mid-to-late nineteenth century village and rural architecture in Ontario. It demonstrates a high degree of period craftsmanship through its use of refined red brick masonry, buff brick detailing, and segmental-arched openings with decorative brick voussoirs, which illustrate stylistic expression and architectural integrity. The property also has historical and associative value through its connections with Thomas Mansfield Sr., a key merchant and community leader in Fairport, and its long-term relationship with the nearby Mansfield General Store. The house embodies the nineteenth-century pattern of merchant-residence integration in small lakeport villages. Description of Key Heritage Attributes Exterior Design / Physical Attributes: • original form, scale, and massing • red brick construction with buff brick detailing • steeply pitched front gable with pointed-arch window • segmental-arched window openings with decorative voussoirs • tall, narrow windows and symmetrical front façade • bracketed eaves • orientation of the house towards Pleasant Street with a shallow setback consistent with the historic village grid, and • the property’s visual and historical relationship with the Mansfield General Store at 1291 Commerce Street Historical / Associative Attributes: • association with Thomas Mansfield Sr., a prominent early local merchant in Fairport, and • historical associations between the Thomas Mansfield Sr., his place of residence at 681 Pleasant Street and his place of work nearby at 1291 Commercial Street - 111 - Contextual Attributes: • proximity and visual relationship to 1291 Commercial Street • location within the historic core of Fairport, and • contribution to the streetscape and understanding of village life in the late 1800s - 112 - Report to Planning & Development Committee Report Number: PLN 02-26 Date: February 2, 2026 From: Kyle Bentley Director, City Development & CBO Subject: Draft Plan of Subdivision Application SP-2025-01 Zoning By-law Amendment Application A 01/25 Taccgate Developments Inc. Part of Lot 22, Concession 4 East side of Peter Matthews Drive, south of Alexander Knox Road Recommendation: 1. That Draft Plan of Subdivision Application SP-2025-01, submitted by Taccgate Developments Inc., to establish a residential plan of subdivision, consisting of 6 blocks for 76 detached dwellings, 3 blocks for 28 street townhouse units, 1 open space block, 1 trailhead block, 1 overland flow block, 1 stormwater management facility block, and municipal roads, as shown on Attachment 4 to Report PLN 02-26, be endorsed; 2. That the conditions of draft plan of subdivision approval to implement Draft Plan of Subdivision SP-2025-01, as set out in Attachment 5 to Report PLN 02-26, be endorsed; and 3. That Zoning By-law Amendment Application A 01/25, submitted by Taccgate Developments Inc., to implement Draft Plan of Subdivision SP-2025-01, on the lands being Part of Lot 22, Concession 4, be approved, and that the draft Zoning By-law Amendment, as set out in Attachment 6 to Report PLN 02-26, be finalized and forwarded to Council for enactment. Executive Summary: The purpose of this report is to seek Council endorsement of a draft plan of subdivision and approval of a zoning by-law amendment for land owned by Taccgate Developments Inc. The property is in the Wilson Meadows Neighbourhood of the Seaton Community. The proposed plan would permit the construction of 104 homes, consisting of 76 single- detached dwellings and 28 townhouse units. The plan also includes an open space area, a small amenity area that may serve as a future trail connection, a block for stormwater management, an area for overland water flow, and new public streets. The proposal complies with the policies of the Provincial Planning Statement, the Region of Durham Official Plan, and the City of Pickering Official Plan. The subdivision layout aligns with the vision for the Wilson Meadows area and addresses key technical engineering and planning issues. Overall, the proposed residential development represents good planning. - 113 - PLN 02-26 February 2, 2026 Page 2 Accordingly, staff recommend that Council endorse the Draft Plan of Subdivision Application SP-2025-01 and the conditions listed in Attachment 5. Staff also recommend that the re-zoning application A 01/25 be approved and that the related by-law (shown in Attachment 6) be sent to Council for enactment. Relationship to the Pickering Strategic Plan: The recommendations in this report respond to the Pickering Strategic Plan Priority of Advance Innovation & Responsible Planning to Support a Connected, Well-Serviced Community. Financial Implications: No direct costs to the City are anticipated as a result of the proposed development. Discussion: The purpose of this report is to obtain Council’s decision on applications for a Draft Plan of Subdivision and a Zoning By-law Amendment, submitted by Taccgate Developments Inc. The proposal consists of a residential subdivision that includes a mix of detached dwellings and street townhouses, an open space block, a trailhead block, stormwater management facilities, and new municipal roads. This report outlines how the proposal conforms to the Provincial Planning Statement, the Durham Regional Official Plan, the Pickering Official Plan, and the Wilson Meadows Neighbourhood policies. The report also summarizes minor revisions made to the plan in response to technical comments and addresses feedback received from the Planning & Development Committee. 1. Background 1.1 Property Description The subject lands are located on the east side of Peter Matthews Drive, south of Alexander Knox Road, within the Wilson Meadows Neighbourhood of the Seaton Community (see Location Map, Attachment 1). The property is currently vacant and has an area of approximately 5.56 hectares, with frontage along Peter Matthews Drive. Under previous ownership by 1133373 Ontario Inc. (Lebovic Enterprises Ltd.), the lands were stripped of topsoil and regraded. The surrounding land uses are described below (see Air Photo Map, Attachment 2): North, East & South: To the north, east, and south, the subject lands abut properties owned by Infrastructure Ontario (IO) that form part of the Seaton Natural Heritage System. These lands include significant woodland areas, the Ganatsekiagon Creek, and associated valley and environmental protection areas. Lands further east, beyond the creek, have been developed with a residential subdivision containing 121 lots for detached dwellings and a public park known as Stillmeadow Park. - 114 - PLN 02-26 February 2, 2026 Page 3 West: Immediately west of the subject lands is a narrow strip of property owned by IO, followed by Peter Matthews Drive. Further west, across Peter Matthews Drive, are other lands owned by the applicant. These lands have been draft plan approved for 294 lots for detached dwellings, 52 blocks for 334 street townhouse units, a 10.8 hectare block for a future commercial plaza, and a 10 hectare block for the future Seaton Recreation Complex & Library, and community park. 1.2 Previous Ownership and Applications In 2015, the subject lands were owned by IO, which submitted applications for a Draft Plan of Subdivision and a Zoning By-law Amendment (File No’s. SP-2015-05 and A 10/15) to permit a residential subdivision. The lands were subsequently sold to 1133373 Ontario Inc. (Lebovic Enterprises Ltd.). In 2019, Lebovic submitted a revised residential proposal that addressed several comments received from the Planning & Development Committee, City Departments, and external agencies. The 2019 proposal consisted of a total of 117 units, including 9 blocks for 74 detached dwellings, 4 blocks for 26 semi-detached dwellings, 3 blocks for 17 street townhouse units, 2 open space blocks, 1 stormwater management facility block, 1 overland flow block, a road widening block and new municipal roads. The lands were later acquired by Taccgate Developments Inc., which has submitted new applications that build upon the feedback and technical review from the previous submissions. 1.3 Applicant’s Proposal Taccgate Developments Inc. has submitted applications for a Draft Plan of Subdivision and a Zoning By-law Amendment to facilitate the development of a residential subdivision. The proposal includes a total of 104 units, including 6 blocks for 76 detached dwelling lots and 3 blocks for 28 street townhouse units (see Submitted Colour Concept Plan and Submitted Draft Plan of Subdivision, Attachments 3 and 4). The following table outlines the land uses within the proposed subdivision. Land Use # of Blocks Area (hectares) Residential 9 3.66 Open Space 1 0.01 Trailhead 1 0.03 Stormwater Management Facility 1 0.18 Overland Flow 1 0.03 Municipal Right-of-Way 2 1.56 Total 5.47 Since the original submission, the applicant has made minor revisions to the draft plan of subdivision in response to technical comments received through the City’s planning review process and ongoing discussions with City and Regional staff. These revisions include the following: - 115 - PLN 02-26 February 2, 2026 Page 4 • Reduction of three open space blocks to one open space block and one trailhead block. An open space block was previously proposed at the northwestern edge of the plan but was later incorporated into the adjacent residential lot due to access constraints, creating a larger, irregularly shaped lot. • The eastern open space block (Block 12) would be a potential future trailhead block to be conveyed to the City, which would support passive uses, provide views into the adjacent eastern natural feature area, and allow for a potential future trailhead connection should the City pursue trail development in this area, as further discussed in Section 3.7 of this report. The subdivision proposes two vehicular access connections to Peter Matthews Drive. The southern connection is designed as a “T” intersection permitting full turning movements, while the northern connection is intended to extend through the IO lands and ultimately form part of a four-way signalized intersection at Peter Matthews Drive. Internal public streets are designed with right-of-way widths of 17.0 metres where lots are on both sides of the street, and 15.35 metres where lots are on 1 side of the street. Sidewalks with a width of 1.5 metres are proposed on 1 side of each street, and 62 on-street parking spaces would be provided to support visitor parking. 2. Comments Received 2.1 April 22, 2025, Electronic Statutory Public Meeting An Electronic Statutory Public Meeting for the applications was held on April 22, 2025. Notice of the meeting was mailed to all property owners within 150 metres of the subject property, and 1 notice sign was installed on the property. No written comments were received from area residents in response to the applications. However, during the meeting, members of the Planning & Development Committee noted that the applicant owns lands located on the west side of Peter Matthews Drive, where an approved future development is expected to include community and commercial uses that would benefit both current and future residents. Committee members emphasized that both developments should be coordinated to ensure convenient, nearby services for the surrounding community. 2.2 Comments from External Agencies 2.2.1 Region of Durham • No objections to the approval of the submitted applications, subject to conditions incorporated into the implementing conditions of approval. 2.2.2 Durham District School Board • No objections to the approval of the submitted applications . • Approximately 131 elementary pupils and 59 secondary pupils could be generated by the proposed residential subdivision. - 116 - PLN 02-26 February 2, 2026 Page 5 • Students generated from this development will attend existing schools until a new school is constructed. 2.2.3 Durham Catholic District School Board • No objections to the approval of the submitted applications . • Students from this development will attend St. Andre Bessette Catholic School, located at 60 Seggar Avenue in the Town of Ajax, and St. Mary Catholic Secondary School, located at 1918 Whites Road in the City of Pickering. 2.2.4 Toronto and Region Conservation Authority (TRCA) • No objections to the Zoning By-law Amendment and Draft Plan of Subdivision applications, subject to conditions of approval provided by the TRCA. • The site is adjacent to the watercourse corridor to the east and south of the subject site and the wetland to the southwest associated with a tributary of the Duffins Creek watershed. • TRCA staff have generally accepted the submitted Environmental Impact Statement and supporting materials. Technical matters will be addressed through the conditions of approval and the detailed review process. 2.3 Comments from City Departments 2.3.1 Engineering • No objections to the Zoning By-law Amendment and Draft Plan of Subdivision applications, subject to the conditions of approval provided by Engineering Services. • Technical matters will be addressed through the detailed design review, including the installation of roads, services, detailed grading and drainage, stormwater management, construction management/erosion sediment control, site servicing, fencing details, and street tree planting. 2.3.2 Sustainability • No objections to the Zoning By-law Amendment and Draft Plan of Subdivision applications. • The development aims to achieve 24 percent of the performance-based measures and sustainability objectives outlined in the Seaton Sustainable Place-Making Guidelines, as well as the building energy targets set out in the Integrated Sustainable Development Standards, which are considered an Enhanced Level 1 achievement (20 percent or higher). • The applicant has provided satisfactory information on key sustainability measures related to energy, water, and waste management. • Key sustainability features include: • Water efficiency: Homes will include low-flow faucets and water-efficient toilets. • Lighting controls: Exterior lighting will include timers and motion sensors. • Enhanced Energy Efficiency: Homes will incorporate energy-efficient LED lighting, heat recovery ventilators (HRV) for fresh air exchange, reduced air leakage and efficient heating systems. The dwellings will include full-height basement insulation and expanding foam insulation on all garage ceilings (where finished space is above), as well as around all windows and exterior doors - 117 - PLN 02-26 February 2, 2026 Page 6 • Energy Performance: All residential dwellings will be Energy Star certified and will undergo air tightness testing by independent energy consultants . 3. Planning Analysis 3.1 The proposal is consistent with the Provincial Planning Statement (2024) On October 20, 2024, the Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing (MMAH) issued a new Provincial Planning Statement (PPS), replacing both the Provincial Policy Statement (2020) and A Place to Grow: Growth Plan for the Greater Golden Horseshoe (2019). The PPS states that planning authorities should support the achievement of complete communities by supporting transportation options with multimodal access and accommodating a range and mix of housing options, passive recreation, parks and green space, and other uses to meet long-term needs. It directs Planning Authorities to permit an appropriate mix of housing options and densities to meet the needs of current and future residents of the regional market area by permitting development at appropriate intensification. The proposed draft plan of subdivision provides a mix of housing types and lot sizes, in a low density housing designation. It is consistent with the new PPS. 3.2 The proposal conforms to the new Durham Regional Official Plan “Envision Durham” Durham Regional Council adopted the Envision Durham Official Plan in May 2023, which was approved by the MMAH in September and December 2024. Effective January 1, 2025, Durham Region no longer has land use planning authority, and pursuant to the Planning Act, the Durham Regional Official Plan is deemed to form part of the City’s Official Plan until amended or revoked. The Durham Regional Official Plan identifies the subject lands as being within a “Community Areas” designation, subject to Specific Policy Area A – Seaton Urban Area & Duffins Rouge Agricultural Preserve. Community Areas are intended to accommodate complete communities with a range of housing types and supportive uses. Residential development is permitted within the Seaton Urban Area, subject to conformity with approved neighbourhood plans. The proposed development conforms to the policies of the Durham Regional Official Plan. 3.3 The proposal conforms to the Pickering Official Plan and the policies of the Wilson Meadows Neighbourhood Plan The Pickering Official Plan designates the subject lands as Urban Residential Area – Low Density Areas, with Schedule XI – Wilson Meadows Neighbourhood Plan further identifying the site within “Low Density Area Type 1”. The Neighbourhood Plan also identifies elements of the Seaton Natural Heritage System in proximity to the site, including a stormwater management facility and an interconnected recreational trail network. The “Low Density Area Type 1” designation permits residential densities ranging from greater than 25, up to and including 40 units per net hectare, with an emphasis on detached and semi- detached dwellings. The proposed development achieves a net residential density of - 118 - PLN 02-26 February 2, 2026 Page 7 approximately 28.4 units per net hectare, containing predominantly detached dwellings, and is consistent with the residential land use permissions and density parameters of the Official Plan. Policies of the Wilson Meadows Neighbourhood Plan promote a mix of housing forms, local road access, and enhanced pedestrian and cycling connectivity, while requiring appropriate environmental review for development near the Seaton Natural Heritage System. The proposed subdivision provides access via local roads connecting to Peter Matthews Drive and contributes to housing diversity within a planned and serviced neighbourhood. Although a trailhead connection is identified in the Neighbourhood Plan, Engineering staff have advised that grading constraints associated with the natural heritage feature to the east do not make a trail connection feasible at this time, and that other locations throughout Seaton are considered more suitable for trailhead development. However, a trailhead block (Block 12) has been designed to accommodate a future trail connection, should the City pursue trail development in the area. Additional details regarding the trailhead block (Block 12) are outlined in Section 3.7 of this report. Overall, the proposal conforms to the policies of the Pickering Official Plan and the Wilson Meadows Neighbourhood Plan. 3.4 A site-specific zoning by-law amendment is required to implement the proposal The subject lands are currently zoned “A” – Agriculture under the City’s Consolidated Zoning By-law 8149/24, which permits agricultural uses and accessory uses such as a detached dwelling. As outlined earlier in this report, the applicant has submitted a Zoning By-law Amendment application to facilitate the proposed residential subdivision. The requested amendment would rezone the lands to a combination of residential, open space, and stormwater management zone categories, including: • “SLD1” – Seaton Low Density 1 Zone, to permit detached dwellings • “SLD1T” – Seaton Low Density 1 – Townhouse Zone, to permit street townhouse units • “SOS” – Seaton Open Space Zone, to permit landscaped areas intended for active and passive recreation, including associated amenities, and • “SSWM” – Seaton Stormwater Management Zone, to permit stormwater management facilities and associated access In addition to rezoning the lands, the applicant is requesting site-specific exceptions within the “SLD1” zone category. The first site-specific exception applies to two “through lots” with frontages along Peter Matthews Drive and Street B. For these two lots, the lot line abutting Street B will be deemed as the front lot line, and the lot line abutting Peter Matthews Drive will be deemed as the rear lot line. Under the Consolidated Zoning By-law, through lots are defined as lots with frontage on two public streets on opposite sides of the lot, with the widest frontage being the front lot line. All remaining lots along Street B have a single frontage and are oriented towards Street B. This exception will ensure that the through lots are developed in a manner consistent with the surrounding lots, including building orientation and setbacks. - 119 - PLN 02-26 February 2, 2026 Page 8 The second site-specific exception establishes a minimum rear yard setback of 5.0 metres for lots abutting lands designated as Seaton Natural Heritage System in the Pickering Official Plan. The Consolidated Zoning By-law permits lots to have a minimum rear yard setback of 5.0 metres, where they abut lands within a “SNHS” – Seaton Natural Heritage System Zone. However, the adjacent natural heritage system lands have not yet been rezoned to reflect the Official Plan designation and remain zoned “A” – Agriculture. This provision recognizes this interim zoning condition and maintains consistency with the City’s zoning requirements for lots adjacent to an SNHS zone. The third site-specific exception reduces the minimum rear yard setback for four lots located along the south side of Street A, immediately east of Peter Matthews Drive. At the request of Engineering Services, Street A bends slightly south to properly align with the constructed curb cuts at the intersection of Peter Matthews Drive and Street A. As a result of this road alignment, four lots can only achieve a minimum rear yard setback of 4.5 metres. The fourth site-specific exception would reduce the minimum rear yard setback and increase the minimum interior side yard setback requirements for two irregularly shaped lots with wider frontages and reduced depths. Due to their reduced depth, a smaller rear-yard setback is requested; however, adequate outdoor amenity space can be accommodated through a wider side yard on one side. To ensure that dwellings are developed at a scale that maintains adequate outdoor amenity areas, the minimum side yard setback is proposed to be increased. The requested provisions for the two irregularly shaped lots are as follows: • For one lot, the minimum rear yard setback is reduced from 5.0 metres to 3.0 metres, and the minimum interior side yard setback is increased from 1.2 metres to 5.0 metres on one side and remains 0.6 metres on the other side. • For the other lot, the minimum rear yard setback is reduced from 5.0 metres to 4.0 metres, and the minimum interior side yard setback is increased from 1.2 metres to 4.5 metres on one side and remains 0.6 metres on the other side. Overall, the implementation of the zoning by-law amendment, including the requested site- specific provisions, is considered appropriate for the subject lands and will facilitate the orderly development of the proposed residential subdivision . 3.5 The proposed on-street parking will support the development Each detached dwelling and street townhouse will have a minimum of 2 parking spaces, 1 in the garage and 1 on the driveway. In addition, a preliminary on-street parking concept has been submitted, identifying that 62 on-street visitor parking spaces are available within the subdivision, equating to approximately 0.60 visitor spaces per lot. Although the Consolidated Zoning By-law does not establish a minimum visitor parking requirement for detached or street townhouse dwellings, the proposed on -street parking supply exceeds the visitor parking rate typically applied to condominium developments, being 0.25 spaces per dwelling. Accordingly, the proposed on -street parking supply is considered more than sufficient to meet anticipated visitor parking demand. - 120 - PLN 02-26 February 2, 2026 Page 9 3.6 The existing zoning provisions for interior garage sizes are appropriate The City’s Consolidated Zoning By-law requires a minimum interior garage width of 2.9 metres and a minimum depth of 6.0 metres to ensure adequate space for vehicle parking, storage, and the placement of garbage and recycling containers. Staff have encouraged the applicant to explore opportunities to enhance the garage's usability, such as increasing its dimensions or adding additional storage solutions. The table below outlines the interior garage dimensions for single- and double-vehicle garages, demonstrating that the proposed garages meet or exceed the minimum zoning requirements across all dwelling types. Dwelling Type Garage Type Zoning Requirements (Width x Depth)* Provided (Width x Depth) Street Townhouse (6 metre frontage) Single Car 2.9 m x 6 m 3.05 m x 6.09 m Detached (9 metre frontage) Single Car 2.9 m x 6 m 3.05 m x 6.09 m Detached (11 metre frontage) Double Car 2.9 m x 6 m 5.6 m x 6.09 m Detached (13.1 metre frontage) Double Car 2.9 m x 6 m 5.57 m x 6.09 m * The Consolidated Zoning By-law requires a minimum of two parking spaces per dwelling, typically one to be within a private garage and one on the driveway. The zoning by-law has a single parking standard for both single and double-car garages. Based on the information submitted, the proposed garage dimensions meet or exceed the requirements of the Consolidated Zoning By-law and are considered adequate to address vehicle parking and storage needs associated with the proposed development. 3.7 The proposed trailhead block (Block 12) provides community amenity and flexibility for a future trailhead connection City Engineering staff advised that there is currently no plan to locate a trail through the natural heritage feature east of the site due to grading constraints. However, in consultation with the City, the applicant has agreed to program the trailhead block with seating, bicycle parking, waste receptacles, and a steel shading structure with an overhanging concrete slab that provides views into the adjacent natural features. The trailhead block has been designed to function as a community amenity space while allowing for future flexibility. The proposed amenity features will be constructed by the applicant and conveyed to the City for ownership and ongoing maintenance. Should the City pursue the development of a nearby trail in the future, the block could readily accommodate a trailhead connection. - 121 - PLN 02-26 February 2, 2026 Page 10 3.8 The proposed subdivision will be coordinated with the future subdivision to the west The applicant also owns lands west of Peter Matthews Drive that are draft plan approved for detached dwellings and street townhouse units, a future commercial block, and a block for the future Seaton Recreation Centre, Library, and community park. Members of the Planning & Development Committee emphasized the importance of coordinating the proposed subdivision with this future development to ensure that community-serving uses are accessible to both existing and future residents. The applicant has acknowledged this direction and confirmed that the proposed subdivision has been designed to function as part of a broader, coordinated development pattern within the Seaton Community. Matters related to access, servicing, pedestrian connect ivity, and the timing and integration of community and commercial uses on the western lands will continue to be coordinated through subsequent approvals, including site plan approval and detailed engineering design to support an integrated and comprehensive development outcome. 3.9 Technical matters to be addressed through the detailed engineering drawing, submission, review and approval process Detailed design issues to be addressed through the engineering drawing, submission, review and approval process. These requirements will address matters such as, but not limited to: • architectural treatments • landscaping and fencing • street tree plantings • snow storage • lighting • pedestrian circulation and connections • drainage and grading • site servicing • construction management • waste management collection • location of hydro transformers, gas meters and other utilities 4. Conclusion The proposal is consistent with the Provincial Planning Statement (2024) and conforms to the policies of the Durham Region Official Plan, the Pickering Official Plan, and the Wilson Meadows Neighbourhood Plan. The applicant has worked with City staff to address various technical requirements. Staff recommend Council endorse Draft Plan of Subdivision SP -2025-01, as shown in Attachment 4 to this report, subject to the Conditions of Approval outlined in Attachment 5. In addition, staff recommend that Zoning By-law Amendment Application A 01/25 be approved, and that the site-specific zoning by-law, as set out in Attachment 6 of this report, be finalized and forwarded to Council for enactment. - 122 - PLN 02-26 February 2, 2026 Page 11 5.Applicant’s Comments The applicant has been advised of, and concurs with, the recommendations of this report. Attachments: 1. Location Map 2.Air Photo Map 3.Submitted Colour Concept Plan 4.Submitted Draft Plan of Subdivision 5.Recommended Conditions of Approval for Draft Plan of Subdivision SP 2025-01 6.Recommended Zoning By-law for Zoning By-law Amendment Application A 01/25 Prepared By: Original Signed By Liam Crawford Planner II Original Signed By Nilesh Surti, MCIP, RPP Division Head, Development Review & Urban Design Approved/Endorsed By: Original Signed By Catherine Rose, MCIP, RPP Chief Planner Original Signed By Kyle Bentley, P. Eng Director, City Development & CBO LC:ld Recommended for the consideration of Pickering City Council Original Signed By Marisa Carpino, M.A. Chief Administrative Officer - 123 - Whitevale Road af:j of PlCKERlNG City Development Department Location Map File: SP-2025-01, A 01/25 ~ -~ ""C "' Ol ·.:::: '-'---'--....LI.../ co Ale xander Kno x Road Applicant:Taccgate Developments Inc. Legal Description: Con 4 Pt Lot 22 Now 40R29560 Part 2 (Save and Except 40R31098 Parts 4,5) Date: Sep. 16, 2025 © The Corporabon ol lhe aty of Pickerir,g Produced (in par1) under license from © Kir,g's Ptinter. Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources . All rights reseM!d.; © His Majesty lhe King in SCALE: 1:5,000 I Ri!Jlt of Cariada, Deiiartment of Natural Resources. All rights reserved.;@ Teraoot Enterprises lric. arid ~s suppi iers . Al l rights reseNed.: © Municipal Propefly Assessment Corporation arid i1swppiiers.All righ1s res8fVed THIS ISNOTAPLANa= SURVEY. L:\PLANNING\01-MapFiles\SP\2025\SP-2025-01,A01 -25 Taccgate Developments lnc\SP-2025-01,A01 -25 Taccgate Developments lnc.a prx Attachment 1 to Report PLN 02-26 - 124 - af:j of Location Map File: SP-2025-01, A 01/25 PlCKERlNG Applicant:Taccgate Developments Inc. Legal Description: Con 4 Pt Lot 22 Now 40R29560 Part 2 (Save and City Development Except 40R31098 Parts 4,5) Date: Sep. 16, 2025 Department © The Corporabon ol lhe aty of Pickerir,g Produced (in par1) under license from © Kir,g's Ptinter. Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources . All rights reseM!d.; © His Majesty lhe King in SCALE: 1:5,000 I Ri!Jlt of Cariada, Deiiartment of Natural Resources. All rights reserved.;@ Teraoot Enterprises lric. arid ~s suppi iers . Al l rights reseNed .: © Municipal Propefly Assessment Corporation arid i1swppiiers.All righ1s res8fVed THIS ISNOTAPLANa= SURVEY. L:\PLANNING\01-MapFiles\SP\2025\SP-2025-01,A01 -25 Taccgate Developments lnc\SP-2025-01,A01 -25 Taccgate Developments lnc.a prx Attachment 2 to Report PLN 02-26 - 125 - Attachment 3 to Report PLN 02-26 Submitted Colour Concept Plan City Development Department Jan. 12, 2026FULL SCALE COPIES OF THIS PLAN ARE AVAILABLE FOR VIEWING AT THE CITY OF PICKERING CITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT. SP-2025-01, A 01/25 Taccgate Developments Inc. Applicant: Legal Description: DATE: File No: Con 4 Pt Lot 22 Now 40R29560 Part 2 (Save and L:\Planning\01-MapFiles\SP\2025 Except 40R31098 Parts 4,5) N STREET A S T R E E T A NATURAL HERITAGE SYSTEM PE T E R M A TT H E W S D R I V E NATURAL HERITAGE SYSTEM STREET B STREET B STREET A ST R E E T A 15.35 17 R7 . 5 17 17 15.35 17 17 NATURAL HERITAGE SYSTEM R17.25 15.35 OPEN SPACE BLOCK OPEN SPACE BLOCK - 126 - Attachment 4 to Report PLN 02-26 Submitted Draft Plan of Subdivision City Development Department Jan. 07, 2026FULL SCALE COPIES OF THIS PLAN ARE AVAILABLE FOR VIEWING AT THE CITY OF PICKERING CITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT. SP-2025-01, A 01/25 Taccgate Developments Inc. Applicant: Legal Description: DATE: File No: Con 4 Pt Lot 22 Now 40R29560 Part 2 (Save and L:\Planning\01-MapFiles\SP\2025 Except 40R31098 Parts 4,5) N - 127 - Attachment 5 to Report PLN 02-26 Proposed Conditions of Draft Approval January 15, 2026 Plan of Subdivision: SP-2025-01 Taccgate Developments Inc. Part of Lot 22, Concession 4 City of Pickering Section A – General 1.That the Owner shall prepare the final plan generally on the basis of the draft plan of subdivision prepared by Korsiak Urban Planning, dated October 23, 2025, which illustrates 6 blocks for 76 detached dwelling units, 3 blocks for 28 street townhouse units, 1 open space block, 1 trailhead block, 1 stormwater management facility block, 1 overland flow block, and roadways. 2.That prior to final approval of this plan for registration, the Director, City Development & CBO for the City of Pickering shall be advised in writing by: (i)The Regional Municipality of Durham how Conditions A-1, and all conditions in Section B have been satisfied. (ii)The Toronto and Region Conservation Authority how all conditions in Section D have been satisfied. Section B – Region Municipality of Durham 1.That the Owner shall name road allowances included in this draft plan to the satisfaction of the Regional Municipality of Durham and the City of Pickering. 2.That the Owner shall submit plans showing any proposed phasing to the Regional Municipality of Durham and the City of Pickering for review and approval if this subdivision is to be developed by more than one registration. 3.That the Owner shall grant to the Region of Durham any easements required to provide Regional services for this development. The easements shall be in locations, and of such widths, as determined by the Regional Municipality of Durham. 4.That the Owner shall provide for the extension of such sanitary sewer and water supply facilities which are external to, as well as within, the limits of this plan that are required to service this plan. In addition, the Owner shall provide for the extension of sanitary sewer and water supply facilities within the limits of the plan, which are required to service other developments external to this subdivision. Such sanitary sewer and water supply facilities are to be designed and constructed according to the standards and requirements of the Regional Municipality of Durham. All arrangements, financial and otherwise, for said extensions are to be made to the satisfaction of the Regional Municipality of Durham and are to be completed prior to final approval of this plan. 5.That the Owner shall, to the satisfaction of the Region of Durham, revise the draft plan of subdivision to conform to the final Central Pickering Development Plan – Regional Services Class Environmental Assessment with respect to all matters addressed therein, including sanitary sewerage, water supply, Regional roads, and stormwater management facilities servicing Regional roads. 6.That the Owner shall revise the draft plan as necessary to the satisfaction of the Region of Durham to accommodate any unforeseen technical issues which arise during the review of - 128 - Proposed Conditions of Draft Plan Approval SP-2025-01 Page 2 final engineering drawings. Required revisions may include reducing the number of residential building lots or blocks, or reconfiguring the roads, lots, or blocks to the Region’s satisfaction. 7. That prior to entering into a subdivision agreement, the Region of Durham shall be satisfied that adequate water pollution control plant and water supply plant capacities are available to the proposed subdivision. 8. That the Owner shall satisfy all requirements, financial and otherwise, of the Region of Durham. This shall include, among other matters, the execution of a Subdivision Agreement between the Subdivider and the Region concerning the provision and installation of sanitary sewers, water supply, roads and other Regional services. Section C – City of Pickering Financial 1. That the draft plan will not receive final approval and registration unless the City of Pickering is satisfied that the Financial Impacts Agreement dated October 29, 2013, is in full force and effect and all conditions precedent set out in Article 2 of the said Agreement have been fulfilled or waived. Subdivision Agreement 2. That the Owner enters into a subdivision agreement with and to the satisfaction of the City of Pickering to ensure the fulfillment of the City’s requirements, financial and otherwise, which shall include, but not necessarily be limited to, all of the City’s conditions of approval as issued by the City of Pickering. 3. That the Owner hereby covenants and agrees that this agreement shall be deemed by the parties hereto and their successors and assigns, to constitute “other applicable law” within the meaning of the Building Code Act, S.O. 1992, c23, as amended, or any successor or replacement legislation and the City’s Chief Building Official shall not be required to issue, and the Owner hereby covenants and agrees not to request the issuance of, any building permit with respect to the Owners lands or part thereof until such time as the Owner has, in the unfettered opinion of the City, fully complied with all such provisions of the agreement as are capable of compliance prior to construction of dwellings. This provision may be pleaded as an estoppel in any court application brought by the Owners to compel issuance of a building permit. Zoning 4. That the implementing by-law for Zoning By-law Amendment Application A 06/25 become final and binding. Street Name 5. That street names and signage be provided to the satisfaction of the City of Pickering. Development Charges 6. That the Owner satisfy the City financially with respect to the Development Charges Act. - 129 - Proposed Conditions of Draft Plan Approval SP-2025-01 Page 3 7. That the Owner agrees to submit progress reports for any Development Charge reimbursable items identified through Development Charge credits in a form satisfactory to the City of Pickering. Further, the Owner agrees to abide by the City’s requirements for matters dealing with Development Charge credits. Phasing and Development Coordination 8. That if this subdivision is to be developed by more than one registration, the Owner will be required to submit a plan showing the proposed phasing, all to the satisfaction of the City. 9. That the Owner satisfy the City with respect to the disposition of future development blocks and acquisition of abutting part lots prior to draft plan registration. 10. That the Owner satisfy the City with respect to arrangements necessary to provide for coordination of services and roads with adjacent lands and any phasing of development that may be required. Architectural Control Guidelines 11. That the Owner, prior to the preparation of the subdivision agreement, shall engage a control architect, to the satisfaction of the Director, City Development & CBO, who will prepare streetscape/architectural control guidelines to the City’s satisfaction, approve all models offered for sale and certify that all building permit plans comply with the City’s approved guidelines. 12. That the Owner ensure that the engineering plans are coordinated with the streetscape/architectural control guidelines and further that the engineering plans coordinate the driveway, street hardware and street trees to ensure that conflicts do not exist, asphalt is minimized, and all objectives of the streetscape/architectural control guidelines can be achieved. 13. That the Owner satisfy the City that the streetscape/architectural control guidelines contain appropriate design elements for development in proximity to heritage lots, which include landscaping, house siting and design standards that have regard to compatible building types, colours and material palettes while having regard for modern building designs, techniques and materials. 14. That the Owner satisfy the City that the streetscape/architectural control guidelines contain appropriate design elements for townhouse dwelling units less than 5.0 metres wide that include special emphasis on siting, massing and façade designs that are coordinated on an individual and block basis. Variation between units should be incorporated, including a variety of architectural elements such as entry porches, dormers, material detailing, and window treatments. Open Space and Trailhead Blocks 15. That the Owner convey to the City of Pickering the open space block (Block 11) at no cost and in a physical condition acceptable to the City, to the satisfaction of the Director, Engineering Services. - 130 - Proposed Conditions of Draft Plan Approval SP-2025-01 Page 4 16. That the owner construct to the satisfaction of the City of Pickering a trailhead within or abutting the Draft Plan, and described as within Block 12, all to the satisfaction of the City Of Pickering. 17. That the Owner satisfy, to the satisfaction of the City of Pickering, that the Seaton Master Parks Agreement has been entered into and executed that establishes the requirements and process for parkland dedication in accordance with the Planning Act for the Seaton Neighbourhoods. 18. That prior to the City accepting any open space blocks, the Owner shall submit a facility fit plan with full grading information that demonstrates the open space blocks will function to the satisfaction of the Director, Engineering Services. Second Access 19. That the Owner satisfy the City with respect to providing two accesses that intersect with an existing street and are open to public traffic. 20. That the Owner construct a temporary secondary emergency access at no cost to the City for this draft plan if the two accesses referred to in Condition 19 have not been completed. The temporary access must be located and designed to the City's satisfaction. Fencing 21. That the Owner satisfy the City with respect to the provision of temporary and/or silt fencing around the entire perimeter of the subject lands during construction, prior to the commencement of any works. 22. That the Owner agrees to install a 1.5 metre high black vinyl-coated chain link fence along the property line of the residential lots where they abut the Seaton Natural Heritage System to the satisfaction of the Director, Engineering Services 23. That the Owner agrees to install a fence adjacent to or backing onto lands having conflicting land uses, such as commercial or recreational. 24. The Owner agrees to install a 1.8 metre high security fence as per City of Pickering Standards around the perimeter of the Stormwater Management (SWM) facilities to the satisfaction of the City of Pickering. Should the SWM facilities require expansion due to additional lands draining to it, the owner shall arrange for an additional fence to be installed. 25. That the Owner satisfy the City with respect to the provision of appropriate aesthetic details and design of all boundary fencing and noise attenuation fencing in locations recommended by the approved noise study for the subdivision. 26. That the Owner provide a fixed payment satisfactory to the City to provide for the long-term maintenance and repairs of items such as enhancements to fences, entrance feature walls, medians that exceed the City’s normal standards and which are requested by the subdivider. Noise 27. That the Owner satisfy the requirements of the Ministry of the Environment Conservation and Parks regarding the approval of a noise study recommending noise control features to the satisfaction of the City of Pickering. - 131 - Proposed Conditions of Draft Plan Approval SP-2025-01 Page 5 28. That the Owner agrees in the subdivision agreement to implement noise control measures and warning clauses as recommended in the noise report as approved by the City of Pickering. Archaeology Monitor 29. That the Owner submits an archaeology monitor report, preferably of First Nations’ ancestry, if available, for any significant mitigative excavation activities, on known pre-contact archaeological sites. The purpose of this monitor would be to work cooperatively with the applicant’s licensed professional archaeologist to report to interested First Nations the results of the mitigative excavation activities, to the satisfaction of the City of Pickering. Construction Management Plan 30. That the Owner make satisfactory arrangements with the City respecting a construction management plan, such Plan to contain, among other things: (i) details of erosion and sedimentation controls during all phases of construction and provide maintenance requirements to maintain these controls as per the Erosion & Sediment Control Guideline for Urban Construction; (ii) addressing the parking of vehicles and the storage of construction and building materials during servicing and house construction, and ensuring that such locations will not impede the flow of traffic or emergency vehicles on either existing streets or the proposed public street; (iii) insurance that the City’s Noise By-law will be adhered to and that all contractors, trades and suppliers are advised of this By-law; (iv) the provision of mud and dust control on all roads within and adjacent to the site; (v) type and timing of construction fencing; (vi) location of construction trailers; and (vii) details of the temporary construction access. Landscaping 31. That the Owner agrees to submit a Subdivision Landscape and Fencing Plan, with respect to the provision of fencing and landscaping for the draft plan of subdivision, to the satisfaction of the Director, Engineering Services. Such Plan shall include a 1.5 metre black vinyl chain-link fence in all required locations, and the location and design of all wood or acoustic fencing required by the plan of subdivision. 32. That the Owner submits a boulevard street tree planting plan to the satisfaction of the City. 33. That the Owner satisfy the Director, Engineering Services, with the submission of a tree preservation plan which will illustrate the protection of trees and other natural features where appropriate, with specific attention to preservation in all public open spaces within the draft plan of subdivision prior to the approval of a preliminary grading plan. - 132 - Proposed Conditions of Draft Plan Approval SP-2025-01 Page 6 Engineering Plans 34. That the Owner satisfy the City respecting the submission of appropriate engineering drawings that detail, among other things, City services, roads, storm sewers, sidewalks, site grading, streetlights, fencing and tree planting, and financially secure such works. 35. That the Owner revise the draft plan, as necessary, to the satisfaction of the City to accommodate any unforeseen technical engineering issues which arise during the review of the final engineering drawings. Required revisions may include reducing the number of residential building lots or reconfiguring the roads or lots to the City’s satisfaction. 36. That the Owner satisfy the City of Pickering for contributions for development review and inspection fees. Easement 37. That the Owner convey to the City, at no costs: any easements as required; and any reserves as required by the City. 38. That the Owner convey any easement to any utility to facilitate the installation of their services in a location(s) to the satisfaction of the City and the utility. 39. That the Owner arrange at no costs to the City any easements required on third-party lands for servicing, and such easements shall be in a location as determined by the City and/or the Region, and are to be granted upon request at any time after the draft approval. 40. That the Owner satisfy to the satisfaction of the Director, Engineering Services any required easement for works, facilities or use rights that are required by the City of Pickering. Stormwater 41. That the Owner satisfy the Director, Engineering Services, respecting a stormwater drainage and management system to service all the lands in the subdivision, and any provisions regarding easements. 42. That the Owner satisfy the Director, Engineering Services, for contributions for downstream stormwater management in accordance with the approved Functional Servicing and Stormwater Management Report. 43. That the Owner satisfy the Director, Engineering Services, for the design and implementation of the diversion of stormwater from off-site lands as proposed in an approved Functional Servicing and Stormwater Management Report. 44. An access road for maintenance purposes will be required for all SWM facilities, and if required for LID measures and the associated outfall for this draft plan. Access road to be as per the City's Stormwater Management Design Guidelines. 45. The Owner shall obtain all required easements or conveyances of lands required for all SWM facilities, LID measures and the associated outfall to the satisfaction of the City of Pickering prior to registration of the plan of subdivision. - 133 - Proposed Conditions of Draft Plan Approval SP-2025-01 Page 7 46. That the Owner agrees that no SWM facilities will be built and/or preliminarily graded until all permits and/or approvals are received from the City, TRCA, MNRF and/or MECP, as necessary. 47. That the Owner agrees that all SWM facilities and LID measures will be designed to be consistent with the City of Pickering Stormwater Management Design Guidelines and TRCA’s Low Impact Development Stormwater Management Planning and Design Guidelines (2010 standards). Grading 48. That the Owner satisfy the Director, Engineering Services, respecting submission and approval of a grading control plan. 49. That the Owner satisfy the Director, Engineering Services, respecting the submission and approval of a geotechnical soils analysis. 50. That the Owner satisfy the Director, Engineering Services, respecting the authorization from abutting landowners for all off-site grading. Services 51. That the Owner satisfy the Director, Engineering Services, respecting the construction of roads with curbs, storm sewers, sidewalks and boulevard designs through the submission and approval of a site servicing plan. 52. That the Owner satisfy the City with respect to arrangements for the provision of all services required by the City. 53. That the Owner satisfy the appropriate authorities respecting arrangements for the provision of underground wiring, street lighting, cable television, natural gas and other similar services. 54. That the cost of any relocation, extension, alteration or extraordinary maintenance of existing services necessitated by this development shall be the responsibility of the subdivider. Other Approvals 55. That any approvals which are required from the Region of Durham, the Toronto and Region Conservation Authority, Ministry of Natural Resources and Forestry, Ministry of Environment Conservation and Parks or any utility for the development of this plan be obtained by the subdivider, and upon request, written confirmation be provided to the City of Pickering as verification of these approvals. MESPA & NFSSR 56. That the Owner satisfy the City of Pickering regarding all matters required by the final Seaton Master Environmental Servicing Plan Amendment, including but not limited to the funding of all restoration projects as recommended in the final Seaton Master Environmental Servicing Plan Amendment and any recommendation of the studies and their supporting reports. - 134 - Proposed Conditions of Draft Plan Approval SP-2025-01 Page 8 57. The subdivision agreement will provide that road crossings of the NHS shall be in accordance with municipal standards and the final MESPA and NFSSRs. Any restoration of the NHS will be limited to areas disturbed by development and construction activities. 58. That the Owner be required to submit a Functional Servicing and Stormwater Report (FSSR) to the City of Pickering that is consistent with the final approved MESPA and the previously submitted Neighbourhood Functional Servicing and Stormwater Report (NFSSR), especially as it relates to the servicing and stormwater management issues within and between Neighbourhoods that will ensure that the separate FSSR’s will combine to form a complete NFSSR as required, to the satisfaction of the City of Pickering. 59. That the Owner shall agree to implement all water balance/infiltration measures identified in the approved NFSSR. Traffic – Roads 60. That the Owner satisfy the City of Pickering respecting the submission of, approval of, an implementation program for the results of the Hamlet of Whitevale Traffic Impact and Management Study, as generally referred to in Section 11.74(c) of the Pickering Official Plan. The City of Pickering will undertake a community consultation program on the recommendations of the study prior to the City’s approval and implementation of any of the study recommendations. 61. That the Owner agrees in the subdivision agreement to the requirement for the establishment of a public advisory committee composed of representatives from the owner, the Region of Durham, the City of Pickering, and the Whitevale and District Residents' Association. This committee will meet regularly during construction and once per year during the monitoring period described in the Hamlet of Whitevale Transportation Mitigation Study to review the effectiveness of traffic mitigation measures and provide recommendations to the City. 62. That the Owner agrees in the subdivision agreement to include warning clauses (to be included in all agreements of purchase and sale) advising that Whitevale Road will be closed to vehicular traffic immediately east of the Hamlet of Whitevale, as shown in the draft Hamlet of Whitevale Transportation Mitigation Study dated August 2013. 63. That the Owner satisfy the City of Pickering respecting the submission of, approval of, and implementation program for the results of, a Traffic Sensitivity Analysis as required by Section 11.25 of the Pickering Official Plan, and shall include: a Traffic Impact Study; an intersection control plan; a traffic signal implementation program; a Traffic Management Implementation Plan; a transportation planning exercise; a Transportation Demand Management Plan; and, a Parking Management Plan. 64. That the Owner satisfy the City of Pickering that appropriate arrangements have been established for the installation of traffic control signals, including all costs, in a time frame acceptable to the City of Pickering, which may include installation of signals in advance of warrants. 65. That the Owner shall install a temporary turning circle, or other alternatives approved by the City of Pickering, whenever a road is to be continued in future developments. 66. That the Owner shall agree that any road connection that traverses the NHS must be acquired, constructed and dedicated as part of the development and be addressed in the - 135 - Proposed Conditions of Draft Plan Approval SP-2025-01 Page 9 subdivision agreement, and the design shall maintain, to the extent practical, where not precluded by grading or other servicing constraints, the rural cross-section of the historic concession roads. 67. That the Owner satisfy the City of Pickering respecting the submission of a future transportation study as required by Section 11.74(b) of the Pickering Official Plan, and the Owner acknowledge and agree that any lands that are outside the Phase 1 lands identified in the Stage Servicing and Implementation Strategy shall be subject to a holding zoning provision. 68. That the Owner satisfy the City of Pickering respecting the submission of a transportation study where direct access is proposed along any Type “C” Arterial Road or a Collector Road. Closed Roads 69. That the Owner make appropriate arrangements for the conveyance of any City-owned surplus closed road allowances, including the preparation of all required survey works, to the satisfaction of the City of Pickering. Model Homes 70. That the Owner enter into a model home agreement with the City, if applicable for this draft plan. All model homes must satisfy all requirements of the architectural control guidelines for the subdivision. Fire 71. The Owner agrees that no building permit shall be approved on any land within the subdivision until adequate services are available, including adequate water pressure to the satisfaction of the City’s Fire Services Division. Building permits for infrastructure projects may be exempt from this requirement. 72. That the Owner provide a fire break plan and other fire prevention measures to the satisfaction of the City of Pickering. Canada Post 73. That the Owner satisfy the City of Pickering, through the approval of a Utility Coordination Plan for the location of a Community Mailbox, in consultation with Canada Post, and incorporate in the City’s subdivision agreement the provision of a Community Mailbox information, including technical specifications, notifications and financial terms. 74. That the Owner shall agree to determine and provide a suitable temporary Community Mailbox location, if required, to the satisfaction of the City of Pickering. Place-Making Guidelines 75. That the Owner shall agree to ensure all development is consistent with the City of Pickering’s Seaton Sustainable Place-Making Guidelines, including but not limited to, all public lands, to the satisfaction of the City of Pickering, and as outlined in the Sustainability Brief, prepared by Korsiak Urban Planning, dated July 10, 2024. - 136 - Proposed Conditions of Draft Plan Approval SP-2025-01 Page 10 Plan Revisions 76. The Owner acknowledges and shall agree that the draft plan of subdivision and associated conditions of approval may require revisions, to the satisfaction of the City of Pickering, to implement or integrate any recommendation resulting from studies required as conditions of approval. 77. That the Owner revise the draft plan, as necessary, to the satisfaction of the City to accommodate any unforeseen technical engineering issues which arise during the review of the final engineering drawings. Required revisions may include reducing the number of residential building lots or reconfiguring the roads or lots to the City’s satisfaction. 78. That the Owner shall agree to implement the requirements of all studies that are required by the City of Pickering for the development of this draft plan of subdivision to the satisfaction of the City of Pickering. Timing 79. That the Owner shall agree in the subdivision agreement that it will not commence any construction works (including site servicing, topsoil stripping and grading) on the subject property until the front-ending agreement contemplated by the Region of Durham Condition 8 has been executed for the plan. Endangered Species Act 80. That the owner satisfies the Endangered Species Act prior to any site alteration, and the City be provided by the Owner with confirmation from the Ministry of Environment, Conservation, and Parks of their approval. Agreement Clauses 81. That the subdivision agreement between the Owner and the City of Pickering shall contain, among other matters, the following provisions: a. That the Owner agrees to include provisions whereby all offers of purchase and sale shall include information that satisfies Subsection 59(4) of the Development Charges Act, 1997. b. That the Owner submit, to the satisfaction of the City, an M-plan showing the lotting for the detached dwellings that demonstrates conformity with the designation provisions of the City of Pickering Official Plan and the Consolidated Zoning By-law 8149/24, as amended. c. That the Owner agrees to implement those noise control measures recommended in the noise report required in Conditions 27 and 28. d. That the Owner agrees to implement the requirements of the TRCA’s conditions of approval in the City’s subdivision agreement in wording acceptable to the City of Pickering in consultation with TRCA. e. That the Owner agrees to design and implement on-site erosion and sediment control. - 137 - Proposed Conditions of Draft Plan Approval SP-2025-01 Page 11 f. That the Owner agrees to maintain all stormwater management and erosion and sedimentation control structures operating and in good repair during the construction period, in a manner satisfactory to the City of Pickering, in consultation with TRCA and/or MNRF. g. That the Owner agrees to commit to provide appropriate information to all perspective buyers of lots adjacent to the publicly owned natural heritage system through all agreements for purchase and sale, sales information, and community maps to ensure that the land owners are well informed that private use and/or access to the open space blocks shall not be permitted, and reflect the intent of the following: “The open space adjacent to the subject property is considered to be part of the publicly owned natural heritage system and will be maintained for environmental protection and public use purposes. Please note that uses such as private picnics, barbeque or garden areas, and/or the dumping of refuse (e.g., grass/garden clippings, household compostable goods, garbage, etc.) are not permitted on these lands. In addition, access to the valley corridor such as private rear yard gates and/or ladders are prohibited.” “Stormwater Management Facilities and the Natural Heritage System are intended to be naturalized/kept in a natural state. As such, the publicly owned natural heritage system may not receive routine maintenance such as grass and weed cutting.” h. That the Owner agrees to include provisions whereby all offers of purchase and sale shall include information that for all dwelling units with a single car garage that the City’s by- laws require two parking spaces for the dwelling which have been provided, one in the garage and one in the driveway and that the City’s by-law restricts the width of the driveway to a maximum size width which does not allow two cars parked side by side. i. That the Owner agrees to implement a homeowner education program, which includes preparing a “Homeowner Information and Natural Stewardship Guide” to the satisfaction of the Director, City Development & CBO, for inclusion in all Offers of Purchase and Sale of all Units. This guide shall describe the value and importance of the natural Heritage System, the impact homeowner activities can have on natural areas, and steps that can be taken to minimize such impact to assist in the protection of the Natural Heritage System. The guide shall address such activities as: a) refuse/yard waste/composting b) fertilizer, herbicides and pesticide use as it relates to the hydrogeological features and functions of the site c) identification and protection of natural areas, vegetation preservation zones, rehabilitation areas and landscape buffer plantings d) access and trail use discouraging vegetation trampling e) domestic pet impacts and controls f) invasive plant spreading g) promoting planting of native species h) proper swimming pool management techniques i) impacts of noise and lighting including directing lighting away from wooded and natural areas and setting with motion detectors to minimize constant lighting j) protection of soil and vegetation on natural areas k) the ecological role of stormwater treatment facilities l) the importance of choosing sustainable technologies and maintaining the required LID facilities - 138 - Proposed Conditions of Draft Plan Approval SP-2025-01 Page 12 Section D – Toronto and Region Conservation Authority 1. That the final Plan shall be in general conformity with the draft plan prepared by Korsiak Urban Planning, Revision DWG D dated October 23, 2025, prior to a request for clearance of any phase of this plan, to: a. Meet the requirements of TRCA’s conditions, including the adjustment of block/lot lines to the satisfaction of the City of Pickering and TRCA as a result of the completion of required studies. b. Should the above not be adequately addressed in the Plan, red-line revision will be required to the satisfaction of the TRCA, to address TRCA’s requirements with respect to these conditions. 2. That prior to registration of the Plan of Subdivision, provide an M-Plan showing the adjusted block lines, additional blocks, and any other required revisions to the satisfaction of the City of Pickering and the TRCA. 3. That prior to any development, pre-servicing or site alteration, or registration of this plan, or any phase thereof, the owners or their agents submit the following plans and reports to the satisfaction of the Toronto and Region Conservation Authority: a. A final consolidated, detailed Functional Servicing & Stormwater Management Report and associated VO Model in accordance with TRCA’s stormwater management guidelines. The report must indicate in detail how it will comply with the preliminary stormwater management report, prepared by SMD Consultants Inc., dated December 2024, and all master servicing plans (i.e., Master Environmental Servicing Plan or Detailed Subwatershed Study) to achieve the applicable TRCA requirements and stormwater management criteria (i.e., quantity, quality, erosion control, and water balance). This report shall include, but is not limited to: i. Plans illustrating the existing drainage systems internal and external to the site, and how the proposed drainage plan will tie into surrounding drainage systems. Plans which demonstrate the proposed stormwater management techniques which are required to control minor or major flows. Confirmation must be provided with respect to how target flows as per the hydrologic studies will be achieved during and post- development. ii. Provide provisions for appropriately sized Stormwater Management Practices (SWMPs) to be used to treat stormwater in accordance with TRCA’s current Stormwater Management Guidelines. The existing drainage patterns should be maintained, to the greatest extent possible, and the existing hydrologic function of any wetlands is to be maintained, consistent with TRCA’s guidelines. iii. Proposed methods for controlling or minimizing erosion and siltation on-site and/or in downstream areas during and after construction, in accordance with the TRCA’s Erosion and Sediment Control (ESC) guidelines. Erosion and sediment control plans and a report addressing phasing and staging, consistent with TRCA’s guidelines must be included. iv. Detailed plans and mapping indicating location, orientation, size and description of all stormwater management features, including outlet structures, all other proposed - 139 - Proposed Conditions of Draft Plan Approval SP-2025-01 Page 13 servicing facilities (i.e., lot level LIDs, pumping stations, access roads), grading, site alterations, development, infrastructure and watercourse alterations, which are required to service or facilitate the development of the subject lands, which may require a permit from the TRCA pursuant to the Conservation Authorities Act and its Regulation. v. Measures for minimizing and mitigating erosion related impacts on downstream areas (during and post construction), which are to be integrated into the stormwater management plan to the satisfaction of the TRCA. vi. Design of flow dispersal measures associated with the stormwater management outlets to reduce potential erosion and maximize potential infiltration, and the integration of a naturalized outlet channel and/or wetland, where applicable, to the satisfaction of the TRCA. vii. Stormwater Management facility and outlet design details. Design requirements shall conform to the requirements outlined in the Ministry of Environment, Conservation and Parks (MECP) guidelines, TRCA’s Stormwater Management Criteria Document, and TRCA’s LID Stormwater Management Planning and Design Guide, and all applicable municipal design standards. b. Updated geotechnical report including all geotechnical and stability assessments, and the geotechnical construction specifications in support of the SWM pond berm, to the satisfaction of the TRCA. c. Detailed grading plans for the subject lands. These plans must indicate how grade differentials will be accommodated without the use of retaining walls within or adjacent to valley and stream corridor blocks. All modifications to existing slopes must result in geotechnically-stable slopes to the satisfaction of the TRCA. d. Plans illustrating that all works, including all grading, site alterations, or materials associated with these activities, will not encroach, or be placed on lands outside of the development areas. These plans must also identify no grading works and fill placement within the valley corridor, beyond those approved by the TRCA. e. A final Hydrogeological Report that will examine existing seasonal groundwater levels in relation to the proposed development, underground construction and servicing and stormwater management infrastructure. If impacts to groundwater levels are anticipated, the report must identify any potential impacts to TRCA regulated surface water receivers and their inherent hazards must be assessed and any potential impacts mitigated, to the satisfaction of the TRCA. f. Information detailing all anticipated temporary dewatering that may be required during the construction phases, including anticipated volumes, duration, discharge locations, and filtration media – as required, to the satisfaction of the TRCA, for the purposes of confirming whether erosion is anticipated and whether a TRCA permit is required. g. Erosion protection details of all proposed outlet structures/headwalls, spillways/discharge and outfall channels to demonstrate no risk of erosion or instability due to discharge, to the satisfaction of TRCA. - 140 - Proposed Conditions of Draft Plan Approval SP-2025-01 Page 14 h. A Final Overall Site-Level Water Balance Report that will identify measures that will be implemented during post-development that: i. Mimic the pre-development surface and groundwater balance for the overall site to the greatest extent achievable; ii. Demonstrate how post-development conditions will retain a minimum of the first 5mm of rainfall from all roof areas to the satisfaction of the TRCA; and, iii. Mitigate against any potential on-site or downstream erosion associated with the stormwater management system. 4. That prior to any development, pre-servicing or site alteration, the applicant obtains all Ontario Regulation 41/24 permits from the TRCA for all works proposed on the subject property for which permits would be required. 5. That the size and location of Stormwater Management Blocks and LID measures, including any outlets and outfalls and any stormwater management infrastructure utilized for quantity control, be confirmed to the satisfaction of the TRCA. And, if required to meet TRCA requirements, red-line revisions be made to the plan to expand these blocks or modify their size or configuration into the surrounding lands within this subdivision, which are currently proposed for development. 6. That the Owner agrees in the subdivision agreement, in wording acceptable to the TRCA: a. To carry out, or cause to be carried out, to the satisfaction of the TRCA, the recommendations of the technical reports and plans referenced in TRCA’s conditions. b. To implement the requirements of the TRCA’s conditions in wording acceptable to the TRCA. c. To design and implement on-site erosion and sediment controls in accordance with current TRCA standards. d. To maintain all stormwater management and erosion and sedimentation control structures operating and in good repair during the construction period, in a manner satisfactory to the TRCA. e. To obtain all necessary permits from the TRCA pursuant to Ontario Regulation 41/24, as amended, to the satisfaction of the TRCA. f. To erect a permanent fence to City of Pickering satisfaction along the property line of the residential lots where they abut the Seaton Natural Heritage System. g. To ensure that a restrictive covenant is placed over the rear yards of all lots created adjacent to the Seaton Natural Heritage System. The restrictive covenant shall have the effect of prohibiting: 1) the removal of fences along the lot line of all subject development lots; and 2) the installation of gates or other access through the fences along the lot line of all development lots. h. To implement all water balance/infiltration measures identified in the submitted studies that have or are to be completed for the subject property. - 141 - Proposed Conditions of Draft Plan Approval SP-2025-01 Page 15 i. Implement all adaptive management and mitigation measures identified in the submitted design reports that have or are to be completed for the subject property. j. To provide for the warning clauses and information identified in TRCA’s conditions. k. That where required to satisfy TRCA’s conditions, development shall be phased within this plan. l. That prior to a request for renewal of draft approval of any phase of this subdivision, that the owner consult with the TRCA with respect to whether the technical studies submitted in support of this development remain to meet current day requirements, and that the owner update any studies and plans, as required, to reflect current day requirements Notes to Draft Approval 1. As the Owner of the proposed subdivision, it is your responsibility to satisfy all conditions of draft approval in an expeditious manner. The conditions of draft approval will be reviewed periodically and may be amended at any time prior to final approval. The Planning Act provides that draft approval may be withdrawn at any time prior to final approval. 2. All plans of subdivision must be registered in the Land Titles system within the Regional Municipality of Durham. 3. Where agencies' requirements are required to be included in the City of Pickering subdivision agreement, a copy of the agreement should be sent to the agencies in order to facilitate their clearance of conditions for final approval of this plan. The addresses and telephone numbers of these agencies are: (i) Commissioner of Community Growth and Economic Development, Regional Municipality of Durham, 605 Rossland Road East P.O. Box 623, Whitby, Ontario L1N 6A3. (ii) Toronto and Region Conservation Authority, Development Planning and Regulation, 101 Exchange Avenue, Vaughan, Ontario, L4K 5R6 - 142 - Attachment 6 to Report PLN 02-26 The Corporation of the City of Pickering By-law No. XXXX/26 Being a By-law to amend City Consolidated Zoning By-law 8149/24, to implement the Official Plan of the City of Pickering, Region of Durham, for land at Part of Lot 22, Concession 4, City of Pickering (A 01/25) Whereas the Council of The Corporation of the City of Pickering received an application to rezone the subject lands being Part Lot 22, Concession 4, in the City of Pickering to permit the implementation of a residential draft plan of subdivision; And whereas an amendment to Zoning By-law 8149/24 is therefore deemed necessary; Now therefore the Council of The Corporation of the City of Pickering hereby enacts as follows: 1.Schedule I attached hereto with notations and references shown thereon is hereby declared to be part of this By-law. 2.The provisions of this By-law shall apply to those lands in Part of Lot 22, Concession 4, in the City of Pickering, designated SLD1, SLD1T, SSWM, and SOS on Schedule I to this By-law. 3. Section 15 Exception Zone XXX of By-law 8149/24 is hereby amended by adding the following provisions: 1. 2. The following site-specific exceptions shall apply to the lands zoned X### (SLD1), identified as Block 4, Draft Plan of Subdivision file SP-2025-01: a)For a detached dwelling with attached private garage on a through lot, the front lot line shall be the lot line abutting the local street, and the rear lot line shall be the lot line abutting Peter Matthews Drive. The following site-specific exceptions shall apply to the lands zoned X### (SLD1) and X### (SLD1T), identified as Blocks 1, 2, 4 and 6, Draft Plan of Subdivision file SP-2025- 01: a)For a detached dwelling with attached private garage: i)Minimum Rear Yard: 6.0 metres / 5.0 metres adjacent to SNHS or A zones - 143 - By-law No. XXXX/26 Page 2 3. a) The following site-specific exception shall apply to the lands zoned as X### (SLD1), as illustrated in Figure 1 below: i. For a detached dwelling with attached private garage accessed from a street abutting the front lot line: A. Minimum Rear Yard: 3.0 metres B. Minimum Interior Side Yard: 5.0 metres & 0.6 metres Figure 1 b) The following site-specific exception shall apply to the lands zoned as X### (SLD1), as illustrated in Figure 2 below: i. For a detached dwelling with attached private garage accessed from a street abutting the front lot line: A. Minimum Rear Yard: 4.0 metres B. Minimum Interior Side Yard: 4.5 metres & 0.6 metres - 144 - By-law No. XXXX/26 Page 2 Figure 2 c) The following site-specific exception shall apply to the lands zoned as X### (SLD1), as illustrated in Figure 3 below: i. For a detached dwelling with attached private garage accessed from a street abutting the front lot line: A. Minimum Rear Yard: 4.5 metres Figure 3 - 145 - By-law No. XXXX/26 Page 2 4. By-law 8149/24 is hereby amended only to the extent necessary to give effect to the provisions of this By-law as it applies to the area set out in Schedule I of this By-law. Definitions and subject matters not specifically dealt with in this By-law shall be governed by relevant provisions of By-law 8149/24. 5. This By-law shall come into force in accordance with the provisions of the Planning Act. By-law passed this XX day of XXXX, 2026. ___________________________________ Kevin Ashe, Mayor ___________________________________ Susan Cassel, City Clerk - 146 - _J X### (SLD1) 217.7 m Schedule I to By-Law XXXX/26 Passed This XX rd Day of XXXX 2026 Mayor Clerk t N - 147 -