Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutNovember 10, 2025 Statutory Public Meeting under the Planning Act Minutes Electronic Meeting November 10, 2025 - 07:00 PM Chair: Councillor Robinson Present: Councillor L. Robinson K. Bentley - Director, City Development & CBO F. Jadoon - Director, Economic Development & Strategic Projects N. Surti - Division Head, Development Review & Urban Design C. Rose - Chief Planner Z. Khan - Senior Project Manager, Special Projects P. Wirch - Principal Planner, Policy R. Perera - Deputy Clerk Call to Order Councillor Robinson, Chair, called the meeting to order and gave an overview of the requirements for a Statutory Public Meeting under the Planning Act. Councillor Robinson outlined the order of matters under the Statutory Public Meeting section, as well as the notification process procedures and noted that if a specified person or public body as defined by the Planning Act, or the owner of land to which the Proposed Official Plan Amendment or Zoning By-law Amendment would apply, does not make oral or written submissions to the City before the By-law is passed, that person, public body, or owner of land would not be entitled to appeal the decision of City Council to the Ontario Land Tribunal (OLT). Information Reports Information Report 10-25 Official Plan Amendment Application OPA 25-003P Proposed Amendment 54: Northeast Pickering Secondary Plan City Initiated 1. 2. 2.1 1 P. Lowes, Principal, SGL Planning & Design Inc., and S. Horton, Senior Planner/Urban Designer, SGL Planning & Design Inc., appeared via electronic connection to present the Official Plan Amendment Application OPA 25-003P, Proposed Amendment 54: Northeast Pickering Secondary Plan. Through the aid of a PowerPoint presentation, P. Lowes provided an overview of the proposed Northeast Pickering Secondary Plan, outlining the planning process, including visioning, background studies, land use concepts, and public consultations. P. Lowes stated that the Plan aimed to create a complete, multi-generational, economically diverse community with vibrant public spaces and walkable neighborhoods, guided by principles of sustainability, land stewardship, and logical growth. P. Lowes noted that the proposed community structure supported a population of approximately 72,000 at full build-out and included a regional center as the focal point, connected by an east-west mixed-use transit corridor. P. Lowes stated that eight neighborhoods were planned, supported by parks, schools, and community nodes, along with employment areas on both sides of Highway 407 to promote a live-work balance. P. Lowes noted that land use designations included natural heritage systems, mixed-use areas, residential zones of varying densities, and employment areas and that the Plan also provided for parks, municipal facilities, and schools based on projected population needs. P. Lowes provided information on the focus of the transportation policies, sustainability measures, housing policies, cultural heritage policies, and implementation policies, noting that this was the first stage of approval, with further studies being required before development proceeded and that the next steps included gathering feedback, completing technical studies, and returning to Council with a recommendation Report. Helen Brenner, Pickering Resident H. Brenner, Pickering Resident, appeared via electronic connection to speak to the Northeast Pickering Secondary Plan. H. Brenner noted their opposition to the proposed expansion, citing financial, environmental, and planning concerns. H. Brenner said that the Plan involved land being disconnected from existing infrastructure and transit, requiring extensive investment in roads, sewers, water, schools, and emergency services, which would ultimately burden taxpayers. H. Brenner stated that the Envision Durham’s Land Needs Assessment indicated that Pickering did not require land beyond its urban boundary to meet 2051 population targets, however, a last-minute motion approved Build Scenario 2A, raising transparency concerns. H. Brenner highlighted financial risks, pointing to the recent approval of the Seaton Recreation Complex and its tax increase as an example of future impacts and added that while 2.1.1 Statutory Public Meeting under the Planning Act Minutes November 10, 2025 2 developers may fund initial infrastructure, ongoing maintenance and replacement costs would fall on taxpayers across Durham Region. H. Brenner noted that environmental concerns included Toronto and Region Conservation Authority's (TRCA) warning that expansion could increase downstream flooding in Ajax by up to 77%, affecting insurance coverage and premiums, as well as fragmentation of the Greenbelt, loss of farmland critical to food security, and increased traffic and greenhouse gas emissions. H. Brenner noted that required studies under the Durham Official Plan were incomplete with the Town of Ajax, TRCA, Central Lake Ontario Conservation (CLOCA), and the Mississaugas of Scugog Island First Nation stating that approval was premature. H. Brenner stated that the City should pause consideration of the Plan until all studies and consultations were complete and any expansion beyond Pickering’s urban boundary was justified by evidence-based planning and fiscal responsibility. H. Brenner concluded that approving the Plan would lead to higher taxes, greater flood risks, and loss of public trust, and asked the City to ensure growth was transparent, evidence-based, and in the public interest. Mike Borie, Pickering Resident M. Borie, Pickering Resident, appeared via electronic connection to speak to the Northeast Pickering Secondary Plan. M. Borie stated that the Plan was developer-driven and represented an outdated model of urban sprawl which could lead to higher taxes, environmental damage, and unsustainable growth. M. Borie noted that Pickering had already exceeded its provincial housing target and large areas such as Seaton remainined largely undeveloped. M. Borie noted that the City’s growth related capital program was estimated at $1 billion, with only $505 million recoverable through Development Charges (DCs), leaving a $498 million shortfall for taxpayers, and cited additional costs for electricity infrastructure, transit, education, fire, and policing, and referenced the Seaton Recreation Complex tax levy increase. M. Borie commented that paving over Carruthers Creek headwaters could increase downstream flooding in Pickering and Ajax by up to 77%, according to the TRCA and that the Plan could eliminate 1,600 hectares of green space, prime farmland, and habitat for endangered species such as the Redside Dace, protected under federal and provincial law. M. Borie added that the expansion was unnecessary given Seaton’s capacity for 70,000 residents and called for intensification within existing boundaries before building on more greenfield land. Mr. Borie criticized the lack of transparency on full costs 2.1.2 Statutory Public Meeting under the Planning Act Minutes November 10, 2025 3 and long-term implications, describing the process as rushed and developer-led. M. Borie also raised concerns about inadequate Indigenous consultation, noting that the Mississaugas of Scugog Island First Nation opposed development without proper agreements and emphasized reconciliation and protection of treaty rights. M. Borie concluded their delegation by stating that the proposed development was a bad deal for Pickering, harming the environment, risking residents’ safety, burdening taxpayers, and ignoring Indigenous rights. He urged the City to reject OPA 25-003P and focus on sustainable growth within existing urban boundaries and noted that the proposal was being advanced by the Northeast Pickering Landowners Group Inc. Abdullah Mir, Pickering Resident A. Mir, Pickering Resident, appeared via electronic connection to speak to the Northeast Pickering Secondary Plan. A. Mir acknowledged the City’s growth pressures but opposed development in Northeast Pickering, calling it unnecessary and environmentally harmful. A. Mir noted that the lands were located on the headwaters of Carruthers Creek, raising concerns about downstream flooding in Ajax and Pickering and added that growth targets could be met by completing existing areas such as Seaton and by focusing development along Kingston Road and near the GO Station. A. Mir emphasized that the proposed development represented urban sprawl, required billions in taxpayer-funded infrastructure, and lacked a fiscal impact study, leaving residents uncertain about long-term costs. A. Mir expressed concern that younger generations planning to live in Pickering faced a potential financial disaster if the Plan proceeded and urged the City to reject the proposal, citing environmental damage, excessive costs, and the availability of better alternatives within serviced areas. A. Mir concluded their delegation by noting the need for transparency and long- term thinking to protect the City’s financial and environmental health. Craig Bamford, Pickering Resident C. Bamford, Pickering Resident, appeared via electronic connection to speak to the Northeast Pickering Secondary Plan. C. Bamford questioned the urgency to approve the Plan as an amendment to the Pickering Official Plan rather than following the process outlined in the Durham Region Official Plan. C. Bamford noted that this process was designed to protect downstream interests, ensure efficient use of services, and maintain cost- effectiveness and referenced the Town of Milton’s approach, which 2.1.3 2.1.4 Statutory Public Meeting under the Planning Act Minutes November 10, 2025 4 included a fiscal plan with phasing and annual updates, and expressed concern that the current proposal lacked similar fiscal controls. C. Bamford highlighted that the Plan was introduced without adequate public engagement and did not follow required protections or phasing and that concerns included incomplete watershed studies, traffic impacts beyond the immediate area, erosion of developer cost-sharing under Bill 23, and parkland shortfalls that would shift costs to taxpayers. C. Bamford also stressed the need for comprehensive affordable housing planning and Indigenous consultation before proceeding and urged the City to reject the proposal until all required studies and processes were complete. Katie Pandey, Innovative Planning Solutions and Mohit Gupta, Vaughan Resident K. Pandey, Innovative Planning Solutions, and M. Gupta, Vaughan Resident, appeared via electronic connection to speak to the Northeast Pickering Secondary Plan. Through the aid of a PDF presentation, K. Pandey advised that they were representing M. Gupta, a landowner in Northeast Pickering whose property comprised approximately 11 acres, did not contain any natural heritage features, and was designated as a Regional Centre. K. Pandey noted that enhanced walkable connections were a key component of the Plan for the transportation centre, which they supported and also expressed support for the regional corridor designation and the proposed arterial road, as it would improve connectivity. K. Pandey stated that the lands had strong potential for transit-oriented development, including high-rise mixed-use development, which would foster neighborhood connectivity. K. Pandey further noted that the presence of a natural heritage feature to the north marked the proposed urban park location on the subject site problematic, as it would limit development potential. K. Pandey proposed relocating the urban park closer to the natural heritage feature to enhance that area and allow the subject lands to accommodate high-rise, mixed-use development with an affordable housing component to help achieve growth targets. K. Pandey advised that they had submitted proposed wording for the Official Plan amendment to ensure equitable treatment within the landowner group and to protect the rights of individual landowners such as M. Gupta. K. Pandey requested that the City take an active role in the landowner group and indicated they await feedback on the proposed wording. M. Gupta emphasized the need for equal representation for individual landowners and requested fair representation within the process. 2.1.5 Statutory Public Meeting under the Planning Act Minutes November 10, 2025 5 Peggy Bowie, Pickering Resident P. Bowie, Pickering Resident, appeared via electronic connection to speak to the Northeast Pickering Secondary Plan. P. Bowie noted that while growth was positive, the financial impacts, rising debt, and delays to major plans were troubling. P. Bowie emphasized that growth did not pay for itself and urged updating the Seaton Fiscal Plan and questioned the lack of transparency around technical studies, costs, and potential flooding risks to Ajax due to impacts on the Carruthers Creek headwaters. P. Bowie called for completion and public disclosure of all fiscal and environmental studies, including flood mitigation and servicing plans, before any decisions were made and stressed the need for transparency and resident engagement prior to Council voting on the proposal. James Blair, Pickering Agricultural, Agribusiness & Rural Affairs Community Association, Durham Region Federation of Agriculture, National Farmers Union - Ontario J. Blair, Pickering Agricultural, Agribusiness & Rural Affairs Community Association, Durham Region Federation of Agriculture, National Farmers Union - Ontario, appeared via electronic connection to speak to the Northeast Pickering Secondary Plan. Through the aid of a PowerPoint presentation, J. Blair spoke to concerns from the agricultural community regarding the Northeast Pickering development such as the fragmentation of farmland leading to difficulties for farmers to maintain viable operations and move equipment between fields, undermining agricultural productivity and economic contributions. J. Blair noted that development could permanently damage agricultural land and food security, and that consultation with farmers and agricultural organizations had been inadequate. J. Blair referenced input from groups such as the National Farmers Union and Durham Region Federation of Agriculture, stressing that these organizations must be involved in the planning. J. Blair spoke to the lack of engagement and raised concerns about misleading data on the number of individuals involved in agriculture and urged the City to protect farmland north of Highway 407 and reconsider the necessity of the development, warning that approval would impose significant tax burdens and accelerate the loss of agricultural land. Matt Bentley, Uxbridge Resident M. Bentley, Uxbridge Resident, appeared via electronic connection to speak to the Northeast Pickering Secondary Plan. M. Bentley 2.1.6 2.1.7 2.1.8 Statutory Public Meeting under the Planning Act Minutes November 10, 2025 6 acknowledged the need for growth however stated that this proposal represented the wrong type of growth, describing it as urban sprawl that was financially unsustainable and environmentally damaging. M. Bentley emphasized that the Plan would impose massive infrastructure costs on taxpayers, including roads, sewers, schools, transit, parks, and emergency services, while Pickering was already struggling to maintain existing facilities. M. Bentley noted that the development would be effectively creating a second city, while the current city faced capital funding challenges. M. Bentley spoke to environmental concerns such as impacts on the Carruthers Creek headwaters, farmland, woodlots, and long-term climate implications, as well as increased car dependency and traffic congestion, particularly along Highway 407 and routes into Toronto. M. Bentley added that the process leading to the Plan, referencing the Envision Durham decision as developer-influenced and outside proper planning procedures. M. Bentley stated that the proposal was premature, lacked complete studies, and should be paused until the Pickering Official Plan review and all required assessments were finalized. M. Bentley urged the City to reject unnecessary boundary expansion, noting that Pickering was already meeting provincial housing targets and concluded by noting the responsibility to protect the financial, environmental, and social health of the City. M. Bentley asked the City to prioritize sustainable growth and residents’ interests, warning that approval would jeopardize Pickering’s future. Matthew Halo, Innovative Planning Solutions M. Halo, Innovative Planning Solutions, appeared via electronic connection to speak to the Northeast Pickering Secondary Plan on behalf of Pickering-Salem Developments Limited and 2722228 Ontario Inc., owners of properties at 3885 and 4015 Salem Road within Neighbourhood 25 of the proposed Northeast Pickering Secondary Plan. Through the aid of PowerPoint presentation, M. Halo stated that both properties were strategically located near a planned higher-order transit station and arterial roads, making them well-suited for high-density, mixed-use, transit- oriented development that aligned with the City’s vision for complete communities. M. Halo supported the draft plan but recommended refinements to strengthen implementation, including recognizing the area as a potential Major Transit Station Area (MTSA), allowing greater flexibility in height and density beyond current limits, and enabling density transfers to support compact, transit-oriented growth. M. Halo also encouraged collaboration with Metrolinx and other stakeholders to align 2.1.9 Statutory Public Meeting under the Planning Act Minutes November 10, 2025 7 land use planning with transit delivery and infrastructure phasing and endorsed the inclusion of a secondary school near 4015 Salem Road with consideration for innovative models such as vertical schools or joint-use facilities integrated with mixed-use blocks and shared civic spaces. M. Halo said that the Plan could delay neighborhood-level applications until all secondary plan-wide requirements were finalized, slowing early housing and infrastructure delivery. M. Halo recommended a phased approach that allowed applications to proceed once supporting studies were substantially complete and links approvals to staged infrastructure rather than full system completion. In closing, M. Halo stated that these refinements would maintain the City’s objectives while enabling timely, transit- supportive growth and emphasized that these lands were long-term growth areas envisioned for development beyond 2051 and should be planned to evolve as compact, sustainable communities. Phil Pothen, Environmental Defence P. Pothen, Environmental Defence, appeared via electronic connection to speak to the Northeast Pickering Secondary Plan. P. Pothen stated that they were a land use planning and environmental lawyer and Program Manager for Land Use and Development at Environmental Defence, adding that the best outcome for addressing Ontario’s housing shortage, protecting the environment, and safeguarding the Redside Dace populations would be to halt development in Northeast Pickering entirely. P. Pothen said that approving this Plan would divert labour, resources, and staff time away from building more efficient housing within Pickering’s existing settlement areas, resulting in fewer homes overall, built more slowly and at higher cost. P. Pothen emphasized that the inclusion of Northeast Pickering in Durham’s settlement boundary was questionable under current planning rules, which required municipalities to optimize existing infrastructure and prioritize efficient land use. P. Pothen noted that the Durham Official Plan mandated a full municipal comprehensive review before proceeding with such expansions and urged the City to revisit and replan unbuilt areas within Pickering’s pre-2022 boundaries, such as Seaton, for higher-density formats like mid-rise and multiplex housing, and extend similar permissions to existing neighborhoods to maximize housing supply. P. Pothen stated that moving forward with the Plan would not only be unnecessary to meet housing targets but would also undermine efforts to address the housing shortage. P. Pothen noted that sprawl-driven planning resulted in fewer, more expensive homes and asked the City to reject the Plan until existing areas were fully built out and zoning updated 2.1.10 Statutory Public Meeting under the Planning Act Minutes November 10, 2025 8 to allow efficient, family-friendly housing formats. P. Pothen concluded by asking the City to prioritize sustainable, cost-effective growth and avoid decisions that would harm both housing affordability and environmental protection. Estella Prosser, Pickering Resident E. Prosser, Pickering Resident, appeared via electronic connection to speak to the Northeast Pickering Secondary Plan. E. Prosser stated that their home relied on a shallow well and a spring-fed lake, both of which could be adversely affected by upstream construction activities, including temporary dewatering and permanently buried infrastructure. E. Prosser noted that information provided by the City was inadequate and called for full disclosure of studies on groundwater flows, stormwater management, and servicing plans. E. Prosser asked whether the water main system ending at Westney Road would be extended north and whether the proposed development would be serviced by sanitary sewers, as untreated wastewater could contaminate groundwater. E. Prosser echoed concerns shared by others regarding the destruction of agricultural land and emphasized that altering this environmentally sensitive area would have major downstream impacts. E. Prosser also highlighted the significant financial burden on taxpayers, noting that they already paid over $20,000 annually in property taxes for minimal services and asked that the Project not proceed until all technical studies were completed and made public, and that affected groups were consulted through an in- person meeting prior to any decision. E. Prosser concluded by questioning why the proposal appeared to be pushed forward without due diligence. P. Lowes, Principal, SGL Planning & Design Inc., appeared via electronic connection and stated that all public comments would be reviewed by staff and the consulting team, and a detailed response would be prepared and provided to Council prior to or at the Planning & Development Committee meeting where this matter would be considered by Council. P. Lowes also clarified that the area would be serviced by new municipal water and sanitary systems and that more detailed environmental assessment studies for these services were underway and were being completed jointly with the Region of Durham. C. Rose, Chief Planner, appeared via electronic connection and stated that all verbal and written submissions would be reviewed prior to bringing any recommendations back to the Planning & Development Committee. 2.1.11 Statutory Public Meeting under the Planning Act Minutes November 10, 2025 9 F. Jadoon, Director, Economic Development & Strategic Projects, appeared via electronic connection and noted that all comments would be reviewed by staff and the City's consultant team, adding that work was ongoing with key stakeholders, particularly the Region of Durham, regarding servicing and phasing scenarios which would inform the final recommendation report that would be provided for Council’s consideration. Councillor Robinson, Chair, appeared via electronic connection and noted concerns regarding the independence of the planning process stating that much of the technical work for the Plan was funded by the Northeast Pickering Landowners Group, and recommended that an independent peer review and financial audit of all developer-funded studies should be undertaken. Councillor Robinson stated that the lands included sensitive areas near Rouge National Urban Park and potential species-at-risk habitat and stated that confirmation on species assessments, identified species, and consultations with the Ministry of Natural Resources and Forestry, Environment and Climate Change Canada, and the Indigenous communities would be needed. Councillor Robinson also added that development north of Highway 407 could increase downstream flooding in Ajax by 77% and stated that written confirmation on whether this figure had been updated and what mitigation measures were proposed would be needed, noting that sub-watershed studies remained incomplete. Councillor Robinson expressed further concerns that the process appeared developer-led and the negative impacts of any perceived undue closeness between developers and City staff, adding that growth did not always pay for growth and that a full life-cycle cost analysis should be undertaken to identify who would pay for infrastructure obligations over time. Councillor Robinson commented that advancing the Plan would be premature until all environmental studies, consultation, and fiscal analysis were complete, independently reviewed, and publicly released. Adjournment The meeting adjourned at 9:12 p.m. Dated this 10th day of November, 2025. 3. Statutory Public Meeting under the Planning Act Minutes November 10, 2025 10