The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutPLN 03-26Report to Planning and Development Committee Report Number: PLN 03-26 Date: March 2, 2026 From: Kyle Bentley Director, City Development & CBO Subject: Official Plan Amendment City Initiated: Northeast Pickering Secondary Plan Recommended Amendment 54 to the Pickering Official Plan Implementation Framework for the Northeast Pickering Community File: OPA 25-003/P Recommendation: 1. That Official Plan Amendment Application OPA 25-003/P, initiated by the City of Pickering, to add new policies and designations to the Pickering Official Plan regarding the recommended Northeast Pickering Secondary Plan, as set out in Attachment 1 to Report PLN 03-26, be approved; 2. That the Draft By-law to adopt Official Plan Amendment 54 to the Pickering Official Plan, to add new policies and designations to the Pickering Official Plan regarding the recommended Northeast Pickering Secondary Plan, as set out in Exhibit “A” to Attachment 1 of Report PLN 03-26, be finalized and forwarded to Council for enactment; 3. That staff be directed to negotiate the terms of the following agreements with the North East Pickering Landowners Group Inc. (the “Landowner Group”) for the purpose of implementing the Northeast Pickering Secondary Plan (the “Secondary Plan”) in the City’s best interests, and that these agreements be brought to Council for approval: a. an agreement respecting the funding and preparation of a Master Environmental Servicing Plan (MESP) for the Secondary Plan area, which the Agreement shall include: i. Terms of Reference for the completion of the MESP to the satisfaction of the City, and the Region of Durham, in consultation with the respective PLN 03-26 March 2, 2026 Page 2 conservation authorities, as set out in section 11.B.70 a) of the Secondary Plan; and, ii. details of funding arrangements requiring the Landowner Group to either fully fund in advance the City’s preparation of the MESP or to prepare the MESP at its cost while fully funding in advance the City’s peer review and oversight consulting services; b. an agreement respecting the funding and preparation of Neighbourhood Plans for the Secondary Plan area, which Agreement shall include: i. Terms of Reference for the completion of the Neighbourhood Plans to the satisfaction of the City, as set out in section 11.B.69 c) of the Secondary Plan; and ii. the process to complete the Neighbourhood Plans either one at a time or concurrently; iii. details of funding arrangements requiring the Landowner Group to either fully fund in advance the City’s preparation of the Neighbourhood Plans or to prepare the Neighbourhood Plans at its cost while fully funding in advance the City’s peer review and oversight consulting services; c. an agreement respecting the funding and preparation of Development Charges and Community Benefits Charges By-laws (DC-CBCBs) and a Fiscal Impact Study (FIS), which agreement shall include: i. Terms of Reference for the completion of the DC-CBCBs and the FIS satisfactory to the City as set out in section 11B.69 f) and g) of the Secondary Plan, and section 4.14 of Report PLN 03-26, which includes but is not limited to: Growth Forecast; Capital Forecast; Development Charges/Community Benefits Charges; Operating Expenditure Requirements; Property Tax Yield; Operating, and Capital Fund Impacts; Municipal Land Needs; consideration of the results of the Master Parks and Community Lands Agreement; ii. details of funding arrangements requiring the Landowner Group to fully fund in advance the City’s cost to prepare the DC-CBCBs and the FIS; d. an agreement (referred to as a Master Parks and Community Lands Agreement or “MPCLA”) respecting the size, general location and timing of the transfer to the City of lands required for parks, essential community facilities, cultural heritage, road widenings and affordable housing. The MPCLA shall be completed and executed in sufficient time to be an input into the FIS. PLN 03-26 March 2, 2026 Page 3 e. an agreement respecting the funding and preparation of an Infrastructure Staging and Phasing Plan (ISPP), which agreement shall include: i. Terms of Reference for the completion of the ISPP to the satisfaction of the City as set out in section 11.B.67 of the Secondary Plan; and ii. details of funding arrangements requiring the Landowner Group to either fully fund in advance the City’s preparation of the ISPP, or to prepare the ISPP at its cost while fully funding in advance the City’s peer review and oversight consulting services; f. consistent with the requirements of the Secondary Plan, an agreement that the Landowner Group shall not apply for any development approval until: i. all required environmental assessments for sanitary sewer and water infrastructure are completed to the satisfaction of the Region of Durham; ii. all required environmental assessments for transportation infrastructure are completed to the satisfaction of the Region of Durham and the City of Pickering, as set out in sections 11.B.69 d) and e) of the Secondary Plan; iii. the cost sharing agreement amongst benefitting landowners required by section 11.B.66 a) of the Secondary Plan has been executed by all members of the Landowner Group; iv. all the agreements referred to in Recommendations 3 a., b., c., d. and e. of this report have been finalized and executed by the City and the Landowner Group; and v. the MESP, the Neighbourhood Plans, the DC-CBCBs, the FIS and the ISPP are approved by the City. 4. That staff be directed to include expenditures for studies and related items for the implementation of the Secondary Plan in future current budget submissions; 5. That staff continue to engage and collaborate with First Nations rights holders in the preparation of the MESP, the Neighbourhood Plans, Scoped Subwatershed Study Phase 3, the required Environmental Assessments, and all other documents and studies as may be necessary to complete the planning processes for the Secondary Plan area; 6. That the City Clerk advise the Williams Treaties First Nations, all statutory commenting agencies, the Landowner Group, the Region of Durham, delegates to the November 10, 2025 Statutory Public Meeting and respective Council meeting, delegates to the March 2, 2026 Planning & Development Committee and respective Council meeting, and interested parties of Council’s decision on Pickering Official Plan Amendment 54, which PLN 03-26 March 2, 2026 Page 4 adds policies and designations regarding the Secondary Plan and other general policies to the Pickering Official Plan; 7. That appropriate City of Pickering officials be authorized to take the actions necessary to implement the Recommendations in this Report. 1.0 Executive Summary: The purpose of this report is to request Council’s approval of the planning and implementation framework that will guide the creation of the Northeast Pickering community. The Northeast Pickering Secondary Plan (the “Secondary Plan”) forms part of Attachment 1. A map of the Northeast Pickering Secondary Plan area is provided as Attachment 2. The Secondary Plan covers an area of approximately 1,763 hectares and is expected to be home to an estimated 72,000 people and 9,700 jobs. The goal is for the Northeast Pickering community to develop incrementally over time into a sustainable and complete community that offers a variety of housing types and tenures for people in all stages of life. The first step in the creation of the new community is the approval of the Secondary Plan. New homes and businesses will continue to be built in the Seaton area, and in downtown Pickering, for many more years. The Northeast Pickering community represents the City’s long-range growth up to and beyond 2051. Following the approval of the Secondary Plan, a significant amount of planning and infrastructure investment will be needed before development will be able to proceed. This report describes the proposed Secondary Plan along with the next steps in the overall planning process. Working collaboratively with the North East Pickering Landowners Group Inc. (the “Landowner Group”), City staff will continue to oversee the further planning and related studies that will include continued public and agency input, and engagement with First Nations. It is recommended that Council: •Adopt Official Plan Amendment 54 for the Northeast Pickering Secondary Plan; and •Approve the implementation framework for the Northeast Secondary Plan, set out in Report PLN 03-26. 2.0 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; Advance Innovation & Responsible Planning to Support a Connected, Well-Serviced Community; Lead & Advocate for Environmental Stewardship, Innovation & Resiliency; Strengthen Existing & Build New Partnerships; and Foster an Engaged & Informed Community. PLN 03-26 March 2, 2026 Page 5 3.0 Financial Implications: A key fundamental principle as it relates to municipal finance is that “growth should pay for growth.” This means that new infrastructure such as roads, parks, fire stations, and their corresponding costs (capital and operating) should be borne by the development and/or new property owners rather than existing taxpayers. This approach protects existing taxpayers from higher property taxes or user fees that subsidize municipal infrastructure that will serve new residents. When followed, this principle focuses existing resources on maintaining existing services rather than on the expansion of municipal services. Recommendation 3c., establishes the funding strategy for the Fiscal Impact Study (FIS) and operational parameters to address any possible funding shortfall. The result of approving the Secondary Plan is that the City will need to provide significant public services in the future. The costs for providing these services can be broken down into three categories – land, capital, and operating costs. 3.1 Land Costs Beyond the parkland that the City is authorized to receive at no cost under the Planning Act, the City will need to acquire additional land for parks and public facilities (fire stations, libraries, recreation complexes, operations facility, etc.). Recommendation 3d., of this report proposes that staff negotiate with the Landowner Group to acquire those public lands. Based on the outcome of those negotiations, Council may need to decide whether to financially invest in future services or reduce future services for Northeast Pickering. 3.2 Capital Costs Capital costs include constructing and furnishing City buildings (fire stations, libraries, recreation complexes, operations facility) and parks. The projected capital costs will be determined by the forthcoming FIS as referenced in Recommendation 3c., to this report. Capital costs are recovered, in part, through Development Charges that are paid by developers with the issuance of each building permit (prior to occupancy of the associated building). 3.3 Operating Costs Operating costs include the ongoing expenses to provide services and to operate and maintain public facilities. The projected operating costs will be determined by the forthcoming FIS as referenced in Recommendation 3c. to this report. These costs are typically recovered through property taxes from the new homes and businesses that are constructed. In addition to the cost issues presented above, a component of the FIS is to calculate and analyze the property tax yield from the proposed development. The property tax yield includes both residential and non-residential (commercial and industrial) development. The property tax revenues are then applied to offset the three major cost inputs that may or may not result in a funding gap. It is staff’s intent to address any possible funding gap through negotiations with the Landowners Group. PLN 03-26 March 2, 2026 Page 6 4.0 Discussion: 4.1 Purpose The purpose of this report is to request Council’s approval of the planning and implementation framework that will guide the creation of the Northeast Pickering community. 4.2 Report Outcomes Approval of the report recommendations will have three outcomes: 1. Approve the Northeast Pickering Secondary Plan as Amendment 54 to the Pickering Official Plan; 2. Establish a multi-part implementation strategy for the on-going planning and development of the Secondary Plan area; and 3. Reinforce the City’s commitment to engagement with First Nations throughout the ensuing planning processes of the Secondary Plan Area. The Secondary Plan amendment will become a new chapter in the Pickering Official Plan, adding policies and schedules that are intended to direct the development for this urban area of Pickering, to 2051 and beyond (see Northeast Pickering Secondary Plan, Exhibit “A” to Attachment 1). Official Plan Amendment 54 includes the recommended Secondary Plan as well as amendments to associated sections of the Official Plan. Following the Secondary Plan approval, there are seven key components that must be undertaken and completed prior to development. These components include: 1. the satisfactory completion of a Master Environmental Servicing Plan; 2. the satisfactory completion of all Neighbourhood Plans; 3. the satisfactory completion of a Fiscal Impact Study; 4. the execution of a Master Parks and Community Lands Agreement; 5. the satisfactory completion of an Infrastructure Staging and Phasing Plan; 6. the execution of a Cost Sharing Agreement amongst benefiting landowners; and 7. the satisfactory completion of the requirements of Recommendation 2f., of Report PLN 03-26 prior to the submission of any development applications. These components will facilitate the completion of environmental assessments for both local and Regional services such as water, sanitary servicing, and transportation facilities. An overview of each of these key components is provided in section 4.12 of this report, following background to, and discussion of, the Secondary Plan. During these planning and development processes, the City will continue to engage with First Nations as part of the City’s commitment to relationship-building. PLN 03-26 March 2, 2026 Page 7 4.3 Background On June 28, 2021, Council directed staff to initiate work on a secondary plan for a new community in Northeast Pickering (see Report PLN 31-21 and Resolution #625/21). Following a competitive bidding process, a multi-disciplinary team, led by SGL Planning & Design Inc., was awarded this project on April 25, 2022. Over the course of the project, numerous technical background reports were prepared to identify existing conditions, evaluate future community needs, and inform design opportunities and constraints. The technical background work was further supported by consultation with various City departments, external agencies, Indigenous rightsholders, and the public. Further details on the project consultation are contained in sections 4.6 and 4.8 of this report. In December 2024, the Province approved all remaining parts of the Envision Durham Official Plan, which added Northeast Pickering into the Pickering urban boundary, designating it as “2051 Urban Expansion Areas”. On November 10, 2025, a Statutory Public Meeting was held to present and receive public comments on the final draft Secondary Plan (see text of Information Report 10-25, Attachment 3). Based on comments received, additional technical information from the Scoped Subwatershed Study, and further analysis, staff are recommending select changes to the proposed official plan amendment to refine certain implementation policies, reflect new information on natural heritage designations, and revise the location of certain recreation and community facilities. Figure 1 below shows the sequence and timeline between the preparation and release of the early draft of the Northeast Pickering Secondary Plan to its consideration by Planning & Development Committee on March 2, 2026. PLN 03-26 March 2, 2026 Page 8 Figure 1: Timeline of Secondary Plan Release 4.4 The Northeast Pickering Secondary Plan (see Recommendation 1) Northeast Pickering is envisioned as an innovative, complete and sustainable community that will provide significant residential and employment opportunities as the City continues to grow. This urban community will accommodate approximately 72,000 people and 9,700 jobs once it is completed. The Secondary Plan is being holistically planned as a complete community, focused on the well-being of its residents and the sustainability of its natural environment. This will be accomplished through innovative approaches to people-centered design, sustainability, and land stewardship. The development of the Secondary Plan was directed by the following Guiding Principles of characteristics that Northeast Pickering should possess: •Multi-Generational Community •Vibrant Public Spaces •Connected and Walkable •Sustainable Community •Land Stewardship •Economic Diversity •Compatible Interface, and •Logical Growth PLN 03-26 March 2, 2026 Page 9 The Secondary Plan includes the following structural elements: The Natural Heritage System protects and enhances natural heritage features, the linkages between them, and their ecological and hydrological functions. It is essential to determine what is to be protected before it is determined what is to be developed. The Transportation Network for the Secondary Plan utilizes and expands existing roads, proposes a new interchange for Highway 407 at Westney Road, and recommends a high-order transit corridor through the centre of the community that will provide long-term connections to surrounding areas. The Transportation Network will also be supported by a series of new arterial, collector and local roads, in the Secondary Plan area. This connectivity will lead to a community that will be transit-friendly and support all modes of transportation. Within the Secondary Plan are the following proposed land uses: A centralized Regional Centre that will be the heart of the community and will serve as the “uptown” for Northeast Pickering. It will contain the greatest heights and densities with mid-rise and high-rise buildings up to 20 storeys. Community Nodes and Local Nodes will accommodate regular shopping and service needs. These mixed-use areas will also include diverse forms of housing. Community Nodes will permit mixed use and residential mid-rise buildings up to 8 storeys in height. Local Nodes will be located within Medium Density Areas and will permit stand alone and mixed-use buildings up to 4 storeys. Supported by high-order transit service, Mixed Corridor Areas will offer connectivity through the community supported by a mix of shopping, services, and housing. Mid-rise, mixed-use buildings and mid-rise residential buildings will be permitted up to 6 storeys. Urban Residential Areas will comprise the majority of the Secondary Plan area. Low Density Areas residential will be located at the centre of most neighbourhoods. Medium Density Areas residential areas, permitting 3-6 storeys in height, will be located along major roads where it will benefit from close access to transit services. A select number of High Density Areas, permitting 5-12 storeys in height, will be located at key intersections. Prestige Employment Areas are located on both the north and south side of Highway 407 to provide high visibility and access to major transportation routes. These areas will provide jobs ranging from manufacturing and processing of goods to warehousing and logistics. Business Areas are for offices, commercial, institutional, and public uses that are no longer permitted in Employment Areas. In addition, it provides a destination for auto-centric uses, such as big-box stores, auto dealerships, and repair garages that are not well suited in dense neighbourhoods. In addition, this new community will be supported by a variety of essential public services and amenities such as schools, parks, recreation complexes, emergency services, etc. PLN 03-26 March 2, 2026 Page 10 A detailed description of the proposed land uses is provided in the Recommended Northeast Pickering Secondary Plan, Exhibit “A” to Attachment 1. 4.5 The Work That Was Done To help inform the creation of the Secondary Plan, several technical background reports were prepared. A list of those studies is included below. A summary of each of the technical background reports is attached (see Summary of Technical Reports, Attachment 4). 1. Agricultural Impact Assessment 2. Archaeological Assessment 3. Cultural Heritage Resource Assessment (initial assessment complete, detailed assessment to be completed prior to the preparation of the Neighbourhood Plans) 4. Employment Lands Strategy 5. Integrated Transportation/Transit Strategy (recently updated) 6. Community Placemaking Study 7. Affordable Housing Strategy 8. Sustainability Report 9. Retail Market Study 10.Community Services and Facilities Report 11.Municipal Servicing Analysis 12.Natural Heritage and Hazard Report 13.Scoped Subwatershed Study (SSWS) (Phases 1 and 2 completed, Phase 3 yet to be completed) In addition to the above background reports, a brief update of the recently updated and/or ongoing studies is included below. 4.5.1 The Integrated Transportation/Transit Strategy The The Integrated Transportation/Transit Strategy (ITTS) identifies the required improvements and changes needed to serve the planned growth in Northeast Pickering. Based on the draft land use plan, the ITTS was updated, leading to a series of recommendations that will guide the detailed planning to be done through the future Neighbourhood Plan process (see ITTS Report, Attachment 5). These recommendations include: •a new interchange on Highway 407 at Westney Road, •protect for an east-west, high-order transit corridor through Northeast Pickering, •the addition of new roads and the upgrading of existing roads, •street designs that prioritize sustainable modes of travel (walking, cycling, transit); and •direction for bike lane, sidewalk, and trail infrastructure. 4.5.2 Scoped Subwatershed Study The Scoped Subwatershed Study Phase 1 identified the existing conditions (form and function) of the water and natural systems within the Secondary Plan study area and documented the initial constraints on development. The SSWS Phase 2 was recently PLN 03-26 March 2, 2026 Page 11 circulated for review and is included as Attachment 6 to this report. It outlines the impacts of the preferred land use plan and provides preliminary management strategies to ensure that the integrity of the water and natural systems is maintained or enhanced. Since Phase 1, a number of natural features were further reviewed, and the Natural Heritage System mapping was revised accordingly. The SSWS Phase 3 (expected to be completed in 2026) will summarize the natural and water-based recommendations, identify the scope for additional/future studies, as well as provide guidance on implementation, and monitoring. As of writing this report, the conservation authorities and First Nations were still completing their review of the SSWS Phase 2. Any technical modifications that are required will be incorporated into the SSWS Phase 3 before it is finalized. These modifications will then be reflected in the more detailed work that will be completed within the forthcoming Master Environmental Servicing Plan. 4.5.3 Cultural Heritage Assessment The Cultural Heritage Assessment provided a baseline review of potential cultural heritage resources within the Secondary Plan area. Staff have identified 10 properties which require a detailed evaluation and assessment. The conclusions of this detailed assessment will assist staff in confirming whether designation is merited under the Ontario Heritage Act. These legacy structures and their associated landscapes will help inform the layout and land use planning of the future Neighbourhood Plans. 4.6 What We Heard – First Nations Engagement All the Williams Treaties First Nations were contacted at the initiation of the Secondary Plan, and at various points in the process, to engage early with Indigenous communities and ensure that their interests were considered in the creation of the Secondary Plan. This outreach led the City to enter into a Relationship Agreement with the Mississaugas of Scugog Island First Nation (MSIFN). The purpose of the Relationship Agreement was to assist the MSIFN with the resources needed to share their insights and comments on the development of the Secondary Plan. Amongst the comments received, the MSIFN requested that a Cumulative Impact Assessment be completed to evaluate what the development of Northeast Pickering would mean for the project area and the surrounding lands. The purpose of this type of study is to learn how small changes over time collectively result in a long-range impact. The SSWS, that is being completed in conjunction with the Secondary Plan, will evaluate impacts to the natural environment and will recommend development constraints and mitigation measures. The City recognizes the unique role Indigenous communities have in contributing their perspectives and traditional knowledge to land use planning decisions. Engagement with First Nations will continue through the Neighbourhood Planning process, as well as other PLN 03-26 March 2, 2026 Page 12 processes such as the Master Environmental Servicing Plan, the SSWS Phase 3, and required environmental assessments. Sufficient financial resources will need to be assigned to the forthcoming planning exercises to ensure effective engagement with First Nations can be achieved. 4.7 Public and Agency Engagement 4.7.1 Public Information Centres and Online Surveys Three public information centres, together with online surveys, were hosted to support the creation of the Secondary Plan. Public Information Centre #1 (May 2023) sought input on the draft vision and guiding principles for the project. Public Information Centre #2 (March 2024) presented three land use concepts for the Northeast Pickering community. Public input was used in the finalization of evaluation criteria and the development of a Preferred Land Use Plan. Public Information Centre #3 (June 2025) gathered comments on the Preferred Land Use Plan for Northeast Pickering. Summaries from all events and surveys can be viewed on the project web page – pickering.ca/NEP. The final draft Secondary Plan was presented at a Statutory Public Meeting on November 10, 2025. Verbal comments and written submissions from the Public Meeting have been used to revise the Secondary Plan policies and schedules. Following the Statutory Public Meeting, a final survey was released to receive feedback on the final draft Secondary Plan. The Survey #4 Summary of Findings Report is included as Attachment 7 to this report. 4.7.2 Project Web Page During the Secondary Plan process, major project milestones, surveys, and technical background reports, were posted to the project web page (pickering.ca/NEP), providing updates and engagement opportunities to the public. 4.8 What We Heard About the Draft Secondary Plan Following the release of the draft Secondary Plan, comments were received from various agencies, stakeholders, and the public. A summary of selected comments is included below. A full list of the comments received, along with responses, is included in the Comment Matrix provided as Attachment 8. Table 1: Comments on the draft Secondary Plan Written Comments Verbal Delegations at the Statutory Public Meeting 32 11 PLN 03-26 March 2, 2026 Page 13 4.8.1 Comments from Agencies and City Departments The Toronto and Region Conservation Authority (TRCA) suggested minor additions to the Secondary Plan policies related to the Carruthers Creek Watershed Hydrology Update Project, vegetation protection zones, stormwater management, and general comments on the land use schedule. No comments made by TRCA resulted in changes to the Land Use Schedule. Comments and responses are included in the Comment Matrix (see Attachment 8). Comments received from Trans-Northern Pipeline Inc., Parks Canada, and Durham District School Board are included in the Comment Matrix (see Attachment 8). None of these comments required any changes to the Secondary Plan. The Region of Durham, other agencies, and City Departments have stated that they have no further comments that need to be addressed prior to the approval of the draft Secondary Plan. Any future comments will be resolved through the MESP, the Neighbourhood Plan stage, and required environmental assessments. 4.8.2 Comments from Landowners Comments were received from various landowners within the Secondary Plan area as well as from the Landowner Group. Comments and responses received by November 24, 2025, are included in the Comment Matrix (see Attachment 8). Following the Statutory Public Meeting, staff arranged meetings with all landowners in the Secondary Plan area that submitted comments. These meetings allowed staff to review the proposed policies and land uses for their properties and better understand their interests and describe the next steps involved in the planning process. Additional comments from two landowners were received after the finalization of the recommended Secondary Plan. These comments relate to the status of natural heritage features on their respective properties. The Secondary Plan policies allow for refinements to the Natural Heritage System to occur without amendment to the plan. The new information received from these landowners will be reviewed as part of the forthcoming MESP process. The Natural Heritage System may then be revised, as appropriate, without the need of an amendment to the Secondary Plan. 4.8.3 Comments from the Public On November 10, 2025, the Statutory Public Meeting was held. Notice of the meeting was provided by mail to all property owners in the Northeast Pickering Secondary Plan area and all property owners within 150 metres of the Secondary Plan area. The notice was also provided by email to everyone who registered to be kept informed of this project. Additionally, the Public Meeting Notice was posted on the City’s website, the project webpage, circulated through the City’s social media channels, and through an advertisement in the Toronto Star on October 21, 2025. PLN 03-26 March 2, 2026 Page 14 A summary of the comments received from the Statutory Public Meeting, along with responses from staff and the consulting team, is included in the Comment Matrix (see Attachment 8). 4.8.4 Comments from the Agricultural Community A number of delegations and written comments to the Statutory Public Meeting were received from the agricultural community. This group requested that the City further engage with the agricultural community. On December 9, 2025, staff gave a presentation on the Secondary Plan to the Durham Region Agricultural Advisory Committee (DAAC). Comments received from DAAC recommended: •effective edge management policies that will help prevent conflicts between farms and surrounding development •managing the movement of topsoil, and •accommodating urban agriculture These comments will not directly impact the layout of land uses within the Secondary Plan. However, these comments will provide valuable direction to the Official Plan Review project (Pickering Forward), to the forthcoming update to the City’s Fill By-law, and will help inform the design of new and upgraded roads throughout the rural area. 4.9 Changes Made to the Secondary Plan Since the Statutory Public Meeting Informed by the comments received at and following the Statutory Public Meeting, a number of changes were made to the Secondary Plan policies and schedules. A summary of the changes is listed below. 4.9.1 Changes to the Secondary Plan Policies a. Clarify natural heritage protection policies; b. Permit a limited number of stacked townhouse dwellings in select locations within Community Nodes to assist in transitioning between areas of lower and higher density; c. Permit a lower density of homes on lands that abut the hamlet of Greenwood to help achieve a more compatible transition; d. Identify the opportunity of integrating schools into the podiums of mixed-use buildings; e. Direct all future transportation infrastructure to be guided by the Integrated Transportation/Transit Strategy Report; and f. Clarify the equitable distribution of costs between landowners within a cost sharing agreement. 4.9.2 Changes to the Secondary Plan Schedules a. To better allocate recreational services throughout the community, the locations of Recreation Complex in the south end of the Secondary Plan and the Community Centre located near the northeast corner of the Secondary Plan, were switched; PLN 03-26 March 2, 2026 Page 15 b. To better reflect land use, access, and user requirements, the Sportsplex was moved from the centre of the plan closer to Westney Road; c. The future locations of certain public uses could not be determined at this time. Therefore, the following statement was added to the legend of the Land Use Schedule, “Lands yet to be identified for future fire stations, operations facilities, police stations, ambulance stations, Regional works facilities, etc.”; d. Within the northeast corner of the plan, various public uses around the Community Node were shifted to better reflect functional land area requirements; and e. The SSWS Phase 2 has now evaluated all headwater drainage features. Those features identified as “protection” or “conservation” have been added to the Natural Heritage System on the Land Use Schedule. 4.10 What Comes After the Approval of the Secondary Plan Subject to Council’s approval of the Secondary Plan (see Recommendation 1), staff have recommended an implementation framework, that is also subject to Council’s approval (see Recommendation 2). Further planning work will be required. Figure 2 provides a simplified sequence of the steps and approvals involved in moving from the approval of the Secondary Plan to the approval of future development applications. Figure 2: Sequence of Northeast Pickering approvals The Secondary Plan identifies an implementation framework to be undertaken following its approval. The implementation framework will require a set of agreements between the City and the Landowner Group. PLN 03-26 March 2, 2026 Page 16 4.11 Implementing the Northeast Pickering Secondary Plan 4.11.1 Overview of Implementation Framework Approval of the Secondary Plan will guide the future development of this area. This guidance will be further refined as part of the subsequent Neighbourhood Plan process. However, the Neighbourhood Plans are only one of several implementation processes that must be completed, as further described in the Secondary Plan. Each of the implementation processes will result in an agreement between the City and the Landowner Group (see “Agreements”, Step 2 in Figure 2 above). Securing these agreements will preserve the City’s interests as staff work collaboratively with the Landowners Group on implementing the Secondary Plan. The recommended agreements will provide direction and concurrence on the preparation and funding of the following: •a single Master Environmental Servicing Plan (MESP) for the entire Northeast Pickering Secondary Plan area •eight Neighbourhood Plans •a Fiscal Impact Study •a Master Parks and Community Lands Agreement •an Infrastructure Staging and Phasing Plan These agreements will be forwarded to Council for approval. In addition, the Landowners Group will need to: •enter into a Cost Sharing Agreement amongst themselves, for the front funding of and equitable distribution of development costs for required plans, studies, environmental assessments, infrastructure, etc; and •satisfy the requirements of Recommendation 2f., of Recommendation Report PLN 03- 26, prior to the submission of any development applications. 4.11.2 Public Engagement Further engagement with the public will be included as part of the implementation program. This engagement will both share technical information and seek local knowledge and context that will help inform the detailed planning for Northeast Pickering. 4.12 Details of the Implementation Framework A summary of each of the implementation requirements for the Secondary Plan is included below. 4.12.1 Master Environmental Servicing Plan (see Recommendation 3a.) Completion and approval by the City of a single MESP is one of the requirements that must be completed prior to the Landowner Group submitting development applications. Following the approval of the Secondary Plan, and the completion of the SSWS, work will begin on the PLN 03-26 March 2, 2026 Page 17 MESP to identify the required infrastructure needed to support future urban development in Northeast Pickering. As part of the MESP, future studies such as the Infrastructure Staging and Phasing Plan will be prepared that will guide the orderly and cost-efficient delivery of water and sanitary infrastructure improvements required to service each neighbourhood. The MESP will be prepared collaboratively by the City, the Region and the Landowner Group with costs being funded solely by the Landowner Group. Included in the MESP will be the identification of City services (stormwater) and Regional services (stormwater, sanitary sewer, and water) for Northeast Pickering. 4.12.2 Neighbourhood Plans (see Recommendation 3b.) Completion of all Neighbourhood Plans, and their adoption as amendments to the Pickering Official Plan, is another of the requirements that must be met prior to the Landowner Group submitting development applications. In conjunction with the preparation of the MESP, Neighbourhood Plans will be prepared to provide a more detailed arrangement of natural features, stormwater infrastructure, roads, trails, schools, parks, community facilities, and development blocks. Similar to the Secondary Plan process, the preparation of Neighbourhood Plans will rely on both technical background and public input. The final Neighbourhood Plans will require City Council approval as amendments to the Pickering Official Plan. The Neighbourhood Plans will be prepared collaboratively by the City and the Landowner Group with costs being fully funded by the Landowner Group. 4.12.3 Fiscal Impact Study, and Development Charges and Community Benefits Charges By-laws (see Recommendation 3c.) Section 4.14 has additional discussion on the fiscal impacts. The FIS will be funded solely by the Landowner Group. Adoption of the City’s Development Charges and Community Benefits Charges By-laws, and Council approval of the FIS for Northeast Pickering is a third requirement that must be completed prior to the Landowner Group submitting development applications. The By-laws and FIS will be prepared by the City and be fully funded by the Landowner Group. On November 26, 2025, the Durham Region Council directed Regional staff to undertake a comprehensive review of the options for including the Secondary Plan lands in the Region’s Development Charge (DC) By-laws, including associated policies. 4.12.4 Master Parks and Community Lands Agreement (see Recommendation 3d.) The MPCLA is a fourth requirement that must be completed and executed, prior to the Landowner Group submitting development applications. The Northeast Pickering community will require a variety of public uses, such as parks, libraries, recreation complexes, operations facilities, and fire halls. Based on the layout of the new neighbourhoods, some landowners may have a greater amount of these public uses on their property. The MPCLA will determine PLN 03-26 March 2, 2026 Page 18 the appropriate compensation to be provided from the landowners who dedicate less or no land for public uses, to those landowners dedicate more land for public use. The MPCLA will be prepared and fully funded by the Landowner Group, in consultation with the City. 4.12.5 Infrastructure Staging and Phasing Plan (see Recommendation 3e.) Completion and approval by City Council of the ISPP is a fifth requirement that must be completed prior to the Landowner Group submitting development applications. The ISPP describes the sequence of development and capital investments over time (short, medium, long-term) to ensure orderly growth, align servicing with demand, and manage costs. The ISPP will help ensure that critical services precede or coincide with development. The ISPP will be prepared by the Landowners Group and the City, in consultation with the Region of Durham, to the satisfaction of the City, and will be fully funded by the Landowners Group. 4.12.6 Cost Sharing Agreement amongst Benefitting Landowners The existence of a Cost Sharing Agreement between benefitting landowners is another requirement that must be demonstrated to the City prior to the Landowner Group submitting development applications. The Cost Sharing Agreement is a private contract between the landowners to equitably distribute the costs of infrastructure (e.g., sewers, roads, stormwater ponds). It enables coordinated development, so that developers who pay early for infrastructure improvements are reimbursed by developers who use that infrastructure but develop later. This agreement will be administered by a private trustee. Prior to issuing future development approvals, the City will require confirmation that developers have met their obligations under this agreement. The Cost Sharing Agreement will be prepared and fully funded by the Landowner Group. 4.12.7 Authority for City staff to include expenditures in future current budget submissions (see Recommendation 4) As noted above, the Landowner Group is expected to fund the required studies and plans to implement the Secondary Plan. To take advantage of the funding, staff require the corresponding expenditure amounts in the current budget. It is therefore recommended that Council authorize and direct staff to include appropriate expenditures for studies and related items for the implementation of the Secondary Plan in future years’ budget submissions. 4.13 Implications of the Secondary Plan for Pickering – Public Lands to be Acquired To support the new community in Northeast Pickering, a variety of public services will be provided by the City and the Region along with numerous schools. Pickering will receive some of the land it needs for City services as part of future development approvals. However, the City will also need to use other means to acquire the full amount of lands that are needed. PLN 03-26 March 2, 2026 Page 19 A breakdown of the required public lands is included in Table 2 below. In addition, a detailed summary and explanation of all the City’s public land needs for Northeast Pickering is provided in Attachment 9. The implication of these land needs is further discussed in section 4.14. Table 2: Public Land Needs for Northeast Pickering Total land need Land acquired through development approvals (estimate) Additional land for the City to acquire Parkland 86.4 Ha 58 Ha 28.4 Ha Urban = 11.4 Ha Rural = 17 Ha Libraries, recreation and community facilities 17.5 Ha 0 Ha 17.5 Ha Fire Halls 1.2 Ha 0 Ha 1.2 Ha Operation facility 3.5 Ha 0 Ha 3.5 Ha Total 108.6 Ha 58 Ha 50.6 Ha In addition to City services, the Region of Durham will need to separately acquire the lands they need for Regional services (i.e., Emergency Medical Services, Durham Regional Police, Durham Transit, etc.). 4.14 Implications of the Secondary Plan for Pickering – Fiscal Impact Study The future development of Northeast Pickering will create additional municipal service demands on the City of Pickering. In order to maintain the City’s current and/or desired levels of service, the FIS will evaluate the capital and operating costs for City services that will be generated by the proposed development. This includes the land, building, and equipment/furnishings, staffing, operating and maintenance costs for: •Parkland in excess of the land that will be dedicated under the Planning Act •sportsplex, recreation/community centres and libraries •municipal operations facility •fire stations, and •land for road widenings The City is anticipating to need 86.4 Ha of parkland to meet the needs of a population of approximately 72,000. This amount of parkland is based on the parkland rate of 1.2 Ha per 1,000 people that is recommended by the City’s Recreation and Parks 10-Year Plan that was endorsed by Council in September 2024 (see Resolution #575/24, Attachment 10). The Planning Act authorizes the City to acquire parkland, in conjunction with development approvals, at a prescribed rate. The proposed development in Northeast Pickering is estimated PLN 03-26 March 2, 2026 Page 20 to yield 58 Ha of parkland dedication under the Planning Act. To achieve the recommended service level, the City will need to acquire an additional 28.4 Ha of parkland. In addition to parkland, the City will also need to acquire sufficient land for other City facilities such as fire stations, libraries, recreation and community facilities, as well as a municipal operations facility (totaling a further 22.2 Ha). To maintain service levels, without increasing the tax levy, the FIS will apply a fiscally sustainable growth framework. The FIS will examine approaches to funding growth-related capital needs — for example, whether the City should pursue area-specific Development Charges or front-ending developer agreements or incorporate the related costs within a City- wide Development Charges By-law. The FIS will identify the capital, operating, lifecycle, and debt-servicing costs associated with new infrastructure, determine which are recoverable through growth funding tools (i.e., Development Charges, Community Benefits Charges, and parkland provisions) and highlight any residual costs requiring tax or rate support. Infrastructure delivery will be staged to align with the timing of growth-related revenues, including Development Charges, Community Benefits Charges, and property tax yield. Infrastructure sequencing will be structured to minimize interim debt exposure and protect existing taxpayers from front-ending growth costs. The Fiscal Impact Study will evaluate capital, operating, and lifecycle implications to support fiscally sustainable implementation and ensure that growth does not outpace the City’s ability to maintain established service levels. This approach reinforces the principle that “growth should pay for growth”, ensuring that infrastructure cost recovery is aligned with development, lifecycle costs are incorporated up front, and debt pressures are carefully managed to avoid future structural gaps. The report recommendations list the agreements that the City will need to negotiate with the Landowner Group to facilitate the implementation of the Secondary Plan. Ideally, these agreements would be negotiated before the approval of the Secondary Plan. Should Council deem it appropriate to approve the Secondary Plan at this time, staff will use all best efforts to negotiate these agreements to the best benefit to the City. 4.15 Planning Policy Conformity Analysis The draft Secondary Plan is consistent with the Provincial Planning Statement, conforms to the Envision Durham Official Plan, and conforms to the general purpose and intent of the Pickering Official Plan. A detailed planning policy conformity analysis is provided in Attachment 11. 4.15.1 Provincial Planning Statement (2024) The Secondary Plan focuses on growth within a designated settlement area, planning for long- term housing and employment needs, protecting environmental and cultural resources, and aligning servicing and phasing with broader growth management objectives. The implementation work for the Secondary Plan will need to demonstrate that the associated PLN 03-26 March 2, 2026 Page 21 infrastructure and public service facilities (such as recreation services) will be financially viable over their life cycle. 4.15.2Envision Durham and Pickering Official Plans The Envision Durham Official Plan establishes the long-term regional growth framework. As approved by the Province, Envision Durham identifies the Secondary Plan as “2051 Urban Expansion Areas”. It includes “Community Areas”, “Employment Areas” and “Regional Centre” land use designations. The Secondary Plan implements this framework by proposing a detailed local land use structure supported by technical analysis and secondary planning. If approved, the Secondary Plan will be an amendment to the Pickering Official Plan. The more detailed planning that will occur for each of the eight neighbourhoods will also be included as future amendments to the Official Plan. 4.15.3 Continued Engagement and Collaboration with First Nations (see Recommendation 5) Staff will continue to engage and collaborate with First Nations rights holders in the preparation of the MESP, the Neighbourhood Plans, the Scoped Subwatershed Study Phase 3, the required Environmental Assessments, and all other documents and studies as may be necessary to complete the planning processes for the Secondary Plan area. This engagement and collaboration with First Nations is intended to inform the project outcomes and support relationship-building. All appropriate capacity funding, required by First Nations to participate in the forthcoming work, will be fully funded by the Landowner Group. 4.16 Conclusion By 2051, Pickering is projected to be the second most populous City in Durham Region (behind only Oshawa). This is based on a variety of factors including the steady market demand for housing in the Greater Toronto and Hamilton Area, as well as the amount of land in Pickering that has been allocated for growth by other levels of government. Provincial policy requires Pickering to plan and prepare for that growth. The lands within the Secondary Plan are planned for a population of 72,000 and 9,700 jobs. This area will help to address the City’s long-range growth needs up to and beyond 2051. Based on the continued availability of development land in the Seaton community, and the intensification in South Pickering, it is not expected that development in Northeast Pickering will need to begin for several more years. However, the land use planning that occurs now will support the infrastructure planning that is needed to prepare for future growth. The recommended Secondary Plan is the result of a thorough technical review and public engagement process. The land use plan will be further refined and modified through the forthcoming MESP and the preparation of Neighbourhood Plans. The value of the recommended Secondary Plan is that it provides a clear land use framework for the creation of a complete community that balances: •Natural heritage protection and enhancement •Cultural heritage preservation and reuse PLN 03-26 March 2, 2026 Page 22 •Homes for all stages of life and household types •Mix of commercial services and employment areas •Associated public services and amenities Council’s approval of the Secondary Plan is a commitment to sustainable growth, that is fiscally responsible and will result in a complete community. The agreements and the resulting plans and studies included in the recommendations will equip staff to implement the land use framework. These agreements will ensure that: •both the City’s and the public’s interests are represented in the forthcoming planning process •to the extent possible, “growth will pay for growth” •the City acquires the lands it needs for public uses •development does not outpace the provision of public services, and •all landowners within the Secondary Plan area bear the responsibilities and reap the benefits from future development 5.0 Recommendation Council authorized staff to undertake the necessary work to complete the Northeast Pickering Secondary Plan. Recommended Amendment 54 to the Pickering Official Plan incorporates appropriate modifications to the Draft Amendment that was first proposed in the Information Report 10-25 and addresses comments received from the Statutory Public Meeting. The proposed implementation framework will ensure that all necessary planning is completed before construction can commence. It will also protect long-term public interests and preserve the City’s fiscal responsibilities. Staff recommends: •That the recommended Official Plan Amendment be approved, and the adopting By- law, be enacted; •That the implementing agreements be prepared and brought forward to Council for approval; •That, upon the execution of those agreements, staff take necessary actions to initiate, in collaboration with the Northeast Pickering Landowners Group Inc., where appropriate, the implementing plans and studies including the Master Environmental Servicing Plan, the Neighbourhood Plans, the Fiscal Impact Study, the Master Parks and Community Lands Agreement, and the Infrastructure Staging and Phasing Plan; •That staff identify appropriate expenditures in future years’ budget submissions to cover studies related to Northeast Pickering; and •That staff continue to engage with First Nations during the remaining planning and development processes. PLN 03-26 March 2, 2026 Page 23 Attachments: 1. Draft By-law to adopt Recommended Official Plan Amendment 54 to the Pickering Official Plan the (Northeast Pickering Secondary Plan) 2. Map of Northeast Pickering 3. Text of Information Report 10-25 (without Attachments) 4. Summary of Technical Reports 5. Integrated Transportation/Transit Strategy (without Appendices) 6. Scoped Subwatershed Study Phase 2 7. Survey#4 Summary of Findings Report 8. Comments Matrix 9. Detailed Summary and Explanation of Public Land Needs for Northeast Pickering 10. Resolution of Council #575/24 – Endorsement of Recreation and Parks 10-Year Plan 11. Detailed Planning Policy Conformity Analysis Prepared By: Zahrah Khan, Senior Project Manager, Special Projects Prepared By: Paul Wirch, Principal Planner, Policy Prepared By: Catherine Rose, Chief Planner Approved/Endorsed By:Kyle Bentley, Director, City Development & CBO Approved/Endorsed By:Fiaz Jadoon, Director, Economic Development & Strategic Projects Approved/Endorsed By:Stan Karwowski, Director, Finance & Treasurer Approved/Endorsed By:Richard Holborn, Director, Engineering Services Approved/Endorsed By:Laura Gibbs, Director, Community Services Approved/Endorsed By:Kevin Heathcote, Director, City Infrastructure Approved/Endorsed By:Paul Bigioni, Director, Corporate Services & City Solicitor Recommended for the consideration of Pickering City Council By: Marisa Carpino, M.A. Chief Administrative Officer The Corporation of the City of Pickering By-law No. XXXX/26 Being a By-law to adopt Amendment 54 to the Official Plan for the City of Pickering (OPA 25-003P) Whereas pursuant to the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990 c.p. 13 subsections 17(22) and 21(1), the Council of The Corporation of the City of Pickering may by by-law adopt amendments to the Official Plan for the City of Pickering; Whereas the Council of The Corporation of the City of Pickering deems it advisable to amend the Official Plan of the City of Pickering; 1.Now therefore the Council of The Corporation of the City of Pickering hereby enacts asfollows: That Amendment 54 to the Official Plan for the City of Pickering, attachedhereto as Exihibit “A”, is hereby adopted; 2.This By-law shall come into force and effect on the day of the final passing hereof. By-law passed this 23 day of March, 2026. ________________________________ Kevin Ashe, Mayor ________________________________ Susan Cassel, City Clerk Attachment 1 to Report PLN 03-26 Exhibit "A" to By-law "[Click here and type By-law #]" Amendment 54 to the City of Pickering Official Plan 2 Amendment 54 to the Pickering Official Plan Purpose: The purpose of the Northeast Pickering Secondary Plan is to establish a detailed land use and development framework for the lands in Northeast Pickering which are located within the Urban Area Boundary. The Secondary Plan presents the vision for Northeast Pickering as an innovative, complete and sustainable community and describes the appropriate form of future development. Future development within the Secondary Plan Area will proceed as servicing becomes available and generally based on market demand. Development will be phased according to availability of infrastructure and public service facilities. Existing properties within the Secondary Plan Area may continue to be used in accordance with all uses legally permitted prior to approval of this secondary plan. It is not the intent of this plan to require the development of any property without the consent of the property owner. When existing properties are sold, new owners may continue to use a property in accordance with all uses that were legally permitted prior to the approval of the secondary plan. In instances where the policies and designations contained within this Secondary Plan vary from the policies in the City of Pickering Official Plan, the more specific and detailed policies of this Secondary Plan shall prevail, provided the overall intent of the Official Plan is maintained. Location: The Northeast Pickering Secondary Plan Area encompasses approximately 1,600 hectares of agricultural and rural lands in Northeast Pickering now located within the City’s Urban Area Boundary. The remainder of Pickering’s Urban Area is generally contained south of Highway 407, including the Seaton Urban Area located southwest of Northeast Pickering. The Secondary Plan Area is bordered by the boundary of the Greenbelt Plan to the immediate north, south and west. The Secondary Plan Area is generally bound by Highway 7/Sixth Concession Road to the south, Lake Ridge Road to the east abutting the Town of Whitby boundary, Eighth Concession to the north and Westney Road to the west. The Town of Ajax boundary is located 3 further south of Northeast Pickering along 5th/Fifth Concession Road. Highway 407 transects east-west through the southern third of the Secondary Plan Area. The Rouge National Urban Park and lands previously identified for the future airport are located west of Northeast Pickering. Basis: In June 2021, City of Pickering Council directed staff to initiate work on a secondary plan for a new proposed community in Northeast Pickering. Work on the Northeast Pickering Secondary Plan began in anticipation of the approval of Envision Durham, the Region of Durham’s former Official Plan. As part of the Envision Durham Municipal Comprehensive Review (MCR), the Northeast Pickering Landowners Group requested that the land in Northeast Pickering be considered for Settlement Area Boundary Expansion. In November 2022, the Region recommended the inclusion of land within Northeast Pickering within the Urban Area Boundary. The Durham Regional Official Plan, adopted by Durham Regional Council in May 2023, identified the majority of Northeast Pickering as Community Area (i.e., residential, commercial and institutional lands), with land north and south of Highway 407 identified as Employment Areas. In September 2024, Envision Durham was approved in part, with modifications. The Province withheld certain policies and mapping related to the proposed settlement area boundary expansions in Northeast Pickering to enable additional Indigenous engagement. In December 2024, the Province approved all remaining parts of Envision Durham. This included the settlement area boundary expansions for Northeast Pickering. The Envision Durham Growth Management Study Report anticipated that Northeast Pickering could accommodate as many as 44,910 persons and 4,315 jobs on Community Area designated lands at a density of 52 persons and jobs per hectare, plus an additional 6,600 jobs in the Employment Area. The Northeast Pickering Secondary Plan project was undertaken by a multi-disciplinary team, led by SGL Planning & Design Inc., between 2022 and 2025. The Secondary Plan project was undertaken in four phases, alongside a Scoped Subwatershed Study, which was completed to inform the land use planning work. Phase 1 of the project involved finalization of a Public Engagement Strategy, as well as refinement of the Secondary Plan vision and guiding principles. Phase 4 2 of the project involved the completion of the following technical background studies to help guide future growth and development within the Secondary Plan Area: • Affordable Housing Strategy • Agricultural Assessment • Community Placemaking Study • Community Services and Facilities Report • Cultural Heritage Resource Assessment • Employment Land Strategy • Headwater Drainage Feature Report • Municipal Servicing Analysis Background Report • Natural Heritage and Hazard Background Analysis • Retail Market Study • Stage 1 Archaeological Assessment • Sustainability Report • Transportation Background Report • Phase 1 of the Scoped Subwatershed Study The first Public Information Centre was held in May 2023 to introduce the project, present the draft vision and guiding principles and discuss the opportunities and constraints in planning for a future community in Northeast Pickering. Feedback from the first round of engagement was considered in preparing the draft land use concepts and evaluation criteria. Phase 2 of the project involved the development of three land use concepts, each presenting different ways in which Northeast Pickering could be planned and developed. The land use concepts considered the full build-out of Northeast Pickering with a range of housing types and densities consistent with those used in Seaton, which resulted in a higher population than contemplated in Envision Durham. The consulting team was directed to use the higher population estimate as the basis for planning Northeast Pickering. This additional population would likely be achieved post 2051. A Public Information Centre was held in March 2024 to present the three land use concepts and evaluation criteria. The input received was used in finalizing the evaluation criteria and developing a preferred land use plan for the new community. In June 2025, a Public Information Centre was held to present the preferred land use plan. 5 Phase 3 of the project involved the development of the draft land use plan and secondary plan policies, establishing a detailed land use and development framework for the new community. Environmental mapping and policies relating to the Natural Heritage System and stormwater management were informed by the Phase 1 and 2 Scoped Subwatershed Study. Phase 3 of the Secondary Plan project also involved review with staff and a Steering Committee. Phase 4 of the Secondary Plan project involved the finalization of the Northeast Pickering Secondary Plan, including presentation at the Statutory Public Meeting and final adoption by Council. Actual Revision: The City of Pickering Official Plan is hereby revised by: 1. Amend Chapter 2 to insert the following new sections after “Seaton Urban Area”, including adding new sections 2.16 and 2.17, and renumbering the subsequent sections. Northeast Pickering Urban Area The Northeast Pickering Secondary Plan Area encompasses approximately 1,600 hectares of land in Northeast Pickering. The Secondary Plan is generally bound by Highway 7/Sixth Concession Road to the south, Lake Ridge Road to the east, Eighth Concession to the north and Westney Road to the west. Highway 407 transects east-west through the southern third of the Secondary Plan Area. Envision Durham, the Durham Regional Official Plan, added the Northeast Pickering Secondary Plan Area into the Region’s Urban Area Boundary in 2023. The Durham Regional Official Plan identifies the majority of Northeast Pickering as Community Area, with land north and south of Highway 407 identified as Employment Area. The Northeast Pickering Secondary Plan establishes a detailed land use and development framework for Northeast Pickering. The Secondary Plan is the result of a public planning process involving visioning, background review, the development and evaluation of three land use options and 6 the creation of a preferred land use plan. The Secondary Plan is envisioned as a complete and sustainable community that will provide for significant residential and employment opportunities as the City continues to grow. City Policy Community Development Principles 2.16 Council shall implement the Northeast Pickering Secondary Plan based on the following key principles: a) provide a mix of land uses throughout the Secondary Plan Area, including a variety of housing options, densities, and affordability with an accessible public realm that encourages residents to grow and age in place, facilitating a multigenerational community; b) create parks, public spaces, cultural amenities and community facilities in each neighbourhood, that provide a range of uses and activities and foster social interaction, active lifestyles, community celebration and a sense of place and belonging; c) design streetscapes that are well connected to one another by sidewalks, multi-use paths, trails, and cycling infrastructure to facilitate walkable neighbourhoods and accessible active transportation and transit options, leading to healthy and active lifestyles; d) incorporate climate resilient and sustainable site and building design that protects natural areas, achieves energy and water efficiency, manages stormwater, reduces waste and greenhouse gas emissions, supports sustainable transportation, promotes local food production, and encourages community education on sustainable practices; 7 e) focus on land stewardship, environmental protection and restoration to retain natural beauty and function; f) provide a range of employment options and opportunities to foster a complete community through the inclusion of an employment area straddling Highway 407, a business area providing a wide variety of commercial and professional service industries and mixed use areas serving the new residents of the community; g) recognize the existing and planned land use context surrounding Northeast Pickering, including compatible interface with Hamlet of Greenwood, the Greenbelt and agricultural lands to the north, west and south and the planned urban area in Whitby to the east; and h) ensure that growth is phased so that municipal infrastructure is delivered in a financially sustainable manner. City Policy Northeast Pickering Urban Area Population and Employment Target 2.17 City Council supports: a) the development of an urban community that will accommodate approximately 72,000 people at full build-out; and b) the development of an urban community that will accommodate approximately 6,600 jobs in the Employment Areas and 3,125 jobs in the Community Areas. 8 2. Amend Table 5 in Chapter 3 to add a new “Regional Centre” row as follows: Regional Centre Medium and high density residential uses; Retailing of good and services; Offices Restaurants; Hotels; Convention centres; Community, cultural and recreational uses; Urban agriculture; and Farmers’ markets. 3. Amend Table 6 in Chapter 3 to add a new “Regional Centre” row as follows: Regional Centre over 80 and up to and including 180 up to and including 50,000 up to and including 3.5 FSI 4. Delete and replace Section 3.7 with the following: Business Areas Areas designated as Business Areas on Schedule I are intended to provide a variety of services and facilities on properties that: a) may be auto-centric in nature; b) generally require larger parcels of land; c) generally draw customers from a larger catchment area than those served by Mixed Use Areas; d) provide service to adjacent Employment Areas; and e) may act as a transition between Employment Areas and Urban Residential Areas.” 9 City Policy Business Areas City Council shall permit the following uses within Business Areas: a) offices; b) hotels; c) convention centres; d) restaurants; e) large-format retail; f) urban agriculture; g) equipment sales, rental and repair; h) self-storage facilities; i) automotive repair establishment; j) vehicle sales and service; k) gas bar; l) community, culture, entertainment and recreational uses, including places of worship and funeral homes; m) commercial and technical schools; and n) warehousing. 5. Delete Section 3.19 and replace with “Section Revoked by Amendment 54”. 6. Delete Section 13.7 (d) and replace with “Section Revoked by Amendment 54”. 7. Delete Settlement 9 Kinsale and Section 13.11 and replace with “Section Revoked by Amendment 54”. 8. Amend Section 15.15 Glossary in Chapter 15 to include: “Urban Agriculture means businesses, organizations and/or individuals who cultivate, process, and distribute food for 10 commercial, community and/or individual use. This is generally done by integrating food production into the built environment and may include co-locating on a property with other land uses. Examples include aquaponics and hydroponics facilities, rooftop gardens or farms, rooftop greenhouses, community gardens and vertical farms.” 9. Update Schedule I Sheet 3 to include the land uses for Northeast Pickering. 10. Update Schedule II to include the existing and future arterial, collector and transit spines in Northeast Pickering. 11. Update Schedules III A, III B and III C with updated Natural Heritage System, Significant Woodlands, Stream Corridors, Significant Valley Lands and Wetland boundaries. 12. Amend Maps 2 and 4 to add the Northeast Pickering Urban Area boundary and label and remove the hamlet of Kinsale. 13. Add a new Map 3-C Northeast Pickering Urban Area Neighbourhoods. 14. Add a new Schedule 11B – Northeast Pickering Secondary Plan Land Use Schedule 15. Add a new Section 11B: Appendix A: Cultural Heritage Resources in Northeast Pickering. 16. Add a new Section 11B: Appendix B: Headwater Drainage Features Requiring Further Study in Northeast Pickering. 17. Add a new Section 11.B: Appendix C: Hedgerows and Wetland/Water Features in Northeast Pickering 18. Amend the Official Plan to insert a new Chapter 11.B – Northeast Pickering Secondary Plan as shown in Appendix A. Implementation: The provisions set forth in the City of Pickering Official Plan, as amended, regarding the implementation of the Plan shall apply in regard to this Revision. Interpretation: The provisions set forth in the City of Pickering Official Plan, as amended, regarding the interpretation of the Plan shall apply in regard to this Revision. 11 Appendix A Chapter 11.B – Northeast Pickering Secondary Plan Table of Contents Vision ............................................................................................................................. 12 Guiding Principles .......................................................................................................... 12 Community Structure ..................................................................................................... 13 Land Use ....................................................................................................................... 14 Natural Heritage System ................................................................................................ 15 Mixed Use Areas ............................................................................................................ 20 Business Areas .............................................................................................................. 26 Prestige Employment Area ............................................................................................ 27 Urban Residential Areas ................................................................................................ 29 Parks and Community Facilities .................................................................................... 32 Transportation and Transit ............................................................................................. 36 Streetscape Design to Promote Walking ....................................................................... 40 Trail Network .................................................................................................................. 41 Sustainable Design and Development ........................................................................... 41 Housing .......................................................................................................................... 43 Cultural Heritage Resources .......................................................................................... 46 Secondary Plan Implementation .................................................................................... 49 Neighbourhood Plan Implementation ............................................................................ 52 12 Vision 11.B.1 It is the vision of City Council that: The Northeast Pickering Secondary Plan Area will be holistically planned as a complete community focused on the well-being of its residents and the sustainability of the natural environment. It is envisioned as a multi- generational, economically diverse community with vibrant public spaces and walkable neighbourhoods. This vision will be accomplished through innovative approaches to people-centered design, sustainability and land stewardship. Guiding Principles 11.B.2 City Council will be guided by the following six guiding principles: a) Multi-Generational Community: Provide a mix of land uses in each neighbourhood, including a variety of housing options, densities, and affordability and create public spaces that meet the accessible needs of all ages and abilities which together encourages residents to grow and age in place, facilitating a multigenerational community. b) Vibrant Public Spaces: Foster the creation of quality parks, public spaces, community facilities and streetscapes, distributed in all neighbourhoods, that provide a range of uses and activities, encouraging social interaction and a sense of belonging. c) Connected and Walkable: Design streetscapes that are well connected to one another by sidewalks, multi-use paths, and cycling infrastructure to facilitate walkable neighbourhoods and accessible active transportation and transit options, leading to healthy and active lifestyles. d) Sustainable Community: Build a sustainable, climate resilient community by incorporating community scale solutions that reduce greenhouse gas emissions, achieves energy and water efficiency, minimize waste generation and integrate local food systems into new development. e) Land Stewardship: Focus on land stewardship and environmental protection to retain natural beauty and function. 13 f) Economic Diversity: Provide a range of employment options and opportunities for residents to live in work in the complete community through the inclusion of a strong employment area straddling Highway 407, a business area, and mixed use lands which together provide a wide variety of commercial, industrial, agricultural and professional service industries. g) Compatible Interface: Recognize the existing and planned land use context surrounding Northeast Pickering, including compatible interface with the Hamlet of Greenwood, Greenbelt and agricultural lands to the north, west and south and the planned urban area in Whitby to the east. h) Logical Growth: Ensure that growth in Northeast Pickering is phased in a manner that delivers municipal infrastructure and development in a ﬁnancially sustainable and logical manner. Community Structure 11.B.3 City Council shall establish a Community Structure that: a) capitalizes on future higher order transit to create a transit oriented community; b) creates a Natural Heritage System; c) protects hazard lands from development and manages stormwater to minimize flood risk and erosion; d) contains an uptown called the Regional Centre which will contain the greatest densities and mix of land uses; e) establishes a mixed-use transit corridor north of Highway 407 within Northeast Pickering which is envisioned to contain a future higher order transit system that connects with a higher order transit system along Highway 407 east and west of Northeast Pickering; f) contains eight neighbourhoods; and g) establishes an employment corridor along both the north and the south sides of Highway 407. 14 Land Use City Policy Objectives 11.B.4 It is the objective of City Council to: a) develop urban neighbourhoods that create a sense of community, promote social interaction and create an attractive destination for residents; b) develop mixed use areas, which support a mix of higher density residential uses in association with commercial and institutional uses which cater to pedestrian comfort and encourage pedestrian activity through the orientation of buildings and uses; c) create a walkable and transit-supportive community from the earliest stages of development by establishing a minimum density for residential development, ensuring the provision of supporting commercial and public services and requiring pedestrian-oriented streetscapes in mixed use and commercial areas; d) provide parks and recreational services central to each neighbourhood to meet open space and recreational needs as defined by the City’s Recreation and Parks Ten Year Plan; e) protect and enhance significant natural heritage features and functions; f) avoid flood and erosion hazards; g) mitigate and adapt to the impacts of a changing climate by protecting, enhancing and, where feasible, connecting wetlands, directing development away from hazardous lands and building resilient infrastructure including effective stormwater management facilities; h) create a community that minimizes greenhouse gas emissions and promotes high standards of energy and water efficiency and conservation; and i) provide opportunities for urban agriculture in all parts of the Secondary Plan. 15 Natural Heritage System City Policy Natural Heritage Objectives 11.B.5 It is the objective of City Council to: a) establish a self-sustaining Natural Heritage System that protects, enhances, and, where possible, restores natural heritage features, the linkages between them and the ecological and hydrological functions, within them; b) establish a minimum vegetation protection zone with native self- sustaining vegetation to protect the Natural Heritage System; c) promote active linkages (trails) between the Natural Heritage System and surrounding urban and rural areas including to the Greenbelt Plan area while prioritizing use of the vegetation protection zones and avoiding hazardous lands and sensitive natural heritage features where possible; d) implement the management and implementation strategies and recommendations of the Carruthers’s Creek and Duffin’s Creek Watershed Plans; e) encourage public ownership of the Natural Heritage System lands; f) avoid, minimize and limit the encroachment of infrastructure into the Natural Heritage System; and g) promote Low Impact Development for on-site infiltration. City Policy Refinement of the Natural Heritage System 11.B.6 City Council acknowledges that: a) the extent and boundary of the Natural Heritage System designated on Schedule I, Sheets 3 is conceptual; b) the exact boundary of the Natural Heritage System will be determined through the Master Environmental Servicing Plan and/ or subsequent Environmental Impact Study (EIS) and feature staking to the satisfaction of the City in consultation with the respective Conservation Authority; c) further refinement of the boundary of the Natural Heritage System will occur as part of the preparation of Neighbourhood Plans and any 16 additions, deletions or refinements will not require an amendment to this Plan; d) significant natural heritage features not identified on Schedule I or III, but identified through a site-specific study are deemed to be part of the Natural Heritage System designation; e) where a feature or portion of a feature is removed or reduced in accordance with Section 11.B.6 b) and c), the urban designation abutting the feature shall apply; and f) areas where natural heritage and/or hydrologic features have been removed without authorization will continue to be subject to the policies of this Plan as if the feature was still in place. Affected features, areas and associated minimum vegetation protection zones shall be restored to the previous condition or better to the satisfaction of the City in consultation with the Conservation Authority, where applicable. City Policy Identification and Protection of Headwater Drainage Features 11.B.7 City Council requires that: a) headwater drainage features (HDF) have been included in the Natural Heritage System on the Land Use Schedule. Headwater drainage features identified as “Protect” on Schedule III C must be maintained on the surface with protections in place, while features identified as “Conserve” on Schedule III C may remain in place or be realigned with enhancement. Proposals to realign and enhance any applicable HDF must be done to satisfaction of the City and the respective conservation authority; and b) headwater drainage features that require further study are identified on Appendix B, and will be assessed through the Master Environmental Servicing Plan described in Policy 11.B.70. The assessment will be conducted within their reach context, based on the methodology outlined in the CVC/TRCA (2014) Headwater Drainage Features Guideline document to determine whether the reach should be properly classified as a watercourse (as per the Conservation Authorities Act (O. Reg. 41/24 2024)) or as a headwater drainage feature. If confirmed as a headwater drainage feature, the assessment will evaluate and classify the feature(s) to determine the appropriate management strategy. 17 City Policy Study of Hedgerows and Isolated Waterbodies 11.B.8 City Council requires that: a) further study be conducted through the Master Environmental Servicing Plan of hedgerows shown on Appendix C, to determine if they provide any significant function such as a linkage function or provide habitat to sensitive species, including species-at-risk; and b) further study be conducted through the Master Environmental Servicing Plan, of the isolated wetland/water features shown on Appendix C, to determine the function of these features from both a natural heritage system and water resource system lens to identify if the features need to be maintained, compensated or removed. City Policy Permitted Uses 11.B.9 City Council shall permit the following uses in the Natural Heritage System: a) conservation, environmental protection, restoration, education, passive recreation, and similar uses, subject to the provisions of the Regional Official Plan related to non-agricultural uses, and provided that development or site alteration may only be permitted in key natural heritage and/or key hydrologic features for the following purposes: i) forest, fish and wildlife management; ii) conservation and flood and erosion control and other similar environmental protection and restoration projects demonstrated to be necessary in the public interest and after all alternatives have been considered; and iii) minor recreational and education uses such as non-motorized trails, footbridges and picnic facilities; b) existing lawful agricultural uses, agricultural-related uses, and on-farm diversified uses; c) existing lawful residential dwellings; d) urban agriculture outside of key natural heritage and/or key hydrologic features may be permitted within minimum vegetation protection zones subject to the results of an Environmental Impact Study; 18 a) all residential lots that back onto the Natural Heritage System shall be fenced so as to prevent direct access to the abutting feature; e) existing, expanded or new infrastructure subject to and approved under the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act, the Environmental Assessment Act, the Planning Act or by the National or Ontario Energy Boards, or which receives similar environmental approval, where applicable; and f) stormwater management outfalls which may be located in key natural heritage and/or key hydrologic features, and passive Low Impact Development (LID) works which may be located in minimum vegetation protection zones. City Policy Infrastructure and Road Crossings 11.B.10 City Council shall ensure any permitted infrastructure projects proposed through the Natural Heritage System consider: a) co-location of infrastructure crossings with road and trail crossings where feasible; b) road conditions including posted speed limit, road barriers, active transportation connectivity, width of road at anticipated road crossings and road lighting; c) minimizing the number of crossings in the Natural Heritage System; d) minimizing the number and size of crossings in highly sensitive areas in the Natural Heritage System; e) movement patterns of wildlife and the types of species most likely to cross; f) appropriate mitigation measures, where demonstrated necessary, to achieve the appropriate conditions for ongoing wildlife movement; g) natural heritage habitat types at the road crossing; h) opportunities for restoration with native trees and shrubs; and i) climate change resilience and flood risk. 19 City Policy Integration of the Natural Heritage System 11.B.11 City Council shall: a) require development to integrate the Natural Heritage System as a key structural element of each neighbourhood through consideration of the following: i) neighbourhood design shall provide appropriate views, vistas, and connections to the Natural Heritage System. This will include terminal views at the ends of prominent streets, and where appropriate, window streets; and ii) where lots back onto the Natural Heritage System, fencing shall be required at the developer’s cost, and signage shall be used to restrict access and encroachment; and b) encourage, but not require, the dedication to the City of land containing natural features for long term protection as part of the development approvals process. City Policy Natural Heritage Enhancement 11.B.12 City Council shall: a) require, where isolated natural features and their vegetation protection zones are deemed appropriate for removal, based on the acceptance of an Environmental Impact Study by the City, and the conservation authority where applicable, compensation of an equal or greater area and/or function provided through enhancement of additional land contiguous to existing Natural Heritage System features and their minimum vegetation protection zones; b) require, as part of associated development applications, the restoration of a 60 metre wide naturalized linkage corridor from the northmost headwater wetland area of the Kinsale Branch of the Lynde Creek southward to the Seventh Concession as shown on Schedule I as a contiguous and connected part of the Natural Heritage System to the satisfaction of the City in consultation with the conservation authority; c) require, as part of associated development applications, the restoration of a 60 metre wide naturalized linkage corridor from the wetland communities in the Watson’s Glen Golf Club lands southeast to the Heber Downs tributary of the Lynde Creek as shown on Schedule I as a contiguous and connected part of the Natural Heritage System to the 20 satisfaction of the City in consultation with the conservation authority; and d) require, as part of the Master Environmental Servicing Plan, a restoration plan for the Secondary Plan Area that identifies opportunities for restoration, enhancement, connectivity and compensation throughout the community. City Policy Natural Hazards 11.B.13 City Council shall: a) not permit development or site alteration in Natural Hazards identified on Schedule 11B unless permitted by the Conservation Authority having jurisdiction; b) permit in Natural Hazards: i) forest fish and wildlife management; ii) conservation and flood and erosion control and other similar environmental protection and restoration projects demonstrated to be necessary in the public interest and after all alternatives have been considered; iii) minor recreational and education uses such as non-motorized trails, footbridges and picnic facilities; iv) existing lawful agricultural uses, agricultural-related uses, and on- farm diversified uses; v) urban agriculture exclusive of any buildings and structures; vi) existing, expanded or new infrastructure subject to and approved under the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act, the Environmental Assessment Act, the Planning Act or by the National or Ontario Energy Boards, or which receives similar environmental approval, where applicable; and vii) stormwater management outfalls. Mixed Use Areas City Policy Regional Centre 11.B.14 City Council shall: a) develop a centralized mixed-use Regional Centre or “Uptown” for Northeast Pickering along Salem Road, between Highway 407 and the 21 Seventh Concession where the widest range of uses and highest densities are planned; b) establish the planned function of the Regional Centre as a mixed-use centre to provide for regional serving retail uses with a minimum of 40,000 square metres of non-residential gross leasable floor area; c) plan for the Regional Centre to support future higher order transit; d) support the Regional Centre as a hub for culture, public services, shopping and the identified centre of Northeast Pickering; e) require non-residential uses on the ground floor of buildings facing Salem Road, the east-west transit corridor and the Seventh Concession and not permit residential units on the ground floor facing these streets; f) stand-alone residential apartment buildings shall not be permitted within the Regional Centre until a minimum of 15,000 square metres of gross leasable floor space for office and / or retailing of goods and services in the Regional Centre is achieved; g) notwithstanding 11.B.14 f), apartment buildings offered as 100% rental and/or apartment buildings providing a minimum of 35% affordable units (as defined by the Provincial bulletin), may proceed as stand-alone residential apartment buildings at any time; h) plan to achieve a minimum transit supportive density of 150 people and jobs per gross hectare, given the development of a future transit corridor passing through Northeast Pickering; i) permit a minimum density of 80 units per net hectare and a maximum density up to and including 180 units per net hectare; j) permit commercial buildings with a minimum height of 2 functional storeys with a 3 storey massing; k) permit a full range of building heights for residential and mixed use buildings from 4 storeys up to 20 storeys transitioning down in heights at the periphery of the Regional Centre to lower scaled adjacent residential neighbourhoods; l) in the Neighbourhood Plan, plan for the development of a mix of contextually appropriate mid-rise and high-rise built form, providing an appropriate transition in building height, density and massing to surrounding neighbourhood areas, and with a mix of uses and public spaces that provide for a complete community in Northeast Pickering; and m) prioritize the creation of focal points for culture, art, public entertainment and public gathering through the provision of an urban park, urban squares, cultural facilities and public service facilities. 22 City Policy Permitted Uses in the Regional Centre 11.B.15 City Council shall permit the following uses: a) mixed-use buildings; b) apartment buildings; c) long-term care housing; d) hotels; e) convention centre; f) retailing of goods and services, including food stores, generally serving the needs of Northeast Pickering, excluding automotive-centered uses such as repair garages, gas bars and vehicle sales and service; g) offices; h) personal services; i) restaurants; j) community, cultural and recreational uses, including places of worship and funeral homes; k) major institutional uses, including colleges and universities; l) urban agriculture; and m) farmers’ markets. 11.B.16 City Council shall also permit the following uses on the periphery of the Regional Centre: a) multiplexes; b) street townhouse dwellings; c) back-to-back townhouse dwellings; and d) stacked townhouse dwellings, City Policy Community Nodes 11.B.17 City Council shall: a) establish the planned function of Community Nodes as catering to the daily and weekly shopping needs of the residents in the adjacent neighbourhoods. b) plan for Community Nodes to serve as central areas for four of the new neighbourhoods and the eastern anchor to the transit corridor. 23 c) require Community Nodes to develop with a mix of commercial and residential uses within the same building or on the same lot; d) stand-alone residential apartment buildings shall not be permitted until the minimum gross leasable floor space for retailing of goods and services in 11.B.17 g) is achieved; e) notwithstanding 11.B.17 d), apartment buildings offered as 100% rental and/or apartment buildings providing a minimum of 25% affordable units (as defined by the Provincial bulletin), may proceed as stand-alone residential apartment buildings at any time; f) permit building heights for residential and mixed use buildings from three storeys up to eight storeys and may permit up to 12 storeys at intersections; g) permit a minimum of 10,000 square metres and a maximum of 20,000 square metres of gross leasable floor space for the retailing of goods and services within each Community Node; and h) permit a minimum density of 80 units per hectare and a maximum density up to and including 140 units per hectare; i) direct mixed-use and apartment buildings to the highest traffic areas within Community Node Areas, such as along arterial and collector roads and at intersections; and j) permit stacked townhouse dwellings in locations where Community Node Areas abut areas of lower residential density. Notwithstanding 11.B.17 h), stacked townhouse dwellings shall achieve a minimum density of 65 units per hectare, and may occupy no more than 10% of the net land area of each Community Node Area. City Policy Permitted Uses in Community Nodes 11.B.18 City Council shall permit the following uses: a) mixed-use buildings; b) apartment buildings; c) limited number of stacked townhouse dwellings abutting areas of lower residential density; d) long-term care housing; e) retailing of goods and services, including food stores, generally serving the needs of the surrounding neighbourhood, excluding automotive and vehicle sales and service; f) gas bar; g) offices; 24 h) personal services; i) restaurants; j) community, cultural and recreational uses, including places of worship and funeral homes; k) urban agriculture; and l) farmers’ markets. City Policy Mixed Corridors 11.B.19 City Council shall: a) support the development of a mixed use, higher density, transit supportive corridor; b) permit a minimum density of 40 units per hectare and a maximum density up to and including 140 units per hectare; c) require Mixed Corridors to be developed with a mix of multiple unit housing types with building heights for residential and mixed use buildings of 3 to 6 storeys; d) require properties designated Mixed Corridor to contain a mix of commercial and residential uses either within the same building or on the same lot; e) require a minimum of 25% of all at grade floorspace to be comprised of non-residential floor space; f) alternatively allow Neighbourhood Plans to identify locations for the clustering of office, retail and service commercial development along the Mixed Corridor rather than on each property with focus on clustering at intersections of collector and/or arterial roads; and g) require Neighbourhood Plans to identify gateway sites for higher density mixed use development. City Policy Permitted Uses in Mixed Corridors 11.B.20 City Council shall permit the following uses: a) mixed use buildings; b) apartments; c) long-term care housing; d) multiplexes; e) street townhouse dwellings; 25 f) back-to-back townhouse dwellings; g) stacked townhouse dwellings, h) retailing of goods and services generally serving the needs of the surrounding neighbourhoods, excluding automotive and vehicle sales and service; i) gas bar j) offices; k) personal services; l) restaurants; m) community, cultural and recreational uses, including places of worship and funeral homes; n) urban agriculture; and o) farmers’ markets. City Policy Local Nodes 11.B.21 City Council shall: a) require Neighbourhood Plans to identify the locations of Local Nodes within the Medium Density Areas shown on Schedule I, Sheet 3; b) require Neighbourhood Plans to maximize the opportunity for pedestrian access from adjacent neighbourhoods to the Local Node; c) permit commercial uses in Local Nodes to be located in stand-alone or mixed use buildings; d) permit on-street parking on the adjacent collector roads; and e) require Local Nodes to be implemented through Neighbourhood Plans and zoning which shall: i) establish a maximum floor area for small-scale commercial uses in recognition of the limited retail function of this designation; and ii) establish a required building height of 2 to 4 storeys. City Policy Urban Design of Mixed Use Areas 11.B.22 To achieve a pedestrian focus in Mixed Use Areas, Council shall: a) encourage the principal public entrance of each store, and substantial fenestration, to face on to the street; b) establish a pattern of streets and blocks which encourage pedestrian circulation to, from and within Mixed Use Areas; 26 c) encourage high activity uses, like retail uses that animate the streetscape and encourage foot traffic, to be located at-grade and up to the street; d) encourage small scale urban squares and adequate opportunities for public seating; e) require drive-throughs and stacking lanes to be oriented to the interior of a site and not located between a building and the street; and f) design taller buildings with street-related podiums of up to 6-storeys that transition the building to the street; g) not permit parking, driveways or drive aisles to be located between the building and the street; h) provide on-street parking, in addition to on-site parking, where feasible and appropriate; i) ensure sidewalks are of sufficient width to: i) accommodate anticipated pedestrian volume; ii) comfortably and safely accommodate the needs of people of all ages and abilities; iii) ensure sufficient space for coordinated street furnishings, public utilities, tree plantings and transit shelters; and iv) accommodate sidewalk cafes, kiosks and street vendors where possible; j) reflect a human scale of development, contribute to public safety and security and create a significantly enhanced and comfortable pedestrian environment; and k) have a consistent building setback. Business Areas City Policy Objectives 11.B.23 It is an objective of City Council to: a) provide for a new Business Areas designation to accommodate non- residential uses that are no longer permitted in employment areas. City Policy Permitted Uses in Business Areas 11.B.24 City Council shall permit the following uses: a) offices; 27 b) business services; c) hotels; d) convention facilities; e) restaurants; f) large-format retail, including home improvement centres and garden centres; g) limited small scale convenience commercial uses; h) urban agriculture; i) equipment sales, rental and repair; j) self-storage facilities; k) automotive repair establishment; l) vehicle sales and service; m) gas bar; n) community, culture, entertainment and recreational uses, including places of worship and funeral homes; o) commercial and technical schools; and p) warehousing. Prestige Employment Area City Policy Objectives 11.B.25 It is an objective of City Council to: a) attract and sustain employment opportunities that reflect the needs of the City of Pickering; b) designate suitable lands for prestige employment uses in areas of high highway exposure; c) ensure that employment areas are easily accessible by vehicle, transit, bicycle and on foot; and d) ensure that employment uses adjacent to residential uses are visually screened and/or separated by appropriate distances, buffers or other mitigation measures to ensure compatibility. City Policy Permitted Uses in Prestige Employment Areas 11.B.26 City Council shall permit the following uses: a) light manufacturing; b) assembly and processing of goods; 28 c) light service industries; d) research and development facilities; e) urban agriculture; f) warehousing; g) equipment and vehicle suppliers; and h) limited accessory outdoor storage. City Policy Urban Agricultural Related Employment 11.B.27 Council shall permit and encourage urban agricultural related businesses including: a) in Mixed Use Areas and Business Areas: i) urban agriculture including rooftop greenhouses; ii) urban farms, community farms or demonstrations farms; iii) farm business incubators; iv) commercial kitchens and/or training facilities; v) farm stands, agricultural hubs, or market kiosks; and vi) educational or interpretive facilities related to local food and heritage; and b) in Prestige Employment Areas: i) urban agriculture including rooftop greenhouses; ii) controlled environment agriculture; iii) value-added processing; iv) agri-food innovation centres; and v) agricultural processing and packaging. City Policy Employment Design Considerations 11.B.28 City Council shall require implementing draft plans of subdivision and site plans to consider: a) architectural articulation, stepped facades, and roofline diversity to reinforce a strong and distinctive employment area character; b) locating main building facades and entrances to face the street; c) screening outdoor storage and loading areas from the street; d) screening of roof top mechanical equipment; e) flexibility of lot sizes and patterns to address market demands; f) sustainable site and building design that conserves energy, manages water efﬁciently, minimizes the urban heat island effect, maximizes 29 green space and high-quality landscaping, reduces light pollution during non-work hours, incorporates bird-friendly design to minimize collisions, and provides outdoor amenity areas for employees; g) minimizing the creation of noise pollution through the design, location and buffering of loading and marshalling areas; and h) incorporating, where feasible, dedicated electric vehicle charging spaces for employees and visitors to support sustainable transportation. Urban Residential Areas City Policy Low Density Areas 11.B.29 City Council shall permit the following uses: a) apartment buildings; b) multiplexes; c) long-term care housing; d) single detached dwellings; e) semi-detached dwellings; f) street townhouse dwellings; g) back-to-back townhouse dwellings; h) stacked townhouse dwellings; i) community, culture and recreational uses, including places of worship; j) home businesses; k) a minimum residential density of 25 units per net hectare and a maximum residential density of 40 units per net hectare dwellings per hectare; l) building heights up to 4 storeys; m) small-scale retail and personal service intended to serve the population within the immediate area. A site specific zoning bylaw amendment to permit such uses will be required and the rezoning application shall be evaluated based on the following criteria: i) the use generally contains no more than 250 square metres of gross leasable retail floor area; ii) the use provides a variety of items for daily necessities, or offers services that serve the surrounding residents; iii) the site does not have direct access to a Type A arterial road; iv) parking shall be located at the side or rear of the building; and v) the use has no adverse impacts on the surrounding neighbourhood. 30 City Policy Greenwood Transition 11.B.30 City Council shall require: a) only complementary uses such as schools, parks, single detached dwellings and semi-detached dwellings along the eastern boundary of the Hamlet of Greenwood; b) notwithstanding 11.B.29 k), the low density residential designation abutting the boundary of the Hamlet of Greenwood shall achieve a minimum density of 20 units per hectare; and c) a publicly informed transition strategy to be developed for the lands between the Hamlet of Greenwood and the surrounding Northeast Pickering Secondary Plan Area as part of the Neighbourhood Planning process. The transition strategy will take into account the future lot sizes, lot orientation, local topography, subdivision layout and design and building height. City Policy Medium Density Areas 11.B.31 City Council shall permit the following uses: a) apartment buildings; b) multiplexes; c) long-term care housing; d) single detached dwellings; e) semi-detached dwellings; f) street townhouse dwellings; g) back-to-back townhouse dwellings; h) stacked townhouse dwellings; i) community, culture and recreational uses including places of worship; j) home businesses; k) small-scale retail and personal service intended to serve the population within the immediate area. A site specific zoning bylaw amendment to permit such uses will be required and the rezoning application shall be evaluated based on the following criteria: i) the use generally contains no more than 250 square metres of gross leasable retail floor area; ii) the use provides a variety of items for daily necessities, or offers services that serve the surrounding residents; 31 iii) the site does not have direct access to a Type A arterial road; iv) parking shall be located at the side or rear of the building; and v) the use has no adverse impacts on the surrounding neighbourhood; l) a density over 40 and up to and including 80 units per net hectare. m) a minimum building height of 3 storeys and a maximum building height of 5 storeys; and n) notwithstanding 11.B.31 m) taller buildings of up to 6 storeys shall be permitted at intersections of collector and/or arterial roads. City Policy High Density Areas 11.B.32 City Council shall permit the following uses: a) apartment buildings; b) long-term care housing c) stacked townhouses; d) community, culture and recreational uses including places of worship; e) limited retailing of goods and services that meet the convenience shopping needs of the surrounding area; f) a density over 80 and up to and including 140 units per hectare; and g) a minimum building height of 5 storeys and a maximum building height of 12 storeys. City Policy Medium and High Density Areas to be Refined 11.B.33 City Council recognizes that: a) the boundaries of medium and high density areas shown on Schedule I, Sheet 3 are conceptual and will be refined through the Neighbourhood Plans. 32 Parks and Community Facilities City Policy Parkland Dedication 11.B.34 City Council shall: a) require the provision of public parkland equivalent to 1.2 hectares per 1,000 population in keeping with the Recreation and Parks 10-Year Plan (2024); b) provide a portion of the parkland requirement in 11.B.34 a) that is beyond the parkland dedication requirement of the Planning Act as a District Park outside of the Northeast Pickering Urban in the adjacent Greenbelt Plan Area; c) purchase any parkland shown on Schedule I sheet 3 that is beyond the dedication requirements of the Planning Act; d) not include the natural heritage system and/or natural hazards in parkland dedication required in Section 11.B.34 a); and e) require all parkland acquired by the City to be relatively flat and free of encumbrances. City Policy Parks Hierarchy 11.B.35 City Council shall require the following park hierarchy: a) Community Parks – five Community Parks generally located adjacent to a secondary school in the vicinity of a Community Node or adjacent to the recreation centre which shall: i) each have a minimum size of 6 hectares; ii) integrate a range of illuminated and non-illuminated recreational amenities including washrooms; iii) be designed with passive recreation and community gathering places; iv) have road frontage with on-street parking on a minimum of two sides; and v) be designed to support the placement of multiple fields, diamonds or courts located together to support community sport use including sports tournaments. b) Neighbourhood Parks – nineteen Neighbourhood Parks co-located with elementary schools, where possible, which shall: 33 i) be easily accessible and generally centrally located for residents within a 400 to 800 metre radius (5 to 10 minute walk); ii) each have a minimum size of 1.5 hectares; iii) perform an array of functions and accommodate all-ages active play areas, as well as non-illuminated recreation amenities, other recreational facilities, community mailboxes and passive areas; iv) have road frontage on a minimum of two sides, where possible; and v) be supported by on-street parking. c) Urban Park – one Urban Park is located within the Regional Centre which shall: i) have a minimum size of 1 hectare; ii) be characterized by areas for events and gatherings, seating areas, civic uses and may also include elements for outdoor play; and iii) be designed with frontage on at least one public street and the adjacent built form should have active frontages facing the park, where appropriate. d) Village Greens – Village Greens shall be delineated in the Neighbourhood Plans and be distributed throughout the community to serve smaller residential areas, which shall: i) be easily accessible for residents within a 200 to 400 metre radius (3 to 5 minute walk) where there is no Neighbourhood Park in close proximity, without the need to cross arterial roads; ii) have an approximate size of 0.3 to 0.6 hectares, subject to functionality of the Village Green configuration; iii) accommodate all-ages active play areas, passive recreation and seating, open informal play areas and community mailboxes and information boards; and iv) be designed with frontage on at least one public street. f) Urban Squares – Urban Squares may include Strata Parks and Privately-Owned Publicly Accessible Spaces (POPS), and shall: i) be delineated in the Neighbourhood Plans and be provided within the Regional Centre and Community Nodes; ii) provide formal pedestrian spaces and passive recreation areas in support of adjacent higher density, mixed use development; iii) be designed for all weather use including shade structures and winter weather protection; and 34 iv) meet the City’s requirement for privately constructed squares and publicly accessible open spaces. City Policy Community Facilities 11.B.36 City Council shall require the following community facilities: a) Sportsplex – one sportsplex which shall: i) have a minimum size of 10 hectares; ii) be co-located with a community park that will support active recreational use; and iii) be accessible by frequent transit; iv) include a library; and v) be supported by dedicated parking. b) Recreation Complex – one recreation complex which shall: i) have a minimum size of 6 hectares; ii) be accessible by frequent transit; iii) include a library; iv) where possible, be co-located with a community park that will support active recreational use; and v) be supported by dedicated parking. c) Community Centre – one neighbourhood community centre which shall: i) be located on a minimum 1.5 hectare site; ii) be accessible by transit; iii) include a library; and iv) be supported by dedicated parking. d) Fire Hall – minimum of two fire halls which shall: i) be located on a minimum 0.6 hectare site; and ii) be located and designed based on the Fire Services Department response model and capacity to serve Northeast Pickering. Exact Locations to be determined. e) Schools – elementary and secondary schools meeting the requirements of the DDSB and DCDSB are shown on Schedule I, Sheet 3. 35 f) Libraries – three libraries which shall: i) be accessible by transit; ii) be co-located with other municipal facilities; iii) be supported by dedicated parking. g) publicly-owned community facilities are permitted in any designation except Prestige Employment and Natural Heritage System; h) should any of the community facilities shown on Schedule I, Sheet 3 not be required, the corresponding symbol can be removed without an amendment to the Plan. City Policy Community Facilities to Contribute to Compact Development 11.B.37 City Council requires: a) all community and education facilities contribute to the creation of compact neighbourhoods through multi-storey buildings, joint use of buildings, joint use of parking areas, joint use of open space, use of adjacent roads for visitor parking and other means to reduce land requirements; and b) school boards to consider opportunities to integrate schools into the podiums of mixed-use and high density residential buildings where appropriate. City Policy Public and Private Facilities Adjacent to the Natural Heritage System 11.B.38 City Council encourages: a) the location of community and education facilities adjacent to the Natural Heritage System, where possible; and b) the protection of the Natural Heritage System through fencing adjacent to private and public development, as deemed necessary. City Policy Places of Worship 11.B.39 City Council shall: a) identify potential sites for places of worship through the neighbourhood planning process; 36 b) recognize the important role faith groups play, and the contribution places of worship make, to building sustainable, complete communities; c) permit and encourage places of worship to locate throughout the Northeast Pickering Urban Area in the Low, Medium and High Density Areas, Mixed Corridors, Community Nodes, Business Areas, and the Regional Node provided that: i) the size, height, massing and scale of the use is compatible with the standards within the designation; ii) sites are generally on arterial and collector roads, with direct access by public transit routes; and iii) in High Density Areas, the place of worship is incorporated into a residential building; d) permit places of worship to contain community, cultural and recreational services as secondary uses such as schools, adult and/or child daycare, soup kitchens, food banks, banquet halls, fitness and recreational facilities and shared meeting spaces; e) encourage places of worship to contain outdoor amenity space for ancillary outdoor activities; f) permit joint use of parking with other adjacent uses; and g) work actively with faith communities and landowners to facilitate the establishment of places of worship in these designations through the plan of subdivision and site plan process. In particular, the City shall: i) establish policies for City owned facilities which will make them accessible for faith communities; ii) encourage landowners to make sites available for acquisition and use for places of worship; iii) encourage other public agencies, such as school boards, to make their facilities accessible for use by faith communities; and iv) provide technical assistance to faith communities throughout the planning process. Transportation and Transit City Policy Transportation Objectives 11.B.40 It is an objective of City Council to: a) create an integrated transportation system, recognizing the inter- relationships among all types of roads and modes of transportation including active transportation; 37 b) work with all levels of government to facilitate the early delivery of transit opportunities, including higher order transit; c) ensure adequate inter-regional transportation infrastructure through connections with Highway 407 and the Transit Corridor; d) promote active transportation by creating an integrated system of trails, sidewalks and multi-use paths; e) create complete streets that are designed for the safe, accessible and comfortable use of all users including pedestrians and cyclists of all abilities; f) provide a road network that is designed to accommodate transit service on designated transit spines and transit feeders such that the majority of residents are within a 5 minute walk of transit; g) protect for future higher order transit stations at key intersections along the transit spine for the future transitway north of Highway 407 as schematically shown on Schedule II and referred to as the Transit Corridor. The respective Neighbourhood Plans shall consider how the future transit stations can be protected through discussions with the appropriate Provincial agency and Durham Region Transit; h) develop a modified grid road pattern that provides for a high degree of permeability, access to key open space, community and commercial locations; and i) promote safe, accessible streets and intimate streetscapes. City Policy Integrated Transportation/Transit Strategy Report 11.B.41 City Council shall require: a) the design of all transportation infrastructure confirms/has regard for the Integrated Transportation/Transit Strategy Report. City Policy Maximizing Transit Usage 11.B.42 City Council shall require Neighbourhood Plans and implementing draft plans of subdivision and site plans to maximize public transit from the earliest stage of development by: a) showing the future higher order transitway and future higher order transit stations in the Neighbourhood Plans including delineating the required right of way of the Transit Corridor to accommodate the transitway as well as delineating an interim right of way cross section; 38 b) providing details on the location of higher density development along the Transit Corridor; c) accommodating dedicated transit lanes along transit spines and/or roads with multiple transit routes as roads are built or extended; d) incorporating local transit connections at each of the future higher order transitway stations; and e) in consultation with the relevant transit authority, identify the locations of transit stop pads on engineering drawings, in safe and accessible locations that maximize pedestrian accessibility from surrounding residential neighbourhoods, as a condition of draft plan approval. 11.B.43 City Council shall work with Durham Region and Metrolinx to deliver higher-order transit along Highway 407 east and west of Northeast Pickering and along the Transit Corridor to support the development of Northeast Pickering. City Policy Street Grid Permeability, Connectivity & Block Length 11.B.44 City Council shall: a) require neighbourhoods to be designed with a modified grid street pattern that provides for a high degree of permeability and connectivity, with frequent local street connections along Type C arterial and collector roadways; b) require further delineation of the proposed collector roads, as shown conceptually on Schedule II, through the completion of Phases 3 and 4 of the Environmental Assessment process during the Neighbourhood Plan and draft plan of subdivision processes; c) permit variations in block and street orientation around natural elements such as woodlots, creeks and topography to enhance views and achieve a distinctive neighbourhood character; d) permit various road designs that provide traffic calming to reduce speeds; e) require the coordination of street and driveway spacing to maximize the availability of on-street parking; f) within the Regional Centre, identify one or more roads to be designed as a flex street that can be easily switched to no-vehicular traffic at appropriate times and/or to accommodate appropriate events; and 39 g) require block lengths to generally be in the range of 150 to 250 metres to promote walkability and connectivity. City Policy Interconnected Street Network 11.B.45 City Council shall require Neighbourhood Plans and draft plans of subdivision to create an interconnected network of local street, sidewalks, and multi-use paths, through the arrangement of streets, blocks, and open spaces, which: a) links each neighbourhood with other neighbourhoods; b) links every portion of a neighbourhood with centrally located elementary schools, parks, community facilities and commercial locations within the neighbourhood; c) provides direct linkages between each neighbourhood and the mixed use areas within the broader neighbourhood; d) provides direct linkages between the neighbourhoods and the Employment Areas; e) reduces, wherever possible, the length of pedestrian travel through efficient block arrangements and network connections; and f) provides direct access to public transit. City Policy Westney Road By-pass of Greenwood 11.B.46 City Council shall support the implementation of the Westney Road By-pass of Greenwood early in the development of Northeast Pickering. City Policy Highway 407 Interchanges 11.B.47 City Council shall work with the Province to explore the feasibility of an interchange with Highway 407 at Westney Road. City Policy Lakeridge Road Corridor Access Management Study 11.B.48 City Council shall require a Lake Ridge Road Corridor Access Management Study to determine the intersection control type for the 40 proposed Arterial and Collector Roads intersecting with Lake Ridge Road, both north and south of Highway 407. City Policy Streetscape Design to Promote Walking 11.B.49 City Council shall: a) require sidewalks and/or multi-use paths on both sides of all arterial and collector roads, except where a window street or slip lane abuts an arterial road which also provides a sidewalk; b) require sidewalks on at least one side of all local roads; c) require all roads be designed to promote pedestrian comfort through traffic calming measures including narrower lanes, on-street parking, traffic islands, and central medians to encourage slow-moving traffic through residential areas, the Regional Centre and Community Nodes; d) require the design of roads to include wide sidewalks or multi-use paths on collector and arterial roads, street trees, sidewalk furniture, and transit stops. In addition, where feasible, include on-street parking, and encourage all arterial roads to have posted speeds of no more than 50 km/h; and e) not permit back lotting along collector and arterial roads. City Policy Bikeway Network 11.B.50 City Council shall: a) require the Neighbourhood Plans to delineate a Bikeway Network which: i) identifies connections to the existing system of trails and bikeways in other parts of Pickering, and of surrounding municipalities; ii) aligns with the Regional Cycling Plan and the City of Pickering Integrated Transportation Master Plan and the Integrated Transportation/Transit Strategy Report;; iii) provides primary bikeways as dedicated off-road bikewayslocated along Type A and B arterial roads but may also consider locating protected bikeways within the travelled surface of the road in Mixed Use Areas where appropriate; and iv) provides secondary protected bikeways in both directions on Type C arterial roads and collector roads. 41 City Policy Bicycle Parking and Storage 11.B.51 City Council shall: a) require bicycle parking and/or storage areas in all commercial, office, industrial, mixed use, multiple unit residential without individual garages and apartment developments; and b) secure the bicycle parking spaces required in 11.B.51 a) through conditions of draft plan and/or site plan approval as applicable. City Policy Trail Network 11.B.52 City Council shall: a) require the Neighbourhood Plans to delineate a trail network informed by an Active Transportation Master Plan which shall be designed to: i) provide accessible linkages between the neighbourhoods and between the neighbourhoods and the Natural Heritage System; ii) link with sidewalks and bikeways in the road allowances to create an integrated pedestrian and bicycle network; iii) provide a hierarchy of trails and construction priority in accordance with this hierarchy; and b) work with Durham Region, the Conservation Authorities, Rouge National Urban Park and other partners to create trail linkages to other destinations within Pickering. Sustainable Design and Development City Policy Sustainability Objectives 11.B.53 It is an objective of City Council that development: a) educate homeowners on the operation and maintenance of sustainable features, and encouraging everyday sustainable living practices; b) design and build for energy efficiency and climate resilience, including on-site renewable energy systems, heat island mitigation, and building durability; c) create safe, accessible, and inclusive communities through design approaches that reflect Crime Prevention Through Environmental 42 Design (CPTED) and Accessibility for Ontarians with Disabilities Act (AODA) accessibility standards, as amended; d) protect and enhance the natural environment by incorporating native and non-invasive plantings, healthy street trees, bird-friendly design, and quality soils for planting and turf areas; e) support active and low-carbon transportation modes through infrastructure such as electric vehicle rough-ins, electric vehicle-ready charging and secure bike parking and storage; f) reduce construction and operational waste through effective on-site recycling and diversion strategies, both during construction and for long- term residential use; and g) promote water-efficient systems and sustainable stormwater management practices, both within the building and across the site. City Policy Sustainable Building Measures 11.B.54 City Council shall: a) apply sustainable building and site design practices in alignment with the City’s Integrated Sustainable Design Standards (ISDS); b) promote, energy-efficient, and low-carbon neighbourhoods and implement site strategies that reduce greenhouse gas emissions and mitigate the urban heat island effect as a result of development; c) encourage energy-efficient buildings, integration of renewable energy, on-site clean energy systems, and exploration of district energy solutions; d) incorporate CPTED principles, AODA-compliant barrier-free design, intuitive wayfinding, in public and private spaces; e) incorporate native, drought-tolerant, and pollinator-friendly plantings that support wildlife and integrate design-with-nature principles (for example, bird-friendly building and site design); f) encourage construction practices that prioritize sustainable site management and the diversion of non-hazardous construction, demolition, and land-clearing waste from landfill; g) where recommended, incorporate site and building design measures to enhance resilience to extreme weather events; h) support low-carbon and active transportation through electric vehicle infrastructure, short and long-term bicycle parking including secure bicycle parking and transit connectivity; 43 i) support municipal programs and partnerships that demonstrate leadership in sustainable development; and j) design to protect, conserve and enhance the natural environment. City Policy Stormwater Management 11.B.55 City Council shall permit required stormwater management facilities in all designations, except as set out in Section 11.B.9, subject to the following: a) Neighbourhood Plans shall illustrate the location of stormwater management facilities conceptually identified through the Master Environmental Servicing Plan - Stormwater Management Plan based on the recommendations of the Subwatershed Study; b) the Stormwater Management Plan shall incorporate a treatment train approach to reduce runoff volume and to treat stormwater runoff on-site using source, conveyance and end of pipe controls. c) the Stormwater Management Plan should avoid subwatershed drainage diversion to the extent practical; d) stormwater ponds shall be naturalized using native species; e) in conjunction with development approvals, payment shall be provided for the clean-out and maintenance of all corresponding stormwater infrastructure beyond its first maintenance period; and f) consideration may be given to underground stormwater management facilities combined with public parks, rights of way or other public uses at Council’s discretion. Housing City Policy Objectives 11.B.56 It is the objective of City Council to: a) provide for a range of housing opportunities that respond to existing and future needs in terms of form, location, size, cost, accessibility and tenure; and b) provide for opportunities for affordable ownership and rental housing. 44 City Policy Mix of Housing Types 11.B.57 City Council shall: a) require a mix of housing types, unit sizes, and tenure within the higher densities in the Regional Centre, the Community Nodes and along the Transit Corridor in the Mixed Corridor designation; b) encourage housing types that can accommodate multi-generational housing; c) encourage builders to provide additional dwelling units in new single detached, semi-detached and townhouse dwellings or pre-fit new dwellings to be able to incorporate additional dwelling units in the future; d) encourage the development of new affordable rental and ownership housing options, including shared living arrangements, such as co- ownership; e) encourage all single and semi-detached dwellings to be designed to accommodate up to two additional dwelling units within the dwelling or within a detached structure; and f) consider reduction of parking requirements for additional dwelling units if the proposed unit is within a short walking distance of a transit stop. City Policy Affordable Housing 11.B.58 City Council shall: a) encourage at least 25% of all new residential units on lands outside of the Regional Centre to be affordable to low and moderate income households. b) encourage at least 35% of all residential units on lands within the Regional Centre to be affordable to low and moderate income households. c) permit an additional two storeys above the maximum height limits, and/or equivalent additional density, for developments that meet or exceed the minimum affordable housing target within their designation. d) encourage new and innovative affordable housing options and the means by which affordable housing may be supplied, regardless of tenure. 45 e) in order to monitor and encourage the implementation of a diverse and affordable housing stock in the Secondary Plan, an Affordable Housing Brief will be required to be submitted with all major residential development applications, which include 100 units or more, that justifies how the development application will contribute to achieving affordable housing targets. f) encourage affordable housing to locate near arterial roads to provide residents access to public transit; g) integrate community housing, supportive housing and other types of subsidized non-market housing units, within neighbourhoods and developments that also provide market housing to support diversity; h) encourage new affordable housing and purpose-built rental housing to incorporate barrier-free, universal or flex design features in both common and living areas; i) collaborate with community housing providers to encourage a supply of subsidized non-market housing units to be included within the housing mix in the Secondary Plan Area; j) reduce the minimum parking requirements on a site-by-site basis for the affordable housing portion of a development proposal; k) request land within all neighbourhoods, except neighbourhood 27, be provided to the Region of Durham, or other not-for-profit housing provider, for the development of affordable, public or non-profit housing in the community. The land to be conveyed within each neighbourhood shall have an approximate size of 1.5 hectares, be designated for residential use within the Northeast Pickering Secondary Plan boundaries, be fully serviced, be vacant, and be gratuitously conveyed free and clear of encumbrances. Conveyance shall occur before the final approval of the first development application within the neighbourhood; and l) fast track the review of development applications that include affordable housing units that are being funded by federal and provincial government programs, the Region of Durham, or non-profit groups. 46 Cultural Heritage Resources City Policy Objectives 11.B.59 It is the objective of City Council to: a) identify potential cultural heritage resources including archaeological sites, cultural heritage landscapes, and built heritage resources; b) conserve protected heritage properties which may contain built heritage resources or cultural heritage landscapes; c) encourage the creation of proactive strategies for conserving protected heritage properties in the new urban neighbourhood plans; d) record and document all built heritage resources and cultural heritage landscapes that cannot be conserved in place; e) engage First Nations early in planning process to ensure their interests are considered when identifying, protecting and managing archaeological resources, build heritage resources and cultural heritage landscapes; f) ensure that development and site alterations on adjacent lands to protected heritage properties be of an appropriate scale and character, so as to conserve the heritage attributes; and g) not permit development or site alteration on lands containing archaeological resources or areas of archaeological potential unless significant archaeological resources have been conserved. City Policy Built Heritage Resources 11.B.60 City Council shall require Neighbourhood Plans to identify, conserve and incorporate significant built heritage and/or cultural heritage landscape resources into the design of the new neighbourhoods by: a) evaluating any potential cultural heritage resources within Northeast Picking, including those identified on Appendix A; b) incorporating the recommendations of the analysis of ten potential cultural heritage resources in Northeast Pickering; c) developing and implementing strategies that proactively conserve significant built heritage resources and cultural heritage landscapes to serve as community agricultural hubs and placemaking opportunities within the Neighbourhood Plans; 47 d) giving direction to draft plans of subdivision to provide appropriate uses, lot sizes, setbacks, built form and massing adjacent to the built heritage resources that complements and respects the resource so that the resource is integrated into the neighbourhood; and e) incorporating built heritage resources and/or cultural heritage landscapes where feasible which maintain their agricultural use within a new urban agricultural setting or provide for future community use. City Policy Development-Related Incentives 11.B.61 City Council may offer development-related incentives to encourage urban agriculture integration with agricultural-related heritage resources. The potential outcome of these efforts could be: a) permanent agricultural easements; b) publicly accessible agricultural programming; or c) incubator farm space or educational food production. City Policy Adaptive Reuse of Built Heritage Resources 11.B.62 City Council shall: a) support the adaptive reuse of built heritage resources on protected heritage properties including agricultural buildings for uses that support urban agriculture, agri-food innovation, community food access, and cultural uses; b) support utilizing built heritage and/or cultural heritage landscapes to serve as placemaking opportunities and/or community supported agricultural hubs within the Neighbourhood Plans; c) permit the adaptive reuse of built heritage resources where it: i) conserves or enhances the identified cultural heritage value of the resource; and ii) complies with the Ontario Heritage Act; d) permit a range of new uses within built heritage resources including residential, guest accommodation, personal services, restaurants, offices and retail use so as to ensure its ongoing use; 48 e) encourage proposals for the adaptive reuse of agricultural built heritage resources to incorporate food system-related functions, including but not limited to: i) controlled environment agriculture; ii) value-added processing; iii) incubator kitchens or training facilities; iv) farm stands, community supported agricultural hubs, or market kiosks; and v) educational or interpretive facilities related to local food and heritage; f) permit, where a protected heritage property is located adjacent to the Natural Heritage System, the use of those lands for low-impact agricultural activities uses, educational programming, and stewardship partnerships including: i) urban agriculture uses; ii) farmland trusts or farm business incubators plots; iii) seed-saving and native plant propagation; and iv) seasonal community events or cultural interpretation. City Policy Public Works 11.B.63 City Council shall ensure, to the extent practical, where not precluded by grading or other servicing constraints, that: a) site alteration including road widenings, road re-alignments, and slope or bank stabilization, among other works, shall be undertaken in a manner that does not destroy or adversely affect known archaeological sites, built heritage properties and/or cultural heritage landscape features; and b) all works undertaken by public agencies considers impacts on built heritage resources and cultural heritage landscapes, with a presumption against any action that would adversely affect such resource or its attributes. 49 City Policy Respecting First Nations 11.B.64 City Council shall: a) recognize First Nations’ cultural and spiritual connection to the Northeast Pickering Urban Area; and b) require the development process be undertaken in a respectful manner consistent with established engagement protocols. City Policy Archaeology Monitor 11.B.65 City Council shall require, as a condition of draft plan or site plan approval, that a First Nation’s archaeology monitor be retained and funded by the applicant for any significant mitigative excavation activities, on known pre-contact archaeological sites during archaeological assessment work. Secondary Plan Implementation City Policy Cost Sharing and Parks Agreements 11.B.66 City Council: a) shall require certain benefitting landowners within the Secondary Plan Area to enter into a cost sharing agreement or other agreements amongst themselves to equitably distribute the costs of development including those which may not be recoverable by the Municipality under the Development Charges Act, 1997, or any successor legislation, particularly the provision of community and infrastructure facilities such as parks, roads, road improvements, external services, storm water management facilities, public/private utilities and schools; b) to implement subsection a) above, may include conditions of Draft Plan Approval that require the benefitting landowners to enter into agreements with other benefitting landowners with respect to the provision of servicing and to require all applications to provide a letter of good standing from the group trustee prior to registration of the application(s). If a benefitting landowner chooses not to enter into such agreements, no development shall be permitted until it has been demonstrated that the benefitting landowner has entered 50 into required cost sharing and other agreements with other affected landowners with respect to the provision of services and other infrastructure; and c) shall require a Master Parks and Community Lands Agreement be entered into between the benefitting landowners and the City prior to approval of the first draft plan of subdivision or site plan and which sets out the size, general location and timing of parks to be dedicated to the City under the Planning Act requirements, and which sets out the size and general location of additional lands for park or other community facilities and pruposes to be aquired by the Municipality, and the timing of that aquisition where known. City Policy Infrastructure Staging and Phasing Plan 11.B.67 City Council shall require an Infrastructure Staging and Phasing Plan be prepared which identifies: a) an orderly, cost-efficient delivery of water and sanitary infrastructure improvements required to service each neighbourhood and the external infrastructure improvements and the timing of these improvements based on population and employment growth thresholds; b) new collector and arterial roads within each neighbourhood and external road improvements and the timing of these improvements based on population and employment growth thresholds; c) transit service delivery timing including higher-order transit based on population and employment growth thresholds; d) community facilities required in each neighbourhood plan and the population growth thresholds for delivery of each facility; and e) a phasing plan which identifies the phasing of growth in line with the timing of delivery of infrastructure, roads, transit and community facilities and considers the City’s Growth Management forecasts and the portion of the population that can be accommodated by 2051 and the portion to be accommodated after. City Policy Phasing near off-site Livestock Operations 11.B.68 City Council shall require development to be phased adjacent to livestock operations outside of the Northeast Pickering Secondary Plan Area whose Minimum Distance Separation Arcs extend into the 51 Secondary Plan Area or mitigate any potential impacts from the livestock operations. City Policy Implementation Requirements 11.B.69 City Council shall ensure that the cost of new development will not have an adverse impact on the financial capability of the Municipality and the Region and ensure that timely residential and employment development coincides with and supports required infrastructure and community facilities, by permitting applications for development in Northeast Pickering to only be submitted when: a) an Infrastructure Staging and Phasing Plan for the Secondary Plan as set out in Section 11.B.66 is completed to the City’s satisfaction; b) a Master Environmental Servicing Plan is approved by Council for Northeast Pickering; c) Neighbourhood Plans are approved by Council for the respective Neighbourhood as an amendment to the Official Plan; d) required class environmental assessments are completed for sanitary sewer and water infrastructure; e) required class environmental assessments are completed for transportation infrastructure; f) a Fiscal Impact Study for the Secondary Plan Area that is based on the phasing of development, and ensuring that the funding of new infrastructure has been approved by Council; g) the Municipality has in full force and effect, and not subject to appeal, a Development Charges and Community Benefits Charges (if required) By-laws enacted under the Development Charges Act, 1997 or any successor legislation identifying and imposing charges applicable to the lands in the Secondary Plan Area; h) the municipality has received confirmation, from the landowner group trustee, that the landowner has entered into a cost-sharing agreement contemplated in Section 11.B.66 a) and b) and is a member in good standing; and i) a Master Park and Community Lands Agreement has been entered into as set out in Section 11.B.66 c). 52 Neighbourhood Plan Implementation City Policy Master Environmental Servicing Plan 11.B.70 City Council shall require a Master Environmental Servicing Plan (MESP) to be prepared for the Northeast Pickering Secondary Plan Area which shall: a) be prepared based on an approved terms of reference to the satisfaction of the City and Region of Durham in consultation with the conservation authorities; b) assess the draft Neighbourhood Plans, constituting the whole of the Secondary Plan Area, and make any recommendations for potential land use changes and impact management practice; c) characterize surface water, ground water, fluvial geomorphology, aquatic resources and terrestrial resources building on the details in the approved Scoped Subwatershed Study and the Carruthers Creek Watershed Hydrology Update Project which will supersede the hydrology analysis in the Scoped Subwatershed Study once completed; d) assess and consider the resource management directions of the relevant Watershed Plan and approved Scoped Subwatershed Study. The flood control requirements for the Carruthers Creek watershed will be superseded by the updated Carruthers Creek Watershed Hydrology Update Project once completed including identifying and extending regulatory event flood line mapping and defining erosion hazards and updating relevant technical modelling; e) include the staked boundaries (where accessible) of natural heritage features to be protected in consultation with the City of Pickering and relevant agencies having jurisdiction and any proposed refinements, enhancements and linkages to the Natural Heritage System; f) conduct a headwater drainage feature assessment of the features shown on Appendix B, based on the analysis conducted in the Scoped Subwatershed Study and confirm the management recommendations; g) assess the hedgerows and wetland/water features shown on Appendix C to characterize their ultimate function and future protection; h) assess the impact on the Natural Heritage System of proposed road and other infrastructure crossings of the Natural Heritage System and make recommendations where necessary; 53 i) include a subwatershed wide monitoring program for aquatic and terrestrial features associated with the build-out of the Secondary Plan Area; j) include a restoration plan for the Secondary Plan Area that identifies opportunities for restoration, enhancement, connectivity and compensation throughout the community; k) describe the size and location of required trunk sanitary sewage collection system including any pumping stations and force mains; l) describe the water distribution system including the size and location of reservoirs and pumping stations; m) identify preliminary grading; n) establish a stormwater management plan, which, among other matters, identifies Low Impact Development (LID) measures and the general location and approximate size of stormwater management facilities which may be subject to expansion if required by the Carruthers Creek Watershed Hydrology Update Project; o) set out a staging and sequencing of infrastructure required for the entirety of Northeast Pickering and for each Neighbourhood Plan; and p) be prepared collaboratively by the City and landowners with costs being funded solely by the landowners within the Secondary Plan Area. City Policy Neighbourhood Plan Requirements 11.B.71 City Council shall require Neighbourhood Plans to: a) be developed in discussion with First Nations, the public, landowners, relevant public agencies, neighbouring municipalities and other interested groups; b) be prepared as drafts for input into the MESP; c) provide a block plan level of detail on the intended block and pattern of development; d) further detail the boundaries of the residential, mixed use and employment designations and identify any variations in minimum densities, minimum and maximum heights, and proportions of housing types; e) identify the location of Community Parks, Neighbourhood Parks, Urban Parks and Village Greens; f) Identify the location of all recreation complexes and community centres; 54 g) identify the locations of required fire stations, based on a Fire Services Department response model study as referenced in Policy 11.B.36 d); h) prepare an Active Transportation Master Plan for the entire Secondary Plan Area as referenced in Policy 11.B.52; i) prepare a transportation plan that implements the recommendations in the Integrated Transportation/Transit Strategy Report and confirms road layout and road cross sections, intersection signalization, transit routing and high order transit technology and transit station locations; j) include a transition strategy for the Hamlet of Greenwood as referenced in Policy 11.B.30; k) identify the location of elementary and secondary schools; l) incorporate the general location and approximate boundaries of stormwater management facilities including low impact development (LID) measures determined through the MESP; m) identify significant built heritage resources and/or cultural heritage landscapes and the means to incorporate them into the neighbourhoods as placemaking opportunities; n) consider and integrate the recommendations of completed archaeological and heritage assessments; o) develop urban design standards including, but not limited to, block patterns, streetscapes, building height transitions, and road cross sections; p) delineate the pedestrian and bikeway network through the Neighbourhood and Natural Heritage System; q) be refined based on input from the MESP and adopted after completion of the MESP; and r) be prepared collaboratively by the City and landowners for all neighbourhood plans within the secondary plan area with costs being funded solely by the landowners within the Secondary Plan Area. Highway 407 Greenwood Road Eighth Concession Road Brock Road Salem Road Central Street Westney Road Kinsale Road Sideline 14 Highway 7 Fifth Conc ession Road Mowbray Street Seventh Concession Road Whitevale Road Sixth Concession Road Ninth Concession Road Sideline 22 Sideline 20 Sideline 8 Paddock Road Sideline 12 Sideline 6 Sideline 4 Sideline 2 Audley Road N Sideline 16 Sideline 26 Brock Road Westney Road Sideline 14 Sideline 2 Sideline 4 Sideline 6 Sideline 12 Sideline 20 Sideline 24 Sideline 26 Sideline 24 North Road Seventh Concession Road C .P.R . D54 CLAREMONT BIRCHWOODESTATES SPRINGCREEK BALSAM GREENWOOD BARCLAYESTATES STAXTONGLEN BROUGHAM FORESTCREEKESTATES E2 E4 CP ES ES NP NP SP CP HS CP CP CP HS HS HS HS CP VG VG VG VG UP VG VG ES ES ES ES ES ESESESES ES ES ES ES ES ES ES NP NP NP NP NP NP NP NPNP NP NP NP NP NP NP ES NP CC RC NP Town of Ajax Township of Uxbridge Town of Whitby Michell Creek East Duffins Creek Trans-Canada Pipeline Schedule I to the Edition 9 PickeringOfficial Plan Sheet 3 of 3 City of PickeringCity Development Department© February, 2026This Map Forms Part of Edition 9 of the Pickering Ofiicial Plan andMust Be Read in Conjunction with the Other Schedules and the Text. CityofPickering AreaShownonThis Map TownofAjax City of Toronto City of Markham Township of Uxbridge Town of Whitby Land Use Structure Symbols Urban Residential Areas Mixed Use Areas Employment Areas Freeways and Major Utilities Other Designations Open Space System Active Recreational Areas Natural Areas Rural Settlements Rural Hamlets Rural Clusters Low Density Areas Medium Density Areas High Density Areas Community Nodes Mixed Corridors Prestige Employment Prime Agricultural Areas Oak Ridges MoraineCountryside Areas Federal Lands Oak Ridges Moraine BoundaryGreenbelt Boundary Country Residential ExceptionsE4 Oak Ridges MoraineNatural Core Areas Oak Ridges MoraineNatural Linkage Areas Natural Heritage System Controlled Access Areas Community ParkCP Oak Ridges MoraineRural Hamlets Prime Agricultural AreasOn The Oak Ridges Moraine Proposed Airport Site Regional Centre DeferralsD1 Potential Multi Use Areas Lake Ridge Road Eighth Concession Road Highway 7 Business Area Business Areas Subject to Policy 3.20 b)of the Pickering Official Plan (Ed.9) Neighbourhood ParkNP Village GreenVG Elementary SchoolESSportsplexSP Recreation ComplexRC Community CentreCC High SchoolHS Urban ParkUP Highway 407 Whites Road Fairport Road Greenwood Road Liverpool Road Rougemount Drive Hig h w a y 4 0 1 Eighth Concession Road Brock Road Kin g sto n Road Finch Avenue Salem Road Central Street Sheppard Avenue Westney Road West ShoreBoulevard Kinsale Road North Road Glenan naRoad Sideline 14 Notion Road Third Concession Road Highway 7 Fifth Conc ession Road Altona Road M aj or O a k sRoad Mowbray Street Stro u ds Lan e Pickering P a r k w a y V a lle y FarmRoad Dixie Road Seventh Concession Road Whitevale Road Glendale Drive Squires Beach Road York Durham Line Markham-Pickering Townline Road Peter Matthews Drive Twyn Rivers Drive Rosebank Road Clements Road Sixth Concession Road Montgomery Pa rk Ro ad Bayly Street Dil lingham Ro ad Ninth Concession Road Sideline 22 Church Street S Mc Kay Road Sideline 20 Taunton RoadFourthConcessionRoad Scarborough Pickering Townline Sideline 30 Sideline 8 Sideline 34 Paddock Road Golf Club Road Sideline 24 Sideline 28 Sideline 12 Sideline 6 Sideline 4 Sideline 2 Audley Road N Sideline 32 Sideline 16 Sideline 26 Sideline 26 Brock Road Westney Road Sideline 14 Sideline 2 Sideline 4 Sideline 6 Sideline 12 Sideline 20 Sideline 24 Sideline 26 Sideline 24 North Road Altona Road Whites Road Sideline 28 Seventh Concession Road Sideline 32 C .P.R. T r a n s -N o r ther n P i p e lin e C.P.R. C.N.R. C.N.R. Trans-Canada Pipeline Claremont Spring Creek Balsam Greenwood BarclayEstates CherrywoodEastCherrywoodWest Whitevale GreenRiver StaxtonGlen Brougham ForestCreek Estates 407 407 401 24 1 22 2 31 23 7 5 23 38 4 27 222 38 38 27 4 29 37 1 4 7 7 31 1 5 27 30 30 30 5 7 D40 D40 L a k e O n t a r i o Frenchman'sBay Schedule II to thePickering Official Plan Edition 9 Transportation System City of PickeringCity Development Department© February, 2026This Map Forms Part of Edition 9 of the Pickering Ofiicial Plan andMust Be Read in Conjunction with the Other Schedules and the Text. Existing Future Freeways Type B Arterial Roads Type C Arterial Roads Collector Roads Local Roads Freeway Interchanges Transit Feeders Transit Spines DeferralsD1 Underpasses/Overpasses Railways GO Rail Type A Arterial Roads GO Stations 407 Transit Stations/Potential Higher Order Transit Stations Highway 407 Whites Road Fairport Road Greenwood Road Liverpool Road Rougemount Drive Hig h w a y 4 0 1 Eighth Concession Road Brock Road Kin g sto n Road Finch Avenue Salem Road Central Street Sheppard Avenue Westney Road West Shore Boulevard Kinsale Road North Road Glenan naRoad Sideline 14 Notion Road Third Concession Road Highway 7 Fifth Conc ession Road Altona Road M a j or Oa k sRoad Mowbray Street Stro u ds Lan e Pickering P a r k w a y V all e y FarmRoad Dixie Road Seventh Concession Road Whitevale Road Glendale Drive Squires Beach Road York Durham Line Markham-Pickering Townline Road Peter Matthews Drive Twyn Rivers Drive Rosebank Road Clements Road Sixth Concession Road Montgomery Pa rk Ro ad Bayly Street Dillingham Ro ad Ninth Concession Road Sideline 22 Church Street S Mc Kay Road Sideline 20 Taunton RoadFourthConcessionRoad Scarborough Pickering Townline Sideline 30 Sideline 8 Sideline 34 Paddock Road Golf Club Road Sideline 24 Sideline 28 Sideline 12 Sideline 6 Sideline 4 Sideline 2 Audley Road N Sideline 32 Sideline 16 Sideline 26 Sideline 26 Brock Road Westney Road Sideline 14 Sideline 2 Sideline 4 Sideline 6 Sideline 12 Sideline 20 Sideline 24 Sideline 26 Sideline 24 North Road Altona Road Whites Road Sideline 28 Seventh Concession Road Sideline 32 C.P.R. Tr a n s -N o r t h e r n Pip e l i n e C.P.R. C.N.R. C.N.R. Trans-Canada Pipeline Church Street S Squires Beach Road Clements Road Claremont Spring Creek Balsam Greenwood BarclayEstates Cherrywoodand Area Whitevale Green River StaxtonGlen Brougham ForestCreekEstates 407 407 401 24 1 22 2 31 23 7 5 23 38 4 27 222 38 38 27 4 29 37 1 4 7 7 31 1 5 27 30 30 30 5 7 Lake Ontario Resource Management:The Natural Heritage System Frenchman'sBay City of PickeringCity Development Department© January, 2026This Map Forms Part of Edition 9 of the Pickering Ofiicial Plan andMust Be Read in Conjunction with the Other Schedules and the Text. Schedule III A to the Edition 9 PickeringOfficial Plan Greenbelt Natural Heritage System Natural Heritage System D55 CPR Highway 407 Whites Road Fairport Road Greenwood Road Liverpool Road Rougemount Drive H ig h w a y 4 0 1 Eighth Concession Road Brock Road Kin gsto n Road Finch Avenue Salem Road Central Street Sheppard Avenue Westney Road West ShoreBoulevard Kinsale Road North Road Glenan naRoad Sideline 14 Notion Road Third Concession Road Highway 7 Fifth Conc ession Road Altona Road M a j o r Oa k sRoad Mowbray Street Stro u ds Lan e Pickering P a r k w a y V all e y FarmRoad Dixie Road Seventh Concession Road Whitevale Road Glendale Drive Squires Beach Road York Durham Line Markham-Pickering Townline Road Peter Matthews Drive Twyn Rivers Drive Rosebank Road Clements Road Sixth Concession Road Montgomery Pa rk Ro ad Bayly Street Dillingham Ro ad Ninth Concession Road Sideline 22 Church Street S Mc Kay Road Sideline 20 Taunton RoadFourthConcessionRoad Scarborough Pickering Townline Sideline 30 Sideline 8 Sideline 34 Paddock Road Golf Club Road Sideline 24 Sideline 28 Sideline 12 Sideline 6 Sideline 4 Sideline 2 Audley Road N Sideline 32 Sideline 16 Sideline 26 Sideline 26 Brock Road Westney Road Sideline 14 Sideline 2 Sideline 4 Sideline 6 Sideline 12 Sideline 20 Sideline 24 Sideline 26 Sideline 24 North Road Altona Road Whites Road Sideline 28 Seventh Concession Road Sideline 32 C.P.R. Tr a n s -N o r t h e r n Pip e l i n e C.P.R. C.N.R. C.N.R. Trans-Canada Pipeline Greenwood Claremont Balsam ForestCreek Estates Spring Creek Whitevale BarclayEstates StaxtonGlen Green River Brougham 407 407 401 24 1 22 2 31 23 7 5 23 38 4 27 222 38 38 27 4 29 37 1 4 7 7 31 1 5 27 30 30 30 5 7 Lake Ontario Frenchman'sBay City of PickeringCity Development Department© January, 2026This Map Forms Part of Edition 9 of the Pickering Ofiicial Plan andMust Be Read in Conjunction with the Other Schedules and the Text. Schedule III B to the Edition 9 PickeringOfficial Plan D55 Cherrywoodand Area Resource Management:Key Natural Heritage Features Significant Woodlands Rouge-Duffins Wildlife Corridor Areas of Natural and Scientific Interest Former Lake Iroquois Shoreline Altona Forest Policy Area Other Map Elements Oak Ridges Moraine Boundary Greenbelt Boundary Claremont Spring Creek Balsam Greenwood BarclayEstates Cherrywoodand Area Whitevale Green River StaxtonGlen Brougham ForestCreekEstates 407 407 401 24 1 22 2 31 23 7 5 23 38 4 27 222 38 38 27 4 29 37 1 4 7 7 31 1 5 27 30 30 30 5 7 Lake Ontario Resource Management:Key Natural Heritage Features/Key Hydrologic Features Frenchman'sBay City of PickeringCity Development Department© February, 2026This Map Forms Part of Edition 9 of the Pickering Ofiicial Plan andMust Be Read in Conjunction with the Other Schedules and the Text. Schedule III C to the Edition 9 PickeringOfficial Plan Lake Ontario Frenchman'sBay C.P.R D55 Fish Habitat Watershed Boundary Flood Plain Special Policy Areas Permanent & Intermittent Streams Shorelines, Significant Valley Landsand Stream Corridors (May include Hazardous Lands) Wetlands Duffins CreekWatershed Carruther's CreekWatershed LyndeCreekWatershed Frenchman's Bay,Lake OntarioWatershed Petticoat CreekWatershed BellaVistaWatershed Headwater Drainage Feature - Protect Headwater Drainage Feature - Conserve 0 400 800 1,200200Meters Schedule 11B - Northeast Pickering Secondary Plan Land Use Schedule Community Node Areas Freeway Existing Road Proposed Road Collector Arterial Arterial Collector Land Use Structure CP NP Prestige Employment Areas Low Density Areas Medium Density Areas Mixed Corridor Areas Subject to Policy 3.20 b) of the Pickering Official Plan (Ed. 9) Legend Northeast Pickering Study Area Boundary Roads outside Study Area Potential Multi Use Areas Business Areas Community Centre High Density Areas CC Community Park Neighbourhood Park High School Elementary SchoolES HS VG Village Green Potential Interchange Regional Centre Sideline 4 Sideline 4 Salem Road Salem Road Audley Road Hwy 407 Sideline 6 Sideline 4 Sideline 2 Westney Road Sideline 8 Sideline 6 Sideline 4 Sideline 2 Eighth Concession Brawley Road Westney Road Seventh Concession Kinsale Road Lake Ridge Road Sixth Concession Hwy 7 Sideline 8 Hollywood Court Greenburn Place Westney Road Greenwood Road Trimble's Lane UP Urban Park Recreation ComplexRC SportsplexSP Hazards MTO Lands Natural Heritage System *Lands yet to be identified for future fire stations, operations facilities, police stations, ambulance stations, Regional work facilities, etc. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 101112 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 Potential Cultural Heritage Resourcesin Northeast Pickering City of PickeringCity Development Department© January, 2026This Map Forms Part of Edition 9 of the Pickering Ofiicial Plan andMust Be Read in Conjunction with the Other Schedules and the Text. Section 11B Appendix A to the Edition 9 PickeringOfficial Plan 4390 Sideline 8 2630 Seventh Concession Rd 2625 Seventh Concession Rd 2750 Seventh Concession Rd 2785 Seventh Concession Rd 4230 Slideline 6 4380 Eighth Concession Rd 4365 Sideline 4 4130 Lake Ridge Rd 3290 Seventh Concession Rd 3220 Seventh Concession Rd 3160-3190 Seventh Concession Rd 4140 Kinsale Rd 3905 Sideline 6 4015 - 4025 Sideline 6 3885 Westney Rd 2670 Sixth Concession Rd 2715 Sixth Concession Rd 2730 Sixth Concession Rd 3060 Highway 7 3810 Kinsale Rd 3600 Lake Ridge Rd Northeast Pickering Boundary 1 2 3 5 4 6 7 8 9 10 11 22 21 20 19 18 17 16 15 14 13 12 Sideline 4 Sideline 4 Salem Road Salem Road Audley Road Hwy 407 Sideline 6 Sideline 4 Sideline 2Westney Road Sideline 8 Sideline 6 Sideline 4 Sideline 2 Eighth Concession Brawley Road Westney Road Seventh Concession Kinsale Road Lake Ridge Road Sixth Concession Hwy 7 Sideline 8 Hollywood Court Westney RoadGreenwood Road Trimble's Lane Headwater Drainage Features in Northeast Pickering City of PickeringCity Development Department© February, 2026This Map Forms Part of Edition 9 of the Pickering Ofiicial Plan andMust Be Read in Conjunction with the Other Schedules and the Text. Section 11B Appendix B to the Edition 9 PickeringOfficial Plan Northeast Pickering Boundary Sideline 4 Sideline 4 Salem Road Salem Road Audley Road Hwy 407 Sideline 6 Sideline 4 Sideline 2Westney Road Sideline 8 Sideline 6 Sideline 4 Sideline 2 Eighth Concession Brawley Road Westney Road Seventh Concession Kinsale Road Lake Ridge Road Sixth Concession Hwy 7 Sideline 8 Hollywood Court Westney RoadGreenwood Road Trimble's Lane Natural Heritage System Subject to further review Hedgerows and Wetland/Water Featuresin Northeast Pickering City of PickeringCity Development Department© February, 2026This Map Forms Part of Edition 9 of the Pickering Ofiicial Plan andMust Be Read in Conjunction with the Other Schedules and the Text. Section 11B Appendix C to the Edition 9 PickeringOfficial Plan Hedgerow Northeast Pickering Boundary Sideline 4 Sideline 4 Salem Road Salem Road Audley Road Hwy 407 Sideline 6 Sideline 4 Sideline 2Westney Road Sideline 8 Sideline 6 Sideline 4 Sideline 2 Eighth Concession Brawley Road Westney Road Seventh Concession Kinsale Road Lake Ridge Road Sixth Concession Hwy 7 Sideline 8 Hollywood Court Westney RoadGreenwood Road Trimble's Lane Natural Heritage System Wetland/Water Feature Attachment 2 to Report PLN 03-26 Map of the Northeast Pickering Secondary Plan Area CONTACT THE CITY OF PICKERING CITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT FOR DIGITAL COPIES OF THIS PLAN.Date: October 17, 2025 Attachment 3 to Report PLN 03-26 Statutory Public Meeting Information Report Report Number: 10-25 Date: November 10, 2025 From: Catherine Rose, MCIP, RPP Chief Planner Subject: Official Plan Amendment Application OPA 25-003P Proposed Amendment 54: Northeast Pickering Secondary Plan City Initiated 1.Purpose of this Report The purpose of this report is to present the final draft Northeast Pickering Secondary Plan (Secondary Plan). The Secondary Plan includes policies and schedules that are intended to direct the development for this area of Pickering to 2051 and beyond (see Attachments 1 and 2). The Official Plan Amendment includes the draft Secondary Plan as well as amendments to associated sections of the Pickering Official Plan. As part of the Pickering Official Plan, the draft Secondary Plan is a planning document that is intended to guide the overall growth and development of a specific part of the City. The statutory public meeting provides an opportunity for the public, landowners, and other stakeholders to hear the presentation on the Secondary Plan, and to provide comments to City staff and its consultants on the proposed Plan. This report is for information purposes only, and no decision on the Secondary Plan will be made at this time. A recommendation report is expected to be presented to the Planning & Development Committee for their consideration in early 2026. 2.Property Location and Description The Secondary Plan includes an area of approximately 1,763 hectares in the northeast sector of Pickering. The approximate boundaries are: •North – Eighth Concession Road •South – Highway 7 •West – Westney Road •East – Lake Ridge Road (Pickering / Whitby border) A map of the Secondary Plan area is included as Attachment 3. Based on calculations for each of the proposed land uses, lands in the Secondary Plan area are expected to provide homes for over 72,000 people and enough employment and commercial land to generate approximately 9,700 jobs once fully built-out. Information Report 10-25 Page 2 3. Proposed Official Plan Amendment 54 Attachments 1 and 2 to this report are draft Official Plan Amendment 54. It includes a copy of the draft Secondary Plan for Northeast Pickering as well as amendments to associated sections of the Pickering Official Plan. 4. Background 4.1 Veraine – Developer Initiated In 2017, a group of developers within Northeast Pickering began a visioning exercise for a new urban community known as “Veraine”. The developers assembled an interdisciplinary team to undertake a planning study on the Veraine lands. This process included consultation with City staff to include lessons learned from the planning and development of the Seaton Community. As part of this exercise, a public and stakeholder meeting was held in the summer of 2019. The project resulted in the creation of a Vision for the Veraine lands and Guiding Community Planning Principles. On November 25, 2019, Council, through Resolution #173/19, supported the inclusion of the Veraine lands into the urban area as part of the Region of Durham’s on-going Municipal Comprehensive Review of its Official Plan. At the same time, Council directed staff to report back with a process to initiate a secondary plan exercise based on the community planning principles developed for Veraine. 4.2 Northeast Pickering Secondary Plan – City Initiated On June 28, 2021, Council directed staff to initiate work on a secondary plan for a new proposed community in Northeast Pickering through Report PLN 31-21 and Resolution #625/21 (see Attachments 4 and 5). Following a competitive bidding process, a multi- disciplinary team, led by SGL Planning & Design Inc., was awarded the contract for this project on April 25, 2022. Over the course of the project, several technical background reports were prepared to identify existing conditions, evaluate future community needs, and inform design opportunities and constraints. The technical background work was further supported by consultation with various City departments, external agencies, Indigenous rightsholders, and the public. Further details on the project consultation is contained in Section 6 of this report. In December, 2024, the Province approved all remaining parts of the Envision Durham Official Plan, which added Northeast Pickering into the Pickering urban boundary, designating it as “2051 Urban Expansion Areas”. On June 9, 2025, Pickering’s Planning & Development Committee received an update on the progress of the Northeast Pickering Secondary Plan process and the Environmental Assessment (see Attachment 6 Report PLN 13-25). Information Report 10-25 Page 3 5. Technical Background Studies To help inform the creation of the Secondary Plan, several technical background studies were prepared. A list of those studies is included below. A summary of each of the technical background studies is provided in Attachment 7. • Agricultural Impact Assessment • Archaeological Assessment • Cultural Heritage Resource Assessment • Employment Lands Strategy • Integrated Transportation/Transit Strategy • Community Placemaking Study • Affordable Housing Strategy • Sustainability Report • Retail Market Study • Community Services and Facilities Report • Municipal Servicing Analysis • Natural Heritage and Hazard Report • Scoped Subwatershed Plan (Phase 1 Completed, Phase 2 and 3 ongoing) 5.1 Scoped Subwatershed Plan Phase 1 of the scoped subwatershed plan (SSWS) identified and characterized the existing conditions of the natural and water-based systems within the Secondary Plan study area, and documented the initial constraints on development. This work was completed in December 2024. Phase 2 is expected to be completed in early 2026. Phase 2 will assess the impacts of the Preferred Land Use Plan (see Attachment 9) that is being presented at the statutory public meeting, and will develop a mitigation/management strategy to ensure that the integrity of the natural system is maintained. This includes confirming the type of stormwater planning that will be needed. Based on the Phase 2 conclusions, further changes may be made to the draft Secondary Plan. Phase 3 of the SSWS will identify recommendations for future studies, as well as guidance on implementation and monitoring. 6. What We Heard 6.1 What We Heard – Public Comments Since the initiation of the Secondary Plan process in April of 2022, three public information centres were held, and three online surveys were hosted, to garner input on various aspects of the constraints and land use elements of the Secondary Plan. The Final Engagement and Communications Report, prepared by SGL Planning & Design Inc. and Dillon Consulting, is provided in Attachment 8. Information Report 10-25 Page 4 The Notice of the Electronic Statutory Public Meeting was provided through email to all persons who requested to be informed of the Secondary Plan’s progress. Additionally, Public Meeting notices were posted on the City’s website, the project webpage, through the City’s social media channels, and through an advertisement in the Toronto Star on October 21, 2025. Additionally, the Notice was mailed to all property owners inside and within 150 metres of the Secondary Plan area. 6.2 What We Heard – City Departments and Agency Comments During the project, technical steering committee meetings were held with various City departments, outside agencies, and neighbouring municipalities. Their input was key in the formation of the draft Secondary Plan, ensuring that it reflects the plan for a complete community. Some of the highlights from that input are included below. 6.2.1 Region of Durham Regional staff are generally supportive of the work completed on the draft Secondary Plan, and have identified necessary detailed work that will need to continue through subsequent stages of the planning process. As of the writing of this report, further Regional comments are still expected with respect to transportation planning. Future work will be needed to plan Regional infrastructure and services for the area, including water, sewer, transit, police and paramedics. 6.2.2 Conservation Authorities The Toronto Region Conservation Authority (TRCA) and the Central Lake Ontario Conservation Authority (CLOCA) each have jurisdiction over different parts of the Secondary Plan. They have provided comments in the context of their roles under the Planning Act and Conservation Authorities Act and their role as a Source Protection Authority under the Clean Water Act, 2006. TRCA and CLOCA are involved in providing on-going technical expertise for the completion of the Scoped Subwatershed Study. 6.2.3 Ministry of Transportation The Ministry of Transportation (MTO) have provided comments since both Highway 407 and Highway 7 run through the Secondary Plan area. MTO is willing to explore the feasibility of a new interchange for Highway 407 at Westney Road as identified by the Transportation Plan. 6.2.4 School Boards Both the Durham District School Board (DDSB) and the Durham Catholic District School Board (DCDSB) have identified the appropriate number of schools needed to serve future population within Northeast Pickering. The Secondary Plan includes: • 14 public elementary schools • 5 catholic elementary schools • 3 public high schools, and • 1 catholic high school Information Report 10-25 Page 5 The specific land requirements of each school board have been accounted for in the land budget for the Secondary Plan and will be reflected in the more detailed Neighbourhood Planning exercise that will follow the Secondary Plan process. 6.2.5 Town of Ajax Due to existing flooding issues in the lower reaches of the Carruthers Creek, it is imperative for the Town of Ajax that development in the headwaters of the Carruthers Creek does not create new or aggravate existing natural hazards. Prior to the approval of the Secondary Plan, the Town of Ajax would like to see the following: • Complete both the subwatershed study and the hydrology model for the entire Carruthers Creek; and • Locate and assess offline regional stormwater ponds. Additional comments from Ajax on the headwater drainage features and the amount of natural cover within the Secondary Plan area, have been partially addressed in the final draft Secondary Plan, and will be further addressed in the forthcoming Phase 2 Scoped Subwatershed Plan, which is due in early 2026. 6.2.6 Town of Whitby The Town of Whitby is currently updating the Brooklin Secondary Plan by adding new urban expansion areas west and east of the existing Brooklin community. The west limit of the Brooklyn Secondary Plan will abut the east limit of the Northeast Pickering Secondary Plan. Ongoing technical advisory meetings are occurring to coordinate future road improvements across north Pickering and north Whitby. 6.2.7 City Departments Various City Departments were consulted to ensure that the draft Secondary Plan, and the subsequent Neighbourhood plans, will plan for all needed City facilities and services. This includes parks, recreation and community services, libraries, fire services, and operations. 6.3 First Nations Comments At the initiation of the Secondary Plan, City staff contacted the Michi Saagiig of the Williams Treaties First Nations including: Alderville First Nation, Curve Lake First Nation, Hiawatha First Nation, and Mississaugas of Scugog Island First Nation (MSIFN). The City entered into a Relationship Agreement with MSIFN to compensate them for their involvement in reviewing project materials and providing input. Staff are currently preparing for a meeting with the Michi Saagiig Williams Treaties First Nations to continue consultation on this project. Information Report 10-25 Page 6 7. What the Secondary Plan Includes 7.1 Natural Heritage As noted in Section 5.1, the SSWS has provided a high-level analysis of the natural heritage system. It has identified features to be protected and also identified areas that require further study during the next stage of the project (during the Master Environmental Servicing Plan process). For example, one element that will be further evaluated at the next stage is the headwater drainage features that exist in the Secondary Plan area. As work on the SSWS continues, a number of ongoing refinements will continue to be made to the natural heritage layer identified on the draft Secondary Plan based on field investigations and consultation with the respective conservation authorities. Some of these refinements are expected to be made following the statutory public meeting. 7.2 Land Use In keeping with the Envision Durham Official Plan, the project area has been planned as a complete community containing a mix of residential, commercial, employment, and community uses in the midst of a highly valued natural system. A detailed description of the key structural elements of the Secondary Plan can be found in the Preferred Land Use Plan (September 2025) in Attachment 9. 7.3 Community Design The Secondary Plan is based on a number of community development principles that are key to shaping the future community. They include: • The provision of a mix of land uses throughout the Secondary Plan Area, including a variety of housing options, densities, and affordability with an accessible public realm that encourages residents to grow and age in place, facilitating a multigenerational community; and • Streetscape designs that are well connected to one another by sidewalks, multi-use paths, trails, and cycling infrastructure to facilitate walkable neighbourhoods and accessible active transportation and transit options, leading to healthy and active lifestyles. The new community is intended to be pedestrian friendly, support active transportation, and promote transit use. To facilitate different land use and transportation needs, the Secondary Plan identifies select locations for auto-centric uses (i.e., big box stores, storage facilities, and automotive repair). This ensures that the community provides a full range of services while minimizing conflicts with areas of the community that are pedestrian-oriented. Information Report 10-25 Page 7 7.4 Commercial Services Complete communities include a mix of land uses in close proximity to one another, providing residents with opportunities to work, shop, learn, and play close to where they live. Major commercial services (such as Community Nodes, Mixed Corridors, and Business Areas) have been identified throughout the Secondary Plan. In addition, smaller Local Nodes, will be identified through the Neighbourhood Planning exercise. Small-scale retail and service uses, will also be permitted within residential areas. While the City cannot require retailers to move into new neighbourhoods, the Secondary Plan policies propose to limit the most dense forms of residential development until commercial services are available, or until certain affordability targets are achieved. 7.5 Affordable Housing The Provincial Planning Statement requires Planning authorities to provide for an appropriate range and mix of housing options. This includes implementing minimum targets for affordable housing. The affordable housing targets in the Secondary Plan reflect the targets approved by the Province through the Envision Durham Official Plan. However, targets themselves do not result in the provision of affordable housing. It is clear that market developments, on their own, lack the ability to provide affordable housing. As a result, the Secondary Plan includes policies requiring that land totaling 10.5 hectares (1.5 hectare per residential or mixed-use neighbourhood) be gratuitously conveyed to the Region of Durham, or other not-for-profit housing provider, for the development of affordable, public, or non-profit housing. 7.6 Greenwood and Kinsale The boundaries of the Secondary Plan have been revised to go around the hamlet of Greenwood. No development within Greenwood is proposed by the Secondary Plan. The proposed land uses abutting Greenwood include: low density residential, parks, and schools. As part of the future Neighbourhood Plan exercise, the public will be invited to provide input into the design and layout of the area surrounding Greenwood. The current residents and businesses in Kinsale may continue to remain and operate as long as they wish. These homes and businesses can be sold to new owners or can be redeveloped in keeping with the Secondary Plan. Over time, some properties in the Kinsale area may redevelop while other properties may remain in their current form. It is not the intent of the Secondary Plan to require any existing resident, farmer, or business owner to sell or redevelop their property. 8. Road Improvements The Secondary Plan identifies a hierarchy of roads, creating strong east-west and north- south connections through throughout the Secondary Plan area. In order to support the new development proposed for Northeast Pickering, new roads will be required and existing roads will need to be upgraded. In addition to converting existing roads from a rural to an urban design, several roads will need to be widened to accommodate an Information Report 10-25 Page 8 increased number of pedestrians, cyclists, and automobiles. In some instances, these road widenings will necessitate that portions of land be acquired from abutting properties. In some areas, the roadside ditches serve as part of the watercourse for creek tributaries (i.e., a portion of the Kinsale Branch of Lynde Creek). When the abutting road is improved, it is likely that the creek will need to be relocated through a natural channel design process. Given the proximity of private lands, it is likely that property acquisition will be required to facilitate the creation of a natural channel. 8.1 Parkland The Recreation and Parks 10-Year Plan approved by Council in September 2024 recommends the City strive for a minimum parkland target of 1.2 hectares per 1,000 residents in new developments such as Northeast Pickering. The development community is encouraged to participate in achieving or exceeding this target. The parkland that developers are required to provide to municipalities, as a result of new development, will not achieve the minimum target of 1.2 hectares per 1,000 residents. Based on an estimated population of 72,000 people, Northeast Pickering would need to provide 86.4 hectares of parkland to meet this minimum target. (This is in addition to the land needed for recreation and community facilities.) It is expected that the parkland dedication requirements of the Planning Act, will result in approximately 58 hectares of parkland being provided to the City. To meet the recommended minimum parkland target in Northeast Pickering, the City will need to use other means of acquiring the remaining 28 hectares of parkland. 8.2 Urban Agriculture Within the Secondary Plan, urban agriculture is identified as a permitted use in most mixed-use and employment designations. It is also permitted, under certain conditions, within the natural heritage system. Urban Agriculture refers to businesses or individuals who produce and distribute food for commercial, community and/or individual use. Examples include hydroponics facilities, rooftop greenhouses, community gardens and vertical farms (hydroponics). Urban agriculture will not match the output of the existing farmland in Northeast Pickering but will hopefully provide opportunities for local food production to remain a key element of the new community. 9. Planning Rationale for the Secondary Plan The draft Secondary Plan is consistent with the Provincial Planning Statement, and conforms to the Envision Durham Official Plan, and the general intent of the Pickering Official Plan. A detailed planning conformity analysis is provided in Attachment 10. 10. What Comes Next Comments on the draft Secondary Plan will be received during the statutory public meeting and written comments may be submitted until November 17. The comments received, together with the conclusions from the Phase 2 SSWS, and consultation with First Nations rightsholders, will inform the preparation of a recommended Secondary Plan. Information Report 10-25 Page 9 The recommended Secondary Plan will be presented for Council approval early in 2026. Should Council approve the Secondary Plan, and no appeals be received, the next steps are outlined below. 10.1 Master Environmental Servicing Plan A Master Environmental Servicing Plan (MESP) will be prepared to identify the required infrastructure needed to support future urban development in Northeast Pickering. The MESP will identify future improvements to roadways, water/wastewater/utilities, which will proceed in accordance with the Municipal Class Environmental Assessment (EA) Process. It will also further refine development constraints, including the natural heritage features, that need to be protected. As part of the MESP, an Infrastructure Staging and Phasing Plan will be prepared that will guide the orderly and cost-efficient delivery of water and sanitary infrastructure improvements required to service each neighbourhood. 10.2 Neighbourhood Planning In conjunction with the preparation of the MESP, Neighbourhood Plans will be prepared that provide a more detailed arrangement of natural features, stormwater infrastructure, roads, trails, schools, parks, community facilities, and development blocks. Similar to the Secondary Plan process, the preparation of Neighbourhood Plans will rely on both technical background and public input. The final Neighbourhood Plans will require City Council approval as amendments to the Pickering Official Plan. The Neighbourhood Plans will be prepared collaboratively by the City and landowners with costs being funded solely by the landowners within the Secondary Plan Area. As required, a Memorandum of Understanding will be prepared to identify roles and responsibilities. 10.3 Further Studies A number of supplemental studies will be conducted to help inform the completion of the MESP and Neighbourhood Plans. These studies are listed below: • Transportation Plan (including an Active Transportation Master Plan) • Class environmental assessments for sanitary sewer and water infrastructure • Class environmental assessments for transportation infrastructure • Fiscal Impact Study • Infrastructure Staging and Phasing Plan • Urban Design Guidelines • Master Parkland Agreement • Transition Strategy for the Hamlet of Greenwood, and • Natural Heritage Restoration Plan Information Report 10-25 Page 10 10.4 Removal of Minister’s Zoning Order In the 1970’s, the Federal government acquired land in north Pickering with the intent of constructing an airport. In support of this initiative, a Provincial Minister’s Zoning Order (MZO) was created in 1972 that covered a portion of the Northeast Pickering lands. The purpose of the MZO was to restrict development on lands that might impact or limit the development of an airport on the Federal lands. In January 2025, the Federal government stated their intent to abandon plans for an airport in north Pickering. Parks Canada has begun consultations with various stakeholders and rightsholders to determine the future of the Federal lands. Should the Secondary Plan be approved by Council, the City can approach the Provincial government seeking the removal of the existing MZO that encumbers the Northeast Pickering lands. 11. Financial Implications There are no immediate financial implications arising from the recommendations of this report. Any future financial impacts associated with implementing the Secondary Plan will be identified through the proposed Fiscal Impact Study (FIS) funded by the developer. 11.1 Fiscal Impact Study The future development of Northeast Pickering will create additional municipal service demands on the City of Pickering. In order to maintain the City’s current and/or desired levels of service, the future Fiscal Impact Study (FIS) will evaluate the capital and operating costs for the proposed development. This includes the costs for community facilities, services, and infrastructure, such as: • fire stations • recreation/community centres and libraries • public works, and • parkland in excess of Planning Act requirements To maintain service levels without increasing the tax levy, the FIS will apply a fiscally sustainable growth framework. The FIS will examine approaches to funding growth- related capital needs — for example, whether the City should pursue area-specific Development Charges or front-ending developer agreements (similar to Seaton), or incorporate the related costs within a City-wide Development Charges By-law. The FIS will identify the capital, operating, lifecycle, and debt-servicing costs associated with new infrastructure, determine which are recoverable through growth funding tools (i.e., Development Charges, Community Benefits Charges, and parkland provisions) and highlight any residual costs requiring tax or rate support. This approach reinforces that growth should pay for growth, ensuring that infrastructure cost recovery is aligned with development, lifecycle costs are incorporated up front, and debt pressures are carefully managed to avoid future structural gaps. Information Report 10-25 Page 11 11.2 Future Planning Work The preparation of the future MESP, the Neighbourhood Plans, and all supplemental studies for the secondary plan area will be solely funded by the landowners within the Secondary Plan area. 12.Conclusion and Timeline The Northeast Pickering Secondary Plan will direct the long-term development for this part of the City. Development will not begin for several years as further infrastructure planning and construction is required. In the meantime, additional studies and more detailed planning exercises are needed so that future development meets the City’s long-range growth needs while also ensuring that the growth is environmentally sustainable, fiscally responsible, and results in a complete community that provides for the needs of a diverse population. Attachments: 1.Draft – Official Plan Amendment Text 2.Draft – Official Plan Amendment Schedules 3.Map of the Northeast Pickering Secondary Plan area 4.Report PLN 31-21 5.Council Resolution #625/21 6.Report PLN 13-25 7.Summary of Technical Reports 8.Final Engagement Report 9.Preferred Land Use Plan Report (September 2025) 10.Policy Conformity Prepared By: Original Signed By Paul Wirch, RPP Principal Planner, Policy Original Signed By Zahrah Khan, MES Pl. RPP, MCIP Senior Project Manager, Special Projects Approved/Endorsed By: Original Signed By Catherine Rose, MCIP, RPP Chief Planner Original Signed By Fiaz Jadoon, Ec.D., CEcD, MPM, B.COMM Director, Economic Development & Strategic Projects PW:ld Northeast Pickering Secondary Plan Summary of Technical Studies October 2025 1 Attachment 4 to Report PLN 03-26 The following is a summary of each technical report prepared in support of the Northeast Pickering (NEP) Secondary Plan. The summaries provide an overview of each report as well as details on how their conclusions and recommendations have been incorporated into the final proposed NEP Secondary Plan. Agricultural Impact Assessment An Agricultural Impact Assessment (AIA) was completed in 2023 by Colville Consulting Inc. to evaluate existing agricultural resources and operations within and adjacent to the Secondary Plan Area. The AIA assessed soils, land use, agricultural priority and potential impacts associated with Urban Area Boundary Expansion, in accordance with the Ontario Ministry of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs’ Agricultural Impact Assessment Guidance Document (2018). Also, the AIA identified both direct and indirect impacts on the agricultural system, including displacement of active and retired farm operations, potential disruption to farm access and drainage and increased risks of trespass, traffic conflicts and nuisance complaints. These impacts were determined to be minor to moderate in scale and can be effectively managed through appropriate phasing, mitigation, and design measures. The AIA recommended a series of mitigation measures to minimize agricultural disruption and guide the sequencing of development, which are supported by Secondary Plan policies where applicable: •Phasing and Growth Management: The AIA recommended that urban development proceed sequentially, beginning with lower-priority lands south of Highway 407, to minimize disruption to prime agricultural lands and active farm operations. The Secondary Plan requires an Infrastructure Staging and Phasing Plan to ensure growth proceeds in an orderly, cost effective and sustainable manner tied to the delivery of municipal infrastructure. While the policies do not prescribe a specific starting location, they enable future phasing decisions that can align with the AIA’s recommendations for minimizing agricultural impacts. •Agricultural Land Loss and Urban Agriculture Offsets: The AIA estimated the eventual loss of approximately 1,700 hectares of prime agricultural land and recommended maintaining agricultural use until development occurs, as well as integrating urban food production to offset this loss. Accordingly, the Secondary Plan permits and encourages urban agriculture throughout the Secondary Plan Area through urban farms, agri-food innovation centres, community gardens and rooftop or controlled environment agriculture within mixed use, business and employment areas as well as the Regional Centre and Community Nodes. The policies promote the adaptive reuse of built heritage resources that support urban agriculture, agri-food innovation and community food access. Direction is also provided for City Council to consider development-related incentives to encourage urban agriculture integration with agricultural-related heritage resources which could provide permanent agricultural easements, publicly accessible agricultural programming or incubator farm space or educational food protection. Northeast Pickering Secondary Plan Summary of Technical Studies October 2025 2 • Agricultural Compatibility, Interface and Livestock Operations: The AIA emphasized the need to minimize land use conflicts by using buffers, fencing and signage and recognizing the continued operation of nearby livestock facilities subject to Minimum Distance Separation (MDS) requirements. The policies of the Secondary Plan require development to be phased adjacent to livestock operations outside of the Secondary Plan Area whose Minimum Distance Separation arcs extend into the Secondary Plan Area and to mitigate of any potential impacts from livestock operations. • Environmental Protection, Drainage and Land Stewardship: The AIA noted that urban development could impact existing drainage systems, farm wells and natural features, and therefore recommended comprehensive stormwater and hydrogeological planning as well as active land restoration to offset agricultural and environmental losses. The Secondary Plan requires the completion of future master environmental servicing plans, stormwater management plans, and restoration and enhancement plans to maintain natural drainage patterns, protect groundwater resources and strengthen ecological linkages. Archeological Assessment A Stage 1 Archeological Assessment was completed in 2022 by WSP to identify areas of archaeological potential and determine where additional assessment is required prior to development within the NEP Secondary Plan Area. The assessment reviewed environmental context, historic land use and known archaeological sites in accordance with the Ontario Heritage Act and the Standards and Guidelines for Consultant Archaeologists (2011). The Assessment identified archaeological potential through the Secondary Plan Area based on proximity to watercourses, early transportation routes and documented cultural heritage features. Areas of prior disturbance, such as existing roads, golf courses and Highway 407, were identified as having low or no potential. Key findings of the Stage 1 Archaeological Assessment are as follows: • Archaeological Potential and Stage 2 Requirements: The Assessment identified 32 registered archaeological sites within the Secondary Plan Area and an additional 13 sites within 300 metres. Approximately 70% of the Secondary Plan Area retains archaeological potential and will require Stage 2 Archaeological Assessment prior to ground disturbance. Areas with low potential containing localized high-potential features will also require further investigation prior to development. Approximately 8.7 hectares of land were identified as having no archaeological potential, 30.2 hectares were found to be deeply disturbed and 112.4 hectares had been previously assessed and cleared, requiring no further archaeological work. The Stage 2 Archaeological Assessment should be completed in conjunction with future development applications. Northeast Pickering Secondary Plan Summary of Technical Studies October 2025 3 • Protection and Compliance: The Assessment recommends that no grading or ground disturbances occur until the Ministry of Citizenship and Multiculturalism issues a clearance letter. Clearance letters will be a requirement of future development applications. The Secondary Plan’s cultural heritage and archaeological policies require archaeological resources to be identified, conserved or mitigated prior to development and prohibit the alteration of lands with archaeological potential until assessments are completed. The Secondary Plan also sets out a policy requiring, as a condition of draft plan or site plan approval, that a First Nations archaeology monitor be retained and funded by the applicant for any significant mitigative excavation activities, on known pre-contact archaeological sites during archaeological assessment work. Cultural Heritage Resource Assessment A Cultural Heritage Resource Assessment (CHRA) was prepared in 2022 by WSP to identify and evaluate built heritage resources and cultural heritage landscapes within and adjacent to the Secondary Plan Area. The assessment was completed in accordance with the Ontario Heritage Act, Provincial Policy Statement (2020) and the Standards and Guidelines for the Conservation of Historic Places in Canada (2011). The CHRA included a review of historical mapping, archival research, consultation with the Ontario Heritage Trust and Ministry of Citizenship and Multiculturalism, as well as a windshield field survey of the entire Secondary Plan Area. The CHRA identified 30 known and potential heritage properties, including two properties designated under Part IV of the Ontario Heritage Act – the Greenwood Schoolhouse (3540 Westney Road) and the Phillips Residence (2595 Concession Road 6) – and one property recognized as a Special Interest Site in the Pickering Official Plan (3600 Lake Ridge Road). The CHRA provided a series of recommendations to guide future heritage conservation and planning. The key recommendations of the CHRA, and how they are supported or addressed in the Secondary Plan include: • Identification, Evaluation and Conservation: The CHRA recommended that all 30 identified heritage resources be recognized, protected and integrated into future community design. The CHRA advised that conservation guidelines and/or policies be established specifically for the Greenwood Schoolhouse, Phillips Residence and 3600 Lake Ridge Road. The CHRA also advised that additional evaluations be undertaken to confirm cultural heritage value and that Heritage Impact Assessments (HIAs) be prepared where development may affect a known or potential heritage property. The Secondary Plan supports this through policies requiring the identification, evaluation and conservation of significant built and cultural heritage landscapes, as well as the preparation of HIAs and archaeological assessments as part of development review. Cultural heritage resources are also identified as an appendix to the Secondary Plan. The Neighbourhood Planning process will identify, conserve and incorporate significant built heritage and/or cultural heritage landscape resources into the design of the new neighbourhoods. Northeast Pickering Secondary Plan Summary of Technical Studies October 2025 4 • Integration and Adaptive Reuse: The CHRA encouraged the adaptive reuse of existing heritage structures and their incorporation as focal points within new neighbourhoods. The Secondary Plan supports the reuse of built heritage resources and encourages the surrounding lands to maintain their agricultural use within a new urban agricultural setting or provide for future community use. • Stewardship and Interpretation: The CHRA recommends the City promote the long-term stewardship of heritage resources through conservation partnerships, heritage easements and interpretive initiatives that communicate local history and cultural significance. Ongoing coordination with the City will confirm heritage designations, guide the implementation of conservation measures and ensure heritage resources are appropriately considered during subsequent phases of development. In addition to the CHRA, the City has retained WSP to complete the evaluation of the ten additional properties that were recommended for evaluation under Ontario Regulation 9/06 to determine their cultural heritage value or interest. This evaluation will be completed as part of the Neighbourhood Planning process. Employment Lands Strategy An Employment Lands Strategy was completed in 2023 by Parcel Economics to confirm the location, size and function of new Employment Area lands within the Secondary Plan Area and to provide policy direction, market trends, economic development priorities and economic forecasts to 2051. The Strategy responds to regional employment allocations established through the Durham Region Growth Management Study and Envision Durham Municipal Comprehensive Review, which identified the need for an additional 248 hectares of Employment Area lands in Northeast Pickering to accommodate future job growth. The key recommendations of the Strategy, as supported by the proposed Secondary Plan, are as follows: • Employment Area Location: The Strategy identified lands suitable for employment uses in Northeast Pickering, positioned to capitalize on proximity to Highways 407 and 412, access to regional markets and adjacency to the Seaton Innovation Corridor. The study found that the location of Employment Area lands along either side of Highway 407 are well-suited for a mix of prestige industrial, warehousing, logistics and advanced manufacturing that require large, flexible parcels with strong goods movement connections. The final proposed location of Prestige Employment Areas as reflected on the proposed Land Use Schedule, is along both the north and south sides of Highway 407, extending east to Lake Ridge Road and west toward Westney Road. The Employment Areas Strategy also recognized opportunities for Mixed Employment or Business Area uses at key interfaces to support small-scale office, ancillary retail and service uses, which are reflected in the proposed Land Use Schedule. Northeast Pickering Secondary Plan Summary of Technical Studies October 2025 5 • Built Form and Market Flexibility: The Strategy emphasized the importance of a flexible policy framework that can respond to evolving market trends such as large- scale warehousing, logistics and advanced manufacturing. The Strategy recommended policies that allow for varied building heights and lot configurations to accommodate modern industrial and logistics operations. The Secondary Plan policies support flexibility by permitting a wide range of employment-generating uses and encouraging adaptable site design, landscaping and built form standards. • Servicing and Phasing: The Strategy identified that employment lands in Seaton could be fully absorbed within 11 to 14 years, emphasizing the need to bring forward and service Northeast Pickering within the next decade to maintain market readiness and provide choice to potential end users. The Secondary Plan acknowledges this need through the requirement for an infrastructure staging and phasing plan to ensure the coordinated and timely servicing of Employment Areas. Integrated Transportation/Transit Strategy Report An Integrated Transportation/Transit Strategy (Transportation Report) was prepared by Paradigm Transportation Solutions to support the NEP Secondary Plan by assessing transportation infrastructure, transit and active transportation needs associated with the projected full build-out population and employment. The background portion of the Report was completed in 2023 and updated with modeling of the Preferred Land Use Plan in 2025, as well as to incorporate updated regional forecasts and coordination with the Region of Durham. The final version reflects the proposed road network, transit alignments and active transportation framework incorporated into the Secondary Plan policies and schedules. The Report evaluated travel demand forecasts for a full build-out population of approximately 72,000 people and 9,700 jobs, considering existing and planned transportation infrastructure, including Highway 407, the Seaton road network and regional arterial corridors. The analysis informed the layout and design of the Secondary Plan’s roads, transit and active transportation networks, as summarized below: • Transportation Network and Road Hierarchy: The Transportation Report established a functional road hierarchy consisting of arterial and collector roads, designed to ensure connectivity, efficient circulation and multimodal access. Local streets will be determined through future Neighbourhood Plans and subdivision design to provide internal connectivity within neighbourhoods. The analysis emphasized strong connections to the regional transportation system, including Highway 407 and the planned 407 Transitway. The recommended arterial and collector road network is reflected on Schedule II (Transportation System) and policies of the Secondary Plan which identify a grid-based collector system. New arterial and collector roads are also identified to support goods movement and service access to Employment Areas. Northeast Pickering Secondary Plan Summary of Technical Studies October 2025 6 • Transit Planning and Integration: The Transportation Report emphasized early planning for frequent, high-quality transit service within the Secondary Plan Area, connecting residents to the Pickering GO Station and future rapid transit along a proposed east-west transit corridor linking to future rapid transit along the Highway 407 corridor. The Secondary Plan incorporates these directions by identifying transit-supportive corridors along major arterials and within the Regional Centre and requiring coordination with Durham Region Transit. Schedule II (Transportation System) further identifies the planned Transit Spine and Transit Feeder routes, as well as potential Higher Order Transit Stations, supporting integration with the regional transit network. The preparation of Neighbourhood Plans will require a transportation plan that confirms road layout and road cross sections, intersection signalization, transit routing and high order transit technology and transit station locations. • Active Transportation: The Transportation Report recommended a comprehensive trail and active transportation network linking neighbourhoods, parks and community destinations. The policies of the Secondary Plan require the preparation of a Trails Master Plan to establish the alignment, design and phasing of pedestrian and cycling connections across the Secondary Plan Area. The Transportation Report also recommended implementing transportation demand management (TDM) measures to encourage walking, cycling and transit use and to reduce reliance on private automobiles, which is carried forward in the proposed Secondary Plan policies. Community Placemaking Study A Community Placemaking Study (Placemaking Study) was completed in 2023 by SGL Planning & Design to review placemaking best practices and community design approaches that would guide the creation of a complete, sustainable and people-focused community in Northeast Pickering. The Study evaluated precedents from established and emerging communities and identified lessons to inform the vision, guiding principles and design framework for the Secondary Plan. It emphasized how placemaking supports a strong sense of place, walkability, sustainability and social interaction through design. The following key takeaways, and their relationship to the proposed Secondary Plan, were informed by placemaking best practices and an evaluation of lessons learned from community case studies: • Neighbourhood Design and Structure: The Placemaking Study recommended that Northeast Pickering be planned as a series of complete and connected neighbourhoods, each structured around parks, public spaces and community facilities. Neighbourhoods should include a range of housing types and be connected by active transportation and transit-supportive corridors. These recommendations are reflected in the Secondary Plan’s structure, which establishes eight neighbourhoods. most of which are organized around central Community Nodes and a Regional Centre. The policies set out requirements for Neighbourhood Plans to define local block patterns, pedestrian and cycling linkages Northeast Pickering Secondary Plan Summary of Technical Studies October 2025 7 and park locations, as well as through a parks hierarchy which ensures access to a range of park types and community facilities. • Sustainability and Land Stewardship: The Placemaking Study highlighted sustainability and nature-based design as core elements of placemaking, encouraging the integration of green infrastructure, low-impact development and urban agriculture. These principles are embedded in the Secondary Plan policies, which promote sustainable design and development, sustainable building measures, sustainable stormwater systems and linkages between parks and natural heritage areas to enhance ecological function. • Streets and Streetscapes: The Placemaking Study emphasized streets as the foundation of the public realm, recommending a complete-street approach that balances movement and placemaking. The Secondary Plan establishes a complete streets framework with an interconnected street network and places emphasis on shorter block patterns and high-quality streetscapes. • Connectivity and Transit: The Placemaking Study emphasized the importance of accessibility and connectivity, which includes planning transit corridors and active transportation routes early in the community’s development. The Secondary Plan reflects a connected network of complete streets and transit-supportive corridors which are intended to link neighbourhoods, the Regional Centre and Employment Areas and sets out the requirement for the development of a trails master plan to be implemented by the Neighbourhood Plans • Public Spaces and Placemaking Features: The Placemaking Study recommended a network of various well-designed park types and public spaces to serve as focal points for community gathering and identity. The Secondary Plan establishes a hierarchy of parks and community facilities which promote the integration of public art, cultural programming and flexible community spaces. • Retail, Employment and Community Vitality: The Placemaking Study emphasized the role of mixed-use retail and employment areas in supporting community vibrancy. It recommended pedestrian-oriented design, outdoor gathering areas and public spaces. The Secondary Plan implements these recommendations through its Mixed Use Area permissions which encourage a blend of uses designed around high-quality public spaces and connected street networks. Affordable Housing Strategy An Affordable Housing Strategy (Strategy) was completed in 2023 by Parcel Economics to consider housing affordability trends in Pickering and identify strategies to ensure a diverse range of housing types and tenures within Northeast Pickering. The Strategy reviewed relevant provincial, regional and municipal policies, examined local affordability indicators and evaluated existing housing gaps. The Strategy builds on the City of Northeast Pickering Secondary Plan Summary of Technical Studies October 2025 8 Pickering Housing Strategy Action Plan (2021 – 2031) and identifies how the Secondary Plan can contribute to achieving Regional and City affordable housing objectives. Key findings and recommendations have informed several policy directions in the proposed Secondary Plan, summarized as follows: • Housing Diversity and Mix: The Strategy recommended planning for a balanced mix of housing types, densities and tenures to accommodate a range of household sizes, incomes and life stages. There is also a growing need for seniors housing, long-term care facilities and supportive housing options. The overall structure and policies of the Secondary Plan require a variety of dwelling types, including low, medium and high-density forms, distributed throughout the community. Higher density forms are directed to the Regional Centre, Mixed Corridors and Community Nodes to support transit and walkability. The policies encourage a range of unit sizes and tenures, seniors-oriented and accessible units, additional dwelling units and innovative forms such as co-housing, live-work units and compact ground- related housing. • Affordable and Attainable Housing Targets: The Strategy supported the Region of Durham’s target of 25 percent of new housing to be affordable to low- and moderate-income households and recommended establishing attainable housing targets once defined by the Province. The Secondary Plan introduces a set of affordable housing policies, encouraging at least 25% of all new residential units to be affordable and at least 35% of all residential units on lands within the Regional Centre to be affordable. Policies were introduced to monitor housing tenure, affordability and attainable housing supply over time. • Rental Housing Supply: The Strategy noted a significant shortage of purpose-built rental housing in Pickering. It recommended enabling a greater supply of rental housing, which the Secondary Plan supports through encouraging a mix of rental and ownership tenures. • Incentives and Implementation Tools: The Strategy recommended that the City explore financial or procedural incentives such as reduced parking standards, priority approvals and fee reductions. The Secondary Plan provides implementation policies that support partnerships, incentive programs and innovative delivery models for affordable and attainable housing. Sustainability Report A Sustainability Report was completed in 2023 by Dillon Consulting to provide a framework for integrating sustainability, climate resilience and environmental stewardship into the NEP Secondary Plan. The Sustainability Report reviewed provincial, regional and municipal policy direction, assessed regional and local climate change initiatives and identified best practices for energy efficiency, green infrastructure and sustainable community design. It builds upon the City’s Integrated Sustainable Design Standards (ISDS) and the Region’s Community Energy and Climate Adaptation Plans. The following Northeast Pickering Secondary Plan Summary of Technical Studies October 2025 9 summarizes the key directions of the Sustainability Report, and how they have been reflected throughout the Secondary Plan through the introduction of sustainable design and development policies: • Sustainable Design and Development: The Sustainability Report recommended that sustainability principles be embedded throughout the Secondary Plan, including the design of neighbourhoods, building and infrastructure. As reflected in the “sustainable community” guiding principle of the Secondary Plan, Northeast Pickering will: build a sustainable, climate resilient community by incorporating community scale solutions that reduce greenhouse gas emissions, conserve energy and water, minimize waste generation and integrate local food systems into new development. The sustainable design and development policies of the Secondary Plan promote energy-efficient and low-carbon neighbourhoods, support on-site renewable energy systems, encourage bird friendly and barrier-free design, and require the use of native and non-invasive plannings, healthy street trees and quality soils for planting areas. The policies apply the City’s ISDS framework to future development to ensure long-term resilience and reduced greenhouse gas emissions. • Climate Change Mitigation and Adaptation: The Sustainability Report emphasized the need to respond to the projected impacts of climate change on temperature, precipitation and extreme weather events. The Secondary Plan incorporates these recommendations through policies requiring energy-efficient and climate-resilient design, heat-island mitigation measures, electric vehicle charging infrastructure and water-efficient systems. The policies also encourage Low Impact Development (LID), integration of stormwater management with the natural environment and public education on sustainable living practices. • Stormwater Management and Green Infrastructure: The Sustainability Report recommended integrating green infrastructure and low-impact design measures into stormwater management systems. Through the development of Stormwater Plans, the policies require the use of a treatment-train approach to reduce runoff, treat stormwater on-site and maintain natural drainage patterns. The policies further direct stormwater management ponds to be naturalized using native species and incorporate Low Impact Development measures. • Social and Economic Sustainability: The Sustainability Report recognized the need for a complete and inclusive community that supports well-being and economic resilience. The policies of the Secondary Plan promote accessible and inclusive design in accordance with the Accessibility for Ontarians with Disabilities Act (AODA), incorporate Crime Prevention Through Environmental Design (CPTED) principles and encourage active and low-carbon transportation through electric-vehicle infrastructure and secure bicycle parking. Northeast Pickering Secondary Plan Summary of Technical Studies October 2025 10 Retail Market Study A Retail Market Study (Retail Study) was prepared by urbanMetrics in 2023 to determine the amount, type and location of retail and service commercial space required to support the projected population of the NEP Secondary Plan Area. The Retail Study assessed the retail context, regional competition, market trends and future expenditure potential to 2051, identifying the role of local, community and regional retail nodes in creating a complete and self-sustaining community. An Addendum to the Retail Market Study was later prepared in 2025 to reflect an updated population forecast of approximately 72,000 people as well as updated Statistics Canada expenditure data. The Addendum identified higher warranted commercial space to serve the larger population and maintain access to retail and service amenities. The combined findings of the Retail Market Study and Addendum, and their reflection in the Secondary Plan, are summarized below: • Retail and Service Commercial Demand: The updated analysis identified market support for 1.6 to 1.9 million square feet of commercial space by 2051. This includes approximately: • 480,000 to 555,000 square feet of food and convenience retail • 525,000 to 642,000 square feet of convenience services • 327,000 to 393,000 square feet of non-food store retail, and • 284,000 to 347,000 square feet of other services These categories encompass grocery stores, pharmacies, restaurants, personal services and local retail for day-to-day needs. • Commercial Hierarchy and Land Use Structure: The Retail Study established a functional retail hierarchy comprising a Regional Centre, Community Nodes, Mixed Corridors, and Local Nodes directly informing the Secondary Plan’s structure and commercial space needs including size and maximum floor area policies. The Regional Centre serves as the primary commercial and civic hub; Community Nodes are distributed across the neighbourhoods to support local shopping and services; Mixed Corridors accommodate a variety of shopping and services along the future transitway; and Local Nodes provide convenience commercial uses to residents within a short distance of their homes. • Implementation and Phasing: The Retail Study recommended that commercial development be phased in coordination with residential growth. Local and neighbourhood-serving retail should be introduced early to support initial residents, while larger community and regional facilities should develop as population density increases. The Study also recommended allowing for a range of formats, including stand-alone retail, mixed use buildings with ground floor commercial and live work units, to maintain flexibility as the community evolves. The Secondary Plan policies set out minimum non-residential floor area targets for the Regional Centre and Northeast Pickering Secondary Plan Summary of Technical Studies October 2025 11 Community Nodes and do not permit stand-alone residential uses until the minimum targets are achieved. The policies also allow for both mixed-use and stand-alone retail to provide flexibility. Community Services and Facilities Study A Community Services and Facilities Study (Community Services Study) was prepared in 2023 by SGL Planning & Design in collaboration with Parcel Economics to assess the range of community facilities required to support the future population of Northeast Pickering. The Community Services Study reviewed existing community infrastructure, population forecasts and per capita service standards to determine the number and type of new facilities needed to create a complete and livable community. The assessment considered schools, libraries, parks, childcare facilities, community centres, places of worship, fire services and other community amenities using benchmarks from the City’s Recreation and Parks Master Plan (2017), Public Library Master Plan and Development Charges Background Study (2022). An Addendum to the Community Services and Facilities Study (Addendum) was prepared in 2025 to reflect updated population forecasts and revised per capita service standards following completion of the City of Pickering Recreation and Parks Ten Year Plan (2024 – 2034). The Addendum updated facility counts to reflect a build-out population of 72,000 people and refined recommendations for parkland, recreation, schools and emergency services. The recommended community service and facility needs are summarized below: • Recreation Facilities and Community Centres: The Community Services Study identified the need for a full range of indoor and outdoor recreation amenities. Based on the City’s 2024 – 2034 service standards, a major recreation complex and community centres are required along with a comprehensive network of sports fields, courts and outdoor facilities. The proposed Secondary Plan includes updated input from Community Services and identifies one sportsplex (minimum 10 hectares), one recreation complex (minimum 6 hectares) and one community centre (minimum 1.5 hectares), which are accessible by transit and co-located with parks and libraries. • Parkland: The Addendum reflected a minimum parkland provision target of 1.2 hectares per 1,000 residents, equating to approximately 86 hectares of total parkland. Based on the Planning Act parkland rate of 5%, and the alternative provision of 1 ha / 600 units caped at 10 or 15% of the site, approximately 58 hectares of parkland will be provided in conjunction with development applications. Based on the difference between the anticipated Planning Act acquired parkland, and the City’s minimum parkland provision target, the City may be required to purchase additional parkland if it desires to meet its parkland provision target of 1.2 hectares per 1,000 residents. The Secondary Plan formalizes these findings by establishing a hierarchy of five community parks (6 hectares each), nineteen neighbourhood parks (1.5 hectares each), one urban park (1 hectare) within the Regional Centre and smaller village greens (0.3 to 0.6 hectares) and urban squares distributed throughout neighbourhoods. This framework ensures that all residents are within a 5-to-10-minute walk to a park. Northeast Pickering Secondary Plan Summary of Technical Studies October 2025 12 • Schools and Childcare Facilities: The Addendum identified the need for 14 public elementary schools, 5 catholic elementary schools, 3 public secondary schools and 1 catholic secondary school, as well as 1,800 licensed childcare spaces. Schools are to be distributed across the Secondary Plan Area and co-located with parks and community facilities where possible. The Secondary Plan identifies the required school sites. • Libraries: The Community Services Study recommended three library sites, which the Secondary Plan requires to be co-located with the sportsplex, recreation complex and community centre. The Secondary Plan requires libraries to be accessible by transit and supported by dedicated parking. • Fire Services: The Community Services Study identified the need for two fire halls. The Secondary Plan policies specify that each fire hall shall be each located on a minimum 0.6 hectare site with the location to be determined based on the Fire Services Department Response Model. • Operations: The Community Services Study identified the need for one new operations centre of approximately 3.5 hectares in size. The location of this operations centre is yet to be determined but would likely be located within the Prestige Employment designation. • Places of Worship: The Community Services Study estimated a need for 7 to 12 places of worship. The Secondary Plan permits places of worship in a number of designations and encourages flexibility in associated uses. Potential locations will be identified through the neighbourhood planning process. Municipal Servicing Analysis A Municipal Servicing Analysis (Analysis) was completed in 2023 by GM BluePlan Engineering (now known as GEI Consultants) to identify opportunities, constraints and requirements for water, wastewater and stormwater infrastructure needed to support the Northeast Pickering Secondary Plan Area. The Analysis reviewed existing regional infrastructure, evaluated potential servicing connections and capacity limitations and outlined a phased approach to establish cost-effective and coordinated servicing for the new community. The Analysis was undertaken in collaboration with the City of Pickering, Region of Durham, TRCA and CLOCA. It also considered the Region’s Water and Wastewater Master Plan Update, the Carruthers Creek Watershed Plan and the Durham Community Energy Plan to ensure servicing recommendations align with regional objectives for efficiency, sustainability and climate resiliency. The key findings and recommendations of the Municipal Servicing Analysis are summarized below: Northeast Pickering Secondary Plan Summary of Technical Studies October 2025 13 • Water and Wastewater Servicing: The Analysis confirmed that the Secondary Plan Area can be serviced by extensions of Durham Region’s Ajax/Pickering Water Supply Plant and distribution network. The Water Supply Plant will require expansion before 2031 to meet long-term regional demand, including Northeast Pickering. Servicing the Secondary Plan Area will require new trunk feedermains, reservoirs and booster pumping stations to maintain adequate pressure across the community. Wastewater generated from the Secondary Plan Area will be conveyed to the Duffins Creek Water Pollution Control Plant via connection to the Central Duffin Collector (CDC) sanitary sewer system. The Study identified the need for a new sanitary pumping station within Northeast Pickering to convey flows to the CDC system. The policies of the Secondary Plan only permit development to proceed where water servicing is available and can be provided in accordance with the Region’s water and wastewater master servicing strategy, and the design and installation of watermains shall be coordinated with other infrastructure in accordance with the Infrastructure Staging and Phasing Plan. The policies require class environmental assessments be completed for water and sanitary sewer infrastructure. A Master Environmental Servicing Plan will be prepared for all Northeast Pickering. • Stormwater Management: The Analysis identified that the Secondary Plan Area drains into three watersheds: Duffins Creek (TRCA), Carruthers Creek (TRCA) and Lynde Creek (CLOCA). A comprehensive, subwatershed-based stormwater management approach is recommended, to be completed as part of the required Master Environmental Servicing Plan specified by the Secondary Plan policies. • Phasing and Infrastructure Coordination: The Analysis emphasized that regional water and wastewater systems must be in place before development proceeds. The Secondary Plan requires an Infrastructure Staging and Phasing Plan to coordinate the timing and sequence of development with the provision of municipal infrastructure, community facilities and services. • Sustainability and Energy Efficiency: The Analysis recommends that new infrastructure incorporate energy-efficient systems and long-term sustainability measures. This aligns with the policies of the Secondary Plan which require that development and infrastructure include sustainable design practices, energy conservation measures, renewable energy systems and reduced greenhouse gas emissions. Natural Heritage and Hazards Background Analysis and Scoped Subwatershed Study A Natural Heritage and Hazards Background Analysis (NHS Analysis) was completed in 2024 by Matrix Solutions (now Montrose Environmental) to document and evaluate natural heritage features, headwater drainage systems and natural hazards within the NEP Secondary Plan Area. The Background Analysis has been expanded on through the Scoped Subwatershed Study Phase 1 Existing Conditions Report (SSWS). The SSWS Northeast Pickering Secondary Plan Summary of Technical Studies October 2025 14 characterized existing environmental conditions across the Duffins Creek, Carruthers Creek and the Lynde Creek watersheds and established the framework for the Natural Heritage System (NHS) that supports the Secondary Plan. The NHS Analysis was undertaken in collaboration with the City of Pickering, Region of Durham, TRCA and CLOCA. It provided mapping and analysis of valleylands, wetlands, woodlands, floodplains, headwater drainage features and species at risk habitat, including the endangered redside dace. The NHS Analysis identified opportunities for restoration, enhancement and integration of natural heritage features into the overall community design. The key findings and recommendations of the Natural Heritage and Hazards Analysis are summarized below: • Natural Heritage System and Buffers: The NHS Analysis delineated significant woodlands, wetlands and valleylands and applied 30-metre protective buffers to these features to guide land use and protect ecological functions. The findings informed the NHS shown on the Secondary Plan schedules. The policies of the Secondary Plan require the protection, restoration and enhancement of these features and prohibit development and site alteration within significant natural features and associated buffers. • Headwater Drainage Features: 98 Headwater Drainage Features (HDFs) were evaluated and classified for protection, conservation, mitigation or no management based on their hydrologic and ecological function. The Secondary Plan requires that HDFs identified for protection to be maintained with projections in place and those identified as conserve may be realigned provided their functions are maintained through natural channel design. Headwater drainage features identified through the Scoped Subwatershed Study and classified as protection or conservation shall be considered part of the Natural Heritage System once confirmed through the Master Environmental Servicing Plan. • Flooding and Erosion Hazards: The NHS Analysis confirmed floodplain and erosion hazard limits in consultation with TRCA and CLOCA. These areas were mapped as constraints to development. The Secondary Plan directs development away from flood and erosion hazard lands and establishes setbacks from the stable top of slope, meander belt and floodplain limits. • Scoped Subwatershed Study and Future Work: The NHS Analysis recommended completion of a Scoped Subwatershed Study to refine hydrology, hydrogeology, erosion thresholds and stormwater management strategies. Phase 1 Existing Conditions has been completed, which incorporates the findings of the Natural Heritage and Hazards Background Report. Phase 2 of the Scoped Subwatershed Study is currently underway, which will assess impacts and recommendations based on the final Land Use Plan for NEP. Phase 2 will be completed prior to adoption of the NEP Secondary Plan. Attachment 5 to Report PLN 03-26 Attachment 6 to Report PLN 03-26 Northeast Pickering Secondary Plan Dillon Consulting Limited pg. 1 Attachment 7 to Report PLN 03-26 1.0 Online Survey #4 Summary The following summarizes the feedback gathered during Survey #4, which was conducted from October 21, 2025 to November 19, 2025 for the Northeast Pickering Secondary Plan project. This survey, titled “Confirming the Way Forward”, presented draft policy directions across several key themes, including Natural Heritage, Mixed Use Areas, Employment Areas, Urban Residential Areas, Community Areas, Transportation, Sustainability, and Indigenous Cultural Heritage. The survey received a total of 19 responses. The content included a summary of the policy directions for the key themes, and asked participants to share their level of agreement and provide specific suggestions for changes or missing items. Responses received for each of these key policy themes are summarized in the sections below. All comments received will be considered in the finalization of the Secondary Plan. 1.1 Participant Demographics The following questions were presented in the survey as optional. Participants were fairly evenly split between those who had previously participated in engagement on the Secondary Plan (6 participants), those who had not (7 participants), and those who could not recall (6 participants). Figure 1 Breakdown of Participant Demographics Northeast Pickering Secondary Plan Dillon Consulting Limited pg. 2 1.2 Natural Heritage Policy Directions Question #1: How much do you agree or disagree with the draft Natural Heritage policy directions? The majority of respondents (approximately 74%) agreed or strongly agreed with the draft Natural Heritage policy directions. Question #2: Are there any elements of the draft policy directions that you are most supportive of? Participants highlighted the following elements of the draft Natural Heritage policy directions: • Detailed studies and flood risk acknowledgement and focus on ecosystems. • The focus on ecosystems, protecting natural heritage features and ecological sensitive areas for the preservation of creeks, marshes, natural areas, etc., and providing homes and transit corridors for wildlife. • Considering the management and implementation recommendations of the Carruthers Creek and Duffins Creek Watershed Plans. • Ensuring new builds fit into the streetscape. • Focusing on land stewardship and environmental protection to retain natural beauty and function of ecosystems in Pickering. Question #3: Are there any draft policy directions that you think should be changed, or missing items that should be added? The feedback highlighted several key concerns and suggestions, summarized below: • The recommendations of the Carruthers Creek and Duffins Creek Watershed Plan should be followed, not merely considered. • Road infrastructure should be a precondition to development, specifically the construction of the Westney Road bypass. • The policy should call out specific protection for well water resources in Greenwood and the areas around the watershed area as it is extremely sensitive and should be protected. • Suggestion to significantly reduce the developable area in Northeast Pickering by 60%. • A need for a clause that requires regular review of the Secondary Plan over the 25-30 year build-out. • An opposition to the encouragement of public ownership of Natural Heritage System lands. Northeast Pickering Secondary Plan Dillon Consulting Limited pg. 3 1.3 Mixed Use Areas Policy Directions Question #4: How much do you agree or disagree with the Mixed Use Areas policy directions? Over half of respondents agreed or strongly agreed with the Mixed Use Areas policy directions (approximately 52%). Question #5: Are there any elements of the draft policy directions that you are most supportive of? The elements of the Mixed Use policies that were most supported included: • Affordable housing and the intent to encourage a substantial mix of different types of housing. • Support for the employment areas around the Highway 407 corridor, economic development, and local jobs. Question #6: Are there any draft policy directions that you think should be changed, or missing items that should be added? The suggestions and concerns from participants included: • Concerns that permitting building height of up to 20 stories was too much, with a suggestion to reduce these to more medium heights of 6 stories and another suggestion to reduce to 12 stories. • Need for strict controls over “shoebox sized” condo development. • Reducing the urban footprint of the developable area. • A mix of views regarding the affordable housing target, with some suggesting an increase from 35% to 40% of units suited to moderate income households with 10% for low income households, or to prioritize lower income housing; others disagreed with the 35% target for affordable housing in new development, saying it would not be achievable. • Avoiding any new roads in the area north of Concession 7, between Sideline 6 and Westney Road as there are many students in that area. • Concern that direction on where each range of stories apply is unclear. 1.4 Employment Areas Policy Directions Question #7: How much do you agree or disagree with the Employment Areas policy directions? The majority of respondents agreed or strongly agreed with the Employment Areas policy directions (approximately 68%). Northeast Pickering Secondary Plan Dillon Consulting Limited pg. 4 Question #8: Are there any elements of the draft policy directions that you are most supportive of? The elements of the Employment Areas policies that were most supported included: • Planning employment areas to be accessible by transit, bicycle, and on foot. • Creating strong employment areas to reduce residential tax load and provide job opportunities. • Focusing on Highway 407 and a specific comment of adding gas stations near the highway. Question #9: Are there any draft policy directions that you think should be changed, or missing items that should be added? The suggestions and concerns from participants included: • Adding a ban on big box and large, foreign-owned corporations, and prioritizing Canadian small businesses. • Ensuring a Highway 407 Interchange at Westney is built for access and to reduce traffic. • Prohibiting roads through the natural heritage area. • A belief that the development is too ambitious and needs to be cut by at least 60% as city transport and road infrastructure cannot support a significant increase in traffic volume. • A disagreement that the 407 is a “shopping” highway, suggesting that the policy objective to prioritize access and visibility along Highway 407 would not work. 1.5 Urban Residential Areas Policy Directions Question #10: How much do you agree or disagree with the Urban Residential Areas policy directions? Over half of respondents agreed or strongly agreed with the Urban Residential Areas policy directions (approximately 53%). Question #11: Are there any elements of the draft policy directions that you are most supportive of? The elements of the Urban Residential Areas policy directions that were most supported included: • The provision of a buffer area between the Greenwood community and adjacent future development. • Ensuring all heights do not exceed the proposed limits. • Having all forms of residential developments provided for, through the permitted types of housing development. • Mixed-use development, specifically embedding small-scale services and family-owned restaurants within residentially dense areas, is crucial for fostering community. Northeast Pickering Secondary Plan Dillon Consulting Limited pg. 5 Question #12: Are there any draft policy directions that you think should be changed, or missing items that should be added? The suggestions and concerns from participants included: • The need for a hospital like Markham/Stouffville in the plan and more than one high school south of Highway 407. • A desire for the City to commit to review, assess, and update the plan at regular intervals over the 25 to 30-year build-out. • A concern that the Plan vastly expands what is considered low density and that it should align with current Pickering policy. • Suggestion to limit roads and schools built around the natural heritage area. • Aim to have 80%+ residential areas property taxes to be under $2500 per year, and capped after a certain amount of time so that residents get to keep their homes in the long term. • Concern around the cost of building so many schools and community centres, without the needed population to make use of them. 1.6 Community Areas to Gather and Play - Policy Directions Question #13: How much do you agree or disagree with the policy directions on community areas to gather and play? A majority of respondents agreed or strongly agreed with the community areas to gather and play policy directions (approximately 78%). Question #14: Are there any elements of the draft policy directions that you are most supportive of? The elements of the community areas to gather and play policies that were most supported included: • The emphasis and focus on community parks, green spaces, and recreation. • The protection of cultural heritage properties and cultural heritage landscapes . • Combining local recreational facilities into common areas (libraries, playing fields, pools, etc.) and prioritizing them over large-scale, expensive sports complexes. Question #15: Are there any draft policy directions that you think should be changed, or missing items that should be added? The feedback highlighted several key concerns and suggestions, summarized below: • A suggestion for City Council to be responsible for adequate parkland development instead of developers. • A recommendation to add a hospital to the plan as it is needed. • A call to enact plans for schools and hospitals now instead of planning for them later. Northeast Pickering Secondary Plan Dillon Consulting Limited pg. 6 • Suggestion to have one large main community center/sports complex that can serve the whole community instead of multiple small ones to ensure cost savings are realized. • Emphasis on no roads being built around or through the natural heritage area. • A comment that places of worship that do not contribute to municipal taxes should not be considered in the plan. 1.7 Transportation-Related Policy Directions Question #16: How much do you agree or disagree with the transportation- related policy directions? A majority of respondents agreed or strongly agreed with the transportation-related policy directions (approximately 69%). Question #17: Are there any elements of the draft policy directions that you are most supportive of? Participants highlighted the following elements of the draft transportation-related policy directions: • Promoting active transportation (trails, sidewalks, multi-use paths). • Support for the Westney Road bypass. • Promoting safe streets and quiet neighbourhoods. • Supporting the addition of an exit from Highway 407 to Northeast Pickering. • Support for enforcement of speed restrictions to be added. Question #18: Are there any draft policy directions that you think should be changed, or missing items that should be added? The feedback highlighted several concerns and suggestions, summarized below: • Suggestion to implement the Westney Road bypass as a mandatory precondition to any new development, to prevent traffic impacting the Greenwood community. • Ensuring developers properly soundproof medium and high-density housing in new developments. • Suggestion that the Draft Plan should discourage the long-distance daily commute mentality that has been adopted over the years. • Ensuring the interconnected trails link to south Pickering/Ajax and the rest of Durham Region. 1.8 Sustainability-Related Policy Directions Question #19: How much do you agree or disagree with the sustainability- related policy directions? A majority of respondents agreed or strongly agreed with the sustainability-related policy directions (approximately 73%). Northeast Pickering Secondary Plan Dillon Consulting Limited pg. 7 Question #20: Are there any elements of the draft policy directions that you are most supportive of? The elements of the sustainability-related policies that were most supported included: • Support for the inclusion of themes such as energy efficiency, climate resilience, environmental low impact, CPTED and AODA standards, and stormwater management. • Support regarding solving the foundational issues of stormwater management first before building more to prevent major finances issues in the future. Question #21: Are there any draft policy directions that you think should be changed, or missing items that should be added? Participants suggested and encouraged the following: • Commitment to protecting Greenwood residents from loss of well water, including from associated financial losses. • Suggestion that any costs to convert to City water should be on the City if wells are damaged and/or conversion is mandated. • Recommendation to mandate water-efficient systems and sustainable stormwater management practices both within the building and across the community. • Increasing the percentage of residential area for affordable and low-income housing. • Lowering the 35% for affordable housing as it is a burden on the taxpayers to maintain going forward. 1.9 Respecting First Nations - Policy Directions Question #22: Are there any elements of the draft policy directions that you are most supportive of? Respondents highlighted some elements that they were most supportive of, as summarized below: • The requirement that the development process be undertaken in a respectful manner consistent with established engagement protocols. • Appreciation for the proposed approach to engagement with Indigenous communities, Question #23: Are there any draft policy directions that you think should be changed, or missing items that should be added? Participants highlighted the following elements of the draft policy directions: • Objection to any excavation of First Nation’s archaeological sites, significant or not, and a request to honour these sites and leave them in place. • There was a question from one of the participants asking if Chief Kelly LaRoca (Mississaugas of Scugog Island First Nation) had been consulted. • Importance of true collaboration with First Nations and meaningful recognition and respect for their protocols and processes. Northeast Pickering Secondary Plan Comments Matrix Attachment 8 to Report PLN 03-26 Comments Index Public Comments .......................................................................................................................................................................... 1 Stop Sprawl Durham .............................................................................................................................................................................. 1 Stop Sprawl Durham .............................................................................................................................................................................. 5 Stop Sprawl Durham .............................................................................................................................................................................. 9 Stop Sprawl Durham ............................................................................................................................................................................. 18 Jenna Lasky ........................................................................................................................................................................................... 21 Jenna Lasky ........................................................................................................................................................................................... 21 Doug Glass ............................................................................................................................................................................................ 22 National Farmers Union Ontario ........................................................................................................................................................... 25 Durham Region Federation of Agriculture ............................................................................................................................................ 27 Ontario Farmland Trust ......................................................................................................................................................................... 28 Winston Emmery .................................................................................................................................................................................. 31 Carol Pryce ........................................................................................................................................................................................... 33 Helen Brenner ....................................................................................................................................................................................... 33 Mike Borie ............................................................................................................................................................................................. 36 Abdullah Mir .......................................................................................................................................................................................... 40 Craig Bamford ....................................................................................................................................................................................... 42 Peggy Bowie .......................................................................................................................................................................................... 46 James Blair ............................................................................................................................................................................................ 48 Matt Bentley .......................................................................................................................................................................................... 51 Phil Pothen ............................................................................................................................................................................................ 54 Estella Prosser ...................................................................................................................................................................................... 57 Northeast Pickering Secondary Plan Comments Matrix Ali Abid .................................................................................................................................................................................................. 59 Christian Farmers Federation of Ontario .............................................................................................................................................. 60 Greenwood Community Association ............................................................................................................................................. 61 Green Durham Association ................................................................................................................................................................... 63 James Blair ............................................................................................................................................................................................ 71 Landowner Comments ................................................................................................................................................................. 75 David Jang ............................................................................................................................................................................................. 75 Sritharan Nadarajasundram ................................................................................................................................................................. 75 Sritharan Nadarajasundram ................................................................................................................................................................. 76 Corpick Farms Ltd. ................................................................................................................................................................................ 77 Valpick Farms Ltd. ................................................................................................................................................................................ 78 Bunker Hill Golf Club ............................................................................................................................................................................ 80 Innovative Planning Solutions on behalf of Owners Rakesh Gupta, Rajni Gupta and Madhul Gupta................................................... 81 Innovative Planning Solutions on behalf of Owners Rakesh Gupta, Rajni Gupta and Madhul Gupta................................................... 92 Innovative Planning Solutions on behalf of 2722228 Ontario Inc. ....................................................................................................... 103 Innovative Planning Solutions on behalf of Pickering Salem Developments Ltd., ............................................................................. 111 Pinebrown Salem Lands Ltd. (“Pinebrown”)....................................................................................................................................... 119 Arcadis Professional Services on behalf of ........................................................................................................................................ 129 Dentons Canada LLP on behalf of Dorsay (Pickering) Limited ............................................................................................................ 132 Dorsay Development Corporation ...................................................................................................................................................... 138 Malone Given Parsons on behalf of Fieldgate Developments ............................................................................................................ 143 Malone Given Parsons on behalf of the North-East Pickering Landowners Group ............................................................................. 147 Malone Given Parsons on behalf of the North-East Pickering Landowners Group ............................................................................ 151 Grant Morris Associates...................................................................................................................................................................... 154 Northeast Pickering Secondary Plan Comments Matrix Innovative Planning Solutions for Ranji Gupta Ltd. ............................................................................................................................ 156 Agency Comments ..................................................................................................................................................................... 167 Enbridge .............................................................................................................................................................................................. 167 TRCA.................................................................................................................................................................................................... 167 Trans-Northern Pipeline ...................................................................................................................................................................... 169 Infrastructure Ontario ......................................................................................................................................................................... 172 Parks Canada ...................................................................................................................................................................................... 175 DDSB ................................................................................................................................................................................................... 181 Indigenous Comments ............................................................................................................................................................... 182 MSIFN .................................................................................................................................................................................................. 182 MSIFN .................................................................................................................................................................................................. 189 Alderville First Nation ......................................................................................................................................................................... 190 Northeast Pickering Secondary Plan Comments Matrix 1 Public Comments Public Comments Contact Comment Response Stop Sprawl Durham October 10, 2025 Letter Immediate Fiscal Concern: Pickering City Council recently approved the $266 million Seaton Recreation Complex & Library, against the expressed advice of the City’s Director of Finance and Treasurer. This primarily debt-funded project is expected to drive a municipal property tax increase of approximately 11.7%, which also raises costs for Durham Region taxpayers. Decisions of this scale underscore the urgent need for transparency and careful flscal planning for any new major developments, including Northeast Pickering. The Seaton example illustrates how large capital commitments can have long-term flnancial implications for residents and highlights the need to fully assess the projected annual municipal and regional tax impacts of additional urban expansion. On behalf of Stop Sprawl Durham, we are writing regarding the upcoming Statutory Public meeting on the Northeast Pickering Secondary Plan (PLN-13-25). The purpose of this letter is to ensure that all required studies are completed and made publicly available before the Statutory Public meeting so residents can understand the long-term flnancial, environmental, and infrastructure implications of the proposed development prior to the Statutory Public meeting. Noted. Requirements Under Section 5.7, Durham Region Official Plan (2024): Before an Urban Expansion Area such as Northeast Pickering can proceed, the following must be completed: • Fiscal Impact Study (FIS): A thorough assessment is required wherever municipal services and facilities will be needed. This should include detailed annual projections of municipal and regional property tax impacts over the full In alignment with Section 5.7 of the Durham Region Official Plan, Section 11.B.68 of the Secondary Plan requires the following studies to be completed prior to any development proceeding: • an Infrastructure Staging and Phasing Plan for the Secondary Plan as set out in Section 11.B.66 d to the City’s satisfaction; • a Master Environmental Servicing Plan; Northeast Pickering Secondary Plan Comments Matrix 2 Public Comments Contact Comment Response build-out period, broken down by year or key phases, to ensure taxpayers understand the cumulative flnancial burden. Without this, residents cannot evaluate affordability or flscal sustainability. • Subwatershed and Flood Impact Studies: These studies must include downstream impacts on Ajax to ensure stormwater management, fiood mitigation, and ecological impacts are fully assessed. • Phasing and Servicing Plans: Identiflcation of infrastructure capacity, timing, and costs is critical to avoid overextending city services and ensure planned growth is flnancially sustainable. These plans should be integrated with an overall Phasing and Sequencing approach to demonstrate how development aligns with existing commitments, infrastructure limits, and flscal realities over time. • Natural Heritage Assessments: To protect hydrologic functions and headwaters, and maintain ecological integrity. • Inter-municipal Coordination: Impacts on neighbouring municipalities must be addressed to prevent unintended flscal or environmental consequences. • class environmental assessments for sanitary sewer and water infrastructure; • class environmental assessments for transportation infrastructure; • a Financial Impact Study Phase 2 of the Subwatershed Study will be completed prior to adoption of the Secondary Plan which includes the natural heritage assessment. Integrated Phasing and Sequencing: It is essential that Northeast Pickering be aligned with the City’s overall growth management framework. With Seaton not expected to be fully built out until 2051, an Integrated Phasing and Sequencing Plan is needed to show how additional development can proceed without overloading infrastructure, services, or taxpayer budgets. This plan should demonstrate how projected annual tax increases, infrastructure commitments, and service requirements interact over time, ensuring residents are not burdened unexpectedly. As noted above an infrastructure Staging and Phasing Plan and a Financial Impact Study are required for prior to permitting any development applications. Northeast Pickering Secondary Plan Comments Matrix 3 Requested Information: • Full PLN-13-25 supporting documents, including technical reports, background studies, and maps; • Fiscal Impact Study: conflrmation if completed or underway; if completed, the full report and supporting flnancial models, including detailed annual projections of municipal and regional property tax impacts over the full build-out; if not completed, a written explanation for the omission; • Phase 2 Scoped Subwatershed Study and any related fiood modelling or mitigation reports; • Phasing and servicing schedule, including cost coverage and key work timelines, integrated with overall City growth (e.g., Seaton) and demonstrating an Integrated Phasing and Sequencing approach, so taxpayers can see how infrastructure and flnancial commitments will unfold over time; • Any technical reviews or comments prepared by the Region of Durham, Town of Ajax, TRCA, or other agencies regarding these studies. To ensure that residents and stakeholders have sufficient time to review the requested documents before the Statutory Public Meeting, we respectfully request a response and provision of all requested materials by Friday, October 24, 2025. We have been advised that consideration of the Northeast Pickering Secondary Plan could occur as early as the Statutory Public meeting scheduled for November 10, 2025, and timely access to these studies and reports is critical to allow meaningful public review and feedback. If these studies and supporting documents are not available by the requested date, we strongly urge the City to defer approval of the Northeast Pickering Secondary Plan until all required studies as required by Section 5.7 of the Durham Region Official Plan are completed, published, and made publicly available. This will ensure that residents can provide meaningful feedback and that Background studies and technical reports are available for review on the project web page: pickering.ca/NEP Relevant agency comments have already been forwarded to Stop Sprawl Durham. Northeast Pickering Secondary Plan Comments Matrix 4 the City can responsibly manage both the flnancial and environmental risks associated with this Urban Expansion Area. Concluding Note: The Seaton project demonstrates the real, tangible consequences of approving large-scale capital projects without full public transparency and careful flscal review. Approving Northeast Pickering without completed, publicly available flscal and infrastructure analyses risks repeating this scenario, potentially imposing unsustainable annual municipal and regional property tax increases on residents over decades. Attachment 10 to Information Report 10-25 contains a policy conformity assessment of the Northeast Pickering Secondary Plan. Northeast Pickering Secondary Plan Comments Matrix 5 Public Comments Contact Comment Response Stop Sprawl Durham Helen Brenner, Co-Lead Stop Sprawl Durham Abdullah Mir, Co-Lead Stop Sprawl Durham October 27, 2025 Letter Request for Routine Disclosure – _Official Plan Amendment Application OPA 25-003/P Northeast Pickering Secondary Plan We are writing on behalf of Stop Sprawl Durham regarding the proposed development of the Northeast Pickering Lands. We kindly ask that you provide us with any correspondence, comments, or concerns submitted since the release of the current development proposal for the Northeast Pickering Secondary Plan (OPA 25-003/P) from the following entities: • Region of Durham • Toronto and Region Conservation Authority • Town of Ajax • Mississaugas of Scugog Island First Nation We understand that some records may be available through routine disclosure, and we are requesting access to any such documents. Please forward all available materials to StopSprawlDurham@gmail.com. This information will assist us in better understanding the perspectives of key stakeholders and support informed community engagement regarding the proposed development. We would appreciate receiving this information by Friday, November 3rd, 2025, to allow sufficient time for review in advance of the Statutory Public Meeting scheduled for November 10th. Background studies and technical reports are available for review on the project web page: pickering.ca/NEP Northeast Pickering Secondary Plan Comments Matrix 6 Public Comments Contact Comment Response Request for Information – _Northeast Pickering Secondary Plan (Information Report-13-25) I am writing on behalf of Stop Sprawl Durham regarding the Draft Northeast Pickering Secondary Plan (Information Report-13-25) Policies (October 20, 2025), which are currently posted in advance of the Statutory Public Meeting scheduled for November 10. Our review of the draft policies has identifled several areas where further clariflcation from Planning staff would assist the public in understanding the basis for this Secondary Plan and its conformity with applicable planning requirements. In particular, page 3 of the draft document indicates that the plan was prepared using a population higher than that contemplated in Envision Durham, with the additional population anticipated post-2051. To create a complete community, we’ve added additional medium and high density development that was not previously contemplated by Envision Durham. The full development will occur post 2051, compared to the 2051 completion accounted for by Envision Durham. Given that the Durham Regional Official Plan and Envision Durham establish a 2051 planning horizon, and that Section 5.7 of the Regional Plan requires comprehensive studies to support any secondary plan consistent with regional forecasts and infrastructure capacity, we are seeking clariflcation on the following critical points: 1. Legal and Policy Basis Please identify the speciflc policy direction, Provincial approval, or enabling authority (including any provisions under Bill 23 or the Provincial Planning Statement, 2024) that permits the City to prepare or adopt a Secondary Plan based on a post-2051 population assumption. The lands are already within the urban area boundary which are needed by and are planned for 2051, but as the area matures some of lands will be intensifled for mixed use post 2051 which is a typical planning and development process. Providing for higher densities ad intensiflcation reduces the need for further Settlement Area Boundary Expansions in the future. Northeast Pickering Secondary Plan Comments Matrix 7 Public Comments Contact Comment Response 2. Conformity and Approval Process Has the City or Region completed a Municipal Comprehensive Review (MCR), conformity exercise, or formal amendment authorizing population or employment forecasts beyond 2051 for Northeast Pickering? If so, please provide documentation or Council resolutions approving these forecasts. 3. Terms of Reference and Direction to Consultants Please conflrm who directed the use of a post-2051 population estimate in the Secondary Plan process and provide any relevant correspondence, terms of reference, or Council direction to that effect. There is no longer a requirement under the new Provincial Planning Statement for an MCR. The entirety of the lands were brought into the Urban Area Boundary to achieve the densities anticipated in Envision Durham. There is no planning restriction to plan for higher densities in an urban area. It was a recommendation to Council to achieve policy direction for complete communities, compact development and transit supportability. Council will be making this decision at adoption. 4. Required Studies under Section 5.7 Please provide a list of all studies required under Section 5.7, identifying which have been completed and made public, which remain in progress, and the expected timelines for their completion and release. Speciflcally, please indicate the anticipated completion dates for the Master Environmental Servicing Plan (MESP), Carruthers Creek Hydrology and Flood Risk Assessment, Fiscal Impact Study, and Infrastructure Phasing Plan, and conflrm whether these will be available prior to Council’s consideration of the Secondary Plan. In alignment with Section 5.7 of the Durham Region Official Plan, Section 11.B.68 of the Secondary Plan requires the following studies to be completed prior to any development proceeding: • an Infrastructure Staging and Phasing Plan for the Secondary Plan as set out in Section 11.B.66 d to the City’s satisfaction; • a Master Environmental Servicing Plan, being completed by the Region; • required class environmental for sanitary sewer and water infrastructure; • required class environmental assessments for transportation infrastructure; • a Financial Impact Study for the Secondary Plan Area that is based on the phasing of development, and ensuring that the funding of new infrastructure, approved by Council Phase 2 of the Subwatershed Study will be completed prior to adoption of the Secondary Plan which includes the natural heritage assessment. The Carruthers Creek Hydrology and Flood Risk Northeast Pickering Secondary Plan Comments Matrix 8 Public Comments Contact Comment Response Assessment is being undertaken by the TRCA and timing of completion can be conflrmed with the TRCA. 5. Phasing and Servicing Plans Identiflcation of infrastructure capacity, timing, and costs is critical to avoid overextending city services and ensure planned growth is flnancially sustainable. Please conflrm whether a comprehensive Phasing and Sequencing Plan has been prepared to demonstrate how development in Northeast Pickering will align with existing commitments (including Seaton), infrastructure limits, and flscal realities over time. See above. 6. Infrastructure Capacity and Environmental Considerations Please conflrm whether any infrastructure capacity analysis (water, wastewater, transportation) and climate resilience assessment have been completed for the post-2051 population scenario, and whether these studies have been reviewed or endorsed by the Region or Province. The Region will be undertaking the water and wastewater planning and EA work. The Transportation Study has been completed in support of the Secondary Plan. 7. Fiscal Impact and Cost Allocation Please clarify whether the Fiscal Impact Study includes long-term costs for servicing post-2051 growth and how these costs will be allocated between developers and taxpayers. This information is essential for ensuring that the public can participate meaningfully and that the statutory consultation process is conducted in accordance with the requirements of the Planning Act and the Durham Regional Official Plan. Given the Statutory Public Meeting scheduled for November 10, we request that responses to the questions in this letter and the attached appendix be provided no later than November 6, 2025, to allow sufficient time for public review and preparation of Delegations. See above. Northeast Pickering Secondary Plan Comments Matrix 9 Public Comments Contact Comment Response To ensure transparency and a complete understanding of the basis for this Secondary Plan, we request formal written responses to the questions in this letter and the attached. Appendix of Additional Questions on page 4. Stop Sprawl Durham Helen Brenner, Co-Lead Stop Sprawl Durham Abdullah Mir, Co-Lead Stop Sprawl Durham November 16, 2025 Letter Important Clariflcation All policy references in this submission (e.g., Section 11.68) refer to the current Pickering Official Plan (Edition 9, March 2022) unless otherwise noted. We recognize that the City of Pickering is in the process of drafting a new Official Plan, with a draft expected to be shared with the public in early 2026. However, until a new Official Plan is adopted and comes into force, all planning decisions—including those regarding the Northeast Pickering Secondary Plan (Official Plan Amendment Application OPA 25-003/P)—must conform to the current Pickering Official Plan (Edition 9, March 2022), as well as the Durham Regional Official Plan and the Provincial Planning Statement, 2024. We obtained the MSIFN correspondence and related information through formal access-to-information processes, including Freedom of Information (FOI) and Routine Disclosure requests. Dear Mayor Ashe and Members of Council, We appreciate the opportunity to provide input on the Northeast Pickering Secondary Plan (OPA 25-003/P). As residents committed to sustainable, flscally responsible, and environmentally sound growth, we wish to share signiflcant concerns about the proposed expansion and its implications for Pickering’s future. 1. Procedural and Policy Context Noted. Northeast Pickering Secondary Plan Comments Matrix 10 Public Comments Contact Comment Response The Northeast Pickering lands were historically outside the City’s urban boundary. However, as of December 2024, the Province approved the Durham Regional Official Plan (ROP), which includes these lands within the urban boundary. This establishes the policy framework for future urbanization at the regional level, but the City of Pickering’s Official Plan must still be updated through a conformity amendment to refiect this change. Under both the Provincial Planning Statement (2024) and the Durham Regional Official Plan, any urban boundary expansion or planning for new settlement areas must occur through a comprehensive review that demonstrates a clear need, supported by infrastructure capacity, flscal analysis, and environmental study. The Pickering Official Plan requires conformity with the Durham Regional Official Plan (Policy Reference: Section 1.2). If Council intends to advance planning for these lands, this should occur through a transparent, consultative process with full public input (Policy References: Sections 15.9, 15.10). Regardless of the boundary status, any development must still meet all criteria set out in the PPS 2024 and supporting policies, including: • Demonstrated need and growth justiflcation • Infrastructure and servicing capacity • Environmental protection and climate resilience • Fiscal sustainability • Indigenous consultation and engagement The urban boundary expansion has already occurred through Envision Durham which is now an Official Plan of the City of Pickering. No further work is required regarding the urban boundary expansion. Northeast Pickering Secondary Plan Comments Matrix 11 Public Comments Contact Comment Response 2. Indigenous Consultation Obligations We are deeply concerned that the Mississaugas of Scugog Island First Nation (MSIFN) have not been meaningfully consulted regarding the proposed Northeast Pickering Secondary Plan (OPA 25-003/P). In their October 17, 2025, correspondence—obtained through Routine Disclosure -MSIFN makes clear that the City’s process does not meet the standards for meaningful consultation required under the Planning Act, the Provincial Policy Statement (2024), or Section 35 of the Constitution Act, 1982. MSIFN states that “Despite Mayor Ashe’s commitment… staff have failed to make a meaningful effort to book this meeting before the formal comments on the Draft Plan were required. This lack of inclusion and accommodation has limited MSIFN’s ability to meaningfully participate in the process.” MSIFN further notes that “the current Draft Plan makes it clear that our concerns have not been meaningfully considered and infringements of our constitutional Rights have not been accommodated by the City,” and that the City has “chosen to push the planning process forward without meaningful consultation, adequate engagement, or accommodation.” Despite providing detailed feedback since 2024, MSIFN reports that “responses from the City remain grossly inadequate… our concerns remain ignored and there has been no discussion of mitigation or accommodation.” They also emphasize exclusion from essential environmental fleldwork: “to date, MSIFN has been excluded from land and water-based surveys… MSIFN has not received any invitations to participate in fleldwork on these important topics.” The City contacted all of the Williams Treaties First Nations at the outset of this project. Pickering has since entered into a Relationship Agreement with the Mississaugas of Scugog Island First Nation to compensate them for their involvement in reviewing project materials and providing input. Engagement with First Nations will continue in the subsequent Neighbourhood Planning and Master Environmental Servicing Planning. Northeast Pickering Secondary Plan Comments Matrix 12 Public Comments Contact Comment Response MSIFN highlights that the City’s approach falls short of commitments under UNDRIP and the Durham Region–MSIFN Bilateral Agreement, which require good-faith consultation and respect for Indigenous decision-making. Most critically, MSIFN states: “By advancing the Draft Plan without securing MSIFN’s FPIC… the City disregards both its obligations under UNDRIP and the commitments made in the Durham Region–MSIFN Bilateral Agreement, perpetuating colonial decision-making that undermines our self-determination and sovereignty.” MSIFN concludes unequivocally that “MSIFN remains opposed to development in NE Pickering… until consultation and accommodation… occur in a meaningful manner.” These are not procedural gaps — they are fundamental legal and constitutional failings. Proceeding to adopt or approve the Secondary Plan in this context would expose the City to signiflcant legal, reputational, and ethical risk. Accordingly, no further Council consideration of OPA 25-003/P should occur until meaningful consultation and accommodation with MSIFN has taken place, and documented conflrmation of that process is made publicly available. 3. Need for Proper Process and Oversight As outlined in Section 1, of the City’s own policies and the PPS require that any expansion be considered only through a comprehensive review. Considering this, we request that Council pause any further consideration of the Northeast Pickering Secondary Plan (OPA 25- 003/P) until it can be properly reviewed through the comprehensive review of Pickering’s Official Plan now underway, consistent with The Municipal Comprehensive Review (MCR) required under the PPS and the Growth Plan was completed by the Region of Durham, which was the approval authority for establishing the Urban Area Boundary. Through the Region’s MCR, Northeast Pickering was brought into the designated Urban Area, and that decision has already been made. Envision Durham is now an Official Plan of the City of Pickering and the urban boundary is established in the City of Pickering. No further work is required. The Northeast Pickering Secondary Plan Comments Matrix 13 Public Comments Contact Comment Response the City’s obligations to conform with the Durham Regional Official Plan (Policy Reference: Section 1.2). Any further Council consideration of the plan should also be delayed until Indigenous consultation is complete and all required technical studies, and flscal analyses are flnalized and made public for review (Policy Reference: Sections 15.9, 15.10). Secondary Plan is amending the City of Pickering Official Plan to be in conformity with Envision Durham. The City contacted all of the Williams Treaties First Nations at the outset of this project. Pickering has since entered into a Relationship Agreement with the Mississaugas of Scugog Island First Nation to compensate them for their involvement in reviewing project materials and providing input. Engagement with First Nations will continue in the subsequent Neighbourhood Planning and Master Environmental Servicing Planning. 4. Growth Capacity Within the Existing Urban Boundary Official data show that in 2024 the City of Pickering broke ground on approximately 1,880 new homes, achieving roughly 174% of its assigned housing target for the year. This demonstrates that Pickering has already made substantial progress on its housing commitments. As Ontario Finance Minister Peter Bethlenfalvy stated in a recent interview: “Pickering has exceeded its housing pledge, showing that municipalities can deliver when they work together with the province.” (Source: CP24) At the same time, major designated growth areas within the existing urban boundary - including Seaton, the City Centre around the GO Station, and the Kingston Road corridor - still possess signiflcant development capacity. Seaton alone is not projected to be fully built out until 2051, yet it continues to hold the potential for tens of thousands of homes and jobs. Prioritizing these existing areas will maximize return on existing infrastructure investments, ensure more efficient housing delivery, and reinforce compact, transit-supportive growth - all consistent Additional growth was determined necessary through Envision Durham which expanded the urban area boundary and included Northeast Pickering. Northeast Pickering Secondary Plan Comments Matrix 14 Public Comments Contact Comment Response with the Pickering Official Plan’s commitment to complete communities and efficient land use (Policy Reference: Sections 2.6, 2.8, 3.1, 11.1). 5. Premature Expansion and Market Impacts Even if it takes years before any construction activity begins in Northeast Pickering, prematurely designating these lands will distort market focus and fragment the allocation of construction labour, materials, and servicing capacity. Rather than accelerating housing delivery, this approach will reduce overall housing starts and increase construction costs as limited resources are stretched across too many greenfleld sites. In practical terms, opening the Northeast Pickering lands will worsen the housing affordability crisis by delaying the completion of housing already approved and serviced within existing boundaries - delaying near-term housing delivery and worsening the affordability challenge. This is contrary to the Official Plan’s direction to prioritize growth within existing urban areas and avoid leapfrog or premature greenfleld expansion (Policy Reference: Section 2.28). These lands are already designated urban in Envision Durham which is now an Official Plan of the City. Further planning on these lands will not delay housing delivery on any other lands in the City of Pickering. 6. Fiscal Implications of the Northeast Pickering Secondary Plan The flnancial risks of this development extend far beyond initial servicing costs. Recent decisions by the City illustrate the scale of taxpayer exposure when large projects are approved: • Taxpayer Burden and Opportunity Costs: Development charges rarely cover full costs. The shortfall falls on taxpayers, diverting funds from core priorities like transit, affordable housing, and climate resilience. Under the Provincial Policy Statement, the City must plan for and accommodate long-term population and employment growth and support the achievement of provincially assigned housing targets. The development of Northeast Pickering contributes to meeting these obligations. Development Charges, developer-funded works, and available federal and Provincial grants will recover the Northeast Pickering Secondary Plan Comments Matrix 15 Public Comments Contact Comment Response • Infrastructure Expansion: Servicing Northeast Pickering will require new water, wastewater, stormwater, and transportation networks. These costs are front-loaded and historically underestimated, leaving municipalities to absorb overruns. • Climate Adaptation Costs: With climate change accelerating, all new and existing infrastructure must be “hardened” to withstand extreme weather-larger culverts, reinforced roads, upgraded water systems, and emergency power backups. Every kilometer of new infrastructure added today multiplies future adaptation costs. • Emergency Services and Operations: Growth in remote areas demands new flre halls, police stations, and paramedic facilities, adding recurring operational expenses. A Recent Example: Seaton Recreational Complex The City recently approved the $266 million Seaton Recreational Complex, with 11.7% of the cost—over $31 million—borne directly by taxpayers. This single facility foreshadows what Northeast Pickering will require: massive capital projects with signiflcant public subsidies. Bottom Line: The Northeast Pickering Secondary Plan (OPA 25- 003/P) is not just an environmental risk—it is a flscal liability. It locks taxpayers into decades of high-cost infrastructure commitments and climate adaptation expenses, while eroding flnancial capacity for existing communities. majority of growth-related capital costs, helping to limit pressures on the tax base. Phasing of the development will ensure that major community facilities are aligned with build-out and the availability of DC revenues, avoiding premature capital commitments and protecting existing taxpayers. Managed growth broadens the assessment base and distributes operating costs across a larger community, supporting long-term flscal stability. 7. Environmental Implications The proposed development would: • Increase downstream fiood risk for Ajax, already identifled as the #1 fiood-vulnerable community in Ontario; Flood analysis is being done through the Subwatershed Study and the Carruthers Creek Watershed Hydrology Update Project being undertaken by TRCA. Northeast Pickering Secondary Plan Comments Matrix 16 Public Comments Contact Comment Response • Degrade Greenbelt-protected areas, as new roads and infrastructure would fragment habitat and undermine ecological integrity; • Eliminate prime farmland, reducing local food security and climate resilience. The Northeast Pickering lands include active Class 1 agricultural land, which is the highest quality and most productive farmland in Canada. Only 0.5% of Canada’s land base is Class 1, and more than half of that is in Ontario. Yet Ontario is losing 319 acres of farmland every day—an alarming rate that threatens our food security and climate resilience. Section 2.3 of the Pickering Official Plan commits the City to “protecting agricultural lands” and “practicing careful land stewardship to maintain healthy natural environments for current and future generations.” Section 3.11 further prohibits the intrusion of urban land uses into Prime Agricultural Areas. The Greenbelt protected areas will not be degraded as no new roads are extended through the Greenbelt and servicing will be along existing roads. The lands are now within the urban area and the impact on farmland was considered through Envision Durham. These lands are no longer considered prime agricultural areas as they are now urban. 8. Request to Council 1. Pause any further consideration of the Northeast Pickering Secondary Plan (OPA 25-003/P) until it can be properly reviewed through the comprehensive review of Pickering’s Official Plan, consistent with the City’s obligations to conform with the Durham Regional Official Plan (Policy Reference: Section 1.2); 2. Delay any decision until Indigenous consultation is complete and all required technical studies, and flscal analyses are flnalized and made public (Policy Reference: Sections 11.68, 15.9, 15.10); 3. Prioritize the build-out of Seaton, the City Centre, the Kingston Road corridor, and other designated greenfleld areas within the current urban boundary before considering These lands are already designated urban in Envision Durham which is now an Official Plan of the City. Engagement with First Nations will continue in the subsequent Neighbourhood Planning and Master Environmental Servicing Planning. Further planning on the Northeast Pickering lands will not delay housing delivery on any other lands in the City of Pickering. Northeast Pickering Secondary Plan Comments Matrix 17 Public Comments Contact Comment Response any new expansion (Policy Reference: Sections 2.6, 2.8, 3.1, 11.1); 4. Reaffirm Council’s commitment to rejecting any boundary expansion inconsistent with evidence-based, flscally responsible planning (Policy Reference: Sections 7.10, 11.73, 11.74); and 5. Embed long-term affordability, climate resilience, and watershed protection in all future growth decisions (Policy Reference: Sections 10.5, 10.6, 10.7, 10.8, 16.8). Settlement Boundary Expansion has already been approved through Envision Durham. These values are included in the Guiding Principles for the Northeast Pickering Secondary Plan and are refiected in the draft policies. 9. Outstanding Questions and Requests for Information Note: A detailed list of questions is provided in Addendum A (Page 9) of this submission. We respectfully request that these questions be addressed in writing and shared publicly to ensure transparency and informed decision-making. In Conclusion: Protecting Our Soil, Our Water, Our Future The proposed development in Northeast Pickering is fundamentally ill-suited to this landscape. These lands are the headwaters of Carruthers Creek and home to rare, irreplaceable Class 1 agricultural soils—Canada’s most productive farmland. Surrounded by Greenbelt-protected areas, these lands form a critical ecological and agricultural corridor. Paving them over would impose enormous taxpayer costs, increase fiooding risk, and destroy farmland that feeds us and future generations. Every acre lost means fewer local farms and greater dependence on imports—at a time when climate change makes global food supply increasingly unstable. There is no undo button. Once concrete covers these soils, they are gone forever. This decision will deflne your legacy. Will future generations remember you as the leaders who safeguarded Ontario’s most precious farmland—or as the ones who allowed it to vanish forever? See responses above. Northeast Pickering Secondary Plan Comments Matrix 18 Public Comments Contact Comment Response Council’s flduciary and statutory obligations are clear. Approving this plan now would undermine public trust and expose taxpayers to signiflcant long-term costs, while diverting focus from the City’s already approved growth areas. We urge Council to pause this process until all required studies, consultation, and policy reviews are complete—and to focus future growth where it can be supported responsibly, efficiently, and sustainably. Stop Sprawl Durham Helen Brenner, Co-Lead Stop Sprawl Durham Abdullah Mir, Co-Lead Stop Sprawl Durham November 16, 2025 Letter ADDENDUM A: Detailed Questions for Council Section 1: Post-2051 Planning Assumptions Current Provincial policy does not support planning beyond 2051. However, the Northeast Pickering Secondary Plan (OPA 25-003/P) appears to incorporate post-2051 assumptions. Please clarify the following: 1A. Legal and Policy Basis • What speciflc Provincial policy direction, approval, or enabling authority (including any provisions under Bill 23 or the Provincial Planning Statement, 2024) permits the City to prepare or adopt a Secondary Plan based on a post-2051 population assumption? • Please provide copies of any relevant Provincial correspondence or approvals. 1B. Conformity and Approval Process • Conflrm whether the City or Region has completed a Municipal Comprehensive Review (MCR), conformity exercise, or formal amendment authorizing population or employment forecasts beyond 2051 for Northeast Pickering. • If such work exists, provide documentation and Council resolutions approving these forecasts. See responses above. Northeast Pickering Secondary Plan Comments Matrix 19 Public Comments Contact Comment Response 1C. Terms of Reference and Direction to Consultants • Identify who directed the use of a post-2051 population estimate in the Secondary Plan process. • Provide any relevant correspondence, terms of reference, or Council direction supporting this decision. 1D. Infrastructure Capacity and Environmental Considerations • Conflrm whether infrastructure capacity analysis (water, wastewater, transportation) and climate resilience assessment have been completed for the post-2051 population scenario. • Provide details on whether these studies have been reviewed or endorsed by the Region or Province. 1E. Fiscal Impact and Cost Allocation • Does the Fiscal Impact Study include long-term costs for servicing post-2051 growth? • How will these costs be allocated between developers and taxpayers? • Has a cost-beneflt analysis been completed comparing post- 2051 expansion with intensiflcation strategies? Please provide results. 1F. Public Engagement and Transparency • Will additional public consultation be scheduled beyond the statutory meeting, given the complexity of planning beyond 2051? • How will Indigenous communities and conservation authorities be engaged in reviewing post-2051 assumptions? 1G. Provincial Coordination • Has the Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing provided any guidance or approval for planning beyond the 2051 horizon? Northeast Pickering Secondary Plan Comments Matrix 20 Public Comments Contact Comment Response • Please provide copies of any correspondence or approvals. 1H. Contingency and Monitoring • What mechanisms will be in place to monitor and adjust the Secondary Plan if population growth does not materialize as projected? • Will there be a requirement for a future review or amendment before any development based on post-2051 assumptions proceeds? Section 2: Required Studies and Technical Work • Provide a list of all studies required under Section 5.7 of the Durham Region Official Plan, indicating: • Which have been completed and made public • Which remain in progress • Expected timelines for completion and release • Speciflcally conflrm anticipated completion dates for: o Master Environmental Servicing Plan (MESP) o Carruthers Creek Hydrology and Flood Risk Assessment o Fiscal Impact Study o Infrastructure Phasing Plan • Conflrm whether these will be available prior to Council’s consideration of the Secondary Plan. Section 3: Phasing and Servicing Plans • Conflrm whether a comprehensive Phasing and Sequencing Plan has been prepared to demonstrate alignment with existing commitments (including Seaton), infrastructure limits, and flscal realities. • If completed, when will it be made public? If not, when will this work be completed and released? Section 4: Environmental and Flood Risk Northeast Pickering Secondary Plan Comments Matrix 21 Public Comments Contact Comment Response • Conflrm whether the Carruthers Creek Hydrology and Flood Risk Assessment incorporate climate change projections and cumulative impacts of urbanization. • What mitigation measures are proposed to address downstream fiooding risks in Ajax and other areas? Section 5: Inter-municipal Coordination • What formal coordination has occurred with the Town of Ajax and other downstream municipalities to assess and address potential fiooding and infrastructure impacts resulting from the proposed Northeast Pickering Secondary Plan (OPA 25- 003/P)? • Will the City commit to making all inter-municipal correspondence, studies, and agreements related to fiood risk and infrastructure available for public review prior to any Council decision? Jenna Lasky October 21, 2025 Email On page 25 of the detailed plan it lists apartment buildings and long term care homes under acceptable low density builds. That is incongruent with the deflnition of low density...can you please clarify if that is an error or intentional? Additionally can you conflrm that this is now excluding more of greenwood on the east side of westney from the plan boundary? It appears to based on the prior publications but I didn't flnd anything that helps to track changes made vs. prior versions. Apartment building and long-term care housing are each a land use type. Within the Low Density Areas designation, each land use type must meet the built form requirements which include maximum heights of four storeys. In the case of lands surrounding Greenwood, additional built form policies apply (see policy 11.B.30 below). The entire Hamlet of Greenwood has been removed from the Secondary Plan. The illustration below shows in orange where the boundary was redrawn around Greenwood. Jenna Lasky October 22, 2025 Email Thank you for that clariflcation. What happened to the greenspace that was shown on the prior map as carrying south of 7? One of the technical background reports that is being completed for this project is a scoped subwatershed plan (SSWS). Phase 1 of the SSWS identifled and characterized the existing conditions of the natural and water-based systems within the Secondary Plan study area, and Northeast Pickering Secondary Plan Comments Matrix 22 Public Comments Contact Comment Response documented the initial constraints on development. The concept plans prepared in March 2024 were based on the preliminary evaluation of natural features. Since then, additional fleld work and analysis has been completed to evaluate and reflne the natural heritage features shown on the maps. Features that were determined to not be signiflcant were removed from the maps (i.e. smaller hedgerows, landscape ponds, etc.). This is not the flnal word on natural heritage protection. As part of the work that will be completed at the next phase (Neighbourhood Planning), more detailed review will be completed. In addition, it is a requirement for most development applications that an Environmental Impact Study be completed prior to development approvals. In the event a signiflcant natural feature exists that was not identifled on the plan, it is still required to be protected if it is discovered later. See draft Policy 11.B.6 below. Doug Glass October 26, 2025 Email As a resident of North Ajax and Durham Region and frequent user of lands in this area, I am writing to express my serious concern (and to ask that these concerns be added to the public record) about your proposed Northeast Pickering Secondary Plan (OPA 25- 003/P). While I do not live within Pickering’s municipal boundaries, I am directly affected by the environmental and watershed systems that cross them. The lands under consideration form the headwaters of Duffins Creek, Carruthers Creek, and Lynde Creek. Natural systems that fiow through and protect our communities from fiooding, provide habitat for wildlife, and sustain water quality for thousands of residents downstream. Ajax already is amongst the highest at risk of fiooding in the GTA. I am very concerned that these plans could increase the risk. Northeast Pickering Secondary Plan Comments Matrix 23 Public Comments Contact Comment Response The decisions made under this Secondary Plan will have regional environmental, flscal, and infrastructure consequences. It is therefore essential that these issues be examined thoroughly and transparently before any development approvals proceed. The map area identifled in the proposal covers a large expanse of prime agricultural lands, forests, and creek valleys. These lands form the ecological backbone of West Durham. Urbanizing them would fragment the green corridor that connects the Oak Ridges Moraine to Lake Ontario — a vital system that regulates fiooding, air quality, and biodiversity. Before any land use changes are approved, Pickering should release: • A full watershed impact assessment validated by independent conservation authorities, • Cumulative effects analysis of all planned development (including Seaton and Whitebelt expansions), and • A transparent stormwater management strategy aligned with downstream municipal infrastructure capacity. Durham Region and the Province have committed to climate resilience and sustainable land use. Approving large-scale greenfleld development contradicts these goals by: • Requiring new highways, roads, sewers, and pumping stations instead of using existing serviced lands; • Increasing vehicle dependence, carbon emissions, and road congestion; • Consuming high-quality farmland that supports food security and local economic resilience. The environmental systems and infrastructure affected by this plan are regional, not local. The City of Pickering cannot plan this area in isolation. The lands have already been brought into the urban boundary by the Region through Envision Durham which was approved by the Province. A Subwatershed Study is being prepared by the City and is being reviewed by the two conservation authorities. It will be addressed cumulative impacts of development and set parameters for stormwater management. A Master Environmental Servicing Plan will then be required prior to development to establish the more detailed stormwater management strategy. Northeast Pickering Secondary Plan Comments Matrix 24 Public Comments Contact Comment Response • The Duffins Creek watershed affects fiood mitigation and erosion in Ajax. • Road and infrastructure expansion north of Highway 407 will increase downstream traffic, sediment, and stormwater loads. • These costs will ultimately fall on regional taxpayers — including those in Ajax, Whitby, and Oshawa. Therefore, before flnalizing the plan, Pickering Council should: • Undertake a formal consultation with neighbouring municipalities and the Region of Durham; (I have copied my local councillors in Ajax) • Require joint environmental review by the Toronto and Region Conservation Authority (TRCA) and the Central Lake Ontario Conservation Authority (CLOCA); • Disclose the flnancial implications of servicing these new lands compared to existing urban areas. The Region of Durham, Town of Ajax, Town of Whitby and the two conservation authorities have been consulted throughout the Secondary Plan study. The Conservation Authorities have been reviewing the Secondary Plan and Subwatershed Study and have provided input into the terms of reference for the Master Environmental Servicing Plan. A flnancial impact study is required by the Secondary Plan prior to development. Other critical considerations should include 1. Deferring approval of the Northeast Pickering Secondary Plan until an independent environmental and watershed review is completed and made public. 2. Adopt a “net gain” principle for green infrastructure: every hectare developed must be matched by restored or enhanced natural area. 3. Engage regional partners, including Ajax and Durham Region, before adopting any land use designations. The Subwatershed Study is being conducted according to accepted practices and by qualifled professionals. Regular technical meetings have been conducted with the respective Conservation Authorities and with qualifled professionals representing the landowner group within Northeast Pickering. An independent review is not required. The Scoped SWS is applying best available information and conducting a watershed-based assessment which demonstrates no net impact on off-site lands through on-site fiood control works. This will be further conflrmed through the on-going work by TRCA. Northeast Pickering Secondary Plan Comments Matrix 25 Public Comments Contact Comment Response 4. Hold additional public consultations once the Environmental Assessment work is complete, not just during this statutory phase. This issue goes beyond Pickering’s borders. The Duffins, Carruthers, and Lynde Creek systems don’t stop at a municipal line — and neither do their impacts. Development decisions in Northeast Pickering will shape water quality, fiood safety, and livability across Durham for decades. I urge Council and Planning staff to take a precautionary, transparent, and regionally coordinated approach to this proposal. Once these lands are urbanized, we cannot undo the damage. Please see previous response Phase 2 of the Scoped Subwatershed Study will be completed prior to approval of the Secondary Plan. Further public consultation will occur as part of the Neighbourhood Planning process. All fiood control criteria will be reviewed and approved by TRCA and CLOCA the watershed managers. National Farmers Union Ontario Max Hansgen President November 6, 2025 Letter The National Farmers Union – Ontario (NFU-O) represents thousands of farmers across the province, including producers in Durham Region and the City of Pickering. We support new homes and jobs, while safeguarding Ontario’s best farmland and the agricultural system that sustains food security and rural economies. The NFU-O is deeply concerned about the Northeast Pickering Secondary Plan because: • The study area is overwhelmingly prime farmland. The city- commissioned Agricultural Impact Assessment (AIA) conflrms the NEP Secondary Plan Area is ~1,720 ha and largely within a prime agricultural area. If fully built out, it would permanently remove ~1,720 ha of prime agricultural lands from production. • Fragmentation harms farm viability. The AIA explains that fragmenting farmland reduces efficiency, raises operating costs, and increases confiicts with non-farm uses; new development in prime agricultural areas should avoid further fragmentation wherever possible. • Most active operations and tile-drainage investments lie north of Hwy 407. The AIA therefore recommends phasing any The lands are now within the urban area through the Durham Region Official Plan: Envision Durham and was approved the Province. The impact on farmland was considered through Envision Durham. These lands are no longer considered prime agricultural areas as they are now designated urban. The infrastructure staging and phasing plan will be taking that recommendation into account in the phasing of NE Pickering. Northeast Pickering Secondary Plan Comments Matrix 26 Public Comments Contact Comment Response development south of Hwy 407 flrst to minimize impacts on existing farms and infrastructure. • Public input prioritizes protecting farmland and avoiding sprawl into whitebelt/prime farmland areas. The City’s own Agriculture & Rural Areas online-survey appendix records numerous comments to stop expansion into farmland, avoid re-zoning, and build up, not out. Our requests: 1. Defer approval of the NEP Secondary Plan until the City has held a dedicated working session with affected farm operators and recognized agricultural organizations (NFU- O, OFA, CFFO, DRFA/DAAC, OFT), and published a consultation record responding to farm-speciflc issues (fragmentation, buffers/MDS, trespass, haul routes for farm equipment, drainage/outlets, and right-to-farm education). (See AIA themes referenced above.) 2. Publish an agriculture mitigation package tied to the plan and implementation tools, including: • edge-planning/MDS compliance and defensible buffers; • stormwater designs that avoid run-off/fiooding onto farm operations; • measures to reduce trespass, confiicts and nuisance complaints; • protected equipment routes/turning movements; and • drainage protection so existing tile-drained flelds retain function. (All respond to impacts the AIA identifles.) 3. If Council advances the flle, adopt the AIA’s phasing direction and start south of Hwy 407 to minimize direct harm to the cluster of active operations and tile-drainage north of 407. A presentation was made to the Durham Agricultural Advisory Committee in December, 2025. Comments received from that meeting have been added to the comments received from other agricultural groups. Based on the comments received, additional edge management policies will be included. Please see previous response. No further engagement sessions are planned as part of the secondary plan process. Northeast Pickering Secondary Plan Comments Matrix 27 Public Comments Contact Comment Response 4. NFU-O is ready to participate immediately in a city-led session to ensure good planning and good farming can co- exist in Pickering. Durham Region Federation of Agriculture Graham Smith, President November 6, 2025 Letter The Durham Region Federation of Agriculture (DRFA) is the voice for close to 1100 family farm businesses within Durham Region with members represented in the City of Pickering. We support new homes and jobs, while safeguarding Ontario's best farmland and the agricultural system that sustains food security and rural economies. The DRFA is deeply concerned about the Northeast Pickering Secondary Plan because: • The study area is overwhelmingly prime farmland. The city- commissioned Agricultural Impact Assessment (AIA) conflrms the NEP Secondary Plan Area is ~1, 720 ha and largely within a prime agricultural area. If fully built out, it would permanently remove ~1, 720 ha of prime agricultural lands from production. • Fragmentation harms farm viability. The AIA explains that fragmenting farmland reduces efficiency, raises operating costs, and increases confiicts with non-farm uses; new development in prime agricultural areas should avoid further fragmentation wherever possible. • Most active operations and tile-drainage investments lie north of Hwy 407. The AIA therefore recommends phasing any development south of Hwy 407 flrst to minimize impacts on existing farms and infrastructure. • Public input prioritizes protecting farmland and avoiding sprawl into whitebelt/prime farmland areas. The City's own Agriculture & Rural Areas online-survey appendix records numerous The lands are now within the urban area through the Durham Region Official Plan: Envision Durham and was approved the Province. The impact on farmland was considered through Envision Durham. These lands are no longer considered prime agricultural areas as they are now designated urban. The infrastructure staging and phasing plan will be taking that recommendation into account in the phasing of NE Pickering. Northeast Pickering Secondary Plan Comments Matrix 28 Public Comments Contact Comment Response comments to stop expansion into farmland, avoid re-zoning, and build up, not out. Our requests: 1. Defer approval of the NEP Secondary Plan until the City has held a dedicated working session with affected farm operators and recognized agricultural organizations (DRFA, DAAC, OFA, NFU-O, CFFO, OFT) and published a consultation record responding to farm-speciflc issues (fragmentation, buffers/MOS, trespass, haul routes for farm equipment, drainage/outlets and right-to-farm education). (See AIA themes referenced above) 2. Publish an agriculture mitigation package tied to the plan and implementation tools, including: • edge-planning/MDS compliance and defensible buffers; • stormwater designs that avoid run-off/fiooding onto farm operations; • measures to reduce trespass, confiicts and nuisance complaints; • protected equipment routes/turning movements; and • drainage protection so existing tile-drained flelds retain function. (All respond to impacts the AIA identifles.) 3. If Council advances the flle, adopt the AIA's phasing direction and start south of Hwy. 407 to minimize direct harm to the cluster of active operations and tile-drainage north of 407. The DRFA welcomes the opportunity to participate in consultation with the city to ensure good planning and good farming can co- exist in Pickering. A presentation was made to the Durham Agricultural Advisory Committee in December, 2025. Comments received from that meeting have been added to the comments received from other agricultural groups. No further engagement sessions are planned as part of the secondary plan process. Based on the comments received, additional edge management policies will be included. Please see previous response. Ontario Farmland Trust Martin Straathof Executive Director Ontario Farmland Trust The Ontario Farmland Trust (OFT) is a provincial, non-proflt land trust dedicated to protecting Ontario’s agricultural land base and the long-term viability of its food systems. Our mission is to ensure that the province’s flnite and irreplaceable farmland resource remains available for food production for generations to come. Northeast Pickering Secondary Plan Comments Matrix 29 Public Comments Contact Comment Response November 7, 2025 Letter We are writing to express signiflcant concern regarding the proposed Northeast Pickering Secondary Plan. Based on the City’s own Agricultural Impact Assessment (AIA), the Secondary Plan area consists almost entirely of prime agricultural land (approximately 1,720 hectares in total) making it one of the largest remaining contiguous blocks of high-quality farmland in the region. Full build-out would result in the permanent loss of this agricultural landscape, its soil resources, and its associated farm enterprises. Prime agricultural lands represent the foundation of Ontario’s agri- food economy and rural communities. These lands cannot be replaced once urbanized. As the AIA notes, fragmenting or encroaching upon agricultural areas compromises farm operations by increasing confiicts, reducing operational efficiency, and undermining long-term investment in agricultural Infrastructure. Public feedback, captured through the City’s rural and agricultural consultation materials, also demonstrates strong support for protecting farmland and avoiding outward expansion where it compromises the agricultural land base. This aligns with provincial policy direction to prioritize agriculture, avoid fragmentation, and minimize non-farm uses in prime agricultural areas. To ensure that good planning and agricultural protection remain aligned, OFT respectfully requests that Council: 1. Defer approval of the Northeast Pickering Secondary Plan: Defer approval until the City convenes a dedicated working session speciflcally for affected farm operators and recognized agricultural organizations, including OFT, NFU-O, OFA, CFFO, and local farm groups. This session should address agricultural issues identifled in the AIA such as A presentation was made to the Durham Agricultural Advisory Committee in December, 2025. Comments received from that meeting have been added to the comments received from other agricultural groups. No further engagement sessions are planned as part of the secondary plan process. Northeast Pickering Secondary Plan Comments Matrix 30 Public Comments Contact Comment Response fragmentation, trespass, drainage impacts, transportation/haul routes, Minimum Distance Separation (MDS) compliance, buffers, and right-to-farm education. A public consultation record that responds directly to these agricultural issues should be published before any decision proceeds. 2. Prepare and publish a comprehensive agricultural mitigation package: If the City intends to advance the Secondary Plan, it must be accompanied by a mitigation framework that includes: • defensible buffers and edge-planning measures that maintain MDS compliance; • stormwater designs that fully prevent runoff onto agricultural operations; • measures addressing trespass, nuisance complaints, and confiict management; • protection of farm equipment routes and turning movements; and • drainage safeguards ensuring tile-drained flelds retain their function. These measures directly respond to the impacts highlighted within the City’s AIA and are essential for avoiding unintended harm to the agricultural system. Based on the comments received, additional edge management policies will be included. 3. Follow the AIA’s recommended phasing direction: If development proceeds, Council should adopt the recommendation to phase any development south of Hwy 407 flrst. This approach minimizes immediate impacts on active farm operations located north of Hwy 407 and preserves critical tile-drained farmlands for as long as possible. Safeguarding Ontario’s farmland is a direct investment in the province’s long-term prosperity, food security, and climate Please see previous response. Northeast Pickering Secondary Plan Comments Matrix 31 Public Comments Contact Comment Response resilience. We encourage Council to take the necessary time and steps to ensure this planning process fully addresses agricultural impacts before proceeding. Winston Emmery November 7, 2025 Comment Submission Form The wetlands of Carruther's Creek make Durham region resilient to fiooding and wildflres. Wetlands provide wonderful outdoor experiences of our natural heritage, sustain an abundant diversity of wildlife, and lessen the impacts of climate change. Wetlands save Durham residents millions of dollars every year. The plan to urbanize nearly 4000 acres of rural land in Northeast Pickering will adversely affect these wetlands. Comments re Official Plan Amendment Application OPA 25- 003P Proposed Amendment 54: Northeast Pickering Secondary Plan From an environmental, economic, and public policy perspective this project is ill-advised. The proposal is for more sprawl - a recipe for “... ruining our environment, destroying our farmland and making us sicker – costing us $10's of billions in health care, congestion and lost ecological goods and services – while cementing a structural deflcit as sprawl simply does not cover the life cycle costs of all its linear infrastructure. Moreover, sprawl is Ontario' biggest source of greenhouse gas emissions and does not provide the types of housing that most people can afford.” (Doyle, 2022) It is redundant (Red), reckless (Re), risky(Ri), and costly(C): The land to be developed: 1. sits on the headwaters of Carruthers Creek, which fiows directly through Ajax into Lake Ontario. TRCA modeling shows urbanizing these headwaters will increase fiooding hazards by up to 77%: Stronger and more frequent fiood events will threaten homes, infrastructure, and water quality downstream – especially in Ajax where I live. “Urbanization has been shown to increase storm water runoff, erosion, and sediment load, The proposed SWM and Environmental Mgt Plan will ensure wetlands are appropriately protected and sustainable in terms of a future feature-based water balance; additional details will be prescribed through the MESP. Northeast Pickering Secondary Plan Comments Matrix 32 Public Comments Contact Comment Response compounding risks. Climate change intensifles rainfall events, overwhelming existing drainage systems.” Ajax has already levied fees for taxpayers in anticipation of effects of atmospheric rivers. Research has shown: “Greenbelt Wetlands improve the resilience of more than 3 million households. These ecosystems are highly productive, contributing $509 million annually to regional GDP...” . (Smart Prosperity Institute, 2024). Re/Ri/C 2. encroaches the Greenbelt on south, west and north, with Lynde Creek to the east, creating an ecological corridor; the area includes sensitive ecological features that play a critical role in fiood mitigation and water quality: the northern areas of Carruthers Creek host Redside Dace and other endangered species; Re, Ri, C The lands are now within the urban area through the Durham Region Official Plan: Envision Durham and was approved the Province. These lands are no longer considered prime agricultural areas as they are now designated urban. 3. includes primarily Class 1 prime agricultural land that is actively farmed. It is a priceless asset, assures food security in Durham Region, and the entire Province of Ontario for the foreseeable future. Ri/C; All natural features are to be maintained with linkages incorporated where appropriate. 4. largely single family houses are to be built, which will incur the most costly infrastructure to service. Already Durham residents' taxes are increasing by up to 10% because of past boundary expansions and resultant sprawl. C The proposed Land Use Plan permits a broad mix of housing types which will include single family houses. The Mixed Use Areas and Medium and High Density Residential Areas require higher density housing forms to be developed. There is strong testimony that the proposal is entirely unnecessary: according to the Report of the Ontario Housing Affordability Task Force there is already sufficient land available for development in Pickering. The present municipal council has been derelict in building out Seaton where only less than 20% of housing that was slated to be built has been completed. That community, with a capacity for at least 70,000 could manage the 44,000 the new amendment purports to accommodate. Re/Ri. As stated above, the lands are already designated urban by the Durham Region Official Plan. Northeast Pickering Secondary Plan Comments Matrix 33 Public Comments Contact Comment Response Approval of the Implementation of the Northeast Pickering Secondary Plan should only proceed following formal consultation with and approval by the Mississaugas of Scugog Island First Nation (MSIFN) and other Indigenous communities. A comprehensive review of the area municipal official plan, as required under Section 5.7.2(a) of the Region of Durham Official Plan must be undertaken. The City contacted all of the Williams Treaties First Nations at the outset of this project. Pickering has since entered into a Relationship Agreement with the Mississaugas of Scugog Island First Nation to compensate them for their involvement in reviewing project materials and providing input. Engagement with First Nations will continue in the subsequent Neighbourhood Planning and Master Environmental Servicing Planning. Carol Pryce November 10, 2025 Comment Submission Form Seaton TFPM Inc. (SP-2023-02; A 005/23) I am writing to give comment on the Official Plan Amendment OPA 25-003P northeast Pickering Secondary Plan. I am against this land being developed. I live in South Ajax and am aware there is a risk of my area being fiooded. I want the Red Dace flsh and other species protected and the cost of urban sprawl is unnecessary and a burden to tax payers. Thank you for your comments. The Scoped SWS is applying best available information and conducting a watershed-based assessment which demonstrates no net impact on off-site lands through on-site fiood control works. This will be further conflrmed through the on-going work by TRCA. Helen Brenner Stop Sprawl Durham November 10, 2025 Public Meeting Delegation Helen Brenner, speaking on behalf of Stop Sprawl Durham, stated that the Northeast Pickering proposal represents large-scale urban sprawl—“a 4,000-acre city within a city”—that is disconnected from existfng transit and infrastructure. She notes that Envision Durham’s Land Needs Assessment (Scenario 4) concluded that Durham Region requires no additional settlement area boundary expansion to meet 2051 housing and populatfon needs. She asserts that Pickering could meet its growth targets without expanding the urban boundary. Concerns About Transparency and Decision-Making Process Ms. Brenner raised concerns regarding a last-minute Council motion that added 4,000 acres to Pickering’s urban area to enable the Northeast Pickering Secondary Plan (NEPSP). She argues this occurred outside of a transparent planning process and has eroded public trust in Council’s decision-making. An infrastructure Staging and Phasing Plan is required to identify required infrastructure and the phasing of Northeast Pickering Secondary Plan Comments Matrix 34 Public Comments Contact Comment Response Fiscal and Taxpayer Impacts The delegation highlighted the significant long-term financial burden the NEPSP could impose on Pickering and Durham Region taxpayers: • Major capital requirements for roads, water, wastewater, emergency services, and schools. • Even if developers fund initial servicing, ongoing maintenance, repair, and replacement would fall to taxpayers. • Reference to Council’s approval of the $266M Seaton Recreation Complex (against the Treasurer’s advice), resulting in an 11.7% tax increase, as an example of rising fiscal pressures. Ms. Brenner’s position is that low-density sprawl increases municipal servicing costs and results in higher taxes across the Region. that infrastructure and a Financial Impact Study to identify the costs and flnancing of the infrastructure and community facilities is required prior to permitting any development applications. Regional Infrastructure and Inter-Municipal Cost Implications She noted that because Durham Region pools infrastructure costs, taxpayers in all municipalities—not only Pickering—would bear financial responsibility for servicing Northeast Pickering. Flooding and Environmental Risks Ms. Brenner identified multiple environmental concerns: • TRCA modelling indicating that the expansion could increase downstream flooding in Ajax by up to 77%, potentially affecting insurance coverage and premiums. • Fragmentation of the Greenbelt, loss of farmland essential for food security, and impacts to natural heritage systems. • Increased traffic, greenhouse gas emissions, and pressure on sensitive headwater lands. A subwatershed Study is being undertaken to protect the natural heritage system, assess the impact on the environment and establish management and mitigation measures. The Carruthers Creek Watershed Hydrology Update Project is being undertaken to update fiood mapping and erosion hazards in order to minimize impacts. Northeast Pickering Secondary Plan Comments Matrix 35 Public Comments Contact Comment Response Missing or Incomplete Required Studies (Durham OP Section 5.7 Requirements) She asserts that the NEPSP is advancing without completing key technical studies required under Section 5.7 of the Durham Official Plan, including: • Environmental servicing • Updated flood mapping • Subwatershed studies • Fiscal impact analysis • Phasing and cumulative impact assessments • Analyses related to Indigenous rights According to the delegation, this undermines policy safeguards and increases risks to taxpayers and the environment. In alignment with Section 5.7 of the Durham Region Official Plan, Section 11.B.68 of the Secondary Plan requires the following studies to be completed prior to any development proceeding: • an Infrastructure Staging and Phasing Plan for the Secondary Plan as set out in Section 11.B.66 d to the City’s satisfaction; • a Master Environmental Servicing Plan; • class environmental assessments for sanitary sewer and water infrastructure; • class environmental assessments for transportation infrastructure; • a Financial Impact Study Alignment With Provincial and Regional Policy The delegation states that proceeding with the NEPSP: • Is not compliant with the Provincial Planning Statement, • Conflicts with Durham Region’s growth management strategies, • Occurs ahead of the City’s Official Plan Review, and • Directs major growth into environmentally sensitive headwater areas. The Secondary Plan is consistent with all aspects of the Provincial Planning Statement and implements the Region’s growth management strategy. Since the lands are within the City’s urban boundary there is not the need for the secondary plan to await the City’s Official Plan Review. Indigenous Consultation Ms. Brenner noted that Indigenous consultation is incomplete and must be fully undertaken and publicly disclosed prior to any further decisions on the NEPSP. Engagement with First Nations will continue in the subsequent Neighbourhood Planning and Master Environmental Servicing Planning. Northeast Pickering Secondary Plan Comments Matrix 36 Public Comments Contact Comment Response Request for Council Action The delegation requested that Council: • Pause all consideration of the NEPSP until all required studies under Durham OP Section 5.7 are completed, reviewed, and released publicly. • Maintain the existing urban boundary unless robust, evidence-based planning demonstrates a need for expansion. • Ensure transparent, fiscally responsible decision-making. Decline to support the development in its current form, notfng concerns regarding higher taxes, increased flood risks, environmental impacts, and loss of public trust. Noted. Mike Borie November 10, 2025 Public Meeting Delegation Mr. Mike Borie stated that he strongly opposes OPA 25-003P for the Northeast Pickering Secondary Plan (NEPSP). He referenced past proposals (Dorsey Veraine, Lakeridge Health lands, Visioning Study) and asserted that Northeast Pickering has repeatedly been advanced through developer-driven processes rather than evidence-based municipal planning. He characterized the proposal as “textbook urban sprawl” that will cause irreversible harm to residents and the environment. Growth Management and Need for Expansion Mr. Borie argued that Northeast Pickering is not required to meet Provincial or municipal growth targets. He cited a recent statement by MPP Peter Bethlenfalvy indicating that Pickering has exceeded its housing target by 174%, and noted that significant planned and approved development in the City’s southern areas remains unbuilt. He stated that intensification and build-out of existing communities (particularly Seaton) should be prioritized. Housing targets for all municipalities are a minimum not a maximum target. Under the Provincial Policy Statement, the City must plan for and accommodate long-term population and employment growth and support the achievement of provincially assigned housing targets. The development of Northeast Pickering contributes to meeting these obligations. Northeast Pickering Secondary Plan Comments Matrix 37 Public Comments Contact Comment Response Major Fiscal Burden and Financial Viability Concerns The delegation raised extensive concerns about the financial feasibility of the NEPSP: • The City’s total growth-related capital program is estimated at $1 billion, with only ~$505 million eligible for recovery through Development Charges. • The remaining ~$498 million would need to be funded through non-DC sources—property taxes, municipal debt, or Provincial contributions. • He stated that this gap will inevitably fall on existing taxpayers and could undermine funding for current aging infrastructure. He expressed concern that developers will not cover the full cost of growth, and that cost analyses provided to Council are incomplete or lacking transparency. Development Charges, developer-funded works, and available federal and Provincial grants will recover the majority of growth-related capital costs, helping to limit pressures on the tax base. Phasing of the development will ensure that major community facilities are aligned with build-out and the availability of DC revenues, avoiding premature capital commitments and protecting existing taxpayers. Managed growth broadens the assessment base and distributes operating costs across a larger community, supporting long-term flscal stability. Speciflc Infrastructure Cost Concerns Mr. Borie highlighted several cost categories he believes are under-explained or unresolved: • Electricity infrastructure estimated at over $160 million (not including a new transformer station if required). • Costs for rapid transit, fire services, policing, and education, which he says have not been presented in a single itemized summary. • The Seaton Recreation Complex and Library tax impact of 11.71% over 20 years (~$255/year for an average homeowner) as an example of pressures on the municipal tax base. He reiterated that, ultimately, all roads lead back to the taxpayer—municipal, regional, or provincial. A Financial Impact Study to identify the costs and flnancing of the infrastructure and community facilities is required for prior to permitting any development applications. Northeast Pickering Secondary Plan Comments Matrix 38 Public Comments Contact Comment Response Flood Risk and Watershed Impacts Mr. Borie raised concerns about flood hazards and stormwater impacts: • The TRCA has identified up to a 77% increase in downstream flooding risk to homes in Pickering and Ajax if the headwaters of Carruthers Creek are developed. • He argued that the lands act as an important natural sponge and that altering them poses a serious safety risk to thousands of existing residents. • He referenced existing TRCA flood control dike rehabilitation projects, noting that these represent additional taxpayer costs separate from NEPSP servicing. A subwatershed Study is being undertaken to protect the natural heritage system, assess the impact on the environment and establish management and mitigation measures. The Carruthers Creek Watershed Hydrology Update Project is being undertaken to update fiood mapping and erosion hazards in order to minimize impacts. Environmental and Agricultural Impacts Significant environmental concerns identified include: • Loss of 1,600 hectares of prime agricultural land, green space, and sensitive watershed areas. • Impacts on species at risk, specifically the endangered red-sided dace, whose critical habitat exists within the affected watershed. • The delegation stated that the plan undermines climate resilience, food security, and local carbon storage. The lands are now within the urban area through the Durham Region Official Plan: Envision Durham and was approved the Province. These lands are no longer considered prime agricultural areas as they are now designated urban. Concerns About Servicing, Phasing, and Pace of Infrastructure Delivery Mr. Borie expressed concerns that: • Infrastructure and community amenities will not keep pace with new residents. • Essential infrastructure needs—particularly rapid transit— have not been sufficiently planned or costed. An infrastructure Staging and Phasing Plan is required for prior to permitting any development applications which will identify the timing of infrastructure and community facilities in line with development. Seaton is planned for 2031 whereas NE Pickering is planned for 2051 with full development to occur after that. Northeast Pickering Secondary Plan Comments Matrix 39 Public Comments Contact Comment Response • The build-out of the Seaton Community (approved for 70,000 residents) is far from complete and may be delayed by market conditions and economic downturns. He questioned the rationale for opening a second, large greenfield area when existing planned communities remain significantly incomplete. Transparency, Accountability, and Financial Disclosure The delegation stated that there has been a lack of transparent public disclosure regarding: • Full life-cycle costs of the development • Itemized capital and operating costs for essential services • Climate-related grading and drainage implications • Financial risk exposure for the City and Region He asserted that the process feels rushed and developer- led, and that Council has not demanded the level of due diligence required. The secondary plan study has been ongoing for the past three years with a number of public open houses. A flnancial impact study is required to be completed prior to development to assess full life-cycle costs and flnancial risks. Indigenous Consultation and Treaty Rights Mr. Borie raised serious concerns regarding Indigenous rights and consultation: • He noted statements from the Mississaugas of Scugog Island First Nation (MSIFN) indicating that consultation has been inadequate and that the development may infringe upon their rights under Section 35. • He clarified that the MOU referenced by the Mayor is not an agreement to develop Northeast Pickering but an agreement to continue discussions. • Chief Kelly LaRocca has stated publicly that MSIFN does not support the development without agreement from all affected Indigenous nations. Engagement with First Nations will continue in the subsequent Neighbourhood Planning and Master Environmental Servicing Planning. Northeast Pickering Secondary Plan Comments Matrix 40 Public Comments Contact Comment Response • The delegation argued that reconciliation requires no-net- loss of environmental value and protection of harvesting and cultural practices. • He noted no evidence that other Williams Treaties First Nations have expressed support for the proposal. Request for Council Action Mr. Borie urged Council to: • Reject OPA 25-003P. • Prioritize intensification and build-out of Seaton and other planned communities before opening new greenfield areas. • Require full financial, servicing, environmental, and Indigenous consultation data before proceeding. • Recognize the long-term environmental, fiscal, and safety risks he associates with the proposal. He concluded that the OPA is “a bad deal for Pickering” that would harm the environment, increase taxes, put residents at risk, and fail to honour Indigenous treaty obligations. Noted. Abdullah Mir November 10, 2025 Public Meeting Delegation Mr. Abdullah Mir expressed strong concern about developing Northeast Pickering’s headwater lands, specifically the headwaters of Carruthers Creek. He stated that building on these sensitive lands will likely increase downstream flooding risks in Ajax and parts of Pickering. He emphasized that the environmental impacts alone warrant rejecting the proposal. The Carruthers Creek Watershed Hydrology Update Project is being undertaken to update fiood mapping and erosion hazards in order to minimize impacts. Growth Management and Lack of Need for Expansion Mr. Mir argued that Northeast Pickering is unnecessary to meet growth pressures. He stated that growth can be accommodated through: Northeast Pickering is within the urban area, so needs is not a consideration for Secondary Planning. Northeast Pickering Secondary Plan Comments Matrix 41 Public Comments Contact Comment Response • Continued build-out of Seaton, which is only ~30% complete. • Intensification along the Kingston Road corridor. • Development around the GO Station in Pickering’s south core. He described Northeast Pickering as “land in the middle of nowhere” and a “textbook example of urban sprawl,” and noted that alternatives exist within existing serviced areas. Financial Risk and Taxpayer Burden He stated that developing Northeast Pickering would cost “billions of dollars” to provide the necessary infrastructure (sewers, water, electrical servicing) for a projected 72,000 residents. Key concerns include: • Lack of a completed fiscal impact study, meaning taxpayers have “no idea” what financial obligations they are taking on. • The likelihood of a substantial and long-term financial burden for residents, including those who may not be able to afford higher taxes. • The risk that Pickering is “signing up for a financial disaster,” given the scale of unknown costs and infrastructure requirements. A flnancial impact study is required to be completed prior to development to assess full life-cycle costs and flnancial risks. Concerns About Process, Transparency, and Long-Term Impacts Mr. Mir stated that: • Taxpayers and residents cannot fully understand or evaluate the proposal without clear financial information. • The proposal feels premature due to the absence of fully articulated infrastructure and fiscal planning. Noted. Northeast Pickering Secondary Plan Comments Matrix 42 Public Comments Contact Comment Response • Multiple young residents, including himself, plan to live in Pickering long-term and want clarity regarding the future costs they will be required to bear. Advocacy for Smart Growth and Responsible Planning He stated that taxes are worthwhile when used to build community infrastructure, support vulnerable residents, and improve public services—but that Northeast Pickering requires taxpayers to pay “tonnes of taxes for no reason.” He reiterated that: • Serviced areas such as Seaton and Kingston Road should be prioritized. • New greenfield development is unnecessary and financially risky. Noted. Request for Council Action Mr. Mir respectfully requested that Council: • Prevent approval of the NEPSP / OPA 25-003P. • Listen to residents who are concerned about long-term financial and environmental impacts. • Take a long-term, responsible view of the city's growth needs and avoid unnecessary expansion that may burden taxpayers for generations. He concluded by urging Council to recognize that the expansion is not needed to meet current growth pressures and would create avoidable financial and environmental harm. Noted. Craig Bamford November 10, 2025 Mr. Craig Bamford questioned why the Northeast Pickering Secondary Plan (NEPSP) is being advanced as an amendment to the Pickering Official Plan rather than following the specific and comprehensive process required under Durham Region Official Section 5.7 of Envision Durham requires a Secondary Plan which is an amendment to the parent Official Plan. That process is being followed. Northeast Pickering Secondary Plan Comments Matrix 43 Public Comments Contact Comment Response Public Meeting Delegation Plan Section 5.7. He emphasized that Section 5.7 was designed to: • Protect downstream municipalities (particularly Ajax). • Ensure efficient use of services and infrastructure. • Require coordinated phasing, fiscal planning, and affordability assessments. He noted that this structured process is not being followed. These matters are being assessed as part of the supporting studies and studies required prior to development. Concerns About Speed, Transparency, and Departure From the Established Process Mr. Bamford referenced the June information meeting and noted that only about 10 days before the statutory public meeting did residents receive a 200+ page Secondary Plan. He stated the process feels rushed, lacks transparency, and is inconsistent with how expansion areas were intended to be planned when designated in the Regional Official Plan. The draft Secondary Plan policies (50 pages) were available to the public on October 21, 2025. The corresponding Transportation Master Plan (226 pages) was released on November 4, 2025. (Note: An earlier “Integrated Transportation/Transit Strategy Report” was released in May 2023) Lack of Fiscal Planning, Phasing, and Cost Controls Drawing on examples from the Town of Milton, he noted that responsible growth management requires a: • Long-term fiscal plan, • Detailed phasing strategy, and • Annual reporting to ensure infrastructure and servicing remain affordable. He stated that such fiscal controls are missing from the NEPSP, and that the current approach could threaten affordability for future residents. The secondary plan requires an infrastructure staging plan and a flnancial impact study prior to development. Northeast Pickering Secondary Plan Comments Matrix 44 Public Comments Contact Comment Response Traffic and Transportation Concerns (Regional and Inter- Municipal Impacts) Mr. Bamford stated that the information available focuses narrowly on traffic within the NEPSP boundary and does not address: • Travel impacts through Ajax (Salem, Harwood). • Congestion and impacts on Highway 401 access routes. • Traffic movements north-south toward Lakeridge Road. He argued that without assessing regional travel patterns, the traffic analysis is incomplete. The wider regional impacts of growth are considered through the Transportation Master Plans for Ajax, Pickering, and Durham Region Increasing Financial Burden on Existing Residents Due to Legislative Changes He expressed concern that Bill 23 and subsequent Provincial legislation have eroded the developer-funded share of growth, shifting significant infrastructure costs onto existing residents. He cited parkland requirements as an example: • Pickering’s Parks Plan identifies 86.4 ha required for NEPSP growth. • Under amended legislation, the developer must provide only 58 ha. • The remaining ~28 ha will be paid for by taxpayers. He described this downloading as unsustainable and a reason to reject the proposal. Noted. Concerns About Incomplete Environmental and Watershed Planning Mr. Bamford noted that the watershed study appears focused on already-developing areas rather than the full expansion area. He The subwatershed study is studying the full secondary plan area. The Scoped SWS is applying best available information and conducting a watershed-based assessment which demonstrates no net impact on off- site lands through on-site fiood control works. This will be further conflrmed through the on-going work by TRCA. Northeast Pickering Secondary Plan Comments Matrix 45 Public Comments Contact Comment Response stated that concerns raised by the Town of Ajax about downstream flood and servicing impacts have not been adequately addressed. Affordable Housing Planning Should Occur Through the Pickering OP Review He stated that affordable housing strategies should be completed through the City’s broader Official Plan process—not through this accelerated Secondary Plan. Section 5 of the Information Report, he noted, places responsibility on Council to ensure affordability, but the necessary studies and planning work are not provided. Affordable housing needs to be addressed both at the parent Official Plan level and through the Secondary Plans in order to ensure strategies can be implemented to achieve the desired outcome. Indigenous Consultation Is Incomplete and Lacking Transparency Mr. Bamford referenced Section 6.3 of the Secondary Plan materials, which indicate a meeting with Indigenous Nations is planned “in the future.” He raised concerns that: • There is no record of comments received to date. • There is no evidence that Indigenous communities were engaged early or consistently. • Meaningful consultation must occur before the plan proceeds. He urged Council to show leadership by ensuring Indigenous engagement begins at the outset and is fully completed before advancing the plan. The City contacted all of the Williams Treaties First Nations at the outset of this project. Pickering has since entered into a Relationship Agreement with the Mississaugas of Scugog Island First Nation to compensate them for their involvement in reviewing project materials and providing input. Engagement with First Nations will continue in the subsequent Neighbourhood Planning and Master Environmental Servicing Planning. Northeast Pickering Secondary Plan Comments Matrix 46 Public Comments Contact Comment Response Request for Council Action Mr. Bamford urged Council to: • Reject the NEPSP amendment in its current form. • Require completion of the full Regional Section 5.7 process, including environmental, fiscal, phasing, traffic, and Indigenous consultation components. Ensure transparent, accountable planning before approving a major expansion with long-term financial and environmental implications. Noted. Peggy Bowie November 10, 2025 Public Meeting Delegation Ms. Peggy Bowie, speaking as a Pickering resident and President of the Rougemont Community and Recreation Association, expressed significant concern about: • Rising development-related costs, • Rapid growth of municipal debt, and • Resulting cuts to services and delays to City plans extending to 2036. She emphasized that “growth doesn’t pay for growth— taxpayers do,” and stated that residents need clarity on the financial risks associated with Northeast Pickering. Need to Update the Seaton Fiscal Plan Ms. Bowie stated that the Seaton Fiscal Plan is outdated and was originally developed under the Central Pickering Development Plan—prior to recent Provincial policy changes. She noted confusion around repeated statements that implementing recommended plans has “no direct financial implication” for Pickering, despite: • Provincial changes impacting municipal financing, • Large new infrastructure requirements, and • Long-term servicing obligations. Under the Provincial Policy Statement, the City must plan for and accommodate long-term population and employment growth and support the achievement of provincially assigned housing targets. The development of Northeast Pickering contributes to meeting these obligations. Development Charges, developer-funded works, and available federal and Provincial grants will recover the majority of growth-related capital costs, helping to limit pressures on the tax base. Phasing of the development will ensure that major community facilities are aligned with build-out and the availability of DC revenues, avoiding premature capital commitments and protecting existing taxpayers. Managed growth broadens the assessment base and distributes operating costs across a larger community, supporting long-term flscal stability. Northeast Pickering Secondary Plan Comments Matrix 47 Public Comments Contact Comment Response Incomplete Technical and Environmental Studies Ms. Bowie noted that an updated scoped subwatershed plan and other technical studies are still underway. She raised concerns that: • It is unclear whether the work has been completed, • The results have not been publicly shared, and • Residents do not know the cost of ongoing analysis. She stated that major decisions should not proceed without finalized technical information. The subwatershed study will be completed prior to the City approving the Secondary Plan. Caruthers Creek Watershed and Flooding Risks Ms. Bowie expressed serious concerns about the potential impacts of development on the Caruthers Creek watershed, stating that: • Infrastructure demands and hydrological impacts could be “devastating” to downstream areas, including Ajax. • Flood mitigation infrastructure, hydrology updates, and flood mapping must be completed before any approvals. She emphasized that unanswered questions remain about the effects of Northeast Pickering development on downstream flooding. The Scoped SWS is applying best available information and conducting a watershed-based assessment which demonstrates no net impact on off-site lands through on-site fiood control works. This will be further conflrmed through the on-going work by TRCA. Need for Fiscal Impact Studies and Full Transparency She requested: • A comprehensive and updated fiscal impact study, • Full costing of infrastructure requirements, and • Public release of all financial and technical findings. Ms. Bowie stated that many residents feel the process is “very opaque” and that transparency is urgently needed. The secondary plan requires a flnancial impact study prior to development. Northeast Pickering Secondary Plan Comments Matrix 48 Public Comments Contact Comment Response Request for Council Action Ms. Bowie urged Council and planners to: • Ensure full transparency, • Engage residents meaningfully before voting, and • Clearly disclose all environmental, technical, and financial risks associated with the NEPSP before any decisions are made. Noted. James Blair November 10, 2025 Public Meeting Delegation Mr. James Blair focused on the concerns of Pickering’s agricultural community. He stated that Northeast Pickering would significantly fragment agricultural lands, making viable farming operations impossible. Key points include: • Fragmented parcels prevent farmers from using modern machinery and moving between fields. • Reduced viability leads farmers to conclude their land is “not valuable enough” to sustain agricultural livelihoods. • Once fragmentation begins, it spreads beyond the target area and impacts the entire farming community. Lack of Accurate Agricultural Data and Disconnect With Staff Mr. Blair stated there is a major discrepancy between: • The number of agricultural workers cited in planning materials (approx. 260–300 people), and • The actual number identified in the agricultural assessment for Northeast Pickering (just under 3,500 people). This raised concerns about: • A disconnect between staff and the agricultural community. • Whether farmers have been adequately consulted or represented during the planning process. The Agricultural Impact Assessment references the 2016 Census of Agriculture data and states, “the City of Pickering has 49 total farms, accounting for approximately 3.7% of farms in Durham Region. The agriculture and agri-food sector employs approximately 3,465 residents in Pickering.” In correspondence with Mr. Blair, staff referenced the 2021 Census, which reports that Pickering had 260 people employed in the agriculture, forestry, flshing and hunting sector. Northeast Pickering Secondary Plan Comments Matrix 49 Public Comments Contact Comment Response Concerns Over Limited Consultation With Farmers and Agricultural Organizations He noted that: • Farmers who attended the June 18 Planning Committee meeting came from areas like Cherrywood and western Pickering—demonstrating broader agricultural concern. • The National Farmers Union, Durham Region Federation of Agriculture, Christian Farmers Federation, and Ontario Land Trust Alliance have all expressed interest in being consulted. • Despite repeated outreach (including follow-up letters), no meaningful engagement or meetings appear to have occurred, even months later. Three public open houses have been held over the past three years to gain feedback during the secondary plan process. A presentation was made to the Durham Agricultural Advisory Committee in December, 2025. Comments received from that meeting have been added to the comments received from other agricultural groups. No further engagement sessions are planned as part of the secondary plan process. Broader Implications of Setting a Planning “Template” Mr. Blair cautioned that once a development template is created for Northeast Pickering: • It can “metastasize” to affect all agricultural areas in Pickering. • Farmers worry that the planning framework could spread development pressure across the entire municipality. • Farmers are concerned that zoning decisions will eliminate agricultural options north of Highway 407 and undermine long-term farm operations. The lands in NE Pickering secondary plan area are already designated urban. Lands to the north, south and west are within the Greenbelt Plan and will not be developed for urban uses so there is not a risk to affect agricultural lands beyond the secondary plan area. Inconsistent or Unclear Messaging From Consultants He referenced comments made at the June 18 meeting where: • The consulting team appeared unsure about whether agricultural or cost assessments would be completed. • A consultant reportedly dismissed agricultural concerns by stating that this is “not a rural development, it is an urban development,” and farmers could “stay if they want or go.” Mr. Blair said this reflects a troubling misunderstanding of The consultant was providing the facts to the meeting that the lands are no longer designated agricultural but are now within the urban area, as such the decision of whether the lands remain agricultural has already been made. Northeast Pickering Secondary Plan Comments Matrix 50 Public Comments Contact Comment Response agricultural issues and undermines trust in the planning process. Financial Concerns and Long-Term Tax Burden Mr. Blair stated that approving the NEPSP would: • Place “an unbelievable tax burden” on Pickering residents. • Be unnecessary given the already significant development underway elsewhere in the City. • Risk permanently destroying agricultural land, after which it may sit unused for 15–20 years while taxpayers bear the cost. A flnancial impact study is required to be completed prior to development to assess full life-cycle costs and flnancial risks. Broader Concerns About the Pace and Intent of Development He suggested a provincial pattern of: • Quickly removing topsoil to permanently eliminate agricultural use, Making land undevelopable for farming even if development is delayed for decades. He urged Council to consider long-term food security implications. Noted. Request for Council Action Mr. Blair requested that: • Council halt or reconsider the Northeast Pickering plan. • Proper agricultural consultation occur with all major farming organizations. The City acknowledge and address the substantial agricultural, economic, and financial concerns raised. He emphasized that agricultural groups—including the National Farmers Union, Durham Federation of Agriculture, Christian Farmers Federation, Noted. Northeast Pickering Secondary Plan Comments Matrix 51 Public Comments Contact Comment Response and Ontario Land Trust Alliance are demanding meaningful involvement and protection of farmland. Matt Bentley November 10, 2025 Public Meeting Delegation Mr. Matt Bentley, a former Pickering resident now living in Uxbridge, expressed strong opposition to the Northeast Pickering Secondary Plan. He stated that while growth is necessary, this proposal represents “the wrong type of growth”—unaffordable, environmentally damaging, and not in the public interest. Financial Burden and Strain on Existing Infrastructure Mr. Bentley emphasized that the NEPSP would impose massive long-term costs on residents: • High taxes, • Major infrastructure requirements (roads, schools, transit, fire, police, recreation), and • Large capital debt obligations. He noted that Pickering is already struggling to maintain existing infrastructure—citing arenas, pools, community centres, and, specifically, the deterioration of roads in Claremont due to insufficient capital funding. He questioned why the City would “build a new city” of 100,000+ residents when it cannot maintain what currently exists. A flnancial impact study is required to be completed prior to development to assess full life-cycle costs and flnancial risks. Environmental Concerns: Headwaters, Farmland, Climate Change Mr. Bentley reiterated concerns raised by earlier delegations: • Impacts to the headwaters of Carruthers Creek, • Loss of vital farmland and natural assets, and • Compounding climate change risks. He stressed that the impacts will harm not only current This is being addressed through the subwatershed study. Northeast Pickering Secondary Plan Comments Matrix 52 Public Comments Contact Comment Response residents but future generations (“our children’s children”). Traffic and Mobility Impacts He noted that North Pickering already experiences significant traffic issues and that adding ~100,000 new residents would worsen congestion dramatically, with no realistic way for infrastructure to keep pace. The secondary plan calls for an estimated 72,000 people not 100,000. A transportation study has been done and conflrms development with the proposed road and transit network is feasible. Concerns About Envision Durham and Developer Infiuence He stated that the final outcome of Envision Durham was deeply disappointing, characterizing it as a developer-influenced decision that: • Was not part of the intended process, • Conveniently created just enough land to enable the NEPSP boundaries, and • Set up the situation Pickering is now dealing with. He also noted that other municipalities and Conservation Authorities have raised concerns about the proposal. Prematurity, Lack of Completed Work, and Process Violations Mr. Bentley stated that the NEPSP is being advanced: • Prematurely, • Ahead of the City’s Official Plan Review, • Without completed Indigenous consultation, and • Without full technical, fiscal, or environmental information. He stated that pushing unknown work “into the future” after the plan is approved is unacceptable. The Northeast Pickering Secondary Plan will implement the directions from the Envision Durham Official Plan that identifled this area for urban development. Engagement with First Nations will continue in the subsequent Neighbourhood Planning and Master Environmental Servicing Planning. Northeast Pickering Secondary Plan Comments Matrix 53 Public Comments Contact Comment Response The Plan Is Not Required to Meet Housing Targets He stated that: • Anchoring (Pickering’s intensification areas) is already meeting or exceeding housing targets. • The boundary expansion recommended through Envision Durham is unnecessary. • The Province’s housing goals can be met without Northeast Pickering. The boundary approved by the Province is to accommodate growth to 2051 and requires NE Pickering to achieve that growth. Call for Council to Pause, Delay, or Reject the Plan Mr. Bentley echoed earlier delegations in calling for: • An immediate pause of the NEPSP, • Completion of the full Durham Official Plan Section 5.7 process, • Completion of Indigenous consultation, and • Delay of any decisions until all facts and technical information are available. He urged Council to protect the city’s financial, environmental, and social wellbeing. As noted previously, the studies in support of the Secondary Plan and studies required prior to development meet the study requirements of Section 5.7. Appeal to Council’s Responsibility and Long-Term Legacy Mr. Bentley concluded by reminding Council that: • Council was elected in 2022 with strong promises of sustainability and responsible growth, • This decision is “legacy-defining,” and • Council should protect the future rather than jeopardizing it. He asked Council not to support the plan. Noted. Northeast Pickering Secondary Plan Comments Matrix 54 Public Comments Contact Comment Response Phil Pothen November 10, 2025 Public Meeting Delegation Mr. Phil Pothin, a land-use planning and environmental lawyer and Program Manager at Environmental Defence, stated that the best planning, environmental, and housing outcome is for Northeast Pickering not to be built at all, and certainly not until all unbuilt areas within Pickering’s pre-2022 settlement boundary are fully replanned for significantly more and more efficient housing. Northeast Pickering Would Produce Fewer Homes, More Slowly, at Higher Costs Mr. Pothin emphasized that approving the NEPSP: • Would not speed up housing delivery, • Would not produce more family-sized homes, • Would not reduce costs or improve affordability, and • Would divert labour, equipment, and municipal capacity away from more efficient mid-rise and multiplex housing in already serviced areas. He stated bluntly that moving ahead with NEPSP “will result in fewer and more expensive homes” than alternative options. Build Housing in Existing Serviced Areas First He argued that: • Pickering has vast unbuilt land within its pre-2022 designated greenfield areas (especially Seaton), • Pickering also has significant capacity in existing built-up areas, • These areas can support efficient, wood-frame, mid-rise and multiplex housing, and • Labour and capital should be directed to these areas first. He said the idea of treating Seaton’s outdated planning permissions as fixed—and starting fresh on new greenfield land—is “unlawful” and “inefficient.” Northeast Pickering Secondary Plan Comments Matrix 55 Public Comments Contact Comment Response Headwaters of Carruthers Creek Should Not Be Urbanized Mr. Pothin emphasized the environmental significance of: • The Carruthers Creek headwaters, • The presence of one of only two remaining healthy Redside Dace populations in Canada, • The risk of irreversible ecological damage. He argued that investing time and resources to make the headwaters "settlement ready" is a misuse of staff capacity and would undermine environmental protections. Durham Settlement Boundary Expansion Was Questionable He asserted that: • Durham Region’s decision to include Northeast Pickering in the settlement boundary was controversial and improperly executed (“ambush expansion”), • Even under today’s weakened planning rules, the expansion did not conform to Provincial requirements, • Therefore, the NEPSP would itself be unlawful because it relies on a boundary expansion that should not have occurred. He noted that similar expansions, including Greenbelt removals, were reversed—and that Northeast Pickering’s inclusion in the boundary could also be reversed without compensating landowners. Envision Durham was adopted by Durham Council and approved by the Province. There was nothing unlawful about is approval. Current Rules Still Require Efficient Use of Land and Existing Infrastructure Mr. Pothin reminded Council that, despite dismantled PPS/GP policies, Ontario’s current rules still require: • Efficient use of designated land, • Optimization of existing infrastructure, The lands are within the urban area boundary of the City. As the lands are within a settlement area, the PPS requires land use patterns be based on densities and mix of uses which efficiently use land, optimize planned infrastructure, support active transportation and are transit supportive. The policies of the Secondary Plan do exactly that. Northeast Pickering Secondary Plan Comments Matrix 56 Public Comments Contact Comment Response • Avoiding growth patterns that reduce total homes compared to alternatives. He stressed that NEPSP violates these principles by diverting resources to expensive, low-efficiency greenfield development. Need to Replan Seaton and Existing Built-Up Areas Before Considering New Expansion He argued that Council must: • Revisit Seaton’s planning framework, • Increase densities and permit mid-rise and multiplex formats, • Expand permissions along major corridors and in existing neighbourhoods, before contemplating development of Northeast Pickering. He stated that these changes would deliver far more homes overall than the NEPSP. NEPSP Will Result in Fewer Homes Overall (Housing Market Warning) Mr. Pothin explained Environmental Defence’s long-standing analysis: • Sprawl does not deliver more homes or faster construction, • It creates labour and capital bottlenecks, • It reduces total housing output during periods of high construction demand, and • It makes homes more expensive. He stated that this is precisely what has happened across Ontario, validating their warnings to the Province. Appeal to Council: Do Not Approve the NEPSP He concluded by urging Council to: Northeast Pickering Secondary Plan Comments Matrix 57 Public Comments Contact Comment Response • Say no to the Secondary Plan, • Pause all work until unbuilt areas are replanned for efficient housing, and Recognize that approving NEPSP will leave younger generations with fewer homes, higher costs, and environmental harm. He framed this as critical for young people seeking family-sized homes. Estella Prosser November 10, 2025 Public Meeting Delegation Ms. Estella Prosser stated that she and her husband live on a small rural street of 30 homes serviced by shallow wells. She expressed serious concern that: • Any upstream development, including temporary construction dewatering or permanent buried infrastructure, will negatively affect their wells and groundwater supply. • The area relies heavily on natural groundwater flows, which have not been properly studied or communicated. She stated that groundwater protection is critical for existing rural residents. Impacts to Spring-Fed Lake and Local Water Balance Ms. Prosser explained that her property includes a small spring- fed lake, formerly a gravel pit, which depends on groundwater volume and head pressure originating from the proposed development area. She stated that development could: • Lower groundwater levels, • Alter spring flow rates, and • Permanently damage the lake’s ecosystem. Noted. Northeast Pickering Secondary Plan Comments Matrix 58 Public Comments Contact Comment Response Lack of Sufficient Technical Information and Professionalism She described the information shared at a City meeting in Greenwood as: • Extremely lacking, • Unprofessional, and • Insufficient for residents to understand potential impacts. She requested full disclosure of: • Natural groundwater flow characteristics, • Hydrogeological analysis, • Stormwater management design, and • All servicing plans for the proposed development. The City of Pickering did not host public information centres (open houses) in Greenwood for the Northeast Pickering Secondary Plan. All studies completed in support of the Secondary Plan, and those completed prior to development, will be available to the public. Servicing Questions and Concerns Ms. Prosser raised direct technical questions that remain unanswered: • Will the Wesley Road reservoir water main be extended north to serve this area? • Will the area be serviced by sanitary sewers, or will on- site septic systems be used? • If septic systems are used, what will be the impact of large- scale leaching of wastewater into groundwater? She emphasized that water quality for existing well users is at stake. Watermains will be extended to serve NE Pickering. The entire secondary plan area will be served by sanitary sewers and stormwater management facilties. Environmental Impacts to Natural and Agricultural Lands She echoed earlier delegations, noting that: • The area is environmentally sensitive and predominantly agricultural. • Development would cause irreversible harm not only to the immediate area but also to lands and ecosystems further south. The subwatershed study has identifled a natural heritage system to be protected and is assessing impacts to the system and mitigation measures. Northeast Pickering Secondary Plan Comments Matrix 59 Public Comments Contact Comment Response Signiflcant Financial Burden on Residents and Ratepayers Ms. Prosser stated that the NEPSP would impose “tremendous” costs on Durham taxpayers. She noted that she already pays over $20,000 in property taxes for a home with minimal municipal services and questioned why existing residents should bear additional financial burdens. A flnancial impact study is required to be completed prior to development to assess full life-cycle costs and flnancial risks. Need for Proper Studies, Transparency, and Public Consultation She argued that: • The project should not proceed until all technical studies are complete and made fully public. • All impacted groups must be consulted. • A proper in-person meeting with Durham residents is required before Council votes. All supporting studies will be completed including the subwatershed study and will be available to the public. Additional studies will be required prior to development and will be available to the public. Three open houses and the statutory public meeting have been held over the past three years. Concern About Process and Developer Infiuence Ms. Prosser stated that the proposal appears to be “pushed through by developers and the city without due diligence,” calling the process “mind-boggling.” Ali Abid November 12, 2025 Email I am writing as a resident of Pickering to express my strong support for the North East Pickering Development Plan. I believe this initiative is essential to ensuring our city continues to fiourish and realize its full potential as a vibrant, well-balanced community. While Pickering did not move forward with the airport project, we must now look toward other opportunities for thoughtful, sustainable growth. The North East area represents one of our best chances to plan ahead — creating space for future housing, services, and amenities before the pressure becomes too great. I understand that many residents are opposed to this development, and there are certainly hundreds of reasons people Thank you for the comment. Northeast Pickering Secondary Plan Comments Matrix 60 Public Comments Contact Comment Response can cite to argue against it. However, I am confldent that many of the same concerns were raised when the Seaton community was flrst proposed — and today, Seaton has become a thriving, valued part of Pickering. We need to move away from the “not in my backyard” mentality and instead think collectively about our city’s long-term future. Growth is inevitable; the key is to plan for it intelligently and equitably. Currently, much of our new development continues to concentrate along Kingston Road and Bayly Street. New buildings continue to go up or get approved, adding more density to areas that are already strained. It’s clear that to maintain quality of life and avoid worsening traffic and overcrowding, we need to look northward. Most Canadian cities have developed heavily along our southern borders, and Pickering is following that same pattern. However, we have ample land to the north that can be thoughtfully planned to create balanced, livable neighbourhoods. Development charges can cover the upfront costs of infrastructure and services, while future property taxes will sustain ongoing city expenses — ensuring that this growth pays for itself over time. I urge you and the Council to continue supporting the North East Pickering Development Plan. It represents an important step toward a sustainable, prosperous, and forward-thinking future for our city. Christian Farmers Federation of Ontario Henk Vaarkamp CFFO President The Christian Farmers Federation of Ontario (CFFO) is an Accredited Farm Organization representing over 4,000 farm families in Ontario. CFFO members embrace a Christian perspective in farming practices and stewardship of land and livestock. As food-producers for the peoples of the world, CFFO members are committed to the growth and development of the agri-food industry. Northeast Pickering Secondary Plan Comments Matrix 61 Public Comments Contact Comment Response Walt de Lange East Central District president November 12, 2025 Letter The CFFO questions the vast amount of acres in this plan that is being removed from food production and the impact such action will have on the farmers and landowners in this area. • The study area is overwhelmingly prime farmland. • The AIA explains that fragmenting farmland reduces efficiency, raises operating costs, and increases confiicts with non-farm uses. • Most active operations and tile-drainage investments lie north of Highway 407. • Public input prioritizes protecting farmland and avoiding sprawl into white belt/prime farmland areas. The lands are now within the urban area and the impact on farmland was considered through Envision Durham. These lands are no longer considered prime agricultural areas as they are now urban. Our request: Defer approval of the NEP Secondary Plan until the City has held a dedicated working session with affected farm operators and recognized agricultural organizations (NFU-O, OFA, CFFO, OFT) and published a consultation record responding to farm- speciflc issues (fragmentation, buffers/MDS, trespass, haul routes for farm equipment, drainage/outlets, and right-to-farm education). A presentation was made to the Durham Agricultural Advisory Committee in December, 2025. Comments received from that meeting have been added to the comments received from other agricultural groups. No further engagement sessions are planned as part of the secondary plan process. Greenwood Community Association Nick Zamora President, Greenwood Community Association Jim Grundy Treasurer, Greenwood Community Association Tim Kibbey Secretary, Greenwood Community Association On behalf of the residents of the Hamlet of Greenwood, are writing to express our strong disapproval of the proposed development within the North East Pickering Lands and the most recent Draft Plan presented at the Statutory Public Meeting on November 10th, 2025. Our community has deep concerns about the signiflcant and long- term negative impacts this proposal would have on Greenwood and the surrounding rural area. Speciflcally: 1. Property Taxes: The flnancial burden associated with extending infrastructure and municipal services to support a new urban area will ultimately fall on existing taxpayers. Without a comprehensive flscal impact analysis, residents cannot be A Financial Impact study is a requirement of the Secondary Plan and will be prepared prior to development. Northeast Pickering Secondary Plan Comments Matrix 62 Public Comments Contact Comment Response November 16, 2025 Letter assured that this plan will not increase our local taxes unreasonably. 2. Water Supply: All Greenwood and Staxton Glen households rely on private wells and aquifers for their water. Urbanization and large-scale grading, stormwater systems, and road construction risk altering groundwater recharge areas and contaminating or depleting existing wells. We believe that the City of Pickering and The Developers of NE Pickering should be held responsible and accountable to ensure that the residents of Greenwood and Staxton Glen are kept whole with respect to the quantity and quality of our water supply. The stormwater management objective is to maintain groundwater fiow and function within and adjacent to the SP area, including water that supplies existing private wells. The preliminary management approach includes modelling to evaluate the potential for impacts and ways to mitigate. Monitoring to be developed in Phase 3 will also be validate long-term protection of the private water supply. 3. Loss of Prime Agricultural Land: The plan proposes the conversion of valuable Class 1 and 2 farmlands, which have sustained local agriculture for generations. This represents a permanent and irreversible loss of productive farmland at a time when our food security is under assault. The lands are now within the urban area and the impact on farmland was considered through Envision Durham. These lands are no longer considered prime agricultural areas as they are now urban. 4. Natural Heritage Disruption: The proposed development threatens to fragment and degrade ecologically sensitive natural heritage systems, including woodlots, wetlands, and wildlife corridors that deflne the rural character and environmental health of North Pickering. The Phase 1 Subwatershed study has identifled a natural heritage system include signiflcant woodlands, wetlands and stream corridors as well as linkages. Phase 2 is currently assessing potential impacts to the natural heritage system and mitigation measures. We would like to acknowledge and appreciate that the most recent (October 20, 2025) NEP Secondary Draft Plan includes a requirement for the creation of a Neighbourhood Plan intended to establish a thoughtful transition between the existing Hamlet of Greenwood and the proposed new development area. This recognition of Greenwood’s historic and rural character is important to our community. However, any planning must be supported by robust environmental, flscal, and groundwater studies to ensure that any future development complements rather than compromises the existing settlement. Thank you for the comment. Northeast Pickering Secondary Plan Comments Matrix 63 Public Comments Contact Comment Response Given these concerns, we respectfully request that City Council defer any approval of the North East Pickering Secondary Plan until: 1. A comprehensive flscal impact assessment has been completed, publicly released, and independently reviewed; and Secondary Plan policies direct completion of a Financial Impact Study prior to development 2. A groundwater and hydrology study has been flnalized to fully understand potential impacts on existing wells, aquifers and natural environment. We believe that planning decisions of this magnitude must be based on complete, transparent, and evidence-based studies to ensure that existing residents, farmland, and natural systems are protected for future generations. We thank Council for its attention to this matter and for taking the time to consider the concerns of the Hamlet of Greenwood and Staxton Glen. These matters are being addressed through the Phase 2 subwatershed study which will be completed prior to Council adoption of the Secondary Plan. Green Durham Association c/o David Morley November 17, 2025 Letter GDA has for many years strongly opposed development in Northeast Pickering. Quite apart from the need to protect prime food land and natural areas in Northeast Pickering, we also believed and continue to believe that the planned growth during the planning period 2021-2051 could all be accommodated within the existing Seaton and South Pickering Uban Areas. Our opposition was clearly stated in our extensive 2023 submission to Envision Durham. However, before commenting on urban development within Northeast Pickering, we have the following questions we believe the City of Pickering needs to answer regarding urban development within Seaton and the South Pickering urban area. We believe these issues signiflcantly impact the phasing of development within Northeast Pickering, the land needed to accommodate growth until 2051 (the end of the prescribed Northeast Pickering Secondary Plan Comments Matrix 64 Public Comments Contact Comment Response planning period), and the land available to support growth beyond 2051. 1) Population/jobs estimates within Seaton and South Pickering Urban Areas a) Seaton Buildout: The plan for Seaton was roughly 7000 acres in size and called for creating a compact community accommodating 70,000 residents and 35,000 jobs, while saving more than half that acreage as greenspace. GDA was highly involved with the creation of the Seaton plan. We understand it is being assumed that Seaton will not be fully built out even by 2051. If instead, Seaton was fully built out by 2051, by how much would that reduce residential and job requirements for Northeast Pickering before 2051? And if Seaton is not planned to be fully built out by 2051, Pickering needs to explain why it makes more sense for Pickering’s planners and their taxpaying citizens to support more buildout in Northeast Pickering before 2051 than would be required if Seaton were fully built out by 2051. b) Virtually all planners believe that it is essential to provide cheaper housing in the GTA, and in also in stating that the best way to do this is to promote densiflcation within the existing urban area close to jobs and amenities and within single family residential areas. Pickering’s current forecast for Northeast Pickering is premised on no additional densiflcation taking place within the south Pickering urban areas over the entire next 25 years to 2051, than was contemplated in the Envision Durham exercise 2 years ago. Is this a reasonable assumption for Pickering to make in its plan for Northeast Pickering? The Seaton Urban Area is forecast to accommodate an additional 21,100 households from 2021 to 2051. Planned urban development for Seaton is consistent across all growth scenarios in the City’s most recent Growth Management Study. Based on Seaton’s build out, it is foreseeable that the City may not fully absorb all of the expansion lands in the Northeast Pickering Area by 2051. The extension of services in Northeast Pickering must be well aligned with anticipated demand for new urban lands and that the phasing of such new infrastructure is optimized in a flscally responsible manner. Accordingly, it will be important for the City to develop an appropriate phasing strategy for the Northeast Pickering Expansion Area. Based on a review of recent development trends in the Seaton Innovation Corridor, there may be demand for employment lands within Northeast Pickering sooner than anticipated. Northeast Pickering Secondary Plan Comments Matrix 65 Public Comments Contact Comment Response c) Making the phasing and size of the urban area expansion in Northeast Pickering even more in need of review, two years ago, after the Envision Durham public exercise was completed, Durham Region, after considering a proposal put forward by the Building Industry and Land Development Association (BILD), approved an urban area expansion in Northeast Pickering to meet community land needs of 2500 hectares or 6177 acres. This proposal had not been one of the proposals presented to the public as part of the Envision Durham planning exercise and was very much higher than the community land need the Planning Commissioner recommended. Therefore, the size of the Northeast Pickering Urban Area approved by the Province assumed a housing and population density that was very much lower than the Region’s planning commissioner had recommended and lower than was contemplated in Envision Durham. However, after approval, the Northeast Pickering Plan now indicates that it has considered a number of land use concepts and states “The land use concepts considered the full build-out of Northeastern Pickering with a range of densities consistent with those used in Seaton, which contemplated a higher population than was contemplated in Envision Durham. The consulting team was directed to use the higher population estimate as the basis for planning Northeast Pickering, This population “would likely be achieved post 2051” (our highlighting). Therefore, although the size of the area approved for urban expansion was based on a lower population density than contemplated by Envision Durham, given Northeast Pickering is now planning to pursue much higher densities inevitably creates a situation where far The development of Northeast Pickering will not prevent ongoing and future intensiflcation within other areas of Pickering such as the City Centre and the Kingston Road Corridor. Northeast Pickering Secondary Plan Comments Matrix 66 Public Comments Contact Comment Response more land has been set aside for urban development in Northeast Pickering than will be needed by 2051. It would be interesting to know whether the Northeast Pickering Plan now requires higher densities than are presently required in many areas of South Pickering. We noted in our 2023 submission that if the density requirement in the pre- 2020 Provincial Growth Plan had still been in place in 2023, no expansion of the urban area into Northeast Pickering would have been allowed. Envision Durham was only able to recommend any urban area expansion in 2023 because the pre-2020 Growth Plan standards had been very signiflcantly reduced. Furthermore, we feel that growth in Northeast Pickering, far from sewer and supporting services, will in all likelihood incur more expense on Pickering taxpayers. If Seaton were completely built out by 2051 if not well before, and if more intensiflcation in South Pickering was also assumed, beginning well before 2051 and accommodating considerably more housing and population than what was assumed by Envision Durham in 2023, we assume this should also be considered in phasing development in the Northeast Pickering Secondary Plan. 2) Links to the North, west and south of the Northeast Pickering Plan Area that would infiuence development within the Northeast Pickering Plan area itself a) Establish Nature and Trail corridor Links between the Uxbridge Provincial Urban Park and the Northeast Pickering Urban Area. TRCA owned land which we expect will become part of the Provincial Park extends south into Pickering within a mile and a half north of Concession 8, the northern boundary of the Northeastern Pickering Urban Area. In addition, a largely unopened Pickering road allowance, Sideline 8 The infrastructure staging and phasing plan will link the pace of development to the provision of infrastructure and community facilities. Policy 11.B.51 calls for the City to work with Durham Region, the conservation authorities and Rouge National Urban Park to create trail linkages to other destinations in Pickering. Northeast Pickering Secondary Plan Comments Matrix 67 Public Comments Contact Comment Response of Pickering, extends south from the Town line on the west side of the TRCA land referenced and further south to Concession 8 of Pickering, creating an ideal potential connection between the Provincial Park and the Northeast Pickering Development area, a connection which we believe would substantially beneflt the Northeast Pickering Development Area as well as other areas of Pickering. b) Establish Nature and Trail Corridor links west from Claremont Conservation Area and the northwest portion of the North Pickering Urban Area to the Federally owned former Airport lands which we anticipate will largely and or completely soon be transferred to Parks Canada or to the Rouge National Urban Park itself. Concession 8 of Pickering to the west of Sideline 16 of Pickering is unopened as it crosses Mitchell Creek and links to the Federal lands which extend well east of the Brock Road on the south side of Concession 8. Creating a robust nature/trail corridor west from the Claremont Conservation Area and the Northeast Pickering Urban Area to the Federal Lands and the Mitchell creek corridor which surround Claremont to the south and west would signiflcantly beneflt the Northeastern Pickering Urban Area as well as other communities in Pickering such as Claremont. c) Create and strengthen trail links west from the Northeast Pickering Urban Area to the Claremont Conservation Area, and south along the Paddock Road underpass of the 407 to the hamlet of Greenwood and the Greenwood Conservation Area. Working with Pickering, the TRCA should create a new Management Plan for the Claremont Conservation Area given the new reality that the airport has been cancelled; Federal Park lands will be much closer to its western boundary; and the newly created Northeast Northeast Pickering Secondary Plan Comments Matrix 68 Public Comments Contact Comment Response Pickering Urban Area will now abut parts of its eastern boundary. More than 20 years ago the GDA’s sister organization Durham Conservation Association and now merged with the GDA, worked closely with Uxbridge Township, the TRCA and others in the creation of an almost completely off-road corridor for the Trans Canada Trail south through Uxbridge. Durham Conservation Association subsequently received a Trillium grant to recommend a TCT route further south through Pickering. In consultation with Pickering the route chosen was south along Sideline 12 of Pickering; east on Concession 8 to Sideline 12 and the Claremont Conservation Area; and south along Paddock Road to Greenwood and the Greenwood Conservation Area. Other properties we explored at this time have since been acquired by Ministry of Transportation. We believe that a trail link which heads north from Greenwood on Paddock Road and under Highway 407, accessing the western edge of this MTO property as it would directly link to the Northeast Pickering Urban Area should be carefully investigated. We note that traffic lights would be needed at the intersection of busy Highway 7. And since the Greenwood Conservation Area abuts the Seaton lands and other conservation lands to the west, creating and improving the east-west connections between these areas would greatly beneflt Pickering. Northeast Pickering Secondary Plan Comments Matrix 69 Public Comments Contact Comment Response • TRCA-owned Osler Tract is connected to the new Uxbridge Urban Provincial Park. Unopened portions of Sideline 8 could connect the emerging urban area in NEP to UUPP. Pickering would need to formally request that Osler Tract be transferred to UUPP. • Unopened road allowance continues south of Concession 9 directly into the proposed urban area. • The TransCanada Trail travels from the UUPP (and beyond) through TRCA-owned Claremont Conservation Area and south. CCA currently managed in partnership with Durham District School Board as an outdoor centre. A new management plan could provide additional public trail opportunities. • The 8th Concession is unopened as it crosses Mitchell Creek and could provide a connection to the Federal lands (Rouge National Urban Park) • Paddock Road runs south from Concession 7 close to Claremont Conservation Area. It ends at the 407 but a trail The Neighbourhood Plans are to delineate a trail network that provides linkages within and between neighbourhoods and connecting to trail linkages between NE Pickering. Northeast Pickering Secondary Plan Comments Matrix 70 Public Comments Contact Comment Response under the highway connects it to Paddock Road on the south side of Highway 407. • *Note that the proposed plan as presented in the Statutory Meeting materials does not meet the minimum parkland target as recommended by City of Pickering for new developments. 3) Comments on lands within the Northeast Pickering Plan area a) With respect to the connections mentioned above to the north, west and south: It would be important within the Plan Area to create a nature trail corridor south from Sideline 8 and Concession 8. As this corridor heads south between Concessions 7 and 8, it will be important also to create at least one and possibly 2 attractive connections west to Claremont Conservation Area and not just a walking/biking lane right beside a road. The Northeast Pickering Plan mentions the shortfall of parkland and we support the need to address this shortfall. Perhaps some of that parkland could be created along the trail/nature corridors mentioned. b) Within the development area it is particularly important to understand how the development will be phased. The Northeast Pickering Development Plan breaks the area into 8 planning areas (22-39), with 22 and 23 containing virtually all the lands between Concessions 7 and 8. We feel it is essential to develop the southernmost planning areas as fully as possible flrst. For example, If as we believe it will become clear in the next 10-15 years that the population and job estimates for 2051 can be easily accommodated in areas south of Concession 7, we hope the Plan would envisage leaving the area north of Concession 7, of very scenic prime farmland at the northern end of the Carruthers and Lynde Creek watersheds almost completely untouched. And if not why not? And now The secondary plan requires an infrastructure staging and phasing plan to ensure development is in step with infrastructure and community facility provision. As noted above, the infrastructure staging and phasing plan will identify when various roads and municipal services and community facilities are required in support of development. Northeast Pickering Secondary Plan Comments Matrix 71 Public Comments Contact Comment Response that various development interests own land in different places that have now been designated as an urban area, how limited is Pickering in being able to delay or even prohibit development on some of these lands? The Plan also references a new proposed arterial road running from Lakeridge Road to Westney Road midway between Concessions 7 and 8, which connects to two north-south arterial roads between Concessions 7 and 8. Are we right to assume these will only be built after sufficient development has occurred in Northeast Pickering to justify building them? We assume that unfortunately, regardless of how much additional development occurs in Seaton and the southern urban areas and of how much land is left in Northeast Pickering after all growth to 2051 has been accommodated, there is now no practical way of reducing the size of the Northeast Pickering Urban Area. Therefore, phasing development and ensuring communities are largely if not completely built out before extending development into other communities becomes a critical priority. We need to much better understand the approach being taken in Northeast Pickering. We look forward to seeing these questions addressed in the Recommendation Report to the Planning & Development Committee regarding this application. James Blair November 24, 2025 Email Of special concern noted thought-out this entire process, is the seemingly intentional absence of staff within the City of Pickering tasked with managing the NEP secondary plan regarding truly showing a willingness to engage citizens in this process, speciflcally those within the agricultural sector and the complete lack of awareness and understanding of data A presentation was made to the Durham Agricultural Advisory Committee in December, 2025. Comments received from that meeting have been added to the comments received from other agricultural groups. No further engagement sessions are planned as part of the secondary plan process. Northeast Pickering Secondary Plan Comments Matrix 72 Public Comments Contact Comment Response held by the City of Pickering since 2023 found within the Agricultural Impact Assessment. The Agricultural Impact Assessment (AIA) that forms part of key research and assembled documents within the NEP secondary plan, must be included into your assessment of if there really is a need of the NEP secondary plan to be approved and if truly required, that current and future agricultural sector operations are consulted and protected from development practices that limit agricultural growth, profltability and succession planning that are often key factors that led to the death of family farms across the province of Ontario, loss of valuable and irreplaceable farmland and the increase of food insecurity within urban communities. The AIA is a supporting document to the Secondary Plan but the determination of need was determined by Durham Region. The lands are now in the urban area and are no longer designated Agricultural. Respectfully, when coupled with recent communications from our member of provincial parliament, Mr. Peter Bethlenfalvy (Minister of Finance) that the provincial government has slowing their expectations on municipalities on new housing starts, provincial data that states that Pickering as exceeded its housing targets set by the provincial government by 174% in 2024 and that the community of Seaton, now almost ten (10) years old, is still waiting for the City of Pickering to start construction of the much talked about and widely advertised Seaton Community centre. Mayors Ashe and elected members of council, please remember that a development does not pay for development; taxpayers do. NE Pickering was identifled by Durham Region and approved by the Province to provide for the forecast growth to 2051. In the case of the Seaton Community centre alone, that has not yet broken ground, the City of Pickering, according to City staff, will need to flnance $57.4 million dollars ($57,400.000) worth of debt over the next twenty years and increase the average property tax on Citizens of the City of Pickering by 11.16% to service this one project alone. Why are we considering a further debt load for the City of Pickering that has not yet been costed and will A flnancial impact study is required to be completed prior to development to assess full life-cycle costs and flnancial risks Northeast Pickering Secondary Plan Comments Matrix 73 Public Comments Contact Comment Response ultimately be borne by the Citizens of Pickering if we cannot pay for the capital projects that are on our plate today? Thank you, Mayor Ashe, for your published comments of October 3rd 2025, noting "the shocking value is real for a lot of us as well as our residents, so we have to be mindful" concerning the cost of Seaton Community Centre. It is truly refreshing. As promised, please see the attached letters from the various agricultural organisations (National Farmers Union, Ontario Farmland Trust, The Christian Farmers Federation of Ontario, and the Durham Federation of Agriculture, a regional agricultural organisation that is the local voice of the Ontario Federation of Agriculture) across the Ontario, the Region of Durham and the Municipality of Pickering, that speak on behalf of regional and local agrarian sector family farms and agricultural centred businesses that help to contribute to Ontario's Agri-food sector annual contribution of $51.4 billion in 2024 to the provinces Gross Domestic Product (GDP) where by making Ontario's agricultural sector one of the provinces top economic drivers powering both rural and urban communities. Please note the united concerns pointed out in the four (4) attached letters. • The loss of irreplaceable Grade A farmland • Land Fragmentation and Its Effect on Agricultural Operations. • Development of Agricultural land that is not required. • Development of lands south of the 407 series Highways • Use of lesser quality agricultural land over high quality agricultural land. • Failure to connect and have meaningful consultation with members and associated organisations that advocate on behalf of family farms and Ontario's Agricultural sector. • Drainage and outlet concerns associated with current agricultural practices to help mitigate fiooding and damage to existing and future agrarian sector operations. Drainage and fiooding issues are being addressed through the Subwatershed Study and the Carruthers Creek Watershed Hydrology Update Project. Northeast Pickering Secondary Plan Comments Matrix 74 Public Comments Contact Comment Response Defer approval of the NEP Secondary Plan until the City has held a dedicated working session with affected farm operators and recognised agricultural organisations. Northeast Pickering Secondary Plan Comments Matrix 75 Landowner Comments Landowner Comments Contact Comment Response David Jang Westney Road October 22, 2025 Email Firstly, I want to thank you and the city staff for the effort to develop our city into a better place to live and work for the future generations to come. I would like to voice my concern on the current draft of the plan regarding village green space proposed on my farm property. My family purchased the farm as an asset to hand down through generations to come. It was not a pleasant surprise that my farm has been designated as a village green without direct consultation between the city and myself, and a large portion of my land is already in the greenbelt and the added village green designation in the remaining developable area would essentially nullify any efficient development potential. Which, in turn, will devalue it signiflcantly in the future sale. I would love to work with the city on the development, however, it would be a great idea that this village green is moved to a more suitable location. I have reviewed the revised proposal map, and was glad to see that the city is working with smaller landowners, and their feedback. I would like to make a request for my parcel of land to remove the proposed village green designation. Thank you for your comment. The location of all park symbols on the proposed Land Use Plan are conceptual. Village Greens are small park spaces of approximately 0.3 to 0.6 hectares. The Planning Act requires Parkland Dedication from new development. Depending on the size of the farm, your parkland requirement will likely be in excess of the Village Green size. A Village Green symbol was placed in this general location as it is a smaller area of land that is not necessary to accommodate a larger park, but it is important to have small open spaces to serve the residents of this new area. Neighbourhood Plans, which are the required next stage in the planning process, will identify a more precise location of parks including Village Greens. Sritharan Nadarajasundram Lakeridge Road October 27, 2025 Email I am writing to express my concern regarding the recent changes in the flnal draft of the Secondary Plan for Pickering’s Northeast Area. [Our property] was designated as Residential in the earlier draft. In the flnal version, the designation has been changed to Employment, and we respectfully request that this be reconsidered and reverted to a Residential designation for the following reasons: The lands are not designated for industrial development, but rather the Business Area designation permits a broad range of commercial uses which will support the adjacent hospital site and were designated in light of the economic spin-offs from the new hospital. It is important to note that the Envision Durham Official Plan did designate your lands as Employment Northeast Pickering Secondary Plan Comments Matrix 76 Landowner Comments Contact Comment Response • Proximity to Planned Lakeridge Hospital: Our property directly borders the future Lakeridge Hospital site, which qualifles as a sensitive land use under the Official Plan. The hospital would fall within the Province’s D-6-3 Separation Distance Guidelines for Class 1–3 Industrial uses, creating compatibility confiicts, especially since auto services and storage uses are allowed under the business area. Area, but the Secondary Plan proposes to designate the lands as Business Area instead. Sritharan Nadarajasundram Lakeridge Road October 27, 2025 Email • Better-suited residential developments: Our original intention was to consider a seniors residence and a mixed-use mid-rise plus low-rise project. This caters to the demographic in need, such as the elderly, healthcare workers, and related families, by being located directly adjacent to the hospital itself. Noted. Additional Request to improve development efficiency: • Reduction to the Natural Heritage Area & Collector’s Rd Adjustment – The current draft plan shows signiflcant woodland surrounding our property, as well as a proposed collector road cutting through the parcel from west to east, terminating at Lakeridge Road. To improve development efficiency and maintain continuity with the surrounding area, we respectfully request fiexibility to reduce the extent of the natural heritage area and shift the collector road alignment further north, ensuring it does not bisect the developable portion of the site. As there is an ongoing housing shortage across the GTA, we urge the City to support reinstating the original Residential designation for our land on Lakeridge Road, along with fiexibility to adjust the collector road position and reflne the natural heritage boundaries to optimize the site’s residential potential. The natural heritage system has been determined through the Subwatershed Study, but the policies of the Secondary Plan permit further reflnement of the Natural Heritage System through the preparation of Neighbourhood Plans and the Master Environmental Servicing Plan. Any additions, deletions or reflnements will not require an amendment to the Secondary Plan. The speciflc alignment of collector roads can be reflned through the Neighbourhood Plans. Northeast Pickering Secondary Plan Comments Matrix 77 Landowner Comments Contact Comment Response Corpick Farms Ltd. Brookvalley Project Management Nick Cortellucci November 6, 2025 Email We represent the Owners of the lands located at the northwest corner of Highway 7 and Lakeridge Rd. The lands will be in future NEP Neighbourhood 28 and are approximately 55 Acres in size. We have been monitoring the NEP Plan process and appreciate the coordination for the captioned lands and the overall future Secondary Plan. We have received the Notice for the upcoming Statutory Public Meeting to be held on Monday November 10th, 2025. This letter will serve to provide our written comments for the Information Report being publicized on November 10th, which will serve to inform the Official Plan Amendment: 1. City Policy 11.B.65 - Cost Sharing and Parks Agreements We are opposed to policies obligating us or any other landowner to sign onto Cost Sharing and Parkland Agreements. We have extensive experience in large scale development and appreciate the level of effort and coordination required to extend services to the limits of the Secondary Plan. We expect that we will be able to secure flnancial and Planning Act obligations through the lower and upper tier municipalities, by way of future Planning approvals and Subdivision and / or Development Agreements. The requirement for joining a cost sharing agreement and / or a Trustee clearance should be removed from the policies. The Town and regional municipality have the ability to control and administer the staging and sequencing of infrastructure to facilitate development within the secondary plan area on a comprehensive basis. Participation in area-wide cost sharing and parkland agreements are a standard and necessary tool for multi-landowner development and secondary plan areas. These mechanisms ensure fair allocation of shared infrastructure costs and coordinated delivery of servicing, transportation, and parks across the entire plan area. Municipal agreements alone cannot equitably secure these obligations. Northeast Pickering Secondary Plan Comments Matrix 78 Landowner Comments Contact Comment Response 2. City Policy 11.B.66 and 11.B.68- Infrastructure Staging, Phasing Plan, and Implementation Requirements Given the conflguration of the NEP plan, location of the 'Corpick' property and direct access to existing Highway 7, we believe we have nominal restrictions in terms of access and / or construction limitations. As such, in conjunction with our comments for 11.B.65, we would extend services as it becomes feasible to our client's property, rather than being required to adhere to a phasing plan before implementing the development. Section 5.7 of the Durham Regional Official Plan requires that new community areas be planned and developed in a comprehensive, integrated and phased manner, supported by coordinated servicing, transportation, and community infrastructure. Development of the Secondary Plan Area is required to be based on a phasing plan to ensure orderly growth and alignment with Regional servicing capacity. 3. City Policy 11.B.70 - Neighbourhood Plan Requirements Given the level of effort and planning required to secure the approvals for the Secondary Plan, we believe a Block Plan should not be required. In addition, the size and orientation of our property, will allow for slight deviations and interpretations of the various land use locations, as shown on the Secondary Plan, vis a vis any neighbouring property planning interaction. Neighbourhood Plans are a standard requirement in Pickering and represent the typical next step following approval of a Secondary Plan. The secondary plan land use plan is schematic to allow for the more detailed planning to occur at the Neighbourhood Plan level. Neighbourhood Plans are necessary to complete the block-level detail on land use boundaries, parks, schools, road networks, active transportation, transit routing, stormwater management, and integration with the Master Environmental Servicing Plan (MESP). While individual sites may have some fiexibility in layout, a Neighbourhood Plan is required to ensure coordinated, comprehensive development across the Secondary Plan Area. Valpick Farms Ltd. Brookvalley Project Management Nick Cortellucci November 6, 2025 Email We represent the Owners of the lands located at the northwest corner of Highway 7 and Lakeridge Rd. The lands will be in future NEP Neighbourhood 28 and are approximately 36.5 acres in size. We have been monitoring the NEP Plan process and appreciate the coordination for the captioned lands and the overall future Secondary Plan. We have received the Notice for the upcoming Statutory Public Meeting to be held on Monday November 10th, 2025. Northeast Pickering Secondary Plan Comments Matrix 79 Landowner Comments Contact Comment Response This letter will serve to provide our written comments for the Information Report being publicized on November 10th, which will serve to inform the Official Plan Amendment: 1. City Policy 11.8.65 - Cost Sharing and Parks Agreements We are opposed to policies obligating us or any other landowner to sign onto Cost Sharing and Parkland Agreements. We have extensive experience in large scale development and appreciate the level of effort and coordination required to extend services to the limits of the Secondary Plan. We expect that we will be able to secure flnancial and Planning Act obligations through the lower and upper tier municipalities, by way of future Planning approvals and Subdivision and / or Development Agreements. The requirement for joining a cost sharing agreement and / or a Trustee clearance should be removed from the policies. The Town and regional municipality have the ability to control and administer the staging and sequencing of infrastructure to facilitate development within the secondary plan area on a comprehensive basis. 2. City Policy 11.8.66 and 11.8.68- Infrastructure Staging, Phasing Plan, and Implementation Requirements Given the conflguration of the NEP plan, location of the 'Valpick' property and direct access to existing Highway 7, we believe we have nominal restrictions in terms of access and / or construction limitations. As such, in conjunction with our comments for 11.B.65, we would extend services as it becomes feasible to our client's property, rather than being required to adhere to a phasing plan before implementing the development. 3. City Policy 11.B.70 - Neighbourhood Plan Requirements Given the level of effort and planning required to secure the approvals for the Secondary Plan, we believe a Block Plan should See earlier response above. See earlier response above. See earlier response above. Northeast Pickering Secondary Plan Comments Matrix 80 Landowner Comments Contact Comment Response not be required. In addition, the size and orientation of our property, will allow for slight deviations and interpretations of the various land use locations, as shown on the Secondary Plan, vis a vis any neighbouring property planning interaction. Bunker Hill Golf Club Rebecca Chai Bill Zhang November 7, 2025 Email On behalf of Crown Hill Group, also known as Bunker Hill Golf Club, we would like to express our sincere appreciation to the City of Pickering for providing landowners with the opportunity to submit feedback on the North East Pickering Secondary Plan (NEPSP). We value the City’s efforts in engaging the community and landowners in this important planning initiative. As the owner of the Bunker Hill Golf Club property, we wish to respectfully submit our primary site-speciflc request regarding the Draft NEP Secondary Plan Policies and Schedules. After a thorough review of the Draft, we strongly oppose the Community Park (CP) designation proposed on the Bunker Hill Golf Club lands (Section 11.B.35 and Land Use Schedule) and respectfully request that it be removed from the property. Our rationale is summarized below: The Community park has been moved off Highway 7 and to the north of a Community Centre. The Recreation Centre has been moved north of Highway 407. However, there is a need for a Neighbourhood Park and elementary school in the concession block and they will need to be moved to the west. 1. From a Cost Perspective Selecting less developable land for the Community Park would reduce the overall cost-sharing obligations among landowners. However, the current proposal would occupy a substantial portion of high-value, developable land that is relatively fiat in topography and has been planned for medium-density development, resulting in inefficient land use and increased flnancial burden. The cost of these facilities are anticipated to be shared amongst the landowners through the cost sharing agreement and master parks agreement. 2. From a Safety Perspective The proposed park location fronting Highway 7 is inappropriate from a design and safety standpoint. It may contribute to traffic congestion, access confiicts, and safety risks for both vehicles and pedestrians. Noted. Northeast Pickering Secondary Plan Comments Matrix 81 Landowner Comments Contact Comment Response 3. From a Process Perspective The current placement of the Community Park is procedurally unfair and inconsistent with the principle that park locations and areas should be determined through collaborative negotiation among landowners during the Neighbourhood Plan stage, rather than being unilaterally imposed at the Secondary Plan level. These concerns are consistent with the issues we raised during our meeting with City staff on October 31, 2025. We respectfully request that City staff advise whether a follow- up meeting can be arranged to further discuss our submission and clarify how this matter will be addressed and tracked as part of the ongoing NEPSP review process. We remain fully committed to cooperating with the City and participating constructively in the next stages of planning. Please conflrm receipt of this correspondence at your earliest convenience. Thank you very much for your attention and consideration. Parks are shown conceptually on the land use plan and the Neighbourhood Plans will determine the speciflc location of community parks, neighbourhood parks and schools Innovative Planning Solutions on behalf of Owners Rakesh Gupta, Rajni Gupta and Madhul Gupta East side of Salem Road between 7th Concession and Hwy 407 Katie Pandey Associate Innovative Planning Solutions Inc. (IPS) is the planning consultant for Rakesh Gupta, Rajni Gupta, and Madhul Gupta, the owner of the lands located on the east side of Salem Road between the 7th Concession and Highway 407 in the City of Pickering (the “Subject Lands”). The Subject Lands are legally described as PT LT 6, CON 6, AS IN CO217830; PICKERING, and comprise approximately 11 acres of vacant land with regular conflguration and frontage along Salem Road (Appendices 1 and 2) On June 9, 2025, Pickering Council endorsed the Northeast Pickering Secondary Plan Land Use Concepts and Preferred Land Use Report prepared by SGL Planning & Design Inc. (SGL), dated May 2025. Council directed SGL and City staff to review the Northeast Pickering Secondary Plan Comments Matrix 82 Landowner Comments Contact Comment Response November 7, 2025 Letter comments received on the report and to prepare a Proposed Plan for consideration at a statutory public meeting, scheduled for November 10, 2025. 1. BACKGROUND: The landowner has been actively monitoring the City’s Official Plan Review (OPR) and the Northeast Pickering Secondary Plan (NEPSP) process and intends to continue engaging and providing input throughout these exercises. This correspondence constitutes a formal submission in response to the Northeast Pickering Secondary Plan Land Use Concepts and Preferred Land Use Report and is provided for consideration by City staff and SGL in the preparation of the Proposed Plan to be presented at the upcoming statutory public meeting. 2. COMMENT ON SCHEDULES OF SECONDARY PLAN: According to Schedule 11B –Land Use Schedule (Appendix 2), the draft Secondary Plan designates the Subject Lands as part of the Regional Centre and contemplates a collector road alignment along Salem Road, as well as an urban park at the edge of the property. The Regional Centre designation permits mixed-use development with a maximum density of approximately 180 units per hectare, supporting a range of residential, commercial, and community uses in a compact, transit-supportive form. On behalf of our clients, Rakesh and Mohit Gupta, we express general support for the Preliminary Preferred Concept and the proposed Regional Centre designation. We also support the proposed urban park designation outside our property boundaries, as it would integrate with the adjacent natural heritage system on the lands to the east (owned by the Delray Group), creating continuity within the broader trail network. Noted. Thank you for your comment. Northeast Pickering Secondary Plan Comments Matrix 83 Landowner Comments Contact Comment Response We are not opposed to the concept of an east–west collector road, as this connection would enhance linkages between Westney Road and Lakeridge Road, supporting broader mobility and connectivity objectives within the Secondary Plan area. Schedule 2 – Transportation Network identifles the 407 Transit Station / Potential Higher Order Transit Station (refer to Appendix 3) in proximity to the Subject Lands. With the introduction of a future east–west collector road, the subject Lands would be positioned at the key intersection of Salem Road and a future arterial corridor, representing a highly strategic location for high-density, mixed-use development. Based on comparable planning frameworks in adjacent municipalities, minimum density targets of approximately 150 residents and jobs per hectare are typically applied to lands located within higher-order transit station areas. The Subject Lands, being free of environmental constraints, offer a strong opportunity for compact, transit-supportive urban development. Schedule 3 – Resource Management conflrms that there are no natural heritage or environmental features located on the Subject Lands. The site is free of any environmental constraints, as illustrated in Appendix 4. While the preliminary plan does not currently identify an urban park on the Subject Lands, we respectfully request that this approach be maintained. The lands do not have direct linkages to the natural heritage system and do not meet the locational criteria for parkland designation. We understand that the forthcoming Master Park and Open Space Strategy will provide further reflnement to the overall park network. Noted. Thank you for your comment. Noted. Thank you for your comment. The location of the Urban Park is conceptual and the Neighbourhood Plan will determine the flnal location and conflguration of the Urban Park. Northeast Pickering Secondary Plan Comments Matrix 84 3. COMMENT ON POLICIES OF SECONDARY PLAN: Section 11.1.B.65 notes that: “a) shall require certain benefitting landowners within the Secondary Plan Area to enter into an agreement or agreements amongst themselves to address the distribution of all costs of development including those which may not be recoverable by the Municipality under the Development Charges Act, 1997, or any successor legislation, particularly the provision of community and infrastructure facilities such as parks, roads, road improvements, external services, storm water management facilities, public/private utilities and schools; b)to implement subsection a) above, may include conditions of Draft Plan Approval that require the benefitting landowners to enter into agreements with other benefitting land owners with respect to the provision of servicing and to require all applications to provide a letter of good standing from the group trustee prior to registration of the application(s). If a benefitting landowner chooses not to enter into such agreements, no development shall be permitted until it has been demonstrated that the benefitting landowner has entered into required agreements with other affected landowners with respect to the provision of services and other infrastructure; and c)shall require a Master Parkland Agreement be entered into between the benefitting landowners and the City prior to approval of the first draft plan of subdivision or site plan and which sets out the size, general location and timing of parks to be dedicated to the City under the Planning Act requirements and sets out the size and location of additional parkland to be purchased by the Municipality and timing of that purchase”. We suggest following additions to Policy 11.1.B.65 (a) proposed Reflned Policy (IPS Suggested Revisions – Changes in Bold, red and italicized) a) City Council shall require benefltting landowners within the Secondary Plan Area to enter into one or more agreements to equitably distribute the costs of development based on land area, servicing needs, and proportionate beneflt, We agree to add “equitably distribute” but on what basis is up to the Landowners in their agreement. Northeast Pickering Secondary Plan Comments Matrix 85 including those not recoverable under the Development Charges Act, 1997 or any successor legislation. Such costs include, but are not limited to, community and infrastructure facilities such as parks, roads, external services, storm-water management facilities, public and private utilities, and schools. Rationale behind this: The proposed addition of the phrase “equitably distribute the costs of development based on land area, servicing needs, and proportionate beneflt” refiects standard planning and infrastructure-cost principles that ensure fairness, transparency, and practical implementation across a multi-owner Secondary Plan area. From a planning perspective, the purpose of Policy 11.B.65(a) is to ensure that all benefltting landowners contribute appropriately to the cost of shared infrastructure and community facilities that enable development. However, in practice, landholdings within the Northeast Pickering Secondary Plan vary signiflcantly in size, frontage, access, environmental features, and degree of beneflt from planned works such as roads, stormwater facilities, and utilities. Applying a single, uniform approach can create disproportionate burdens for smaller or less-benefltted parcels. By tying cost allocation to land area, servicing needs, and direct beneflt, the policy: • Implements a beneflt-based cost-sharing model, consistent with good planning and engineering practice, where owners pay in proportion to how much they beneflt from shared infrastructure. • Promotes fairness and equity among diverse ownership groups, particularly smaller landowners who may not require or directly beneflt from all planned works. • Supports efficient and timely development, as owners can demonstrate good standing by posting security or prepaying their fair share, rather than waiting for a large multi-party agreement to be executed. Northeast Pickering Secondary Plan Comments Matrix 86 • Enhances policy transparency and defensibility, as cost apportionment is linked to measurable planning metrics such as frontage, area, or equivalent residential units(ERUs). • Aligns with the intent of the Provincial Planning Statement, 2024 (Policies 2.1, 2.2, and2.3) by promoting efficient, coordinated development that optimizes infrastructure use and supports complete communities. In essence, the reflnement strengthens Policy 11.B.65(a) by clarifying that cost-sharing should be both equitable and proportionate, ensuring that no landowner—large or small—is disadvantaged, and that the delivery of infrastructure needed to realize the Secondary Plan proceeds in a coordinated and implementable manner. Northeast Pickering Secondary Plan Comments Matrix 87 Landowner Comments Contact Comment Response We suggest following additions to Policy 11.1.B.65 (b) b) To implement subsection (a), Council may include conditions of Draft Plan Approval requiring benefitting landowners to demonstrate good-faith participation in cost-sharing. Participation may be achieved through either: (i) a comprehensive multi-party cost-sharing agreement; or (ii) a bilateral or smaller-scale agreement supported by flnancial security covering the owner’s fair and proportionate share of works that directly beneflt its lands. Where a benefitting landowner has posted adequate security or prepaid its share, the landowner shall be deemed in good standing and eligible to proceed to draft or site-plan approval. Rationale behind this: This reflnement provides fiexibility in how landowners demonstrate participation in cost-sharing, recognizing that not all parcels are positioned to join large, multi-party agreements. Allowing bilateral or smaller-scale arrangements—backed by appropriate flnancial security—ensures that each owner can advance development once their fair and proportionate share is secured. This approach maintains fairness, prevents unnecessary delays, and supports timely infrastructure delivery while still meeting the coordinated servicing intent of Policy 11.B.65. It also aligns with good planning practice by promoting practical, implementable mechanisms for shared responsibility in complex, multi-owner areas. The City’s existing wording on this policy is preferred which requires a letter of good standing from the group trustee. The City is not going to dictate the form of agreement or how the landowners determine the criteria to be in good standing. We suggest following additions to Policy 11.1.B.65 (c) c) City Council shall encourage transparency in cost-sharing implementation by: –requiring regular reporting on recoveries and expenditures; –ensuring soft-cost allowances are reasonable and subject to veriflcation; and –providing an accessible dispute-resolution process for benefltting owners. Cost sharing agreements are agreements amongst the landowners. The City will not be involved in the particulars on the mechanisms of the agreement. Northeast Pickering Secondary Plan Comments Matrix 88 Landowner Comments Contact Comment Response d)Development Charge credits and third-party recoveries shall be distributed promptly and proportionately among all contributing landowners. e)Prior to approval of the first draft plan of subdivision or site plan, a Master Parkland Agreement shall be executed between benefitting landowners and the City specifying the size, location, and timing of parkland dedications required under the Planning Act, as well as any additional parkland acquisitions by the Municipality. Rationale behind this: The proposed additions to Policy 11.B.65(c) aim to strengthen the policy’s implementation framework by introducing transparency, accountability, and fairness in the cost-sharing and parkland dedication processes. Regular reporting on recoveries and expenditures ensures that all benefltting landowners have clear visibility into how shared infrastructure costs are calculated and managed, which builds trust and supports informed participation. Establishing reasonable and veriflable soft-cost allowances prevents cost infiation and keeps contributions proportionate to actual project needs. Similarly, providing an accessible dispute-resolution mechanism offers a structured and efficient way to address disagreements, reducing delays and maintaining project momentum. The inclusion of explicit language regarding the timely and proportionate distribution of Development Charge credits and third-party recoveries ensures that all contributors—regardless of ownership size—are treated equitably. Finally, reaffirming the requirement for a Master Parkland Agreement clarifles expectations around the size, location, and timing of parkland dedication and acquisition, aligning with the Planning Act and That is not a matter to be addressed in a secondary plan. The request appears to simply rewrite the text in the proposed Secondary Plan. The text in the Secondary Plan is preferred, and nothing is being added by the suggested edits. Northeast Pickering Secondary Plan Comments Matrix 89 Landowner Comments Contact Comment Response ensuring coordinated delivery of open space amenities as development proceeds. Together, these reflnements enhance Policy 11.B.65 by promoting fairness, accountability, and clarity, while maintaining the City’s objective of coordinated infrastructure and community facility delivery across the Secondary Plan area. From a policy perspective, the proposed Regional Centre designation and associated density framework are consistent with the direction of the Provincial Policy Statement, 2024 (PPS 2024), which emphasizes the following key principles: Efficient Land Use and Infrastructure (Policies 2.1 and 2.2): Promoting intensiflcation and a compact urban form that optimizes the use of existing and planned infrastructure, particularly where higher-order transit service is available or planned. Transit-Supportive and Mixed-Use Development (Policies 2.2.1.1 & 2.2.1.5): Directing growth to strategic growth areas, including transit corridors and station areas, to support active transportation and reduce automobile dependency. Complete Communities (Policies 2.3.1 & 2.3.2): Supporting a range and mix of housing options, employment opportunities, and community services accessible by multiple modes of transportation. Housing Supply and Affordability (Policies 2.3.3 & 2.3.4): Enabling diverse housing forms and densities that respond to market demand and affordability objectives. Climate Change and Resilience (Policy 2.7): Encouraging growth patterns that reduce greenhouse gas emissions and enhance community resilience through transit-supportive and walkable urban design. Noted. Northeast Pickering Secondary Plan Comments Matrix 90 Landowner Comments Contact Comment Response The Subject Lands—being located within a planned higher-order transit station area, free of environmental constraints, and designated for mixed-use intensiflcation—are well aligned with these PPS 2024 objectives. The Regional Centre designation provides a framework to realize an efficient, transit-oriented, and complete community form that contributes to the long-term economic and environmental sustainability of the City of Pickering. IPS, together with our clients Rakesh Gupta, Rajni Gupta, and Madhul Gupta, remain committed to working collaboratively with the City of Pickering, the Region of Durham, and other stakeholders to help deliver a comprehensive and implementable Secondary Plan that realizes a vibrant Regional Centre and contributes to the development of a complete community in Northeast Pickering. Noted. Northeast Pickering Secondary Plan Comments Matrix 91 Landowner Comments Contact Comment Response Northeast Pickering Secondary Plan Comments Matrix 92 Landowner Comments Contact Comment Response Innovative Planning Solutions on behalf of Owners Rakesh Gupta, Rajni Gupta and Madhul Gupta East side of Salem Road between 7th Concession and Hwy 407 Katie Pandey Associate November 24, 2025 Letter SITE DESCRIPTION: Innovative Planning Solutions Inc. (IPS) is the planning consultant for Rajni Gupta Ltd., the owner of the lands located at the southeast intersection of Westney Road North and Highway 7 in the City of Pickering. The property beneflts from dual frontage along Highway 7 and Westney Road North (the “Subject Lands”). The Subject Lands are municipally addressed as 3680 Westney Road, and are legally described as: PT LT 6, CON 6, AS IN PIN 26400-0095; PICKERING EXCEPT PTS 1 & 2, 40R6642 AND PART 6 ON 40R25377; CITY OF PICKERING The property comprises approximately 9.363 acres (407,844.17 sq.ft.) of vacant land. The subject parcel is irregular in shape, generally forming a polygonal conflguration with multiple angled segments along its north, east, and Northeast Pickering Secondary Plan Comments Matrix 93 Landowner Comments Contact Comment Response southeast boundaries. The lot widens toward the south, resulting in a broader southerly boundary compared to the narrower northern frontage (refer to Appendix 1). The lands have an approximate frontage of 103.05 feet along Highway 7 and a depth of approximately 518.38 feet along Westney Road North. The property is currently occupied by a single detached dwelling and associated private amenities. INTRODUCTION: On June 9, 2025, Pickering Council endorsed the Northeast Pickering Secondary Plan Use Concepts and Preferred Land Use Report prepared by SGL Planning & Design Inc. (SGL), dated May 2025. Council directed SGL and City staff to review the comments received on the report and to prepare a Proposed Plan for consideration at a statutory public meeting, which was held on November 10, 2025. This letter is a response to the Report and Draft Secondary plan with respect to the Subject lands. BACKGROUND: The landowner has been actively monitoring the City’s Official Plan Review (OPR) and the Northeast Pickering Secondary Plan (NEPSP) process and intends to continue engaging and providing input throughout these exercises. This correspondence constitutes a formal submission in response to the Northeast Pickering Secondary Plan Land Use Concepts and Preferred Land Use Report and is provided for consideration by City staff and SGL in the preparation of the Proposed Plan which was presented at the statutory public meeting held on November 10, 2025. COMMENT ON SCHEDULES OF SECONDARY PLAN: According to Schedule 11B –Land Use Schedule (Appendix 2), the draft Secondary Plan designates the Subject Lands as Noted. Thank you for your comment. Northeast Pickering Secondary Plan Comments Matrix 94 Landowner Comments Contact Comment Response Community Nodes Area. Our client is supportive of the policy direction for Community Nodes as outlined in Section 11.B.17, particularly the emphasis on achieving a complete, mixed-use community framework. In alignment with policy 11.B.17(e), our client is in favour of advancing a 100% purpose-built rental development within the Community Node. This approach directly supports municipal and provincial housing objectives related to affordability, tenure diversity, and housing choice. By offering all residential units as rental, the proposed development would qualify under the exception provision permitting stand-alone residential apartment buildings prior to the achievement of the minimum retail gross leasable fioor area identifled in policy 11.B.17(g). This ensures that much- needed rental housing supply can be delivered early in the build-out of the Community Node while maintaining compatibility with the planned mixed-use character envisioned by the Secondary Plan. Schedule 3 – Resource Management conflrms that there are no natural heritage or environmental features located on the Subject Lands. The site is free of any environmental constraints, as illustrated in Appendix 3. We have no comments on schedules and are fully supportive of it. Noted. Thank you for your comment. Northeast Pickering Secondary Plan Comments Matrix 95 1. COMMENT ON POLICIES OF SECONDARY PLAN: Section 11.1.B.65 notes that: “a) shall require certain benefitting landowners within the Secondary Plan Area to enter into an agreement or agreements amongst themselves to address the distribution of al costs of development including those which may not be recoverable by the Municipality under the Development Charges Act, 1997, or any successor legislation, particularly the provision of community and infrastructure facilities such as parks, roads, road improvements, external services, storm water management facilities, public/private utilities and schools; b) to implement subsection a) above, may include conditions of Draft Plan Approval that require the benefitting landowners to enter into agreements with other benefitting landowners with respect to the provision of servicing and to require all applications to provide a letter of good standing from the group trustee prior to registration of the application(s). If a benefitting landowner chooses not to enter into such agreements, no development shall be permitted until it has been demonstrated that the benefitting landowner has entered into required agreements with other affected landowners with respect to the provision of services and other infrastructure; and c) shall require a Master Parkland Agreement be entered into between the benefitting landowners and the City prior to approval of the first draft plan of subdivision or site plan and which sets out the size, general location and timing of parks to be dedicated to the City under the Planning Act requirements and sets out the size and location of additional parkland to be purchased by the Municipality and timing of that purchase”. We suggest following additions to Policy 11.1.B.65 (a) proposed Reflned Policy (IPS Suggested Revisions – Changes in Bold, red and italicized ) a) City Council shall require benefltting landowners within the Secondary Plan Area to enter into one or more agreements to equitably distribute the costs of development based on land area, servicing needs, and proportionate beneflt, We agree to add “equitably distribute” but on what basis is up to the Landowners in their agreement. Northeast Pickering Secondary Plan Comments Matrix 96 including those not recoverable under the Development Charges Act, 1997 or any successor legislation. Such costs include, but are not limited to, community and infrastructure facilities such as parks, roads, external services, storm-water management facilities, public and private utilities, and schools. Rationale behind this: The proposed addition of the phrase “equitably distribute the costs of development based on land area, servicing needs, and proportionate beneflt” refiects standard planning and infrastructure-cost principles that ensure fairness, transparency, and practical implementation across a multi- owner Secondary Plan area. From a planning perspective, the purpose of Policy 11.B.65(a) is to ensure that all benefltting landowners contribute appropriately to the cost of shared infrastructure and community facilities that enable development. However, in practice, landholdings within the Northeast Pickering Secondary Plan vary signiflcantly in size, frontage, access, environmental features, and degree of beneflt from planned works such as roads, stormwater facilities, and utilities. Applying a single, uniform approach can create disproportionate burdens for smaller or less-benefltted parcels. By tying cost allocation to land area, servicing needs, and direct beneflt, the policy: • Implements a beneflt-based cost-sharing model, consistent with good planning and engineering practice, where owners pay in proportion to how much they beneflt from shared infrastructure. • Promotes fairness and equity among diverse ownership groups, particularly smaller landowners who may not require or directly beneflt from all planned works. • Supports efficient and timely development, as owners can demonstrate good standing by posting security or Northeast Pickering Secondary Plan Comments Matrix 97 prepaying their fair share, rather than waiting for a large multiparty agreement to be executed. • Enhances policy transparency and defensibility, as cost apportionment is linked to measurable planning metrics such as frontage, area, or equivalent residential units (ERUs). • Aligns with the intent of the Provincial Planning Statement, 2024 (Policies 2.1, 2.2, and 2.3) by promoting efficient, coordinated development that optimizes infrastructure use and supports complete communities. In essence, the reflnement strengthens Policy 11.B.65(a) by clarifying that cost-sharing should be both equitable and proportionate, ensuring that no landowner—large or small—is disadvantaged, and that the delivery of infrastructure needed to realize the Secondary Plan proceeds in a coordinated and implementable manner. Northeast Pickering Secondary Plan Comments Matrix 98 Landowner Comments Contact Comment Response We suggest following additions to Policy 11.1.B.65 (b) b) To implement subsection (a), Council may include conditions of Draft Plan Approval requiring benefltting landowners to demonstrate good-faith participation in cost-sharing. Participation may be achieved through either: (i) a comprehensive multi-party cost-sharing agreement; or (ii) a bilateral or smaller-scale agreement supported by flnancial security covering the owner’s fair and proportionate share of works that directly beneflt its lands. Where a benefltting landowner has posted adequate security or prepaid its share, the landowner shall be deemed in good standing and eligible to proceed to draft or site-plan approval. Rationale behind this: This reflnement provides fiexibility in how landowners demonstrate participation in cost-sharing, recognizing that not all parcels are positioned to join large, multi-party agreements. Allowing bilateral or smaller-scale arrangements—backed by appropriate flnancial security—ensures that each owner can advance development once their fair and proportionate share is secured. This approach maintains fairness, prevents unnecessary delays, and supports timely infrastructure delivery while still meeting the coordinated servicing intent of Policy 11.B.65. It also aligns with good planning practice by promoting practical, implementable mechanisms for shared responsibility in complex, multi-owner areas. The City’s existing wording on this policy is preferred which requires a letter of good standing from the group trustee. The City is not going to dictate the form of agreement or how the landowners determine the criteria to be in good standing. We suggest following additions to Policy 11.1.B.65 a) Development Charge credits and third-party recoveries shall be distributed promptly and proportionately among all contributing landowners. That is not a matter to be addressed in a secondary plan. The request appears to simply rewrite the text in the proposed Secondary Plan. The text in the Secondary Northeast Pickering Secondary Plan Comments Matrix 99 Landowner Comments Contact Comment Response b) Prior to approval of the first draft plan of subdivision or site plan, a Master Parkland Agreement shall be executed between benefitting landowners and the City specifying the size, location, and timing of parkland dedications required under the Planning Act, as well as any additional parkland acquisitions by the Municipality. Rationale behind this: The proposed additions to Policy 11.B.65(c) aim to strengthen the policy’s implementation framework by introducing transparency, accountability, and fairness in the cost-sharing and parkland dedication processes. Regular reporting on recoveries and expenditures ensures that all benefltting landowners have clear visibility into how shared infrastructure costs are calculated and managed, which builds trust and supports informed participation. Establishing reasonable and veriflable soft-cost allowances prevents cost infiation and keeps contributions proportionate to actual project needs. Similarly, providing an accessible dispute- resolution mechanism offers a structured and efficient way to address disagreements, reducing delays and maintaining project momentum. The inclusion of explicit language regarding the timely and proportionate distribution of Development Charge credits and third-party recoveries ensures that all contributors— regardless of ownership size—are treated equitably. Finally, reaffirming the requirement for a Master Parkland Agreement clarifles expectations around the size, location, and timing of parkland dedication and acquisition, aligning with the Planning Act and ensuring coordinated delivery of open space amenities as development proceeds. Plan is preferred, and nothing is being added by the suggested edits. Northeast Pickering Secondary Plan Comments Matrix 100 Landowner Comments Contact Comment Response Together, these reflnements enhance Policy 11.B.65 by promoting fairness, accountability, and clarity, while maintaining the City’s objective of coordinated infrastructure and community facility delivery across the Secondary Plan area. From a policy perspective, the proposed community node designation and associated density framework are consistent with the direction of the Provincial Policy Statement, 2024 (PPS 2024), which emphasizes the following key principles: Housing Supply, Affordability, and Tenure Diversity (Policy 2.2.1) The PPS directs municipalities to provide for a range and mix of housing options, including affordable and rental housing, to meet the needs of all income levels and household types. The client’s proposal for a 100% rental development contributes to this objective by introducing tenure diversity, increasing the overall rental stock, and responding to affordability challenges identifled at both municipal and provincial levels. Phased and Coordinated Development (Policy 2.1.5) The PPS supports phased development that aligns with servicing availability and community-building objectives. Allowing stand- alone residential apartments in the early stages of build-out ensures that much-needed housing supply is delivered in a timely manner, while maintaining fiexibility for the commercial and mixed-use components to develop incrementally over time. IPS, together with our client Rajni Gupta, remains committed to working collaboratively with the City of Pickering, the Region of Durham, and other stakeholders to advance a comprehensive and implementable Secondary Plan that meaningfully contributes to housing affordability and the creation of a complete, well- balanced community in Northeast Pickering. Noted. Northeast Pickering Secondary Plan Comments Matrix 101 Landowner Comments Contact Comment Response We look forward to receiving the City’s response to our comments and to reviewing any forthcoming revisions to the draft Secondary Plan. IPS will continue to actively participate in the statutory consultation process and in the City’s ongoing Official Plan Review to support a coordinated and successful planning outcome. Northeast Pickering Secondary Plan Comments Matrix 102 Landowner Comments Contact Comment Response Northeast Pickering Secondary Plan Comments Matrix 103 Landowner Comments Contact Comment Response Innovative Planning Solutions on behalf of 2722228 Ontario Inc. Matthew Halo Associate November 7, 2025 Letter Innovative Planning Solutions Inc. (“IPS”) is the planning consultant for 2722228 Ontario Inc., owners of the lands municipally known as 4015 Salem Road, in the City of Pickering (Refer to Figure 1). The Subject Lands are legally described as: PT LT 6 CON 7 PICKERING AS IN D170691; PICKERING. They are located on the northeast corner of Salem Road and 7th Concession Road. The Subject Lands front onto existing/proposed Arterial Roads (Salem Road and 7th Concession Road),and are identifled in the Draft Northeast Pickering Secondary Plan (NEPSP) as part of Neighbourhood 25 within the Regional Centre. We support the Draft Secondary Plan’s vision of the Subject Lands as a prominent high-density, mixed-use development block located in close proximity to a Potential Higher-Order Transit Station. The Noted. Thank you for your comment. Northeast Pickering Secondary Plan Comments Matrix 104 Landowner Comments Contact Comment Response Secondary Plan also contemplates a potential Secondary School on or adjacent to the lands. Proposed Land Use Planning Context: The NEPSP proposes the following for the Subject Lands: a) Urban Area Neighbourhood 25 – Map 3-C; b) Regional Centre – Schedule 11B (includes a proposed east- west Arterial Road); c) Mixed Use Areas – Regional Centres – Schedule I, Pickering Official Plan; and, d) In proximity to a Potential Higher Order Transit Station, per Schedule II, Pickering Official Plan. On behalf of our clients, we are supportive of proposed land use policies and designations in the NEPSP as they relate to the above-noted items. Refer to the Appendix for overlays of the Subject Lands on the above-noted schedules. This correspondence constitutes a formal submission to the City of Pickering’s statutory public meeting under the Planning Act for the City Initiated Official Plan Amendment Application: OPA 25- 003P, Proposed Amendment 54: Northeast Pickering Secondary Plan (NEPSP). Noted. Thank you for your comment. Northeast Pickering Secondary Plan Comments Matrix 105 Landowner Comments Contact Comment Response Request Considerations – Transit-Supportive Planning & Urbanization We acknowledge and support the identiflcation of a Potential Higher-Order Transit Station along Salem Road, as shown on Schedule II. Given the Subject Lands’ location along an existing Arterial Road and their designation within the Regional Centre, this area presents a unique opportunity to anchor transit-supportive urban intensiflcation in Northeast Pickering at densities driven by the evolution of Neighbourhood 25 and planned major transit infrastructure. To reinforce the intent of PPS 2024 Policies 2.4.1 and 2.4.2, we recommend that the City: • Recognize the Salem Road station area as a future Strategic Growth Area and Major Transit Station Area (MTSA) in the forthcoming Pickering Official Plan and flnal NEPSP framework; • Establish a policy commitment to delineate the MTSA boundary and plan for minimum density targets consistent with provincial guidance (e.g., 150 residents and jobs per hectare for higher-order transit); and, • Coordinate with the Region of Durham and Metrolinx to align transit delivery with land use phasing and infrastructure planning to support early ridership and transit-oriented built form. These reflnements will ensure that the NEPSP appropriately considers PPS 2024’s objectives for compact, walkable urban growth and reinforces Pickering’s emerging role as a Regional Centre and transit node within Durham Region. Noted. Thank you for your comment. Conflrmation of official transit station locations and/or routes have not yet been identifled by the Region or Metrolinx. As a result, the proposed transit stations cannot be formally recognized or delineated as an MTSA at this stage. The Secondary Plan requires the Neighbourhood Plans to consider how future transit stations can be protected through discussions with the appropriate Provincial agency and Durham Region Transit. The Secondary Plan also requires the City to work with the Region and Metrolinx to deliver higher order transit along Highway 407 east and west of Northeast Pickering and along the transit corridor. Northeast Pickering Secondary Plan Comments Matrix 106 Landowner Comments Contact Comment Response Requested Considerations – Regional Centre Height & Density Policies: With respect to Item 2, we request Council reconsider Policies 11.B.14(i) & (k): • (i) Minimum 80 and maximum 180 units per hectare; and, • (k) Maximum Building Height of 20-storeys. Given the Subject Lands’ proximity to a proposed transit station, its planned function as a high-density urban block fronting an Arterial corridor, and potential inclusion within a future delineated MTSA, these limits may constrain the long-term development potential of the Regional Centre. Allowing greater fiexibility in height, density, and the ability to accommodate density transfers would support transit-oriented development, respond to evolving market conditions, and enable the Regional Centre to evolve as a complete, mixed-use community over time. Based on our experience in other similar secondary plan areas, targeted fiexibility in height and density can: • Catalyze investment; • Optimize land use efficiency; • Support higher transit ridership; • Foster long-term economic and social sustainability through economies of scale; and, • Protect the flnancial and economic well-being of the Province and municipalities. The height and density were determined to be appropriate when considering the urban structure of the City and the heights and densities permitted in other parts of the City. Northeast Pickering Secondary Plan Comments Matrix 107 Landowner Comments Contact Comment Response Policy Recommendations – School Location and Urban Design Integration: The Subject Lands and adjacent parcels are identifled in the Draft NEPSP (Schedule 11B) as accommodating a potential Secondary School site. Given the site’s placement within the Regional Centre and its proximity to a future Higher-Order Transit Station, we encourage the City and School Boards to consider innovative urban school models that reinforce the Secondary Plan’s vision for compact, mixed-use and transit-supportive communities. We recommend reflnements to Policies 11.B.36(e) and 11.B.37 to: • Support integrating schools in multi-storey or podium- based mixed-use buildings in high-density contexts, consistent with Policy 11.B.37; • Allow Neighbourhood Plans to identify non-traditional school forms, including vertical schools, shared civic facilities, reduced on-site parking, and access to adjacent parks; • Promote collaboration between the City, Region, and School Boards to align school design with transit-supportive, pedestrian-oriented urban objectives; • Provide fiexibility in school site size, conflguration, and delivery timing to accommodate compact or joint-use models and phased development; • Encourage built-form and interface guidelines so schools and open spaces enhance the public realm, activate street frontages, and integrate with mixed-use blocks. Such reflnements would support complete community objectives while providing modern, efficient and accessible educational infrastructure in transit-rich urban environments. Policy 11.B.37 has been revised to require school boards to consider opportunities to integrate schools into mixed-use buildings. Northeast Pickering Secondary Plan Comments Matrix 108 Landowner Comments Contact Comment Response Policy Recommendations – Secondary Plan Implementation & Neighbourhood Plans: IPS supports the City’s intent for orderly, coordinated and flscally responsible development through Policies 11.B.68 and 11.B.70 but recommends reflnements to allow Neighbourhood Plans and site-speciflc applications to advance once planning for that area is substantially underway and supported by technical studies. This approach ensures coordination and consistency with the Secondary Plan while allowing timely, phased growth within strategic areas such as the Regional Centre. Planning Rationale The recommendations in this submission advance the intent of the Planning Act and provincial interests under Section 2, including the orderly development of safe, healthy communities, efficient use of land and infrastructure, and sustainable, transit-supportive growth. They are consistent with PPS 2024, which directs municipalities to focus growth in strategic, transit-oriented areas and coordinate land use with infrastructure delivery. To ensure properly phased, comprehensive development, Neighbourhood Plans and other studies set out in 11.B.68 must be completed and / or approved by Council prior to development advancing. Conclusion The Subject Lands at 4015 Salem Road, within Neighbourhood 25 of the Regional Centre, represent a key location for compact, high- rise, mixed-use, transit-supportive development. To achieve PPS 2024 objectives, we recommend: • Targeted fiexibility in height and density (Policies 11.B.14(i) & (k)); • Reflnements to community facility policies (11.B.36 and 11.B.37) to enable urban, integrated school design; and, • Revisions to implementation and phasing policies (11.B.66, 11.B.68 and 11.B.70) to allow applications to proceed where key requirements are substantially addressed. Northeast Pickering Secondary Plan Comments Matrix 109 Landowner Comments Contact Comment Response These reflnements will enable timely and coordinated growth, optimize infrastructure investment, and allow the Regional Centre to develop as a complete, resilient and transit-oriented community. We thank Council and City staff for considering these comments and recommendations. We appreciate the opportunity to provide input on the Northeast Pickering Secondary Plan and look forward to continued collaboration to support coordinated, transit- oriented, and sustainable growth in Neighbourhood 25 and the Regional Centre. Northeast Pickering Secondary Plan Comments Matrix 110 Landowner Comments Contact Comment Response See responses above. The proposed transit stations cannot be formally recognized or delineated as an MTSA at this stage. Northeast Pickering Secondary Plan Comments Matrix 111 Landowner Comments Contact Comment Response Innovative Planning Solutions on behalf of Pickering Salem Developments Ltd., Matthew Halo Associate November 7, 2025 Letter Innovative Planning Solutions Inc. (“IPS”) is the planning consultant for Pickering Salem Developments Ltd., owners of the lands municipally known as 3885 Salem Road, in the City of Pickering (Refer to Figure 1). The Subject Lands are legally described as: PART LOT 6 CONCESSION 6 PICKERING, AS IN D258847 EXCEPT EASEMENT THEREIN; SAVE AND EXCEPT PARTS 2 AND 3 ON 40R26015 CITY OF PICKERING. Proposed Land Use Planning Context: The NEPSP proposes the following for the Subject Lands 1. Urban Area Neighbourhood 25 – Map 3-C; 2. Regional Centre & Natural Heritage System – Schedule 11B (includes a proposed east-west Arterial Road); Northeast Pickering Secondary Plan Comments Matrix 112 Landowner Comments Contact Comment Response 3. Mixed Use Areas – Regional Centres & Natural Heritage System – Schedule I, Pickering Official Plan; and, 4. Potential Higher Order Transit Station – at the intersection of Salem Road and the planned east-west Arterial Road, per Schedule II, Pickering Official Plan. On behalf of our clients, we are supportive of proposed land use policies and designations in the NEPSP as they relate to the above-noted items. Refer to the Appendix for overlays of the Subject Lands on the above-noted schedules. Noted. Thank you for the comment. Request Considerations – Potential Higher-Order Transit Station & Transit-Supportive Planning We acknowledge and support the identiflcation of a Potential Higher Order Transit Station at the intersection of Salem Road and the planned east-west Arterial Road, as shown on Schedule II. However, we recommend that the City provide greater clarity and policy direction for this potential station area within the NEPSP to ensure full alignment with PPS 2024 Policies 2.4.1 and 2.4.2. Speciflcally, we recommend that the City: • Recognize the Salem Road and east-west Arterial intersection as a future Strategic Growth Area and Major Transit Station Area (MTSA) in the forthcoming Pickering Official Plan and flnal NEPSP framework; • Establish a policy commitment to delineate the MTSA boundary and plan for minimum density targets consistent with provincial guidance (e.g., 150 residents and jobs per hectare for higher-order transit); and, Noted. Thank you for the comment. Conflrmation of official transit station locations and/or routes have not yet been identifled by the Region or Metrolinx. As a result, the proposed transit stations cannot be formally recognized or delineated as an MTSA at this stage. The Secondary Plan requires the Neighbourhood Plans to consider how future transit stations can be protected through discussions with the appropriate Provincial agency and Durham Region Transit. The Secondary Plan also requires the City wot work with the Region and Metrolinx to deliver Higher order transit along Highway 407 east and west of Northeast Pickering and along the transit Corridor. Northeast Pickering Secondary Plan Comments Matrix 113 Landowner Comments Contact Comment Response • Work with the Region of Durham and Metrolinx to integrate land use and transit planning, ensuring that phasing of development and infrastructure delivery supports early ridership generation and transit-supportive built form. These clariflcations would align the NEPSP with PPS 2024 objectives for compact, transit-oriented, and complete communities, optimize long-term infrastructure investment, and reinforce Pickering’s role as a Regional Centre and transit node within Durham Region. Requested Considerations – Regional Centre Height & Density Policies: With respect to Item 2, we request Council reconsider Policies 11.B.14(i) & (k): • (i) Minimum 80 and maximum 180 units per hectare; and, • (k) Maximum Building Height of 20-storeys. We are concerned that current maximum height and density limits may constrain long-term development potential, particularly near the planned Higher Order Transit Station and other Future Major Transit Station Areas. Greater fiexibility would: • Support transit-oriented development in line with PPS 2024; • Allow public and private sectors to respond to evolving market conditions; and, • Enable the Regional Centre to develop and mature as a complete, mixed-use community over time. Based on our experience in other similar secondary plan areas, targeted fiexibility in height and density can: • Catalyze investment; • Optimize land use efficiency; • Support higher transit ridership; The height and density were determined to be appropriate when considering the urban structure of the City and the heights and densities in other parts of the City. Northeast Pickering Secondary Plan Comments Matrix 114 Landowner Comments Contact Comment Response • Foster long-term economic and social sustainability through economies of scale; and, • Protect the flnancial and economic well-being of the Province and municipalities. Policy Recommendations – Secondary Plan Implementation & Neighbourhood Plans: Policy 11.B.68 – Implementation Requirements We support the City’s intent for orderly, coordinated, and flscally responsible development. However, the current wording of Policy 11.B.68 could prevent site- and area-speciflc applications from advancing until all Secondary Plan-wide requirements are fully satisfled, which could unnecessarily delay development. We recommend revising Policy 11.B.68 to allow Neighbourhood Plans and related applications to proceed once the planning process for that neighbourhood is substantially underway and key requirements for that area are addressed and supported by appropriate studies. This approach ensures development remains coordinated and consistent with the Secondary Plan, while enabling phased, timely growth in priority areas, such as the Regional Centre in Neighbourhood 25, without waiting for completion of all Secondary Plan-wide requirements. To ensure properly phased, comprehensive development, Neighbourhood Plans and other studies set out in 11.B.68 must be completed and / or approved by Council prior to development advancing. Northeast Pickering Secondary Plan Comments Matrix 115 Landowner Comments Contact Comment Response Policy 11.B.70 – Neighbourhood Plan Requirements We support Policy 11.B.70, which establishes a comprehensive framework for the preparation of Neighbourhood Plans, including technical review, phasing coordination, and alignment with broader Secondary Plan objectives. These provisions will help ensure that development proceeds in an orderly, coordinated, and flscally responsible manner. However, given the scale and complexity of the NEPSP, which establishes the framework for an entirely new urban community, the current implementation framework under Policy 11.B.68 may inadvertently delay advancement of neighbourhood-level or site-speciflc applications until all Secondary Plan-wide requirements are fully satisfled. This could slow the delivery of housing and transit-supportive development in strategic areas, such as the Regional Centre in Neighbourhood 25. To facilitate timely, coordinated growth while maintaining consistency with the Secondary Plan, we recommend that Policy 11.B.68 be revised to allow Neighbourhood Plans and related planning applications to advance within areas where planning is actively underway, provided that: • Key implementation requirements for that area have been substantially addressed; • Supporting technical studies are provided; and, • Applications conform to the intent and objectives of the Secondary Plan. This reflnement would enable phased or block-level approvals where sufficient planning and technical work has been completed, without waiting for full completion of all Secondary Plan- or Master Environmental Servicing Plan (MESP)-wide requirements. Such fiexibility would promote timely progress in priority growth areas, particularly the Regional Centre within It is important that key studies as required by Envision Durham be completed prior to development. As such site speciflc applications should not proceed until those studies are completed. Northeast Pickering Secondary Plan Comments Matrix 116 Landowner Comments Contact Comment Response Neighbourhood 25, and assist the City in achieving its intensiflcation, employment, and transit-supportive development objectives. Planning Rationale The recommendations in this submission align with the Planning Act and advance provincial interests under Section 2, including the orderly development of safe, healthy communities, efficient use of land and infrastructure, and sustainable, transit-supportive growth. They are consistent with PPS 2024, which directs municipalities to focus growth in strategic, transit-oriented areas and coordinate land use with infrastructure delivery. The Subject Lands at 3885 Salem Road, within Neighbourhood 25 of the Regional Centre and adjacent to a planned Higher Order Transit Station, represent a key location for compact, mixed-use, transit-supportive development. PPS 2024 policies emphasize: • Focusing growth in settlement areas (Policy 2.3.1.1); • Accommodating signiflcant population and employment growth in strategic growth areas and transit station areas (Policies 2.4.1.2, 2.4.2.2); and, • Supporting complete, efficient communities through infrastructure and transit (Policies 2.3.1.2, 2.3.1.3, 2.9.1). To achieve these objectives, we recommend targeted fiexibility in height and density [Policies 11.B.14(i) & (k)] and revisions to Northeast Pickering Secondary Plan Comments Matrix 117 Landowner Comments Contact Comment Response implementation and infrastructure phasing policies (11.B.66, 11.B.68, and 11.B.70) to allow site- or neighbourhood-level applications where key requirements are substantially addressed and supported by technical studies. This approach will enable timely, coordinated, and flscally responsible development, optimize land use efficiency, support higher transit ridership, and allow the Regional Centre in Neighbourhood 25 to develop as a complete, resilient, and transit-oriented community. We thank Council and City staff for considering these comments and recommendations. We appreciate the opportunity to provide input on the Northeast Pickering Secondary Plan and look forward to continued collaboration to support coordinated, transit- oriented, and sustainable growth in Neighbourhood 25 and the Regional Centre. See responses above. Northeast Pickering Secondary Plan Comments Matrix 118 Landowner Comments Contact Comment Response Northeast Pickering Secondary Plan Comments Matrix 119 Landowner Comments Contact Comment Response Pinebrown Salem Lands Ltd. (“Pinebrown”) Southeast intersection of 7th Concession Road and Salem Road GHD Scott Waterhouse Dear Honourable Mayor Ashe and Members of Council: We are the planning consultants representing Pinebrown Salem Lands Ltd. (“Pinebrown”), the Owner of the property located at the southeast intersection of 7th Concession Road and Salem Road (the “Subject Lands”) in the City of Pickering. The Subject Lands are within the area proposed to be subject to the new policies and schedules of the Northeast Pickering Secondary Plan (Official Plan Amendment 25-003P), which will hereinafter be referred to as the “NEPSP”). Northeast Pickering Secondary Plan Comments Matrix 120 Landowner Comments Contact Comment Response Planning Manager November 7, 2025 Letter On behalf of the Owner, and further to the letter previously submitted by GHD, dated October 3, 2025 (provided in Attachment 1, hereafter the “Comment Letter”), we are pleased to provide this supplementary submission in respect of the updated NEPSP that is being presented at a November 10, 2025 Statutory Public Meeting. As Staff are aware, the Owner and GHD have been actively participating in the NEPSP initiative. This participation has been in concert with the Northeast Pickering Landowners Group as well as separately with respect to the Subject Lands. The Comment Letter and this submission are intended to continue this participation and should be added to the City’s record of written submissions related to the NEPSP. We have reviewed the updated October 2025 version of the NEPSP as well as the Comment Matrix prepared by City of Pickering Staff. This supplementary letter provides our comments on behalf of the Owner with respect to the Subject Lands and are intended to provide additional clarity on the Owner’s position pertaining to the updated October 2025. Our prior submissions made in the Comment Letter, as well as the prior submissions made by the Northeast Pickering Landowners Group, remain applicable. Regional Centre Designation We understand the intent of framing the NEPSP’s Regional Centre lands as a focus of development and accommodating a centralized, mixed-use centre or “Uptown” area. Accordingly, the NEPSP states in Policy 11.B.14.a that the Regional Centre is to orient development along Salem Road, between Highway 407 and Seventh Concession, where the widest range of uses and highest densities are planned. However, as shown in the updated October 2025 version of the NEPSP, the Regional Centre designation is now proposed to be extended to include lands north of 7th Concession Northeast Pickering Secondary Plan Comments Matrix 121 Landowner Comments Contact Comment Response Road. More specifically, the updated NEPSP includes an expanded Regional Centre area from what was shown in the September 2025 draft version, as shown in Figure 1 on the next page. In our opinion, the proposed expansion to the limits of the Regional Centre, which are now bounded by Highway 407 in the south, the delineated Natural Heritage System to the east and west, and a planned lower density residential area to the north, does not support the stated policy objective for the area as provided in Policy 11.B.14.a). As shown in the September 2025 The expansion of the Regional Centre north of the Seventh Concession was a direct response to a request from the Landowners Group. City staff and its consultants agreed with this extension as the lands north of Seventh Concession were previous proposed Northeast Pickering Secondary Plan Comments Matrix 122 Landowner Comments Contact Comment Response version of the NEPSP, 7th Concession provided a natural, logical and supportable limit to the Regional Centre area. Applying the Regional Centre designation to lands north of 7th Concession challenges the appropriateness of higher density, transit supportive development forms as lands north of 7th Concession are more than 500 metres from higher order transit services proposed along a future east-west collector road north of Highway 407. There also does not appear to be a context-based reason for extending the boundary beyond 7th Concession. It is our submission that the Regional Centre boundaries as presented in the September 2025 draft materials should be maintained. for High Density Residential Development. The Seventh Concession is identifled as a Regional Corridor in Envision Durhan so will have frequent regional transit along the corridor linking in with the future transit station on Salem at the Transit Corridor. As such extending the Regional Centre north of Seventh Concession is logical and appropriate. In the event that the City wishes to proceed with the expanded limits of the Regional Centre area, then further clarity is required with respect to the Regional Centre policies respecting lower- density, ground-oriented built forms. This is because Policy 11.B.15 has been modified, and Policy 11.B.16 has been added, to indicate that multiplexes, street townhouse dwellings, back-to- back townhouses dwellings and stacked townhouse dwellings are to be permitted on the periphery of the Regional Centre. The term “periphery” is not defined by the NEPSP. It is not clear if this is intended to mean the actual “edges” of the Regional Centre designation or simply any lands that are separated from the proposed higher-order transit. While our Client was previously content to accept policy language that contemplated certain permissions at the “periphery” of the Regional Centre area, with the proposed extension of the Regional Centre limits beyond 7th Concession, there is no longer sufficient clarity on what will be considered the “periphery”. This lack of clarity is a detriment to landowners along 7th Concession, like our client, who will not be able to plan their future site-specific developments with certainty The speciflc implementation of this policy and the form of development throughout the Regional Centre will be determined through the Neighbourhood Plans. Northeast Pickering Secondary Plan Comments Matrix 123 Landowner Comments Contact Comment Response because it has not been made clear which lands Policy 11.B.16 will ultimately apply to. As stated throughout the Comment Letter and this supplementary letter, greater flexibility is required to accommodate a range and mixture of development across the Regional Centre. Given that the Subject Lands have frontage along both Salem Road and 7th Concession Road, and are visually screened from the surrounding lower density residential areas by the Natural Heritage System, permission for residential uses and ground-oriented built forms on the Subject Lands is not only appropriate, it is desirable and good planning. We accordingly request that Policy 11.B.16 be revised to be more specific. Instead of a reference to the “periphery” of the Regional Centre, which is a concept that will only lead to future arguments and potentially unnecessary site-specific private OPA applications, we ask that the policy be revised to indicate that the built form flexibility provided by Policy 11.B.16 be available to lands with frontage along 7th Concession. The intent is for the Regional Centre to be comprised of mixed use development; particularly at key intersections such as Seventh Concession and Salem Road. However, the form of that mixed use development and the form of residential development will be determined through the Neighbourhood Plans. Non-Residential Requirements Policy 11.B.14 b) states that a minimum of 40,000 square metres of gross leasable floor area for retailing of goods and services is to be provided on lands within the Regional Centre designation. We are concerned that this minimum leasable floor area is too high and request that the minimum gross leasable area required by policy be removed or softened. As an alternative, we suggest a new policy mechanism that would permit a reduced minimum gross leasable area to be provided, without amendment to the Plan, provided that a Market Impact Study is provided to justify a reduced minimum on a site-specific basis. Should this alternative The minimum gross fioor area is based on the designation of a Regional Centre within a new community of 72,000 people. This amount is supported by the Retail Market Study and is a rather low number for a Regional Centre. The policies requiring a minimum amount of commercial development prior to stand alone residential development has been reduced from 40,000 square metres in the early draft to 15,000 Northeast Pickering Secondary Plan Comments Matrix 124 Landowner Comments Contact Comment Response approach be desirable, this added flexibility will enable property owners to right-size the amount of non-residential area contemplated as part of a development in order to satisfy demands, support complete communities and prevent undesirable non-residential areas that may remain vacant for extended periods from being pursued. Policy 11.B.14.e) states that non-residential uses are required on ground floors facing Salem Road and 7th Concession Road. This policy is overly prescriptive and restricts any opportunity for ground floor residential development. It is recommended that this policy either be deleted or include sufficient flexibility to allow residential uses at the ground floor level of buildings along Salem Road and 7th Concession Road as this will support compact, complete community objectives, human-scaled development with forms that frame the street and appropriate transition to the surrounding planned residential areas to be provided. square metres in the version presented at the Statutory Public Meeting. Seventh Concession and Salem Road are both identifled as Regional Corridors in Envision Durham. The Regional Centre is planned to be the Uptown of Pickering and ground fioor non-residential development abutting Salem Road and 7th Concession is good planning and in the public interest to create a central area for this new 72,000 person community. Residential Densities We are concerned with Policy 11.B.14 i), which states that a minimum residential density of 80 units per net hectare is required for lands designated Regional Centre. As applicable to the Subject Lands, we submit that this proposed minimum residential density is overly high and suggest a lower minimum residential density in the range of 60 – 65 units per net hectare for lands more than 400 metres from the planned Transit Arterial Road within the Regional Centre be applicable. This request for a lower minimum density is informed by the concept plan at Figure 2 of the enclosed Comment Letter, which provides a townhouse development concept that can reasonably be implemented for the Subject Lands. The concept plan illustrates 100 back to back townhouses and 147 street townhouses, achieving a density of 65 units per net hectare can be The minimum density is an overall average minimum density. The Neighbourhood Plans will identify where higher and lower densities may be appropriate to achieve the overall minimum density. Northeast Pickering Secondary Plan Comments Matrix 125 Landowner Comments Contact Comment Response accommodated. This development concept continues to support compact, complete community objectives and supports transit- supportive development forms. This requested lower density will support achievement of Provincial, Regional and local objectives of transit supportive development and encouraging greater housing options, while also still encouraging compact development and providing for appropriate transition to the surrounding context. This requested density will also enable the provision of ground-oriented built forms, accommodating larger, family-sized dwelling units and provision of a range of housing options that are not limited to apartment units. Moreover, the NEPSP does not include a stated definition of “net hectare” and therefore is not clear on how the City will determine conformity with minimum density requirements. The NEPSP should include a deflnition of “net hectare” to provide the required policy clarity. Net hectare is used throughout the Pickering Official Plan as a consistent measurement of density. “Net residential density” is deflned in Section 3.4 of the Pickering Official Plan. Minimum Building Heights Section 11.B.14 provides for built-form policy guidance, with a range of built-form permitted uses specifled. We support this clarity and the range of permitted built forms for the Subject Lands and designated Regional Centre lands. We are however concerned with the stated minimum building height of 4 storeys as specifled by Policy 11.B.14.k). A lower height is requested and is also appropriate to ensure contextually appropriate development forms and scales are provided, including ensuring transition to the surrounding residential area to the north of 7th Concession Road. A 2 storey minimum building height would facilitate greater fiexibility for development forms, can serve to encourage housing options, including built forms with ground-oriented, family sized dwelling units that are appropriately designed to include development that is pedestrian oriented and compact, and will serve to support the goals of providing appropriate In contrast to the heights and densities permitted within the other designations in the secondary plan, it is appropriate for the Regional Centre to have a minimum height of 4 storeys. A minimum 4 storey height requirement still provides for ground-oriented, family sized dwelling units. Northeast Pickering Secondary Plan Comments Matrix 126 Landowner Comments Contact Comment Response transition of massing and scale down to lower density residential forms on the north side of 7th Concession Road. Affordable Housing Policy 11.B.57.b) encourages at least 35% of all residential units on lands within the Regional Centre to be affordable. While the policy states ‘encourage’ and not ‘shall’ or ‘must’, the minimum policy requirement for affordable housing units on lands within the Regional Centre should be lowered or eliminated. For context and comparison, Provincial legislation restricts municipalities from imposing an affordable housing requirement that is greater than 5% in areas that are subject to Inclusionary Zoning, which currently are limited to lands within a Protected Major Transit Station Area. The affordable housing goal being proposed for the Regional Centre planning area signiflcantly exceeds that level, notwithstanding that anticipated unit counts will be signiflcantly lower than what would be expected within a PMTSA. In this context, we submit that the minimum amount of affordable housing units encouraged in the Regional Centre should be eliminated or at least the quantum of required units lowered substantially. Failing to lower this requirement could cause future development within the Regional Centre to stall until the local housing and commercial development market reaches a point where project pro formas can support a substantial affordable housing component. While the deployment of new affordable housing is a shared goal of both the private and public sector, the flnancial feasibility and timeline consequences of imposing a high minimum affordable housing requirement on The Envision Durham Official Plan requires that at least 35% of new residential units within the Regional Centre be affordable. The Secondary Plan policies align with this existing Regional framework, and no change is recommended at this time to the existing target. The 5% cap only applies to areas where a municipality implements inclusionary zoning. Inclusionary zoning is not being proposed in NE Pickering. The Provincial Planning Statement requires Planning authorities to implement minimum targets for Northeast Pickering Secondary Plan Comments Matrix 127 Landowner Comments Contact Comment Response private development throughout all of the Regional Centre lands must be considered. Policy 11.B.57.k) is also concerning as it requests that land within all neighbourhoods, except neighbourhood 27, provide land for the development of affordable housing. Furthermore, the policy states that this land is to be conveyed, is to be of a certain size (approximately 1.5 hectares), is to be fully serviced and is to be vacant. A policy requiring land be conveyed gratuitously and is to be free and clear of encumbrances is inappropriate and amounts to a policy declaration of intended expropriation without compensation. For clarity, the Subject Lands are identifled as being located within a Neighbourhood area that is not Neighbourhood 27. As a result, as drafted, the NEPSP would require that the future Neighbourhood Plan for the Subject Lands and surrounding area accommodate for an affordable housing site. Since a municipality is not permitted to require a quantum of affordable housing units when lands are outside of a Protected Major Transit Station Area, a policy requirement that a quantum of land be conveyed for the purpose of building affordable housing is inappropriate, is not consistent with Provincial policy and should be removed. affordable housing. The affordable housing targets in the Secondary Plan refiect the targets approved by the Province through the Envision Durham Official Plan. However, targets themselves do not result in the provision of affordable housing. Market developments, on their own, lack the ability to provide affordable housing. As a result, the Secondary Plan includes policies requiring that land totaling 10.5 hectares (1.5 hectare per residential or mixed-use neighbourhood) be gratuitously conveyed to the Region of Durham, or other not-for-proflt housing provider, for the development of affordable, public, or non-proflt housing. Sustainable Building Measures Policies 11.B.52 and 11.B.53 provide the framework for how sustainable development practices are to be implemented. While we support the use of site and contextually appropriate sustainable development strategies, we are concerned that the policies as drafted will require implementation of strategies and technologies that exceed the minimum requirements of the Ontario Building Code, which is contrary to municipal authority as clarifled by Bill 17. We request that the sustainable development policies be considered in this context and not require Policy 11.B.52 are objectives that Council will aim to achieve but are not requirements for development. Policy 11.B.53 states it is expected that development will follow sustainable building and site design practices in alignment with the City’s Integrated Sustainable Design Standards (ISDS). The secondary plan does not contain a requirement for complete conformity with ISDS. Northeast Pickering Secondary Plan Comments Matrix 128 Landowner Comments Contact Comment Response adherence to the City’s Integrated Sustainable Design Standards or Green Development Standards. Extent of Natural Heritage System The NEPSP illustrates a Natural Heritage System (NHS) network based on natural heritage related background studies. This includes an area of NHS near the south boundary of the Subject Lands abutting Salem Road. It is good planning practice for the extent of NHS in the NEPSP to be informed by accurate and up to date information, where available. This will help to achieve accurate mapping and associated land use designations, ultimately avoiding the need for future Official Plan Amendments. To this point, the Northeast Pickering Landowners Group has provided the City with updated NHS mapping and background information, conflrming that the natural heritage / wetland area / woodlot abutting the Subject Lands is not signiflcant and therefore does not warrant inclusion as part of the NHS in the NEPSP. We submit that the extent of the NHS in the NEPSP should be updated as informed by the information provided by the Landowners Group. Should the extent of the NHS not be updated, this would require the need for costly supporting studies to be provided when development applications are advanced. It is our opinion that in the event the NHS limits cannot be updated, a policy mechanism should be included to permit reflnements to the NHS system limits without triggering an amendment to the Montrose on behalf of the City and GeoProcess on behalf of the Landowner Group along with the conservation authorities have held numerous meetings to address concerns of the Landowners Group. As well, Policy 11.B.6 clearly indicates that further reflnements of the Natural Heritage System will occur through the Neighbourhood Plans and any additions, deletions or reflnements will not require an amendment to the Plan. Northeast Pickering Secondary Plan Comments Matrix 129 Landowner Comments Contact Comment Response NEPSP, provided sufficient technical justiflcation is provided to the satisfaction of City Staff. This type of policy is common in many municipalities and allows for a more dynamic, responsive and time-sensitive review of site-speciflc NHS issues, led by qualifled staff and consultants, as opposed to making necessary/supportable NHS reflnements into a political issue. On behalf of our client, thank you for the opportunity to provide these comments. We trust that our comments will be considered as part of the review of the draft Secondary Plan and the further development of the Northeast Pickering Secondary Plan. Arcadis Professional Services on behalf of property owners of the lands municipally known as 4140 Kinsale Road Simon Yee Associate – Manager, Planning November 14, 2025 Letter Arcadis Professional Services (Canada) Inc. (“Arcadis”) is the land use planning consultant for the property owners of the lands municipally known as 4140 Kinsale Road (“subject site”) in Pickering. We have reviewed the City’s draft Northeast Pickering Secondary Plan (“NEPSP”) policies and schedules, and we attended the Statutory Public Meeting on November 10, 2025. We would like to offer our comments and suggestions for your consideration on behalf of the subject site’s owners. Northeast Pickering Secondary Plan Comments Matrix 130 Landowner Comments Contact Comment Response The subject site is located at the southwest corner of Seventh Concession Road and Kinsale Road, and adjacent to Highway 407 to the south. The lot area is approximately 100.25 acres (405,599.6 sqm.) with an approximate frontage of 400 metres along Seventh Concession Road and 900 metres along Kinsale Road. The site consists of largely wide open flelds for agricultural uses, a watercourse, and treed areas. Signiflcant treed areas in the north portion of the subject site (see Figure 1) were used as a tree nursery for over 30 years and speciflcally grow spruce trees. There are two existing structures on the site, with a driveway connecting to Kinsale Road on the east side. We do not agree with how the Natural Heritage System (“NHS”) is depicted on the Draft NEPSP Schedules 11B, I, III A, and III B, Section 11B Appendix B and Section 11B Appendix C, dated October 2025. Speciflcally, we do not agree with the NHS designation of lands within the subject site that were formerly The Montrose Team on behalf of the City and GeoProcess on behalf of the Landowner Group along with the conservation authorities have held numerous meetings to address concerns of the Landowners Group. As well, Policy 11.B.6 clearly indicates that further reflnements of the Natural Heritage System will occur through the Neighbourhood Plans and any additions, deletions or reflnements will not require an amendment to the Plan. Northeast Pickering Secondary Plan Comments Matrix 131 Landowner Comments Contact Comment Response proposed for Low Density and Medium Density Areas in the Preferred Land Use Concept from June 2025. See Figure 2 below for a comparison of how land uses were depicted on the subject site between land use plans from June 2025 and October 2025. Figure 2: Comparison between Draft NEPSP Land Use Concept (June 2025) and Draft NEPSP Land Use Plan (October 2025) Arcadis recently completed a preliminary natural heritage assessment and constraints analysis of the subject site which determined some lands depicted in the NHS may be appropriate for development. We suggest that the subject site areas previously proposed for Low Density and Medium Density areas in the preferred land use concept from June 2025 be reinstated in the current Draft NEPSP land use plan. We appreciate the City’s efforts throughout the secondary plan process, in particular, the City’s consultation efforts in Phase 2 of City staff have requested a copy of the preliminary natural heritage assessment and constraints analysis to inform the work being completed. As of December 16, 2025, a copy of this information has not been provided to the City. Northeast Pickering Secondary Plan Comments Matrix 132 Landowner Comments Contact Comment Response the project which developed a preferred land use plan though input from several stakeholders. Alternatively, we suggest the subject site areas currently used as a tree nursery be noted and hatched on the Draft NEPSP Schedules as areas “to be determined through future studies.” Given the limited opportunity for meaningful review and studies, this would provide the property owners, consultants, conservation authorities, and City staff more opportunity to further evaluate the lands to determine the appropriate limits of the NHS and not hinder the potential to supply more future residential homes on the subject site. Montrose on behalf of the City and GeoProcess on behalf of the Landowner Group along with the conservation authorities have held numerous meetings to address concerns of the Landowners Group. As well, Policy 11.B.6 clearly indicates that further reflnements of the Natural Heritage System will occur through the Neighbourhood Plans and any additions, deletions or reflnements will not require an amendment to the Plan. Dentons Canada LLP on behalf of Dorsay (Pickering) Limited Katarzyna Sliwa Partner November 12, 2025 Letter Official Plan Amendment Application OPA 25-003/P, North-East Pickering Secondary Plan Comments submitted on behalf of Dorsay (Pickering) Limited We are counsel to Dorsay (Pickering) Limited (“Dorsay”), the registered owner of lands located in the City of Pickering (the “City”), legally described in Schedule “A” and set out in the aerial photograph in Schedule “B” (the “Dorsay Lands”). As you are aware, Dorsay is a member of the North-East Pickering Landowners Group (the “NEPLOG”), which is comprised of the owners of lands within the North-East Pickering Secondary Plan Area (“Veraine”), and which includes the Dorsay Lands. For over 10 years, Dorsay – both on its own behalf and as a member of the NEPLOG – has been working collaboratively with the City on the development of Veraine, the Dorsay Lands, and the North-East Pickering Secondary Plan (the “Secondary Plan”). Dorsay wishes to express its appreciation to City Staff and the consulting team for the extensive collaboration, dialogue, and openness that have characterized this process to date. We acknowledge the signiflcant effort undertaken by City Staff to Northeast Pickering Secondary Plan Comments Matrix 133 Landowner Comments Contact Comment Response reflne the Secondary Plan and the City’s responsiveness to earlier comments submitted by the NEPLOG. Despite the positive progress to date, the most recent version of the Secondary Plan contains several policies that are of continued concern to Dorsay. As such, we are writing on behalf of Dorsay to provide comments on the most recent draft of the Secondary Plan to City Council following the Public Meeting that was held on November 10, 2025. Dorsay’s Comments on the Secondary Plan As context for Dorsay’s comments, we reiterate the importance of the Veraine Principles attached to this letter as Schedule “C”. On November 25, 2019, Council endorsed the Veraine Principles as the basis for the creation of the Secondary Plan and to guide the development of Veraine. The Veraine Principles envision a community that is Complete, Thriving, and Connected, emphasizing inclusivity, housing choice, sustainability, resilient design, and adaptable infrastructure. These principles continue to represent Council’s approved vision for Veraine and serve as the benchmark against which the Secondary Plan should be evaluated. Dorsay remains committed to the development of Veraine, including the Dorsay Lands, in accordance with the Veraine Principles. Overall, Dorsay remains concerned that the Secondary Plan does not fully implement the Veraine Principles, as outlined in greater detail below. While Dorsay appreciates the substantial progress made on the Secondary Plan, a number of policies remain more detailed and prescriptive than may be necessary at this stage in the planning process. In particular, certain residential, built-form, and land use policies could beneflt from additional fiexibility to better refiect the adaptive and innovative spirit of the Veraine Principles. Building on the Council endorsed principles, the secondary plan included a visionary exercise with stakeholders and the public. The Guiding Principles were revised to refiect the broader community vision for Northeast Pickering. Northeast Pickering Secondary Plan Comments Matrix 134 Landowner Comments Contact Comment Response Dorsay’s intent in submitting these comments is to work collaboratively with the City to ensure that the policies advance a shared vision for Veraine as a model complete community. One that is inclusive, sustainable, and refiective of the Council- endorsed Veraine framework. Neighbourhood Plan Preparation (Policy 11.B.70) Dorsay appreciates that the City has revised portions of this policy to refiect prior feedback from the NEPLOG. However, the revised policies still imply that Neighbourhood Plans may be City-led or collaboratively prepared. It is important that Policy 11.B.70(g) of the Secondary Plan clearly states that the Neighbourhood Plans can be prepared and funded by the landowners, working in collaboration with the City. This approach is consistent with Veraine Principle 3(a), which calls for adaptable and evolving infrastructure and planning processes. A clear, landowner-led, City-collaborative model will allow the planning process to move forward efficiently while maintaining transparency and public oversight. The City is continuing to investigate the options for preparing the Neighbourhood Plans. The current policy language accommodates the greatest diversity of options in the future. It is not the City’s wish to delay Council consideration of the draft secondary plan until a precise implementation option has been determined. Residential/Built-Form Policies (Policies 11.B.29–11.B.33) Dorsay acknowledges the City’s effort to clarify built-form policies, but continues to be concerned that they remain overly-prescriptive in detail and in scope. Rather than prescribing maximum heights, densities, and Gross Floor Areas within the Secondary Plan, Dorsay recommends that these details be reflned through the Neighbourhood Plans and ultimately regulated by the Zoning By-law. This reflnement would be consistent with Veraine Principles 1(a), 1(b), and 3(a), which emphasize inclusive, adaptable neighbourhoods and fiexible infrastructure capable of evolving over time. Veraine will be developed over more than 25 years, and the Secondary Plan must be fiexible enough to adapt to future needs and opportunities. The draft secondary plan provides clear guidance and fiexible policies that support the Neighbourhood Planning process. The Neighbourhood Planning approval process can accommodate amendments to the secondary plan policies and schedules if needed. Northeast Pickering Secondary Plan Comments Matrix 135 Landowner Comments Contact Comment Response In addition, the inclusion of collector road alignments within the Secondary Plan Land Use Schedule is inconsistent with Veraine Principles 2(e) and 3(c), which encourage integrated, multi-modal connections and the creative reuse of existing sideline roads into multi-use pathways. These alignments should instead be established through the Neighbourhood Plans, ensuring fiexibility and responsiveness to site conditions. The collector roads identifled serve a purpose of muli- modal network connectivity as set out in the Veraine principles. Sideline roads as multi-use pathways does not provide for the multi-modal connectivity. Affordable Housing (Policies 11.B.55–11.B.57) Dorsay supports the City’s goal of improving housing affordability and remains committed to collaborating on innovative delivery models to help achieve the City’s targets. However, policies that require the gratuitous conveyance of land to the City for affordable housing and the number of other community facilities being accommodated collectively create feasibility challenges that will limit the diversity and affordability of housing achievable within Veraine. This is beyond the City’s authority and cannot be lawfully implemented at any stage of the planning process. The Provincial Planning Statement requires Planning authorities to implement minimum targets for affordable housing. The affordable housing targets in the Secondary Plan refiect the targets approved by the Province through the Envision Durham Official Plan. However, targets themselves do not result in the provision of affordable housing. Market developments, on their own, lack the ability to provide affordable housing. As a result, the Secondary Plan includes policies requiring that land totaling 10.5 hectares (1.5 hectare per residential or mixed-use neighbourhood) be gratuitously conveyed to the Region of Durham, or other not-for-proflt housing provider, for the development of affordable, public, or non-proflt housing. Urban Schools and Community Co-Location (Policies 11.B.34– 11.B.39) The Veraine Principles strongly encourage integrated and efficient land use. Veraine Principle 3(c) speciflcally calls for the co- location of community uses to achieve resource-efficient and inclusive neighbourhoods. Dorsay recommends that the policies explicitly recognize and encourage urban-format schools and co-located community facilities (e.g., recreation, schools, parks, and stormwater). Policy 11.B.37 has been revised to require school boards to consider opportunities to integrate schools into mixed-use buildings. Policy 11.B.37 already requires co-locating and joint use of land for community facilities. A community centre is proposed south of Hwy 407. With the majority of population located north of Hwy 407, it is not logical to locate a sportsplex south of Hwy 407. Northeast Pickering Secondary Plan Comments Matrix 136 Landowner Comments Contact Comment Response Further, the Sportsplex should be relocated south of Highway 407, where automobile access would be more appropriate, or near a planned transit stop in the Regional Centre. At present, the Secondary Plan identifles a Sportsplex, community park, elementary school, neighbourhood park, and multiple road corridors within one parcel, representing approximately 30% of the developable area. This concentration of community uses places a disproportionate burden on that parcel, signiflcantly reducing the land available for housing, which will increase housing costs and limit the ability to provide a full range of housing types. Encouraging the co-location of community facilities and stormwater infrastructure, rather than separating them, would also improve land efficiency and help advance the City’s housing objectives. A coordinated and compact approach to co-locating these community uses would better align with the Veraine Principles and the shared vision for an efficient, connected, and multi-modal community. The Sportsplex has been moved and is now proposed to be located on the edge of the community along Westney Road which is an arterial road with while being in close proximity to the transit corridor. sportsplex within the Regional Centre is not transit supportive. Stormwater infrastructure is not show on the land use schedule so there is opportunity to co-locate community facilities with stormwater infrastructure at the Neighbourhood Plan stage. Cultural Heritage (Policies 11.B.58 & Section 11B Appendix A) Dorsay appreciates the City’s intent to recognize and protect heritage resources but remains concerned that several properties identifled for evaluation have already been demolished or not yet assessed. In addition, the term “cultural heritage landscapes” is undeflned and introduces ambiguity into future design stages. Dorsay requests that Appendix A be updated to remove sites which have not already been studied and that the deflnition of cultural heritage landscapes be clarifled. These reflnements would align with Veraine Principles 2(b) and 2(e), promoting thoughtful land stewardship and integrated planning. If some sites have been legally demolished with an approved demolition permit, they will be removed from the list. Appendix A is a list of potential cultural heritage resources that have yet to be evaluated to see if they should be protected. Being listed on Appendix A does not automatically require protection. The PPS requires cultural heritage landscapes to be conserved. A deflnition of cultural heritage landscape has been added to the OPA to refiect the deflnition in the PPS. Northeast Pickering Secondary Plan Comments Matrix 137 Landowner Comments Contact Comment Response Urban Boundary (Schedule 11B) As previously noted by the NEPLOG, the Secondary Plan boundary should be extended to include all white belt lands. The current limit, which stops east of Westney Road, leaves a remnant agricultural parcel that would be isolated and no longer viable for continued agricultural use. Extending the boundary would establish a more logical and cohesive community edge, consistent with Veraine Principle 1(d), which emphasizes integration with the surrounding area and sound, comprehensive planning. Conclusions and Next Steps Dorsay respectfully encourages the City to reflne the Secondary Plan to ensure closer alignment with the Council-approved Veraine Principles, focusing on fiexibility, collaboration, and efficient land use. These comments are intended to complement those submitted by Malone Given Parsons on behalf of the NEPLOG and to continue the constructive dialogue that has deflned this planning process. Dorsay remains committed to working collaboratively with the City to achieve a complete, transit-supportive, and connected community in North-East Pickering. We appreciate the City’s continued engagement and look forward to working together through the next stages of the planning process. Please ensure that Dorsay and the undersigned are provided with notice of any public meetings, open houses, reports to committee or Council, and any subsequent decisions under the Planning Act with respect to the Secondary Plan. The Secondary Plan only includes lands that have been brought into the Urban Boundary by Envision Durham. The landowners can always submit subsequent applications to bring additional land into the urban boundary and do the studies required by the Provincial Planning Statement. See responses above. Northeast Pickering Secondary Plan Comments Matrix 138 Landowner Comments Contact Comment Response Dorsay Development Corporation Amanda Santo November 27, 2025 Response Letter RE: Official Plan Amendment Application OPA 25-003/P - North- East Pickering Secondary Plan - Comments submitted on behalf of Dorsay (Pickering) Limited Thank you for your email dated November 17, 2025. Please flnd below responses to your questions. We are happy to meet at your convenience to discuss these and the other comments we submitted to the City. In the meantime, please let us know if you have any questions or require further clariflcation. AFFORDABLE HOUSING (POLICIES 11.B.55–11.B.57) Our comments intend to support the City in implementing the Provincial Policy Statement’s direction for efficient land use, compact urban form, and the creation of mixed-use, mixed- income, walkable communities. Typical greenfleld development patterns often consume more land than necessary, resulting in lower densities, higher servicing costs, and reduced housing affordability. Our recommendations aim to reflne how new suburban communities are planned, use land more effectively, minimize unnecessary land consumption, and ensure that community facilities, housing, parks, and infrastructure are integrated to support complete community objectives. By encouraging compact built form, co-located community uses, and efficient block planning, Veraine can better achieve the PPS vision of a sustainable, multi-modal, and inclusive community while also enabling a broader range of housing options. 1. Describe how affordable housing, as deflned by CMHC, will be achieved in the secondary plan without the gratuitous conveyance of land to the City. Affordable housing, under CMHC’s deflnition (housing costs <30% of household income), can be achieved in Veraine While possible, market solutions to affordable housing have not proven achievable. There is no mechanism Northeast Pickering Secondary Plan Comments Matrix 139 Landowner Comments Contact Comment Response without gratuitous land conveyance by enabling the built forms and programs that naturally support lower per-unit costs, including mid-rise, mixed-use, and purpose-built rental housing, smaller unit typologies, and compact blocks that reduce the land cost component. These formats align with CMHC and federal flnancing tools, which support attainable rents without requiring City-owned land. Affordability can also be delivered through City-wide mechanisms such as inclusionary zoning, DC or tax incentives, and federal/provincial funding, or partnership opportunities with not-for-proflt housing (such as Options for Homes or Habitat for Humanity). Gratuitous land conveyances still ultimately require substantial government subsidies to build and maintain affordable housing. for development charge rebates to be passed down to purchasers. Home prices are based on the regional market not local costs. City wide inclusionary zoning is not permitted. Inclusionary zoning can only be applied to Major Transit Station Areas (MTSA). 2. Identify which community facilities need to be eliminated to remove the feasibility challenges At 2795 Seventh Concession Road, our concern is not with the community uses themselves, but with the cumulative land area they occupy. That being an elementary school, a neighbourhood park, a sportsplex, and a community park all situated on one parcel. Taken together, these uses signiflcantly reduce the developable land base needed to achieve the planned residential densities and associated housing targets, including affordable units. To address this, the Secondary Plan should focus on evenly distributing and right-sizing these community uses. Multiple stand-alone community facilities can be combined into a single multi-use community hub. Right-sizing and co- locating these uses keeps them from taking up more land than necessary. When too many community facilities are conveyed in large, stand-alone forms, the developable land base is reduced, which increases the cost of the remaining land and makes it harder to deliver housing that is affordable. The Sportsplex has been moved further west along Westney Raod. The flnal location of community facilities will be determined through the Neighbourhood Plans where combining community facilities into a single multi-use community hub can be considered. A community centre is proposed south of Hwy 407. With the majority of population located north of Hwy 407, it is not logical to locate a sportsplex south of Hwy 407. Northeast Pickering Secondary Plan Comments Matrix 140 Landowner Comments Contact Comment Response With respect to the Rec Complex/Sportsplex, Policy 11.B.36.a.iii notes that such a facility should be located near transit and will require signiflcant surface parking. This type of car-oriented, high-parking-demand facility is better situated either within the Regional Centre, where immediate access to higher-order transit and below-grade shared structured parking can be achieved, or south of Highway 407, where auto-dependent uses are more appropriate. Situating the Rec Complex on 2795 Seventh Concession Road consumes a disproportionate amount of land on one parcel and confiicts with the policy direction for transit integration and efficient land use. The Sportsplex has been moved and is now proposed to be located on the edge of the community along Westney Road which is an arterial road with while being in close proximity to the transit corridor. sportsplex within the Regional Centre is not transit supportive. URBAN SCHOOLS AND COMMUNITY CO-LOCATION (POLICIES 11.B.34–11.B.39) 1. Deflne what is meant by “urban-format schools”. In the context of Veraine, urban-format schools are to be compact, multi-storey schools integrated into buildings, multi- family buildings designed to flt within a walkable, higher- density urban block structure. This approach is consistent with the City of Toronto’s urban school model, which emphasizes smaller sites, multi-storey buildings, shared open spaces, and reduced on-site parking to serve evolving urban communities. Key characteristics include: • 3–4 storey, street-oriented buildings with active frontages, rather than single-storey schools set behind large parking lots. • Smaller sites achieved through shared/structured parking, reduced on-site playflelds, and efficient building footprints. • Integration with surrounding uses, including co-location with parks and community facilities, ground-fioor community- accessible spaces (e.g., child care), and strong pedestrian/cycling/transit connections. • Potential for vertical or podium-integrated schools, consistent with existing urban schools in Toronto and other cities. Policy 11.B.37 has been revised to require school boards to consider opportunities to integrate schools into mixed-use buildings. Northeast Pickering Secondary Plan Comments Matrix 141 Landowner Comments Contact Comment Response Overall, urban-format schools use land more efficiently, support co-location opportunities, and align with the Secondary Plan’s goals for compact, complete, walkable communities, while making the most effective use of limited land. There are several successful examples of this school model in Toronto, the GTA, and internationally, and we would be happy to walk through these precedents with staff at a future meeting. 2. Policy 11.B.36 already contains multiple references to co- location. Provide more detail. We acknowledge that Policy 11.B.36 encourages co-location; however, our comment is more so focused on the stormwater management facilities and meant to reinforce the importance of explicitly applying this approach where community facilities interface with the Natural Heritage System (NHS) buffers, as outlined in Policy 11.B.38. Given that several community facilities in Veraine, particularly parks and the elementary school adjacent to NHS features, are located beside environmental buffers; co- location and compact design are essential to ensure these facilities use land efficiently. Policies 11.B.36 and 11.B.37 already support compact, multi-use community facilities. Our recommendation is simply to make explicit that: • Where community facilities are adjacent to NHS buffers, portions of the buffer setback may be incorporated into open space blocks, consistent with Policy 11.B.38, rather than duplicating open space on separate school or park blocks. • Land requirements should be smaller when facilities are co- located, instead of each use being planned as a stand-alone block with its own parking, servicing, and dedicated open space. Vegetation Protection Zones (VPZ) are buffer areas adjacent to key natural heritage features or key hydrologic features that are intended to protect the feature and its ecological function from adjacent land use impacts. Based on the conclusions of appropriate studies, VPZs may be reduced in width. But at no time, will development be permitted within a VPZ. The NHS developed through the Scoped Subwatershed Study incorporates a standard 30 m buffer as a starting point, which also factors in the mandated buffer requirements for Redside Dace (i.e., Northeast Pickering Secondary Plan Comments Matrix 142 Landowner Comments Contact Comment Response • This direction also supports the intent of our stormwater management comments below, where we recommend integrating SWM features within parks and open spaces. Co-location with parks ensures these features do not consume additional developable land, and it aligns with the Plan’s compact, resource-efficient community design objectives. meander belt plus 30 m) in certain locations. Adjustments to buffers or VPZs can be proposed for consideration at the MESP stage and should be supported through proper scientiflc analysis through an EIS. 3. Describe what is meant by “the co-location of community facilities and stormwater infrastructure Our reference to co-locating community facilities with stormwater infrastructure directly relates to Policy 11.B.54(f), which states that integrating stormwater management facilities with public spaces is permitted “at Council’s discretion.” Our concern is that leaving this entirely discretionary creates uncertainty and may result in overly large, stand-alone stormwater blocks, contrary to the Secondary Plan’s goals for compact, efficient land use. Furthermore, integration and co-location will take considerable planning and design effort and so leaving the decision to the end provides risk and uncertainty that could dissuade applicants from even considering it. To clarify our intent: we recommend the policies explicitly support stormwater management approaches that can be integrated into parks, open spaces, and community facilities, including: • Dry ponds within parks that function as playflelds or open lawns during normal conditions Similar to that of the Gallanough Park in Thornhill, and Peace Park in Markham. • LID features such as bioswales, rain gardens, permeable play areas, or subsurface storage under parkland; and, • Shared grading and open-space design that accommodates minor overland fiow routes within parks and school yards. Thank you again for taking the time to review and respond to these components of our submission. We genuinely appreciate the City’s thoughtful engagement. We would also welcome the opportunity Several Southern Ontario jurisdictions have considered and implemented SWM in municipal parks; these details and other will be addressed through the MESP and future applications. The types and locations of stormwater management facilities will be addressed through the MESP and future supporting studies. See comments above. Northeast Pickering Secondary Plan Comments Matrix 143 Landowner Comments Contact Comment Response to continue the dialogue on our other comments, particularly those relating to the neighbourhood design process and the fiexibility needed in the built-form policies, which we feel are important to achieving the shared objectives for a complete, efficient, and well-designed community. We look forward to the continued dialogue and collaboration with staff. Malone Given Parsons on behalf of Fieldgate Developments 2750 7th Concession Road and 3430 7th Concession Road Matthew Cory Principal, Planner November 17, 2025 Letter In addition to the comments provided by the NEPLOG, we also provide the following comments, on behalf of Fieldgate, for consideration regarding the Community Node policies and Natural Heritage System (“NHS”) reflnement occurring as part of the Northeast Pickering Secondary Plan process. As shown in Figure 1 and Figure 2 below, the lands owned by Fieldgate contain a signiflcant portion of land designated as NHS under Schedule 11B - Northeast Pickering Secondary Plan Land Use Schedule that was presented at the November 10th meeting. Figure 1: Property Overlay of 2750 7th Concession Road on Schedule 11B - Northeast Pickering Secondary Plan Land Use Schedule Northeast Pickering Secondary Plan Comments Matrix 144 Landowner Comments Contact Comment Response Figure 2: Property Overlay of 3430 7th Concession Road on Schedule 11B - Northeast Pickering Secondary Plan Land Use Schedule Northeast Pickering Secondary Plan Comments Matrix 145 Landowner Comments Contact Comment Response Natural Heritage System Reflnements The NEPLOG consultants have undertaken detailed environmental work to evaluate and delineate the boundaries of the NHS at a Secondary Plan level and through coordination with Montrose on the City of Pickering’s behalf, it has been recognized that further studies are required to accurately delineate the Natural Heritage System within North East Pickering. In recognition of this, Environmental Impact Studies are to be completed through the Neighborhood Plan process. We would like to see policies in the Secondary Plan afford us the opportunity to complete these studies without predetermination of the Natural Heritage System boundaries at this stage. From a policy perspective, we would like to suggest the following wording as developed by SGL Planning & Design Inc. for the Brooklin Community Secondary Plan OPA: The intent of Policy 11.B.6 is similar to the quoted Brooklin policy. Nonetheless, Policy 11.B.6 a) and b) have been revised to closely match the Brooklin policy. Northeast Pickering Secondary Plan Comments Matrix 146 Landowner Comments Contact Comment Response “The extent and boundary of the Natural Heritage System is conceptual. The exact boundary shall be determined through an Environmental Impact Study (EIS) and feature staking to the satisfaction of the Municipality in consultation with the Conservation Authority. The boundary of the Natural Heritage System may be reflned with additions and deletions without an amendment to the Plan.” Community Node Policy Reflnements Currently, the policies surrounding the Community Nodes require a mix of commercial and residential uses within the same building or on the same lot with a minimum density of 80 ppl/ha with mixed-use and apartment buildings permitted. Based on current market conditions, as well as the location of the Community Nodes, we propose building more fiexibility into the policies for these nodes to ensure that the intent of the planned community functions can be achieved in concert with the build out of the low density areas surrounding them while meeting the demands of the market. The elements of a complete community are intended to take time to fully develop and should not be unduly infiuenced by short-term trends and market demands. To achieve this goal, we propose allowing a mix of commercial and residential uses within the node to allow for commercial blocks surrounded by medium to higher density developments such as stacked townhouses and townhouse buildings along with a slightly lower minimum density of 65 ppl/ha. We believe that this will encourage timely development of the Community Nodes and provide a pathway to developing the major blocks that encourages density for residential units but doesn’t require high rise condo or apartment development. We thank you again for the opportunity to provide these comments and actively participate in the planning of this exciting new community in Pickering. We look forward to continuing to work collaboratively with City Staff and we trust you will consider our comments as part of the ongoing process. Please do not To accommodate transition within the Community Node to the surrounding areas of lower density, the Community Node policies have been revised to permit a limited amount of stacked townhouse dwellings within Community Nodes, in specifled locations. Northeast Pickering Secondary Plan Comments Matrix 147 Landowner Comments Contact Comment Response hesitate to contact the undersigned to discuss these materials and the contents of this letter. Malone Given Parsons on behalf of the North- East Pickering Landowners Group Matthew Cory Principal, Planner November 17, 2025 Letter The NEPLOG have been active participants in the Northeast Pickering Secondary Plan process since 2003 and we are grateful for the ongoing opportunities to participate in the planning of this exciting new community. On September 17th, 2025, we provided written preliminary comments on the City’s draft secondary plan and associated schedules (“Draft SP”). On October 3rd, 2025, following further meetings with City staff regarding the overall Secondary Plan structure and policy direction, a letter summarizing those comments along with an attached marked-up land use plan was provided to the City. The October 3rd letter along with previous submissions that support the comments therein, are provided in Attachment 2 to this letter. The marked-up land use plan is provided as Attachment 3 to this letter. The NEPLOG continues to fully support the comments provided in the October 3rd letter and marked-up land use plan and we request that the City review and consider the comments provided in the attached prior to flnalization of the Draft SP. For clarity, the following summarizes the most fundamental comments from the NEPLOG in their detailed review of the Draft SP presented at the November 10th public meeting: The City and its consultants provided responses to the Landowner Groups September 16th and October 3rd letters in the November 3rd Response Matrix presented at the Statutory Public Meeting. 1. Land Use Structure: The Draft SP should be based on a generalized land use structure plan (e.g. only Community Area, Mixed Use Area, and Employment Area) instead of the detailed high, medium, and low density residential designations currently proposed on the land use plan. Further, the policies of each of these designations are too detailed at this stage, with densities, development criteria, and heights and numeric values that are too restrictive for a secondary plan at this stage. These detailed policies, as well as the extent and location of each of these designations, should be determined through the Neighbourhood Plans process. As an example, the policies of the secondary plan should identify that requirements for non-residential gross The level of detail proposed (both the structure and policies) is very typical of a secondary plan and is needed to set the framework for more detailed planning. It is also the framework followed in other parts of the City. Nonetheless the land use schedules have been made more conceptual with symbols for all community facilities, amorphous conflgurations of Community Nodes and less deflnitive boundaries between Low, Medium and High Density designations. This will provide greater fiexibility for the Neighbourhood Plans to delineate the various land use designations. The policies allow Neighbourhood plans to identify locations for the clustering of office, retail Northeast Pickering Secondary Plan Comments Matrix 148 Landowner Comments Contact Comment Response fioor area in mixed use areas or nodes, but should not require that a mix of uses occur in a building or on a property. Rather, the plan should require that a minimum non-residential gross fioor area be provided within the land use designation, and the Neighbourhood Plans identify how the mix of uses will be accomplished. and service commercial development along Mixed Corridors rather than on each property. 2. Neighbourhood Plans and MESP Proponents: Related to 1) above, the NEPLOG, as the key stakeholders of development in the secondary plan area, should be allowed to be the proponents of both the Neighbourhood Plans and the MESP. There are numerous examples within the GTA of secondary plans, tertiary (or block) plans, and MESPs that are led by, funded by, and initiated by the private landowners, including: a. City of Markham Future Urban Area Secondary Plans (e.g. Angus Glen, Berczy Glen, and Robinson Glen) and associated MESPs; b. City of Vaughan Block Plans (e.g. Block 41); c. Town of Caledon Secondary Plans and Tertiary Plans (Mayfleld Tullamore, Bolton, etc.). Such work would have to proceed in accordance with terms of reference satisfactory to the City, and would be subject to City review and a recommendation report. We request that the City not include policy as part of the Secondary Plan specifying who can undertake Neighbourhood Plans and MESPs to allow for this fiexibility in the future. Alternatively, the City could include a policy that allows either developers or the City to undertake such work. The policies presented at the Statutory Public Meeting clarify that the Neighbourhood Plans and MESP will be prepared collaboratively by the City and landowners. The City is continuing to investigate the options for preparing the Neighbourhood Plans. The current policy language accommodates the greatest diversity of options in the future. It is not the City’s wish to delay Council consideration of the draft secondary plan until a precise implementation option has been determined. 3. Natural Heritage System: The NEPLOG consultants have undertaken detailed environmental work to evaluate and delineate the boundaries of the NHS at a Secondary Plan level, and through coordination with Montrose on the City of Pickering’s behalf, it has been recognized that further studies are required to accurately delineate the Natural Heritage System within Policy 11.B.6 is quite clear that further reflnements to the Natural Heritage System can occur without requiring an amendment to this Plan. Further changes have been made to that policy at the request of Fieldgate. Northeast Pickering Secondary Plan Comments Matrix 149 Landowner Comments Contact Comment Response North East Pickering. Further environmental studies are expected to be completed through the neighbourhood plan processes that will accurately delineate the Natural Heritage System within North East Pickering. As such, we request that policies be included in the Secondary Plan to allow for the completion of these studies and to accurately determine the Natural Heritage System without predetermining its boundaries at this stage. In addition to the comments previously provided in the attached letters and highlighted above, the NEPLOG provides the following new comment: 4. Minimum Residential Density in Neighbourhood 29: Policy 11.B.29 of the Northeast Pickering Draft Secondary Plan policies presented at the November 10th Statutory Public Meeting states that City Council shall permit a minimum residential density of 25 units per net hectare and a maximum residential density of 40 units per net hectare within low density areas. This is an increase from Table 9 of Chapter 3 of the Pickering Official Plan which states that the permitted net residential density of low-density areas in urban residential areas is a minimum of 0 units per net hectare and maximum of 30 units per net hectare. It should also be noted that Neighborhood 29 within the Northeast Pickering Secondary Plan abuts the rural settlement of Greenwood and Area. As such, to support appropriate transitions and minimize any potential confiicts between these areas, we request that the City reduce the minimum residential net density of 25 units per net hectare to 20 units per net hectare within Neighbourhood 29. In the pursuit of providing clear and constructive input, we would be happy to meet with City staff anytime prior to the flnalization of This is a reasonable request. To accommodate appropriate transition from new development to the hamlet of Greenwood, policies have been provided to permit reduced residential densities in those speciflc locations. Northeast Pickering Secondary Plan Comments Matrix 150 Landowner Comments Contact Comment Response the Draft SP. We encourage City staff to contact the undersigned to further discuss the comment contained herein or, if preferable, we can arrange a meeting time to further explore the provided comments. We thank you again for the opportunity to provide these comments and actively participate in the planning of this exciting new community. We look forward to continuing to work collaboratively with City Staff and we trust you will consider our comments provided as part of the ongoing secondary plan process. We reserve the right to make additional comments pending further work being completed through the Secondary Plan process. Northeast Pickering Secondary Plan Comments Matrix 151 Malone Given Parsons on behalf of the North- East Pickering Landowners Group Attachment 3 • The collector road south of 8th, between Sidelines 6 and 7, is intended as a multi-use path along the existing sideline and should be removed as a collector road. • The distribution of community uses (parks, schools, community centres, etc.) is also inconsistent and disproportionately concentrated in the northwest. There appear to be too many schools for the proposed population (in the absence of the City's data used to generate this plan). e.g. there are 3 high schools north of 7th Concession alone. • Lands west of Westney Road should be included within the SP boundary and urban boundary. It is not good planning to leave a remnant sliver of land between the urban boundary and the Greenbelt Plan that is not conducive to agricultural uses. These lands should be designated for urban uses consistent with the east side of Westney Road. • Consider the depth/size of this Community Node. Given its proximity to the Lake Ridge corridor and potential future higher order transit, it may be beneflcial to have a deeper Community Node connected to the Mixed Use Corridor along the transit line/Columbus Road • The location of the Recreation Complex and adjacent community park is disconnected from the Regional Centre by NHS lands and does not adequately serve the community. These should be relocated to a more central location around 7th Concession and Salem. The Plan shown in Attachment 3 is an older outdated copy of the land use schedule. It is not a multi-use path in the land use schedule. It is a collector road that is necessary to provide network connection through this large residential area which does not have access to Westney Road due to the Greenbelt. The number of schools are based on the pupil yield rates for both the public and separate schools. One of the three secondary schools is for the separate school board, and they requested their one secondary school be located north of Hwy 407. The other two secondary schools are for the public school board and based on the population north of Hwy 407, two secondary schools are required. The Secondary Plan only includes lands that have been brought into the Urban Boundary by Envision Durham. The landowners can always submit subsequent applications to bring additional land into the urban boundary and do the studies required by the Provincial Planning Statement. The Community Node was revised in the version of the Secondary Plan presented at the Statutory Public Meeting to extend to the Mixed Corridor. The Community Nodes are shown conceptually and will be reflned through the Neighbourhood Plans. The Recreational complex is located on the transit corridor and within less than a 10 minute walk of the entirety of the Regional Centre. Not necessary as all transit and transportation facilities are shown on Schedule II. Northeast Pickering Secondary Plan Comments Matrix 152 • Transit line should be included on this map consistent with the transportation map. • The Mixed Use Corridor should be wider and larger to allow for fiexibility of uses and development. • The gateway at Westney and Columbus should be designated as a community node or mixed-use. • The Regional Centre should be located farther north, around Salem and 7th Concession - Locating the Regional Centre at the interchange is not urban. That location should be designated for employment. • A strip of Business Area should be located between the Mixed Use Corridor and the Employment Area of sufficient depth to provide a buffer between the two uses • The plan is over-prescriptive of roads. Collector roads north of the 407 are unnecessary and should be determined through neighbourhood planning • The proposed north south arterial road crossing the 407 is not needed from a transportation perspective and unnecessarily encumbers surrounding lands. • The east-west collector road south of the 407 connecting at Westney Road is not feasible. • Employment areas south of Highway 407 should extend from Salem to Sideline Road 4 to better accommodate employment uses, concentrating them south of the 407. • The City should consider locating the Business Areas predominantly to the north of Hwy 407 and the Prestige Employment Areas predominantly to the south of Hwy 407. This would allow for proper transition between the Hwy 407 corridor and the Mixed Use Corridor. The Mixed Use Corridor is conceptual and is to detailed in the Neighbourhood Plans. It is designated as a Mixed Corridor in the version presented at the Statutory Public Meeting. The version provided at the Statutory Public Meeting does show the Regional Centre extending north of 7th Concession. The Business Area designation provides for uses that are auto-centric including hotels, large-format retail, offices and vehicle sales amongst others. These uses are best located along arterial roads, in highly visible and accessible locations, and not along local roads. In response to BA’s comments on behalf of the landowners, this road was changed to a collector road. This road connection was removed in the version of the Secondary Plan presented at the Statutory Public Meeting. Employment areas along both sides of Highway 407 were identifled as preferred arrangement by Parcel Economics. See previous comment on the most appropriate locations for the Business Areas designation. Northeast Pickering Secondary Plan Comments Matrix 153 • Consider adding a General Employment designation to the SP that would permit a wider range of heavy industrial uses to attract employment and jobs to NEP. In particular, this landowner would like to see their lands designated General Employment, and maintain the outdoor storage policies we have suggested in the SP text. • The NHS boundaries should refiect the NEPLOG's boundaries on the participating owners’ lands (e.g. these irrigation ponds should be removed). See comments on draft policies for further detail. • Consider designating the area along Highway 7 as Business Area in order to allow transition to residential uses to the south and in Greenwood. Outdoor storage has been added as a permitted use in the Secondary Plan presented at the Statutory Public Meeting. Numerous meetings have been held with the Landowners’ natural heritage consultant. The water features were removed and added to Appendix C with agreed upon wording added to11.B.69 which was contained in the version presented to the Statutory Public Meeting. The land use plan already contains sufficient lands designated for Business Area purposes. No further lands are required. Northeast Pickering Secondary Plan Comments Matrix 154 Landowner Comments Contact Comment Response Grant Morris Associates Ltd. on behalf of Lamont Estates (Lamont Wiltshire) 3580 Audley Road Grant Moris Project Planning and Development Consultant November 17, 2025 Letter We are in receipt of a copy of the North East Pickering Secondary Plan which shows what appears to be a small low density area, surrounded by a fairly large Natural Heritage System on the 16-acre lands municipally known as 3580 Audley Road, owned by Lamont Estates (Lamont Wiltshire). The pre-consultation minutes refer to the development of a 5-lot estate development by Plan of Subdivision. In keeping with the pre- consultation minutes, a preliminary report was sent to CLOCA on July, 2022, for comments on the proposal, which was located in and partly adjacent to the Hamlet of Kinsale (Pickering). STUDIES UNDERTAKEN In support of this report for the 5-lot estate development, the following studies were undertaken: 1. Flood Plain Analysis for Urfe Creek. 2. A traffic Analysis which supports the location of a new access road with an internal emergency road loop which was supported by City of Pickering Transportation Staff. 3. A detailed Arborist Report with the existing trees on the property identifled and surveyed. The report noted that a minimum amount of trees will be removed, save and except the Hawthorn and Buck Hom trees (which are invasive) many of which will be removed to make way for the development. 4. A preliminary EIS Study which addressed the vegetation communities on the property and the impact of the proposed development on these communities and the flsh and flsh habitat. 5. A new engineering design to relocate the new road crossing and its impact, if any, on the flsh and flsh habitat of Lynd Creek. 6. A Geotechnical Study. 7. A Hydrogeological Study. 8. An Environmental Noise Study. 9. An Agricultural Assessment Northeast Pickering Secondary Plan Comments Matrix 155 Landowner Comments Contact Comment Response 10. Copy of Aerial Plan of 3580 Audley Road is included as Schedule A. 11. A 5-lot Estate Plan of Subdivision showing on Lot 2 an existing estate house on 3-acres. (See letter to Paul Wirch, dated November 24, 2024 included as Schedule B. ENVISION DURHAM Overtures to Envision Durham resulted in the 3580 Audley Road, the subject property, being recognized for development. It also recognized a Natural Heritage Feature on the property and left it up to the City of Pickering to deflne the extent of the Natural Heritage Feature. This was clearly shown on the Arborist Report and the EIS to be concentrated along the banks of Urfe Creek and on Block 5, the Green Belt Area. With development of Lot 2, we note that much of the property was cleared. It should also be noted that the entire 16 acres of the property originally consisted of farm land for many years and much of the current vegetation was the result of bird droppings. Hence the presence of invasive species. A copy of Envision Durham designating 3580 Audley Road for development also included as Schedule B. MEETING WITH STAFF OF PICKERING Grant Morris representing Lamont Estates met with Pickering Staff who were in the early stages of preparing the North East Pickering Secondary Plan. At that meeting Staff suggested since full municipal services were envisioned for the Secondary Plan. Consideration should be given to developing the subject site on smaller serviced lots. Although my client had spent over $300,000.00 preparing for the 5- lot estate subdivision, he nonetheless agreed with Staff to revise his draft plan of subdivision with smaller lots on full municipal services. This required updating the majority of costly studies Northeast Pickering Secondary Plan Comments Matrix 156 Landowner Comments Contact Comment Response undertaken to date. A draft of the revised plan of subdivision which was sent to Staff is included as Schedule C. Given the above, we are surprised that a large area of the property is designated as Natural Heritage System, particularly in areas where there is no connectivity. REQUEST FOR MEETING WITH STAFF Given the above, we respectfully ask that a meeting be set up with Staff to resolve this issue and the timing of the development to my client's satisfaction. If no reasonable changes are made, we will have no choice but to appeal the matter to the Ontario Lands Tribunal. We are available to meet at your convenience. We will await the Planning Committee's recommendations and Council's decision before taking further action. In this respect, we ask to be notifled, in writing, of their recommendations and decision. The natural heritage system has been determined through the Subwatershed Study, but the policies of the Secondary Plan permit further reflnement of the Natural Heritage System through the preparation of Neighbourhood Plans and the Master Environmental Servicing Plan. Any additions, deletions or reflnements will not require an amendment to the Secondary Plan. Innovative Planning Solutions for Ranji Gupta Ltd. 0 Highway 7 November 27, 2025 Letter SITE DESCRIPTION: Innovative Planning Solutions Inc. (IPS) is the planning consultant for Rajni Gupta Ltd., the owner of the lands located on the south side of Highway 7 and west of Westney Road in the City of Pickering (the “Subject Lands”). The Subject Lands do not currently have a municipal address and are legally described as: The property comprises approximately 9.35 acres (407,844 square feet) of vacant land with frontage along Highway 7 (Appendix 1). The subject parcel is irregular in shape. The lands have an approximate frontage of 611 feet along Highway 7 and a depth of approximately 1117 feet along Westney Road North. The property is currently vacant. Northeast Pickering Secondary Plan Comments Matrix 157 Landowner Comments Contact Comment Response INTRODUCTION: On June 9, 2025, Pickering Council endorsed the Northeast Pickering Secondary Plan Use Concepts and Preferred Land Use Report prepared by SGL Planning & Design Inc. (SGL), dated May 2025. Council directed SGL and City staff to review the comments received on the report and to prepare a Proposed Plan for consideration at a statutory public meeting, which was held on November 10, 2025. This letter is a response to the Report and Draft Secondary plan with respect to the Subject lands. BACKGROUND: The landowner has been actively monitoring the City’s Official Plan Review (OPR) and the Northeast Pickering Secondary Plan (NEPSP) process and intends to continue engaging and providing input throughout these exercises. This correspondence constitutes a formal submission in response to the Northeast Pickering Secondary Plan Land Use Concepts and Preferred Land Use Report and is provided for consideration by City staff and SGL in the preparation of the Proposed Plan which was presented at the statutory public meeting held on November 10, 2025. COMMENT ON SCHEDULES OF SECONDARY PLAN: Land Use Designation and Proposed Redesignation: According to Schedule 11B – Land Use Schedule (Appendix 2), the draft Secondary Plan designates the Subject Lands as Low Density Areas. In addition, our client also owns the corner property located at the intersection of Westney Road and Highway 7, which is designated as a Community Node. Our client is proposing a 100% rental residential development on the corner property. Extending a similar high-density rental residential use to the Subject Lands would maintain continuity and integration of land uses along the Highway 7 corridor. Given the Subject Lands’ frontage on Highway 7, an arterial roadway, the introduction of a mid-rise, transit- supportive rental building Northeast Pickering Secondary Plan Comments Matrix 158 Landowner Comments Contact Comment Response represents a logical and compatible extension of the built form and urban structure envisioned for the Community Node area. Accordingly, we respectfully request that the Subject Lands be redesignated from “Low Density Area” to “Community Node” to support a cohesive, transit-oriented development pattern along the Highway 7 frontage and to better align with the City’s objectives for intensiflcation and housing diversity. The proposed Community Node Area designation permits a maximum density of 140 units per hectare (uph), which supports a mid-rise building form. This built form provides a logical transition to the Low Density Area designation located to the south. The proposed density and height would help achieve a balanced urban structure, promote housing diversity, and reinforce the City’s vision for a transit-supportive and complete community along the Highway 7 corridor. Environmental Considerations: As shown on Schedule 3 – Resource Management, there are no natural heritage or environmental features identifled on the Subject Lands. It is understood, however, that environmental features exist on adjacent lands. A detailed Environmental Impact Study (EIS) will be undertaken to conflrm the extent of developable area and to establish appropriate buffer zones from any adjacent natural features. The Subject Lands themselves are free of environmental constraints, as illustrated in Appendix 3, and can be developed in a manner that ensures environmental protection and compatibility with surrounding natural areas. COMMENT ON POLICIES OF SECONDARY PLAN: Section 11.1.B.65 notes that: “a) shall require certain benefitting landowners within the Secondary Plan Area to enter into an agreement or agreements amongst themselves to address the distribution of all costs of development including those which may The Community Node designations are conceptually illustrated on the land use schedule. The Neighbourhood Plans will further deflne the limits of the Community Node. However, we have expanded the conceptual designation slightly to the west. Northeast Pickering Secondary Plan Comments Matrix 159 Landowner Comments Contact Comment Response not be recoverable by the Municipality under the Development Charges Act, 1997, or any successor legislation, particularly the provision of community and infrastructure facilities such as parks, roads, road improvements, external services, storm water management facilities, public/private utilities and schools; b) to implement subsection a) above, may include conditions of Draft Plan Approval that require the benefitting landowners to enter into agreements with other benefitting landowners with respect to the provision of servicing and to require all applications to provide a letter of good standing from the group trustee prior to registration of the application(s). If a benefitting landowner chooses not to enter into such agreements, no development shall be permitted until it has been demonstrated that the benefitting landowner has entered into required agreements with other affected landowners with respect to the provision of services and other infrastructure; and c) shall require a Master Parkland Agreement be entered into between the benefitting landowners and the City prior to approval of the first draft plan of subdivision or site plan and which sets out the size, general location and timing of parks to be dedicated to the City under the Planning Act requirements and sets out the size and location of additional parkland to be purchased by the Municipality and timing of that purchase”. We suggest following additions to Policy 11.1.B.65 (a) proposed Reflned Policy (IPS Suggested Revisions – Changes in Bold, red and italicized ) a) City Council shall require benefltting landowners within the Secondary Plan Area to enter into one or more agreements to equitably distribute the costs of development based on land area, servicing needs, and proportionate beneflt, including those not recoverable under the Development Charges Act, 1997 or any successor legislation. Such costs include, but are not limited to, community and infrastructure facilities such as parks, We agree to add “equitably distribute” but on what basis is up to the Landowners in their agreement. Northeast Pickering Secondary Plan Comments Matrix 160 Landowner Comments Contact Comment Response roads, external services, storm-water management facilities, public and private utilities, and schools. Rationale behind this: The proposed addition of the phrase “equitably distribute the costs of development based on land area, servicing needs, and proportionate beneflt” refiects standard planning and infrastructure-cost principles that ensure fairness, transparency, and practical implementation across a multi-owner Secondary Plan area. From a planning perspective, the purpose of Policy 11.B.65(a) is to ensure that all benefltting landowners contribute appropriately to the cost of shared infrastructure and community facilities that enable development. However, in practice, landholdings within the Northeast Pickering Secondary Plan vary signiflcantly in size, frontage, access, environmental features, and degree of beneflt from planned works such as roads, stormwater facilities, and utilities. Applying a single, uniform approach can create disproportionate burdens for smaller or less- benefltted parcels. By tying cost allocation to land area, servicing needs, and direct beneflt, the policy: • Implements a beneflt-based cost-sharing model, consistent with good planning and engineering practice, where owners pay in proportion to how much they beneflt from shared infrastructure. • Promotes fairness and equity among diverse ownership groups, particularly smaller landowners who may not require or directly beneflt from all planned works. • Supports efficient and timely development, as owners can demonstrate good standing by posting security or prepaying their fair share, rather than waiting for a large multiparty agreement to be executed. • Enhances policy transparency and defensibility, as cost apportionment is linked to measurable planning metrics such as frontage, area, or equivalent residential units (ERUs). Northeast Pickering Secondary Plan Comments Matrix 161 Landowner Comments Contact Comment Response • Aligns with the intent of the Provincial Planning Statement, 2024 (Policies 2.1, 2.2, and 2.3) by promoting efficient, coordinated development that optimizes infrastructure use and supports complete communities. In essence, the reflnement strengthens Policy 11.B.65(a) by clarifying that cost-sharing should be both equitable and proportionate, ensuring that no landowner—large or small—is disadvantaged, and that the delivery of infrastructure needed to realize the Secondary Plan proceeds in a coordinated and implementable manner. We suggest following additions to Policy 11.1.B.65 (b) b) To implement subsection (a), Council may include conditions of Draft Plan Approval requiring benefltting landowners to demonstrate good-faith participation in cost- sharing. Participation may be achieved through either: (i) a comprehensive multi-party cost-sharing agreement; or (ii) a bilateral or smaller-scale agreement supported by flnancial security covering the owner’s fair and proportionate share of works that directly beneflt its lands. Where a benefltting landowner has posted adequate security or prepaid its share, the landowner shall be deemed in good standing and eligible to proceed to draft or site-plan approval. Rationale behind this: This reflnement provides fiexibility in how landowners demonstrate participation in cost-sharing, recognizing that not all parcels are positioned to join large, multi-party agreements. Allowing bilateral or smaller-scale arrangements— backed by appropriate flnancial security—ensures that each owner can advance development once their fair and proportionate share is secured. This approach maintains fairness, prevents unnecessary delays, and supports timely infrastructure delivery while still meeting the coordinated servicing intent of Policy 11.B.65. It also aligns with good planning practice by promoting The City’s existing wording on this policy is preferred which requires a letter of good standing from the group trustee. The City is not going to dictate the form of agreement or how the landowners determine the criteria to be in good standing. Northeast Pickering Secondary Plan Comments Matrix 162 Landowner Comments Contact Comment Response practical, implementable mechanisms for shared responsibility in complex, multi-owner areas. We suggest following additions to Policy 11.1.B.65 c) Development Charge credits and third-party recoveries shall be distributed promptly and proportionately among all contributing landowners. d) Prior to approval of the flrst draft plan of subdivision or site plan, a Master Parkland Agreement shall be executed between benefltting landowners and the City specifying the size, location, and timing of parkland dedications required under the Planning Act, as well as any additional parkland acquisitions by the Municipality. Rationale behind this: The proposed additions to Policy 11.B.65(c) aim to strengthen the policy’s implementation framework by introducing transparency, accountability, and fairness in the cost-sharing and parkland dedication processes. Regular reporting on recoveries and expenditures ensures that all benefltting landowners have clear visibility into how shared infrastructure costs are calculated and managed, which builds trust and supports informed participation. Establishing reasonable That is not a matter to be addressed in a secondary plan. The request appears to simply rewrite the text in the proposed Secondary Plan. The text in the Secondary Plan is preferred, and nothing is being added by the suggested edits. Northeast Pickering Secondary Plan Comments Matrix 163 Landowner Comments Contact Comment Response and veriflable soft-cost allowances prevents cost infiation and keeps contributions proportionate to actual project needs. Similarly, providing an accessible dispute-resolution mechanism offers a structured and efficient way to address disagreements, reducing delays and maintaining project momentum. The inclusion of explicit language regarding the timely and proportionate distribution of Development Charge credits and third-party recoveries ensures that all contributors— regardless of ownership size—are treated equitably. Finally, reaffirming the requirement for a Master Parkland Agreement clarifles expectations around the size, location, and timing of parkland dedication and acquisition, aligning with the Planning Act and ensuring coordinated delivery of open space amenities as development proceeds. Together, these reflnements enhance Policy 11.B.65 by promoting fairness, accountability, and clarity, while maintaining the City’s objective of coordinated infrastructure and community facility delivery across the Secondary Plan area. CONSISTENCY WITH PPS 2024: From a policy perspective, the proposed community node designation and associated density framework are consistent with the direction of the Provincial Policy Statement, 2024 (PPS 2024), which emphasizes the following key principles: Policy 2.1.6 – Planning for People and Homes The PPS directs planning authorities to support the development of complete communities that provide a range and mix of land uses, housing types and densities, services, and transportation options. Policy 2.2.1 – Range and Mix of Housing Planning authorities are required to provide for an appropriate range and mix of housing options and densities to meet projected Northeast Pickering Secondary Plan Comments Matrix 164 Landowner Comments Contact Comment Response needs, including opportunities for higher-density and rental housing in appropriate locations. Policy 2.3 – Settlement Areas and Intensiflcation Growth is to be directed to settlement areas, with a focus on intensiflcation and redevelopment that optimizes the use of land, infrastructure, and public service facilities. Policy 2.4 – Strategic Growth Areas and Transit-Supportive Development The PPS encourages the identiflcation of strategic growth areas that can accommodate substantial residential and employment growth, support transit investment, and include a mix of uses and densities within a compact urban form. CONCLUSION: In summary, the proposed redesignation of the Subject Lands from Low Density Area to Community Node Area is both appropriate and justifled based on the planning context, policy framework, and surrounding land use conditions. The Subject Lands beneflt from direct frontage on Highway 7, an arterial corridor that is planned to accommodate transit-supportive intensiflcation. The proposed mid-rise, purpose-built rental development at a density of approximately 140 units per hectare will complement the planned Community Node at the Highway 7 / Westney Road intersection, providing a logical extension of higher-density development while ensuring a compatible transition to the Low Density Area located to the south. The redesignation supports the objectives of the Provincial Planning Statement (2024), the City of Pickering Official Plan, and the draft Secondary Plan, by advancing a complete, mixed-use, and transit-oriented community along the Highway 7 corridor. Northeast Pickering Secondary Plan Comments Matrix 165 Landowner Comments Contact Comment Response Accordingly, it is recommended that the Subject Lands be redesignated to Community Node Area to facilitate the development of a balanced, sustainable, and integrated residential neighbourhood consistent with the City’s long-term growth vision. We look forward to receiving the City’s response to our comments and to reviewing any forthcoming revisions to the draft Secondary Plan. IPS will continue to actively participate in the statutory consultation process and in the City’s ongoing Official Plan Review to support a coordinated and successful planning outcome. Northeast Pickering Secondary Plan Comments Matrix 166 Landowner Comments Contact Comment Response Northeast Pickering Secondary Plan Comments Matrix 167 Agency Comments Agency Comments Contact Comment Response Enbridge Willie Cornelio Sr Analyst, Municipal Planning Engineering October 28, 2025 Email Thank you for your circulation. Enbridge Gas does not object to the proposed application(s) however, we reserve the right to amend or remove development conditions. This response does not signify an approval for the site/development. Please continue to forward all municipal circulations and clearance letter requests electronically to MunicipalPlanning@Enbridge.com. Noted. TRCA November 6, 2025 Thank you for considering TRCA’s recommended amendments to the flrst draft. We appreciate that most of those recommendations have been accommodated in the revised draft received October 20, 2025. We have some remaining comments and have highlighted in blue as suggested additions, or for discussion at our next Environmental Coordination Meeting: Secondary Plan Policies Comments: The hydrology update recommendations are incorporated into the latest draft, thank you. The official name of the hydrology study is now “The Carruthers Creek Watershed Hydrology Update Project.” Currently the policy document refers to “updated Carruthers Creek Hydrology Study.” While the meaning is the same, you may wish to revise the text to refiect the official name of the project. Policy 11.B.5.b. …establish a minimum vegetation protection zone with native self-sustaining vegetation to protect the Natural Heritage System… Policy 11.B.5 c. Noted. The name of the study has been updated. Change made. Northeast Pickering Secondary Plan Comments Matrix 168 Agency Comments Contact Comment Response …promote active linkages (trails) between the Natural Heritage System and surrounding urban and rural areas including to the Greenbelt Plan area while prioritizing use of the vegetation protection zones and avoiding hazardous lands and sensitive natural heritage features where possible… Policy 11.B.5., add the following bullet points: - avoid, minimize and limit the encroachment of infrastructure into the Natural Heritage System; - promote Low Impact Development for on-site inflltration Policy 11.B.5.d. This policy states “d) consider the management and implementation strategies and recommendations of the Carruthers’s Creek and Duffin’s Creek Watershed Plans”. The word “consider” needs to be strengthened given the imperative to incorporate watershed planning into plan making pursuant to the PPS. We recommend replacing the word “consider” with “implement”. Policy 11.B.9. While we understand SWM ponds will be located through the MESP process, we still think a clear policy stating “stormwater ponds shall be located outside of fiood and erosion hazards, key natural heritage and/or key hydrologic features and their minimum vegetation protection zones” should be included in Policy 11.B.9. Policy 11.B.9.f. Stormwater management outfalls which may be located in key natural heritage and/or key hydrologic features, and passive Low Impact Development (LID) works which may be located in minimum vegetation protection zones. Policy 11.B.51. Change made. Change made. Change made. This additional policy is not needed as the policy is clear that only stormwater outfalls and LID’s are permitted Change made. No change necessary Northeast Pickering Secondary Plan Comments Matrix 169 Agency Comments Contact Comment Response TRCA assumes that the Active Transportation Plan by Neighbourhood will include a Trails Master Plan; however; if this is not the intent, then TRCA recommends a bullet is included for a separate Trails Master Plan to be completed. Secondary Plan Land Use Schedule Comments: The revised land use schedule appears to align with several changes that TRCA recommended through the flrst submission review of the Land Use Schedule; however, there are still a few areas of concern where impacts to the natural heritage system within the study area or outside of it can be reduced and we would be interested continuing the discussion. The proposed transportation corridor includes consideration for the future high speed rail line and stops or some other rapid transit which may impact TRCA’s adjacent Claremont Lands, TRCA requests that where appropriate, TRCA is included as a landowner in the discussions and not solely a regulatory agency. TRCA has provided comments on the Integrated Transportation/Transit Strategy Report that may impact the Land Use Schedules and requests review of any applicable comments identifled through that submission. Ongoing discussions at the MESP stage can further address outstanding concerns. Noted. No comments made by TRCA would have an effect on the Land Use Schedules. No comments made by TRCA would have an effect on the Land Use Schedules. Trans-Northern Pipeline Thank you for providing Trans-Northern Pipeline Inc. (TNPI) with the Notice of Statutory Pubic Meeting Under the Planning Act and Environmental Assessment Act, for the draft Official Plan Amendment for the proposed Northeast Pickering Secondary Plan. TNPI currently operates a high-pressure petroleum products transmission pipeline within a 60 foot Right-of-Way (ROW) traveling East to West on the northern portion of the City of Pickering. Please note the following in relation to the proposed Zoning By-law changes: Noted for future reference. There are no Zoning By-law changes proposed at this time. Northeast Pickering Secondary Plan Comments Matrix 170 Agency Comments Contact Comment Response • Permanent structures are not allowed within the ROW and are recommended to be setback 10 m from the ROW • Access to the TNPI Pipeline and ROW must be maintained for operational and maintenance purposes For the Official Plan Amendment, TNPI requests a section of the OPA to be dedicated to pipeline and development around pipelines. Please see below for suggested additions to the Official Plan. • Protection for TNPI Right-of-Ways for current and future projected needs and accessibility • Recognition that increased population growth may impact our pipelines and might drive our need to upgrade/replace pipeline portion. Early consultation recommended within 200m to recognize potential impacts on the pipeline industry, striving to avoid adverse impacts to energy infrastructure • CER Prescribed Area of 30m from the pipeline, requires authorization within this area • Setbacks to be determined based on the type of pipeline and stress level of the pipeline with consultation with the pipeline operator – Minimum recommendation of a 10 m setback from the ROW • Easements that are to be incorporated into development plans, are recommended to be planned as open spaces, walkways and not to be incorporated into individual lots. Consultation with operator and written consent for right-of- way or near the right-of-way Please note, any development plans within the right-of-way will require a permit which can be requested by following the steps described near the end of this response. Please note that, Trans-Northern is regulated by the Canada Energy Regulator. Section 335 (1) and (2) of the Canadian Energy Regulator Act, provides that: These comments will be addressed through the City’s Official Plan Review. Noted. Northeast Pickering Secondary Plan Comments Matrix 171 Agency Comments Contact Comment Response • It is prohibited for any person to construct a facility across, on, along or under a pipeline or engage in an activity that causes a ground disturbance within the prescribed area unless the construction or activity is authorized or required by the orders made under subsection (3) or (4) or regulations made under subsections (5) or (6) and done in accordance with them. • Prohibition — vehicles and mobile equipment It is prohibited for any person to operate a vehicle or mobile equipment across a pipeline unless o a) that operation is authorized or required by orders made under subsection (3) or (4) or regulations made under subsections (5) or (6) and done in accordance with them; or o b) the vehicle or equipment is operated within the travelled portion of a highway or public road. If there is to be development (not discovered in this review) within the 30 metres prescribed area additional steps will be required. Additionally, should the applicant propose to cross the pipeline or Right-of-Way with a vehicle or construct a facility across, on, along or under the pipeline, the applicant would be required to contact TNPI prior to commencement of their work to receive the required authorization. Our pipelines are registered with On1Call, which upon receiving your request, quickly connects you/your representative with an individual at TNPI who will determine if a written approval is required before you can begin your proposed activities. If required, you will be prompted to request a Crossing Agreement/Permit and provided with information on how to proceed. Crossing Permits, issued for activities proposed within TNPI’s easement, can be requested by email submission at crossingrequestseast@tnpi.ca. Please Northeast Pickering Secondary Plan Comments Matrix 172 Agency Comments Contact Comment Response note that it may take up to 10 business days to receive approval once all necessary information has been received. Should the applicant require further information on the technical requirements related to ground disturbance or crossing of the pipeline, they may contact Michelle Gruszecki, Property and Right- of-Way Administrator via email at : mgruszecki@tnpi.ca As always, Trans-Northern Pipeline Inc. appreciates being circulated development applications. Infrastructure Ontario In October 2025, the City of Pickering released a reflned draft Northeast Pickering Secondary Plan, which was subsequently presented at the Statutory Public Meeting on November 10, 2025. This updated draft refiects revisions made in response to feedback received from Infrastructure Ontario (IO) and other commenting agencies and stakeholders. We would like to acknowledge and thank the City of Pickering and its consulting team for the progress made to date, including integrating earlier feedback. We also appreciate the additional clarity in the draft policies as it relates to the reflnement of the Natural Heritage System and land use designation boundaries through the preparation of Neighbourhood Plans (without the need for amendment to the Secondary Plan) and the mechanisms to secure parkland beyond rates identifled in the Planning Act. Notwithstanding this progress and added clarity, IO continues to have some concerns with the proposed policy framework. These items are outlined in greater detail below. Permitted Uses in Business Areas In our previous comment letter to staff, we outlined a rationale for aligning the Mixed Use Area and Business Area designations more closely, with the primary distinction being residential permissions Northeast Pickering Secondary Plan Comments Matrix 173 Agency Comments Contact Comment Response in Mixed Use Areas and large-format retail in Business Areas. While we respect staff’s position that these designations serve distinct roles within the City’s urban structure, we continue to believe that additional fiexibility - or clearer articulation - of the permitted uses within the Business Area designation would be beneflcial. In our previous letter, we highlighted the growing demand for industrial condominium-style developments. Staff noted in their response that the policies do not prohibit this form of development within the Business Area designation. While it is reasonably clear that uses such as trades-related businesses and showrooms are encapsulated in permissions for business services and large-format retail, there remains uncertainty around how the Secondary Plan contemplates quasi-industrial uses. These include artist or artisan workshops, makerspaces, design studios, craft breweries, and online retailers – uses that may involve small-scale manufacturing, processing, and warehousing uses. As understood, what differentiates these from true industrial uses is their scale, limiting the type and intensity of impacts on surrounding uses. Additional clarity in the Business Area permitted uses would be helpful in bridging the gap between retail and commercial uses allowed for in Mixed Use Areas and more impactful employment uses in Prestige Employment Areas. For clarity, online retailing and other small-scale warehousing uses are distinct from self-storage, which is currently proposed to be permitted in Business Areas. Recommendation: Consider expanding permitted uses within Business Areas to include service industries (or other term) to refiect small-scale manufacturing, processing, and warehousing. The list of permitted uses within Business Areas has been expanded to include: warehousing. Northeast Pickering Secondary Plan Comments Matrix 174 Agency Comments Contact Comment Response Non-Residential Requirements in Mixed Corridors A comment previously submitted for staff’s consideration related to the proposed requirement for non-residential uses within all developments along Mixed Corridors. Although it is understood that the intent for these areas is to function as mixed-use corridors, it is important to acknowledge that in greenfleld contexts, there is often a lag between residential and non- residential development, as a minimum population base is typically required to sustain the viability of commercial/retail uses. We recognize that staff have introduced some fiexibility into the Mixed Corridor policies by allowing Neighbourhood Plans to identify clusters of non-residential uses, thereby lifting the requirement for non-residential uses on all sites. However, we continue to believe that additional fiexibility is required to refiect market realities of greenfleld development. The parent Official Plan includes policies that allow for interim commercial uses within Mixed Corridors, recognizing that intensiflcation along existing corridors will take time while still acknowledging the long-term vision for these areas. Similar policies that permit stand-alone residential buildings, subject to a retail and service needs assessment, may be appropriate to allow Mixed Corridors to develop in step with market demand. Recommendation: Revise the Mixed Corridor policies to permit, but not require, non-residential uses within mixed-use or stand-alone buildings. Where non-residential uses are not proposed, require the submission of a retail and service needs assessment as part of a complete development application to demonstrate market feasibility. In addition, consider establishing an area-wide target for non-residential gross leasable fioor area within Mixed Corridors. The elements of a complete community are intended to take time to fully develop and should not be unduly infiuenced by short-term trends and market demands. In order to achieve its long-term potential, the Mixed Corridor will continue to require non-residential development. Setting an area-wide target for non- residential fioor area simply excludes early development from providing non-residential uses and burdens later development with making up the difference. Northeast Pickering Secondary Plan Comments Matrix 175 Agency Comments Contact Comment Response On behalf of IO, we thank you for the opportunity to provide our comments on the draft Northeast Pickering Secondary Plan. We look forward to continuing to engage with the City as the Secondary Plan is flnalized over the coming months. Parks Canada Melinda Phuong, A/External Relations Manager Rouge National Urban Park November 17, 2025 Letter Thank you for providing Parks Canada the opportunity to comment on this proposal. As stewards of many of Canada’s protected natural landscapes, we value opportunities to collaborate with municipal partners to support sustainable development and ecological integrity. The proposed Northeast Pickering Secondary Plan area is approximately 6 kilometres east of Rouge National Urban Park’s (RNUP) current boundaries and less than 2 kilometres east of the Pickering Lands that were at one time designated as Federal Airport Lands (see Figure 1). The subject area contains ecologically signiflcant groundwater recharge zones, highly vulnerable aquifers and seepage areas and springs that form the headwaters of the Carruthers Creek watershed, as well as several unevaluated wetlands. These aquatic features are important for water retention and absorption, helping prevent downstream fiooding and providing essential habitat to a diversity of species, including several designated under the federal Species at Risk Act, 2002 (SARA) such as Redside Dace (Endangered), Midland Painted Turtle (Special Concern) and Snapping Turtle (Special Concern). Rouge National Urban Park is not the only area of conservation interest in proximity to the subject lands. Lands under the Greenbelt Plan surround the subject lands and includes the Duffins Creek Valley (Regional Life Science) and Kinsale Raised Shoreline (Regional Earth Science) Areas of Natural and Scientiflc Interest (see Figure 2). Patches of meadow and forest within the subject lands feature at risk trees, such as Butternut (Endangered), Northeast Pickering Secondary Plan Comments Matrix 176 Agency Comments Contact Comment Response and provide critical nesting or stopover habitat for several federally listed at risk migratory birds, including: - Barn Swallow (Threatened) - Bank Swallow (Threatened) - Bobolink (Threatened) - Canada Warbler (Threatened) - Eastern Meadowlark (Threatened) - Eastern Wood-pewee (Special Concern) - Grasshopper Sparrow (Special Concern) - Least Bittern (Threatened) - Red-headed Woodpecker (Endangered) - Wood Thrush (Threatened) Additionally, mature trees in and near the subject lands may provide roosting habitat for three species at risk bats: - Little Brown Myotis (Endangered) - Northern Myotis (Endangered) - Tri-coloured Bat (Endangered) To assist with identifying trees that may serve as bat roosts during the Environmental Assessment, Parks Canada recommends applying the following guidance: Table 1 - Bat Roosting Potential for Trees (from: Draft Pre- construction Bat Roost Survey Guidelines for Projects Requiring Tree Removal from April to September, Banff Field Unit, prepared by Helen Dickenson) Northeast Pickering Secondary Plan Comments Matrix 177 Agency Comments Contact Comment Response Additional species at risk that may use the subject area or the adjacent area, including RNUP and other areas of conservation concern, include: - Monarch (Endangered) - Little Brown Myotis (Endangered) - Eastern Meadowlark (Threatened) - Wood Thrush (Threatened) - Eastern Milksnake (Special Concern) - Eastern Loggerhead Shrike (Endangered) - Black Ash (Threatened, COSEWIC) Please note that under the Species at Risk Act, the Monarch is now listed as Endangered, and Parks Canada is legally required to protect Monarch individuals (including eggs, caterpillars, pupae and butterfiies) and their residences (occupied milkweed plants). The Northeast Pickering Secondary Plan may present environmental challenges for surrounding watersheds, adjacent natural habitats and species at risk. While Parks Canada recognizes the need for urban growth, conservation The Scoped Subwatershed Study examined features at a high-level, relying on background studies such as existing watershed plans and reconnaissance-level site observations to inform the development of a preliminary comprehensive, connected Natural Heritage System incorporating core features and supporting features encompassing watercourse corridors, woodlands, wetlands, terrestrial vegetation features, wetlands, flsh, wildlife and species at risk habitat and linkages. Future phases of the SSS will Northeast Pickering Secondary Plan Comments Matrix 178 Agency Comments Contact Comment Response efforts within RNUP could be impacted, with potential risks including: • Excessive light and noise pollution o Impacts on nocturnal species ability to hunt/forage; disturbed and/or reduced breeding for vocalizing species (e.g. amphibians and birds); increased risk of window strikes for migratory birds. • Loss of habitat connectivity from the construction of roads and buildings o Increased road related wildlife mortality; impacts to designated critical habitat for aquatic species such as Redside Dace; poorer connections between aquatic and terrestrial habitats for semi- aquatic species (e.g. reptiles and amphibians); • Encroachment onto sensitive natural heritage areas o Higher risk of dumping of contaminants and hazardous materials, spread of restricted/invasive species, poaching of protected species in adjacent Parks Canada lands or other Natural Heritage Systems such as sensitive headwater features, signiflcant groundwater recharge areas, Provincially Signiflcant Wetlands, and those under the Greenbelt Plan etc. • Degradation of surface and groundwater quality from increased impervious cover o Requires more de-icing salts in winter, thereby adding to ground and surface water pollution; causes runoff to warm over hot pavement, increasing stream temperatures in the process; and reduces groundwater recharge rates and increases streamfiow, leading to more erosion and fiood events. include recommendations such as those outlined in Parks Canada comments, but the implementation of such approaches will be driven by the MESP stage and supporting EIS documentation. Northeast Pickering Secondary Plan Comments Matrix 179 Agency Comments Contact Comment Response The potential loss of ecologically sensitive and agriculturally productive land in the region could undermine conservation efforts in RNUP and other protected areas. Parks Canada suggests that the City of Pickering consider prioritizing environmentally sustainable and less impactful development options. Should the Northeast Pickering Secondary Plan proceed, it will be important that all pertinent environmental review (e.g. Environmental Assessments, Scoped Subwatershed Studies and the Carruthers Creek Hydrology Study) are completed and fully integrated into planning decisions. Parks Canada would welcome the opportunity to provide strategic input on methods to preserve ecological integrity and habitat connectivity within the subject lands. For example, in 2016 and 2017, Parks Canada provided extensive input to the City of Pickering on a Woodview Avenue subdivision project which abuts a Provincially Signiflcant Wetland Complex. This helped increase the amount of protected natural land and natural vegetative cover to reduce the effect of the development on the adjacent wetlands without compromising development objectives. In the context of the Northeast Pickering Secondary Plan, low impact development, ecological landscape design and strong environmental mitigation measures are approaches that could be prioritized. It should be recognized that the determination of whether these lands should be urban vs agricultural was already made by Durham Region and approved by the Province. Phase 1 and 2 of the SWS will be completed prior to adoption of the Secondary Plan. The policies of the Secondary Plan require the completion of a further Master Environmental Servicing Plan and the Carruthers Creek Hydrology Study. Northeast Pickering Secondary Plan Comments Matrix 180 Northeast Pickering Secondary Plan Comments Matrix 181 Agency Comments Contact Comment Response DDSB Yan Yu Planner November 26, 2025 Letter DDSB Staff has reviewed the information on the above-noted documents and has the following comments: Pertaining to the Comment Letter issued by Durham District School Board on October 04, 2025, the DDSB requires that all the conditions and requirements regarding the number of school sites, minimum sizes and accessibility set out in the letter should be met in the Neighbourhood Plans. We trust that this provides the information required at this time. Correct. As noted, the location of school sites will be further planned and delineated through Neighbourhood Plans. Northeast Pickering Secondary Plan Comments Matrix 182 Indigenous Comments Indigenous Comments Contact Comment Response MSIFN October 17, 2025 MSIFN has conducted a review of the Northeast (NE) Pickering Secondary Plan (Draft 3, the “Draft Plan”). We have also reviewed Mayor Ashe’s September 4th, 2025 letter to MSIFN, in which Mayor Ashe states he is responding in this current letter to our June 26, 2024, January 29, 2025, and June 9, 2025, letters. Unfortunately, neither the Draft Plan, nor Mayor Ashe’s September 4th letter meaningfully address concerns raised by MSIFN to date. Instead, the response contained within Mayor Ashe’s letter insufficiently delegates discussions to future studies and unplanned meetings while continuing to push forward this planning process without any inclusion of clear commitments to address MSIFN’s concerns in the Draft Plan. Despite Mayor Ashe’s commitment that several items would be brought forward in a Williams Treaties First Nations meeting with the City of Pickering, staff have failed to make a meaningful effort to book this meeting before the formal comments on the Draft Plan were required. This lack of inclusion and accommodation has limited MSIFN’s ability to meaningfully participate in the process. We are aware that Pickering (the “City”) has continued to hold meetings with the larger Steering Committee, and we were only added to this committee days prior to the September meeting. In response to this late invitation, we followed up to request that Pickering convene a Michi Saagiig Anishinaabeg WTFN-speciflc meeting per Mayor Ashe’s commitment. However, the City has failed to do so, despite noting that they would be meeting with other parties (e.g., municipalities) in short order during the larger steering committee. As noted, the current Draft Plan makes it clear that our concerns have not been meaningfully considered and infringements of our constitutional Rights have not been accommodated by the City. A meeting with members of the Williams Treaties First Nation was held on November 12, 2025. Northeast Pickering Secondary Plan Comments Matrix 183 Indigenous Comments Contact Comment Response Instead, they have chosen to push the planning process forward without meaningful consultation, adequate engagement, or accommodation. Our previous commentary regarding Northeast Pickering (letters dated June 26, 2024, January 29, 2025, and June 9, 2025) continues to apply given that it has not yet been meaningfully considered and addressed within the Draft Plan. Key issues from our detailed review of the current Draft Plan and Mayor Ashe’s September 4th response letter include but are not limited to the following: Key Issue 1: Lack of meaningfully considering raised concerns, including cumulative impacts, the need for headwater protection/restoration, and the real and potential impacts of NE Pickering/the Carruthers Creek headwaters development on MSIFN’s Right. Mayor Ashe’s September 4th letter includes a commitment from the City to “engaging MSIFN and other WTFNS on the scope and timing of a Cumulative Impact Assessment” within NE Pickering. However, while the Draft Plan mentions the currently underway Scoped Subwatershed Study, there is no mention or binding requirement for cumulative impacts assessment to occur. MSIFN’s previous comments on the Scoped Subwatershed Study included a reiteration of our request for a cumulative effects assessment; however, this request appears to have been largely ignored, with no concrete action taken towards this study. In accordance with previous requests and legal requirements (e.g., Yahey v. British Columbia) Pickering must support a cumulative effects assessment based on agreed upon methodology with the Michi Saagiig Williams Treaties First Nations prior to approval of the Northeast Pickering Secondary Plan or any associated higher- level Plans (e.g., the Master Environmental Servicing Plan). The Scoped SWS does consider a cumulative impact assessment of all existing and proposed land uses. In addition, engagement with First Nations will continue in the subsequent Neighbourhood Planning and Master Environmental Servicing Planning. Northeast Pickering Secondary Plan Comments Matrix 184 Indigenous Comments Contact Comment Response MSIFN contfnually raises the importance of the Carruthers Creek Watershed Plan, recommending against development of NE Pickering. We provided an enhanced Natural Heritage System (NHS) as a key mitigation if our concerns are disregarded and development does occur. Disappointfngly the Draft Plan includes development of NE Pickering with no mentfon of the enhanced NHS. MSIFN’s ecological concerns and the impact on our Rights have not been addressed in the Draft Plan. MSIFN’s June 26th, 2024 letter emphasized that: development in the Carruthers Creek headwaters will exacerbate the generational consequences of development on our Rights and practices, especially due to the importance of headwaters for spawning fish. The Scoped Subwatershed Study will incorporate candidate areas identifled for potential restoration and enhancement as an additional layer to the NHS. The priority restoration and enhancement areas outlined by the Carruthers Creek Watershed Plan will be considered and incorporated into this additional layer The current Draft Plan does not include any mention of consultation or engagement with MSIFN when there are potential impacts to ecological features despite our expansion of this in Key Issue 2. For example, Policy 11.B.12 includes no consideration of MSIFN when “isolated natural features are deemed appropriate for removal”. Other policies (e.g., 11.B.3, 11.B.4) fail to recognize MSIFN’s June 2024 comments that all natural features must be protected, not just those deemed “significant” by western governments. Without consideratfon of Indigenous Rights, it is impossible to label a natural feature as significant or not. Engagement with First Nations will continue in the subsequent Neighbourhood Planning and Master Environmental Servicing Planning. In summary, the Draft Plan does not sufficiently address the real or potential impact of development on MSIFN’s Rights regarding natural features or our ability to practice our Rights within these and connected features. The secondary plan policies are consistent with the PPS which sets the policy framework for protection of signiflcant natural features and the establishment of a natural heritage system Northeast Pickering Secondary Plan Comments Matrix 185 Indigenous Comments Contact Comment Response Key Issue 2: Insufficiency of policies related to First Nations and those pertaining to concerns raised by MSIFN The few policies of the Draft Plan that mentfon First Natfons fail to recognize our Aboriginal, Treaty, and inherent Rights. The policies also fail to acknowledge the need to consult with First Natfons where there are real or potentfal impacts to lands and waters. Further, Draft Plan policies related to key issues of concern (e.g., the protectfon of headwaters to ensure the long-term practfce of harvestfng Rights can occur downstream) fail to address concerns raised by MSIFN. First Nations participation during the subsequent Neighbourhood Planning and Master Environmental Servicing Planning will be invaluable to further reflning the natural heritage system and in determining the form of the future neighbourhoods. This issue is highlighted in the following policies: • 11.B.53 It is the objectfve of City Council to: e) engage First Natfons early in planning process to ensure their interests are considered when identffying, protectfng and managing archaeological resources, build heritage resources and cultural heritage landscapes. o Issue: Engagement on First Natfons’ interests is not the legal standard. First Natfons must be meaningfully consulted on any real or potentfal impacts on Rights and must be accommodated when Rights are justffiably infringed. The government is not permitted to unjustffiably infringe Rights, even if they are accommodated. o Request: All policies pertaining to First Nations must be updated to recognize that a) consultation must occur, and that b) Rights must be considered. This is now policy 11.B.58 Together with the other municipalities in Durham Region, Pickering will engage with the Williams Treaties First Nations in 2026 on the creation of an Indigenous Engagement Guide. This guide is intended to assist both the municipalities and the First Nations in future engagement efforts and lead to mutually beneflcial outcomes that respects each others unique role. Northeast Pickering Secondary Plan Comments Matrix 186 Indigenous Comments Contact Comment Response • City Policy Respectfng First Natfons 11.B.57 City Council shall: a) recognize First Natfons’ cultural and spiritual connectfon to the Northeast Pickering Urban Area; b) require the development process be undertaken in a respectiul manner consistent with established engagement protocols; c) ensure that engagement with First Natfons is City-led at the appropriate Council–to-Council level and require that applicants implement the outcomes in relatfon to the most appropriate actfons to take with respect to the protectfon, commemoratfon, long-term management and/or mitfgatfve excavatfon of archaeological sites. o Issue: This policy both fails to recognize our Rights as they pertain to NE Pickering, and relegates engagement to only archeological concerns. Development of NE Pickering and the Carruthers Creek headwaters will have devastatfng ecological impacts and adversely affect our members’ abilitfes to practfce their Treaty Rights. The development of NE Pickering will create near-irreversible impact on lands which have drastfcally suffered from cumulatfve impacts due to immense development of our traditfonal territory. o Request: This policy must be revised to a) recognize the Rights of First Nations, b) recognize that consultation must occur when any impacts are proposed to lands and waters, not only to archeological sites and c) consideration of cumulative impacts with agreed upon methods. This is now Policy 11.B.63. c) was deleted in the version presented at the statutory public meeting. First Nations participation during the subsequent Neighbourhood Planning and Master Environmental Servicing Planning will be invaluable to further reflning the natural heritage system and in determining the form of the future neighbourhoods. • 11.B.58 City Council shall require, as a conditfon of Draft plan or site plan approval, that a First Natfon’s archaeology monitor be retained and funded by the applicant for any significant mitfgatfve excavatfon actfvitfes, on known pre- contact archaeological sites. This is now policy 11.B.64. Northeast Pickering Secondary Plan Comments Matrix 187 Indigenous Comments Contact Comment Response o Issue: While we appreciate the inclusion of archeological matters, as noted, this is not the only issue of concern to MSIFN. To date, MSIFN has been excluded from land and water-based surveys at NE Pickering, with the only invite coming this June for top of bank staking, which was suddenly cancelled without rescheduling. Mayor Ashe’s September 4th letter indicates that currently underway fieldwork presents an opportunity for MSIFN inclusion on issues such as wetland evaluatfons. Inclusion in this work is critfcal given that we raised concern in June 2024 about the lack of consideratfon of Indigenous Rights, interests, and knowledge in these evaluatfons. However, MSIFN has not received any invitatfons to partfcipate in fieldwork on these important topics. o Request: Policies must also support the retention of First Nations monitors for natural heritage surveys and activities that may impact natural heritage features. Currently underway fieldwork must include invitations and funding for MSIFN environmental monitors. Participation in the Neighbourhood Planning and Master Environmental Servicing Planning will provide an opportunity for First Nations to infiuence the reflnement of the natural heritage system. These comments will be taken under advisement in the preparation of terms of reference for these projects. • 11.B.64 City Council shall require Neighbourhood Plans to a) be developed with the involvement of First Natfons, the public, landowners, relevant public agencies, neighbouring municipalitfes and other interested groups; o Issue: This policy inappropriately groups First Natfons with stakeholder groups, failing to recognize that we are Rightsholders and that meaningful consultatfon and accommodatfon is required during Neighbourhood Plan development in additfon to development of all other key plans and studies. Request: The Draft Plan must be revised to recognize that First Nations are Rightsholders and Pickering and the NE Pickering Secondary Plan area are on our Treaty and traditional lands. Pickering has a legal duty to consult and accommodate MSIFN. This is now policy 11.B.70 Engagement with First Nations will continue in the subsequent Neighbourhood Planning and Master Environmental Servicing Planning. Northeast Pickering Secondary Plan Comments Matrix 188 Indigenous Comments Contact Comment Response The above commentary builds on our good faith efforts to provide input on the NE Pickering Secondary Plan, despite not being provided with capacity resources to undertake this review. We have consistently and clearly documented our oppositfon to development of NE Pickering on the basis that this will exacerbate the irreversible impacts to our lands and resources and on our ability to practfce our Aboriginal and Treaty Rights, especially within downstream waters. Pickering has offered limited opportunitfes for MSIFN to be meaningfully included in the planning stages of the NE Pickering Secondary Plan. We have provided detailed comments on the Draft Plan datfng back to June 2024 yet the responses from the City remain grossly inadequate. Our concerns remain ignored and there has been no discussion of mitigation or accommodation. Furthermore, the City’s approach to the NE Pickering Secondary Plan fails to meet the standards outlined in the United Natfons Declaratfon on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (UNDRIP), which Canada has committed to implementfng through federal legislatfon and which is explicitly recognized in the Bilateral Agreement between Durham Region and MSIFN. This agreement underscores a mutual commitment to uphold UNDRIP principles, including Free, Prior and Informed Consent (FPIC) as artfculated in UNDRIP Artfcle 19, which requires consultatfon and cooperatfon in good faith with Indigenous peoples to obtain their FPIC before adoptfng measures that may affect them, and Artfcle 32, which mandates FPIC prior to approving projects impactfng Indigenous lands, territories, or resources, including water. By advancing the Draft Plan without securing MSIFN’s FPIC — despite our repeated opposition and calls for meaningful consultation on cumulative impacts, ecological protections, and Rights infringements — the City disregards both its obligations under UNDRIP and the commitments made in the Durham Region–MSIFN Bilateral Agreement, perpetuating colonial decision-making that undermines our self-determination and sovereignty over our traditional territories. Through Envision Durham, the Province of Ontario has identifled Northeast Pickering for future development. First Nations participation during the subsequent Neighbourhood Planning and Master Environmental Servicing Planning will be invaluable to further reflning the natural heritage system and in determining the form of the future neighbourhoods. Northeast Pickering Secondary Plan Comments Matrix 189 Indigenous Comments Contact Comment Response Untfl consultatfon and accommodatfon of our clearly documented concerns occur in a meaningful manner MSIFN remains opposed to development in NE Pickering, including finalizatfon and approval of the NE Pickering Secondary Plan. We request that City staff: 1) review our concerns in both written commentary and throughout our NE Pickering correspondence, and 2) convene a Michi Saagiig WTFN meetfng where staff are prepared to address those concerns and follow up with clearly documented actfons to mitfgate and or accommodate those concerns. We contfnue to call for a cumulatfve effects assessment and alternatfves assessment before the NE Pickering Secondary Plan is finalized and/or approved MSIFN October 22, 2025 I am writing regarding the Environmental Assessment component of the Northeast Pickering Secondary Plan project, as described in the attached statutory public meeting notice. 1. Can you provide clariflcation on how the City is meeting its consultation obligations with First Nations on the EA process? 2. What is the timeline for the EA? 3. Has there been or will there be any fleld work relating to the EA? The work conducted for this Northeast Pickering Secondary Plan project applied the Masterplan approach to the EA process, covering phases 1 and 2 only. Phases 3-5 will be conducted at a later date, as needed. 1. The City fulfllled its statutory obligations for Phases 1 and 2 of the EA process. In addition, the following outreach / engagement activities included three public information centres and a statutory public meeting. 2. The flnal statutory public meeting was held Monday 10th November. A notice of study completion will be posted soon. 3. Fieldwork conducted included site visits to the public road network and turning movement counts at study area intersections. No further fleldwork is planned. [PTSL / TW] Paradigm provided information to the City on 12th December to aid them in their response to MSIFN. Northeast Pickering Secondary Plan Comments Matrix 190 Indigenous Comments Contact Comment Response Alderville First Nation RE: Statutory Public Meeting under the Planning Act and Environmental Assessment Act - File: OPA 25-003/P I would like to acknowledge receipt of your correspondence, which was received October 21, 2025, regarding the above noted project. As you may be aware, the area in which this project is proposed is situated within the Traditional and Treaty Territory of Alderville First Nation. Our First Nation’s Territory is incorporated within the Williams Treaties Territory and was the subject of a claim under Canada’s Speciflc Claims Policy, which has now been settled. All 7 First Nations within the Williams Treaties have had their harvesting rights legally re-affirmed and recognized through this settlement (2018). In addition to Aboriginal title, Alderville First Nation rights in its Reserve and Traditional Territory and/or Treaty Territory include rights to hunt, flsh and trap, to harvest plants for food and medicine, to protect and honour burial sites and other signiflcant sites, to sustain and strengthen its spiritual and cultural connection to the land, to protect the Environment that supports its survival, to govern itself, sustain itself and prosper including deriving revenues from its lands and resources, and to participate Northeast Pickering Secondary Plan Comments Matrix 191 Indigenous Comments Contact Comment Response in all governance and operational decisions about how the land and resources will be managed, used and protected. Alderville First Nation is requiring a File Fee for this project in the amount of $300.00. This Fee includes administration, an initial meeting, project updates as well as review of standard material and project overviews. Depending on the number of documents to be reviewed by the Consultation Department, additional fees may apply. Please make this payment to Alderville First Nation and please indicate the project name on the cheque. If you do not have a copy of Alderville First Nation’s Consultation Protocol, it is available at: alderville.ca/wp-content/uploads/2017/02/AFNProtocol2.pdf. Please note that the mapping in this document needs updating to refiect the Williams Treaties First Nations Settlement Agreement 2018. In order to assist us in providing you with timely input, please provide us with a Notice of Request to Consult containing relevant information and material facts in sufficient form and detail to assist Alderville First Nation to understand the matter in order to prepare a meaningful response. Guidance for giving notice can be found on pages 11-12 of our Consultation Protocol. Based on the information that you have provided us with respect to the notice of Statutory Public Meeting under the Planning Act and Environmental Assessment Act - File: OPA 25-003/P, Alderville First Nation may require a mutual agreement to establish a special consultation process for this project. After the information is reviewed it is expected that you or a representative will be in contact to discuss this matter in more detail and possibly set up a date and time to meet with Alderville First Nation in person or virtually. City Staff will work with Alderville First Nation on this request. Northeast Pickering Secondary Plan Comments Matrix 192 Indigenous Comments Contact Comment Response Although we have not conducted exhaustive research nor do we have the resources to do so, there may be the presence of burial or archaeological sites in your proposed project area. Please note, that we have particular concern for the remains of our ancestors. Should excavation unearth bones, remains, or other such evidence of a native burial site or any other archaeological flndings, we must be notifled without delay. In the case of a burial site, Council reminds you of your obligations under the Cemeteries Act to notify the nearest First Nation Government or other community of Aboriginal people which is willing to act as a representative and whose members have a close cultural affinity to the interred person. As I am sure you are aware, the regulations further state that the representative is needed before the remains and associated artifacts can be removed. Should such a flnd occur, we request that you contact our First Nation Immediately. Furthermore, Alderville First Nation also has available, trained Archaeological Liaisons who can actively participate in the archaeological assessment process as a member of a fleld crew, the cost of which shall be borne by the proponent. Alderville First Nation expects engagement at Stage 1 of an archaeological assessment, so that we may include Indigenous Knowledge of the land in the process. We insist that at least one of our Archaeological Liaisons be involved in any Stage 2-4 assessments, including test pitting, and/or pedestrian surveys, to full excavation. Although we may not always have representation at all stakeholders’ and rights holders’ meetings, it is our wish to be kept apprised throughout all phases of this project. Attachment 9 to Report PLN 03-26 bĺŘťēôÍŜť ĖèħôŘĖĲČ ϳ ŪæīĖè [ÍĲî bôôîŜ ŪııÍŘƅ ÍŘħīÍĲî ,Q WKH 5HFUHDWLRQ DQG 3DUNV <HDU 3ODQ 537<3 FRQFOXGHG WKDW WKH &LW\¶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ĖæŘÍŘĖôŜ 7KH /LEUDU\ )DFLOLWLHV 3ODQ UHFRPPHQGHG VTIW VTP RI IORRU DUHD SHU UHVLGHQW SHRSOH [ VTP VTP IORRU DUHD ,W LV UHFRPPHQGHG WKDW OLEUDULHV EH GHYHORSHG MRLQWO\ ZLWK QHZ UHFUHDWLRQ FRPSOH[HV DQG FRPPXQLW\ FHQWUHV 7KLV ZLOO UHVXOW LQ WKUHH OLEUDU\ EUDQFKHV RQH ORFDWHG DW HDFK UHFUHDWLRQ FRPSOH[ FRPPXQLW\ FHQWUH SURSRVHG IRU 1RUWKHDVW 3LFNHULQJ $V D UHVXOW WKH ODQG DUHD QHHGV IRU OLEUDULHV KDYH EHHQ LQFRUSRUDWHG LQWR WKH ODQG QHHGV IRU UHFUHDWLRQ DQG FRPPXQLW\ XVHV ôèŘôÍťĖĺĲ ÍĲî ĺııŪĲĖťƅ ŜôŜ 7KH UHFUHDWLRQ DQG FRPPXQLW\ IDFLOLWLHV SURSRVHG LQ 1RUWKHDVW 3LFNHULQJ UHIOHFW WKH QHHGV RI WKRVH IXWXUH UHVLGHQWV DORQJ ZLWK WKH &LW\¶V QHHG WR UHSODFH DJLQJ UHFUHDWLRQ LQIUDVWUXFWXUH LQ RWKHU SDUWV RI WKH &LW\ %DVHG RQ WKH &LW\¶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ĖŘô ťÍťĖĺĲŜ %DVHG RQ WKH JHRJUDSKLF DUHD QHHGLQJ WR EH VHUYHG LQ 1RUWKHDVW 3LFNHULQJ )LUH 6HUYLFHV KDYH HVWLPDWHG D QHHG IRU WZR ILUH VWDWLRQV %DVHG RQ DQ DQDO\VLV RI QHZHU ILUH VWDWLRQV DURXQG WKH *UHDWHU 7RURQWR $UHD WKH DUHD QHHGHG IRU HDFK VWDWLRQ LV HVWLPDWHG WR EH KD ILUH VWDWLRQV [ +D SHU VWDWLRQ KD 7KH ORFDWLRQ RI HDFK ILUH VWDWLRQ ZLOO EH HYDOXDWHG LQ FRQMXQFWLRQ ZLWK WKH 1HLJKERXUKRRG 3ODQ H[HUFLVH iŕôŘÍťĖĺĲŜϯ®ĺŘħŜ >ÍèĖīĖťƅ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ttachment 10 to Report PLN 03-26 Legislative Services Division Clerk’s Office Directive Memorandum September 25, 2024 To: Laura Gibbs Director, Community Services From: Carol Redmond (Acting) Deputy Clerk Subject: Direction as per Minutes of the Meeting of City Council held on September 23, 2024 Director, Community Services, Report CS 22-24 Recreation & Parks – Ten Year Plan Council Decision Resolution #575/24 Please take any action deemed necessary. CR:am Copy: Chief Administrative Officer 1.That the Recreation & Parks – Ten Year Plan, as set out in Attachment 1, be endorsed; and, 2.That the appropriate officials of the City of Pickering be authorized to take the necessary actions as indicated in this report. Northeast Pickering Secondary Plan Policy Conformity October 2025 1 Attachment 11 to Report PLN 03-26 The follow provides a policy conformity assessment of the Northeast Pickering Secondary Plan (NEP) with applicable legislative and policy frameworks, including the Ontario Planning Act, the Provincial Planning Statement (PPS, 2024), the Envision Durham Official Plan and the City of Pickering Official Plan. The purpose of this analysis is to demonstrate that the Secondary Plan is consistent with provincial policy direction, conforms with the Regional growth management framework and is properly integrated with the Pickering Official Plan. The conformity analysis demonstrates that the NEP Secondary Plan meets all statutory and policy requirements while establishing a clear framework for a complete, connected and sustainable community. 1.Planning Act The Planning Act is the provincial legislation that establishes the basis for land use planning in Ontario. It establishes rules for official plans, secondary plans, zoning, subdivision control and other planning tools that apply to all municipalities, including the City of Pickering. The NEP Secondary Plan appropriately addresses matters of provincial interest, demonstrates consistency with provincial policy statements, establishes a detailed secondary plan framework within the Pickering Official Plan and sets clear conditions for subdivision control in accordance with the Planning Act. Accordingly, the NEP Secondary Plan is in full conformity with the Planning Act. 1.1. Provincial Interest Section 2 of the Planning Act identifies matters of provincial interest that must be considered by municipalities in exercising planning authority. The NEP Secondary Plan addresses the following matters of provincial interest: •(a) the protection of ecological systems, including natural areas, features and functions: The NEP Secondary Plan establishes a comprehensive Natural Heritage System (NHS) that protects, maintains and enhances environmentally significant features and functions within the Secondary Plan Area. Development adjacent to these features is subject to Environmental Impact Studies (EIS) to ensure no negative impacts. The Secondary Plan also promotes public ownership of NHS lands where appropriate and prohibits site alteration within key natural heritage and/or key hydrologic features under strict criteria. •(b) the protection of agricultural resources of the Province: The Secondary Plan recognizes its interface with agricultural lands and the Greenbelt to the north, west and south. The Agricultural Impact Assessment identified both direct and indirect impacts to the agricultural system, which were determined to be moderate in scale and can be effectively managed through appropriate phasing, mitigation, and design measures. The policies of the Secondary Plan require development to be phased to address minimum distance separation requirements for livestock operations outside of the Secondary Plan Area and both permits and encourages Northeast Pickering Secondary Plan Policy Conformity October 2025 2 urban agriculture through urban farms, agri-food innovation centres, community gardens and rooftop or controlled environment agriculture within mixed use, business and employment areas. • (c) the conservation and management of natural resources and the mineral resource base: The Secondary Plan advances conservation and responsible management of water, natural heritage and hydrologic resources through the Scoped Subwatershed Study work, the requirement for a Master Environmental Servicing Plan, sustainable stormwater management approaches and protection/refinement of the NHS. • (d) the conservation of features of significant architectural, cultural, historical, archaeological or scientific interest: The Secondary Plan requires the identification, evaluation and conservation of built heritage resources, cultural heritage landscapes and archaeological resources. The policies support adaptive reuse, set out requirements for archaeological assessments and monitoring and engagement with First Nations. • (f) the adequate provision and efficient use of communication, transportation, sewage and water services and wastewater management systems: The Secondary Plan requires the preparation of a Master Environmental Servicing Plan, Infrastructure Staging and Phasing Plan and necessary Class Environmental Assessments prior to development approvals. • (h) the orderly development of safe and healthy communities: The Secondary Plan establishes a complete, compact and walkable community structure composed of a Regional Centre, Community Nodes, Mixed Corridors and Residential Areas organized around parks, schools and community facilities, and supported by Employment Areas. Orderly development will be ensured through subsequent Neighbourhood Plans and an Infrastructure Staging and Phasing Plan. The Secondary Plan policies also require conformity with universal-design principles and AODA accessibility design standards. • (i) the adequate provision and distribution of educational, health, social, cultural and recreational facilities: The Secondary Plan provides for a complete range of community services, including a range of recreation facilities/centres, schools, libraries and parks, as well as direction for places of worship and other cultural facilities. Recreation facilities/centres (co-located with libraries), schools and parks are distributed across the community to ensure equitable service delivery. The policies direct that the proposed Sportsplex, Recreation Complex and Community Centre all be accessible by transit. The number and location of school sites have been confirmed with the school boards. • (j) the adequate provision of a full range of housing, including affordable housing: The Secondary Plan provides for a mix of housing types, densities and tenures, requires 25% affordable housing overall and 35% within the Regional Northeast Pickering Secondary Plan Policy Conformity October 2025 3 Centre, supports additional dwelling units and incorporates policy implementation that supports partnerships, incentive programs and innovative delivery models for affordable and attainable housing. • (k) the adequate provision of employment opportunities: Approximately 9,700 jobs are planned within designated Prestige Employment, Business Area and Mixed Use Areas, supporting a diverse economic base. • (p) the appropriate location of growth and development: The NEP Secondary Plan implements the provincially approved Urban Area Boundary Expansion from Envision Durham, confirming NEP as the planned location for long-term urban growth. • (q) the promotion of development that is designed to be sustainable, to support public transit and be oriented to pedestrians: The Secondary Plan advances compact, transit-oriented and pedestrian-oriented design. It establishes density targets for mixed use areas to support future transit corridors, integrates complete street design direction and requires additional refinement to ensure a safe, compact local road and active transportation network. • (r) the promotion of bult form that is well-designed, encourages a sense of place and provides for public spaces that are of high quality, safe, accessible, attractive and vibrant: Detailed urban design policies require active frontages, pedestrian-scaled streets, public open spaces and urban squares and an overall public realm framework that fosters community identity. • (s) the mitigation of greenhouse gas emissions and adaptation to a changing climate: The Secondary Plan reflects the City’s Integrated Sustainable Design Standards and has a set of sustainable development and design policies which promote energy efficiency, low-carbon mobility, electric vehicle infrastructure, green roofs, native plantings and climate resilient neighbourhood design. 1.2. Consistency with Provincial Policy Statements Section 3 of the Planning Act requires that planning authorities ensure their decisions are consistent with provincial policy statements. The NEP Secondary Plan was prepared to be consistent with the Provincial Planning Statement (2024) by directing growth to a provincially approved settlement area, providing a full range of housing and employment options, protecting natural and cultural heritage, promoting climate-resilient community design and ensuring the development is phased to align with servicing and transit investment. 1.3. Official Plans Section 16 of the Planning Act requires that an official plan contain “goals, objectives and policies to establish the form, pattern and character of land use.” It authorizes a municipality to adopt detailed policies for specific areas as part of its official plan. The NEP Northeast Pickering Secondary Plan Policy Conformity October 2025 4 Secondary Plan will be adopted as a new chapter of the City of Pickering Official Plan to provide a detailed land use framework for the Secondary Plan Area. 2. Provincial Planning Statement The Provincial Planning Statement (PPS), 2024, sets out province-wide, land use planning policies that guide how municipalities should plan for growth, housing, infrastructure, employment and the protection of natural and cultural resources. The NEP Secondary Plan directs growth to a designated settlement area, provides for a full range of housing and employment opportunities, protects natural and cultural heritage resources and ensures servicing and phasing align with long-term growth management objectives. Accordingly, the NEP Secondary Plan is consistent with the PPS, 2024. 2.1. Planning for People and Homes Section 2.1 of the PPS emphasizes planning for a sufficient and diverse supply of housing to meet the needs of all Ontarians. Municipalities are directed to maintain at least a 15- year supply of land to accommodate projected growth and a three-year supply of serviced land for residential development. The NEP Secondary Plan contributes to meeting Pickering’s and Durham Region’s long- term housing supply by designating approximately 1,600 hectares of land within a provincially approved Urban Boundary Expansion Area. The Secondary Plan structure and policies are intended to provide for a range of housing types, tenures and affordability levels to address demographic and market needs and supports the City and Region in meeting provincial housing targets. Phasing policies will ensure that the timing of development aligns with servicing capacity availability, allowing the City to manage growth in an orderly and fiscally responsible manner. 2.2. Housing Section 2.2 of the PPS builds upon Section 2.1 by directing municipalities to maintain a full range and mix of housing forms, densities and tenures. The Secondary Plan meets this requirement by planning for a complete, compact community with a mix of housing types (low, medium and high-density) distributed throughout the neighbourhoods and mixed use areas. The Secondary Plan sets affordable housing targets of 25% of new units outside the Regional Centre and 35% within the Regional Centre and encourages a range of housing choices including multi-generational housing and additional dwelling units. Transit-supportive development, higher densities and a mix of uses is also prioritized within the Regional Centre and Mixed Corridors. Northeast Pickering Secondary Plan Policy Conformity October 2025 5 2.3. Settlement Areas Section 2.3 of the PPS establishes that settlement areas shall be the focus of growth and that land use patterns within them be compact, transit-supportive and efficiently serviced. The NEP Secondary Plan implements this direction by establishing the land use and policy framework for the approved Settlement Area Boundary Expansion. Growth is focused in strategic areas including the Regional Centre, Community Nodes and Mixed Corridors, served by a planned east-west higher-order transit corridor north of Highway 407, as well as the Medium Density Residential Areas along most of the arterial and collector roads internal to the Secondary Plan Area. The land use pattern is planned to efficiently use resources, optimize planned infrastructure, support active transportation and encourage compact, mixed-use neighbourhoods. The Secondary Plan establishes density ranges for each designation to provide certainty that the intended transit supportive densities are achieved. 2.4. Employment Section 2.8 of the PPS directs planning authorities to plan for, protect and preserve employment areas to ensure long-term economic prosperity and job creation. The Secondary Plan designates an extensive Prestige Employment Area along Highway 407, which protects lands along a major goods movement corridor for employment area uses and establishes a freight-supportive land use pattern. The Secondary Plan also designates select Business Areas to support employment growth. The Business Area designation is intended to provide supporting retail and office uses that no longer meet the definition of employment areas under the PPS. Economic opportunities are also integrated within the mixed-use areas, supporting a complete community. NEP is anticipated to accommodate approximately 9,700 jobs, consistent with Durham Region’s employment forecasts. 2.5. Energy Conservation, Air Quality and Climate Change Section 2.9 of the PPS directs planning authorities to support energy conservation, improved air quality, reduced greenhouse gas emissions and climate change adaptation through land use and development decisions. The NEP Secondary Plan is consistent with this direction by embedding sustainability and energy efficiency objectives throughout and by promoting compact, transit-supportive development. The policies encourage reduced automobile-dependence, electric vehicle charging infrastructure and sustainable building practices in accordance with the City’s Integrated Sustainable Design Standards (ISDS). Stormwater Management Plans are directed to incorporate a treatment train approach to reduce runoff volume and treat stormwater runoff on-site. The Secondary Plan also supports renewable energy integration, energy efficient design and native planting. Northeast Pickering Secondary Plan Policy Conformity October 2025 6 2.6. Infrastructure and Public Service Facilities Chapter 3 of the PPS directs that infrastructure, energy systems and public service facilities be planned and coordinated to meet current and projected needs in a cost- effective, sustainable and environmentally responsible manner. The Secondary Plan is consistent with this direction by requiring the completion of a Master Environmental Servicing Plan (MESP) and an Infrastructure Staging and Phasing Plan to guide servicing and infrastructure delivery. This will ensure water, wastewater, stormwater and transportation infrastructure are delivered efficiently and coordinated with growth. The NEP Secondary Plan establishes a complete transportation network that protects a higher-order transit corridor along the transit corridor north of Highway 407 and provides a connected grid of arterial, collector streets designed to support walking, cycling and transit use. The Secondary Plan also coordinates the provision of public service facilities, including a sportsplex, recreation complex, community centre, libraries, schools and fire halls some of which are planned or encouraged to be co-located. The Infrastructure Staging and Phasing Plan will identify how these public service facilities will be phased with development to ensure efficient service delivery. Energy efficiency and sustainable design standards are embedded in municipal infrastructure and building policies to reduce emissions and support climate resilience. 2.7. Wise Use and Management of Resources Chapter 4 of the PPS establishes policy direction for the protection and management of Ontario’s natural heritage, water resources, agricultural lands and cultural heritage and archaeological resources. The NEP Secondary Plan sets out policies to identify, protect and enhance a comprehensive Natural Heritage System (NHS), incorporating significant woodlands, wetlands, valleylands and hydrologic features. Development and site alteration are prohibited within key natural features and Environmental Impact Studies (EIS) are required for adjacent lands to demonstrate no negative impacts on ecological functions. The Secondary Plan also encourages Low Impact Development and stormwater management practices that maintain hydrology and improve water quality. The Secondary Plan also requires development to be phased adjacent to livestock operations sitting outside of the NEP Secondary Plan Area in accordance with Minimum Distance Separation Guidelines. The Secondary Plan addresses cultural heritage and archaeology by requiring identification, evaluation, and conservation of built heritage resources, cultural heritage landscapes, and archaeological sites. Adaptive reuse of heritage structures is encouraged, and First Nation engagement and archaeological monitoring are required where warranted, ensuring that Indigenous cultural values and archaeological resources are respected and conserved. Northeast Pickering Secondary Plan Policy Conformity October 2025 7 3. Envision Durham and Pickering Official Plans The Envision Durham Official Plan (Envision Durham) establishes the Region’s long-term growth management and land use planning framework to 2051. It allocates population and employment growth, defines settlement area boundaries and sets out regional objectives for complete, sustainable and resilient communities. Through Envision Durham, the NEP Secondary Plan Area was brought into the Regional Urban Area Boundary and designated as Community Area and Employment Area which was approved by the Province in late 2024. Envision Durham sets the regional policy framework that the City of Pickering must implement through its Official Plan and the NEP Secondary Plan. Pursuant to Bill 23, as of January 1, 2025, the Region of Durham is defined by the province as “an upper-tier municipality without planning responsibilities” and as a result, Envision Durham is now an Official Plan of the City of Pickering. The Pickering Official Plan (OP), adopted in 1997 and amended numerous times since, is the City’s primary land use planning document. The City is currently undertaking an Official Plan Review to incorporate Envision Durham and ensure consistency with Provincial policies. The NEP Secondary Plan will be adopted as an amendment to the Pickering OP. Both Envision Durham and the Pickering OP share consistent policy themes related to growth management, housing, employment, transportation, natural heritage, infrastructure and climate resilience. Given this alignment, both documents are addressed together below. They collectively provide the policy framework that the NEP conforms to and implements through detailed, area-specific policies and mapping. 3.1. Urban Structure and Settlement Areas Envision Durham identifies NEP within the Regional Urban Area Boundary, designating lands as Community Area and Employment Area. Map 1-Regional Structure (shown below) also identifies the conceptual location of a Regional Centre in the centre of NEP and Regional Corridors along Seventh Concession Road and Salem Road. According to Envision Durham Policy 12.13, unless delineated and/or otherwise specified, the internal boundaries and alignments of the components of the Urban Areas on Map 1 are approximate and are not intended to mark the exact location or extent of the designation of such components. The NEP Secondary Plan implements these designations by establishing a detailed community structure that includes a Regional Centre, Community Nodes, Mixed Corridors and Prestige Employment Areas straddling Highway 407. This structure reflects the Urban System policies in Chapter 5 of Envision Durham, which call for compact, transit- supportive growth within defined settlement boundaries, and conforms with the land use hierarchy established in Chapter 3 (Land Use) of the Pickering OP. The land use designations of the NEP Secondary Plan mirror those in the Pickering OP, including Urban Residential Areas, Mixed Use Areas and Employment Areas, while providing the additional policy detail necessary to guide area-specific development. Northeast Pickering Secondary Plan Policy Conformity October 2025 8 Northeast Pickering Regional Structure (Envision Durham Map 1) Envision Durham sets out specific policies for 2051 Urban Expansion Areas in Section 5.7 to guide further detailed planning and implementation at the area municipal level. The NEP Secondary Plan was prepared as part of a comprehensive secondary planning process, as required by Envision Durham Policy 5.7.2 and 5.7.3, supported by technical studies addressing servicing, transportation, fiscal impact, natural heritage and water resource system, agricultural impacts and sustainability. In alignment with Envision Durham, a Scoped Subwatershed Plan was undertaken and the policies of the NEP Secondary Plan direct the preparation of a Master Environmental Servicing Plan (MESP) to coordinate infrastructure delivery and environmental protection. In accordance with Envision Durham Policy 5.7.7 and 5.7.8, the NEP Secondary Plan also incorporates detailed requirements for watershed and hazard management within the Pickering 2051 Urban Expansion Area. The Scoped Subwatershed Study includes hydrologic and hydraulic assessments that delineate natural hazards, evaluate flooding and erosion risks and identify appropriate mitigation measures consistent with the Carruthers Creek Watershed Plan. The proposed Natural Heritage System policies ensure resources are protected, enhanced and restored, while stormwater quality, quantity and erosion control measures are implemented through a treatment-train approach. The policies further require any necessary flood-mitigation works or infrastructure improvements be funded through cost-sharing agreements. Consistent with Envision Durham Policy 5.7.9, preparation of the NEP Secondary Plan included consultation with the City of Pickering, Town of Ajax, Region of Durham, TRCA and Indigenous communities. Both Envision Durham and the Pickering OP direct growth to defined settlement areas where full municipal services can be provided and where development can occur in a manner that optimizes existing and planned infrastructure. By focusing growth in a Northeast Pickering Secondary Plan Policy Conformity October 2025 9 compact, mixed-use and transit-oriented development pattern, the NEP Secondary Plan fulfills both the Region’s goal of sustainable urban expansion and the City’s vision for complete and connected communities. 3.2. Growth Management and Phasing Both Envision Durham and the Pickering OP require that growth proceed in a coordinated, phased and fiscally responsible manner. Envision Durham’s growth management framework directs urban development to proceed in logical phases supported by comprehensive infrastructure planning and financing strategies, while Pickering’s implementation policies require development to be staged to reflect the City’s financial and servicing capacity. The policies of the NEP Secondary Plan require the preparation of an Infrastructure Staging and Phasing Plan and a Master Environmental Servicing Plan (MESP) to coordinate the timing of development with the delivery of infrastructure and community facilities. The NEP Secondary Plan also requires execution of a Cost Sharing and Master Parkland Agreement prior to development approvals, maintaining fiscal accountability. Neighbourhood Plans must demonstrate the orderly transition of servicing and infrastructure. 3.3. Housing and Complete Communities Envision Durham and the Pickering OP both emphasize the creation of complete, inclusive and healthy communities that provide a full range of housing, employment, infrastructure, parks and community services to meet the needs of current and future residents. Envision Durham’s complete communities and housing system policies in Chapter 3 direct municipalities to plan for diverse, affordable and attainable housing as part of mixed-use transit-supportive neighbourhoods, while Pickering’s housing objectives in Chapter 6 reinforce the provision of diverse and affordable housing within complete, mixed-use inclusive neighbourhoods. The NEP Secondary Plan implements these directions by providing for a broad mix of a housing types and densities within its Urban Residential Areas and Mixed Use Areas, supported by a network of parks, schools and community facilities. The Secondary Plan also establishes affordable housing targets of 25% community-wide and 35% within the Regional Centre to meet affordability objectives. In addition, the Secondary Plan encourages multi-generational housing, additional dwelling units and diverse tenure options, supporting inclusivity and aging in place. Pickering’s community services policies in Chapter 7 also direct that a range of facilities be planned and distributed equitably throughout neighbourhoods. NEP’s land use structure contributes directly to the creation of complete communities. It distributes community services, retail and institutional uses and active transportation routes throughout neighbourhoods, ensuring residents have convenient access to daily needs. The Secondary Plan co-locates parks, schools and recreation facilities, integrates employment opportunities within walking and cycling distance of residential areas, and introduces a Northeast Pickering Secondary Plan Policy Conformity October 2025 10 centrally located Regional Centre that is supported by a future east-west transit corridor north of Highway 407. 3.4. Transportation and Transit System Envision Durham and the Pickering OP both promote an integrated, multi-modal transportation system that supports compact, complete and transit-oriented communities. Envision Durham’s transportation system policies (Chapter 8) direct municipalities to coordinate local transportation planning with Regional corridors and to protect for future higher-order transit opportunities, while Pickering’s transportation objectives in Chapter 4 emphasize a balanced network that supports walking, cycling and transit use. The NEP Secondary Plan implements Envision Durham and the Pickering OP by protecting for a future east-west higher-order transit corridor and by establishing a modified grid network that links neighbourhoods, employment areas, parks and community facilities. The policies of the Secondary Plan set out direction for the design and implementation of roads, requiring complete streets, block lengths that enhance connectivity and safe, accessible connections to sidewalks, cycling routes, trails and transit stops. The Secondary Plan also identifies the locations for future higher-order transit stations and ensures local street design will accommodate bus service. 3.5. Natural Heritage System and Environmental Protection Envision Durham and the Pickering OP both identify a connected Natural Heritage System (NHS) that protects and enhances significant natural features and functions. Envision Durham establishes a Greenland system composed of significant woodlands, wetlands, valleylands and hydrologic features, while Pickering’s OP presents and refines the Natural Heritage System (NHS) at the local scale. The NEP Secondary Plan conforms with and implements Envision Durham and the Pickering OP by designating a detailed NHS that reflects the findings of the Scoped Watershed Study. The final NHS boundaries will be confirmed through the Master Environmental Servicing Plan. The Secondary Plan policies prohibit development and site alteration within key natural heritage and hydrologic features and requires Environmental Impact Studies (EIS) to evaluate potential effects on adjacent lands, consistent with Envision Durham and OP policy direction. The policies also encourage restoration and enhancement measures, including naturalization of stormwater management facilities, establishment of ecological linkages, and reforestation of valleylands and buffers. The NEP Secondary Plan further integrates the NHS into the urban fabric by requiring that neighbourhood design provide public views, trails and linkages to natural areas, while fencing and signage to prevent encroachment from private lots. These measures align with the City’s goal of treating the NHS as a key organizing element of community structure and Envision Durham’s broader objective of maintaining ecological connectivity across municipal boundaries. Together, Envision Durham, the Pickering OP, and NEP Secondary Plan ensure that the natural environment is protected, enhanced and Northeast Pickering Secondary Plan Policy Conformity October 2025 11 integrated as a central component of NEP’s long-term environmental sustainability and community identity. 3.6. Cultural Heritage Resources Envision Durham and the Pickering OP both require that significant built heritage resources, cultural heritage landscapes and archaeological sites be identified, conserved and incorporated sensitively into new development. Within Chapter 3, Envision Durham promotes conservation of heritage resources, adaptive reuse and early engagement with Indigenous communities, while Pickering’s cultural heritage polices in Chapter 8 establish detailed guidance for the protection, conservation and integration of heritage resources into development plans. The NEP Secondary Plan implements these directions by requiring heritage and archaeological assessments, First Nation engagement and the innovative, adaptive reuse of heritage structures where feasible. The Secondary Plan encourages the integration of conserved heritage buildings and cultural landscapes into parks, public spaces and community focal points to maintain their visibility and interpretive value within an urban environment. 3.7. Climate Change and Sustainability Envision Durham and the Pickering OP both promote sustainable, low-carbon and climate- resilient design. Envision Durham’s climate change and sustainability policies set out in Chapter 3 encourage municipalities to integrate climate change adaptation, energy efficiency and greenhouse gas reduction strategies into all land use planning decisions. A set of sustainable development and design policies have been added into the NEP Secondary Plan which encourage energy-efficient building design, renewable energy integration, low-impact stormwater management and native landscaping to mitigate heat- island effects and enhance ecological performance. The plan also supports compact, mixed-use and transit-supportive development patterns that reduce auto-dependency and overall carbon emissions. Together, Envision Durham, the Pickering OP and NEP Secondary Plan establish a cohesive framework for climate-responsive and environmentally sustainable growth, ensuring that NEP develops as a resilient, sustainable community consistent with municipal and regional climate action objectives.