The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutPLN 04-26 Report to Council Report Number: PLN 04-26 Date: March 30, 2026 From: Kyle Bentley Director, City Development & CBO Subject: Official Plan Amendment OPA 25-003P City-Initiated Northeast Pickering Secondary Plan Updated Staff Report: Responses and Revisions to Report PLN 03-26 Recommendation: 1. That Official Plan Amendment Application OPA 25-003P, 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 04-26, 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 04-26, be approved; 3. That staff be directed to negotiate the terms of the following agreements with the North East Pickering Landowners Group Inc. (the “Landowners 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 (the "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 conservation authorities, as set out in section 11.B.71 a) of the Secondary Plan; and, ii. details of funding arrangements requiring the Landowners 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 function; PLN 04-26 March 30, 2026 Page 2 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.72 of the Secondary Plan; ii. the process to complete the Neighbourhood Plans either one at a time or concurrently; and, iii. details of funding arrangements requiring the Landowners 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 function; c. an agreement respecting the funding and preparation of Development Charges and Community Benefits Charges By-laws (the "DC-CBCBs”) and a Fiscal Impact Study (the ”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 11.B.70 b) v. and c) 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; and Municipal Land Needs; and, ii. details of funding arrangements requiring the Landowners 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 (including compensation where appropriate). The MPCLA shall be completed and executed in sufficient time to be inputted into the FIS; e. an agreement respecting the funding and preparation of an Infrastructure Staging and Phasing Plan (the "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.68 of the Secondary Plan; and, ii. details of funding arrangements requiring the Landowners 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 function; f. consistent with the requirements of the Secondary Plan, an agreement that the Landowners Group shall not receive 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, as PLN 04-26 March 30, 2026 Page 3 set out in section 11.B.70 b) iii. of the Secondary Plan, and fully funded in advance by the Landowners Group; 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 section 11.B.70 b) iv. of the Secondary Plan, and fully funded in advance by the Landowners Group; iii. 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 Landowners Group; and, iv. the MESP, the Neighbourhood Plans, the DC-CBCBs, the FIS and the ISPP are approved or accepted by the City as the case may be; 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, Phase 3 Scoped Subwatershed Study, 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 staff continue to engage with existing property owners in the Northeast Pickering area, residents of Greenwood, relevant stakeholders, and the broader public at each milestone in the ongoing planning process; 7. That the City Clerk advise the Williams Treaties First Nations, all statutory commenting agencies, the Landowners 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, delegates to the March 30, 2026 Council meeting and interested parties of Council’s decision on Pickering Official Plan Amendment 54, which adds policies and designations regarding the Secondary Plan and other general policies to the Pickering Official Plan; 8. That appropriate mitigation is taken to prevent impacts from development in Northeast Pickering on local wells, specifically in Greenwood and the former hamlet of Kinsale; 9. That staff continue to work with the residents of Greenwood to preserve the rural character of the hamlet; 10. That, through the forthcoming Neighbourhood Plan process, the block pattern and layout respect the existing homes and businesses in the former hamlet of Kinsale while also providing them with the opportunity to redevelop in accordance with the Northeast Pickering Secondary Plan; and, 11. That appropriate City of Pickering officials be authorized to take the actions necessary to implement the Recommendations in this report. PLN 04-26 March 30, 2026 Page 4 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 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, along the Kingston Road Corridor, and in the City Centre, for many more years. The Northeast Pickering community represents the City’s long-range growth up to and beyond 2051. At the Planning & Development Committee Meeting on March 2, 2026, staff were directed to consider the written comments received and the verbal delegations in revising the Secondary Plan where appropriate. This report addresses the issues that were raised and describes the revisions that have been made to the proposed Secondary Plan. Working collaboratively with the North East Pickering Landowners Group Inc. (the “Landowners Group”), City staff will continue to oversee the further planning and related studies that will include continued public and agency input, and engagement with the Williams Treaties 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 04-26. 2.0 Relationship to the Pickering Strategic Plan: The recommendations in this report respond to the Pickering Strategic Plan Priority 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. 3.0 Financial Implications: A key fundamental principle as it relates to municipal finance is that “growth should pay for growth” recognizing the limitations imposed by Provincial legislation. 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 PLN 04-26 March 30, 2026 Page 5 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. Further discussion on how new communities are funded is included in Section 4.5. 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. 4.0 Discussion: 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 recommended Secondary Plan was presented for consideration at the Planning & Development Committee Meeting on March 2, 2026. The City received 17 written submissions and, during the meeting, 14 delegates shared their comments directly with the Committee. This report has been prepared to address comments and questions received on the recommended Secondary Plan that was presented at the March 2, 2026, meeting. A detailed comments matrix of verbal and written comments is included in Attachment 4 to this report. 4.1 Landowners Group vs. Property Owners There are 173 individual properties located in Northeast Pickering. Those properties are owned by 125 different property owners. A number of property owners in Northeast Pickering have formally organized under a trustee to advocate for the development of these lands. These property owners are known as the North East Pickering Landowners Group Inc. (the “Landowners Group”). Table 1 provides a summary of the current ownership in Northeast Pickering. Table 1: Ownership in Northeast Pickering Total Land in Northeast Pickering Owned by members of the Landowners Group Owned by non-participating property owners 1,763 Ha 54% 46% There is no requirement for property owners in Northeast Pickering to join the Landowners Group. Property owners can continue to use and renovate their properties in accordance with the existing zoning permissions. However, if any property owner wishes to develop their property, in accordance with the permissions provided in the Secondary Plan and the subsequent planning work, they will, as a condition of approval, need to receive an acknowledgement from the Trustee of the Landowners Group that they have made satisfactory arrangements to pay their proportion of the shared area development costs. PLN 04-26 March 30, 2026 Page 6 4.2 Secondary Plan Review Process 4.2.1 Background Studies For a Secondary Plan of this scale, it is typical for supporting studies to be completed over the course of many years to comprehensively capture the future needs of the study area. The land use schedule and policies have been informed by the recommendations made in the supporting studies. Throughout the Secondary Plan process, several studies have also been revised as more detailed information about the population and proposed land uses within the Secondary Plan became known. As part of the technical background work, 13 supporting studies were completed with one study (the Scoped Subwatershed Study) still ongoing. The recommendations of the final phase of the Scoped Subwatershed Study will inform the subsequent planning work for the Secondary Plan area. The supporting studies, listed in Table 2, have informed the proposed land use schedule and Secondary Plan policies. Table 2: Supporting Studies – Northeast Pickering Secondary Plan. Study Initiation Date Completion Date Agricultural Impact Assessment July 2022 April 2023 Archaeological Assessment July 2022 December 2022 Cultural Heritage Resource Assessment July 2022 January 2024 Employment Lands Strategy July 2022 April 2023 Integrated Transportation/Transit Study July 2022 May 2023 (Revised February 2026) Community Placemaking Study July 2022 April 2023 Affordable Housing Strategy July 2022 April 2023 Sustainability Report July 2022 April 2023 Retail Market Study July 2022 April 2023 (Revised September 2025) Community Services and Facilities Study July 2022 April 2023 (Revised August 2025) Municipal Servicing Analysis July 2022 April 2023 Natural Heritage and Hazard Report July 2022 March 2024 Phase 1 Scoped Subwatershed Study May 2024 December 2024 PLN 04-26 March 30, 2026 Page 7 Phase 2 Scoped Subwatershed Study October 2025 January 2026 Phase 3 Scoped Subwatershed Study Anticipated to be initiated in Spring 2026 4.2.2 Public Engagement Multiple points of engagement were provided to receive input from Williams Treaties First Nations, property owners, agencies, the Landowners Group, and the broader public. Three public information centres were held in 2023, 2024, and 2025. The statutory public meeting was held on November 10, 2025, prior to the recommended Secondary Plan being submitted for approval on March 2, 2026. Notices for each of the public events were mailed to all property owners within Northeast Pickering, as well as all property owners within 150 metres. In addition, notices were posted to the City’s website and social media accounts. At key points, notices were also published in the Toronto Star. After each event, participants requesting further notice were added to the City’s growing list of Interested Parties to be informed directly of upcoming meetings, reports, and events. 4.3 Secondary Plan Approval Process Since technical work on the Northeast Pickering Secondary Plan began in April 2022, the project has proceeded in accordance with all accepted practices and requirements under the Planning Act. The province approved the Envision Durham Official Plan, which added Northeast Pickering into the Pickering urban boundary, designating it as “2051 Urban Expansion Areas”. If the City did not put forward a City-initiated secondary plan for the future development of Northeast Pickering, the Landowners Group could submit their own secondary plan as an amendment to the Pickering Official Plan. The City would then be obligated to process that amendment. Approval of the Secondary Plan will not permit the imminent development of lands in Northeast Pickering. Significant planning and engineering work must still be undertaken to further refine both the constraints, and the land use plans for this area. This also includes the completion of studies that have been requested by public delegations (further environmental review, stormwater review, and fiscal impacts). 4.4 Next Steps Subject to the approval of the Northeast Pickering Secondary Plan, the City will continue with the next steps in planning a complete community in Northeast Pickering. This includes entering PLN 04-26 March 30, 2026 Page 8 into the necessary agreements with the Landowners Group and preparing terms of reference for the subsequent planning and engineering processes. This work will be conducted as part of the Master Environmental Servicing Plan and the Neighbourhood Plan process. In addition, environmental assessments will need to be completed to evaluate and determine the transportation and servicing infrastructure needed to support this new development. Finally, a fiscal impact study will be completed to determine the public costs of new development in order to inform the preparation of a new development charge By-law and community benefit charges By-law. The approval of the Secondary Plan will provide the necessary framework for implementation and will inform the terms of reference for the further studies. The foundational land use matters in the Secondary Plan need to confirmed before more detailed planning and engineering work is completed. As the process continues, Williams Treaties First Nations rights holders, agencies, stakeholders, property owners, the public, and the Landowners Group will be further engaged to provide input to this work. Future planning and engineering work required for Northeast Pickering will either be led by the City, or peer reviewed and overseen by the City, ensuring the City is satisfied with the independence of the process and the validity of the results. The cost of all future studies and, oversight functions associated with Northeast Pickering will be paid for 100% by the Landowners Group. 4.4.1 Related Regional Process Some of the future work required for Northeast Pickering will be of interest to both the City and the Region of Durham. In those instances, the City will collaborate with the Region of Durham on the preparation of terms of reference and on the review of the work. At the same time that the City undertakes the planning for Northeast Pickering, the Region of Durham has authorized funding to begin on an Environmental Assessment for various Regional services (water and wastewater) required in and around Northeast Pickering. The full cost of this work will be paid for by the Landowners Group and will not be recoverable as a future development charge credit. 4.5 How New Communities are Funded New community infrastructure is funded through a growth-oriented model relying on development charges and property taxes to prevent existing residents from bearing the full cost of expansion. Development charges mainly act as a primary cost-recovery tool for capital projects such as parks, roads and recreation facilities while the remainder of infrastructure and operating costs are covered by new property tax assessments, facility related user fees and community benefit charges. In addition, where applicable, City staff will always investigate the opportunity to explore senior level government grant funding opportunities. This approach PLN 04-26 March 30, 2026 Page 9 ensures that significant developments, such as the growth planned for Northeast Pickering, align with revenue generated directly from development activity. If property taxes, development and community benefit charges are insufficient to fund Northeast Pickering's capital and operating program, the City also has other revenue tools such as the ability to implement "Special Area Rates" to levy taxes directly on the benefiting area (Northeast Pickering) to uphold the "growth pays for growth" principle. (Currently, there are a few municipalities in Ontario who have implemented special area rates as provided by subsection 326 of the Municipal Act.). In the future, the “Council of the day,” could consider the opportunity to implement special area rates as a funding option. With respect to Northeast Pickering, the first step in this process is to complete the FIS that in- turn determines if there is any shortfall and or corresponding burden to existing Pickering taxpayers. This detailed analysis should take into account the development on a per year and overall basis to ensure that the existing Pickering residents are not required to subsidize Northeast Pickering during development and build out phases. The total cost incurred to-date (2022 to 2025) for the development of the Secondary Plan is $672,198. The current funding model for the Secondary Plan costs are 71% Landowners Group and 29% development charges. Development charge fees are only collected from new construction development. Therefore, to date, there is zero cost to the existing Pickering taxpayer for the development of the Secondary Plan. As stated in Report PLN 03-26, the subsequent planning and engineering processes will be fully funded by the Landowners Group. 4.6 What we Heard A summary of the written comments received, and the delegations made at the March 2, 2026, Planning & Development Committee meeting have been included in the Comments Matrix in Attachment 4. A summary of a few of the repeated topics raised is included in the Sections 4.7 to 4.9 below. 4.7 Provincial Conformity Several delegates expressed their concerns that the proposed Secondary Plan conflicted with various Provincial policies and legislation. 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. PLN 04-26 March 30, 2026 Page 10 The Northeast Pickering Secondary Plan is located outside of the Provincial Greenbelt and outside of the Oak Ridges Moraine Conservation Plan. The proposed 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. 4.8 Natural Heritage Mapping The Natural Heritage System prepared for the Secondary Plan is based on a review of background information and mapping from a variety of sources including the respective conservation authorities, Land Information Ontario, and a limited number of site-specific environmental impact studies. It is expected that further refinements will be made to the Natural Heritage System as part of the forthcoming Master Environmental Servicing Plan. A number of property owners either spoke at, or submitted comments to, the March 2, 2026, Planning & Development Committee Meeting, requesting that the natural heritage system mapped to their property be reevaluated. The City’s environmental consultant, Montrose Environmental, has reviewed each of these requests. At this time, they can only recommend revisions to the Natural Heritage System for the properties identified along Sideline 6. The complexity of features present on all other properties will require that they be further evaluated as part of the Master Environmental Servicing Plan. 4.9 Recreation Facilities Concerns were raised over the basis, location, and timing of recreational facilities in the Secondary Plan. Additional information and rationale are provided below. 4.9.1 Future Recreation Facilities Summary Recreation facilities and amenities included in the Northeast Pickering Secondary Plan are based on recreation service provisions outlined in the Recreation & Parks Ten Year Plan (2024-2034) and the Community Services and Facilities Study (CSFS) that was developed as a background study for the Northeast Secondary Plan. The CSFS was updated in 2025 to incorporate the approved Recreation & Parks Ten Year Plan (2024-2034) and to reflect increased population estimates for Northeast Pickering. The CSFS identified that three recreation facilities and three library branches are required in Northeast Pickering. The CSFS also identified required sports and recreation amenities for this community. Staff have co-located the sports amenities and the branch libraries that were listed in the CSFS into these recreation facilities. The three proposed community facilities are: Recreation Complex • Aquatics centre • Triple gymnasium PLN 04-26 March 30, 2026 Page 11 • Fitness centre • Multipurpose rooms and meeting spaces • Branch library • Administration, support spaces, circulation and parking Sportsplex • Arenas and/or indoor turf facility • Single gymnasium • Fitness centre • Multipurpose rooms and meeting spaces • Branch library • Administration, support spaces, circulation and parking Community Centre • Multipurpose rooms and meeting spaces • Branch library • Administration, support spaces, circulation and parking 4.9.2 Receation Facility Locations The location of the recreation facilities has taken into account their recommended co-location with parks. The location of recreation facilities will be assessed and further refined through the development of Neighbourhood Plans. As a result, the locations of the recreation facilities that are currently shown on the Northeast Pickering Land Use Schedule are subject to change. 4.9.3 Timing for Construction of Recreation Facilities The composition and size of recreation facilities will be further refined as part of the future 2035 – 2045 Recreation & Parks Ten Year Plan, which will include extensive community engagement. In advance of the next iteration of the Recreation & Parks Ten Year Plan, some targeted studies have been identified that will be undertaken prior to 2034, including an updated Arena Strategy that would take into account aging arenas and new facilities needed to maintain service levels. Construction of recreation facilities in Northeast Pickering is not included in the City’s 2026 Capital Budget & 2027 – 2035 Capital forecast and is not expected to proceed within the next ten years. Construction and operating costs of these facilities will be assessed through the fiscal impact study. It is anticipated that recreation facilities will be constructed within the later phases of the development of the Northeast Pickering community. PLN 04-26 March 30, 2026 Page 12 4.9.4 Clarification on Recreation Facilities A Public Land Needs Summary was included as Attachment 9 to Report PLN 03-26. Based on requests for clarification, staff have included a revised Public Land Needs Summary as Attachment 5 to this report. Revisions to the original document include the following clarifications: • The locations of the recreation facilities are subject to change and will be further defined through the development of Neighbourhood Plans; and, • The timing of the construction of recreation facilities is anticipated in later phases of the development of Northeast Pickering. The sequencing for the construction of the three recreation facilities has not been determined and will be further defined through future studies. 4.10 Revisions to the Land Use Schedule Based on the submissions received and delegations made to the Planning & Development Committee on March 2, 2026, staff have made the following revisions to the Secondary Plan Land Use Schedule. 4.10.1 Natural Heritage System The City’s environmental consultant (Montrose Environmental) has recommended only making revisions (that is, a reduction) to the Natural Heritage System for the properties identified along Sideline 6 at this time. The complexity of features present on all other properties will require that they be further evaluated as part of the Master Environmental Servicing Plan. 4.10.2 Sportsplex The proposed Sportsplex has been relocated further north on the Land Use Schedule. This will better align the long-term need for this recreation facility outside of areas that are anticipated to receive early water and sanitary sewer allocation. 4.10.3 General Employment Area Designation To increase the flexibility of land use permissions, and accommodate a broader range of future employers, a General Employment Area designation has been included for lands located within the interior of the employment area. PLN 04-26 March 30, 2026 Page 13 4.10.4 Park and Community Facility Locations A statement has been added to the Land Use Schedule legend, stating that the location of all parks and community facilities are conceptual and will be finalized through the Neighbourhood Plan exercise. 4.11 Revisions to the Policies Based on the submissions received and delegations made to the Planning & Development Committee on March 2, 2026, staff have made the following revisions to the Secondary Plan policies: • Similar to an existing policy for the Natural Heritage System, should the boundaries of Natural Hazards be revised based on more detailed information • An amendment to the plan will not be required; and, • The abutting urban land use designation shall apply; • The Phase 3 Scoped Subwatershed Study will recommend mitigation strategies and an adaptive monitoring program to prevent impact on existing wells; • Include a policy requiring the sensitive integration of the design of future development with the existing homes and businesses in the former hamlet of Kinsale; • Include a “General Employment Area” designation and policies; • Clarify that the location of parks and community facilities is conceptual and will be finalized through the Neighbourhood Plan process; • Reduce the size requirements for a Sportsplex if co-located with a community park and include further locational criteria; • Qualify the condition of land provided for parks and community facilities; • Change the provision for affordable housing from the gratuitous dedication of land to the sale of land; • Clarify that anyone who wants to develop their land will, as a condition of approval, need to receive an acknowledgement from the Trustee of the Landowners Group that they have made satisfactory arrangements to pay their proportion of the shared area development costs, but are not required to join the Landowners Group; • Clarify the approval status required for various technical studies before future development applications will be approved; and, • Provide flexibility in the completion of selected elements of the MESP. 4.12 Ongoing Engagement As previously stated, staff are committed to further engage with Williams Treaties First Nations rights holders, property owners, the Landowners Group, agencies, and the public as part of the subsequent Master Environmental Servicing Plan and Neighbourhood Plan exercises. Staff will continue dialoging with the Williams Treaties First Nations on establishing engagement protocols as part of the next steps in the planning process. Additionally, staff have PLN 04-26 March 30, 2026 Page 14 committed to holding regularly scheduled rights holders meetings with Williams Treaties First Nations. As part of the future Neighbourhood Planning process, staff will seek input from the public into how the new neighbourhoods can blend existing attributes (like homes and natural features) with future development and infrastructure (like roads, parks, and storm ponds). In addition to early engagement, the Neighbourhood Plans will be amendments to the Pickering Official Plan, providing the public with an opportunity to also provide formal comments as part of the approval process. The Secondary Plan is before Council for approval as a City-initiated amendment to the Pickering Official Plan. Under the Planning Act, the ability to appeal applications is reserved for affected property owners and prescribed persons. 5.0 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 • Homes for all stages of life and household types • Mix of commercial services and employment areas • Associated parks, community facilities, and other public services 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: PLN 04-26 March 30, 2026 Page 15 • both the City’s and the public’s interests are represented in the forthcoming planning process; • “growth will pay for growth”, subject to Provincial legislation; • the City acquires the lands it needs for public uses; • development does not outpace the provision of public services; and, • all benefitting landowners within the Secondary Plan bear the responsibilities and reap the benefits from future development. 6.0 Recommendations: 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 and the March 2, 2026, Planning & Development Committee Meeting. The proposed implementation framework will ensure that all necessary planning and engineering 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, and the Infrastructure Staging and Phasing Plan; • That staff identify appropriate expenditures in future years’ budget submissions to cover studies related to Northeast Pickering; • That actions are taken to protect local wells, preserve the rural character of Greenwood, and effectively integrate new development with existing homes and businesses in the former hamlet of Kinsale; • That staff continue to engage with existing property owners in the Northeast Pickering area, residents of Greenwood, relevant stakeholders, and the broader public at each milestone in the ongoing planning process; and, • That staff continue to engage and collaborate with Williams Treaties First Nations rights holders in the preparation of the Neighbourhood Plans, and related planning processes. PLN 04-26 March 30, 2026 Page 16 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 Report PLN 03-26 (without Attachments) 4. Comments Matrix 5. Revised Summary and Explanation of Public Land Needs for Northeast Pickering 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 CR:PW:ZK:ld Recommended for the consideration of Pickering City Council By: Marisa Carpino, M.A. Chief Administrative Officer Attachment 1 to Report PLN 04-26 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 as follows: That Amendment 54 to the Official Plan for the City of Pickering, attached hereto as Exhibit “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 30th day of March, 2026. ________________________________ Kevin Ashe, Mayor ________________________________ Susan Cassel, City Clerk Exhibit “A” to By-law XXXX/26 Amendment 54 to the City of Pickering Official Plan 3 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 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. 4 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 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 5 • 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. 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. 6 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 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; e) focus on land stewardship, environmental protection and restoration to retain natural beauty and function; 7 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. 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 8 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.” 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 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 9 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. 10 Appendix A Chapter 11.B – Northeast Pickering Secondary Plan Table of Contents Vision ......................................................................................................................... 11 Guiding Principles ...................................................................................................... 11 Community Structure ................................................................................................. 12 Land Use ................................................................................................................... 13 Natural Heritage System ............................................................................................ 14 Mixed Use Areas........................................................................................................ 20 Business Areas .......................................................................................................... 26 Employment Area ...................................................................................................... 27 Urban Residential Areas ............................................................................................ 29 Parks and Community Facilities ................................................................................ 32 Transportation and Transit ......................................................................................... 37 Streetscape Design to Promote Walking ................................................................... 40 Trail Network .............................................................................................................. 41 Sustainable Design and Development ....................................................................... 42 Housing ..................................................................................................................... 44 Cultural Heritage Resources ...................................................................................... 46 Secondary Plan Implementation ................................................................................ 49 Neighbourhood Plan Implementation ......................................................................... 52 11 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. 12 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. 13 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. 14 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 15 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. 16 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; 17 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. 18 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 19 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; c) further refinement of the boundary of Natural Hazards may occur as part of the preparation of Neighbourhood Plans in consultation with the respective Conservation Authority and any additions, deletions or refinements will not require an amendment to this Plan; and d) where a Natural Hazard is reduced in accordance with Section 11.B.13 c), the urban designation abutting the Natural Hazard shall apply. 20 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 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 21 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. 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, 22 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. 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. 23 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; 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; 24 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; 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; 25 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; 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; 26 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; 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. 27 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; 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 Permitted Uses in General Employment Areas 11.B.27 City Council shall permit the following uses: a) manufacturing; b) assembly, processing of goods; c) service industries; d) research and development facilities; e) urban agriculture; f) warehousing; 28 g) freight transfer, transportation facilities; and h) outdoor storage associated with a permitted use. City Policy Urban Agricultural Related Employment 11.B.28 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 and General 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 Prestige Employment Design Considerations 11.B.29 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 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; 29 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.30 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.31 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.30 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.32 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.32 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.33 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.34 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.35 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.35 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.35 a); and e) require all parkland acquired by the City to be relatively flat and free of encumbrances. City Policy Parks Hierarchy 11.B.36 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. e) 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.37 City Council shall require the following community facilities: a) Sportsplex – one sportsplex which shall: i) have a minimum size of 10 hectares or 8 hectares where co-located with a community park; ii) be co-located with a community park that will support active recreational use; and iii) be located on an arterial road and accessible by 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) all lands for community facilities shall be relatively flat and free of any encumbrances, including natural heritage system; h) publicly-owned community facilities are permitted in any designation except Prestige Employment, General Employment and Natural Heritage System; i) the location of all parks and community facilities shown on the schedule to the Secondary Plan are conceptual. The final locations will be determined during the Neighbourhood Plan exercise; and j) 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.38 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.39 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. 36 City Policy Places of Worship 11.B.40 City Council shall: a) identify potential sites for places of worship through the neighbourhood planning process; 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. 37 Transportation and Transit City Policy Transportation Objectives 11.B.41 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; 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.42 City Council shall require: a) the design of all transportation infrastructure confirms/has regard for the Integrated Transportation/Transit Strategy Report. 38 City Policy Maximizing Transit Usage 11.B.43 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; 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.44 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.45 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; 39 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 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.46 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.47 City Council shall support the implementation of the Westney Road By-pass of Greenwood early in the development of Northeast Pickering. 40 City Policy Highway 407 Interchanges 11.B.48 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.49 City Council shall require a Lake Ridge Road Corridor Access Management Study to determine the intersection control type for the 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.50 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.51 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; 41 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. City Policy Bicycle Parking and Storage 11.B.52 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.52 a) through conditions of draft plan and/or site plan approval as applicable. City Policy Trail Network 11.B.53 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. 42 Sustainable Design and Development City Policy Sustainability Objectives 11.B.54 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 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.55 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; 43 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; 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.56 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. 44 Housing City Policy Objectives 11.B.57 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. City Policy Mix of Housing Types 11.B.58 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.59 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. 45 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. 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 reserved for sale 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 at fair market value. The land to be reserved 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 and be vacant. If no reasonable offer has been received, based on an independent appraisal, within 5 years of the land being offered for sale, the requirement of this policy will be considered to be satisfied; and 46 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. Cultural Heritage Resources City Policy Objectives 11.B.60 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.61 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; 47 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; 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.62 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.63 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; 48 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; 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.64 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.65 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.66 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.67 City Council: a) shall require, as a condition of site plan, subdivision or any other development approval, that applicants become a party to a cost sharing agreement for the Secondary Plan area or receive an acknowledgement from the Trustee under such cost sharing agreement that the applicant has made satisfactory arrangements to pay its proportion of the shared development / infrastructure costs; and b) shall require a Master Parks and Community Lands Agreement be entered into among 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 purposes to be acquired by the Municipality, and the timing of that acquisition where known. 50 City Policy Infrastructure Staging and Phasing Plan 11.B.68 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.69 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 Secondary Plan Area or mitigate any potential impacts from the livestock operations. City Policy Implementation Requirements 11.B.70 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 approved when: 51 a) the following items have been substantially completed to the satisfaction of the City and the Region of Durham: i. an Infrastructure Staging and Phasing Plan for the Secondary Plan as set out in Section 11.B.68; ii. a Master Environmental Servicing Plan as set out in Section 11.B.71; b) the following items have been completed to the satisfaction of the City: i. a Scoped Subwatershed Study for the Secondary Plan area that will include mitigation strategies intended to prevent impacts on existing wells. It will also outline an adaptive monitoring program to track shallow and deep groundwater levels to detect any unexpected changes; ii. Neighbourhood Plans for the respective Neighbourhood as an amendment to the Official Plan; iii. required municipal class environmental assessments for sanitary sewer and water infrastructure; iv. required municipal class environmental assessments for transportation infrastructure; v. a Fiscal Impact Study for the Secondary Plan Area that is based on the phasing of development and ensuring the funding of new infrastructure; c) the Municipality has in full force and effect, and not subject to appeal, 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; and d) the following items are made a condition of site plan, subdivision or any other development approval, as required: i. confirmation from the Northeast Pickering Landowners Group Trustee, that the proponent is in good standing as contemplated in Section 11.B.67 a); and ii. confirmation that the proponent has satisfied the requirements of the Master Park and Community Lands Agreement as set out in Section 11.B.67 b). 52 Neighbourhood Plan Implementation City Policy Master Environmental Servicing Plan 11.B.71 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) consider the review and approval of select elements within the MESP based on the respective watersheds; c) 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; d) 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; e) 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; f) 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; g) 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; h) assess the hedgerows and wetland/water features shown on Appendix C to characterize their ultimate function and future protection; i) 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 j) include a subwatershed wide monitoring program for aquatic and terrestrial features associated with the build-out of the Secondary Plan Area; k) include a restoration plan for the Secondary Plan Area that identifies opportunities for restoration, enhancement, connectivity and compensation throughout the community; l) describe the size and location of required trunk sanitary sewage collection system including any pumping stations and force mains; m) describe the water distribution system including the size and location of reservoirs and pumping stations; n) identify preliminary grading; o) 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; p) set out a staging and sequencing of infrastructure required for each Neighbourhood Plan; and q) be prepared collaboratively by the City and the Northeast Pickering Landowners Group with costs being funded solely by the Northeast Pickering Landowners Group. City Policy Neighbourhood Plan Requirements 11.B.72 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 iteratively with the MESP; c) consider landowner concept plan input; d) provide a block plan level of detail on the intended block and pattern of development; e) 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; f) identify the location of Community Parks, Neighbourhood Parks, Urban Parks and Village Greens; 54 g) Identify the location of all recreation complexes and community centres; h) identify the locations of required fire stations, based on a Fire Services Department response model study as referenced in Policy 11.B.37 d); i) prepare an Active Transportation Master Plan for the entire Secondary Plan Area as referenced in Policy 11.B.53; j) 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; k) include a transition strategy for the Hamlet of Greenwood as referenced in Policy 11.B.31; l) sensitively integrate the design of future development with the existing homes and businesses in the former hamlet of Kinsale; m) identify the location of elementary and secondary schools; n) incorporate the general location and approximate boundaries of stormwater management facilities including low impact development (LID) measures determined through the MESP; o) identify significant built heritage resources and/or cultural heritage landscapes and the means to incorporate them into the neighbourhoods as placemaking opportunities; p) consider and integrate the recommendations of completed archaeological and heritage assessments; q) develop urban design standards including, but not limited to, block patterns, streetscapes, building height transitions, and road cross sections; r) delineate the pedestrian and bikeway network through the Neighbourhood and Natural Heritage System; s) be refined based on input from the MESP; and t) 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. 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 Si d e l i n e 4 Si d e l i n e 4 Sa l e m R o a d Sa l e m R o a d Au d l e y R o a d Hwy 407 Si d e l i n e 6 Si d e l i n e 4 Si d e l i n e 2 We s t n e y R o a d Si d e l i n e 8 Si d e l i n e 6 Si d e l i n e 4 Si d e l i n e 2 Eighth Concession Brawley Road We s t n e y R o a d Seventh Concession Ki n s a l e R o a d La k e R i d g e R o a d Sixth Concession Hwy 7 Si d e l i n e 8 Ho l l y w o o d C o u r t We s t n e y R o a d Gr e e n w o o d R o a d Tr i m b l e ' s L a n e Headwater Drainage Features in Northeast Pickering City of PickeringCity Development Department© March, 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 Si d e l i n e 4 Si d e l i n e 4 Sa l e m R o a d Sa l e m R o a d Au d l e y R o a d Hwy 407 Si d e l i n e 6 Si d e l i n e 4 Si d e l i n e 2 We s t n e y R o a d Si d e l i n e 8 Si d e l i n e 6 Si d e l i n e 4 Si d e l i n e 2 Eighth Concession Brawley Road We s t n e y R o a d Seventh Concession Ki n s a l e R o a d La k e R i d g e R o a d Sixth Concession Hwy 7 Si d e l i n e 8 Ho l l y w o o d C o u r t We s t n e y R o a d Gr e e n w o o d R o a d Tr i m b l e ' s L a n e Natural Heritage System Subject to further review Hedgerows and Wetland/Water Featuresin Northeast Pickering City of PickeringCity Development Department© March, 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 Si d e l i n e 4 Si d e l i n e 4 Sa l e m R o a d Sa l e m R o a d Au d l e y R o a d Hwy 407 Si d e l i n e 6 Si d e l i n e 4 Si d e l i n e 2 We s t n e y R o a d Si d e l i n e 8 Si d e l i n e 6 Si d e l i n e 4 Si d e l i n e 2 Eighth Concession Brawley Road We s t n e y R o a d Seventh Concession Ki n s a l e R o a d La k e R i d g e R o a d Sixth Concession Hwy 7 Si d e l i n e 8 Ho l l y w o o d C o u r t We s t n e y R o a d Gr e e n w o o d R o a d Tr i m b l e ' s L a n e Natural Heritage System Wetland/Water Feature Highway 407 Greenwood Road oad k R o a d Sa l e m R o a d Central Street We s t n e y R o a d Ki n s a l e R o a d Si d e l i n e 1 4 Fifth Conc ession Road Mowbray Street Seventh Concession Road Sixth Concession Road Ninth Concession Road Si d e l i n e 2 2 Si d e l i n e 2 0 Si d e l i n e 8 Pa d d o c k R o a d Si d e l i n e 1 2 Si d e l i n e 6 Si d e l i n e 4 Si d e l i n e 2 Au d l e y R o a d N Si d e l i n e 1 6 Br o c k R o a d We s t n e y R o a d Si d e l i n e 1 4 Si d e l i n e 2 Si d e l i n e 4 Si d e l i n e 6 Si d e l i n e 1 2 Si d e l i n e 2 0 ssion Road C.P.R. D54 CLAREMONT BIRCHWOODESTATES SPRINGCREEK BALSAM GREENWOOD BARCLAYESTATES STAXTONGLEN BROUGHAM FORESTCREEKESTATES E2 E4 CP ES ES NP NP 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 SP RC NP VG Town of Ajax Township of Uxbridge To w n o f W h i t b y Mich e l l C r e e k East D u f f i n s C r e e k Trans-Canada Pipeline Schedule I to the Edition 9 PickeringOfficial Plan Sheet 3 of 3 City of PickeringCity Development Department© March, 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 o f T o r o n t o City o f M a r k h a m Township of Uxbridge Tow n o f W h i t b y 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 Low Density Areas 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 Community ParkCP Oak Ridges MoraineRural Hamlets Prime Agricultural AreasOn The Oak Ridges Moraine Proposed Airport Site Regional Centre DeferralsD1 Potential Multi Use Areas La k e R i d g e R o a d 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 General Employment Prestige Employment Rural Hamlets Controlled Access Areas Medium Density Areas High Density Areas Community Nodes Mixed Corridors Rural Clusters Eighth Concession R Br o c Highway 7 Whitevale Road Si d e l i n e 2 6 Si d e l i n e 2 4 Si d e l i n e 2 6 Si d e l i n e 2 4 No r t h R o a d Seventh Conce Highway 407 Whites Road Fa i r p o r t R o a d Greenwood Road Liverpool Ro a d Rougemount Drive Hig h w a y 4 0 1 Eighth Concession Road Br o c k R o a d Kin g sto n Road Finch Avenue Sa l e m R o a d Central Street Sheppard Avenue We s t n e y R o a d West ShoreBoulevard Kin s a l e R o a d No r t h R o a d Glenan naRoad Si d e l i n e 1 4 No t i o n R o a d Third Concession Road Highway 7 Fifth Conc ession Road Alt o n a R o a d 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 Dix i e R o a d Seventh Concession Road Whitevale Road Gl e n d a l e D r i v e Sq u i r e s B e a c h R o a d Yo r k D u r h a m L i n e Ma r k h a m - P i c k e r i n g T o w n l i n e R o a d Peter Matthews Drive Twyn Rivers Drive Ro s e b a n k R o a d Clements Road Sixth Concession Road Montgomery Pa rk Ro ad Bayly Street Dil lingham Ro ad Ninth Concession Road Si d e l i n e 2 2 Ch u r c h S t r e e t S Mc Kay Road Sid e l i n e 2 0 Taunton RoadFourthConcessionRoad Sc a r b o r o u g h P i c k e r i n g T o w n l i n e Si d e l i n e 3 0 Si d e l i n e 8 Si d e l i n e 3 4 Pa d d o c k R o a d Golf Club Road Sid e l i n e 2 4 Si d e l i n e 2 8 Si d e l i n e 1 2 Si d e l i n e 6 Si d e l i n e 4 Sid e l i n e 2 Au d l e y R o a d N Si d e l i n e 3 2 Sid e l i n e 1 6 Si d e l i n e 2 6 Si d e l i n e 2 6 Bro c k R o a d We s t n e y R o a d Sid e l i n e 1 4 Si d e l i n e 2 Si d e l i n e 4 Si d e l i n e 6 Si d e l i n e 1 2 Sid e l i n e 2 0 Si d e l i n e 2 4 Si d e l i n e 2 6 Si d e l i n e 2 4 No r t h R o a d Alt o n a R o a d Wh i t e s R o a d Sid e l i n e 2 8 Seventh Concession Road Sid e l i n e 3 2 C.P.R. Trans-Northern Pipeline 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 Fa i r p o r t R o a d Greenwood Road Liverpool Ro a d Rougemount Drive Hig h w a y 4 0 1 Eighth Concession Road Br o c k R o a d Kin g sto n Road Finch Avenue Sa l e m R o a d Central Street Sheppard Avenue We s t n e y R o a d West Shore Boulevard Ki n s a l e R o a d No r t h R o a d Glenan naRoad Si d e l i n e 1 4 No t i o n R o a d Third Concession Road Highway 7 Fifth Conc ession Road Alt o n a R o a d 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 Di x i e R o a d Seventh Concession Road Whitevale Road Gl e n d a l e D r i v e Sq u i r e s B e a c h R o a d Yo r k D u r h a m L i n e Ma r k h a m - P i c k e r i n g T o w n l i n e R o a d Peter Matthews Drive Twyn Rivers Drive Ro s e b a n k R o a d Clements Road Sixth Concession Road Montgomery Pa rk Ro ad Bayly Street Dillingham Ro ad Ninth Concession Road Si d e l i n e 2 2 Ch u r c h S t r e e t S Mc Kay Road Sid e l i n e 2 0 Taunton RoadFourthConcessionRoad Sc a r b o r o u g h P i c k e r i n g T o w n l i n e Si d e l i n e 3 0 Si d e l i n e 8 Si d e l i n e 3 4 Pa d d o c k R o a d Golf Club Road Si d e l i n e 2 4 Sid e l i n e 2 8 Si d e l i n e 1 2 Si d e l i n e 6 Si d e l i n e 4 Si d e l i n e 2 Au d l e y R o a d N Si d e l i n e 3 2 Sid e l i n e 1 6 Si d e l i n e 2 6 Si d e l i n e 2 6 Br o c k R o a d We s t n e y R o a d Si d e l i n e 1 4 Si d e l i n e 2 Si d e l i n e 4 Si d e l i n e 6 Si d e l i n e 1 2 Si d e l i n e 2 0 Si d e l i n e 2 4 Si d e l i n e 2 6 Si d e l i n e 2 4 No r t h R o a d Al t o n a R o a d Wh i t e s R o a d Si d e l i n e 2 8 Seventh Concession Road Si d e l i n e 3 2 C.P.R. Trans-Northern Pipeline C.P.R . C.N.R. C.N . R . Trans-Canada Pipeline Ch u r c h S t r e e t S Sq u i r e s B e a c h R o a d 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© March, 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 Fa i r p o r t R o a d Greenwood Road Liverpool Ro a d Rougemount Drive H ig h w a y 4 0 1 Eighth Concession Road Br o c k R o a d Kin gsto n Road Finch Avenue Sa l e m R o a d Central Street Sheppard Avenue We s t n e y R o a d West ShoreBoulevard Ki n s a l e R o a d No r t h R o a d Glenan naRoad Si d e l i n e 1 4 No t i o n R o a d Third Concession Road Highway 7 Fifth Conc ession Road Alt o n a R o a d 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 Di x i e R o a d Seventh Concession Road Whitevale Road Gl e n d a l e D r i v e Sq u i r e s B e a c h R o a d Yo r k D u r h a m L i n e Ma r k h a m - P i c k e r i n g T o w n l i n e R o a d Peter Matthews Drive Twyn Rivers Drive Ro s e b a n k R o a d Clements Road Sixth Concession Road Montgomery Pa rk Ro ad Bayly Street Dillingham Ro ad Ninth Concession Road Sid e l i n e 2 2 Ch u r c h S t r e e t S Mc Kay Road Si d e l i n e 2 0 Taunton RoadFourthConcessionRoad Sc a r b o r o u g h P i c k e r i n g T o w n l i n e Sid e l i n e 3 0 Si d e l i n e 8 Si d e l i n e 3 4 Pa d d o c k R o a d Golf Club Road Si d e l i n e 2 4 Si d e l i n e 2 8 Sid e l i n e 1 2 Sid e l i n e 6 Si d e l i n e 4 Si d e l i n e 2 Au d l e y R o a d N Sid e l i n e 3 2 Si d e l i n e 1 6 Si d e l i n e 2 6 Sid e l i n e 2 6 Br o c k R o a d We s t n e y R o a d Sid e l i n e 1 4 Si d e l i n e 2 Si d e l i n e 4 Si d e l i n e 6 Si d e l i n e 1 2 Si d e l i n e 2 0 Si d e l i n e 2 4 Si d e l i n e 2 6 Si d e l i n e 2 4 No r t h R o a d Al t o n a R o a d Wh i t e s R o a d Si d e l i n e 2 8 Seventh Concession Road Si d e l i n e 3 2 C.P.R. Trans-Northern Pipeline 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© March, 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 Si d e l i n e 4 Si d e l i n e 4 Sa l e m R o a d Sa l e m R o a d Au d l e y R o a d Hwy 407 Si d e l i n e 6 Si d e l i n e 4 Si d e l i n e 2 We s t n e y R o a d Si d e l i n e 8 Si d e l i n e 6 Si d e l i n e 4 Si d e l i n e 2 Eighth Concession Brawley Road We s t n e y R o a d Seventh Concession Ki n s a l e R o a d La k e R i d g e R o a d Sixth Concession Hwy 7 Si d e l i n e 8 Ho l l y w o o d C o u r t Greenburn Place We s t n e y R o a d Gr e e n w o o d R o a d Tr i m b l e ' s L a n e 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. General Employment Areas The location of all parks and community facilities shown on the schedule to the Secondary Plan are conceptual. The final locations will be determined during the Neighbourhood Plan exercise. Attachment 2 to Report PLN 04-26 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 Report to Planning and Development Committee 5HSRUW 1XPEHU: PLN 03-26 Date: March 2, 2026 From: .\OH %HQWOH\ 'LUHFWRU &LW\'HYHORSPHQW &%2 Subject: 2IILFLDO 3ODQ $PHQGPHQW &LW\,QLWLDWHG 1RUWKHDVW 3LFNHULQJ 6HFRQGDU\3ODQ 5HFRPPHQGHG $PHQGPHQW WR WKH 3LFNHULQJ 2IILFLDO 3ODQ ,PSOHPHQWDWLRQ )UDPHZRUNIRU WKH 1RUWKHDVW 3LFNHULQJ &RPPXQLW\ )LOH 23$ 3 Recommendation: 7KDW 2IILFLDO 3ODQ $PHQGPHQW $SSOLFDWLRQ 23$ 3 LQLWLDWHG E\WKH &LW\RI 3LFNHULQJ WR DGG QHZ SROLFLHVDQG GHVLJQDWLRQVWR WKH 3LFNHULQJ 2IILFLDO 3ODQ UHJDUGLQJ WKH UHFRPPHQGHG 1RUWKHDVW 3LFNHULQJ 6HFRQGDU\3ODQ DVVHW RXW LQ $WWDFKPHQW WR 5HSRUW 3/1 EH DSSURYHG 7KDW WKH 'UDIW %\ODZ WR DGRSW 2IILFLDO 3ODQ $PHQGPHQW WR WKH 3LFNHULQJ 2IILFLDO 3ODQ WR DGG QHZ SROLFLHVDQG GHVLJQDWLRQVWR WKH 3LFNHULQJ 2IILFLDO 3ODQ UHJDUGLQJ WKH UHFRPPHQGHG 1RUWKHDVW 3LFNHULQJ 6HFRQGDU\3ODQ DVVHW RXW LQ ([KLELW ³$´ WR $WWDFKPHQW RI 5HSRUW 3/1 EH ILQDOL]HG DQG IRUZDUGHG WR &RXQFLO IRU HQDFWPHQW 7KDW VWDII EH GLUHFWHG WR QHJRWLDWH WKH WHUPVRI WKH IROORZLQJ DJUHHPHQWVZLWK WKH 1RUWK (DVW 3LFNHULQJ /DQGRZQHUV*URXS ,QF WKH ³/DQGRZQHU *URXS´ IRU WKH SXUSRVH RI LPSOHPHQWLQJ WKH 1RUWKHDVW 3LFNHULQJ 6HFRQGDU\3ODQ WKH ³6HFRQGDU\3ODQ´ LQ WKH &LW\¶VEHVW LQWHUHVWV DQG WKDW WKHVH DJUHHPHQWVEH EURXJKW WR &RXQFLO IRU DSSURYDO DDQ DJUHHPHQW UHVSHFWLQJ WKH IXQGLQJ DQG SUHSDUDWLRQ RI D 0DVWHU (QYLURQPHQWDO 6HUYLFLQJ 3ODQ 0(63 IRU WKH 6HFRQGDU\3ODQ DUHD ZKLFK WKH $JUHHPHQW VKDOO LQFOXGH L7HUPVRI 5HIHUHQFH IRU WKH FRPSOHWLRQ RI WKH 0(63 WR WKH VDWLVIDFWLRQ RI WKH &LW\ DQG WKH 5HJLRQ RI 'XUKDP LQ FRQVXOWDWLRQ ZLWK WKH UHVSHFWLYH Attachment 3 to Report PLN 04-26 PLN 03-26 March 2, 2026 Page 2 FRQVHUYDWLRQ DXWKRULWLHV DVVHW RXW LQ VHFWLRQ % D RI WKH 6HFRQGDU\ 3ODQ DQG LL GHWDLOVRI IXQGLQJ DUUDQJHPHQWVUHTXLULQJ WKH /DQGRZQHU *URXS WR HLWKHU IXOO\IXQG LQ DGYDQFH WKH &LW\¶VSUHSDUDWLRQ RI WKH 0(63 RU WR SUHSDUH WKH 0(63 DW LWVFRVW ZKLOH IXOO\IXQGLQJ LQ DGYDQFH WKH &LW\¶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¶VSUHSDUDWLRQ RI WKH 1HLJKERXUKRRG 3ODQVRU WR SUHSDUH WKH 1HLJKERXUKRRG 3ODQVDW LWVFRVW ZKLOH IXOO\IXQGLQJ LQ DGYDQFH WKH &LW\¶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¶VFRVW WR SUHSDUH WKH '&&%&%VDQG WKH ),6 G DQ DJUHHPHQW UHIHUUHG WR DVD 0DVWHU 3DUNVDQG &RPPXQLW\/DQGV$JUHHPHQW RU ³03&/$´ UHVSHFWLQJ WKH VL]H JHQHUDO ORFDWLRQ DQG WLPLQJ RI WKH WUDQVIHU WR WKH &LW\RI ODQGVUHTXLUHG IRU SDUNV HVVHQWLDO FRPPXQLW\IDFLOLWLHV FXOWXUDO KHULWDJH URDG ZLGHQLQJVDQG DIIRUGDEOH KRXVLQJ 7KH 03&/$ VKDOO EH FRPSOHWHG DQG H[HFXWHG LQ VXIILFLHQW WLPH WR EH DQ LQSXW LQWR WKH ),6 PLN 03-26 March 2, 2026 Page 3 H DQ DJUHHPHQW UHVSHFWLQJ WKH IXQGLQJ DQG SUHSDUDWLRQ RI DQ ,QIUDVWUXFWXUH 6WDJLQJ DQG 3KDVLQJ 3ODQ ,633 ZKLFK DJUHHPHQW VKDOO LQFOXGH L 7HUPVRI 5HIHUHQFH IRU WKH FRPSOHWLRQ RI WKH ,633 WR WKH VDWLVIDFWLRQ RI WKH &LW\DVVHW RXW LQ VHFWLRQ % RI WKH 6HFRQGDU\3ODQ DQG LL GHWDLOVRI IXQGLQJ DUUDQJHPHQWVUHTXLULQJ WKH /DQGRZQHU *URXS WR HLWKHU IXOO\IXQG LQ DGYDQFH WKH &LW\¶VSUHSDUDWLRQ RI WKH ,633 RU WR SUHSDUH WKH ,633 DW LWVFRVW ZKLOH IXOO\IXQGLQJ LQ DGYDQFH WKH &LW\¶VSHHU UHYLHZ DQG RYHUVLJKW FRQVXOWLQJ VHUYLFHV I FRQVLVWHQW ZLWK WKH UHTXLUHPHQWVRI WKH 6HFRQGDU\3ODQ DQ DJUHHPHQW WKDW WKH /DQGRZQHU *URXS VKDOO QRW DSSO\IRU DQ\GHYHORSPHQW DSSURYDO XQWLO L DOO UHTXLUHG HQYLURQPHQWDO DVVHVVPHQWVIRU VDQLWDU\VHZHU DQG ZDWHU LQIUDVWUXFWXUH DUH FRPSOHWHG WR WKH VDWLVIDFWLRQ RI WKH 5HJLRQ RI 'XUKDP LL DOO UHTXLUHG HQYLURQPHQWDO DVVHVVPHQWVIRU WUDQVSRUWDWLRQ LQIUDVWUXFWXUH DUH FRPSOHWHG WR WKH VDWLVIDFWLRQ RI WKH 5HJLRQ RI 'XUKDP DQG WKH &LW\RI 3LFNHULQJ DVVHW RXW LQ VHFWLRQV% G DQG H RI WKH 6HFRQGDU\3ODQ LLL WKH FRVW VKDULQJ DJUHHPHQW DPRQJVW EHQHILWWLQJ ODQGRZQHUVUHTXLUHG E\ VHFWLRQ % D RI WKH 6HFRQGDU\3ODQ KDVEHHQ H[HFXWHG E\DOO PHPEHUVRI WKH /DQGRZQHU *URXS LY DOO WKH DJUHHPHQWVUHIHUUHG WR LQ 5HFRPPHQGDWLRQV D E F G DQG H RI WKLVUHSRUW KDYH EHHQ ILQDOL]HG DQG H[HFXWHG E\WKH &LW\DQG WKH /DQGRZQHU *URXS DQG Y WKH 0(63 WKH 1HLJKERXUKRRG 3ODQV WKH '&&%&%V WKH ),6 DQG WKH ,633 DUH DSSURYHG E\WKH &LW\ 7KDW VWDII EH GLUHFWHG WR LQFOXGH H[SHQGLWXUHVIRU VWXGLHVDQG UHODWHG LWHPVIRU WKH LPSOHPHQWDWLRQ RI WKH 6HFRQGDU\3ODQ LQ IXWXUH FXUUHQW EXGJHW VXEPLVVLRQV 7KDW VWDII FRQWLQXH WR HQJDJH DQG FROODERUDWH ZLWK )LUVW 1DWLRQVULJKWVKROGHUVLQ WKH SUHSDUDWLRQ RI WKH 0(63 WKH 1HLJKERXUKRRG 3ODQV 6FRSHG 6XEZDWHUVKHG 6WXG\ 3KDVH WKH UHTXLUHG (QYLURQPHQWDO $VVHVVPHQWV DQG DOO RWKHU GRFXPHQWVDQG VWXGLHVDVPD\EH QHFHVVDU\WR FRPSOHWH WKH SODQQLQJ SURFHVVHVIRU WKH 6HFRQGDU\ 3ODQ DUHD 7KDW WKH &LW\&OHUNDGYLVH WKH :LOOLDPV7UHDWLHV)LUVW 1DWLRQV DOO VWDWXWRU\FRPPHQWLQJ DJHQFLHV WKH /DQGRZQHU *URXS WKH 5HJLRQ RI 'XUKDP GHOHJDWHVWR WKH 1RYHPEHU 6WDWXWRU\3XEOLF0HHWLQJ DQG UHVSHFWLYH &RXQFLO PHHWLQJ GHOHJDWHVWR WKH 0DUFK 3ODQQLQJ 'HYHORSPHQW &RPPLWWHH DQG UHVSHFWLYH &RXQFLO PHHWLQJ DQG LQWHUHVWHG SDUWLHVRI &RXQFLO¶VGHFLVLRQ RQ 3LFNHULQJ 2IILFLDO 3ODQ $PHQGPHQW ZKLFK PLN 03-26 March 2, 2026 Page 4 DGGVSROLFLHVDQG GHVLJQDWLRQVUHJDUGLQJ WKH 6HFRQGDU\3ODQ DQG RWKHU JHQHUDO SROLFLHV WR WKH 3LFNHULQJ 2IILFLDO 3ODQ 7KDW DSSURSULDWH &LW\RI 3LFNHULQJ RIILFLDOVEH DXWKRUL]HG WR WDNH WKH DFWLRQVQHFHVVDU\ WR LPSOHPHQW WKH 5HFRPPHQGDWLRQVLQ WKLV5HSRUW 1.0 Executive Summary: 7KH SXUSRVH RI WKLVUHSRUW LVWR UHTXHVW &RXQFLO¶VDSSURYDO RI WKH SODQQLQJ DQG LPSOHPHQWDWLRQ IUDPHZRUNWKDW ZLOO JXLGH WKH FUHDWLRQ RI WKH 1RUWKHDVW 3LFNHULQJ FRPPXQLW\ 7KH 1RUWKHDVW 3LFNHULQJ 6HFRQGDU\3ODQ WKH ³6HFRQGDU\3ODQ´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¶V ORQJUDQJH JURZWK XS WR DQG EH\RQG )ROORZLQJ WKH DSSURYDO RI WKH 6HFRQGDU\3ODQ D VLJQLILFDQW DPRXQW RI SODQQLQJ DQG LQIUDVWUXFWXUH LQYHVWPHQW ZLOO EH QHHGHG EHIRUH GHYHORSPHQW ZLOO EH DEOH WR SURFHHG 7KLV UHSRUW GHVFULEHVWKH SURSRVHG 6HFRQGDU\3ODQ DORQJ ZLWK WKH QH[W VWHSVLQ WKH RYHUDOO SODQQLQJ SURFHVV :RUNLQJ FROODERUDWLYHO\ZLWK WKH 1RUWK (DVW 3LFNHULQJ /DQGRZQHUV*URXS ,QF WKH ³/DQGRZQHU *URXS´ &LW\VWDII ZLOO FRQWLQXH WR RYHUVHH WKH IXUWKHU SODQQLQJ DQG UHODWHG VWXGLHV WKDW ZLOO LQFOXGH FRQWLQXHG SXEOLFDQG DJHQF\LQSXW DQG HQJDJHPHQW ZLWK )LUVW 1DWLRQV ,W LVUHFRPPHQGHG WKDW &RXQFLO x $GRSW 2IILFLDO 3ODQ $PHQGPHQW IRU WKH 1RUWKHDVW 3LFNHULQJ 6HFRQGDU\3ODQ DQG x $SSURYH WKH LPSOHPHQWDWLRQ IUDPHZRUNIRU WKH 1RUWKHDVW 6HFRQGDU\3ODQ VHW RXW LQ 5HSRUW 3/1 2.0 Relationship to the Pickering Strategic Plan: 7KH UHFRPPHQGDWLRQVLQ WKLVUHSRUW UHVSRQG WR WKH 3LFNHULQJ 6WUDWHJLF3ODQ 3ULRULWLHVRI &KDPSLRQ (FRQRPLF/HDGHUVKLS ,QQRYDWLRQ $GYRFDWH IRU DQ ,QFOXVLYH :HOFRPLQJ 6DIH +HDOWK\&RPPXQLW\ $GYDQFH ,QQRYDWLRQ 5HVSRQVLEOH 3ODQQLQJ WR 6XSSRUW D &RQQHFWHG :HOO6HUYLFHG &RPPXQLW\ /HDG $GYRFDWH IRU (QYLURQPHQWDO 6WHZDUGVKLS ,QQRYDWLRQ 5HVLOLHQF\ 6WUHQJWKHQ ([LVWLQJ %XLOG 1HZ 3DUWQHUVKLSV DQG )RVWHU DQ (QJDJHG ,QIRUPHG &RPPXQLW\ PLN 03-26 March 2, 2026 Page 5 3.0 Financial Implications: $ NH\IXQGDPHQWDO SULQFLSOH DVLW UHODWHVWR PXQLFLSDO ILQDQFH LVWKDW ³JURZWK VKRXOG SD\IRU JURZWK´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±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¶VLQWHQW WR DGGUHVVDQ\SRVVLEOH IXQGLQJ JDS WKURXJK QHJRWLDWLRQVZLWK WKH /DQGRZQHUV*URXS PLN 03-26 March 2, 2026 Page 6 4.0 Discussion: 4.1 Purpose 7KH SXUSRVH RI WKLVUHSRUW LVWR UHTXHVW &RXQFLO¶VDSSURYDO RI WKH SODQQLQJ DQG LPSOHPHQWDWLRQ IUDPHZRUNWKDW ZLOO JXLGH WKH FUHDWLRQ RI WKH 1RUWKHDVW 3LFNHULQJ FRPPXQLW\ 4.2 Report Outcomes $SSURYDO RI WKH UHSRUW UHFRPPHQGDWLRQVZLOO KDYH WKUHH RXWFRPHV $SSURYH WKH 1RUWKHDVW 3LFNHULQJ 6HFRQGDU\3ODQ DV$PHQGPHQW WR WKH 3LFNHULQJ 2IILFLDO 3ODQ (VWDEOLVK D PXOWLSDUW LPSOHPHQWDWLRQ VWUDWHJ\IRU WKH RQJRLQJ SODQQLQJ DQG GHYHORSPHQW RI WKH 6HFRQGDU\3ODQ DUHD DQG 5HLQIRUFH WKH &LW\¶VFRPPLWPHQW WR HQJDJHPHQW ZLWK )LUVW 1DWLRQVWKURXJKRXW WKH HQVXLQJ SODQQLQJ SURFHVVHVRI WKH 6HFRQGDU\3ODQ $UHD 7KH 6HFRQGDU\3ODQ DPHQGPHQW ZLOO EHFRPH D QHZ FKDSWHU LQ WKH 3LFNHULQJ 2IILFLDO 3ODQ DGGLQJ SROLFLHVDQG VFKHGXOHVWKDW DUH LQWHQGHG WR GLUHFW WKH GHYHORSPHQW IRU WKLVXUEDQ DUHD RI 3LFNHULQJ WR DQG EH\RQG VHH 1RUWKHDVW 3LFNHULQJ 6HFRQGDU\3ODQ ([KLELW ³$´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¶VFRPPLWPHQW WR UHODWLRQVKLSEXLOGLQJ PLN 03-26 March 2, 2026 Page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³ 8UEDQ ([SDQVLRQ $UHDV´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arch 2, 2026 Page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x 0XOWL*HQHUDWLRQDO &RPPXQLW\ x 9LEUDQW 3XEOLF6SDFHV x &RQQHFWHG DQG :DONDEOH x 6XVWDLQDEOH &RPPXQLW\ x /DQG 6WHZDUGVKLS x (FRQRPLF'LYHUVLW\ x &RPSDWLEOH ,QWHUIDFH DQG x /RJLFDO *URZWK PLN 03-26 March 2, 2026 Page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³XSWRZQ´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arch 2, 2026 Page 10 $ GHWDLOHG GHVFULSWLRQ RI WKH SURSRVHG ODQG XVHVLVSURYLGHG LQ WKH 5HFRPPHQGHG 1RUWKHDVW 3LFNHULQJ 6HFRQGDU\3ODQ ([KLELW ³$´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x D QHZ LQWHUFKDQJH RQ +LJKZD\ DW :HVWQH\5RDG x SURWHFW IRU DQ HDVWZHVW KLJKRUGHU WUDQVLW FRUULGRU WKURXJK 1RUWKHDVW 3LFNHULQJ x WKH DGGLWLRQ RI QHZ URDGVDQG WKH XSJUDGLQJ RI H[LVWLQJ URDGV x VWUHHW GHVLJQVWKDW SULRULWL]H VXVWDLQDEOH PRGHVRI WUDYHO ZDONLQJ F\FOLQJ WUDQVLW DQG x GLUHFWLRQ IRU ELNH ODQH VLGHZDON DQG WUDLO LQIUDVWUXFWXUH 6FRSHG 6XEZDWHUVKHG 6WXG\ 7KH 6FRSHG 6XEZDWHUVKHG 6WXG\ 3KDVH LGHQWLILHG WKH H[LVWLQJ FRQGLWLRQVIRUP DQG IXQFWLRQ RI WKH ZDWHU DQG QDWXUDO V\VWHPVZLWKLQ WKH 6HFRQGDU\3ODQ VWXG\DUHD DQG GRFXPHQWHG WKH LQLWLDO FRQVWUDLQWVRQ GHYHORSPHQW 7KH 66:6 3KDVH ZDVUHFHQWO\ PLN 03-26 March 2, 2026 Page 11 FLUFXODWHG IRU UHYLHZ DQG LVLQFOXGHG DV$WWDFKPHQW WR WKLVUHSRUW ,W RXWOLQHVWKH LPSDFWVRI WKH SUHIHUUHG ODQG XVH SODQ DQG SURYLGHVSUHOLPLQDU\PDQDJHPHQW VWUDWHJLHVWR HQVXUH WKDW WKH LQWHJULW\RI WKH ZDWHU DQG QDWXUDO V\VWHPVLVPDLQWDLQHG RU HQKDQFHG 6LQFH 3KDVH D QXPEHU RI QDWXUDO IHDWXUHVZHUH IXUWKHU UHYLHZHG DQG WKH 1DWXUDO +HULWDJH 6\VWHP PDSSLQJ ZDVUHYLVHG DFFRUGLQJO\ 7KH 66:6 3KDVH H[SHFWHG WR EH FRPSOHWHG LQ ZLOO VXPPDUL]H WKH QDWXUDO DQG ZDWHUEDVHG UHFRPPHQGDWLRQV LGHQWLI\WKH VFRSH IRU DGGLWLRQDOIXWXUH VWXGLHV DVZHOO DV SURYLGH JXLGDQFH RQ LPSOHPHQWDWLRQ DQG PRQLWRULQJ $VRI ZULWLQJ WKLVUHSRUW WKH FRQVHUYDWLRQ DXWKRULWLHVDQG )LUVW 1DWLRQVZHUH VWLOO FRPSOHWLQJ WKHLU UHYLHZ RI WKH 66:6 3KDVH $Q\WHFKQLFDO PRGLILFDWLRQVWKDW DUH UHTXLUHG ZLOO EH LQFRUSRUDWHG LQWR WKH 66:6 3KDVH EHIRUH LW LVILQDOL]HG 7KHVH PRGLILFDWLRQVZLOO WKHQ EH UHIOHFWHG LQ WKH PRUH GHWDLOHG ZRUNWKDW ZLOO EH FRPSOHWHG ZLWKLQ WKH IRUWKFRPLQJ 0DVWHU (QYLURQPHQWDO 6HUYLFLQJ 3ODQ &XOWXUDO +HULWDJH $VVHVVPHQW 7KH &XOWXUDO +HULWDJH $VVHVVPHQW SURYLGHG D EDVHOLQH UHYLHZ RI SRWHQWLDO FXOWXUDO KHULWDJH UHVRXUFHVZLWKLQ WKH 6HFRQGDU\3ODQ DUHD 6WDII KDYH LGHQWLILHG SURSHUWLHVZKLFK UHTXLUH D GHWDLOHG HYDOXDWLRQ DQG DVVHVVPHQW 7KH FRQFOXVLRQVRI WKLVGHWDLOHG DVVHVVPHQW ZLOO DVVLVW VWDII LQ FRQILUPLQJ ZKHWKHU GHVLJQDWLRQ LVPHULWHG XQGHU WKH 2QWDULR +HULWDJH $FW 7KHVH OHJDF\VWUXFWXUHVDQG WKHLU DVVRFLDWHG ODQGVFDSHVZLOO KHOS LQIRUP WKH OD\RXW DQG ODQG XVH SODQQLQJ RI WKH IXWXUH 1HLJKERXUKRRG 3ODQV :KDW :H +HDUG ±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arch 2, 2026 Page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±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arch 2, 2026 Page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¶VZHEVLWH WKH SURMHFW ZHESDJH FLUFXODWHG WKURXJK WKH &LW\¶VVRFLDO PHGLD FKDQQHOV DQG WKURXJK DQ DGYHUWLVHPHQW LQ WKH 7RURQWR 6WDU RQ 2FWREHU PLN 03-26 March 2, 2026 Page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x HIIHFWLYH HGJH PDQDJHPHQW SROLFLHVWKDW ZLOO KHOS SUHYHQW FRQIOLFWVEHWZHHQ IDUPV DQG VXUURXQGLQJ GHYHORSPHQW x PDQDJLQJ WKH PRYHPHQW RI WRSVRLO DQG x DFFRPPRGDWLQJ XUEDQ DJULFXOWXUH 7KHVH FRPPHQWVZLOO QRW GLUHFWO\LPSDFW WKH OD\RXW RI ODQG XVHVZLWKLQ WKH 6HFRQGDU\3ODQ +RZHYHU WKHVH FRPPHQWVZLOO SURYLGH YDOXDEOH GLUHFWLRQ WR WKH 2IILFLDO 3ODQ 5HYLHZ SURMHFW 3LFNHULQJ )RUZDUG WR WKH IRUWKFRPLQJ XSGDWH WR WKH &LW\¶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arch 2, 2026 Page 15 E 7R EHWWHU UHIOHFW ODQG XVH DFFHVV DQG XVHU UHTXLUHPHQWV WKH 6SRUWVSOH[ZDVPRYHG IURP WKH FHQWUH RI WKH SODQ FORVHU WR :HVWQH\5RDG F 7KH IXWXUH ORFDWLRQVRI FHUWDLQ SXEOLFXVHVFRXOG QRW EH GHWHUPLQHG DW WKLVWLPH 7KHUHIRUH WKH IROORZLQJ VWDWHPHQW ZDVDGGHG WR WKH OHJHQG RI WKH /DQG 8VH 6FKHGXOH ³/DQGV\HW WR EH LGHQWLILHG IRU IXWXUH ILUH VWDWLRQV RSHUDWLRQVIDFLOLWLHV SROLFH VWDWLRQV DPEXODQFH VWDWLRQV 5HJLRQDO ZRUNVIDFLOLWLHV HWF´ G :LWKLQ WKH QRUWKHDVW FRUQHU RI WKH SODQ YDULRXVSXEOLFXVHVDURXQG WKH &RPPXQLW\ 1RGH ZHUH VKLIWHG WR EHWWHU UHIOHFW IXQFWLRQDO ODQG DUHD UHTXLUHPHQWV DQG H 7KH 66:6 3KDVH KDVQRZ HYDOXDWHG DOO KHDGZDWHU GUDLQDJH IHDWXUHV 7KRVH IHDWXUHVLGHQWLILHG DV³SURWHFWLRQ´ RU ³FRQVHUYDWLRQ´ KDYH EHHQ DGGHG WR WKH 1DWXUDO +HULWDJH 6\VWHP RQ WKH /DQG 8VH 6FKHGXOH :KDW &RPHV $IWHU WKH $SSURYDO RI WKH 6HFRQGDU\ 3ODQ 6XEMHFW WR &RXQFLO¶VDSSURYDO RI WKH 6HFRQGDU\3ODQ VHH 5HFRPPHQGDWLRQ VWDII KDYH UHFRPPHQGHG DQ LPSOHPHQWDWLRQ IUDPHZRUN WKDW LVDOVR VXEMHFW WR &RXQFLO¶VDSSURYDO VHH 5HFRPPHQGDWLRQ )XUWKHU SODQQLQJ ZRUNZLOO EH UHTXLUHG )LJXUH SURYLGHVD VLPSOLILHG VHTXHQFH RI WKH VWHSVDQG DSSURYDOVLQYROYHG LQ PRYLQJ IURP WKH DSSURYDO RI WKH 6HFRQGDU\ 3ODQ WR WKH DSSURYDO RI IXWXUH GHYHORSPHQW DSSOLFDWLRQV )LJXUH 6HTXHQFH RI 1RUWKHDVW 3LFNHULQJ DSSURYDOV 7KH 6HFRQGDU\3ODQ LGHQWLILHV DQ LPSOHPHQWDWLRQ IUDPHZRUNWR EH XQGHUWDNHQ IROORZLQJ LWV DSSURYDO 7KH LPSOHPHQWDWLRQ IUDPHZRUNZLOO UHTXLUH D VHW RI DJUHHPHQWVEHWZHHQ WKH &LW\DQG WKH /DQGRZQHU *URXS PLN 03-26 March 2, 2026 Page 16 ,PSOHPHQWLQJ WKH 1RUWKHDVW 3LFNHULQJ 6HFRQGDU\ 3ODQ 2YHUYLHZ RI ,PSOHPHQWDWLRQ )UDPHZRUN $SSURYDO RI WKH 6HFRQGDU\3ODQ ZLOO JXLGH WKH IXWXUH GHYHORSPHQW RI WKLVDUHD 7KLVJXLGDQFH ZLOO EH IXUWKHU UHILQHG DVSDUW RI WKH VXEVHTXHQW 1HLJKERXUKRRG 3ODQ SURFHVV +RZHYHU WKH 1HLJKERXUKRRG 3ODQVDUH RQO\RQH RI VHYHUDO LPSOHPHQWDWLRQ SURFHVVHVWKDW PXVW EH FRPSOHWHG DVIXUWKHU GHVFULEHG LQ WKH 6HFRQGDU\3ODQ (DFK RI WKH LPSOHPHQWDWLRQ SURFHVVHV ZLOO UHVXOW LQ DQ DJUHHPHQW EHWZHHQ WKH &LW\DQG WKH /DQGRZQHU *URXS VHH ³$JUHHPHQWV´ 6WHS LQ )LJXUH DERYH 6HFXULQJ WKHVH DJUHHPHQWVZLOO SUHVHUYH WKH &LW\¶VLQWHUHVWVDVVWDII ZRUNFROODERUDWLYHO\ZLWK WKH /DQGRZQHUV*URXS RQ LPSOHPHQWLQJ WKH 6HFRQGDU\3ODQ 7KH UHFRPPHQGHG DJUHHPHQWVZLOO SURYLGH GLUHFWLRQ DQG FRQFXUUHQFH RQ WKH SUHSDUDWLRQ DQG IXQGLQJ RI WKH IROORZLQJ x D VLQJOH 0DVWHU (QYLURQPHQWDO 6HUYLFLQJ 3ODQ 0(63 IRU WKH HQWLUH 1RUWKHDVW 3LFNHULQJ 6HFRQGDU\3ODQ DUHD x HLJKW 1HLJKERXUKRRG 3ODQV x D )LVFDO ,PSDFW 6WXG\ x D 0DVWHU 3DUNVDQG &RPPXQLW\/DQGV$JUHHPHQW x DQ ,QIUDVWUXFWXUH 6WDJLQJ DQG 3KDVLQJ 3ODQ 7KHVH DJUHHPHQWVZLOO EH IRUZDUGHG WR &RXQFLO IRU DSSURYDO ,Q DGGLWLRQ WKH /DQGRZQHUV*URXS ZLOO QHHG WR x HQWHU LQWR D &RVW 6KDULQJ $JUHHPHQW DPRQJVW WKHPVHOYHV IRU WKH IURQW IXQGLQJ RI DQG HTXLWDEOH GLVWULEXWLRQ RI GHYHORSPHQW FRVWVIRU UHTXLUHG SODQV VWXGLHV HQYLURQPHQWDO DVVHVVPHQWV LQIUDVWUXFWXUH HWF DQG x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arch 2, 2026 Page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¶V'HYHORSPHQW &KDUJHVDQG &RPPXQLW\%HQHILWV&KDUJHV%\ODZV DQG &RXQFLO DSSURYDO RI WKH ),6 IRU 1RUWKHDVW 3LFNHULQJ LVD WKLUG UHTXLUHPHQW WKDW PXVW EH FRPSOHWHG SULRU WR WKH /DQGRZQHU *URXS VXEPLWWLQJ GHYHORSPHQW DSSOLFDWLRQV 7KH %\ODZVDQG ),6 ZLOO EH SUHSDUHG E\WKH &LW\ DQG EH IXOO\IXQGHG E\WKH /DQGRZQHU *URXS 2Q 1RYHPEHU WKH 'XUKDP 5HJLRQ &RXQFLO GLUHFWHG 5HJLRQDO VWDII WR XQGHUWDNH D FRPSUHKHQVLYH UHYLHZ RI WKH RSWLRQVIRU LQFOXGLQJ WKH 6HFRQGDU\3ODQ ODQGVLQ WKH 5HJLRQ¶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arch 2, 2026 Page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¶ EXGJHW VXEPLVVLRQV ,PSOLFDWLRQV RI WKH 6HFRQGDU\ 3ODQ IRU 3LFNHULQJ ± 3XEOLF /DQGV WR EH $FTXLUHG 7R VXSSRUW WKH QHZ FRPPXQLW\LQ 1RUWKHDVW 3LFNHULQJ D YDULHW\RI SXEOLFVHUYLFHVZLOO EH SURYLGHG E\WKH &LW\DQG WKH 5HJLRQ DORQJ ZLWK QXPHURXVVFKRROV 3LFNHULQJ ZLOO UHFHLYH VRPH RI WKH ODQG LW QHHGVIRU &LW\VHUYLFHVDVSDUW RI IXWXUH GHYHORSPHQW DSSURYDOV +RZHYHU WKH &LW\ZLOO DOVR QHHG WR XVH RWKHU PHDQVWR DFTXLUH WKH IXOO DPRXQW RI ODQGVWKDW DUH QHHGHG PLN 03-26 March 2, 2026 Page 19 $ EUHDNGRZQ RI WKH UHTXLUHG SXEOLFODQGVLVLQFOXGHG LQ 7DEOH EHORZ ,Q DGGLWLRQ D GHWDLOHG VXPPDU\DQG H[SODQDWLRQ RI DOO WKH &LW\¶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± )LVFDO ,PSDFW 6WXG\ 7KH IXWXUH GHYHORSPHQW RI 1RUWKHDVW 3LFNHULQJ ZLOO FUHDWH DGGLWLRQDO PXQLFLSDO VHUYLFH GHPDQGVRQ WKH &LW\RI 3LFNHULQJ ,Q RUGHU WR PDLQWDLQ WKH &LW\¶VFXUUHQW DQGRU GHVLUHG OHYHOV RI VHUYLFH WKH ),6 ZLOO HYDOXDWH WKH FDSLWDO DQG RSHUDWLQJ FRVWVIRU &LW\VHUYLFHVWKDW ZLOO EH JHQHUDWHG E\WKH SURSRVHG GHYHORSPHQW 7KLVLQFOXGHVWKH ODQG EXLOGLQJ DQG HTXLSPHQWIXUQLVKLQJV VWDIILQJ RSHUDWLQJ DQG PDLQWHQDQFH FRVWVIRU x 3DUNODQG LQ H[FHVVRI WKH ODQG WKDW ZLOO EH GHGLFDWHG XQGHU WKH 3ODQQLQJ $FW x VSRUWVSOH[ UHFUHDWLRQFRPPXQLW\FHQWUHVDQG OLEUDULHV x PXQLFLSDO RSHUDWLRQVIDFLOLW\ x ILUH VWDWLRQV DQG x ODQG IRU URDG ZLGHQLQJV 7KH &LW\LVDQWLFLSDWLQJ WR QHHG +D RI SDUNODQG WR PHHW WKH QHHGVRI D SRSXODWLRQ RI DSSUR[LPDWHO\ 7KLVDPRXQW RI SDUNODQG LVEDVHG RQ WKH SDUNODQG UDWH RI +D SHU SHRSOH WKDW LVUHFRPPHQGHG E\WKH &LW\¶V5HFUHDWLRQ DQG 3DUNV<HDU 3ODQ WKDW ZDV HQGRUVHG E\&RXQFLO LQ 6HSWHPEHU VHH 5HVROXWLRQ $WWDFKPHQW 7KH 3ODQQLQJ $FW DXWKRUL]HVWKH &LW\WR DFTXLUH SDUNODQG LQ FRQMXQFWLRQ ZLWK GHYHORSPHQW DSSURYDOV DW D SUHVFULEHG UDWH 7KH SURSRVHG GHYHORSPHQW LQ 1RUWKHDVW 3L FNHULQJ LVHVWLPDWHG PLN 03-26 March 2, 2026 Page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² IRU H[DPSOH ZKHWKHU WKH &LW\VKRXOG SXUVXH DUHDVSHFLILF'HYHORSPHQW &KDUJHVRU IURQWHQGLQJ GHYHORSHU DJUHHPHQWVRU LQFRUSRUDWH WKH UHODWHG FRVWVZLWKLQ D &LW\ ZLGH 'HYHORSPHQW &KDUJHV%\ODZ 7KH ),6 ZLOO LGHQWLI\WKH FDSLWDO RSHUDWLQJ OLIHF\FOH DQG GHEWVHUYLFLQJ FRVWVDVVRFLDWHG ZLWK QHZ LQIUDVWUXFWXUH GHWHUPLQH ZKLFK DUH UHFRYHUDEOH WKURXJK JURZWK IXQGLQJ WRROVLH 'HYHORSPHQW &KDUJHV &RPPXQLW\%HQHILWV&KDUJHV DQG SDUNODQG SURYLVLRQV DQG KLJKOLJKW DQ\UHVLGXDO FRVWVUHTXLULQJ WD[RU UDWH VXSSRUW ,QIUDVWUXFWXUH GHOLYHU\ZLOO EH VWDJHG WR DOLJQ ZLWK WKH WLPLQJ RI JURZWKUHODWHG UHYHQXHV LQFOXGLQJ 'HYHORSPHQW &KDUJHV &RPPXQLW\%HQHILWV&KDUJHV DQG SURSHUW\WD[\LHOG ,QIUDVWUXFWXUH VHTXHQFLQJ ZLOO EH VWUXFWXUHG WR PLQLPL]H LQWHULP GHEW H[SRVXUH DQG SURWHFW H[LVWLQJ WD[SD\HUVIURP IURQWHQGLQJ JURZWK FRVWV 7KH )LVFDO ,PSDFW 6WXG\ZLOO HYDOXDWH FDSLWDO RSHUDWLQJ DQG OLIHF\FOH LPSOLFDWLRQVWR VXSSRUW ILVFDOO\VXVWDLQDEOH LPSOHPHQWDWLRQ DQG HQVXUH WKDW JURZWK GRHVQRW RXWSDFH WKH &LW\¶VDELOLW\WR PDLQWDLQ HVWDEOLVKHG VHUYLFH OHYHOV 7KLVDSSURDFK UHLQIRUFHVWKH SULQFLSOH WKDW ³JURZWK VKRXOG SD\IRU JURZWK´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arch 2, 2026 Page 21 LQIUDVWUXFWXUH DQG SXEOLFVHUYLFH IDFLOLWLHVVXFK DVUHFUHDWLRQ VHUYLFHV ZLOO EH ILQDQFLDOO\YLDEOH RYHU WKHLU OLIH F\FOH (QYLVLRQ 'XUKDP DQG 3LFNHULQJ 2IILFLDO 3ODQV 7KH (QYLVLRQ 'XUKDP 2IILFLDO 3ODQ HVWDEOLVKHVWKH ORQJWHUP UHJLRQDO JURZWK IUDPHZRUN $V DSSURYHG E\WKH 3URYLQFH (QYLVLRQ 'XUKDP LGHQWLILHVWKH 6HFRQGDU\3ODQ DV³ 8UEDQ ([SDQVLRQ $UHDV´ ,W LQFOXGHV³&RPPXQLW\$UHDV´ ³(PSOR\PHQW $UHDV´ DQG ³5HJLRQDO &HQWUH´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¶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x 1DWXUDO KHULWDJH SURWHFWLRQ DQG HQKDQFHPHQW x &XOWXUDO KHULWDJH SUHVHUYDWLRQ DQG UHXVH PLN 03-26 March 2, 2026 Page 22 x +RPHVIRU DOO VWDJHVRI OLIH DQG KRXVHKROG W\SHV x 0L[RI FRPPHUFLDO VHUYLFHVDQG HPSOR\PHQW DUHDV x $VVRFLDWHG SXEOLFVHUYLFHVDQG DPHQLWLHV &RXQFLO¶VDSSURYDO RI WKH 6HFRQGDU\3ODQ LVD FRPPLWPHQW WR VXVWDLQDEOH JURZWK WKDW LV ILVFDOO\UHVSRQVLEOH DQG ZLOO UHVXOW LQ D FRPSOHWH FRPPXQLW\ 7KH DJUHHPHQWVDQG WKH UHVXOWLQJ SODQVDQG VWXGLHVLQFOXGHG LQ WKH UHFRPPHQGDWLRQVZLOO HTXLS VWDII WR LPSOHPHQW WKH ODQG XVH IUDPHZRUN 7KHVH DJUHHPHQWVZLOO HQVXUH WKDW x ERWK WKH &LW\¶VDQG WKH SXEOLF¶VLQWHUHVWVDUH UHSUHVHQWHG LQ WKH IRUWKFRPLQJ SODQQLQJ SURFHVV x WR WKH H[WHQW SRVVLEOH ³JURZWK ZLOO SD\IRU JURZWK´ x WKH &LW\DFTXLUHVWKH ODQGVLW QHHGVIRU SXEOLFXVHV x GHYHORSPHQW GRHVQRW RXWSDFH WKH SURYLVLRQ RI SXEOLFVHUYLFHV DQG x DOO ODQGRZQHUVZLWKLQ WKH 6HFRQGDU\3ODQ DUHD EHDU WKH UHVSRQVLELOLWLHVDQG UHDS WKH EHQHILWVIURP IXWXUH GHYHORSPHQW 5.0 Recommendation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¶VILVFDO UHVSRQVLELOLWLHV 6WDII UHFRPPHQGV x 7KDW WKH UHFRPPHQGHG 2IILFLDO 3ODQ $PHQGPHQW EH DSSURYHG DQG WKH DGRSWLQJ %\ODZ EH HQDFWHG x 7KDW WKH LPSOHPHQWLQJ DJUHHPHQWVEH SUHSDUHG DQG EURXJKW IRUZDUG WR &RXQFLO IRU DSSURYDO x 7KDW XSRQ WKH H[HFXWLRQ RI WKRVH DJUHHPHQWV VWDII WDNH QHFHVVDU\DFWLRQVWR LQLWLDWH LQ FROODERUDWLRQ ZLWK WKH 1RUWKHDVW 3LFNHULQJ /DQGRZQHUV*URXS ,QF ZKHUH DSSURSULDWH WKH LPSOHPHQWLQJ SODQVDQG VWXGLHVLQFOXGLQJ WKH 0DVWHU (QYLURQPHQWDO 6HUYLFLQJ 3ODQ WKH 1HLJKERXUKRRG 3ODQV WKH )LVFDO ,PSDFW 6WXG\ WKH 0DVWHU 3DUNVDQG &RPPXQLW\ /DQGV$JUHHPHQW DQG WKH ,QIUDVWUXFWXUH 6WDJLQJ DQG 3KDVLQJ 3ODQ x 7KDW VWDII LGHQWLI\DSSURSULDWH H[SHQGLWXUHVLQ IXWXUH \HDUV¶ EXGJHW VXEPLVVLRQVWR FRYHU VWXGLHVUHODWHG WR 1RUWKHDVW 3LFNHULQJ DQG x 7KDW VWDII FRQWLQXH WR HQJDJH ZLWK )LUVW 1DWLRQVGXULQJ WKH UHPDLQLQJ SODQQLQJ DQG GHYHORSPHQW SURFHVVHV PLN 03-26 March 2, 2026 Page 23 Attachments: 1. 'UDIW %\ODZ WR DGRSW 5HFRPPHQGHG 2IILFLDO 3ODQ $PHQGPHQW WR WKH 3LFNHULQJ 2IILFLDO 3ODQ WKH 1RUWKHDVW 3LFNHULQJ 6HFRQGDU\3ODQ 2. 0DS RI 1RUWKHDVW 3LFNHULQJ 3. 7H[W RI ,QIRUPDWLRQ 5HSRUW ZLWKRXW $WWDFKPHQWV 4. 6XPPDU\RI 7HFKQLFDO 5HSRUWV 5. ,QWHJUDWHG 7UDQVSRUWDWLRQ7UDQVLW 6WUDWHJ\ZLWKRXW $SSHQGLFHV 6. 6FRSHG 6XEZDWHUVKHG 6WXG\3KDVH 7. 6XUYH\ 6XPPDU\RI )LQGLQJV5HSRUW 8. &RPPHQWV0DWUL[ 9. 'HWDLOHG 6XPPDU\DQG ([SODQDWLRQ RI 3XEOLF/DQG 1HHGVIRU 1RUWKHDVW 3LFNHULQJ 10. 5HVROXWLRQ RI &RXQFLO ± (QGRUVHPHQW RI 5HFUHDWLRQ DQG 3DUNV<HDU 3ODQ 11. 'HWDLOHG 3ODQQLQJ 3ROLF\&RQIRUPLW\$QDO\VLV 3UHSDUHG %\ =DKUDK .KDQ 6HQLRU 3URMHFW 0DQDJHU 6SHFLDO 3URMHFWV 3UHSDUHG %\ 3DXO :LUFK 3ULQFLSDO 3ODQQHU 3ROLF\ 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 $SSURYHG(QGRUVHG %\ 6WDQ .DUZRZVNL 'LUHFWRU )LQDQFH 7UHDVXUHU $SSURYHG(QGRUVHG %\ 5LFKDUG +ROERUQ 'LUHFWRU (QJLQHHULQJ 6HUYLFHV $SSURYHG(QGRUVHG %\ /DXUD *LEEV 'LUHFWRU &RPPXQLW\6HUYLFHV $SSURYHG(QGRUVHG %\ .HYLQ +HDWKFRWH 'LUHFWRU &LW\,QIUDVWUXFWXUH $SSURYHG(QGRUVHG %\ 3DXO %LJLRQL 'LUHFWRU &RUSRUDWH 6HUYLFHV &LW\6ROLFLWRU Recommended for the consideration of Pickering City Council By: Marisa Carpino, M.A. Chief Administrative Officer 1 Attachment 4 to Report PLN 04-26 Public Comments Contact Comment Response Anne Gwendolyn Bremer, Ronald Milton Mowbray, Jane Elizabeth Mowbray, Mary Louise Mowbray, and Hugh Ralph Mowbray 4140 Kinsale Road Feb 12, 2026 We, Anne Gwendolyn Bremer, Ronald Milton Mowbray, Jane Elizabeth Mowbray, Mary Louise Mowbray, and Hugh Ralph Mowbray are the registered owners of the 40.5ha (100.25 acres) parcel of land municipally known as 4140 Kinsale Road, Pickering, Ontario (the site). The site has an approximate frontage of 400 metres along Seventh Concession Road; as well as 900 metres frontage along Kinsale Road; and is located at the southwest corner of Seventh Concession Road and Kinsale Road; and is adjacent to Highway 407 to the south. We have reviewed the draft Northeast Pickering Secondary Plan that was most recently issued in October, 2025 (the plan) and have the following preliminary concerns with the plan that we would like you to consider. 1.BACKGROUND We are aware that the plan has been under review for the past couple of years. To that end, we understand the plan includes an area of approximately 1,763 hectares/4,357 acres in the northeast sector of Pickering and includes our site. The approximate boundaries are Eighth Concession Road to the north, Highway 7 to the south, Westney Road to the west, and Lake Ridge Road to the east (Pickering / Whitby border). While we support the work the City of Pickering is undertaking with the plan, we want to ensure that it is based on the best; and most current information so that our property rights are protected. We recently received notice of the March 2 2026 Planning & Development Committee (the Committee) public meeting that will consider the Recommendation Report on the plan (the report) which will provide future guidance on all further planning, flnancial, and engineering exercises that will need to be undertaken before any redevelopment and construction will be considered in the plan area. Following receipt of the report next week, we intend to submit additional comments to the Committee, as warranted. A.TRCA & CLOCA Currently, the City of Pickering is regulated by two (2) conservation authorities being the: (i) Toronto Region Conservation Authority (TRCA); and (ii) Central Lake Ontario Conservation Authority (CLOCA). As such, the site is currently governed by both the TRCA and CLOCA regulations in accordance with Durham Region Conservation Authorities map as shown in flgure 1 below: 2 Public Comments Contact Comment Response Figure 1: Durham Region Conservation Authorities Map For the past year, and most recently after completing the public component in December, 2025, the province of Ontario is now in the process of restructuring all of Ontario’s 36 conservation authorities (CAs), including the TRCA and CLOCA into seven (7) regional authorities. The intent of merging the existing 36 conservation authorities into 7 regional authorities is to streamline development approvals, reduce overlapping jurisdictions/regulation, and modernize data systems throughout Ontario by way of amending its governing legislation being the Ontario Conservation Authorities Act (the Act). That will in turn result in the development of: • The Ontario Provincial Conservation Agency (OPCA), which will provide central leadership, oversight, and strategic direction to the new regional consolidated conservation authorities; • As such, TRCA/CLOCA as it exists today and their related rules/regulations will be merged and the existing rules and regulations governing all lands within Ontario, including the Region of Durham; the plan area, and our lands are in process of changing; and o These changes aim to refocus conservation authorities on managing natural hazards (fiood/erosion control), conserving natural resources, 3 Public Comments Contact Comment Response and, crucial to the provincial government’s housing agenda: streamlining development permitting processes. It is our understanding that the establishment of the 7 new consolidated regional conservation authorities is to be completed by spring, 2026. B. Site Summary The site is currently undeveloped and is comprised of open flelds; a watercourse; and treed areas. A portion of the north end of the site, as shown in flgure 2 below, was planted as a tree nursery. Figure 2: Aerial of the Site 2. PRELIMINARY CONCERNS WITH THE PLAN A. The Merging of TRCA & CLOCA As outlined in section 1 above, the current TRCA/CLOCA rules and regulations that have been utilized to prepare the plan, are in process of being changed by the province of Ontario and the pending consolidated conservation regulations that will be forthcoming may have signiflcant implications for all landowners in the plan study area; including us; as well as all landowners beyond the plan study area. This suggests to us that it may be prudent to delay the processing of the plan until the province completes the consolidation of TRCA/CLOCA, particularly as it impacts Policy on natural heritage features and areas is governed by the Provincial Planning Statement (PPS). Conservation Authority regulations determine where a permit is required and Conservation Authorities provide on wetlands and watercourses that are subject to their regulations. The Subwatershed Study and related 4 Public Comments Contact Comment Response landowners including us whose lands fall within the plan study area. Should the Committee at its pending March 2 2026 meeting decide to move ahead with the plan at that time (to be conflrmed), suggests all work done on the plan to date based on the dual TRCA/CLOCA regulations, may have unintended consequences on all landowners in the plan study area, including us; as it may not be based on the most accurate and current information that may arise through the pending consolidation of the TRCA/CLOCA that will soon be implemented by the province of Ontario by spring, 2026+/-. B. Inconsistent NHS Assessments with the Site To illustrate our concerns with the current TRCA/CLOCA information available, we have reviewed the preferred land use concepts that have been issued to date being from June & October, 2025. Speciflcally, we do not agree with how the natural heritage system (NHS) has been depicted on the site in the October 2025 preferred plan as it appears the amount of lands that have been deemed Low Density Areas (shown in yellow) and Medium Density Areas (shown with yellow/hatching) have been signiflcantly altered/reduced from what was shown in the June 2025 preferred plan, as illustrated in flgure 3 below: Figure 3: Comparison of June & October 2025 Preferred Land Use Concepts environmental work supporting the Secondary Plan have been prepared based on the PPS and City policy in consultation and collaboratively with both Toronto Region Conservation Authority and Central Lake Ontario Conservation Authority with respect to matters that they regulate. Input from both agencies has guided refinements to the environmental analysis, mapping, and policies within the plan. There has been no indication that consolidation of Conservation Authorities will change their regulations. Nonetheless the determination of what types of features are included in the NHS is governed by the PPS and City Policy. 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. It also states that 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. These policies will allow for further consideration of the boundaries of the features through more detailed site analysis. 5 Public Comments Contact Comment Response We are concerned the pending consolidation of TRCA/CLOCA in the very near future may result in yet another differing NHS assessment from what has been suggested to date, as shown above (to be determined). At this time it appears the conservation rules/regulations governing the plan area that includes our site is a bit of a moving target and as you can appreciate, we want to ensure that our lands are governed by the most current and thorough rules and regulations so that we can adequately work with the various agencies on a go forward basis in order to protect the development rights of our lands; and ensure that any alterations to our site in future are done in the most environmentally responsible manner; and are governed and assessed by the most current rules and regulations. At a minimum, we respectfully request that the areas previously identifled for Low Density and Medium Density areas as shown in the June 2025 preferred land use plan as per flgure 2 above, be reinstated; and add a note to indicate “these boundaries may be subject to change following further assessments that will be undertaken in future with the landowner; their consultants; and required agencies”. With regard to the portion of the site that was planted as a tree nursery on the northern portion of the site, we suggest that a note be added indicating “Designation of this area to be determined through future studies.” This re-labelling would provide us; our consultants; and City staff an opportunity to further evaluate this part of the site and allow us to accurately work with City, TRCA/CLOCA, and related agencies to more accurately determine the most appropriate limits of the NHS components on our lands; so as to not impede the development rights on our site. We thank you for this opportunity to provide our preliminary comments on the plan. As stated above, we have recently received notice of the March 2 2026 Planning & Development Committee public meeting that will consider the Recommendation Report on the plan (the report). We look forward to receiving the report next week and will in turn be providing comments on it prior to the March 2 2026 Committee public meeting. We support the work the City of Pickering is undertaking with the plan but we do want to ensure that our property rights are protected and are based on the best information available to all parties. 6 Public Comments Contact Comment Response In the interim, please kindly ensure that we receive notice of all future decisions of the Planning & Development Committee and City Council related to the plan. We also request that we be provided with notice of all future notices and decisions pertaining to the various development applications contained in the plan study area. Anne Gwendolyn Bremer, Ronald Milton Mowbray, Jane Elizabeth Mowbray, Mary Louise Mowbray, and Hugh Ralph Mowbray 4140 Kinsale Road, Pickering, Ontario February 25, 2026 Summary of Our Understanding of the NPSP Area & Next Steps We are aware the NPSP area has been under review for the past couple of years; and will continue to be for the foreseeable future. To that end, we understand the plan area includes an area of approximately 1,763 hectares/4,357 acres in the northeast sector of Pickering and includes our site. The approximate boundaries are Eighth Concession Road to the north, Highway 7 to the south, Westney Road to the west, and Lake Ridge Road to the east (Pickering / Whitby border). A review of the report indicates this is the flrst of several steps required to develop a comprehensive plan for this area. As such, the intent of draft OPA 54 is to establish a long-term vision of this area as an innovative and sustainable community; that will be holistically planned to be a “complete community” focused on the well-being of its residents and the sustainability of the natural environment. It is envisioned to be a multigenerational, 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. Future development within the NPSP area will proceed as servicing becomes available and generally based on market demand by 2051+/-. Draft OPA 54 notes that development in the study area will be phased according to availability of infrastructure and public service facilities. Existing properties within the NPSP area may continue to be used in accordance with all uses legally permitted prior to approval of this secondary plan. Draft OPA 54 adds that it is not its intent 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; or seek the required permissions from the City of Pickering and related agencies, to establish the land uses being developed for the NPSP, which will continue to be modifled in future. Further, draft OPA 54 notes, in instances where the policies and designations contained within the NPSP vary from the policies in the City of Pickering Official Plan, the more 7 Public Comments Contact Comment Response speciflc and detailed policies of the NPSP shall prevail; provided the overall intent of the Official Plan is maintained. To date, we are aware that there have been four (4) phases of work that are now in process of being completed to develop the draft OPA 54; and has included the preparation of several technical background studies that were prepared during the second phase of this review which will form the basis of all future reports and agreements that will need to be prepared and approved in due course. The following is a summary of some of the studies that have been completed to date and will be further amended in future: • 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; and • Phase 1 of the Scoped Subwatershed Study. While phases three (3) to four (4) have involved the development of draft land use plans; policies for the development framework for this new community. Environmental mapping and policies relating to the Natural Heritage System (NHS) and stormwater management were informed by the Phase 1 and 2 Scoped Subwatershed Study. Phase 4, which is currently ongoing involves the flnalization of the NPSP, being draft OPA 54 and its pending consideration at the March 2 2026 public meeting; with its anticipated adoption by Pickering City Council at its March 23 2026 meeting. Summary of Site As noted in our initial comments, our site is currently undeveloped and is comprised of open flelds; a watercourse; and treed areas. While a portion of the north end of the site as shown in flgure 1 below, was planted some time ago as a tree nursery. 8 Public Comments Contact Comment Response Figure 1: Aerial of the Site C. PENDING CHANGES TO TRCA & CLOCA As detailed in our initial comments, the City of Pickering is regulated by two (2) conservation authorities being the: i Toronto Region Conservation Authority (TRCA); and ii Central Lake Ontario Conservation Authority (CLOCA). As such, the site is currently governed by both the TRCA and CLOCA regulations in accordance with Durham Region Conservation Authorities map as shown in flgure 2 below: Figure 2: Durham Region Conservation Authorities Map See previous responses above. 9 Public Comments Contact Comment Response As noted in our initial comments, the province of Ontario is now in the process of restructuring all of Ontario’s 36 conservation authorities (CAs), including the TRCA and CLOCA into seven (7) regional authorities. The intent of merging the existing 36 conservation authorities into 7 regional authorities is to streamline development approvals, reduce overlapping jurisdictions/regulation, and modernize data systems throughout Ontario by way of amending its governing legislation being the Ontario Conservation Authorities Act (the Act). It is our understanding that the establishment of the 7 new consolidated regional conservation authorities is to be completed by spring, 2026. A review of draft OPA 54 indicates that it does not speciflcally address the pending changes that are now in process of being made to the conservation authorities. That said, a review of draft OPA 54 appears to contain phrases such as “in consultation with the conservation authority” and/or “by the Conservation Authority having jurisdiction”, which appears to provide the fiexibility required to address the pending provincial changes to the area conservation authorities that will be occurring in the near future. 2. INCONSISTENT NHS ASSESSMENTS ON OUR SITE As detailed in our initial comments, and while we understand there is lots of work that remains to be undertaken, completed ,reviewed, and approved by the City of Pickering and related agencies on draft OPA 54 following its pending adoption by Pickering City Council at its March 23, 2026 meeting, we continue to be concerned with the preferred See previous responses above. 10 Public Comments Contact Comment Response land use concepts that (i) have been issued to date being from (i) June & October, 2025; and (ii) Schedule 11B entitled Northeast Pickering Secondary Plan Land Use Schedule as contained in draft OPA 54. Speciflcally, we do not agree with how the natural heritage system (NHS) has been depicted on the site in the October 2025 preferred plan, which now appears to have been carried forward into Schedule 11B of draft OPA 54. As noted earlier, the extent of lands that have been deemed Low Density Areas (shown in yellow) and Medium Density Areas (shown with yellow/hatching) has been signiflcantly altered/reduced on our site from what was shown in the June 2025 preferred plan, as illustrated in flgure 3 below: Figure 3: Comparison of June, October 2025 Preferred Land Use Concepts with Schedule 11B of draft OPA 54 11 Public Comments Contact Comment Response 3. INITIAL COMMENTS ON DRAFT OPA 54 With regards to NHS designated lands, it appears section 11.B.5 – 11.B.12 inclusive of draft OPA 54 addresses these types of lands and related features including headwater drainage features; hedgerow and isolated waterbodies. To the end, below is a summary of sections derived from draft OPA 54; and our comments on each section that we have provided in italic text. Pickering City Council acknowledges that: 11.B.6b: The exact boundary of the Natural Heritage System will be determined through the Master Environmental Servicing Plan (MESP) and/ or subsequent Environmental Impact Study (EIS) and feature staking to the satisfaction of the City in consultation with the respective Conservation Authority; Noted. We look forward to working with City of Pickering staff; their consultants; and related agencies to ensure that the amount of NHS lands currently shown on the site in schedule 11B in draft OPA 54b is accurately shown in future following the completion of the MESP and/or subsequent EIS and related studies. 11.B.6c: Further reflnement of the boundary of the Natural Heritage System will occur as part of the preparation of Neighbourhood Plans and any additions, deletions or reflnements will not require an amendment to this Plan; Noted. So along with the pending MESP and/or subsequent EIS and feature staking to the satisfaction of the City in consultation with the respective Conservation Authority as detailed in section 11.B.6b above, the refinement of NHS designated lands in the plan Correct. A site-speciflc study refers to studies prepared in support of development applications, such as Environmental Impact Studies, which evaluate natural heritage features and potential impacts at a more detailed scale. Where additional signiflcant features are identifled through such studies, they will be incorporated into the Natural Heritage System and addressed through the applicable review and approval processes with the relevant agencies. 12 Public Comments Contact Comment Response area, including on our site; may also be further refined with the preparation of Neighbourhood Plans as detailed above and any additional, deletions, or refinements made as a result of these pending studies will not require an amendment to the NPSP. 11.B.6d: Signiflcant natural heritage features not identifled on Schedule I or III, but identifled through a site-speciflc study are deemed to be part of the Natural Heritage System designation; Noted; but to ensure clarity, can you please advise what the phrase “a site specific study” means? In addition, if more than one study is undertaken for a portion of the NPSP in the future as there is lots of work yet to be completed; and in the event differing studies reveal differing estimates of NHS features on our lands, for example, we trust such issues will be resolved amicably in future with the relevant agencies and our family. Again, please reconfirm that our understanding of this matter is accurate. 11.B6e: Where a feature or portion of a feature is removed or reduced in accordance with Section 11.B.6 b) and c) above, the urban designation abutting the feature shall apply; and Noted. The policy above is not entirely clear as portions of lands currently designated as NHS appear to be adjacent to both Low Density Areas; and Mixed Corridor Areas, as shown on p.5 above; and in such cases, which designation will supersede the other? That said, given there is much work to be undertaken, we trust such issues as described above, will be resolved amicably with the relevant agencies and our family in future. 11.B.6f: 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; Noted. We support this approach. A review of section 11.B.7 of draft OPA 54 addresses the protection of headwater drainage features. Speciflcally, section 11.B.7a notes that these features have been identifled as “Protect” on schedule III C must be maintained on the surface with protections in place while features identifled as “Conserve” on schedule III C may remain in place or be realigned with enhancement. And proposals to realign/enhance must be done to the satisfaction of the City and respective conservation authority; They would be resolved at the Neighbourhood Plan stage or through draft plans of subdivision. The 4140 Kinsale property was identifled as a Potential Cultural Heritage Resource in Phase 2 of the Secondary Plan Study through a Cultural Heritage Resource Assessment. This Report is available online: https://letstalkpickering.ca/NEP. 13 Public Comments Contact Comment Response Noted. We support this approach as it appears to address the pending changes that the province is in process of making to the existing conservation authorities throughout Ontario, as noted on p.3 above. A review of schedule 11B Appendix A in draft OPA 54, entitled Potential Cultural Heritage Resources in Northeast Pickering indicates that a portion of our site may contain a potential cultural heritage resource, as per flgure 4 below: Figure 4: Extract from Schedule 11B of the draft OPA 54 To that end, section 11.B.59 of the draft OPA 54 contains the following policies pertaining to Potential Cultural Heritage Resources as shown in figure 5 below; and appears to apply to a portion of our site as shown in figure 4 above: Figure 5: Extract of Section 11.B.59 from Draft OPA 54 As noted in the Cultural Heritage Resource Assessment, the property features a farm complex surrounded by agricultural flelds and wooded land. The building complex consists of the residence and one barn, as well as circulation routes. Future reviews of the identifled resources will be undertaken collaboratively. 14 Public Comments Contact Comment Response We are not certain what this Potential Cultural Heritage Resource could be; and would appreciate receiving confirmation of what this potential cultural heritage feature is at your earliest convenience. A review of the report indicates that potential cultural heritage resources will be further assessed by way of the pending Master Parks & Community Lands Agreement (MPCLA) which will determine the size, locale, and, timing of transfer of lands to the City of Pickering; and will in turn support the pending development of the Fiscal Impact Study (FIS) for the NPSP area. Given there is much work to be undertaken on the NPSP area, we trust such issues will be resolved amicably with our family in future. As noted above, figure Nos. 4 and 6 above/below contain extracts from section 11B Appendix A of draft OPA 54, that identifies a portion of our site as potentially containing a cultural heritage resource: Figure 6: Extract from Potential Cultural Heritage Resources in Northeast Pickering Section 11B Appendix A 15 Public Comments Contact Comment Response We trust, when future reviews of the identified potential cultural heritage resources are undertaken, including on our site, it will be collaboratively undertaken with our family. Please reconfirm that our understanding of this matter is accurate. A review of the draft OPA 54 indicates its implementation policies are contained in section 11.B.69; and related next steps are summarized in section 11.B.70-71 which includes the pending development of a MESP to support the area’s neighbourhood plans. In addition, details of these and related plans are contained in the Recommendations that are contained in section 3 of the report which notes “that City staff be directed to negotiate the terms of the following agreements with the Northeast Pickering Landowners Group Inc. (the Landowner Group) for the purpose of implementing the Northeast Pickering Secondary Plan in the City’s best interests, and that these agreements be brought to Council for approval including”: • MESP; • Neighbourhood plans; • Development Charges and Community Beneflts Charges bylaw and FIS; • MPCLA; • Infrastructure Staging and Phasing Plan; and • An Agreement that the Landowner Group shall not apply for any development until all the above noted reports and related agreements have been completed to the satisfaction of the Region of Durham; City of Pickering, and related agencies. We generally agree with this approach, but again, we want to ensure that with any future studies being undertaken in the study area, which may result in modifying draft OPA 54, including all of the above noted studies and/or any other related supporting materials that may be required to be prepared in future that may refine/alter the extent of the NHS Noted. The preparation of the Neighbourhood Plans will entail full public engagement. 16 Public Comments Contact Comment Response boundaries in the plan area, particularly on our site is completed in a collaborative manner such that those parties preparing these studies on behalf of the City; and related commenting agencies will work with our family to ensure our property rights are protected and that the FINAL version of draft OPA 54 will contain accurate boundaries of all land use designations on our site. CONCLUDING COMMENTS As advised earlier, we support the work the City of Pickering has undertaken to date, with preparing draft OPA 54; and look forward to working with them and all related agencies as required to ensure that our property rights are protected and are based on the best information available to all parties. Please note, the above comments are preliminary only; and given there is a substantial amount of work yet to be completed in future as it relates to establishing and more accurately assessing the NHS designated land boundaries and related development rights throughout the NPSP, we reserve the right to provide further comments on all future studies that may/will further amend what is currently shown in draft OPA 54. 17 Public Comments Contact Comment Response Nick Cortellucci, Corpick Farms Ltd. Thursday, November 06, 2025 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 developments 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 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.B.66 and 11.B.68- Infrastructure staging, phasing plan, and implementation requirements Given the conflguration of the NEP plan, location of ‘Corpick’ property and direct access to existing Highway, 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. 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. 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. 18 Public Comments Contact Comment Response 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. Nick Cortellucci, Valpick Farms Ltd. Thursday, November 06, 2025 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. 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 developments 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 See earlier response above. 19 Public Comments Contact Comment Response 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.B.66 and 11.B.68- Infrastructure staging, phasing plan, and implementation requirements Given the conflguration of the NEP plan, location of ‘Valpick’ property and direct access to existing Highway, 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 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. See earlier response above. See earlier response above. Andrea Balsara Monday, February 23, 2026 1. The proposal would pave over 1,600 ha of Class 1 agricultural soil, the best food‑producing land in Canada. Once destroyed, our local food security and agricultural economy cannot be recovered! 2. Development on the headwaters of Carruthers Creek is proceeding without a completed Phase 3 Sub‑watershed Study, hydrologic‑hydraulic modeling, or a Master Environmental Servicing Plan. This leaves downstream neighborhoods in Ajax and Pickering vulnerable to new fiooding hazards. 3. The city’s own report identifles a $498 million funding gap for the $1 billion infrastructure needed, with additional, unknown costs beyond 2039. This “blank‑cheque” risk will be passed on to current residents through higher property taxes and to all Durham taxpayers for regional infrastructure. This is completely unacceptable! Northeast Pickering Are was brought into the Urban Area through the Durham Region Official Plan (Envision Durham), which was approved by the Province to accommodate forecast population and employment growth to 2051. The impact on farmland was considered through Envision Durham and the lands are now considered urban. As the Secondary Plan indicates, no development can occur until the Subwatershed Study, the Carruthers 20 Public Comments Contact Comment Response 4.The plan creates a “city within a city” on ecologically sensitive, Greenbelt‑adjacent land, compromising the natural assets that make Pickering livable. Have you consulted urban planners on this project? Or climate scientists? Do they think that this is viable or even advisable? Have you consulted with experts in these areas that this plan places at risk? Pickering can meet the province’s housing targets to 2051 without this high‑risk expansion. The Envision Durham Land‑Needs Assessment demonstrates that: 1. Completing the Seaton development (full build‑out expected by 2051) and; 2. Intensifying the City Centre and Kingston Road corridor will provide the needed affordable homes without incurring the $498 M debt, without destroying prime farmland, and without creating downstream fiood risks. The decisions we make today will determine the climate resilience, food security, and flscal health of the communities our children and grandchildren inherit. Preserving the Carruthers Creek headwaters, protecting Class 1 soil, and avoiding an uncertain tax burden are essential to a sustainable, equitable Pickering. Creek Watershed Hydrology Update, the MESP, Neighbourhood Plans and Fiscal Impact study are completed. The later study will determine changes to the development charges to ensure, as much as possible, growth pays for new infrastructure requirements. All significant natural heritage features based on policies in the Provincial Planning Statement (PPS) are being maintained and protected. The Region identified NE Pickering as being required to accommodate growth to 2051. The City will continue to accommodate growth through intensification and within existing urban areas including the Seaton build- out. 21 Public Comments Contact Comment Response Hilary Pryce Monday, February 23, 2026 I am a resident and homeowner in Pickering. I moved from Ajax so I still watch the Ajax Council meetings. Recently, they had Zac Cohoon who is Chair of the Durham Agricultural Advisory Committee speak in regard to our sensitive lands - these are farmlands. He was a great resource for the issues we are facing in Durham Region. We need to support farmers, trades workers, and public education so that these industries stay strong and local. This is what we have control over; this is what you have control over. In regard to the Northeast Pickering Secondary Plan, we do not and should not be paving land a) which is sensitive to our aquifers, native species, and food supply and b) when all mandates could be fulfllled by building smarter. I am tired of governments and businesses thinking in the older way - what is cheaper, what is easier, what is faster. Those were plausible and good to consider at one time. Moving forward, we expect more from our council, governments and businesses. People are so tired because they are not being considered at all. It created apathy, and such a great divide in our community. It is a hard time for everyone. The past years, community wise and globally are hard and getting harder. I believe we should pull together as a community. This is why I am asking you to really reconsider what choices you're making for the rest of us. I support Durham farmers, I support native species and healthy Aquaphor management, and I support building condensed (and that doesn't just mean condos) Northeast Pickering was brought into the Urban Area through the Durham Region Official Plan (Envision Durham), which was approved by the Province to accommodate forecast growth to 2051. The impact on agricultural lands was considered through that process and the lands are now designated urban. Environmental considerations, including groundwater and natural heritage features, are being addressed through the Subwatershed Study and the Carruthers Creek Watershed Hydrology Update to be fully complete before development. The Secondary Plan requires a compact community design and providing a wide mix of housing types and densities. Sheila A Lippiatt Monday, February 23, 2026 I am against developers using Ontario’s good agricultural land for housing when there are other alternatives. We must do everything to protect farming and the growing of our own crops locally for oncoming sustainability. The warranted infrastructure needed is very costly and sprawl makes traffic congestion more unliveable. Northeast Pickering was brought into the Urban Area through the Durham Region Official Plan (Envision Durham), which was approved by the Province to accommodate forecast growth to 2051. The impact on agricultural lands was considered through that process and the lands are now designated urban. Infrastructure planning and transportation impacts have been addressed and will continue to be addressed through more detailed studies at the next stage to ensure 22 Public Comments Contact Comment Response growth is coordinated with servicing capacity and transportation networks. Patrick J. Harrigton, AIRD & BERLIS LLP Representing Pinebrown Salem Lands Ltd. February 26, 2026 Having carefully reviewed the flnal recommended Secondary Plan and Staff Report PLN 03‑26 (dated for March 2, 2026), Pinebrown notes that the issues it previously raised have not been incorporated into the flnal policy framework. This letter outlines those areas of outstanding concern and respectfully requests Council direction before the Secondary Plan is flnalized. The September 2025 draft of the Secondary Plan identifled the Regional Centre boundary as ending at 7th Concession. The October 2025 draft extended the Regional Centre north of 7th Concession, thereby enlarging its geographic area. The flnal recommended plan maintains this expanded boundary. No planning rationale for this expansion has been identifled in the staff report or supporting materials. As noted in our client’s prior submissions, the Subject Lands are not proximate to the planned high‑order transit corridor that underpins the intended built form within the Regional Centre. As a result, the minimum density and height requirements applicable with the Regional Centre designation will serve to frustrate the future approval of a viable and contextually appropriate development of the Subject Lands. Pinebrown has repeatedly requested that the City either: • Provide an explicit permission for ground-related residential forms (street townhouses, back-to-back townhouses, stacked townhouses) for lands within the Regional Centre designation that are oriented to 7th Concession; or • Assign a more appropriate land use designation to the Subject Lands that refiects the site’s distance from transit and its different surrounding context. Pinebrown maintains that these issues have remained unaddressed through the processing of the Secondary Plan and now require Council direction to avoid a need to appeal. Pinebrown has also provided the City with site‑speciflc, fleld‑verifled natural heritage evidence demonstrating that the feature mapped as NHS on the Subject Lands does not meet any applicable provincial, regional, or municipal threshold for inclusion. A comprehensive natural heritage assessment by Beacon Environmental Limited (submitted to the City on January 19, 2026), completed by OWES‑certifled ecologists, conflrms: • The on-site “wetland” is a constructed dug pond with an artiflcial berm, created sometime after 1954, and does not meet the deflnition of a natural wetland. 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 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 a potential future transit station on Salem at the Transit Corridor. As such extending the Regional Centre north of Seventh Concession is logical and appropriate. Policy 11.B.16 was speciflcally added to the Secondary Plan: “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; d) stacked townhouse dwellings” 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. However, further site speciflc 23 Public Comments Contact Comment Response • The total wetland vegetation area is only 0.18 ha, and the woodland/thicket area is only 0.26 ha—well below all signiflcance thresholds. • The on-site vegetation communities are dominated by non‑native species, are fragmented, and are poorly connected, resulting in low functional ecological value. • The identifled feature does not meet the tests for signiflcant woodland, wetland, valleyland, or signiflcant wildlife habitat under the Provincial Planning Statement (2024), Durham Region OP (2024), or the City of Pickering OP (2022). Despite our client having shared this fleld evidence, the flnal Secondary Plan maintains an NHS designation on portions of the Subject Lands. This must be addressed now and not left to future Studies that will be forced to presume that the current NHS mapping is justifled assessment may be required to conflrm features and feature boundaries. As well, Policy 11.B.6 indicates that that 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. It further 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. Justin Mamone at Paul Brown & Associates Inc. 2750 Highway 7, Pickering February 27, 2026 During a recent virtual meeting with City staff held on October 31, 2025, PBA expressed concern with the following matters, speciflcally as they relate to the subject lands: 1. Employment Areas: All employment areas within the Secondary Plan have been designated as “Prestfge Employment” on Schedule 11B. In our opinion, this is not consistent with sectfon 2.8.1 the Provincial Planning Statement (PPS), which requires municipalitfes to provide opportunitfes for a diversified economic base, including maintaining a range and choice of suitable sites for employment uses which support a wide range of economic actfvitfes and ancillary uses, and take into account the needs of existfng and future businesses. In response to our initfal concerns, we acknowledge that staff have included permissions for “limited accessory outdoor storge” this does not address the ability to provide a full range of employment opportunitfes in Northeast Pickering. The meaning of the term “limited” is also unclear as it is not currently defined in the city’s Official Plan. Therefore, we contfnue to ask and respectiully request that the Secondary Plan include consideration of a “General Employment” designation that will increase the flexibility of employment uses and attract more tenants and users to Northeast Pickering – aside from A new General Employment designation has been added. The interior of the site is now identifled as 24 Public Comments Contact Comment Response large warehouse uses that typically have low employment densitfes. Such designatfon would be appropriate for the subject lands, as they do not have direct visibility from Highway 407. 2. Hazard Lands: In the October 2025 draft of the Secondary Plan, staff introduced a “Hazards” designatfon on the land use schedule to address floodplain concerns identffied by the Conservatfon Authority (TRCA) – _see Figure 2. The underlying Employment designatfon was removed from these areas. As informatfon, draft Policy 11.B.6 (e) allows for an abutting land use designatfon to apply if a Natural Heritage System (NHS) is refined through a future detailed environmental study. Similarly, draft policy 11.B.13 (a) may permit development or site alteratfon in Natural Hazards identffied on Schedule 11B unless permitted by the Conservatfon Authority having jurisdictfon. Our primary concern is that if the Hazards designation is reflned through future detailed study, and/or permission is granted by the TRCA, there is no underlying land use designation to permit development. It is also unclear whether policy 11.B.6 (e) would apply in this case, as the Hazards designation appears as separate from the NHS designation. Accordingly, we ask that staff consider revising the policy to ensure that 11.B.6 (e) also applies to Hazards. For further clarity, we also respectfully request that Schedule 11B be modified to extend the underlying Employment designation to General Employment as requested. Prestige Employment remains along Highway 7. Permitted uses for General Employment have been added to the Secondary Plan. 25 Public Comments Contact Comment Response these lands, maintaining the Hazards designation as an overlay. This is a consistent approach on Official Plans in other GTA municipalities. A policy similar to 11.B.6 e) has been added to 11.B.13. Mitch Morawetz, President Durham Region Federation of Agriculture February 27, 2026 Our members are deeply concerned about the lack of meaningful consultatfon with the agricultural community throughout the development of this secondary plan. Farmers who own and actfvely work the lands within the study area report that they were not adequately engaged in discussions that will significantly affect their livelihoods, long-term investments, and the future of agriculture in the region. We are partfcularly troubled by the fact that several agriculture mitfgatfon processes have not been included. This was an item which was clearly brought forward in our concerns contained in our letter of November 6, 2025, to council. “That 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/flooding onto farm operations; • Measures to reduce trespass, conflicts and nuisance complaints; • Protected equipment routes/turning movements; and • Drainage protection so existing tile-drained fields retain function. ( All respond to the impacts the AIA identifies.)” The lands identffied within the Northeast Pickering Secondary Plan area include productfve farmland that contributes to Durham Region’s agricultural output, local food security, and broader agri-food economy. Decisions of this magnitude should be informed by detailed, transparent studies that assess impacts on farm viability, drainage, infrastructure conflicts, fragmentatfon of land, and potentfal edge effects between agricultural and urban uses. The contfnued use of prime farmland for urban development is a matter of significant concern. Once agricultural land is removed from productfon, it cannot be replaced. The loss of contfguous farmland undermines the efficiency and economic sustainability of remaining farm operatfons and contributes to the erosion of the agricultural land base that has historically been protected through provincial and regional planning frameworks. Agricultural mitigation policies have been drafted to refiect the request and criteria noted. The City has decided to bring these policies forward as part of the fulsome Pickering Official Plan Review. This will ensure the policies apply across all development in Pickering. The impact on farmland was considered through Envision Durham and the lands were added to the urban area. 26 Public Comments Contact Comment Response We respectiully request that the City pause further advancement of the Northeast Pickering Secondary Plan untfl: 1. Meaningful consultatfon is undertaken with directly affected landowners, who are supported by the broader agricultural community that would willingly partfcipate in this consultatfon; and 2. Alternatfves (including staging) that prioritfze agricultural land preservatfon and responsible growth management are fully explored. The DRFA and its members are committed to working collaboratively with the City to ensure that growth planning balances housing and employment needs with the protection of agricultural resources and rural livelihoods. We believe that proactive engagement and evidence-based planning are essential to achieving outcomes that are fair, sustainable, and in the long-term interest of the entire community. Further community discussion on agricultural mitigation policies can occur through the Official Plan review process. Phasing for off-site livestock operations is already required in the Secondary Plan. Alex Ciccone, Partner Garrod Pickfield LLP Representing: Nick Van Halteren, owner of 4100 Sideline 6; Tyler Van Halteren, owner of 4150 Sideline 6; and Harrison Minz, owner of 4200 Sideline 6 Background The Sideline 6 Propertfes are currently designated as a mixture of “Prime Agricultural Area” and “Natural Area” in the current City of Pickering Official Plan (the “OP”) see Schedule B, below. They are all zoned Agricultural under the City’s Zoning By-law 8149/24 (the “Zoning By-law”). The Sideline 6 Propertfes all have multfple existfng buildings and structures, driveways and very large, maintained lawns. It is plainly evident from satellite imagery that the majority of these propertfes are not treed and contain no wetlands or watercourses. See Schedule A. The proposed Secondary Plan would re-designate nearly the entfrety of the Sideline 6 Propertfes as “Natural Heritage Systems”. See Schedule C. This proposed re-designatfon (and specifically, down-designatfon) does not reflect the reality of what exists on the ground. No site visits were conducted on the Sideline 6 Propertfes to substantfate the proposed NHS designatfon, and the Sideline 6 Propertfes do not contain the features required to be designated NHS. To be clear: the areas of these propertfes currently designated Agricultural comprise large maintained lawns that lack trees, wildlife corridors, and wetlands, and have no features that can be considered NHS. The Subwatershed team have examined the properties in the context of the recent NHS and advise that the NHS in this area was based on a review of background information and Land Information Ontario mapping that identifled woodland as a natural feature on the properties, as well as wetland associated with the church property at the north end. The boundary of the wetland was staked and surveyed by TRCA from the adjoining property. Preliminary buffers to the woodland and wetland features are also incorporated into the NHS which makes it appear larger than what is apparent on the landscape. In addition, the watercourse along the east side of Sideline 6 was identifled as Redside Dace (an endangered flsh species) Contributing Habitat. The 27 Public Comments Contact Comment Response We believe this proposed designatfon to be a result of computer hydrological modelling efforts. It appears that the enlarged NHS area around our clients’ propertfes was created through the hydrological modelling process to compensate for a loss of hydrological functfon elsewhere in the watershed. We do not believe that our clients’ propertfes with their driveways, buildings, manicured lawns have any different hydrological representatfon than the low to medium density housing designatfon proposed elsewhere. Stan Denhoed, P.Eng. M.Sc. of Harden Environmental Services has been retained to provide additfonal informatfon, should the designatfon not be removed from the proposed Schedules. It is Mr. Denhoed’s opinion that other areas in this same watershed that are presently designated NHS and adjacent to watercourses have had the NHS designatfon removed and replaced with either medium density housing or low-density housing, as visible on Schedule C. The re-designatfon of the portfons of the Sideline 6 Propertfes from Agricultural to NHS is down-designatfng without appropriate environmental study, does not reflect the ecological features and lack thereof on the propertfes, and will have significant negatfve impacts on the permitted uses for the Sideline 6 Propertfes. Request to the Planning and Development Committee We respectfully request that the Planning and Development Committee direct staff to correct the proposed mapping for the Secondary Plan to maintain the existing designation on these three Sideline 6 Properties. combination of these layers and their buffers resulted in the extended coverage noted in the comment letter. Recognizing that the existing natural cover on these properties refiects more of a fragmented series of smaller woodlands and that there are existing residences with associated maintenance approaches and disturbances within this block, we are prepared to reduce the NHS boundary in this area to be coincident with that which is, and has been, depicted on Schedule 3A of the Pickering Official Plan (i.e., Natural Heritage System). Buffers associated with Redside Dace habitat extend onto the Subject Properties, however, in recognition that Sideline 6 is also present between the properties and the watercourse designated as Redside Dace Contributing Habitat, we are prepared to reduce the buffer to be coincident with the east edge of the road and eliminate the buffer boundary on the west of the road. Finally, the wetland boundary on the church property to the north will remain as part of the NHS mapping given the importance of wetland features and regulatory limits associated with them. Trees located on these properties, regardless of their presence in the Natural Heritage System, are subject to 28 Public Comments Contact Comment Response the following requirements: • A permit is required for any tree cutting; and, • Any land use changes requiring Planning Act approvals must be supported by appropriate natural heritage assessments, such as an EIS. Lynn Van Halteren 4100 Sideline 6 • Referenced the letter from their lawyer Alex Ciccone which is immediately above. • Three estate properties are currently zoned agricultural and natural heritage. • The sideline 6 properties have multiple existing buildings. Most of the land is not treed but rather large lawns that don’t contain treed areas. • Many of the trees are buckthorn and pine trees are aging out. • Get seasonal run off from flelds and get wet area in spring but dries out in summer. • Request to Maintain existing designation on these properties. See response above. Jane Stone Pickering resident Friday, February 27, 2026 I am writing to express my concern about the Northeast Pickering Secondary Plan. I do not support this plan, and I hope that Pickering’s city and regional councilors will oppose it. I know that new homes need to be build but doing it on prime farmland is not the solution. Pickering needs affordable housing but most of the homes built in this type of new development are not affordable. These developments do, however, beneflt the big developers. Finishing the Seaton development and using the available land within the main part of the city and focusing on affordable housing rather than the huge homes being built would beneflt both the growth and development of Pickering. Once the prime farmland is gone, it’s gone forever. The impact on the watershed system is serious and must be addressed before any development. These should be our primary concerns. Money is, however, usually the major one concern. According to the City's own Northeast Pickering Are was brought into the Urban Area through the Durham Region Official Plan (Envision Durham), which was approved by the Province to accommodate forecast population and employment growth to 2051. The policies of the Secondary Plan encourage a broad range of housing types, including affordable housing, and require affordable housing to be provided within the Regional Centre area. 29 Public Comments Contact Comment Response report there will be a $498 million funding shortfall to 2039 for the $1B infrastructure needed for this project. I urge you to reconsider this proposed development. Please consider the environmental impact of such development and other solutions to aid Pickering’s growth targets. Pickering will continue to accommodate growth through both intensiflcation within existing urban areas and the planned development of designated urban lands, including Seaton, consistent with Provincial and Regional policy. Bryan Purcell VP Policy & Programs, The Atmospheric Fund February 27, 2026 The Atmospheric Fund (TAF) is a regional climate agency that invests in low-carbon solutions in the Greater Toronto and Hamilton Area. We are writing to express our strong support for the City’s proposed Northeast Pickering secondary Plan and encourage Council to adopt it. The sustainability measures outlined in the report represent meaningful steps toward reducing carbon emissions in this new community, and we are encouraged to see them embedded in the Plan from the outset. In particular, we commend the City for prioritizing energy efficiency, renewable energy, sustainable building practices, and low-carbon transportation infrastructure, as outlined in Sections 11.B.52 and 11.B.53. Speciflcally, Pickering should be commended for including measures that support active and low-carbon transportation modes through infrastructure such as electric vehicle rough-ins, EV-ready charging, and secure bike parking and storage. Planning for this infrastructure at the outset reduces future retroflt costs and helps normalize sustainable transportation choices for residents. We also strongly support and commend the Plan’s direction to advance energy-efficient buildings, integrate of renewable energy, incorporate on-site clean energy systems, and explore district energy solutions. Embedding these measures at the planning stage creates long-term cost savings for residents, strengthens energy resilience, and positions the new community to align with climate targets. With transportation and buildings representing the two largest sources of emissions in Pickering, these measures will play a critical role in ensuring that future growth aligns with the City’s climate objectives. Overall, TAF supports the Northeast Pickering Secondary Plan and we urge Council to adopt it. We commend Pickering for its leadership in advancing sustainability and look forward to continuing to support the City in its climate action efforts. Noted, thank you. 30 Public Comments Contact Comment Response Katie Pandey, MAES, MCIP, RPP Innovative Planning Solutions LOT 3, CONCESSION 6, PICKERING March 2nd, 2026 It appears that the landowner may not have been circulated as part of the Northeast Pickering Secondary Plan (NEPSP) process. Accordingly, this correspondence represents the landowner’s flrst formal submission in response to the Land Use Concepts and Preferred Use Report and is provided for consideration by City staff and SGL in the preparation of the Proposed Plan. Schedule 11B – Land Use Schedule (Appendix 2) of the draft Secondary Plan identifles the Subject Lands as predominantly Low Density Residential, with the southern portion along Highway 7 designated Medium Density Residential. In addition, portions of the Subject Lands are identifled for a Community Park and Community Centre. 2.0 COMMENTS AND PLANNING RATIONALE 2.1 Community Park and Community Centre Relocation – _Policy Conformity and Planning Rationale The overarching objective of this request is to optimize the long-term accessibility, connectivity, and functional performance of the Community Centre and Community park facilities within the secondary plan area. We propose to relocate the Community Park and Community Centre to the intersection of Salem Road and Highway 7, along the major north–south spine and multi-use trail corridor. The proposed relocation conforms to the North East Secondary Plan and represents sound planning from a land use, connectivity, and environmental perspective. Policy 11.B.35 – Community Parks The proposed Community Park satisfles the requirements of Policy 11.B.35 as follows: • Meets the requirement of 6.0 hectares; • Is generally located adjacent to the secondary school and in proximity to the Community Node; • can accommodate a range of illuminated and non-illuminated recreational amenities, including washrooms; • Can incorporate passive recreation and community gathering spaces; • provides road frontage on two sides with opportunity for on-street parking; and • is appropriately sized and conflgured to support multiple flelds, diamonds, or courts to facilitate community sports and tournament use. The City exceeded the notice requirements of the Planning Act by mailing notices to all property owners for all three public information centres, the statutory public meeting and the March 2, 2026, Planning & Development Committee meeting. In addition, notices were posted to the City’s website, social media channels, and at select intervals, in the Toronto Star. A community park and community centre adjacent to Salem Road and Highway 7 are not central to Neighbourhood 28 and the community park is certainly not located in proximity to the secondary school. 31 Public Comments Contact Comment Response Policy 11.B.36(c) – _Community Centre The proposed Community Centre satisfles Policy 11.B.36(c) as follows: • meets the minimum site area requirement of 1.5 hectares; • is accessible by transit; • can accommodate a library component; and • will be supported by dedicated on-site parking. 2.2 Connectivity, Urban Structure and Active Transportation Section 2.6 of the Secondary Plan directs that streetscapes be well connected through sidewalks, multi-use paths, trails, and cycling infrastructure to promote walkable neighbourhoods, accessible transit options, and healthy active lifestyles. The proposed relocation advances these objectives by: • Directly fronting onto and integrating with the multi-Use Trail system, enhancing pedestrian and cycling accessibility; • locating both facilities along Salem Road, a major north–south spine connecting the Multi-Use Trail to the Regional Centre; • Providing direct connectivity from the regional center, which permits densities of up to 180 units per hectare within the Secondary Plan area; • improving visibility and access without complex turning movements, allowing residents —particularly from higher density quadrants—to travel directly along Salem Road without deviation; and • Supporting a live -work-play framework through proximity to the Business/Office designation. This location enhances long-term viability, accessibility, and functional integration of both facilities within the broader urban structure. 2.3 Community Park Location – _Policy Consistency and Flexibility: It should be noted that policy 11.B.35 states that the community park is to be “generally located adjacent to a secondary school in the vicinity of a community node”. The policy does not use the more prescriptive “shall be located adjacent” formulation. The intent of this policy is to ensure that community parks support and complement school functions through proximity; however, strict adjacency in all circumstances was not contemplated as a rigid requirement. The inclusion of the term “generally” clearly The proposed location at Salem Road is not located in proximity to the secondary school. 32 Public Comments Contact Comment Response introduces fiexibility to respond to site-speciflc conditions and broader neighbourhood design objectives. The term does not prescribe a measured distance, nor does it impose an absolute adjacency test. Rather, it refiects an intention to create walkable, integrated communities within the secondary plan framework. The proposed relocation is generally located within the vicinity of the Community Node and the Secondary Plan structure. It maintains logical connectivity to the school network and surrounding residential areas through the planned street grid and multi-use trail system. In this instance, the proposed relocation remains in proximity to an elementary school and is located approximately 800 metres from the secondary school. This distance is widely recognized as walkable and aligns with LEED Neighbourhood Development guidelines as well as standard planning practice. Accordingly, the proposed park location continues to satisfy the functional intent of Policy 11.B.35. In this context, the fiexibility embedded within the term generally is both deliberate and important. This is particularly relevant where supporting technical studies — such as a Master Landscape Plan, a Parkland Dedication Strategy, or a Community Facilities Needs Assessment — _have not been prepared to substantiate the imposition of a more rigid locational requirement. Introducing prescriptive language in the absence of technical analysis may inadvertently constrain future block planning and could give rise to unnecessary Official Plan appeals. 2.4 Environmental Protection The proposed layout maintains a buffer exceeding 30 metres from the Natural Heritage Feature, ensuring no encroachment and maintaining full conformity with applicable environmental protection policies. Should any lands ultimately be conflrmed as environmentally sensitive, such lands would be conveyed to the appropriate Conservation Authority and would not be utilized for passive recreational purposes. The proposed location is not located within the vicinity of the Community Node. 33 Public Comments Contact Comment Response 3.0 CONCLUSION AND PROFESSIONAL OPINION 34 Public Comments Contact Comment Response In our professional planning opinion, the proposed relocation fully satisfles all mandatory requirements of the North East Secondary Plan for both the Community Park (6.0 hectares) and Community Centre (1.5 hectares), while signiflcantly enhancing connectivity, accessibility, urban integration, and environmental stewardship. The proposal not only meets policy requirements but advances the intent of the Secondary Plan by reinforcing active transportation linkages, supporting higher density areas with direct access to community amenities, and maintaining appropriate environmental buffers. Accordingly, the proposed conflguration represents good planning and is consistent with the vision and objectives of the North East Secondary Plan, while facilitating an optimally functioning Community Centre and Community Park placement that creates a cohesive, accessible, and well-integrated community focal point. IPS, together with our clients -Woloszczuks 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. Should reflnements arise through subsequent technical review, we remain committed to working with staff to ensure the flnal conflguration continues to achieve the overarching objectives of optimizing long-term accessibility, connectivity, and the functional performance of the Community Centre and Community Park facilities within the Secondary Plan Area The symbolic locations of the community park and community centre are conceptual, and the flnal locations are to be determined through the Neighbourhood Plan process. That is when consideration of flnal appropriate locations and landownership will be considered. The Neighbourhood Plan process will be a public process. As well, cost sharing provisions in the secondary plan provide for the equitable distribution of the costs of development. 35 Public Comments Contact Comment Response Malone Give Parsons Ltd., Matthew Cory On behalf of North-East Pickering Landowners Group (NEPLOG) February 26, 2026 Malone Given Parsons Ltd. (“MGP”) is the planning and land economic consultant for the North-East Pickering Landowners Group (“NEPLOG”), consisting of the registered landowners listed in Attachment 1, who own multiple properties in North-East Pickering. City staff and the NEPLOG have been working collaboratively for the last flve years on the secondary plan for the North-East Pickering area. The NEPLOG are excited by the progress to date that has culminated in the release of Report PLN 03-26 and the draft North-East Pickering Secondary Plan (“NEPSP”) being recommended for approval at the March 2, 2026 Planning & Development Committee. The NEPLOG are eager to have the secondary plan advanced in a manner that can be implemented effectively in keeping with the initial principles under which it was undertaken. The landowners have provided comments and input to ensure this can occur, which has occurred through numerous meetings, discussions, and written comments to staff regarding the overall Secondary Plan structure and policy direction. The NEPLOG recognizes that there is still work ahead before development applications 36 Public Comments Contact Comment Response and construction can be approved on the NEPSP lands, many of which are acknowledged in Report PLN 03-26 and the NEPSP. The landowners want to ensure that the studies, next steps, and development process is clear and predictable going forward. In this regard, the NEPLOG will work with the City to prepare and flnalize a Memorandum of Understanding (“MOU”) which outlines the development process and scope of required studies to support development in the NEPSP. This MOU will include Terms of References for the required studies that will be completed at each stage in the planning process following approval of the Secondary Plan. The MOU will be a key guiding document in determining the study requirements, timing, Financial agreements, and work plan for each step of the development process moving forward, and the NEPLOG looks forward to working collaboratively with the City to flnalize the MOU. We request that the policies of the secondary plan reference this process and the determination of next steps as an ongoing process, ensuring that the process agreed to in the MOU can be relied upon to implement the Secondary Plan when the document is agreed to between the landowners and the City. The NEPLOG are also requesting two additional changes to the NEPSP: 1. Remove the Sportsplex from the schedules of the NEPSP and Policy 11.B.36a) which describes same; and 2. Remove 11.B.58k) which requires the gratuitous dedication of land for affordable housing. The Sportsplex should be removed as there was no study or basis for it to be included in the NEPSP and the need for one can be determined through the future Neighbourhood Plan processes. With respect to affordable housing, the rest of the NEPSP provides opportunities and guidance for the encouragement of affordable housing, however a policy cannot require gratuitous land dedication for affordable housing. The NEPLOG are happy to work with the City through future development applications and the Neighbourhood Plan process to determine the speciflcs of any affordable housing within the NEPSP area. Lastly, many aspects of the Secondary Plan policies remain to be flnalized or revisited through the Neighbourhood Plan process. An MOU is not a suitable tool for implementing the Secondary Plan. The Sportsplex symbol refiects the anticipated future recreational and community needs of residents in Northeast Pickering as well as addressing future recreational deflciencies that the City may experience city-wide. Rationale for the Sportsplex is contained in Report PLN 04-26 to the March 30, 2026, Council meeting. The “gratuitous dedication” has been removed. However, the provision of land for affordable housing remains in the plan. 37 Public Comments Contact Comment Response The landowners would like to reiterate that many of the outstanding comments can be resolved through landowner-led Neighbourhood Plans, where these official plan amendments provide the appropriate vehicle to plan neighbourhoods at the next level of detail under the Secondary Plan, in keeping with the plan's vision and goals. The Secondary Plan policies must clearly contemplate that the Neighbourhood Plan official plan amendments and related Master Environmental Servicing Plans shall make required adjustments to the schedules and policies, and revisit, where necessary, the assumptions of the Secondary Plan to refiect the vision, goals, and objectives for each neighbourhood. The Neighbourhood Plans will be prepared collaboratively by the City and the Northeast Pickering Landowners Group. Amanda Santo Vice President, Development Dorsay (Pickering) Limited February 27,2026 Dorsay (Pickering) Limited (“Dorsay”) is the registered owner of lands within the City of Pickering (the “City”), legally described in Schedule “A” and illustrated on the aerial photograph attached as Schedule “B” (collectively, the “Dorsay Lands”). Dorsay is an active member of the North-East Pickering Landowners Group (“NEPLOG”), representing landowners within the North-East Pickering Secondary Plan Area (“Veraine”), which encompasses the Dorsay Lands. For more than a decade, Dorsay, both independently and through its participation in NEPLOG, has worked closely and constructively with the City in advancing the planning and development framework for Veraine, including the preparation and reflnement of the North-East Pickering Secondary Plan (the “Secondary Plan”). We wish to acknowledge and thank City Staff and the consulting team for the collaborative approach that has characterized this process. We recognize the effort undertaken to prepare and reflne the Secondary Plan and appreciate the City’s responsiveness to earlier submissions provided by NEPLOG and its members. While progress has been made, certain policies contained in the most recent draft of the Secondary Plan remain of concern to Dorsay. Accordingly, we are providing the following comments to the Planning and Development Committee for consideration. Sportsplex (Policies 11.B.36 a)) This matter was previously raised in our submissions, including the comment letter prepared by Dentons and submitted on our behalf to the public meeting of November 10, 2025. While Staff have been cooperative in meeting with us to discuss our concerns, the 38 Public Comments Contact Comment Response policies relating to the proposed 10-hectare Sportsplex and adjacent 6-hectare Community Park remain largely unchanged. The primary concern is that the Sportsplex is not supported by the City’s own Community Services and Facilities Study dated August 2025. That Study identifles the need for one Recreation Complex and two Community Centres. It does not recommend or contemplate a 10-hectare Sportsplex. In contrast, the current Secondary Plan proposes one 10-hectare Sportsplex, one 6-hectare Recreation Centre, and one 1.5-hectare Community Centre. The scale deviation is signiflcant. A 10-hectare Sportsplex represents a materially different land use intensity and land consumption than the 1.5-hectare Community Centre identifled in the Study. Further, there has been no indication that capital funding has been secured or allocated for a facility of this magnitude. In the absence of demonstrated need and flnancial commitment, flxing a 10-hectare Sportsplex within the Secondary Plan framework introduces a substantial land constraint without corresponding justiflcation. Given the direct impact on land allocation, housing yield, and inevitable affordability, this deviation warrants a comprehensive review before being embedded in the Plan. It is also important to note that the Sportsplex was introduced in the September 2025 version of the Secondary Plan, after approximately four years of collaborative work on the Veraine framework. The late-stage addition of a facility with such signiflcant impact underscores the need for further study of its scale, timing, and location. As previously identifled, the Sportsplex was initially located on one of Dorsay’s parcels in a manner that concentrated four community uses, a Sportsplex (10 ha), Community Park (6 ha), Elementary School (2.5 ha), and Neighbourhood Park (1.5 ha), on a single site. This level of encumbrance materially constrained the developability of that parcel and limited its ability to contribute to housing supply. While the City subsequently relocated the Sportsplex to another parcel, that property, also owned by Dorsay, is now subject to a similar concentration of large-format public uses within a different neighbourhood boundary. The fundamental issue, therefore, remains unchanged: placing multiple large- scale community facilities on a single site substantially restricts development potential and compromises good neighbourhood design. Rationale for the Sportsplex is contained in Report PLN 04-26 to the March 30, 2026, Council meeting. 39 Public Comments Contact Comment Response Schedule “C” and the image below illustrates the land area occupied by the proposed Sportsplex and Community Park and demonstrates the resulting fragmentation of the neighbourhood block structure. The cumulative land consumption disrupts the continuity of the residential fabric and limits the ability to achieve a cohesive, walkable community consistent with the Veraine Principles. A facility of this scale functions as a regional destination use. It generates signiflcant vehicle demand, noise, event-based peak traffic, and activity patterns extending beyond a single neighbourhood catchment. Embedding such a use within a residential neighbourhood core risks undermining the flne-grain structure and connectivity that the Secondary Plan seeks to establish. The issue is not whether recreation facilities should be provided, but whether the magnitude and operational characteristics of this particular facility are compatible with its proposed location. Comparable examples reinforce this point. Whitby’s Iroquois Park Sports Centre is located within an employment area adjacent to Highway 401, beneflting from direct access to higher-order transportation infrastructure without disrupting residential neighbourhood structure. Similarly, the Municipality of Clarington’s planned Clarington Sports and Event Grounds, approximately 20 hectares in size, is situated near Highway 401 within lands designated for employment uses, recognizing the traffic, access, and servicing needs associated with a regional-scale recreational complex. These examples 40 Public Comments Contact Comment Response demonstrate that facilities of this magnitude are commonly located in corridor-oriented or employment contexts where their operational demands can be appropriately accommodated. The fact that the Sportsplex has been relocated between neighbourhoods in successive drafts of the Secondary Plan further illustrates that its location has not been driven by detailed technical analysis. Given its signiflcant implications on the neighbourhood structure and design, housing supply, and affordability, the precise inclusion, scale, timing, and location of such a facility should be determined through a comprehensive future study, including community needs assessment, servicing strategy, transportation analysis, phasing, and funding considerations, rather than being determined this late in the Secondary Plan stage. Accordingly, Dorsay proposes that Policy 11.B.36(a) be removed and that the Sportsplex icon be removed from the corresponding Schedules. This would align the Secondary Plan with the recommendations of the Community Services and Facilities Study and ensure that any future large-format recreational facility is advanced through an evidence-based, needs-driven process supported by appropriate technical and flnancial analysis. Implementation Policies (Policy 11.B.69 b) c) h)) Dorsay acknowledges that the preparation of a Master Environmental Servicing Plan (MESP), Master Servicing Study, Neighbourhood Plans, staging strategy, flscal analysis, and cost-sharing framework are typical and appropriate components of implementing a Secondary Plan. Our concern is not with these requirements themselves, but with the sequencing introduced in Policy 11.B.69 b) and c), which would prohibit the submission of draft plan applications until these documents and agreements are fully approved and executed by Council. In practice, an MESP is generally treated as a technical background study that is reviewed through staff-level processes and reflned concurrently with draft plan applications. While it is appropriate that draft approval be contingent upon the completion and acceptance of such foundational work, preventing the submission of applications until formal Council approval is obtained represents a departure from typical sequencing. This additional procedural step may delay the initiation of draft plan processes and, in turn, the delivery The implementation policies have been revised to clarify that no approvals may be given until all required studies have been approved or completed to the satisfaction of the City, and in some instances, the Region of Durham also. This policy has been revised. 41 Public Comments Contact Comment Response of housing, which is not aligned with provincial direction encouraging efficient approval processes. With respect to cost sharing, Dorsay anticipates that a framework will continue to be advanced collaboratively. However, requiring the formal execution of a Cost Sharing Agreement prior to the flling of draft plan applications creates interdependence among landowners at the submission stage that may delay progression, even where technical work is sufficiently advanced. Such private agreements are more appropriately secured prior to draft approval rather than as a prerequisite to flling. The Planning Act provides landowners with the statutory right to submit complete applications and establishes decision timelines upon flling. While municipalities may require appropriate studies and tie draft approval to their completion, restricting the ability to flle an application until all implementation matters are flnalized extends beyond typical complete application requirements and may limit the ability to initiate the statutory review process. Dorsay respectfully requests that Policy 11.B.69 be revised to permit draft plan applications to proceed concurrently with the completion and approval of the MESP, Neighbourhood Plans, and related agreements, with appropriate conditions of draft approval ensuring their fulflllment. Conclusions and Next Steps Dorsay respectfully encourages the City to consider these reflnements outlined above to ensure that the Secondary Plan refiects a fiexible, implementable framework aligned with the Veraine Principles and broader provincial planning direction. Our comments are offered in the spirit of strengthening the long-term viability, efficiency, and community building potential of Veraine. These submissions are intended to complement those provided by Malone Given Parsons on behalf of the NEPLOG and to continue the constructive and collaborative dialogue that has characterized this process to date. We sincerely appreciate the time and effort undertaken by City Staff and Council in advancing the Secondary Plan and remain committed to working together to achieve a complete, connected, and forward-looking community in North-East Pickering. This policy has been revised. There is no longer a restriction on when applications may be submitted. 42 Public Comments Contact Comment Response We respectfully request that Dorsay and the undersigned be provided with notice of any public meetings, open houses, reports to Committee or Council, and any subsequent decisions under the Planning Act relating to the Secondary Plan Craig Bamford • The Region of Durham OP policies for future expansion have not yet been met. • Intent was that all of those policies would occur as part of the review of the Pickering OP • Council should Not proceed further with this official plan amendment until full and complete indigenous consultation has occurred. • What opportunities exist to flrst intensify the urban area of Pickering and substantially build out Seaton before any investment is required developing this area. Council must focus on how we can build affordable housing for the members of the community • Northeast Pickering area is the source of Carruthers Creek. • Carruthers Creek watershed report by TRCA identifled Potential fiood risk. • All studies must be completed and a cost determination made of any mitigation strategies so that section 5.7.E of the regional official plan can be implemented. • Much of the land is class 1 and 2 farmland, farmers need reassurance that the land is not required in the foreseeable future so they can make investments on an ongoing basis that are required in order to maintain full productivity. • One of the species that is endangered that needs to be considered is the Redside Dace. 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. All of these studies will be completed prior to development being approved as per the policies of the Secondary Plan. Northeast Pickering was brought into the Urban Area through the Durham Region Official Plan (Envision Durham), which was approved by the Province to accommodate forecast growth to 2051. The impact on agricultural lands was considered through that process 43 Public Comments Contact Comment Response and the lands are now designated urban. Environmental considerations, including impacts to the Carruthers Creek headwaters, are being addressed through the Subwatershed Study and the Carruthers Creek Watershed Hydrology Update. Phase 3 will be complete prior to any development occurring. All natural features are to be maintained with linkages incorporated where appropriate. Andrew McCammon Executive Director, The Canadian headwaters institute February 3, 2026 Watershed planning has been a key component of the Northeast Pickering Secondary Plan process. The Subwatershed Study applies a watershed-based approach to identify the Natural Heritage System, assess environmental conditions, and establish management and mitigation measures to protect water resources and ecological functions. The Secondary Plan also requires further environmental studies, monitoring, and review through subsequent planning stages to ensure development proceeds in a manner that protects watershed health and complies with Provincial policy. 44 Public Comments Contact Comment Response Ontario municipalities deliver core services that impact watershed security. These core municipal services include land use planning and the management of drinking water, storm water, and sanitary sewage, while the OHI deflnes watershed security as healthy and resilient watersheds that protect regional ecological integrity, social wellbeing, and economic vitality. A key document on these issues is the Provincial Planning Statement, which clearly directs that planning authorities such as municipalities “shall protect, improve, or 45 Public Comments Contact Comment Response restore the quality and quantity of water by …using the watershed as the ecologically meaningful scale for integrated and long-term planning, which can be a foundation for considering cumulative impacts of development”. The Provincial Planning Statement (PPS) also requires a municipality to minimize the potential negative impacts of planning on water, including cross-jurisdictional and cross- watershed impacts. Unfortunately, Ontario has over the last few years subverted the vision of the PPS with multiple actions meant to address the housing crisis. As a result, the ecological integrity and biodiversity of our watersheds are being threatened, especially in South-central Ontario, and it is now more important than ever for municipalities to implement a strategic framework to integrate land use and watershed planning. The OHI therefore recommends the following nine practical actions for municipalities to integrate land use and watershed planning, honouring their duty to protect local watersheds without compromising efforts to address the housing crisis. 1. Adopt a council motion to integrate land use and watershed planning; 2. Consider developing a Municipal Charter for Watershed Security, embracing the ecosystem approach to local planning; 3. Identify early efforts in key municipal departments on how to integrate their responsibilities for land use and watershed planning, including the consideration of climate change and the need to protect biodiversity; 4. Maintain up-to-date current condition reports on the health of local watersheds; 5. Establish targets for watershed and sub-watershed health, including for areas in natural heritage, agriculture, wetlands, streamside vegetation, and urban canopies, with restoration targets where needed; 6. Require aquatic and terrestrial studies to identify and protect key ecological features and functions with respect to proposed development and conduct follow-up monitoring; 7. Apply adaptive management to redress unacceptable conditions documented in monitoring reports; 8. Encourage sound stewardship practices on all land in the municipality; and, 9. Work collaboratively, with other municipalities and relevant agencies, to enlarge or create new Greenbelt style core and corridor natural heritage and agricultural areas as a counter-balance to the extensive land conversion now taking place across South-central Ontario. 46 Public Comments Contact Comment Response These additional special planning areas could constitute a multi-generational commitment to protect our water, natural heritage, and food security while reducing environmental risks and their cost. They would also be logical locations to implement nature-based solutions to address the climate and biodiversity crises. Nick Zamora, President of greenwood community association Good afternoon Mayor Ashe, Chair and Members of Council, On behalf of the residents of Greenwood and Staxton Glen, we thank you for the opportunity to speak today. We are here to express our position that there is neither a demonstrated need nor an urgency to approve an unflnished Northeast Pickering plan. While we recognize that this developer-lead vision of a “city within a city” has received support at both the regional and municipal levels, we remain concerned that it has advanced without a comprehensive, transparent, and independent analysis of its flscal, hydrological, and environmental impacts. This process affects not only future residents, but also the established communities that surround the proposed development. For many, the consequences will be signiflcant and deeply personal. Families who chose rural north Pickering for its character, water security, and natural environment now face uncertainty about the future of those very qualities. From the outset, our communities have sought meaningful engagement and responsible planning. Over the past two years, we have consistently articulated our concerns, most recently in our November 16, 2025 letter to Mayor Ashe and Council. Today, we reiterate our commitment to working constructively toward the best possible outcome. Speciflcally, we seek a plan grounded in best evidence and best practices that will: 1. Ensure a manageable and sustainable tax burden for residents across the community, the City, and the Region. 2. Protect the private wells that serve our homes — including appropriate safeguards and indemniflcation in the event our water supply is destroyed because of the development of the Northeast Pickering lands. 3. Preserve the watershed, headwaters, and creek systems that deflne and sustain this area. 4. Protect and strengthen our natural heritage and wildlife systems. 5. Respect history and enhance the rural character that existing residents chose when making north Pickering their home. Prior to development, a flscal impact study will be required to ensure the funding of new infrastructure and a development charge and community beneflts charge by-laws are in effect. A new policy has been added requiring strategies and monitoring to prevent impacts on existing wells in Policy 11.B.70 47 Public Comments Contact Comment Response We also wish to re-emphasize our standing offer to work collaboratively with the City and with developers to help design an expansion that refiects both growth objectives and community realities. We acknowledge and appreciate the recent improvement in engagement with the Mayor, Councillors, and staff, and the recognition of our communities’ unique concerns which has been documented in the recent draft of the NEP Draft Plan. To that end, if Council intends to incorporate the existing plan into the Official Plan, we respectfully request that such approval be explicitly conditional. Speciflcally, that: • No development proceed — no shovels in the ground — until thorough, independent, and unbiased hydrological, environmental, and flscal impact studies are completed; • Those studies be fully published (no redactions or omissions) and accessible to the public; • Adequate opportunity be provided for public review, discussion, and most importantly ensure that the necessary amendments to both regional and municipal plans are made based on the flndings from the above studies. Only through this sequence can we ensure responsible planning and achieve a result that Council and residents alike can stand behind with confldence. In a meeting on February 26, 2026 with Councillor Pickles, City planning staff, and representatives of the Greenwood Community Association, we were shown an updated planning process diagram indicating that these studies were always intended to precede development. We left that meeting encouraged by that clariflcation. While we understand that the development community would like to get started sooner rather than later, the diagram also clearly stated that it would take at least 10+ years before shovels would be in the ground. We would ask that the City of Pickering retain control of the work still to be completed and not allow itself to be rushed. Today, we simply ask that this commitment be refiected clearly in the motion before you. Our request is straightforward: That any motion adopted today include explicit language requiring that a flnal plan incorporate the comprehensive flndings and recommendations of expert hydrological, A subwatershed study is being completed prior to development that ensures natural heritage systems including headwaters are protected from development. A transition strategy for the Hamlet of Greenwood will be completed as part of the Neighbourhood Design Plan. The subwatershed study is being independently completed on behalf of the municipality. The flscal impact study will also be independently completed on behalf of the municipality. Both the secondary plan and the neighbourhood plans are statutory amendments requiring full public engagement. As noted above, no development can occur until subwatershed study, MESP, 48 Public Comments Contact Comment Response environmental, and flscal assessments — and that no development commences until Council has reviewed and approved that updated flnal plan. We remain ready to work constructively with all parties in the next phase of this process flscal impact study and neighbourhood plans are completed. James Blair • PPS states that an AIA is required. • Prime agricultural land must be or should be protected unless there are no other alternatives possible; need to look at alternatives – every other opportunity must be considered in lieu of using prime agricultural land. • There needs to be better communication between the planning department and agricultural representatives. • Page 14 of the AIA – and on page 36 speaks to the assessment of this agricultural and clearly notes that lands north of Highway 7 and the 407 is prime agriculture that should not be disturbed. Lands south of highway 7 and 407 if there are no other lands available then these lands are lower agricultural quality lands then those to the north. • Don’t be in rush here it is premature, we should stand back and see if it is needed before we get going too fast. Northeast Pickering Are was brought into the Urban Area through the Durham Region Official Plan (Envision Durham), which was approved by the Province to accommodate forecast population and employment growth to 2051. The impact on farmland was considered through Envision Durham and the lands are now considered urban. The Agricultural Impact Assessment completed as part of the NE Pickering Secondary Plan Study considered means of mitigating impact on agricultural operations while the Secondary Plan urbanizes. Matt Bently • Can’t support the approval of the northeast Pickering Secondary Plan. It appears that Council is being asked to approve this plan when the homework hasn’t been completed yet. • Don’t have sense of environmental costs. • Don’t have a sense of flnancial or flscal costs of this plan. • Concerns of MSIFN haven’t been addressed throughout the proses. • What is the rush – why is this work being advanced separately from the Official plan. • What is the flscal impact – could lead to high taxes and future debt with reference to the flscal challenges that Seaton are saddling the city and taxpayers with. • What are Environmental impacts. • How are Concerns of MSIFN being addressed. • Asking that Council does not approve the Northeast Pickering Secondary Plan. We the residents are asking for an alternative growth Scenario to be considered which won’t As the Secondary Plan indicates, no development can occur until the Subwatershed Study, the Carruthers Creek Watershed Hydrology Update, the MESP, Neighbourhood Plans and Fiscal Impact study are completed. The latter study will determine changes to the development charges by-law to ensure, as much as possible, growth pays for new infrastructure requirements. Northeast Pickering was brought into the Urban Area through the Durham 49 Public Comments Contact Comment Response result in higher taxes for residents, provides a stable flscal solution, preserves farmland for existing generations, responds to the climate emergency and mitigates fiooding, and include meaningful engagements with the First Nations. Region Official Plan (Envision Durham), which was approved by the Province to accommodate forecast growth to 2051. The impact on agricultural lands was considered through that process and the lands are now designated urban. Engagement with First Nations will continue through the development process. Abdullah Mir • Development in Northeast Pickering will be a flnancial disaster for this city; this has the potential to have serious property tax impacts at present and for future residents of Pickering. This development could cause serious environmental consequences vis a vis loss of prime farmland, watershed disruption, and downstream fiooding risks. • Development in Northeast Pickering is unnecessary as there is enough land in Seaton and along Kingston Road to meet growth targets. • Urban expansion which is the pretense for this development can be reversed by future Provincial government. The job of Council is to stop anything irreversible from happening before it is too late. Pickering is at risk of losing valuable farmland which cannot be regenerated and at risk of posing undue flnancial burden on residents, both current and future. • Before moving forward or moving any further on ensure that a full flscal impact study is completed that is publicly communicated to residents, an unbiased environmental assessment that is not developer led, and meaningful engagement with flrst nations communities. As the Secondary Plan indicates, no development can occur until a Fiscal Impact study is completed which will study will determine changes to the development charges by-law to ensure, as much as possible, growth pays for new infrastructure requirements. The subwatershed study is being independently completed on behalf of the municipality which is an unbiased environmental study of the secondary plan area. Graham Clark • Resident of the hamlet of Kinsale. The proposal necessitates the Removal of the hamlet of Kinsale as the area has been rezoned from rural to urban. Kinsale is located at the interaction of highway 7 and Audley Road. Kinsale currently contains 25 residential properties on Kinsale Road and 3 on Hwy 7 along with 3 businesses. • The decision to encapsulate Kinsale disregards both residents and heritage • Don’t understand why Kinsale can’t be incorporated into the broader community lands • Lands surrounding hamlet are largely part of the Ontario greenbelt, providing a buffer against urban sprawl and prioritizing agricultural and natural heritage and environmentally protected areas to ensure sensitive areas remain in their natural state such as the area of Lynde creek Northeast Pickering including the Hamlet of Kinsale was brought into the Urban Area through the Durham Region Official Plan (Envision Durham), which was approved by the Province to accommodate forecast growth to 2051. The Secondary Plan incorporates residential development around Kinsale so that the hamlet can be incorporated into a larger residential 50 Public Comments Contact Comment Response • Lynde creek runs through the hamlet of Kinsale. • Much of land around Kinsale is protected by ORM. Development is not good for the ORM aquifer, as it is highly vulnerable to contamination from salt, fertilizers, and industrial run-off. • The plan will most likely have impact on house values. • Will be unofficially told by Pickering that residents can stay as long as will want but, when the plan is implemented existing structures in Kinsale will need to be removed and arterial roads will need to be built. • What will be impact on property taxes. • Current condition of roads is poor and are not being well maintained other than fllling potholes – no budget for capital expenditures in the coming years. • This plan is unrealistic it deletes valuable farmland and would be an environmental disaster. This Plan was developed to favour developers and is too much for the city of Pickering and for the taxpayers to take on. neighbourhood. The existing commercial along Highway 7 will be incorporated into a new Community Node which will be an expanded commercial/mixed use centre for Kinsale. Lands surrounding the hamlet are not Greenbelt. Greenbelt is south of Highway 7 and north of Concession 8. The ORM is not close to Kinsale. It is generally north of Ninth Concession in this part of Pickering. As such there is no impact to the ORM aquifer. No landowners are required to sell their lands or leave. Kinsale Road will be updated to urban standards at the time of development. Helen Brenner Stop Sprawl Durham • Going ahead with the second city will result in the loss of 4 thousand acres of class 1 agricultural land at a time when Ontario is already losing 319 acres of prime agricultural land a day. 2051 • Targets can be met by completing a full build out of Seaton and intensifying the city center and the Kingston Road corridor. • Why instead choose a high-cost plan which destroys the very soil that provides our food and which contrary to the regions own agricultural protection policies 6.2.6. • Approving a city within a city, locking in landowner rights before the flscal impact study, the watershed study, or a proven mitigation framework is risky. • Where is the legal off ramp if infrastructure or fiood costs are unaffordable. • Vote no, direct staff to return with a sustainable plan which meets provincial housing targets without billions of dollars in debt, without extensive fiood risks, and without premiant loss of the prime agricultural land. Northeast Pickering Area was brought into the Urban Area through the Durham Region Official Plan (Envision Durham), which was approved by the Province to accommodate forecast population and employment growth to 2051. The Region identifled NE Pickering as being required to accommodate growth to 2051. The City will continue to accommodate growth through intensiflcation and within existing urban areas including the Seaton build- out. As the Secondary Plan indicates, no development can occur until the Subwatershed Study, the Carruthers Creek Watershed Hydrology Update, 51 Public Comments Contact Comment Response the MESP, Neighbourhood Plans and Fiscal Impact study are completed. Heather Robertson • People are going to have to drive an hour to a community recreation centre. Having it way out of the city center makes it irrelevant and inaccessible to residents. People in Durham region are going to be responsible for the infrastructure. There are concerns that it may become like Seaton where pump houses had to be built to get water up to the residences or is it going to be on wells and septic. • Concerns about overly burdening the residents of Durham with the costs and concerns about whether development is needed at this moment. Concerns about the development of Seaton where apparently townhouses have been built but remain vacant. New developments bring more traffic on Highway 7 and Lakeridge Road which could become congested. Current problems in Pickering should be flxed before focusing on expansion. The City attempts to provide community and recreational services throughout the entire community. All infrastructure requirements and road improvements will be identifled and planned prior to development and phased in line with planned growth. 52 Agency Comments Contact Comment Response Steve Heuchert, RPP, MCIP, MRTPI Associate Director Development Planning & Permits TRCA February 26, 2026 Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the proposed Amendment 54 - NE Pickering Secondary Plan - revised Draft. We appreciate the extensive collaboratfon and thank you for incorporatfng our recommendatfons into the policies. We have some minor remaining recommendatfons for consideratfon. After further consideratfon we are not sure if "development" includes grading to facilitate new development or not. To make the policies clearer, and with recent requests by landowners to grade well within the NHS in Seaton with an inability in some cases to renaturalise the graded slopes, it would be helpful if the following policy could be modified as follows: 11. B. 5.f. prohibit filling and grading to facilitate new development and avoid, minimize, and limit the encroachment of infrastructure into the Natural Heritage System; and The following is an advisory suggestfon: 11.B.8. a. City Council requires that: further study be conducted through the Master Environmental Servicing Plan of hedgerows shown on Appendix C, to determine if they provide any significant functfon such as a linkage functfon, are part of an existfng Natural Heritage System or Watershed Plan objectfve, forest, or provide habitat to sensitfve species, including species-at-risk; and... Note that if the hedgerows meet the above test, then the significant functfon is there. This will be investigated further and may be addressed as part of the City’s Official Plan Review and/or the City’s Fill By-law review. Hedgerows are only part of the NHS if they serve these functions so the additional text is not warranted. 53 Indigenous Comments Contact Comment Response Chief Kelly LaRocca; Mississaugas Of Scugog Island First nation February 28th, 2026 Summary of MSIFN’s Participation in the Northeast Pickering Secondary Plan Through our Consultation Department, MSIFN has conducted a review of the Northeast Pickering Secondary Plan (Draft 3, the “Daft Plan”) and the Northeast Pickering Draft Scoped Sub watershed Study (SWS) Phase 1 Characterization Report and Phase 2 Impact Assessment and Preliminary Management Strategy we have also reviewed Mayor Ashe’s September 4th, 2025, letter to MSIFN, which Mayor Ashe states is a response to our June 26, 2024, January 29, 2025, and June 9, 2025, letters. Unfortunately, the Draft Plan, the Sub watershed Study, nor Mayor Ashe’s letter meaningfully address the legitimate concerns continuously raised by MSIFN. MSIFN has made tangible and repeated efforts to work with the City of Pickering in good faith to resolve the ongoing lack of consultation on the Northeast Pickering Secondary Plan. Throughout the planning process, MSIFN has provided detailed comments on the Subwatershed Study (Phase 1 and Phase 2) identifying signiflcant procedural and technical deflciencies, including its failure to incorporate a cumulative effects assessment to evaluate Secondary Plan-speciflc impacts on headwaters and the broader watershed system that sustain our ways of life, culture, and harvesting Rights. For example, the Technical Advisory Committee for the Subwatershed Study consists of representatives from municipal governments, conservation authorities, and the Northeast Pickering Landowners Group, yet excludes MSIFN, despite our January 29, 2025 correspondence expressly raising concern that the Subwatershed Study was proceeding in continuous consultation with “agencies” while failing to recognize and Treaty Rights within these lands. Further, the Subwatershed Study relies on a hydrological model that represents a pre-development scenario, without meaningfully assessing historical baseline conditions or cumulative impacts relative to the signiflcantly altered present-day landscape. Although such a model could assist in evaluating long-term and cumulative watershed change as repeatedly requested by MSIFN the report instead conflnes its analysis to current and future projected conditions, thereby understating cumulative impacts and failing to account for generational degradation of the headwaters. 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 Capacity Funding Agreement with the Mississaugas of Scugog Island First Nation (MSIFN). The purpose of the Capacity Funding Agreement was to assist the MSIFN with the resources needed to share their insights and comments on the development of the Secondary Plan. The Scoped Subwatershed Study, 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. 54 Indigenous Comments Contact Comment Response Despite these concerns, which were also articulated in June 2024, the Subwatershed Study has not addressed cumulative effects, and opportunities for our participation remain limited. We have consistently urged the City of Pickering to conduct a cumulative effects assessment and a Secondary Plan alternatives assessment prior to approving any new greenfleld development. Without these assessments and without MSIFN’s active participation in the methodology flndings will lack the depth required for a lawful and thorough evaluation of impacts on our Aboriginal and Treaty Rights. In accordance with previous requests and legal requirements (including Section A.2.7 of the Municipal Class Environmental Assessment and the principles affirmed in Yahey v. British Columbia (2021 BCSC 1287) [Yahey] where the B.C. Supreme Court determined that cumulative impacts from provincially permitted developments infringed the First Nation's Treaty Rights), the City of Pickering must support a cumulative effects assessment based on agreed upon methodology with MSIFN prior to approval of the Northeast Pickering Secondary Plan or any associated higher-level Plans (e.g., the Master Environmental Servicing Plan). MSIFN continually raises the importance of the Carruthers Creek Watershed Plan, recommending against development in Northeast Pickering. We provided an enhanced Natural Heritage System (NHS) as a key mitigation [accommodation?] if our concerns are disregarded and development does occur. Disappointingly, the Draft Plan includes development with no mention of the enhanced NHS. MSIFN’s ecological concerns and the potential impacts on our Aboriginal and Treaty Rights have not been adequately 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 Draft Plan does not include any mention of consultation or engagement with MSIFN when there are potential impacts to ecological features. Without consideration of Aboriginal and Treaty Rights, it is impossible to label a natural feature as signiflcant or not. In summary, the Plan does not sufficiently address the real of potential impact of development on MSIFN’s Aboriginal and Treaty Rights 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 processes such as the Master Environmental Servicing Plan, the SSWS Phase 3, and the required environmental assessments. Sufficient flnancial resources will need to be assigned to the forthcoming planning exercises to ensure that First Nations are able to provide meaningful input. 55 Indigenous Comments Contact Comment Response regarding natural features or our ability to practice our Treaty harvesting Rights within these and connected features. We were able to meet with the City of Pickering on November 12, 2025, to review the Draft Plan. We appreciated the opportunity to learn further about the Plan though we were quite dismayed to realize the plan had reached Phase 4 without meaningful consultation with MSIFN and the broader Williams Treaties First Nations (WTFNs). We explained to City of Pickering staff during the meeting that section 35 of the Constitution Act, 1982 legally protects Aboriginal and Treaty Rights against Crown conduct that has the potential to infringe those Rights. We explained the duty to consult framework, how the City of Pickering has failed to meaningfully consult with MSIFN which puts the City and project at risk. We then invited the City to meet with our legal team to understand the consultation protocol, how to reestablish the relationship and begin proper consultation. We received an email on November 14, 2025, from Zahrah Khan (Senior Project Manager at the City of Pickering) who led the November 12, 2025 meeting, stating that “the statutory requirements for Phases 1 and 2 of the EA process have been met.” This was concerning as two days prior we clearly explained to the City that this was not the case, that the statutory requirements have not been met as there has been no meaningful consultation. Ms. Khan sent another email on November 28, 2025, seeking clarity on the recommended consultation protocol, which we provided. Unfortunately, that was the last we heard from the City of Pickering on on consultation. They have chosen to ignore our legal position as Rightsholders and refused our offer to work collaboratively. The City of Pickering has pushed the planning process forward without and despite us making it clear in the current Draft Plan that our concerns and the potential infringement of our Aboriginal and Treaty Rights have not been meaningfully considered. This is not honourable conduct, equates to sharp dealings, and is a blatant failure of the Crown’s duty to consult and accommodate. In light of the above-mentioned information, MSIFN submitted a Section 16(6) Order request to the Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing (MMAH) and Ministry of 56 Indigenous Comments Contact Comment Response Environment, Conservation and Parks (MECP) to conduct an individual comprehensive environmental assessment for the Northeast Pickering Secondary Plan. To date, MSIFN’s request continues to be unaddressed byOntario, while the City of Pickering and the Northeast Pickering Landowners Group Inc. advance efforts to expedite an insufficient environmental assessment process. Meaningful Consultation Not Met on Northeast Pickering Secondary Plan The absence of meaningful consultation deprives MSIFN of essential information needed to assess the impacts of the proposed development on our Aboriginal and Treaty Rights. In our submissions to date, we formally notifled the City of Pickering that consultation on this matter remains incomplete and has not met the threshold of meaningful consultation and has brought the Honour of the Crown into disrepute. We have continued to call for a cumulative effects assessment and an alternatives assessment before any urban boundary expansion is considered. We have also reminded the City of Pickering on the precedent-setting Yahey case and that by advancing urban expansion without consultation, the City of Pickering risks perpetuating similar infringements on MSIFN’s Aboriginal and Treaty Rights putting the project at risk. Furthermore, the City of Pickering’s approach to the Northeast Pickering Secondary Plan fails to meet the standards outlined in the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (UNDRIP), which Canada has committed to implementing through federal legislation and which is explicitly recognized in the Bilateral Agreement between Durham Region and MSIFN. The bilateral agreement underscores a mutual commitment to uphold UNDRIP principles, including Free, Prior and Informed Consent (FPIC) as articulated in UNDRIP Article 19, which requires consultation and cooperation in good faith with Indigenous peoples to obtain their FPIC before adopting measures that may affect them, and Article 32, which mandates FPIC prior to approving projects impacting 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 potential Aboriginal and Treaty Rights infringements the City of Pickering disregards both its obligations under UNDRIP and the commitments made in the Durham 57 Indigenous Comments Contact Comment Response Region–MSIFN Bilateral Agreement, perpetuating colonial decision-making that undermines our self-determination and sovereignty Chief Taynar Simpson, Alderville First Nation 11696 Second Line Road, Ontario K0K 2X0 March 5, 2026 I would like to acknowledge receipt of your correspondence, which was received February 9th, 2026, 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 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 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 throughout the Neighbourhood Planning process, as well as other processes such as the Master Environmental Servicing Plan, the SSWS Phase 3, and the required environmental assessments. Sufficient flnancial resources will need to be assigned to the forthcoming planning exercises to ensure that First Nations are able to provide meaningful input. 58 Indigenous Comments Contact Comment Response 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 Pickering Planning and Development Committee Meeting 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. 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. 59 Indigenous Comments Contact Comment Response 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. Northeast Pickering – Public Land Needs Summary Parkland In 2024, the Recreation and Parks 10-Year Plan (RPTYP) concluded that the City’s current parkland provision rate is 1.76 ha per 1,000 residents, excluding open space (e.g., natural areas). The RPTYP recommended that the City set a city-wide target of achieving a minimum parkland provision level of 1.5 ha per 1,000 residents by 2034. The RPTYP went on to describe that, for suburban areas such as the Seaton Urban Area and Northeast Pickering, the city should set a minimum target of 1.2 ha per 1,000 residents. Existing City Parkland Rate Recommended City-wide Parkland Rate Recommended New Community Parkland Rate 1.76 ha per 1,000 residents 1.5 ha per 1,000 residents 1.2 ha per 1,000 residents Based on the estimated population for the Northeast Pickering community (approximately 72,000 people), the amount of parkland that the City should target to support this area is 86.4 ha. 72,000 people x 1.2 hectare/1,000 people = 86.4 ha Parkland dedications within the Planning Act will permit the City to acquire approximately 58 ha of land through development approvals. The City will be responsible to acquire the additional 28.4 ha. Some of the additional parkland should be located near residents in the urban area (11.4 Ha). This will provide land for Community Parks, Neighbourhood Parks, and smaller Village Greens. Some of the additional parkland could be acquired in nearby rural lands (17 Ha). This could provide land for sports and recreation programs that require larger land areas and provide city-wide services and amenities (i.e. multi-field, tournament-scale playing fields). Attachment 5 to Report PLN 04-26 Required Parkland Parkland from Development Approvals Additional parkland acquired in urban areas Additional parkland acquired in abutting rural areas 86.4 ha 58 ha 11.4 ha 17 ha Libraries The Library Facilities Plan recommended 0.7 sq.ft. (0.065 sq.m.) of floor area per resident. 72,000 people x 0.065 sq.m. = 4,680 sq.m. floor area It is recommended that libraries be developed jointly with new recreation complexes and community centres. This will result in three library branches, one located at each recreation complex / community centre proposed for Northeast Pickering. As a result, the land area needs for libraries have been incorporated into the land needs for recreation and community uses. Recreation and Community Uses The recreation and community facilities proposed in Northeast Pickering reflect the needs of those future residents along with the City’s need to replace aging recreation infrastructure in other parts of the City. All of the recommended recreation amenities and facilities are consistent with recommendations in the Recreation & Parks Ten Year Plan and Community Services and Facilities Study. Based on the City’s future need for more ice surfaces (Arena Strategy, 2024), and an artificial turf facility (Recreation & Parks Ten Year Plan), a Sportsplex facility (requiring 10 ha in land area) has been recommended. A future sportsplex would consist of an arena and/or indoor artificial turf, a gymnasium, a fitness centre, program/meeting rooms and a library. The sportsplex should be located next to a large community park to support an array of outdoor sport amenities, which could include a combination of cricket pitch, 3 or 4 ball diamonds, 2 or 3 full-size soccer fields, sport courts, playground, splash pad, and all wheels park. A sportsplex could support sport tourism or enable the City to host provincial/national-based tournaments. In time, the Northeast Pickering community will also require a recreation complex (requiring 6 ha in land area) consisting of an aquatics centre, triple gymnasium, fitness centre, program/meeting rooms, and a library. A smaller community centre is proposed to serve the southern part of the community. It will be located east of the new Dorsay Community & Heritage Centre, closer to Lake Ridge Road. It will consist of a variety of program/meeting rooms and a library. It is anticipated that recreation facilities will be constructed within the later phases of the development of the Northeast Pickering community. The exact location of recreation facilities will be determined through Neighbourhood Plans; the current recommended locations are subject to change based on the outcome of future planning. Fire Stations Based on the geographic area needing to be served in Northeast Pickering, Fire Services have estimated a need for two fire stations. Based on an analysis of newer fire stations around the Greater Toronto Area, the area needed for each station is estimated to be 0.6 ha. 2 fire stations x 0.6 Ha per station = 1.2 ha The location of each fire station will be evaluated in conjunction with the Neighbourhood Plan exercise. Operations/Works Facility Based on the geographic area needing to be served in Northeast Pickering, City Infrastructure have estimated a potential need for one operations facility. A needs assessment is expected to be conducted in mid-2026 to confirm if an operations facility will be required in Northeast Pickering. Until such time as the needs assessment is complete, it is recommended that the City proceed on the assumption that an operations facility will be needed in Northeast Pickering. If deemed necessary, it is estimated that the facility will require a minimum land area of 3.5 ha.