HomeMy WebLinkAboutPLN 09-26
Report to
Council
Report Number: PLN 09-26
Date: April 27, 2026
From: Kyle Bentley
Director, City Development & CBO
Subject:
Bill 98, Building Homes and Improving Transportation Infrastructure Act, 2026: Environmental
Registry of Ontario Postings, ERO 026-0300, ERO 026-0304, ERO 026-0305, ERO 026-0309,
ERO 026-0310, ERO 026-0311, ERO 026-0312, ERO 026-0313, ERO 026-0314, and ERO
026-0315
City of Pickering Comments on ERO Postings
File: L-1100-071
Recommendation:
1. That Report PLN 09-26 regarding the City of Pickering Comments on Bill 98, Building
Homes and Improving Transportation Infrastructure Act, 2026, be received;
2. That Council endorse the comments contained in Report PLN 09-26, as the City of
Pickering comments on Bill 98 and the identified Environmental Registry of Ontario
Postings; and,
3. That Council authorize the Chief Administrative Officer to submit the Council endorsed
comments on Bill 98 and the identified Environmental Registry of Ontario Postings to the
Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing website by the April 29, 2026 and May 14, 2026,
deadlines.
1.0 Executive Summary:
The purpose of this report is to inform Council of proposed changes in legislation from Bill 98:
Building Homes and Improving Transportation Infrastructure Act, 2026, seek Council’s
endorsement of staff’s comments on these proposed legislative changes, and direction to
submit formal comments about these changes to the Province.
Bill 98 amends several pieces of legislation. However, this report focuses primarily on changes
to the Planning Act, to which there are numerous proposed changes. Key amendments, if
approved, would:
• require elimination of all policy references to sustainable design and/or green development
requirements;
PLN 09-26 April 27, 2026
Page 2
• standardize and limit the land use designations within Official Plans;
• require municipalities to accept encumbered lands as parkland;
• prevent municipalities from requiring minimum lot sizes greater than 175 square metres in
urban residential areas;
• standardize the list of studies that can be requested to support complete development
applications;
• allow creation of stand-alone secondary plans; and,
• allow Minister’s Zoning Orders to be issued and amended without notice to the public.
Further, the Province is reconsidering the role of site planning, including the possibility of
eliminating site plan control altogether. Other options under review aim to speed up the time
frame to receive site plan approval, such as limiting the number of resubmissions, and/or
creating site plan streams for less complex applications to be expedited, to name a few.
Staff has prepared detailed comments on the different Environmental Registry of Ontario
(ERO) postings associated with Bill 98. While staff acknowledge the Province’s objective of
improving approval timelines and housing delivery, many of the proposed Bill 98 reforms would
significantly reduce municipal oversight, flexibility, and ability to respond to local conditions.
Staff emphasize that effective planning reform should focus on targeted process
improvements, adequate resourcing, and collaboration, rather than removing or constraining
essential planning tools.
Staff recommends Council endorse the comments contained in Report PLN 09-26 as its
comments on Bill 98 and authorize the Chief Administrative Officer to submit comments to the
ERO by the April 29, 2026 and May 14, 2026 deadlines.
2.0 Relationship to the Pickering Strategic Plan:
The recommendations in this report respond to the Pickering Strategic Plan Priorities of
Advance Innovation & Responsible Planning to Support a Connected, Well-Serviced
Community; and, Lead & Advocate for Environmental Stewardship, Innovation & Resiliency.
3.0 Financial Implications:
There are no direct financial implications from adopting the recommendations of this Report.
However, the potential removal of site plan control from municipalities and elimination of permit
requirements for Metrolinx projects, if passed, would remove key sources of revenue from the
City Development Department, and potentially transfer the City’s costs for resources to the
property tax base.
4.0 Discussion:
The purpose of this report is to inform Council of proposed changes in legislation from Bill 98:
Building Homes and Improving Transportation Infrastructure Act, 2026, seek Council’s
PLN 09-26 April 27, 2026
Page 3
endorsement of staff’s comments on these proposed legislative changes, and authorize the
Chief Administrative Officer to submit formal comments to the Province on the proposed
changes.
4.1 Background
On March 30, 2026, the Province released Bill 98: Building Homes and Improving
Transportation Infrastructure Act, 2026, for comment on the ERO. Bill 98 includes proposed
changes to various pieces of legislation, including the Planning Act and the Development
Charges Act, and associated regulatory changes to further support housing, economic, and
infrastructure development, and advance key transportation priorities.
Bill 98 follows a series of consecutive legislative changes the Province has made through Bills
17, 23, 109 and 185 over the last four years to the Planning Act, the Development Charges Act
and various regulations affecting land use planning in Ontario. The City of Pickering provided
comments on these Bills through Reports PLN 06-21, PLN 22-22, PLN 16-23, PLN 13-24, and
PLN 12-25. Additionally, through ERO 025-1099, the Province received feedback from City
staff on proposals to standardize the content of municipal official plans in November 2025.
The postings in relation to Bill 98 are listed on the ERO for either a 30 or 45-day commenting
period concluding on April 29, 2026 and May 14, 2026. The following paragraphs 4.2 to 4.12
include a summary of each ERO posting as well as staff comments on each posting.
4.2 ERO 026-0300, proposed changes to the Planning Act to streamline and
standardize municipal official plans
To increase consistency across municipalities, the Province is seeking feedback on proposals
to simplify and standardize the content of municipal official plans. The proposed changes
include the following:
• identifying the details of a standardized structure for local official plans through a prescribed
table of contents and schedules, by prescribing the topic/theme of each section in the
official plan and of the schedules (maps) to be used; and,
• identifying the details of a standardized set of land use designations to be used in local
official plans, e.g., “Neighbourhoods”, “Mixed-Use Areas”, “Mixed-Use Commercial Areas”,
“Employment Areas”, etc.
The Minister may also, at their discretion, set out further direction on implementing any of
these designations, including using two or more sub-designations.
These changes are proposed to come into force January 1, 2028 for the 29 large and fast-
growing municipalities (which includes Pickering), and January 1, 2029 for all other
municipalities. The Province intends to bring these changes into force once additional
consultation on secondary plans and upper-tier official plan content is complete, and any final
refinements are made to the framework.
PLN 09-26 April 27, 2026
Page 4
Staff Comments:
When the Province initially sought comments on the potential standardization of municipal
official plans in 2025 through ERO 025-1099, staff expressed concern that standardization of
Official Plans for all of Ontario’s 444 municipalities, which have vastly different contexts,
visions and goals, would make it significantly harder to reflect local priorities.
Furthermore, the proposed prescribed table of contents and schedules, which is more limited
in scope than most of the current Official Plans, have the potential of creating significant
additional work for municipalities, including negating work completed or underway that
addressed previously approved policy objectives.
Pickering Forward, the current review of the City’s Official Plan, proposes a new official plan
that would be structured to be user-friendly, predictable, consistent with the 2024 Provincial
Planning Statement (PPS), and specific to our local context and priorities. Staff anticipates the
new Official Plan being presented to Council prior to January 1, 2028, the effective date of this
proposal. And thus, staff will proceed with structuring the new draft official plan consistent with
current best practices and specific to our local context and priorities. It is unclear whether the
Province would enforce a prescribed table of contents and schedules, and if it does, what the
final structure may look like and when that may occur.
Staff therefore wish to reiterate its previous comments to the Province that we strongly oppose
the imposition of a standardized structure for local municipal official plans, because the scale
and character of communities differ, and a “one style fits all” approach to policy planning would
make it much harder for municipalities to tailor policies specific to their priorities.
With respect to the Province’s prescribed table of contents for municipal official plans, “Local
Landscape and Resource Management” is listed as one of the proposed key themes/chapters.
The term “Resource Management” is used in the 2024 PPS to prescribe policies respecting
matters such as natural heritage, water, aggregate resources, and cultural heritage. However,
the term “Local Landscape” is not referred to in the PPS and to use it in this context is
confusing, as it is often used in land use planning terms to describe the surrounding context of
a site, which could also include the built environment.
Furthermore, the words/terms “Natural Heritage” or “Natural Heritage System” is glaringly
missing from the proposed table of contents – it warrants recognition, given its significance to
ecosystem health, and complete communities. If the Province decides to move forward with
the prescribed table of contents, it is strongly recommended that it considers replacing the
description/topic “Local Landscape and Resource Management” with “Natural Heritage and
Resource Management”.
Lastly, and again notwithstanding staff’s opposition to the proposed standardized framework
for official plan, staff recommends a change to the proposed structure. As discussed in Section
4.12, ERO 026-0315, consultation on secondary plans, and site and area-specific policies,
should the Province proceed with a standardized framework, it should be revised to allow for a
chapter to be added for secondary and site- and area-specific plans with related schedules.
PLN 09-26 April 27, 2026
Page 5
This approach would keep policy documents together, simplifying research on land use
permissions or prohibitions in a municipality.
4.3 ERO 026-0300, Proposed prohibition on Mandatory Municipal Enhanced
Development Standards and Green Building Standards, and ERO 026-0309,
Proposed Regulation to Prohibit Mandatory Enhanced Development Standards as
a Condition of Land Division Approvals
The Province is proposing changes to the Planning Act, Municipal Act, 2001, Building Code
Act, 1992, and City of Toronto Act, 2006 that would have the effect of removing municipal
authority to require certain mandatory Enhanced Development Standards (e.g., green
development standards) at the lot level, outside of buildings and in adjacent public right of
ways, that are not specifically required for health or safety (e.g., stormwater management),
including:
• removing references to “sustainable design” from Site Plan Control;
• removing the requirement for municipalities to include climate change policies in their
official plans;
• clarifying that zoning cannot be used to require sustainable design elements;
• stipulating expressly that mandatory green building/construction standards are not
permitted, including as part of site plan control;
• removing provisions that would have authorized municipalities to require green building
standards, if the government had made enabling regulatory amendments (i.e., a green pick
list); and,
• removing the ability of municipalities to impose mandatory green development standards as
a condition of Land Division approvals.
The Province indicated that these proposed changes would be providing even greater clarity
that green building/construction standards are voluntary and cannot be imposed by
municipalities.
Staff Comments:
Last fall, staff provided comments on Bill 17: Protect Ontario by Building Faster and Smarter
Act, 2025 through Report PLN 12-25, identifying potential negative implications of legislative
changes, if adopted, for municipal planning and the implementation of environmental
measures, including the City of Pickering Integrated Sustainable Design Standards (ISDS).
The City has a long-standing approach to sustainable development, beginning with the
Sustainable Development Guidelines (2007), followed by the Seaton Place-Making Guidelines
(2011), and continuing today through the ISDS framework.
If Bill 98 is passed, the City’s authority to apply the ISDS consistently through the development
approvals process would be significantly reduced, limiting its ability to review applications
through a lens that includes best practices in alignment with the City’s long established
sustainability objectives. As one of the fastest-growing municipalities in the region, this would
further diminish the City’s capacity to manage growth in a coordinated and sustainable
PLN 09-26 April 27, 2026
Page 6
manner. As a result, the City’s role in guiding development would be weakened, leading to less
consistent integration of Council priorities and community expectations into development
approvals and built outcomes.
The following notes specific comments and concerns related to proposed legislation changes.
a. Staff have serious concerns with respect to the proposed removal of references to
“sustainable design” from Site Plan Control; the stipulation that expressly prohibits
mandatory green building/construction standards, including as part of site plan control; and
the removal of the provisions that would have authorized municipalities to require green
building standards, if the government had made enabling regulatory amendments (i.e., a
green pick list). This change would significantly reduce municipal ability to implement
established sustainability performance measures through the development approvals
process, including the City’s ISDS framework. Through the ISDS, the City has been able to
work with the building community to help shape community development for residents that
include benefits, such as reduced energy and water costs through improved efficiency,
urban heat island reduction, healthy street trees, bicycle infrastructure, electric vehicle
rough in, outdoor amenity space, accessibility, resiliency to a changing climate, waste
management, resident education, and bird-friendly design. Key implications include:
• reduced ability to secure sustainable design outcomes through Site Plan Control; and,
• weakened implementation of the ISDS framework, resulting in less consistent
application throughout the community for residents and homeowners’ uncertainty
regarding delivery of environmental performance outcomes beyond provincial Building
Code and minimum standards.
Staff request clarification from the Province on what policy or regulatory mechanism is
intended to replace the ability to secure sustainable design and environmental performance
outcomes through Site Plan Control under the amended Planning Act framework, to
safeguard the public, city infrastructure, and the natural environment.
b. Staff strongly oppose the proposed removal of the requirement for municipalities to include
climate change policies in their official plans, as it significantly weakens the Planning Act as
a foundational tool for integrating climate mitigation and adaptation into municipal land use
planning. This proposed change reduces statutory direction for climate-informed planning,
and risk avoidance, undermining the implementation of local resiliency frameworks.
Staff further note that this direction is inconsistent with the Ontario Professional Planners
Institute (OPPI) voice of the Planning Profession in Ontario, including the Climate Change
Adaptation Practice Guide (2025), which identifies climate change adaptation as a core
component of good planning practice and essential to resilient community design.
Accordingly, the City will continue to apply best practices, climate science, and risk-based
planning approaches, to the furthest extent possible, to support long-term community
resilience.
Staff request clarification from the Province on how municipalities are expected to continue
to include and implement climate change mitigation and adaptation policies in official plans
PLN 09-26 April 27, 2026
Page 7
to safeguard the public, city infrastructure, and the natural environment, and apply them in
development decisions, if the requirement to do so is removed from the Planning Act. The
Province noted there are redundant requirements for climate changes policies. Staff also
seek clarification on which guiding documents exhibit redundant requirement. In addition,
staff request clarification on what provincial policies, documents, and/or mechanisms will
replace references to climate change mitigation and adaptation in official plans.
c. Staff need clarification from the Province regarding the proposed restriction that zoning
cannot be used to require sustainable design elements. The City notes that ISDS
performance measures are not currently included in Zoning By-law 8149/24; however,
technical environmental requirements supporting sustainable design and climate resilience
are implemented through conservation authority requirements and municipal engineering
standards. Consistent with the Ontario Professional Planners Institute Climate Change
Adaptation Practice Guide (2025), zoning is a key municipal tool for implementing land use
policies that support climate resilience and environmental performance outcomes.
Staff request clarification from the Province on whether municipalities will continue to be
permitted to include conservation authority and other technical environmental requirements
that support sustainable design and climate resilience within Zoning By-laws under the
proposed amendments.
d. The Province is proposing the removal of the ability of municipalities to impose mandatory
green development standards as a condition of Land Division approvals. The ISDS
framework does not apply to Land Division applications resulting in fewer than five lots;
however, the Planning Act Land Division process is typically used to address technical
requirements such as servicing, stormwater management, and natural heritage
considerations to support infill development and good planning practice. Staff therefore
request clarification from the Province on how municipalities are intended to address these
requirements under the proposed amendments.
e. The Province proposes to remove all mandatory sustainable design and green
development standards from the City’s development review process.
The ISDS framework is organized around seven principles: energy and resilience, water,
land use and nature, transportation, waste management, neighbourhood design, and
education. It provides practical, flexible performance measures developed in collaboration
with the building community, residents, stakeholders, and Council to support the City’s
commitment to sustainable growth, environmental stewardship, and the development of
inclusive and healthy communities. Accordingly, the ISDS delivers clear benefits, including
increased urban tree canopy for cooler, shaded neighbourhoods, improved community
safety and well-being through Crime Prevention Through Environmental Design principles,
and bird-friendly design to reduce bird-window collisions.
Since 2023, the completion of an ISDS checklist has been required for all development
applications and is carried through planning, design, and construction stages, supporting a
consistent approach to sustainable development across the city. Now in its third year, the
ISDS continues to guide development, in alignment with planned growth and community
PLN 09-26 April 27, 2026
Page 8
priorities, and has received external recognition for its practical and flexible approach by the
Sustainable Housing Foundation.
The ISDS supports a wide range of project conditions by enabling multiple pathways to
achieve innovative best practices and technology of today, rather than prescribing a single
compliance model. Importantly, as noted in Report PLN 12-25 comments on Bill 17,
Pickering’s ISDS has not delayed approvals or hindered housing targets. The ISDS
supports key City objectives, including those within the Official Plan, Community Safety and
Well-Being Plan, and Community Climate Adaptation Plan, and supports Council‑endorsed
priorities under the Corporate Strategic Plan (2024–2028).
Proposed provincial changes under Bill 98 would limit municipal discretion to apply
site‑specific sustainability best practice requirements through planning approvals, placing
greater reliance on provincial minimum standards. While the Ontario Building Code
establishes baseline requirements for health, safety, and energy efficiency, it does not fully
address broader municipal objectives that impact community and building design.
The Province has noted that green standards create inconsistency since many
communities across Ontario seek to use these tools to help shape development. As such,
integrating performance measures into the Ontario Building Code would address the issue
of consistency without compromising the environmental, social, and economic benefits
derived from these best practices. Staff request clarification from the Province on whether
the Ontario Building Code will be updated, or a new regulation created, to include new
building- and lot-level resilience measures, and whether this is intended to replace
enhanced green development standards to ensure the outcomes are still achieved.
Accordingly, staff seek clarification from the Province on how these objectives are intended
to be achieved under the proposed framework.
4.4 ERO 026-0300, Proposed revision to the Planning Act that would remove the
legislative requirement for the Minister to provide notice on proposed
amendments to or revocations of Minister’s Zoning Orders (MZOs)
Changes are proposed to the Planning Act that would remove the requirement for the Minister
to provide notice on proposed amendments to or revocations of MZOs.
Staff Comments:
Although typical planning amendments require public notice and allow for appeals, MZOs
already function without the opportunity for public appeal. This proposed change further
removes the obligation to inform the public before an amendment to a zoning order is made, or
before a zoning order is revoked.
The principles of collaboration, coordination and transparency in the planning process, as set
out in Section 6.2 of the 2024 PPS, are equally important to all development applications or
major revisions to them, irrespective of whether the zoning for the proposal is in the jurisdiction
of the local municipality or the Province.
PLN 09-26 April 27, 2026
Page 9
MZOs are powerful tools, and while minor amendments may be acceptable without further
public notice, major changes to the original permissions granted should not be permitted
without further notice.
Under the proposed legislation of Bill 98, the City and the public would not be notified about an
amendment to the original MZO, which would undermine due process, lack transparency, and
not serve the public interest.
Staff is of the opinion that removing notice requirements prevents residents from having rightful
and meaningful input on local land-use decisions. Further, it is equally important for the public,
including the local municipality, to know when MZOs have been revoked.
Staff do not support the proposal and recommend that major amendments to existing zoning
orders and revocation of zoning orders require public notice and consultation with the relevant
municipality.
4.5 ERO 026-0300, Proposed amendments to the Metrolinx Act, 2006 to accelerate
transit construction and consolidate provincial control over transit planning
The Province is seeking feedback on the creation of a "Notification of Proposal" process for
provincial transit projects, that would allow Metrolinx to start construction by notifying the Chief
Building Official (CBO) instead of applying for a building permit. While Building Code standards
would still apply, this process removes the requirement for Metrolinx to obtain municipal
approvals before starting work. The Province states this change will prevent municipal delays
from slowing down transit projects.
Staff Comments:
While the proposed amendments to the Metrolinx Act aims to speed up approvals, this may not
result in a significant change in Pickering, as the City already prioritizes institutional projects,
such as those from Metrolinx. Additionally, transit-related inspections are prioritized and
completed within 24 hours of a request.
The proposed revisions also have impacts on the Building Code Act, 1992, that can be
explained as follows:
Metrolinx projects must still meet the technical requirements of the Building Code. This
framework relies heavily on the liability of architects and professional engineers, who remain
responsible for ensuring that the design complies with the Code and for performing the
required general reviews during construction. However, the proposed legislative change would
allow Metrolinx to choose "notification" instead of obtaining a building permit, which has the
following impacts:
a. Review Limitations: The CBO, or delegate, is prohibited from reviewing drawings and
documents in advance to determine if the project complies with Zoning By-laws, Site Plan
Control, or other specific provincial laws. Traditionally, these are "applicable laws" that must
be satisfied before a permit is issued. Under this Bill, the CBO must ignore these traditional
PLN 09-26 April 27, 2026
Page 10
compliance checks. Furthermore, there is a potential for project proponents to submit
preliminary drawings that lack the level of detail usually required for a permit. Such
incomplete data creates a liability risk for the City.
b. Report, but not issue a building permit: The CBO’s role would be to provide a Technical
Report that only assesses Building Code safety, professional design standards, and the
qualifications of the designers. Procedurally, the CBO is only required to begin this review
and provide the report once the notification form is submitted and the required fee is paid.
This legislative change effectively reduces the role of building officials to an advisory role
without any authority to enforce non-compliance of construction and to ultimately ensure
public safety.
c. Occupancy Opinion: Because Metrolinx is not bound by the Building Code Act, the CBO
would provide a Written Opinion on occupancy safety rather than a traditional Occupancy
Permit. This is a significant shift in the CBO’s authority respecting construction. While an
occupancy permit is a legal grant of permission to occupy/use a space, this prescribed
Written Opinion is a technical audit. It documents whether the building meets safety
requirements without giving the CBO the traditional authority to "grant" or "withhold" the
right to occupy. This removes any authority for building officials to prevent premature
occupancy of an unfinished building, which could potentially expose occupants to
hazardous conditions.
The financial impact of the proposal is unknown because the Province has not yet prescribed
the fee amounts via regulation. Should the Province proceed with this legislative change, it is
recommended that the new "Report Fee" be structured to cover the full cost of the City’s
technical reviews. This ensures the Building Services Section can maintain its service levels
without a revenue loss.
Staff do not support these proposed changes as they:
• eliminate the authority of the CBO and building officials to meaningfully enforce the
requirements of the Building Code and ensure public safety;
• pose a safety risk for premature occupancy of an unfinished building;
• create inconsistency and uncertainty for building officials, consultants, and general
contractors, that are accustomed to decades of building industry construction practice
respecting the role of CBOs and Inspectors;
• may create additional challenges for building officials in the performance of their duties
under the Building Code Act for non-Metrolinx projects; and,
• erode public accountability.
4.6 ERO 026-0304, Draft Projection Methodology Guideline (PMG) to support the
implementation of the Provincial Planning Statement, 2024 (PPS, 2024)
The Province is seeking feedback on a further revised draft Projection Methodology Guideline
(PMG). The purpose of the PMG is to assist municipalities with developing population and
employment forecasts, identifying land needs requirements to plan their communities, and
PLN 09-26 April 27, 2026
Page 11
implement provincial policies. If finalized, this proposed guidance would replace the existing
1995 PMG.
The Province initially sought comments on a proposal to release a new PMG through ERO
025-0844 in the last quarter of 2025. Following the review of all comments received, the
Province has now released a revised draft PMG for comments.
As required under the PPS, 2024, planning authorities must base population and employment
forecasts on the Ontario population projections published by the Ministry of Finance (MOF)
and may modify, as appropriate. Sufficient land must be made available to accommodate an
appropriate range and mix of land uses to meet projected needs for a time horizon of at least
20 years, but not more than 30 years, informed by provincial guidance.
The proposed guidance outlines methodologies and appropriate data sources for
municipalities to use to prepare these forecasts and land needs assessments. The proposed
guidance is organized into four main sections: Establishing Municipal Population Projections,
Developing Housing Needs Forecasts, Developing Employment Forecasts, and a Land Needs
Assessment.
Staff Comments:
Policy 2.1.1 in the 2024 PPS states that, notwithstanding the policy that requires municipalities
to base population and employment forecasts on the Ontario population projections published
by the Ministry of Finance, municipalities may continue to forecast growth using population and
employment forecasts previously issued by the Province for the purposes of land use planning.
The Growth Management Strategy, prepared by Watson & Associates for Pickering Forward,
based their forecasting on the methodology previously issued by the Province. The proposed
revisions to the draft PMG do not therefore have any implications for Pickering Forward, but it
would or may impact any forecasting work as part of the next municipal comprehensive review.
Although the proposed revised PMG has no bearing on the current official plan review, staff
wish to reiterate the following concerns that were expressed through the City’s staff to-staff
comments submitted on ERO 025-0844 in October 2025 to the Province. While the proposed
new process offers more flexibility to municipalities, the requirement to prepare their own
‘bottom up’ population and employment forecasts instead of the Region doing a ‘top down’
comprehensive projection for all municipalities in the Region, will result in downloading
significant work to lower-tier municipalities. The changes will require increased municipal
resources to undertake this work.
In addition to downloading this work, the Province emphasizes the need for collaboration
between lower-tier and upper-tier municipalities, as well as with other orders of government,
agencies, boards, to achieve the outcomes at all steps of the forecasting and land needs
assessment process. This will result in Pickering re-establishing the working groups that
previously existed, through Regional Official Plan Reviews, with the same stakeholders, while
taking on these new responsibilities.
PLN 09-26 April 27, 2026
Page 12
Staff do not support this revised methodology. Each area municipality within a Region (and the
Region itself) could use a different methodology to forecast population and employment for
their jurisdiction. A real concern exists that resources will be spent arguing methodology to
obtain the highest population and the greatest number of jobs per municipality, rather than
getting to the desired outcome of allocating population and employment to designate land and
allocate servicing allocations to municipalities. Given the Province’s interest in facilitating
development, staff recommend the Province provide Regional-wide totals for population and
employment so inter-municipal disputes regarding allocations (and thus resulting servicing and
other infrastructure allocations) are avoided and land use designations can proceed logically,
expeditiously, and in a financially responsible manner.
4.7 ERO 026-0310, Proposal to reform Site Plan Control under the Planning Act and
the City of Toronto Act, 2006
The Province of Ontario has indicated that, despite recent legislative changes intended to
streamline and expedite the development approvals process, including amendments through
multiple bills that:
• modified complete planning requirements;
• removed the ability to require pre-consultation; and,
• restricted the use of site plan control for most residential developments of 10 or fewer units.
They have found that site plan control is not being implemented consistently or efficiently
across municipalities.
The Province has identified that approvals under Section 41 of the Planning Act and Sections
114 of the City of Toronto Act, 2006, are taking too long, resulting in increased costs and
delays in development. As a result, the Province is proposing further reforms to accelerate
approvals and reduce associated costs.
The Province is seeking feedback on five distinct reform options. These are not mutually
exclusive and may be implemented individually or in combination.
The proposed reform options are summarized below.
a. Complete Elimination of Site Plan Control
Remove site plan control entirely as a land use planning tool from the Planning Act and City of
Toronto Act, 2006, thereby, eliminating municipal authority to review or impose conditions on
development prior to building permit issuance.
b. Cap on Circulation with a Mandatory Resolution Meeting
Limited circulation to a maximum of three rounds, after which a mandatory meeting is required
with all municipal department representatives and the applicant to work through and resolve all
outstanding issues.
PLN 09-26 April 27, 2026
Page 13
c. Standardized Checklist with Certified Professional Sign-off
Limit site plan review to a provincial standard checklist of health, safety, and functional
matters. Certified professionals retained by the applicant would approve studies and reports.
Municipalities could not require additional studies or drawings beyond the checklist. Meeting
the checklist requirements would result in the issuance of site plan approval.
d. Municipal Arbitration Panel as Ontario Land Tribunal (OLT) Alternative
For applicants who have exceeded the 60-day timeline, establish a local arbitration or review
panel as a faster, lower-cost alternative to a hearing at the OLT. Decision-making timelines
would be prescribed.
e. Tiered Approval Streams for Complexity
Introduce multiple approval streams for different development types and scales. A full site plan
process would apply only to large, complex projects. Smaller or simpler developments would
be triaged to an expedited stream or exempted from site plan control entirely.
Staff Comments:
The following comments identify the most significant concerns associated with each reform
option.
Proposed Reform Major Issues and Concerns
Complete Elimination
of Site Plan Control
• Removes the City’s only pre-building permit mechanism to
review critical site-specific matters, including grading,
drainage, servicing, vehicular and pedestrian access, fire
route, lighting, waste management, snow storage, and
accessibility.
• Eliminates the ability to impose conditions of approval, such as
road widening, servicing requirements, fencing, and mitigation
measures for noise, vibration, wind and dust.
• Removes the City’s ability to secure parkland or cash-in-lieu
contributions, and to obtain public access easements.
• Eliminates the legal mechanism to require financial securities,
reducing the City’s ability to ensure completion of required
works.
• Significantly impacts coordination of phased and adjacent
developments, increasing the risk of fragmented and
uncoordinated development patterns.
• Removes the City’s ability to implement urban design and
streetscape standards, resulting in lower-quality public realm
outcomes.
• Eliminates the ability to address key technical matters such as
contamination, archaeology, environmental and construction
management impacts prior to construction.
PLN 09-26 April 27, 2026
Page 14
• Removes Development Charge triggers tied to site plan
approval, creating uncertainty for growth-related funding.
• Introduces significant risk to public safety, infrastructure
performance, and long-term development quality.
Cap on Circulations
with Mandatory
Resolution Meeting
• Limits the iterative review process required to resolve complex,
multi-disciplinary technical issues.
• May force premature resolution meetings before all issues are
fully identified or understood.
• Reduces opportunities for collaboration between staff and
applicants, which often leads to improved design and technical
outcomes.
• Increases the likelihood that unresolved issues are deferred to
the building permit or construction stage, where they are more
costly and difficult to address.
• Does not account for the role or timelines of external agencies
(e.g., conservation authorities, regional municipalities,
provincial agencies, and utility providers), whose review
processes are often iterative and may lack resources to review
applications within prescribed timelines.
• Creates pressure to prioritize speed over quality of review.
Standardized Checklist
with Certified
Professional Sign-Off
• A standardized one-size-fits-all checklist cannot adequately
address complex site conditions such as floodplain,
contamination, heritage resources and servicing constraints.
• Limits municipal discretion to request additional studies or
information based on site-specific conditions or findings from
initial review.
• Shifts responsibility for review to applicant-retained
consultants, who may not be fully familiar with municipal
standards, local conditions, or area-specific requirements.
• Introduces potential inconsistencies in the quality and rigor of
submissions across projects and consultants.
• Applicant-retained consultants are often required to advocate
on behalf of their clients. This creates potential for real or
perceived conflicts of interest in self-certified submissions,
reduces independent oversight, and may erode public
accountability.
Municipal Arbitration
Panel (OLT
Alternative)
• Requires the establishment of a new governance structure,
procedures, and qualified panel members.
• Introduces additional administrative and resource burden on
the City.
• May duplicate or conflict with existing appeal mechanisms.
• Could encourage earlier escalation of disputes rather than
resolution through collaborative review.
Tiered Approval
Streams by Complexity
• Risks complex applications being inappropriately classified into
expedited streams, resulting in insufficient review.
PLN 09-26 April 27, 2026
Page 15
• Adds administrative complexity in managing multiple approval
streams and ensuring consistency across departments and
external agencies.
• Does not eliminate the need for detailed review in complex
neighbourhoods such as the City Centre and Seaton.
• Requires updates to municipal processes, By-law, staff
workflows, and municipal fee structure.
• External agencies’ timelines (e.g. conservation authority,
provincial agencies and regional municipalities) may not align
with expedited timelines, creating new bottlenecks.
While the Province’s objective to improve timelines and reduce costs in the site plan approval
process is recognized and supported, the proposed site plan control reforms are overly broad
and would fundamentally weaken the City’s ability to ensure safe, functional, and well-
designed developments.
The City of Pickering is already actively addressing approval timelines through internal process
improvements. In February 2025, Council endorsed Streamlining the Development
Applications Review Process study, which identified 50 recommendations and established a
focused work plan of 22 key initiatives (Resolution # 665/25). Implementation is currently
underway and includes:
• developing Standard Operating Procedures (SOPs) for Planning Act applications and
financial securities;
• assessing and optimizing the City’s application tracking system to automate certain
processes;
• aligning workflow and improving tracking of critical review timelines;
• establishing key performance indicators (KPIs) and reporting annually to Council;
• creating an online application submission portal and payment tracking tools;
• expanding delegated authority to streamline decision-making;
• enhancing public communication through plain language notices;
• finalizing a comprehensive Site Plan Approval Manual, outlining the City’s minimum
requirements and standards; and,
• reviewing building, engineering and planning fees to ensure full cost recovery.
This initiative directly addresses the root cause of delays, process inefficiencies, coordination
challenges, and resourcing, without removing the essential planning function of site plan
control.
Accordingly, the proposed Provincial reforms, particularly the elimination of site plan control
and the introduction of rigid, standardized approaches, are not supported. These changes
would reduce municipal oversight, limit the ability to address site-specific issues, and increase
risks to public safety, infrastructure, and development quality. A more effective approach would
focus on targeted process improvements, supported by appropriate resources and flexibility,
rather than the removal or significant weakening of a critical planning tool.
PLN 09-26 April 27, 2026
Page 16
4.8 ERO 026-0311, Proposed Regulatory Approach to Establish a Minimum
Residential Lot Size in Urban Areas
The Province is seeking feedback on a proposed regulation under the Planning Act, to set a
minimum lot size of 175 square metres (approximately 1,900 square feet) on parcels of urban
residential land (fully serviced) outside the Greenbelt Area.
The Bill proposes to amend the Planning Act to limit the ability of municipalities to pass a
Zoning By-law that imposes a minimum lot area for residential land that is greater than the 175
square metres. An additional subsection is proposed that would deem Zoning By-law
provisions regulating lot frontage and depth to be of no effect if they would require a lot to be
larger than 175 square metres.
The Province is of the opinion that this regulation would foster conditions for increased housing
supply and affordability in urban areas by helping facilitate the creation of smaller lots over
time, leading to increased opportunities for home ownership in urban areas since smaller lots
are generally more affordable.
Other considerations would continue to apply to decisions on land division applications, such
as policies in the PPS, 2024 that prohibit development (including lot creation) in certain
circumstances. In addition, the regulation-making authority would be scoped to zoning and
would not apply to subdivision control, and any municipal zoning requirement for minimum
frontage and/or minimum depth that would not allow for the minimum lot size standard to be
met would be inapplicable.
Staff Comments:
Staff support the Province’s goal of increasing housing supply and streamlining approvals, but
note that lot area, frontage, and setbacks work together to ensure development is safe,
serviceable, and consistent with subdivision control and community design objectives.
Zoning By-law 8149/24 (outside Seaton) structures low-density residential areas into First
(R1), Second (R2), and Third (R3) Density zones, with minimum lot areas generally ranging
from larger detached-lot standards in R1, to transitional low-rise forms in R2, to more compact
townhouse standards in R3.
A legislated minimum lot area of 175 square metres could override local standards and create
uncertainty about how existing zone permissions would apply (e.g., whether lots could be
created at 175 square metres in established low-density zones while still meeting other
requirements such as setbacks, height, and lot coverage). Because current standards were
designed for much larger lots, the remaining framework may not function as intended.
Staff also seek clarity on whether 175 square metres is only a floor, or whether it is intended to
enable lot creation that does not align with the applicable zone’s broader standards. This
affects consistent zoning/subdivision control and the City’s ability to plan for orderly
development based on servicing capacity and neighbourhood design objectives.
PLN 09-26 April 27, 2026
Page 17
From a built-form perspective, applying a 175 square metres lot standard to typical low-density
housing may constrain site functionality. Experience in compact areas (e.g., Seaton and Duffin
Heights) suggests smaller lots can reduce rear yard space, limit access to rear yards, and
make it difficult to accommodate features such as entrances to additional dwelling units, with
potential implications for safe occupancy and emergency access.
Additional dwelling units support affordability and multi-generational living, but require safe,
unobstructed access for occupants and emergency services. Reduced lot sizes may limit side-
yard or rear access pathways, creating functional and safety challenges.
Smaller lots may also make it harder to meet on-site parking needs (often accommodated
through private driveways), increasing reliance on on-street parking and pressure on the
municipal right-of-way. They can also increase the proportion of impervious surface, reducing
space for landscaping and trees and increasing stormwater runoff beyond what existing
systems were designed to handle, potentially contributing to localized drainage issues.
As the changes are intended to facilitate intensification through severances in established
neighbourhoods, staff note potential conflict with Council-adopted policies (including the
Established Neighbourhood Design Guidelines) intended to maintain compatibility with existing
character, built form, and lotting patterns in areas such as Bay Ridges, Dunbarton,
Rougemount, Rosebank, and West Shore.
Overall, while the 175 square metres standard may increase housing supply, staff are
concerned it could undermine the City’s ability to apply complementary zoning standards (e.g.,
frontage, setbacks, access), with unintended impacts on site functionality, infrastructure
capacity, and neighbourhood design.
Staff recommend the Province provide municipalities flexibility to apply appropriate local
zoning standards where needed to keep development safe, functional, and aligned with
servicing and neighbourhood objectives.
4.9 ERO 026-0312, Proposed Changes to Support Standardizing of Parkland
Requirements Under the Planning Act
Bill 23 previously added, but did not yet bring into effect, provisions to the Planning Act that
would permit certain encumbered lands (e.g., lands containing underground parking structures
or stormwater infrastructure) and privately-owned public spaces (POPS) to be credited towards
municipal parkland dedication requirements. The Province is now seeking feedback on the
criteria that will be used to determine which lands are eligible to be credited as parkland.
The proposed criteria for evaluating parkland eligibility are outlined below:
Ineligible for Parkland
• contaminated lands;
• natural and human-made hazard lands;
PLN 09-26 April 27, 2026
Page 18
• lands within and adjacent to natural heritage features if a park would interfere with or
compromise the natural heritage features and areas;
• lands in the Natural Heritage System of the Greenbelt Plan or in the Natural Core or
Natural Linkage Areas of the Oak Ridges Moraine Conservation Plan;
• lands that would not support park use – lands that would not accommodate fill and/or soil
depths to accommodate structural footings as per the Ontario Building Code or support tree
planting;
• lands with financial encumbrances – lands with liens, charges, etc. registered on title; and,
• Lands that are privately-owned and not accessible to public at all times.
Required Criteria
• accessible by all users directly from the public realm and readily visible from the public
realm; and,
• land must be of a size and shape that is capable of serving park or public recreational
purposes.
The Province is also seeking feedback on the 70% credit that encumbered parklands and
POPS are proposed to be granted towards a development’s overall parkland dedication.
Staff Comments:
Staff generally support the proposed criteria identifying lands that are ineligible for parkland
dedication. However, further clarification is requested regarding the criterion: “Lands within and
adjacent to natural heritage features if a park would interfere with or compromise the
natural heritage features and areas.” Specifically, it is unclear whether the responsibility for
demonstrating potential impacts rest with the applicant or the municipality. Additional guidance
from the Province on this matter would improve consistency in implementation.
With respect to parkland credit rates, the City’s current Parkland Conveyance By-law
(November 2024, under appeal) establishes credit rates of 80% for encumbered lands (strata
parks) and 50% for POPS. The Province’s proposed regulations would set both rates at 70%.
While the proposed rates differ from those approved by Council, they generally result in a
comparable overall parkland yield. The table below provides a comparison of the parkland
credit between the City’s current parkland conveyance By-law and the Province’s proposed
credits.
City Parkland Conveyance By-law
(November 2024 – Under Appeal) ERO 026-312
Encumbered Lands /
Strata Parks 80% 70%
POPS 50% 70%
Staff do not support applying a 70% credit rate to POPS. Unlike publicly owned parkland,
POPS are typically smaller in size, privately owned, and not under municipal control. As a
result, the City has limited ability to design, program, or maintain these spaces in accordance
with municipal standards and community needs.
PLN 09-26 April 27, 2026
Page 19
The City supports the introduction of credit rates for encumbered parkland, recognizing that
such spaces can contribute meaningfully to the parkland system when appropriately designed.
However, the City recommends that the Province reduce the credit rate for POPS to 50%. A
lower credit would better reflect their limited size, private ownership and reduced functionality
compared to publicly owned parkland and would help ensure that municipalities continue to
secure high-quality accessible, and programmable park spaces to serve growing communities.
4.10 ERO 026-0313, Streamlining the information and material that planning authorities
can require as part of a complete application
The Province established that planning authorities vary widely in the type, number, and scope
of studies they require from applicants before a planning application is considered complete,
and the wide variation across the Province adds unpredictability to the application process, can
increase costs for applicants, and can contribute to delays in the development process.
Accordingly, the Province is proposing amendments to achieve greater clarity and predictability
regarding complete application requirements across the province, by seeking feedback on a
proposed list of information and material that has been categorized into two types of studies
and when they could be required:
a. Core Studies: Core studies address fundamental planning and engineering matters such
as environmental impacts, existing servicing capacity, transportation impacts, and public
health and safety, and planning authorities typically require these to assess most planning
applications. The Province is proposing that the only information and material planning
authorities may require as part of a complete application are: Environmental Impact
Statements (Studies), Environmental Site Assessments, Functional Servicing Reports,
Geotechnical Reports, Hydrogeological Reports, Planning Justification Reports, and
Transportation Impact Studies.
b. Contingent Studies: Contingent studies could only be required when a specific on-site or
surrounding condition exists in the local municipality that makes the study relevant for the
consideration of the planning application. For example, certain studies may only be needed
if a subject property is located on or near airports, rail corridors, significant natural hazards,
or major facilities, or when the property contains particular environmental, cultural, or
resource-based features on site. The proposed list of contingent studies that may be
required include studies such as Agricultural Impact Assessments; Air Quality/Odour
Studies; Arborist reports; Cultural Heritage Impact Assessments; Financial Impact Analysis,
and Land Use Compatibility Studies.
Staff Comments:
Although the list of “Core Studies” is proposed to be exhaustive, the proposed list of
“Contingent Studies” appears to be non-exhaustive and gives examples of other studies. In
order for a municipality to do its due diligence with respect to a development proposal and to
make decisions that are informed and in the public interest, it is critical that municipalities
PLN 09-26 April 27, 2026
Page 20
retain the ability and discretion to require other studies where the local context and
circumstances warrant them.
Therefore, staff has no concerns with this proposal, as it would not affect our ability to require
studies, whether they are “core” or “contingent”.
4.11 ERO 026-0314, Proposed Changes to Various Regulations Under the Planning Act
and the City of Toronto Act, 2006 to Specify Additional “Prescribed Professions”
for the Purposes of a Complete Application
Bill 17 made changes to the Planning Act to create regulation-making authority for the Minister
to scope complete application requirements by, among other things, providing that
municipalities would be required to accept studies from certified professionals in professions
specified in regulation. Further to these legislative changes, new and amending regulations
were filed in early 2026 to specify professional engineering as a “prescribed profession” for the
purposes of a complete application.
The Province is now seeking feedback on adding additional certified professionals, e.g.,
registered landscape architects, for the purposes of a complete application.
The prescribing of certified professionals by regulation means that municipalities would be
required to accept technical studies and reports prepared by these professionals in the first
instance as satisfying complete application requirements (without requiring further review or
revisions) which may help further speed up development approvals and reduce initial
application costs associated with the development proposal.
The Province stipulated that Municipalities could still request additional information or
undertake a review of the technical information submitted, but these requests would not affect
the decision-making timelines in the Act or the applicant’s right of appeal to the Ontario Land
Tribunal after the decision timeline has expired.
Staff Comments:
This proposal, initially introduced through Bill 17 in mid 2025, suggested that municipalities
should accept and implement studies from certified professionals without review and oversight
by staff or peer review consultants. The City, through Report PLN 12-25 submitted comments
on Bill 17, opposing the proposal on the basis that the submission of a study by a certified
professional does not automatically ensure that the document is without error, and that the
acceptance of the study as infallible would place Council in a position of relying on, and
making decisions on, studies even if the information they contain is identified by staff as being
inaccurate or incomplete.
The Province has since revised its proposal, as summarized in the above preamble, clarifying
that municipalities would be required to accept technical studies and reports prepared by
certified professionals in the first instance as satisfying complete application requirements, and
that would not remove the ability to require additional information or have the study reviewed
PLN 09-26 April 27, 2026
Page 21
or peer reviewed after the development application has been submitted and deemed complete.
Staff welcomes the Province’s revision to its initial proposal and has no further concerns with it.
4.12 ERO 026-0315, Consultation on secondary plans, and site and area-specific
policies
Feedback is being sought on a distinct framework for Secondary Plans and Site- and Area-
Specific Policies (SASPs) to increase consistency across municipalities.
Proposed changes for Secondary Plans and SASPs could include:
• identifying the types of areas where secondary plans could be used;
• separating secondary plans from the primary official plan, so they would exist as a
standalone document while being subject to the same process requirements; and,
• exempting secondary plans from Minister’s approval.
Staff comments:
A municipal official plan is the parent document to secondary plans, and it contains policies
that generally applies city-wide, whereas secondary plans contain detailed policies geared
towards a particular geographic area in the city.
There can be a variety of reasons to identify a distinct area for more detailed planning (i.e.,
new urban areas like Northeast Pickering, intensification areas like the City Centre and the
Kingston Road Corridor, heritage areas like the Whitevale Heritage Conservation District or
Waterfront Nautical Village). Secondary plans and site- and area-specific plans should be
approved as amendments to the primary official plan, not as stand-alone documents.
Notwithstanding staff’s opposition to the standardized framework for official plans, should the
Province proceed with such a framework, it should be revised to allow for a chapter to be
added for secondary and site- and area-specific plans with related schedules. This approach
would keep policy documents together, simplifying research on land use permissions or
prohibitions in a municipality. Staff supports secondary and site- and area-specific plans
having the full authority of an official plan and being exempt from Ministerial approval.
5.0 Conclusion:
It is recommended that Council endorse the comments contained in Report PLN 09-26, as the
City of Pickering’s detailed comments on Bill 98 and the identified ERO Postings 026-0300,
026-0304, 026-0305, 026-0309, 026-0310, 026-0311, 026-0312, 026-0313, 026-0314, and
026-0315, and that Council authorize the Chief Administrative Officer to submit the Council
endorsed comments on the identified ERO Postings to the Ministry of Municipal Affairs and
Housing website by the April 29, 2026 and May 14, 2026, deadlines.
Attachment:
PLN 09-26 April 27, 2026
Page 22
None
Prepared By: Nilesh Surti, MCIP, RPP, Division Head, Development Review & Urban Design
Prepared By: Déan Jacobs, MCIP, RPP, Manager, Policy & Geomatics
Prepared By: Deborah Wylie, MCIP, RPP, Manager, Zoning & Administration
Prepared By: Chantal Whitaker, BESc (Hons), CSR-P, Manager, Sustainability & Strategic
Environmental Initiatives
Approved/Endorsed By: Catherine Rose, MCIP, RPP, Chief Planner
Approved/Endorsed By: Kyle Bentley, P. Eng., Director, city Development & CBO
DJ:ld
Recommended for the consideration of Pickering City Council By:
Marisa Carpino, M.A.
Chief Administrative Officer