Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
PLN 16-26
Report to Council Report Number: PLN 16-26 Date: June 22, 2026 From: Kyle Bentley Director, City Development & CBO Subject: Heritage Permit Application HP 01/26 Phase 1 of the Whitevale Road Reconstruction Project between Golf Club Road and the West Duffins Creek, including a portion of North Road Recommendation: 1. That Report PLN 16-26 regarding Heritage Permit Application HP 01/26 for Phase 1 of the Whitevale Road Reconstruction Project, between Golf Club Road and the West Duffins Creek, including a portion of North Road be received; 2. That the Heritage Permit Application HP 01/26 for Phase 1 of the Whitevale Road Reconstruction Project, between Golf Club Road and the West Duffins Creek, including a portion of North Road, be approved, subject to the following conditions: a. implementation of all tree protection and preservation measures within the subject work area as identified in the Arborist Report, prepared by AECOM, dated March 2026; b. submission and implementation of a post-construction landscape restoration plan for the subject work area; c. completion of pre-construction condition surveys of all properties and structures within the subject work area; d. implementation of a vibration monitoring program for the subject work area during construction, with appropriate mitigation measures; e. ongoing monitoring of the subject work area by a qualified arborist during construction; f. implementation of best management practices to minimize impacts to the cultural heritage landscape during construction activities; g. implementation of any requirements for archaeological monitoring and contingency measures within the subject work area; and, 3. That the appropriate officials of the City of Pickering be authorized to take the actions necessary to implement the recommendations in this report. PLN 16-26 June 22, 2026 Page 2 1.0 Executive Summary: The purpose of this report is to seek Council’s approval of a Heritage Permit Application HP 01/26 for Phase 1 of the Whitevale Road Reconstruction Project within the Whitevale Heritage Conservation District (HCD), designated under Part V of the Ontario Heritage Act. As the proposed infrastructure works may alter the character and appearance of the district, a Heritage Permit is required under Section 42 of the Ontario Heritage Act. The proposed works form part of the broader Whitevale Master Drainage Plan (MDP) Implementation Project, which originated through the Whitevale MDP Municipal Class Environmental Assessment completed in 2013. The Environmental Assessment identified recurring flooding, drainage deficiencies, erosion concerns, and aging infrastructure within the hamlet of Whitevale. During detailed design, the City determined the project should proceed in two phases to allow priority infrastructure improvements to advance while additional design work is completed for the remaining areas. Phase 1 includes Whitevale Road between Golf Club Road and West Duffins Creek, and a portion of North Road extending north to just beyond Churchwin Street. The Whitevale HCD recognizes the hamlet as a significant cultural heritage landscape defined by its rural roadway character, mature vegetation, informal streetscape edges, views to the surrounding landscape, and historic built form context. In response, the design has been refined through the detailed design process, informed by heritage review, technical studies, and public consultation. Key refinements included modifications to sidewalk alignments and widths, reduced select sidewalk segments, grading adjustments and measures to protect mature vegetation and maintain the rural character. To support the Heritage Permit application, the City retained AECOM to complete a Heritage Impact Assessment and an Arborist Report and Tree Preservation Plan. These studies evaluated the proposed works in relation to the Whitevale HCD Plan and identified mitigation measures to reduce impacts on the cultural heritage landscape, including: • tree protection fencing; • arborist supervision; • root exploration; • vibration monitoring; • landscape restoration; • compensation planting; and, • best management practices during construction. The Heritage Pickering Advisory Committee (HPAC) reviewed the application on May 13, 2026, and recommended approval, subject to undertaking the construction mitigation measures noted above. PLN 16-26 June 22, 2026 Page 3 With these mitigation measures in place, staff are satisfied that the proposed works are consistent with the intent of the Whitevale HCD Plan and represents an appropriate balance between infrastructure renewal and heritage conservation. 2.0 Relationship to the Pickering Strategic Plan: The recommendations in this report respond to the Pickering Strategic Plan Priorities of Champion Economic Leadership & Innovation; Advocate for an Inclusive, Welcoming, Safe & Healthy Community; and Strengthen Existing & Build New Partnerships. 3.0 Financial Implications: No direct financial implications for the City are associated with the approval of the heritage permit application. 4.0 Discussion: The purpose of this report is to seek Council’s approval of a Heritage Permit Application HP 01/26 for Phase 1 of the Whitevale Road Reconstruction Project in relation to the Whitevale HCD Plan, supporting technical studies, and applicable heritage conservation considerations. It also provides recommendations regarding the appropriateness of the proposed works and mitigation measures. 4.1 Whitevale Heritage Conservation District The proposed Whitevale Road reconstruction project is located within the Whitevale HCD, designated under Part V of the Ontario Heritage Act by By-law 4074/92. The Whitevale HCD recognizes the hamlet as a significant cultural heritage landscape characterized by its historic development pattern, natural setting, and intact rural character. The Whitevale HCD Plan (1990) emphasizes the importance of conserving not only individual heritage buildings, but also the broader landscape, including streetscapes, vegetation, views, and the relationship between the built and natural environment. Key character-defining elements identified in the HCD Plan include: • narrow rural roadways with informal edges; • mature tree cover and vegetation; • views to surrounding agricultural lands and the West Duffins Creek valley system; and, • a cohesive historic streetscape pattern characterized by modest vernacular buildings and consistent spatial relationships. PLN 16-26 June 22, 2026 Page 4 The HCD Plan also recognizes that public works and infrastructure projects impact the heritage character of the district and includes policies intended to minimize adverse impacts on heritage resources and the broader cultural heritage landscape. Major projects within the HCD are reviewed through the Heritage Permit process established under Section 42 of the Ontario Heritage Act. While Delegation By-law 7651/18 authorizes the Director, City Development & CBO, to approve many heritage permit applications, the scale, complexity, and potential district-wide impacts of the proposed infrastructure works warranted review by the HPAC and final consideration by Council. 4.2 Phase 1 of the Whitevale Road Reconstruction Project The Whitevale Road Reconstruction Project forms part of the broader Whitevale Master Drainage Plan (MDP) Implementation Project undertaken by the City of Pickering. The project identified recurring flooding, drainage deficiencies, erosion concerns, and aging infrastructure within the hamlet. As the scope of work became more refined, the City Infrastructure Department determined that the project should proceed in two phases. This decision was primarily driven by the poor condition of Whitevale Road west of West Duffins Creek, where the roadbed will require more work that is beyond the scope originally anticipated. The Heritage Permit application for Phase 1 works is limited to the stretch of Whitevale Road located between Golf Club Road and the West Duffins Creek, and includes a portion of North Road, extending north from Whitevale Road to just beyond Churchwin Street (see Location Map, Attachment 1). The proposed works include: • road reconstruction and resurfacing; • installation of storm sewer infrastructure and upgraded drainage systems, including catch basins, ditch inlets, and trench drains; • improvements to roadside ditches to enhance drainage capacity; • replacement of culverts and installation of oil grit separator to address erosion and improve stormwater quality and quantity management; • modifications to road grading and profile to improve drainage performance; • select removal, reduction, or realignment of sidewalk infrastructure to minimize impacts on the cultural heritage landscape; • associated landscape restoration and tree protection and compensation measures; and, • replacement and improvements to streetlighting along Whitevale Road. Phase 1 has undergone several design revisions as a result of the recommendations from the Heritage Impact Assessment (see Heritage Impact Assessment: Whitevale Heritage Conservation District, Attachment 2), the Arborist Report (see Whitevale Road Reconstruction Arborist Report and Tree Preservation Plan, Attachment 3), and continued public consultation. PLN 16-26 June 22, 2026 Page 5 4.3 Cultural Heritage Assessment and Arborist Report To support the cultural heritage evaluation of the Whitevale MDP and the submitted Heritage Permit application, the City retained AECOM to prepare a Heritage Impact Assessment (HIA), and an Arborist Report and Tree Preservation Plan. The HIA assess the proposed Whitevale MDP works against the Whitevale HCD Plan and identified key character-defining elements of the district, including: • rural roadway form; • mature vegetation and tree canopy; • historic landscape relationships; • views and spatial character; • historic built form context; and, • the broader cultural heritage landscape. The HIA concluded that infrastructure improvements could proceed, provided that mitigation measures are implemented to reduce impacts on the district’s heritage character. Recommended mitigation measures include minimizing visual changes to the roadway, protecting mature vegetation where feasible, restoring disturbed landscape areas, and monitoring vibrations near heritage buildings during construction. The Arborist Report and Tree Preservation Plan assessed existing vegetation across Phases 1 and 2, identifying approximately 990 trees, including: • 20 trees proposed for removal; • 74 trees requiring arborist supervision due to potential injury; • 258 trees anticipated to experience minor impacts; and, • 638 trees that are not anticipated to be impacted. The report recommends tree protection fencing, root exploratory excavation under arborist supervision; ongoing monitoring during construction, and a compensation strategy requiring the planting of 30 replacement trees. Together, the HIA and Arborist Report informed several design refinements intended to better align the project with the rural character of the Whitevale HCD, while reducing impacts on vegetation and adjacent heritage resources. 4.4 Assessment of the Proposed Works: The proposed reconstruction works have been assessed against the policies and objectives of the Whitevale HCD Plan, as well as the findings of the supporting technical studies and HIA. The following sections summarize the key considerations and conclusions of this assessment. PLN 16-26 June 22, 2026 Page 6 4.5 Retention of Historic Roadway Character The proposed design maintains the existing road alignment, with only minor adjustments required for grading, drainage, and safety improvements. No significant roadway realignment or widening is proposed. The design also retains a rural cross-section by avoiding urban features, such as curbs and gutters, and maintaining informal edges and roadside ditches, where possible. This approach is consistent with the objectives of the Whitevale HCD Plan. 4.6 Utility Infrastructure and Visual Character Existing hydro infrastructure within the first phase will be replaced by Elexicon Energy. The scope of the utility upgrades is beyond the jurisdiction of the HCD Plan as they are subject to Elexicon’s technical and safety standards, which do not always permit direct “like-for-like” replacement of existing poles. Recognizing that the project is located within the Whitevale HCD, staff have worked with Elexicon to communicate to them the cultural heritage significance of the area and the importance of minimizing visual and physical impacts on the district’s character. Elexicon has committed to implementing measures to reduce impacts where feasible, including: • the use of wood utility poles, instead of concrete poles, to better reflect the existing rural character; and, • efforts to minimize tree removal and vegetation clearing associated with hydro works. Although some changes to utility infrastructure are unavoidable, staff are satisfied that the proposed approach appropriately balances operational requirements with the conservation of the district’s rural character and visual qualities. 4.7 Tree Preservation and Landscape Mitigation The Arborist Report and Tree Preservation Plan identified several mitigation measures to protect the mature tree canopy and broader cultural heritage landscape during construction. Recommended measures include: • establishment of Tree Protection Zones (TPZs); • installation of protective fencing prior to construction; • root exploration and monitoring by International Society of Arboriculture (ISA) Certified Arborists in sensitive areas; and, • implementation of a tree compensation strategy requiring the planting of replacement trees at a 1.5:1 ratio. PLN 16-26 June 22, 2026 Page 7 These measures are proposed to be incorporated into the construction drawings, specifications, and tender documentation to ensure implementation throughout all phases of construction and restoration. The Arborist Report also notes that impacts to the tree canopy have been reduced through revisions to sidewalk alignment, grading, and infrastructure placement during the design process. 4.8 Heritage Pickering Advisory Committee (HPAC) Recommendation: The HPAC considered the Heritage Permit application for the Whitevale Road Reconstruction project at its meeting of May 13, 2026. During deliberations, the Committee discussed the proposed impacts to the cultural heritage landscape, including roadway character, tree preservation, drainage infrastructure, and construction-related impacts on adjacent heritage resources. The Director, City Infrastructure, attended the meeting and responded to questions raised by the Committee. Particular attention was given to the recommendations contained in the HIA and the Arborist Report and Tree Preservation Plan, including measures intended to reduce impacts on mature vegetation and maintain the rural character of the district. Following this discussion, HPAC expressed support for the overall approach to balancing infrastructure renewal with heritage conservation objectives and acknowledged the design refinements made through the ongoing review process. As a result of its deliberations, HPAC recommended that Council approve the Heritage Permit application for the Phase 1 Whitevale Road Reconstruction project between the West Duffins Creek and Golf Club Road, including a portion of North Road, subject to undertaking the conditions respecting: • tree protection and preservation measures; • landscape restoration; • pre-construction condition surveys; • vibration monitoring; • arborist supervision during construction; • implementation of best management practices for the cultural heritage landscape; and, • archaeological monitoring requirements. 4.9 Staff Recommendation and Conclusion: Staff have reviewed the proposed Phase 1 Whitevale Road Reconstruction project in relation to the Whitevale HCD Plan, supporting technical studies, and stakeholder input. PLN 16-26 June 22, 2026 Page 8 The proposed works reflect an iterative design process that has reduced impacts on the rural streetscape, mature vegetation, and broader cultural heritage landscape. While some impacts are unavoidable, particularly related to vegetation removal, grading changes, and roadside modifications, they have been reduced through design refinements and are proposed to be mitigated through tree protection measures, compensation planting, vibration monitoring, landscape restoration, and construction management practices. Construction activities may also introduce vibration-related risks to adjacent heritage buildings; however, these impacts will be managed through monitoring and established mitigation measures identified in the HIA and Arborist Report. The proposed works retains the historic roadway alignment and overall rural cross-section, consistent with the intent of the Whitevale HCD Plan. It also incorporates mitigation measures identified through the HIA, Arborist Report and Tree Preservation Plan, and consultation with the Whitevale and District Residents Association. Subject to the implementation of the recommended conditions of approval, staff are satisfied that the proposed works are consistent with the intent of the Whitevale HCD Plan and represent an appropriate balance between infrastructure renewal and heritage conservation. Attachments: 1. Location Map 2. Heritage Impact Assessment: Whitevale Heritage Conservation District (HCD) - AECOM 3. Whitevale Road Reconstruction, Arborist Report and Tree Preservation Plan - AECOM Prepared By: Matt Somerville, Senior Planner, Heritage Prepared By: Nilesh Surti, Division Head, Development Review & Urban Design Approved/Endorsed By: Kyle Bentley, Director, City Development & CBO Approved/Endorsed By: Kevin Heathcote, Director, City Infrastructure MS:NS:ld Recommended for the consideration of Pickering City Council By: Marisa Carpino, M.A. Chief Administrative Officer Attachment 1 to Report PLN 16-26 Heritage Impact Assessment: Whitevale Heritage Conservation District (HCD) Whitevale Master Drainage Plan City of Pickering 60560495 May 2026 Attachment 2 to Report PLN 16-26 City of Pickering Heritage Impact Assessment: Whitevale Heritage Conservation District (HCD). Whitevale Master Drainage Plan Ref:60560495 AECOM Rpt_2026-05-27_Whitevale_Hia_60560495_Final iiX Statement of Qualifications and Limitations The attached Report (the “Report”) has been prepared by AECOM Canada ULC (“AECOM”) for the benefit of the Client (“Client”) in accordance with the agreement between AECOM and Client, including the scope of work detailed therein (the “Agreement”). The information, data, recommendations and conclusions contained in the Report (collectively, the “Information”):is subject to the scope, schedule, and other constraints and limitations in the Agreement and the qualifications contained in the Report (the “Limitations”); represents AECOM’s professional judgement in light of the Limitations and industry standards for the preparation of similar reports; may be based on information provided to AECOM which has not been independently verified; has not been updated since the date of issuance of the Report and its accuracy is limited to the time period and circumstances in which it was collected, processed, made or issued; must be read as a whole and sections thereof should not be read out of such context; was prepared for the specific purposes described in the Report and the Agreement; and in the case of subsurface, environmental or geotechnical conditions, may be based on limited testing and on the assumption that such conditions are uniform and not variable either geographically or over time. AECOM shall be entitled to rely upon the accuracy and completeness of information that was provided to it and has no obligation to update such information.AECOM accepts no responsibility for any events or circumstances that may have occurred since the date on which the Report was prepared and, in the case of subsurface, environmental or geotechnical conditions, is not responsible for any variability in such conditions, geographically or over time. AECOM agrees that the Report represents its professional judgement as described above and that the Information has been prepared for the specific purpose and use described in the Report and the Agreement, but AECOM makes no other representations, or any guarantees or warranties whatsoever, whether express or implied, with respect to the Report, the Information or any part thereof. Without in any way limiting the generality of the foregoing, any estimates or opinions regarding probable construction costs or construction schedule provided by AECOM represent AECOM’s professional judgement in light of its experience and the knowledge and information available to it at the time of preparation. Since AECOM has no control over market or economic conditions, prices for construction labour, equipment or materials or bidding procedures, AECOM, its directors, officers and employees are not able to, nor do they, make any representations, warranties or guarantees whatsoever, whether express or implied, with respect to such estimates or opinions, or their variance from actual construction costs or schedules, and accept no responsibility for any loss or damage arising therefrom or in any way related thereto. Persons relying on such estimates or opinions do so at their own risk. Except (1) as agreed to in writing by AECOM and Client; (2) as required by-law; or (3) to the extent used by governmental reviewing agencies for the purpose of obtaining permits or approvals, the Report and the Information may be used and relied upon only by Client. AECOM accepts no responsibility, and denies any liability whatsoever, to parties other than Client who may obtain access to the Report or the Information for any injury, loss or damage suffered by such parties arising from their use of, reliance upon, or decisions or actions based on the Report or any of the Information (“improper use of the Report”), except to the extent those parties have obtained the prior written consent of AECOM to use and rely upon the Report and the Information. Any injury, loss or damages arising from improper use of the Report shall be borne by the party making such use. This Statement of Qualifications and Limitations is attached to and forms part of the Report and any use of the Report is subject to the terms hereof. AECOM:2015-04-13 © 2009-2015 AECOM Canada ULC All Rights Reserved. City of Pickering Heritage Impact Assessment: Whitevale Heritage Conservation District (HCD). Whitevale Master Drainage Plan Ref:60560495 AECOM Rpt_2026-05-27_Whitevale_Hia_60560495_Final iiiX Quality Information Prepared by Checked by Preston Arens, PhD Cultural Heritage Specialist Liam Ryan, MES,MCIP, RPP,CAHP Cultural Heritage Planner, Lead Verified by Adria Grant, MA, CAHPAssociate Vice President, Technical Practice Lead Archaeology and Heritage Revision History Rev #Revision Date Revised By:Revision Description 0 September 10, 2025 Preston Arens and Liam Ryan Draft Preparation 0a May 27, 2026 Preston Arens Final Distribution List # Hard Copies PDF Required Association / Company Name 0 City of Pickering 0 AECOM Canada ULC City of Pickering Heritage Impact Assessment: Whitevale Heritage Conservation District (HCD). Whitevale Master Drainage Plan Ref:60560495 AECOM Rpt_2026-05-27_Whitevale_Hia_60560495_Final ivX Prepared for: City of Pickering Prepared by: Preston Arens, PhD Cultural Heritage Specialist Preston.arens@aecom.com Liam Ryan, MES,MCIP,RPP, CAHP Cultural Heritage Planner, Lead liam.ryan@aecom.com Adria Grant, MA, CAHP Associate Vice President, Technical Practice Lead Archaeology and Heritage Adria.grant@aecom.com AECOM Canada ULC 410 –250 York Street, Citi Plaza London, ON N6A 6K2 Canada T: 519.673.0510 F: 519.673.5975 www.aecom.com City of Pickering Heritage Impact Assessment: Whitevale Heritage Conservation District (HCD). Whitevale Master Drainage Plan Ref:60560495 AECOM Rpt_2026-05-27_Whitevale_Hia_60560495_Final vX Executive Summary AECOM Canada ULC (AECOM) was retained by the City of Pickering to complete a Heritage Impact Assessment (HIA) for proposed improvements to Whitevale Road and North Road, including road and storm sewer reconstruction, within the village of Whitevale (the Project). This work is being conducted as part of the Whitevale Master Drainage Plan and occurs within the Whitevale Heritage Conservation District (HCD). The purpose of this HIA is to assess the impacts of the proposed Whitevale Road and North Road Improvements on the Whitevale HCD, and to recommend mitigation measures to ensure that the character-defining elements and overall character of the District are conserved. The Project was initiated after extensive flooding and erosion in Whitevale in 2008 and included the commission of the Municipal Class Environmental Assessment (MCEA), the construction of a new bridge over West Duffins Creek in 2014-2015, and the aforementioned road improvements. The Detailed Design for the road improvements were awarded to AECOM in 2018 with pre-engineering due to begin in 2021 along with public consultation. Residents of Whitevale expressed concerns, both in an initial survey in January of 2022 and a subsequent open house in June of 2023, that the proposed designs would not sufficiently align with the Whitevale HCD Guidelines and that the impacts of the Project on the HCD had not been adequately considered. The City of Pickering subsequently requested an HIA be added to the scope of the project, and following the submission of the 90% detailed design, AECOM provided a draft proposal for the HIA on June 24, 2024. This HIA, prepared on the basis of the 95%detailed design for Whitevale Road and North Road improvements, was developed in consultation with the City of Pickering Heritage Planner, Matthew Sommerville.The Project is anticipated to occur entirely within the settlement area of the hamlet of Whitevale and includes the Whitevale road right of way between Altona Road and Golf Club Road, and the North Road right of way from Whitevale Road to the northern extent of the village, approximately 175m north of Whitevale Road. The Project will therefore occur entirely within the Whitevale HCD. In consequence, this assessment has been scoped as an HCD-focused HIA.The Whitevale Road and North Road streetscapes, and most adjacent properties, are contributing elements of the Whitevale HCD. The Project therefore has potential to both directly and indirectly impact the Whitevale HCD. Accordingly, a Cultural Heritage Study Area was developed for this report in order to better understand the potential impacts of the Project on the Whitevale HCD. For the purposes of this HIA, the Cultural Heritage Study Area is defined as the 95% Detailed Design of the Project in addition to an 11 metre (m) buffer. This approach, which encompasses both the Project footprint and adjacent areas, was adopted to ensure that all potential direct or indirect impacts of the Project were accounted for, particularly in areas where the anticipated work occurs in close proximity to the boundary of the public right of way. The following recommendations have been developed based on background historical research, field review, professional expertise, and the evaluation of anticipated impacts within the Cultural Heritage Study Area. A summary of recommendations for the Whitevale HCD is provided below. For the complete discussion of mitigation measures, refer to Table 6. General Recommendations If any future changes to the proposed development extend beyond the current design shown in Figure 5, this HIA should be reviewed and updated to assess potential direct and indirect impacts on the CHVI and character-defining elements of the cultural heritage resources within the Cultural Heritage Study Area. Additional work may be required, which could include, but is not limited to, updating this HIA to reflect the revised design. Prior to commencing work, consultation with City Heritage Planning staff should be undertaken to confirm that the proposed activities are considered minor in nature and to determine whether a heritage permit is City of Pickering Heritage Impact Assessment: Whitevale Heritage Conservation District (HCD). Whitevale Master Drainage Plan Ref:60560495 AECOM Rpt_2026-05-27_Whitevale_Hia_60560495_Final viX required. This will ensure compliance with the applicable regulatory framework and alignment with the objectives of the HCD Plan. Landscape Recommendations Driveway Aprons & Walkways: Reconstruct to pre-construction condition using original or compatible materials, consistent with HCD guidelines. Street Signage:Salvage and reinstate existing signage; new signage to be simple, non-backlit, and compliant with City by-laws. Mature Trees & Hedgerows:Retain and protect wherever possible with certified arborist oversight; replace removals on a like-for-like basis to maintain canopy continuity. Landscape Elements:Retain lawns, gardens, fences, hedges, and street furniture; restore unavoidable impacts using heritage-consistent designs in consultation with Heritage Planning staff. Hydro Poles & Overhead Lines:Retain rural character by reinstating wooden poles and radial streetlights if relocation/replacement is required. Gravel Parking Areas:In consultation with Heritage Planning staff, conserve gravel parking areas associated with former mill buildings to maintain village character. Structural Recommendations: Protect the historic house at 3195 Factory Street with fencing/hoarding and no-go zones; brief contractors on its significance. Establish a contingency plan for halting work and stabilizing the structure in the event of accidental damage. Road Widening Recommendations: Minimize impacts of paved aprons by limiting their size, using compatible materials, incorporating low vegetation/landscape treatments, and consulting with residents. Implement drainage controls and long-term maintenance measures to protect unpaved surfaces. Sidewalk Recommendations: Replace sidewalks with narrower, heritage-sensitive designs that retain grass boulevards, consider meandering alignments near mature trees, and use visually compatible materials. Design in consultation with residents to balance accessibility, safety, and heritage character. Speed Hump Recommendations: The proposed speed hump is consistent with existing traffic calming features and is not anticipated to affect heritage character. No specific mitigation required beyond vibration and impact monitoring during construction. Vibration Recommendations: A vibration and impact monitoring plan should be implemented prior to the start of construction. Vibration Impacts and Monitoring Evaluation of impacts related to vibration activities requires assessment based on the identification of specific construction methods proposed, distance between the sensitive receptor (i.e. a cultural heritage resource) and the construction activity, local soil conditions, and anticipated vibration levels (mm/s). Historic buildings can be extremely suspectable to vibration damage and Project-specific vibration limits should be established prior to the commencement of construction. City of Pickering Heritage Impact Assessment: Whitevale Heritage Conservation District (HCD). Whitevale Master Drainage Plan Ref:60560495 AECOM Rpt_2026-05-27_Whitevale_Hia_60560495_Final viiX Given the proximity to historic buildings to the proposed work, it is anticipated that in some locations safe vibration limits may be exceeded. Accordingly, prior to the commencement of the Project, a professional engineer should complete a report assessing the potential vibration impacts of the Project on the surrounding area, including, but not limited to, identified cultural heritage resources. Appropriate vibration limits (i.e. prohibitions or no-go zones for certain types of construction machinery, etc.) and monitoring protocols (i.e., the use of seismographs, etc.) should then be implemented during construction in accordance with the information provided in the vibration report. City of Pickering Heritage Impact Assessment: Whitevale Heritage Conservation District (HCD). Whitevale Master Drainage Plan Ref:60560495 AECOM Rpt_2026-05-27_Whitevale_Hia_60560495_Final viiiX Table of Contents Executive Summary ............................................................................................v 1.Background ................................................................................................1 1.1 Description of Study Methodology...........................................................................1 1.2 Description and General Location of the Cultural Heritage Study Area...................2 1.3 Heritage Policy Framework .....................................................................................5 1.3.1 The Planning Act....................................................................................................................5 1.3.2 Provincial Planning Statement...............................................................................................5 1.3.3 Ontario Heritage Act ..............................................................................................................5 1.3.4 Pickering Official Plan............................................................................................................6 1.4 Cultural Heritage Status Overview ..........................................................................7 1.4.1 City of Pickering’s Municipal Heritage Register.....................................................................7 1.4.2 Whitevale Heritage Conservation District ..............................................................................7 1.5 Summary of Community Engagement ....................................................................9 2.Background Research and Analysis ......................................................10 2.1 Pre-Contact and Indigenous History......................................................................10 2.2 The Settlement of Pickering Township, Ontario County ........................................11 2.3 From Majorville to Whitevale .................................................................................13 2.4 Whitevale in the 20th Century ................................................................................16 2.5 Historical Summary ...............................................................................................19 3.Statement of Significance ......................................................................20 3.1 Description of the District ......................................................................................20 3.2 District Character: A Summary..............................................................................20 3.3 Working List of Character-Defining Elements (for HIA Purposes).........................21 4.Proposed Development or Site Alteration..............................................23 4.1 Purpose of Proposed Activity ................................................................................23 4.2 Work Required to Complete this Project:..............................................................23 5.Assessment of Existing Conditions .......................................................24 5.1 Field Review..........................................................................................................24 5.1.1 Whitevale Road (West) Existing Conditions........................................................................24 5.1.2 Whitevale Road (East) Existing Conditions.........................................................................29 5.1.3 North Road Existing Conditions...........................................................................................39 6.Evaluation of Anticipated Impacts..........................................................45 6.1 Screening for Potential Impacts.........................................................................45 6.2 Additional Considerations......................................................................................46 6.3 Impact Assessment of the Whitevale HCD............................................................46 7.Mitigation Measures and Recommendations ........................................53 7.1 Mitigation Measures ..............................................................................................53 City of Pickering Heritage Impact Assessment: Whitevale Heritage Conservation District (HCD). Whitevale Master Drainage Plan Ref:60560495 AECOM Rpt_2026-05-27_Whitevale_Hia_60560495_Final ixX 7.2 Recommendations ................................................................................................53 7.2.1 Vibration Impacts and Monitoring ........................................................................................54 8.Sources.....................................................................................................55 Figures Figure 1:The Cultural Heritage Study Area on Base Mapping ............................................................................3 Figure 2:The Cultural Heritage Study Area on Aerial Photography.....................................................................4 Figure 3:The Cultural Heritage Study Area on Historic Mapping, including the 1860 Tremaine Map, the 1877 Illustrated Historical Atlas, and the 1914 and 1943 NTS Maps............................................59 Figure 4:The Cultural Heritage Study Area on 1954 Aerial Photography .........................................................60 Figure 5:The 95%Detailed Design and Cultural Heritage Study Area on Aerial Photography.........................61 Figure 6:Select Photograph Locations and Direction ........................................................................................65 Tables Table 1: Results of Community Engagement ...............................................................................................................9 Table 2: Cultural Chronology of Indigenous Settlement in Southern Ontario.............................................................10 Table 3: Summary of Existing Conditions within the Whitevale Road (West) Streetscape........................................25 Table 4: Summary of Existing Conditions within the Whitevale Road (East) Streetscape.........................................30 Table 5: Summary of Existing Conditions within the North Road Streetscape...........................................................39 Table 6:Impact Assessment of the Whitevale HCD Including Potential Mitigation Measures...................................47 List of Photographs Photograph 1: Streetview of the intersection of Altona Road and Whitevale Road, looking west. (AECOM, 2025)....................................................................................................................................................25 Photograph 2: Streetview of the west portion of Whitevale Road, looking east from the Altona Road intersection (AECOM, 2025)...............................................................................................................25 Photograph 3: Historic houses along the west portion of Whitevale Road, including number 335 and 345 Whitevale Road. Looking south from the right of way (AECOM, 2025 ...............................................26 Photograph 4: View of the western slope of Whitevale Road, including manicured lawns and narrow gravel shoulders. Looking east (AECOM, 2025)............................................................................................26 Photograph 5: South facing view of a typical property entrance on Whitevale Road, including gravel driveway, manicured lawns and gardens, and mature tree coverage. Located at 345 Whitevale Road (AECOM 2025).........................................................................................................26 Photograph 6: Gravel driveway and mature cedar hedgerow at 360 Whitevale Road. Looking northwest (AECOM, 2025)...................................................................................................................................26 Photograph 7: Historic house, manicured lawn and gardens, and private concrete stairs at 360 Whitevale Road. Looking north (AECOM, 2025).................................................................................................27 Photograph 8: Mature tree coverage and private concrete stairs along the Whitevale Road frontage of 3190 Byron Street. Looking south from Whitevale Road (AECOM, 2025)..................................................27 Photograph 9:The intersection of Whitevale Road and Byron Street, looking north from Byron Street (AECOM, 2025)...................................................................................................................................27 Photograph 10: Mature cedar hedgerow along the Whitevale Road right of way. Looking west (AECOM, 2025)....................................................................................................................................................27 Photograph 11: Split rail cedar fence, gardens, and mature trees defining the entrance to a late 20th century infill house at 380 Whitevale Road. Looking northwest (AECOM, 2025)...............................28 City of Pickering Heritage Impact Assessment: Whitevale Heritage Conservation District (HCD). Whitevale Master Drainage Plan Ref:60560495 AECOM Rpt_2026-05-27_Whitevale_Hia_60560495_Final xX Photograph 12: Semicircular gravel driveway with central gardens at 395 Whitevale Road. Looking southeast (AECOM, 2025)..................................................................................................................28 Photograph 13: Mutal Street, looking south from Whitevale Road (AECOM, 2025)..................................................28 Photograph 14: Entrance to Whitevale Park at 405 Whitevale Road, looking southeast from Mutual Street at the “Christian House” (AECOM, 2025)............................................................................................28 Photograph 15: Looking north at the Whitevale Bridge commemorative feature within Whitevale Park. Note the Whitevale Road grade in the background (AECOM, 2025)..........................................................28 Photograph 16: Narrow, irregular concrete sidewalk along the south side of Whitevale Road, looking east (AECOM, 2025)...................................................................................................................................28 Photograph 17: Mature trees and wildflowers along the Whitevale Road right of way. Looking northwest from the Seaton Hiking Trail (AECOM, 2025).....................................................................................29 Photograph 18:View of the Whitevale Community Centre (formerly the Miller House and likely the oldest structure in Whitevale), looking south from Whitevale Road (AECOM, 2025)....................................29 Photograph 19: View of west slope of Whitevale Road, looking west from the valley bottom (AECOM, 2025)........29 Photograph 20: View of the valley flats, looking east across Whitevale Bridge (AECOM, 2025)..............................29 Photograph 21: View of the former mill complex, looking southeast from Whitevale Road (AECOM, 2025)............30 Photograph 22: Southwest view of the former mill complex (AECOM, 2025)............................................................30 Photograph 23: View of the Seaton Hiking Trail access from Whitevale Road. Looking northwest (AECOM, 2025)....................................................................................................................................................31 Photograph 24: View of the gambrel roofed structure at 424 Whitevale Road associated with the former milling complex across the street. Looking north (AECOM, 2025).....................................................31 Photograph 25: Streetview of Whitevale Road, looking west across the gravel parking area around the mill complex towards Whitevale Bridge (AECOM, 2025)..........................................................................31 Photograph 26: Streetview of Mill Street, looking north across Whitevale Road (AECOM, 2025).............................31 Photograph 27: Streetview of Whitevale Road, looking east across the valley bottom (AECOM, 2025)...................32 Photograph 28: View of east slope of Whitevale Road, looking east (AECOM, 2025)..............................................32 Photograph 29: The Whitevale Road frontage of 3195 Factory Street, looking south. Note that this elevation of 3195 Factory Street extends into the public right of way (AECOM, 2025)......................................32 Photograph 30: Manicured lawns, mature tree coverage, and narrow concrete sidewalks at the corner of Mill Street and Whitevale Road, looking east (AECOM, 2025)...........................................................32 Photograph 31: Mature tree coverage along Whitevale Road, looking south (AECOM, 2025).................................32 Photograph 32: down the east slope of Whitevale Road, looking west. Note the radial street lights and wood hydro poles (AECOM, 2025)......................................................................................................32 Photograph 33: Westward view of Whitevale Road, showing the sidewalk, sloped verges, and 3195 Factory Street in the background (AECOM, 2025)...........................................................................................33 Photograph 34: Concrete stairs and gravel driveway aprons in disrepair on the north side of Whitevale Road (AECOM, 2025).........................................................................................................................33 Photograph 35: Northwest view across the Whitevale Road streetscape (AECOM, 2025).......................................33 Photograph 36: Narrow, irregular concrete sidewalk along the south side of Whitevale Road, looking east (AECOM, 2025)...................................................................................................................................33 Photograph 37: North facing street view of 460 Whitevale Road, showing the shallow ditches, grassed verges, wood hydro poles, manicured gardens and mature tree coverage typical to the settlement area (AECOM, 2025).........................................................................................................34 Photograph 38:View of manicured lawns, gardens, and ornamental fences at 470 Whitevale Road. Looking north (AECOM, 2025)............................................................................................................34 Photograph 39: View of the east slope for Whitevale Road, looking west (AECOM, 2025).......................................34 Photograph 40: Narrow concrete sidewalk, mature trees, and well developed gardens along the north side of Whitevale Road. Looking west (AECOM, 2025).............................................................................34 Photograph 41: Narrow concrete sidewalk, mature trees, ornamental fences, and well developed gardens along the north side of Whitevale Road. Looking east (AECOM, 2025).............................................35 Photograph 42: The former Whitevale Hotel at 465 Whitevale Road, looking south (AECOM, 2025).......................35 Photograph 43: View of the corner of Gladstone Street and Whitevale Road, looking northwest (AECOM, 2025)....................................................................................................................................................35 City of Pickering Heritage Impact Assessment: Whitevale Heritage Conservation District (HCD). Whitevale Master Drainage Plan Ref:60560495 AECOM Rpt_2026-05-27_Whitevale_Hia_60560495_Final xiX Photograph 44: The Whitevale Arts & Culture Centre (WACC), with brick paved frontage, park benches, gardens and library box. Looking south (AECOM, 2025)....................................................................35 Photograph 45: View of the community mailboxes to the immediate east of the WACC. Looking southeast (AECOM, 2025)...................................................................................................................................36 Photograph 46: View of mural on east wall of the WACC (AECOM, 2025)...............................................................36 Photograph 47:Streetscape along south side of Whitevale Road, looking southwest (AECOM, 2025)....................36 Photograph 48: View of streetscape along Whitevale Road, looking northeast (AECOM, 2025)..............................36 Photograph 49: View of 480 Whitevale Road, looking northeast. Note the gravel apron of Gladstone Street, mature trees, manicured lawns, and ornamental fencing (AECOM, 2025).........................................37 Photograph 50: View of the former Whitevale store, looking north (AECOM, 2025)..................................................37 Photograph 51: Narrow concrete sidewalk, mature trees, manicured lawn, and private gravel path along the north side of Whitevale Road. Looking east (AECOM, 2025).............................................................37 Photograph 52: View of 495 Whitevale Road showing private concrete path, mature tree coverage, and well developed gardens along the right of way. Looking south (AECOM, 2025)...............................37 Photograph 53: View of the former cheese factory at 499 Whitevale Road. Looking south (AECOM, 2025)............38 Photograph 54: View of irregular asphalt sidewalk along the north side of Whitevale Road, looking west.(AECOM, 2025).........................................................................................................................38 Photograph 55: View of overgrown sidewalk within the manicured lawns in front of Whitevale Church. Looking west (AECOM, 2025).............................................................................................................38 Photograph 56: Whitevale Church, looking north (AECOM, 2025)............................................................................38 Photograph 57: West facing view of Whitevale Road through the settlement area (AECOM, 2025).........................39 Photograph 58:View of the east extent of the Study Area with Golf Course Road on the right and the former Baptist church at 530 Whitevale Road on the left (AECOM, 2025).........................................39 Photograph 59:Streetview of North Road, looking north from Whitevale Road (AECOM, 2025).............................40 Photograph 60:Streetview of the intersection between North Road and Whitevale Road, looking south from North Road (AECOM, 2025).......................................................................................................40 Photograph 61:Commemorative sign on the church grounds at the corner of Whitevale Street and North Road, looking northeast (AECOM, 2025)............................................................................................40 Photograph 62:View of the wooden sitting area along the North Road frontage of the church grounds. Looking north (AECOM, 2025)............................................................................................................40 Photograph 63:Streetview of North Road, showing mature trees, manicured lawns, and shallow ditches, looking north (AECOM, 2025).............................................................................................................41 Photograph 64:View of 3225 North Road, showing the shallow grassed ditches, mature trees and gardens, and timber and gravel walkway (AECOM, 2025).................................................................41 Photograph 65:View of naturalized lot on North Road, looking west (AECOM, 2025).............................................41 Photograph 66:View of narrow concrete sidewalk and naturalized overgrowth on the west side of North Road. Looking North (AECOM, 2025).................................................................................................41 Photograph 67:View of the North Road streetscape, looking south from the intersection between Churchwin Street and North Road.(AECOM, 2025)............................................................................42 Photograph 68:View of the North Road streetscape, looking south (AECOM, 2025)..............................................42 Photograph 69:View of the mature trees and gardens at 3220 North Road. Looking west (AECOM, 2025)..........42 Photograph 70:Manicured lawns and mature trees surround the mid-century rancher style bungalow at 3235 North Road (AECOM, 2025)......................................................................................................42 Photograph 71:West facing view of 3250 North Road, showing manicured lawns and gardens, mature trees, and ornamental split rail fencing (AECOM, 2025).....................................................................43 Photograph 72: The east side of North Road at 3245 North Road, showing grassed shallow ditches and residential tree coverage (AECOM, 2025)..........................................................................................43 Photograph 73:West facing view of the treeline along the north edge of the village, as seen from North Road (AECOM, 2025).........................................................................................................................43 Photograph 74:Northeastern view across open fields to the north of the village, as seen from North Road (AECOM, 2025)...................................................................................................................................43 Photograph 75:Photograph 75: View of North Road as it leaves the Whitevale settlement area, looking north (AECOM, 2025)..........................................................................................................................44 City of Pickering Heritage Impact Assessment: Whitevale Heritage Conservation District (HCD). Whitevale Master Drainage Plan Ref:60560495 AECOM Rpt_2026-05-27_Whitevale_Hia_60560495_Final xiiX Photograph 76:View of North Road streetscape from the north edge of the settlement area, looking south. (AECOM, 2025)...................................................................................................................................44 Images Image 1: Truman P. White in the late 19th century (Wood, 1911: 154)......................................................................14 Image 2: Northeast facing view of Whitevale, as printed in the 1877 Illustrated Historical Atlas (Beers & Co., 1877)....................................................................................................................................................15 Image 3: Plan of the Village of Whitevale as it appears in the 1877 Illustrated Historical Atlas (Beers & Co., 1877)....................................................................................................................................................16 Image 4: East-facing view of the grist mill in the brick shell of the former woollens mill prior to the 1961 fire (Sabean, 2000: 46)..............................................................................................................................17 Image 5: View of the ruins of the mill after the 1961 fire. The current sheet metal clad feed mill was built on the same site soon afterwards (Sabean, 2000: 46)............................................................................17 Image 6: The proposed North Pickering Project lands, with federal lands and the proposed international airport illustrated in the north portion of the block (Government of Ontario, 1975).............................18 Image 7: The proposed North Pickering Project lands, showing the land use concept for provincial lands in the south portion of the block, which include Whitevale as a hamlet (black) within the development area (blue) (Government of Ontario, 1975)...................................................................18 Appendices Appendix A.Mapping Appendix B.Existing Conditions –Whitevale Road (West) Appendix C.Existing Conditions –Whitevale Road (East) Appendix D.Existing Conditions –Whitevale Road (North) Appendix E Designation By-Law for the Whitevale HCD Appendix F.Key Project Personnel City of Pickering Heritage Impact Assessment: Whitevale Heritage Conservation District (HCD). Whitevale Master Drainage Plan Ref:60560495 AECOM Rpt_2026-05-27_Whitevale_Hia_60560495_Final 1 1.Background AECOM Canada ULC (AECOM) was retained by the City of Pickering to complete a Heritage Impact Assessment (HIA) for proposed improvements to Whitevale Road and North Road, including road and storm sewer reconstruction, within the village of Whitevale (the Project). This work is being conducted as part of the Whitevale Master Drainage Plan and occurs within the Whitevale Heritage Conservation District (HCD). The purpose of this HIA is to assess the impacts of the proposed Whitevale Road and North Road Improvements on the Whitevale HCD, and to recommend mitigation measures to ensure that the character-defining elements and overall character of the District are conserved. The Project was initiated after extensive flooding and erosion in Whitevale in 2008 and included the commission of the Municipal Class Environmental Assessment (MCEA), the construction of a new bridge over West Duffins Creek in 2014-2015, and the aforementioned road improvements. The Detailed Design for the road improvements were awarded to AECOM in 2018 with pre-engineering due to begin in 2021 along with public consultation. Residents of Whitevale expressed concerns, both in an initial survey in January of 2022 and a subsequent open house in June of 2023, that the proposed designs would not sufficiently align with the Whitevale HCD Guidelines and that the impacts of the Project on the HCD had not been adequately considered. The City of Pickering subsequently requested an HIA be added to the scope of the project, and following the submission of the 90% detailed design, AECOM provided a draft proposal for the HIA on June 24, 2024. This HIA, prepared on the basis of the 95%detailed design for Whitevale Road and North Road improvements, was developed in consultation with the City of Pickering Heritage Planner, Matthew Sommerville. The assessment has been scoped as an HCD-focused HIA, as the majority of adjacent properties fall within the Whitevale HCD and are therefore anticipated to experience similar types of direct and indirect impacts, particularly in relation to landscape and streetscape features. 1.1 Description of Study Methodology This HIA was completed in accordance with the Ministry of Citizenship and Multiculturalism’s (MCM’s)InfoSheet #5 Heritage Impact Assessment and Conservation Plans, as part of the Ontario Heritage Toolkit (2006), Parks Canada’s Standards and Guidelines for the Conservation of Historic Places in Canada (2010), and the the City of Pickering‘sTerms of Reference:Heritage Impact Assessments (April 2022). For the purposes of this HIA, AECOM undertook the following key tasks: Provided background information on the Project and the regulatory context of the present report; Outlined contextual information including the location and description cultural heritage resources in the Study Area; Consulted with the City of Pickering Senior Heritage Planner, Matthew Somerville,and relevant heritage documents, including: o The Hamlet of Whitevale, Heritage Conservation District Study: Background Report (1989), o The Hamlet of Whitevale, Heritage Conservation District Study: The District Plan (1990) o The Town of Pickering By-Law No.4074/92 Being a by-law to designate the Whitevale Heritage Conservation District pursuant to the Ontario Heritage Act, Part V (1993) Conducted background research and analysis to elucidate the history of Whitevale including the development of the village within the wider history of the Pickering Township, and changes to the site over time; Provided a summary of district character (Section 3); Provided a written description of the proposed development accompanied by mapping; City of Pickering Heritage Impact Assessment: Whitevale Heritage Conservation District (HCD). Whitevale Master Drainage Plan Ref:60560495 AECOM Rpt_2026-05-27_Whitevale_Hia_60560495_Final 2 Conducted a field review to assess the existing conditions within the Whitevale HCD; Identified and prepared a description of the proposed Development (the Project); Assessed the impacts of the project, based on the 95%Detailed Design plans, on the cultural heritage value of the Whitevale HCD;and Provided conservation methods and mitigation measures in order to avoid or limit negative impacts to the Whitevale HCD. 1.2 Description and General Location of the Cultural Heritage Study Area The hamlet of Whitevale is centrally located in the City of Pickering. The hamlet of Whitevale is generally bound by Highway 407 to the north, Taunton Road to the south, Sideline 26/ Whites Road to the east, and York Durham Line (the Markham Pickering Townline) to the west. The area is geographically defined by the river valley of West Duffins Creek, which flows from north to south towards Lake Ontario. The river valley is generally forested, while the surrounding tablelands are rural agricultural lands. The hamlet itself spans the river valley of West Duffins Creek and is generally cited from east to west along Whitevale Road.The Whitevale HCD spans the river valley and also includes several farm properties on the tablelands to the east of the village, which form an important approach to the village along Whitevale Road.The majority of the settlement area is located between Altona Road in the west, and Golf Club Road in the east. The settlement area extends to the north of Whitevale Road, along North Road.Side streets within the village include Byron Street and Mutual Street to the west of West Duffins Creek, and Mill Street, Factory Street, Churchwin Street, and Gladstone Street to the east of West Duffins Creek. In general, the properties within the village each contribute to the overall heritage character of Whitevale HCD and include numerous residential dwellings in addition to parks, historic commercial structures, and places of worship which reflect the villages largely preserved 19th century character. The Project is anticipated to occur entirely within the settlement area of the hamlet of Whitevale and includes the Whitevale road right of way between Altona Road and Golf Club Road, and the North Road right of way from Whitevale Road to the northern extent of the village, approximately 175m north of Whitevale Road.The Project will therefore occur entirely within the Whitevale HCD (see Section 4).The Whitevale Road and North Road streetscapes, and most adjacent properties, are contributing elements of the Whitevale HCD. The Project therefore has potential to both directly and indirectly impact the Whitevale HCD.Accordingly, a Cultural Heritage Study Area was developed for this report in order to better understand the potential impacts of the Project on the Whitevale HCD. For the purposes of this HIA, the Cultural Heritage Study Area is defined as the 95% Detailed Design of the Project in addition to an 11 metre (m)buffer.This approach, which encompasses both the Project footprint and adjacent areas,was adopted to ensure that all potential direct or indirect impacts of the Project were accounted for, particularly in areas where the anticipated work occurs in close proximity to the boundary of the public right of way. An overview of the Cultural Heritage Study Area within the Whitevale HCD is shown in Figure 1 and Figure 2. Detailed segment maps overlaying the extent of the 95% Detailed Design and the Cultural Heritage Study Area on aerial photography are included in Appendix A,Figure 5.Mapping of the full extent of the HCD can be found in the designation by-law, which is included in Appendix E. Ma p l o c a t i o n : L : \ D C S \ G I S \ P r o j e c t s \ 6 0 5 6 0 4 9 5 _ W h i t e v a l e \ D e s i g n \ 0 1 _ R e p o r t s \ C u l t u r a l H e r i t a g e \ 6 0 5 6 0 4 9 5 _ W h i t e v a l e _ C u l t u r a l H e r i t a g e \ 6 0 5 6 0 4 9 5 _ W h i t e v a l e _ C u l t u r a l H e r i t a g e . a p r x Da t e S a v e d : 8 / 2 9 / 2 0 2 5 1 : 4 0 P M U s e r N a m e : M a r i n c S Aug, 2025 Data Sources: Figure 1 V#:01P#:60560495 0 100 200 30050 MetersDATUM: NAD 1983 UTM Zone 17N Ontario LIO, http://whitevale.ca/ heritageconservationdistrict.html* when printed 11"x17" Contains Information licensed under the Open Government Licence Ontario. This drawing has beenprepared for the use of AECOM's client and may not be used, reproduced or relied upon by third parties,except as agreed by AECOM and its client, as required by law or for use by governmental reviewingagencies. AECOM accepts no responsibility, and denies any liability whatsoever, to any party that modifiesthis drawing without AECOM's express written consent. ° Project Area on Topographic Map Whitevale Master Drainage Plan – Municipal Class Environmental Assessment (MCEA)° 1:4,000 Cultural Heritage Study Area Property Boundary Heritage Conservation District Whit evale Rd Whitevale Rd Byron St Altona Rd Whitevale Rd Whitevale Park Altona Rd Nor th R d Whitevale Rd N ort h Rd C hurchwin St Factory S t Mill St Whitevale Wh itevale Rd Golf Club Rd Ma p l o c a t i o n : L : \ D C S \ G I S \ P r o j e c t s \ 6 0 5 6 0 4 9 5 _ W h i t e v a l e \ D e s i g n \ 0 1 _ R e p o r t s \ C u l t u r a l H e r i t a g e \ 6 0 5 6 0 4 9 5 _ W h i t e v a l e _ C u l t u r a l H e r i t a g e \ 6 0 5 6 0 4 9 5 _ W h i t e v a l e _ C u l t u r a l H e r i t a g e . a p r x Da t e S a v e d : 8 / 2 9 / 2 0 2 5 1 : 4 0 P M U s e r N a m e : M a r i n c S Aug, 2025 Data Sources: Figure 2 V#:01P#:60560495 0 100 200 30050 MetersDATUM: NAD 1983 UTM Zone 17N Ontario LIO, http://whitevale.ca/ heritageconservationdistrict.html* when printed 11"x17" Contains Information licensed under the Open Government Licence Ontario. This drawing has beenprepared for the use of AECOM's client and may not be used, reproduced or relied upon by third parties,except as agreed by AECOM and its client, as required by law or for use by governmental reviewingagencies. AECOM accepts no responsibility, and denies any liability whatsoever, to any party that modifiesthis drawing without AECOM's express written consent. ° Project Area on Aerial Map Whitevale Master Drainage Plan – Municipal Class Environmental Assessment (MCEA)° 1:4,000 Cultural Heritage Study Area Property Boundary Heritage Conservation District City of Pickering Heritage Impact Assessment: Whitevale Heritage Conservation District (HCD). Whitevale Master Drainage Plan Ref:60560495 AECOM Rpt_2026-05-27_Whitevale_Hia_60560495_Final 5 1.3 Heritage Policy Framework The authority to request this heritage assessment arises from the Ontario Heritage Act, Section 2(d) of the Planning Act,and the Provincial Planning Statement (2024). 1.3.1 The Planning Act The Planning Act (1990) and related make several provisions relating to heritage conservation. One of the general purposes of the Planning Act is to integrate matters of provincial interest into provincial and municipal planning decisions. To inform all those involved in planning activities of the scope of matters of provincial interest, Section 2 of the Planning Act provides an extensive listing of such interests. These matters of provincial interest shall be regarded when certain authorities, including the council of a municipality, carry out their responsibilities under the Act. One of these provincial interests is directly concerned with: 2 (d)the conservation of features of significant architectural, cultural, historical, archaeological or scientific interest. 1.3.2 Provincial Planning Statement Subsection 4.6 of the Provincial Planning Statement (PPS 2024), which concerns Cultural Heritage and Archaeology,makes the following provisions: 4.6.1. Protected heritage property, which may contain built heritage resources or cultural heritage landscapes, shall be conserved. 4.6.3. Planning authorities shall not permit development and site alteration on adjacent lands to protected heritage property unless the heritage attributes of the protected heritage property will be conserved. The PPS indicates in Section 6 –Implementation and Interpretation, that: 6.1.5 Official plans shall identify provincial interests and set out appropriate land use designations and policies. Official plans shall provide clear, reasonable and attainable policies to protect provincial interests and facilitate development in suitable areas. In order to protect provincial interests, planning authorities shall keep their official plans up-to-date with the Provincial Planning Statement. The policies of the Provincial Planning Statement continue to apply after adoption and approval of an official plan. 1.3.3 Ontario Heritage Act The Ontario Heritage Act enables municipalities and the province to designate individual properties and/or districts as being of cultural heritage value or interest. The province or municipality may also “list” a property, or include a property on a municipal register, that has not been designated but is believed to be of cultural heritage value or interest.Ontario Regulation 9/06, Criteria for Determining Cultural Heritage Value or Interest (O. Reg. 9/06) under the Ontario Heritage Act provides criteria for determining cultural heritage value or interest. If a property meets two or more of these criteria it may be designated under Section 29 of the Ontario Heritage Act. City of Pickering Heritage Impact Assessment: Whitevale Heritage Conservation District (HCD). Whitevale Master Drainage Plan Ref:60560495 AECOM Rpt_2026-05-27_Whitevale_Hia_60560495_Final 6 1.3.4 Pickering Official Plan The Pickering Official Plan is currently under review as part of the Pickering Forward initiative. The first phase of the official plan review began in the second quarter of 2024 with research and background studies. The review is currently in its second phase, which includes policy drafting and additional community engagement (City of Pickering, 2025). Pending the results of the official plan review (anticipated for mid-2026), the most current draft of the Pickering Official Plan is the 9th Edition, which was consolidated in March of 2022 (City of Pickering, 2022). The Pickering Official Plan sets out a vision for planning in Pickering which emphasizes the five interrelated themes of evolving needs, healthy settings, urban and rural sustainability, unique community, and global connectivity (City of Pickering, 2022). These themes have guided change and growth in the municipality as it transitioned from a Town to a City into the early 21st century. With these themes in mind, the plan contains several policies relevant to the present report, including policies to conserve the City’s cultural heritage resources, and policies to preserve its rural settlements, including the hamlet of Whitevale, which was designated as a Heritage Conservation District in 1993 (Town of Pickering, 1993). General cultural heritage policies are outlined in Section 8.2 of the Pickering Official Plan, and include the following relevant provisions: City Council shall: (a) identify important cultural heritage resources from all time periods, so that they can be appropriately conserved and integrated into the community fabric, including: (i) significant heritage structures, features and sites; (ii) buildings, sites, and artifacts of historical, archaeological and architectural significance including modern or recent architecture; (iii) significant landscape features and characteristics, including vistas and ridge lines; and (iv) other locally important cultural heritage resources; (b) foster public awareness and appreciation of the City’s cultural heritage; (c) prevent the demolition, destruction or inappropriate alteration of important cultural heritage resources to the extent possible; (d) where possible, restore, rehabilitate, maintain and enhance important cultural heritage resources owned by the City, and encourage the same for those owned by others; (e) where possible, ensure development, infrastructure, capital works and other private and public projects conserve, protect and enhance important cultural heritage resources; and (f) involve the public, business-people, landowners, local heritage experts, heritage committees, relevant public agencies, and other interested groups and individuals in cultural heritage decisions affecting the City. The official plan specifies in Section 8.8 that in cases of alteration and demolition of Cultural Heritage Resources: City Council, in consultation with its heritage committee, shall: (a) allow alterations, additions or repairs to buildings designated under the Ontario Heritage Act, provided the changes to the building do not detrimentally affect the heritage value; City of Pickering Heritage Impact Assessment: Whitevale Heritage Conservation District (HCD). Whitevale Master Drainage Plan Ref:60560495 AECOM Rpt_2026-05-27_Whitevale_Hia_60560495_Final 7 (b) allow new buildings, or alterations, additions or repairs to existing buildings within a Heritage Conservation District that are consistent with the District Conservation Guidelines; These general heritage conservation policies are reinforced by the municipal vision for the settlement of Whitevale, which is articulated in Chapter 13 of the Pickering Official Plan. Section 4, which pertains to Whitevale, stipulates that: City Council shall: (a) encourage opportunities for enhancing the historic village of Whitevale through general or site specific zoning that allows the introduction of arts and craft studios, custom workshops and small-scale commercial enterprises on suitable sites, providing the historic character of the village and the interests of neighbouring residents are respected; (b) endeavour to ensure that development within the Whitevale Heritage Conservation District complies with the adopted heritage district guidelines and heritage district permit process These policies provide specific direction for the conservation of cultural heritage resources in Pickering, including the conservation of the historic character of the hamlet of Whitevale. 1.4 Cultural Heritage Status Overview The following section provides an overview of the cultural heritage status of the Cultural Heritage Study Area. 1.4.1 City of Pickering’s Municipal Heritage Register The City of Pickering’s Municipal Heritage Register (the “Heritage Register”), maintained under Section 27 of the Ontario Heritage Act, was most recently updated in June 2021. The Heritage Register is publicly accessible and identifies properties of cultural heritage value or interest. It includes: Listed properties (pursuant to Section 27 of the Ontario Heritage Act); Individually designated properties under Part IV of the Ontario Heritage Act; and Heritage Conservation Districts designated under Part V of the Ontario Heritage Act. The Heritage Register is a living document, updated and approved by the City Council with advice from the Heritage Pickering Advisory Committee. Within the Cultural Heritage Study Area, all properties along Whitevale Road and North Road are included on the Heritage Register by virtue of their inclusion within the Whitevale HCD, which is designated under Part V of the Ontario Heritage Act. 1.4.2 Whitevale Heritage Conservation District HCDs are designated under Part V of the Ontario Heritage Act for the purpose of conserving cultural heritage value within a defined area.Unlike individual property designation under Part IV, HCD designation emphasizes the collective character of the overall area, as defined by its historic context, architecture, streets, landscape and other physical and visual features.HCDs are established to manage change in a manner that conserves the area’s cultural heritage value, including its functional, spatial, and visual relationships. Contributing elements may include buildings, natural and cultural landscapes, streets and streetscapes, hardscape features, and other attributes that together create the area’s recognizable heritage character. City of Pickering Heritage Impact Assessment: Whitevale Heritage Conservation District (HCD). Whitevale Master Drainage Plan Ref:60560495 AECOM Rpt_2026-05-27_Whitevale_Hia_60560495_Final 8 The Cultural Heritage Study Area is located within the boundaries of the Whitevale HCD, which is designated under Part V of the Ontario Heritage Act. As a result, all properties within the HCD are considered designated under Part V and are included on the City’s Heritage Register. This HCD has an irregular shape that reflects historical property boundaries, in addition to significant structures along the eastern approaches to the village and the limits of the developed portions of the village itself. The HCD generally runs along the east-west axis of Whitevale Road straddling the valley of West Duffin Creek. To the east, the boundary begins 80m east of Sideline 28 and extends approximately 250 m to the north and south of Whitevale Road. The north boundary of the HCD incorporates rural properties along the north side of Whitevale Road to the east of the village, the northern portion of the village itself and, to the west of the village it extends further north to include the large former mill pond. The west boundary of the HCD extends approximately 270m to the west of Altona Road to incorporate several rural properties before continuing north towards the mill pond area, and southeast to the village limits. The south boundary of the HCD encompasses the southern portion of the village and various rural properties to the east of the village. The south boundary is generally parallel to Whitevale Road, ranging in depth from a minimum of 190m to a maximum of 550m (Unterman McPhail et al., 1990). These boundaries were recommended in the 1989 HCD Background Study, and include the privately owned parcels within the village, in addition to surrounding rural lands owned by the Province of Ontario. The inclusion of these lands within the HCD boundary, particularly to the east of the village, was considered to be of particular importance in establishing the scenic context of the hamlet and an important entrance and approach to the village (Unterman McPhail et. al. 1989). The Whitevale HCD Plan was prepared by Unterman McPhail Heritage Resource Consultants, in association with David Cuming and Associates, and Wendy Shearer, Landscape Architect in June of 1990. The HCD was subsequently designated under Part V of the Ontario Heritage Act on June 7, 1993 (Appendix E).The public rights of way and each of the properties within the HCD all relate to the history of the village as an early milling and industrial centre and later, as a rural service centre. The stated goal of the HCD Plan is “to maintain, protect and conserve the Whitevale heritage conservation district” (Unterman McPhail et. al. 1990). To that end, the District Plan specifies the following objectives. Objectives: Heritage Buildings (Section 3.1.2 of the HCD Plan): To encourage the maintenance and conservation of individual heritage buildings by property o owners. To support the conservation and restoration of heritage buildings by providing guidelines on sound o conservation practice and encouraging application to funding sources for eligible work. Objectives: Landscape (Section 3.1.3 of the HCD Plan): To maintain and conserve the rural character in and around Whitevale. To enhance public spaces such as roads and sidewalks with sympathetic surface treatment and o landscaping. To maintain and conserve tree plantings within the area. To minimize any adverse effects of public undertakings within the district on significant landscape o features such as trees and grassed areas. Objectives: Archaeology (Section 3.1.4 of the HCD Plan): To avoid wherever possible the disruption or disturbance of known archaeological sites or areas of o archaeological potential. Objectives: Land Use (Section 3.1.5 of the HCD Plan): To encourage the maintenance of a continuing stable residential environment within the district City of Pickering Heritage Impact Assessment: Whitevale Heritage Conservation District (HCD). Whitevale Master Drainage Plan Ref:60560495 AECOM Rpt_2026-05-27_Whitevale_Hia_60560495_Final 9 To discourage those land uses which would be out of keeping with or have detrimental effects upon o the residential and agricultural character of the district To encourage the Provincial Government of Ontario to maintain and conserve their properties o within the Heritage Conservation District. To support existing uses and adaptive re-uses wherever feasible within the existing building stock. Objectives: New Development (Section 3.1.6 of the HCD Plan): To discourage the demolition or removal of existing heritage buildings and their replacement by o new development. To encourage new development only where it respects or otherwise complements the prevailing o low profile of the existing buildings and structures within the Whitevale heritage conservation district. 1.5 Summary of Community Engagement Table 1, below, includes a summary of the engagement activities and correspondence undertaken during the preparation of this HIA. It should be noted that this table only includes consultations conducted during the preparation of the HIA and does not include prior community engagement, including correspondence with the Whitevale and District Residents’ Association (WDRA) and the results of the open house on June 7, 2023, which precipitated the production of the present report. Table 1: Results of Community Engagement Contact Organization Date Notes Matthew Somerville Senior Planner, Heritage msomerville@pickering.ca City of Pickering June 3, 2025 AECOM contacted the City of Pickering by telephone to request contact information for municipal heritage staff. AECOM staff spoke with the City’s Senior Heritage Planner, Matthew Somerville, who followed up via email the same day to provide the HCD Plan and Background Report, and the City’s terms of reference for HIAs. June 5, 2025 Noting that the original designation bylaw and HCD plan had discrepancies of which properties were included in the Whitevale HCD, AECOM followed up via email to clarify whether certain properties were designated or excluded from the HCD.No response was initially received and AECOM followed up again via email on July 10, and August 7, 2025. August 13, 2025 Matthew Somerville replied and clarified that certain properties were excluded from the original designation bylaw for the Whitevale HCD, but that the roadways were included. Therefore, all properties within the village are to some degree adjacent to protected heritage property, and warrant review under any heritage study. City of Pickering Heritage Impact Assessment: Whitevale Heritage Conservation District (HCD). Whitevale Master Drainage Plan Ref:60560495 AECOM Rpt_2026-05-27_Whitevale_Hia_60560495_Final 10 2.Background Research and Analysis 2.1 Pre-Contact and Indigenous History In the area that is now central Ontario, the first human settlement can be traced back to 11,000 BC; these earliest well-documented groups are referred to as Paleo which means old or ancient. During the Paleo period, people were widely scattered, nomadic groups that occupied the sub-tundra-like environment that prevailed in south and central Ontario during that time. Past research indicates that these groups likely followed big game (such as Caribou) across the landscape, preferring to camp on high ground,immediately adjacent to water sources, such as glacial lakes or spillways, where smaller game and plant foods would have also been harvested. Due to the relative antiquity of Paleo sites, all that remains at their occupations are stone tool fragments and their characteristic spear points known as “fluted points” (Ellis and Deller 1990). The picture that has emerged for the early and late Paleo is of groups at low population densities who were residentially mobile and made use of large territories during annual cycles of resource exploitation. The subsequent Archaic period (8,000 BC to 950 BC) is characterized by a warming climate and a temperate forest environment which was crisscrossed by streams and rivers and surrounded by large freshwater lakes that would have supported many species of fish, shorebirds, and mammals. Small hunting and gathering bands (20-50 people) utilized the lake shores during the spring and summer months, then broke into smaller family groups and moved inland for the fall and winter to hunt and trap. Archaic period tool assemblages consisted of both chipped and ground/polished stone implements indicating that a wider variety of activities, such as fishing, woodworking, and food preparation/grinding, were now taking place. The Archaic period is followed by the Woodland period (ca. 950 BC to 1650 AD) which is subdivided into three phases. The Early Woodland period (ca. 950 BC to 400 BC) is characterized by the introduction of pottery for storage and an increase in regional trade networks. Trading of exotic goods, such as obsidian, silver, copper, and seashells persists into the Middle Woodland period (ca. 400 BC to 900 AD) when horticulture was introduced to Ontario. The adoption of food production brought to some groups a more sedentary lifestyle in seasonal villages, and more elaborate burial ceremonies –including the construction of large, earthen mounds. The Late Woodland period (ca. 900 AD to 1650 AD) is marked by the establishment of larger, organized polities including larger populations, palisaded villages (often containing dozens of longhouse structures), an increase in regional warfare and resource competition, and intensified horticulture. Table 2 provides a general summary of the history of Indigenous land use and settlement of the area. Table 2: Cultural Chronology of Indigenous Settlement in Southern Ontario Archaeological Period Time Period Characteristics Early Paleo 9000-8400 BC Fluted Points Arctic tundra and spruce parkland, caribou hunters Late Paleo 8400-8000 BC Holcombe, Hi-Lo, and Lanceolate Points A slight reduction in territory size Early Archaic 8000-6000 BC Notched and Bifurcate base Points Growing populations Middle Archaic 6000-2500 BC Stemmed and Brewerton Points, Laurentian Development Increasing regionalization Late Archaic 2000-1800 BC Narrow Point City of Pickering Heritage Impact Assessment: Whitevale Heritage Conservation District (HCD). Whitevale Master Drainage Plan Ref:60560495 AECOM Rpt_2026-05-27_Whitevale_Hia_60560495_Final 11 Environment similar to the present 1800-1500 BC Broad Point Large lithic tools 1500-1100 BC Small Point Introduction of bow Terminal Archaic 1100-950 BC Hind Points, Glacial Kame Complex Earliest true cemeteries Early Woodland 950-400 BC Meadowood Points Introduction of pottery Middle Woodland 400 BC-AD 500 Dentate/Pseudo-scallop Ceramics Increased sedentism AD 550-900 Princess Point Introduction of corn horticulture Late Woodland AD 900-1300 Agricultural villages AD 1300-1400 Increased longhouse sizes AD 1400-1650 Warring nations and displacement Contact Period AD 1600-1875 Early written records and treaties Profusion of trade goods Historic AD 1749-present European settlement (French and English) 2.2 The Settlement of Pickering Township, Ontario County While many Indigenous groups lived in this area during the Contact and Historic Periods, by the turn of the 19th century, the area that would become Ontario County was principally home to Mississauga Nations of the Anishinaabe People. The long-term Euro-Canadian settlement of what became Ontario County began with the 1788 Johnson-Butler Purchases. These purchases concerned the north shore of Lake Ontario between the east boundary of the 1787 Toronto Purchase and the west boundary of the 1783 Crawford Purchase at the Bay of Quinte. The Johnson-Butler Purchases, also known as the “Gunshot Treaty” included the Lake Ontario shoreline as far inland as a person could hear a gunshot (Government of Ontario, 2023). These lands were meant to connect previous Crown purchases on the north side of Lake Ontario, which were intended to open land for settlement by United Empire Loyalists moving to Canada following the American War for Independence. A secondary wave of loyalist migrants also came north following the War of 1812. As new territories were incorporated into Upper Canada, new administrative districts were organized. Soon after the Johnson-Butler Purchases, Lieutenant Governor John Graves Simcoe reorganized the new colony of Upper Canada into nineteen counties within four broader districts (Robinson, 1885: 14). Pickering Township was located in the so-called “Home District” as part of the East Riding of York County (Farewell, 1907: 3). Although, Pickering Township had been surveyed as early as 1797 as part of Simcoe’s reorganization of Upper Canada, Euro- Canadian settlement did not begin in earnest until the 1820s. Due to extensive absentee landlordism in the Johnson-Butler treaty areas along the Lake Ontario shoreline, the settlement of Pickering Township began first inland, in contrast to other townships where the shoreline was settled first (Unterman McPhail et. al. 1989: 2-1). Most of these early Euro-Canadian settlers were United Empire Loyalists moving north and west from Niagara and enjoying priority treatment under the system of Crown land grants (Colonial Office, 1837: 6). It should be noted that the survey and settlement of Pickering Township occurred on unceded Indigenous lands well beyond earshot of the immediate Lake Ontario shoreline, as ceded in the Johnon-Butler Purchases. The ownership of these lands was not confirmed until 1923, when the Williams Treaties consolidated and expanded Crown ownership of the lands between the Lake Ontario shoreline and Lake Nipissing to the north (Government of Ontario, 2023). City of Pickering Heritage Impact Assessment: Whitevale Heritage Conservation District (HCD). Whitevale Master Drainage Plan Ref:60560495 AECOM Rpt_2026-05-27_Whitevale_Hia_60560495_Final 12 The Township of Pickering was further defined by administrative devolution and a move towards responsible government as recommended in Lord Durham’s 1839 report on the causes of the 1837 Upper Canada Rebellion. As part of this movement, in 1852 the districts system was abolished, including the Home District of which Pickering had previously been a part. That same year, the old County of York was also reorganized to form the United Counties of York, Peel, and Ontario, each with a greater degree of self government to reflect their growing populations. Pickering Township was included in the newly formed Ontario County. These administrative trends continued, and the United Counties of York,Peel, and Ontario soon fragmented, with Ontario County separating as an independent county in 1854 (McKay, 1961: 113). With a growing population and increasing administrative independence, the Township of Pickering experienced rapid growth through the mid 19th century. From a recorded population 375 in 1820, by 1850, the Township had a population of 6,074 which was principally composed of settlers engaged in land clearance and agriculture (Farewell, 1907: 13; McKay, 1961: 106). The clearance of land for farming was facilitated by the establishment of numerous saw and grist mills, with Duffins Creek serving as corridor of early, mill-based industry in the Township. The 1851 Census records no less than 11 mills on East Duffins Creek, and a further 13 on West Duffins Creek, including one at the present site of Whitevale (McKay, 1961: 107). With growing numbers of settlers and a well established agricultural and light industrial base, the Township of Pickering experienced a period of growth and prosperity from the 1850s through the 1860s. Wider global events also contributed to this period of growth with spillover economic effects in the agriculture, industrial, and transportation sectors. For instance, both the Crimean War (1853-1856) and the American Civil War (1861-1865) both created huge export demands for agricultural products, particularly wheat, which fuelled a wheat boom in Ontarian agriculture through the 1850s and 1860s (McKay, 1961: 128). At the same time, technological advancements facilitated the rapid growth of railways which made it easier to move goods and supplies across the township. These changes were accompanied by the development of Frenchman Bay on Lake Ontario as a port, thereby facilitating agricultural exports and allowing the Township to profit from broader global events (McKay, 1961: 128). Milling, local manufacturing,agriculture, and transportation in Pickering were all buoyed by these wider economic trends in the 1850s and 1860s. In the longer term, reduction in internation demand and increase in export competition following the settlement of the prairies in western Canada and the American Midwest ended the Ontario wheat boom by the mid 1870s (McKay, 1961: 130). The reduced profitability of wheat, the maturation of transportation networks, the consolidation of settlement, and the near total clearance of available land within Pickering Township precipitated an economic shift in the latter decades of the 19th century (McKay, 1961: 132). A major feature of this shift was the establishment of the mixed farm model across much of Ontario. As Wendy Shearer (Shearer, 2012) succinctly puts it: The mixed farm model was an extremely efficient organization of farm family labour, animal husbandry and crop production. It created a distinctive layout and division of the farm into eight to 10 fenced fields, a small managed woodlot for fuel and timber,a farmstead core dominated by a large timber barn for the farm animals and hay and grain storage, numerous outbuildings, and a spacious farmhouse surrounded by gardens and an orchard. The division of the landscape into the domestic activities of the farm women and the production area of the farm men was guided by a well established layout pattern centred on the farm lane that linked the back fields and the farm core to the public road.Each of the fields was fenced to control the farm animals; trees and shrubs were allowed to grow along these fencerows, creating a well-defined border to each field. Within the farm core area, the farmer planted sugar maple and Norway spruce treelines to act as windbreaks and to define the boundary of the heart of the farm. City of Pickering Heritage Impact Assessment: Whitevale Heritage Conservation District (HCD). Whitevale Master Drainage Plan Ref:60560495 AECOM Rpt_2026-05-27_Whitevale_Hia_60560495_Final 13 The mixed farm model built on the precedents of early settler farms and land surveys, but was a mature agricultural system that helped create, and in many places still defines the rural landscape in Ontario. As the mixed farm model was consolidated in the late 19th century, the booming villages of Pickering Township adapted to the new pace of rural life. With fewer markets for grain and no remaining untapped timber reserves, the milling industry in Pickering Township declined over this period. The creation of larger factories in urban centres and the increased ease of moving people and goods also lead to a decline in local industry, which was exacerbated by a period of population decline in the countryside and rural hamlets of Pickering that continued well into the 20th century (McKay, 1961: 138). From a peak of 7,375 in 1877, by 1904, the population of Pickering had declined to 5,211 (Beers & Co., 1877: ix; Farewell, 1907: 11). Taken together, these changes saw the heady days of rapid settlement, land clearance, and booming villages of the 1850s and 1860s give way to a period of relative calm, with ordered farmlands surrounding now quiet villages which acted as rural service centres for the surrounding countryside (McKay, 1961: 132). This pace of rural life remained the norm in much of the Township of Picking until after the Second World War. 2.3 From Majorville to Whitevale The overarching trends of settlement and rapid growth, followed by a period of economic change and relative calm that animated the broader history of Pickering Township in the 19th century are equally apparent in the history of Whitevale. The origins of the village are tied to the initial surveys and land grants meant to facilitate the resettlement of loyalists from the United States. One United Empire Loyalist, John Major, was granted lands in Pickering Township after the War of 1812 and eventually settled with his family on Lot 26 Concession 5 and Lot 29 Concession 4, both fronting Concession Road 5 (now Whitevale Road) to the east of the present village of Whitevale. In the early 1820s, Major established a sawmill on the banks of West Duffin Creek in Lot 32 Concession 5 and a small community variously known as Major, Major Mills, or Majorville grew around the mill site, predominantly cited to the east along Concession Road 5 (Unterman McPhail et. al. 1989: 2-1). In 1843, Ira White,of nearby Markham, purchased the Major mill and his son, Truman P. White was put in charge of its operation (Unterman McPhail et. al. 1989: 2-2). Truman White soon became involved in the political and business life of the county, variously serving on the County Council and as a County Warden (Farewell, 1907: 15; Beers & Co., 1877: ix). At the same time, the White family continued to accumulate land in the area in the 1840s and 1850s, eventually amassing some 400 acres in and around the community (Unterman McPhail et. al. 1989: 2- 2). The White family greatly expanded milling operations, building a new grist mill, sawmill, planing mill, and a woollens mill on West Duffins Creek (Farewell, 1907: 15). City of Pickering Heritage Impact Assessment: Whitevale Heritage Conservation District (HCD). Whitevale Master Drainage Plan Ref:60560495 AECOM Rpt_2026-05-27_Whitevale_Hia_60560495_Final 14 Image 1: Truman P. White in the late 19th century (Wood, 1911: 154) These efforts were accompanied by the first plan of subdivision for the village registered by Truman White in 1857 (Unterman McPhail et. al. 1989: 2-3-4). The plan created a single tier of acre or smaller lots along either side of the fifth concession line (renamed Main Street), closer to the mill buildings than the previous settlement of Major. The plan was amended in 1860, mainly to straighten main street where it crossed West Duffins Creek (Unterman McPhail et. al. 1989: 2-6). Tremaine’s 1860 Map of Ontario County illustrates the settlement of Major as predominantly cited on the valley slopes to the east of the milling complex, which is within the properties owned by Truman White along the valley floor (Figure 3). The growth of the milling industry under the leadership of the White family attracted additional business to the community, which expanded into the valley along the lines proposed in the 1860 plan of subdivision. By the late 1860s, the growing community boasted not only the grist mill, sawmill, planing mill, and woollens mill, but also a steam-carriage factory, a cheese factory, a cabinet factory, a wagon shop, a cooperage, two shoe makers, and a weaver a tinsmith, in addition to other typical village trades such as carpenters, blacksmiths, tailors, and grocers (McKay, 1961: 120; Wood, 1911: 154-155) The population by 1866 had reached just over 300 (McEvoy, 1866: 88). Accompanying this growth, the village also had a new school built in 1865, in addition to a hotel and two churches. By 1870, a new plan of subdivision was registered for the village which included additional tiers of roadways on either side of Main Street (Whitevale Road) (Image 4). While not all of the new road allowances were opened, the basic outline of the 1870 plan formed the basis of the village layout as it exists in the present day (Unterman McPhail et. al. 1989: 2-7). Notably, in the 1870 plan the village had been renamed from “Major” to “Whitevale” after Truman White and family (Unterman McPhail et. al. 1989: 2-8). This plan was reproduced in the 1877 Illustrated Historical Atlas of Ontario County, in addition to a view of the village, which shows a compact industrial core on the banks of West Duffins Creek and an orderly village ascending the eastern slopes of the valley into well-established farmland (Image 3,Figure 3). City of Pickering Heritage Impact Assessment: Whitevale Heritage Conservation District (HCD). Whitevale Master Drainage Plan Ref:60560495 AECOM Rpt_2026-05-27_Whitevale_Hia_60560495_Final 15 Image 2: Northeast facing view of Whitevale, as printed in the 1877 Illustrated Historical Atlas (Beers & Co., 1877) City of Pickering Heritage Impact Assessment: Whitevale Heritage Conservation District (HCD). Whitevale Master Drainage Plan Ref:60560495 AECOM Rpt_2026-05-27_Whitevale_Hia_60560495_Final 16 Image 3: Plan of the Village of Whitevale as it appears in the 1877 Illustrated Historical Atlas (Beers & Co., 1877). Yet despite the rapid growth of the 1860s and the bustling village depicted in the 1877 Illustrated Historical Atlas, by the late 1870s Whitevale had already begun to decline as a local industrial centre. A series of fires around 1874 had destroyed the carriage factory, cooperage, and planing mill (suggesting that the 1877 image was drafted some years before), and the woollens mill and the grist mill both burned down a few years later, as did the village’s public hall which had been erected in 1860 (Unterman McPhail et. al., 1989: 2-9; Wood, 1911: 155). Following these setbacks, in 1882, Truman White left Whitevale with his family for Pilot Mound, Manitoba, where he sought to establish a new milling site.2 In short order, the village lost much of its industry, as well as one of its main proponents (though the Whites did return in the 1890s). Efforts were made in the 1880s to reestablish basic milling operations with the planing mill rebuilt on the site of the former grist mill (to the immediate north of Main Street/Whitevale Road) and the grist mill rebuilt in the brick shell of the former woollens mill (to the immediate south of Main Street/Whitevale Road on the present mill site). However, the planing mill again burnt down in 1899, leaving only the grist mill by the turn of the 20th century (Unterman McPhail et. al., 1989: 2-9). 2.4 Whitevale in the 20th Century While the numerous mill fires of the late 19th century sped the industrial decline of Whitevale, the decline of the milling industry in the Township of Pickering was already occurring in response to broader economic trends. As with other villages, Whitevale became a modest service centre for the surrounding countryside. The village experienced a slight population loss and remained at just below three hundred people into the 20th century. The hamlet lost its City of Pickering Heritage Impact Assessment: Whitevale Heritage Conservation District (HCD). Whitevale Master Drainage Plan Ref:60560495 AECOM Rpt_2026-05-27_Whitevale_Hia_60560495_Final 17 resident doctor in 1902 (a post which had been filled since the 1860s) and, with the loss of businesses, former commercial buildings were converted into housing (Unterman McPhail et. al. 1989: 2-13; Wood, 1911: 155-156) By 1911, the village contained a rural post office, a general store, a hotel, the grist mill, and services including a veterinary surgeon, a blacksmith, an undertaker, a wagon maker, and a shoemaker (Union Publishing Co. 1911: 758). These services continued to narrow, and through most of the 20th century, the village was only serviced by the general store, post office, grist mill, and a blacksmith (later a gas station) (McKay, 1961: 137; Unterman McPhail et. al., 1989: 2-13). As noted above, the mixed farm model established in the late 19th century was a mature agricultural system which was, in many ways, self sustaining. However, despite such a strong foundation, global trends of the early 20th century ensured that significant economic growth would not return to rural Pickering or the village of Whitevale, which remained relatively static as a rural service centre. The First and Second World Wars, and the intervening Great Depression stifled rural economic and population growth, with price caps for wartime food exports, and many farm labourers lost either as soldiers or to urban factories. In consequence, very few buildings were constructed in the village of Whitevale prior to the end of the Second World War. Many of the structures in the village remained unaltered, some even without basic utilities like water or electricity, until the mid 20th century (Unterman McPhail, 1989: 2-13). After the second World War, the demobilization of soldiers, the realignment of wartime industry, the movement of refugees and postwar migrants, and the baby-boom, all contributed to rapid population growth across Canada. The Township of Pickering was no exception and, after a long decline, by the mid-1950s the township population had surpassed its previous peak from the 1870s (McKay, 1961: 143). While much of the related growth in Pickering was urban growth along the shore of Lake Ontario where wartime industries, including a large munitions plant, had been established, several new houses were also built in Whitevale through the 1950s and 1960s.The village, however, remained a modest rural service centre, and actually lost services in 1961 due to a series of fires which destroyed the grist mill, the general store, and much of the former hotel (Unterman McPhail et. al. 1989: 2-13). While the mill and store were rebuilt, the village remained a predominantly residential area, with few changes to the residential housing stock (Unterman McPhail et. al., 1989: 2-14). Image 4: East-facing view of the grist mill in the brick shell of the former woollens mill prior to the 1961 fire (Sabean, 2000: 46) Image 5: View of the ruins of the mill after the 1961 fire. The current sheet metal clad feed mill was built on the same site soon afterwards (Sabean, 2000: 46) In 1970 the Ontario Government released a design concept for the “Toronto-Centred Region”, which was a broad economic plan for the Greater Toronto Area (GTA) that had been developed in conjunction with the Canadian Federal Government. The plan set the basis for subsequent regional planning including the 2020 Growth Plan for the Greater Golden Horseshoe and outlined major components of GTA growth, including the establishment of a new international airport, urban expansion in conjunction with surrounding municipalities, and the establishment of the Greenbelt (Government of Ontario, 1975). As part of the 1970 concept, a new urban centre was proposed for City of Pickering Heritage Impact Assessment: Whitevale Heritage Conservation District (HCD). Whitevale Master Drainage Plan Ref:60560495 AECOM Rpt_2026-05-27_Whitevale_Hia_60560495_Final 18 North Pickering, including the areas around the village of Whitevale. The North Pickering Plan was predicated on the establishment of a new international airport in north Pickering. The plan included accompanying industrial, transportation, commercial, and residential development plans, with an initial design to accommodate 75,000 new inhabitants,with anticipated growth of up to 200,000 by the year 2000 (Government of Ontario, 1975). With this vision in mind, in 1972 the northern portion of the Town of Pickering, subject to the North Pickering Plan, was largely expropriated, with the Federal Government expropriating lands primarily north of Highway 7 for the future airport, and the Provincial Government expropriating lands to the south of Highway 7 for the accompanying new community. In 1974 Ontario County was dissolved and its constituent townships reorganized into the new Regional Municipality of Durham. The urban portions of the former Township of Pickering were severed into the new town of Ajax, and the remaining portions became the Town of Pickering, much of which was anticipated to be urbanized as part of the North Pickering Plan. In this context, uncertainty about the future of Whitevale lead to a number of the hamlet’s residents moving away, while those who remained rented their properties from the Provincial Government (Unterman McPhail et. al., 1989: 2-14). In response to the proposed development of the area, in 1972 remaining residents founded the Whitevale and District Residents’ Association (WDRA). The WDRA is committed to protecting the heritage of Whitevale and its surrounding agricultural land, to promoting the social, cultural and recreations interests of the people in the district, and to working with likeminded organizations to achieve those aims (WDRA, no date). Image 6: The proposed North Pickering Project lands, with federal lands and the proposed international airport illustrated in the north portion of the block (Government of Ontario, 1975) Image 7: The proposed North Pickering Project lands, showing the land use concept for provincial lands in the south portion of the block, which include Whitevale as a hamlet (black)within the development area (blue) (Government of Ontario, 1975) The momentum for the plan to fully redevelop north Pickering ultimately slowed with the decision to concentrate airport development at the existing Toronto International Airport (now Pearson), rather than create additional new airports to service the GTA.However, during the initial planning and background studies for the North Pickering Plan, the Ontario Ministry of Housing had recorded at least 103 structures of architectural and historical significance in the Town of Pickering, noting that most of these were located in hamlets, particularly Whitevale (Government of Ontario, 1975). As such,Whitevale was exempted from expropriation in 1974 and gradually returned to private ownership (Unterman McPhail. Et. al. 1989: 2-14). While large scale redevelopment plans for the area remained on the books for the province, in 1975 the Ontario Ministry of Housing noted: The hamlet of Whitevale and structures along the 5th Concession east of this hamlet, represent a remarkable example of village and rural life of the 19th century Ontario. It is, therefore, recommended that sensitive planning be carried out in this area to preserve its unique character. The studies for the North Pickering Plan and subsequent recommendations recognized the unique and valuable historical character of the hamlet of Whitevale and called for future planning to be conducted both with care and in City of Pickering Heritage Impact Assessment: Whitevale Heritage Conservation District (HCD). Whitevale Master Drainage Plan Ref:60560495 AECOM Rpt_2026-05-27_Whitevale_Hia_60560495_Final 19 consultation with residents. These principles were later formalized with the designation of the Whitevale HCD in 1993. In 2008-2009, the Architectural Conservancy of Ontario (ACO) conducted a follow up study of the Whitevale HCD after 15 years. The study found that the HCD had been successful in encouraging the conservation and maintenance of heritage buildings within the village, and that both new developments and public works had generally maintained the rural character of Whitevale. The 2009 study further found a high degree of satisfaction among residents living within the HCD and noted that most properties in the district had average or above property sales history trajectories (ACO, 2009). To date, the implementation of the HCD has had continued success in preserving the unique character and history of Whitevale. 2.5 Historical Summary The village of Whitevale is historically associated with the settlement of Pickering Township in the former County of Ontario during the 19th century. The hamlet was established as a milling site in the 1820s by William Major and greatly expanded as a centre of local industry by the White family under the leadership of Truman P. White, after whom the settlement was ultimately named. The settlement and expansion of the village corresponded with similar patterns of development across the county. However, a series of significant fires in the 1870s and 1880s hastened the decline of the village by 1900, and it remained a modest service centre for the surrounding countryside through most of the 20th century. Although several houses were added to the village in the 1950s and 1960s as the population of Pickering once again grew, the growth of the village was checked by a series of fires in 1961, which destroyed several of the remaining commercial buildings. In many ways, the fires that have historically beset the hamlet of Whitevale have also been responsible for its conservation. The fires of the late 19th century halted the growth of the village at its peak, and curtailed industry in particular. The timing of these fires ensured that the village would not evolve as an industrial site, while also assuring an adequate stock of housing for the remaining residents. In consequence, the mid-to-late 19th century housing stock was retained with a remarkable degree of integrity, with very few additional structures added or exterior alterations made between the 1880s and the 1950s (Unterman McPhail et. al., 1989: 2-13). Similarly, the fires of 1961 prevented the village from attaining the commercial base that may have supported it as a bedroom community to one of the larger urban centres nearby. In consequence, by the time the area was considered for full- scale redevelopment in the 1970s, planners recognized the exceptional number of surviving heritage buildings and the unique historic character of the hamlet. These characteristics were duly incorporated into policy recommendations, in the long term resulting in the designation and further preservation of the hamlet as an HCD. City of Pickering Heritage Impact Assessment: Whitevale Heritage Conservation District (HCD). Whitevale Master Drainage Plan Ref:60560495 AECOM Rpt_2026-05-27_Whitevale_Hia_60560495_Final 20 3.Statement of Significance Due to the age of the Whitevale HCD designation, no formal Statement of Significance or list of heritage attributes was prepared in accordance with the current provincial standards set out in the Ontario Heritage Toolkit or O. Reg. 385/21. The original designation by-law for the Whitevale HCD (Town of Pickering, 1993) does not include a description, Statement of Significance, or identified heritage attributes. The Hamlet of Whitevale Heritage Conservation District Study: Background Report (1989) includes a summary of the district’s character, which has since been relied upon as the closest equivalent to a Statement of Significance. This summary has been carried forward in subsequent studies, including the ACO’s 2009 follow-up review of the Whitevale HCD (Unterman McPhail et al., 1990: 4; ACO, 2009: 3). The district summary and description are reproduced in full below. 3.1 Description of the District The Whitevale Heritage Conservation District is bounded by Altona Road to the east and Sideline 26 to the west in the City of Pickering. The district consists of 35 properties, mainly all one and two-and-a-half storey residential dwellings except for two retail and three public buildings (ACO, 2009: 3). 3.2 District Character: A Summary The hamlet of Whitevale is located in a scenic river valley along the banks of West Duffin's Creek in the Town of Pickering. Dominated by its rural setting and modest vernacular buildings the hamlet has not changed significantly in character since the late nineteenth century. It had a small but thriving industrial centre until the 1870s when a disastrous fire effectively destroyed most of the mill buildings except for the feed mill. With the depopulation of rural Ontario during the late 1800s and early 1900s Whitevale's role as a small service centre for the local farming community waned resulting in the complete disappearance of its commercial enterprises on Main Street with the exception of the general store and the mill. The building style in Whitevale is a mixture of typical rural Ontario vernacular architecture combined with Victorian influences and materials in common usage at the time of construction. The result is a distinctive cohesiveness of scale, mass, decorative detailing and building materials. Although many individual buildings and properties have been altered over the decades, the overall 19th century village has been retained. Most of the existing nineteenth century buildings have wood frame structures and siding ranging from clapboard, shiplap,to vertical board and batten. The majority of structures are one-and-a-half storeys in height with a three bay front facades and centre gables. The rural character of Whitevale with its narrow tree-lined streets,scenic views over the surrounding agricultural lands,and the West Duffin's Creek and its steep river valley provides a distinctive context and setting for its buildings. The community has a rich and diverse character within a relatively small area. Archaeological remains located in and around Whitevale attest to its enduring attractiveness as a settlement area. (Unterman McPhail et. al., 1990: 4; ACO, 2009: 3). City of Pickering Heritage Impact Assessment: Whitevale Heritage Conservation District (HCD). Whitevale Master Drainage Plan Ref:60560495 AECOM Rpt_2026-05-27_Whitevale_Hia_60560495_Final 21 3.3 Working List of Character-Defining Elements (for HIA Purposes) As noted in Section 3, no formal list of heritage attributes was prepared at the time of the Whitevale HCD’s designation. However, the “elements” identified in the 1989 Background Report and 1990 District Plan have been reviewed. While these were not formally defined as “heritage attributes” under the terminology in use at that time, they correspond closely to the district’s character-defining features. For the purposes of this Heritage Impact Assessment, the “elements” identified in the 1989 Background Report and 1990 District Plan have been interpreted as character-defining features. This approach ensures a fulsome evaluation of potential impacts within the Cultural Heritage Study Area. The following consolidated list represents the working set of character-defining elements of the Whitevale HCD within the Cultural Heritage Study Area. This list is intended to inform both the assessment of existing conditions (Section 5) and the impact assessment (Section 6). It is not exhaustive and includes only those features within the defined Cultural Heritage Study Area. For further context, the 1989 Background Report and 1990 District Plan should be consulted. Disclaimer:The following list is not an official statement of heritage attributes. It is derived from the District Character Summary (1989), the District Plan (1990), and subsequent reporting, and is provided solely for the purposes of this HIA to evaluate potential impacts within the Cultural Heritage Study Area. Historic housing stock and legibility as a 19th century village Cohesiveness of scale, form, and massing of structures Prevalence of modest-scale, one-an-a-half storey wood frame structures with three bay facades, centre gables,end or side gable plans,and wood cladding including clapboard, shiplap, and vertical board and batten Victorian design influences including classical revival and Gothic revival exterior architectural detailing Historic commercial, public, and religious buildings including, but not limited to the: former milling complex, Community Centre, church, Arts and Culture Centre, and former store. Circa 1870 village plan, including road and side street alignments Narrow setbacks for buildings within the village Rural (landscape) character Narrow, tree-lined streets o Rural streetscape including:narrow asphalt paving on main roads,uneven gravel shoulders,shallow ditches, gravel side streets,open gravel parking around mill buildings,overhead wires on wood hydro poles,radial streetlights,lack of contiguous sidewalks along the Whitevale Road and North Road rights of way, and the absence of suburban style concrete curbs, gutters, and sidewalks, which are likewise considered positive attributes of the rural character of the village Scenic view over surrounding agricultural lands o East-West view along Whitevale Road through the settlement area, o Northeasterly views over open fields at the extent of the village along North Road; Scenic context of the steeply sloped West Duffins Creek river valley o Slope defining west entrance to settlement along Whitevale Road, o Dense woods including mature conifers close to Whitevale Road along the west approaches and in the valley bottom, o Slope defining east entrance to village core along Whitevale Road, o Developed parkland to the west of West Duffin Creek, including access to the Seaton Hiking Trail, City of Pickering Heritage Impact Assessment: Whitevale Heritage Conservation District (HCD). Whitevale Master Drainage Plan Ref:60560495 AECOM Rpt_2026-05-27_Whitevale_Hia_60560495_Final 22 Well maintained residential landscape including foundation plantings, manicured lawns, gardens,and decorative fences and hedges defining the edge of the streets Mature specimen trees and hedgerows creating a dense and diverse tree canopy throughout the entire settlement area. City of Pickering Heritage Impact Assessment: Whitevale Heritage Conservation District (HCD). Whitevale Master Drainage Plan Ref:60560495 AECOM Rpt_2026-05-27_Whitevale_Hia_60560495_Final 23 4.Proposed Development or Site Alteration 4.1 Purpose of Proposed Activity The City of Pickering retained AECOM to complete the Detailed Design work for proposed improvements to Whitevale Road and North Road within the village of Whitevale. This work includes road reconstruction and resurfacing, stormwater flow diversion works complete with a new storm sewer system, sidewalk installation, retaining wall replacement in some areas, and boulevard and driveway restoration. The work is being conducted as part of the Whitevale Drainage Master Plan. The objectives of the project are to: Reduce the occurrence of flooding; Mitigate erosion along roadways; Minimize future maintenance requirements; Enhance the quality of surface runoff discharging into West Duffins Creek, and; Improve overall public safety Pre-Engineering for the Project began in 2021, with additional public consultation taking place throughout the process. Residents of Whitevale have consistently expressed concerns that the proposed designs do not sufficiently align with the Whitevale HCD Guidelines and may adversely impact the Whitevale HCD. The Project is currently in the 95% Detailed Design phase. 4.2 Work Required to Complete this Project: Whitevale Road: Replace existing paved road with new paved rural cross section and grass ditches (similar to current road width), Adjust road profile to establish proper drainage and minimize flooding of adjacent properties, Construct a new storm sewer and properly spaced ditch inlets/catch basins to prevent surface flooding and erosion. Local Sideroads: Maintain existing unpaved rural cross section, Carry out local grading works (i.e. profile, road crown, ditches, driveway culverts, etc.), Undertake regular maintenance, including use of organic topical sealant in order to re-establish proper drainage and minimize surface flooding / erosion to adjacent properties. North Road: Regrade roadside ditch on east side of North Road to accommodate infrequent storm flows from north catchment area, Construct a new storm inlet to Whitevale Road storm sewer and over-size proposed Whitevale Road storm sewer to accommodate additional flood flows from North Road, Restore culvert crossing at North Road to direct low flows to existing drainage features. City of Pickering Heritage Impact Assessment: Whitevale Heritage Conservation District (HCD). Whitevale Master Drainage Plan Ref:60560495 AECOM Rpt_2026-05-27_Whitevale_Hia_60560495_Final 24 5.Assessment of Existing Conditions As discussed in Section 1.2,the Whitevale Road and North Road streetscapes, and most adjacent properties within the village of Whitevale are contributing elements of the Whitevale HCD. The Cultural Heritage Study Area consists of the 95% Detailed Design plus an 11 m buffer in order to account for potential impacts to both the public right of way, where the proposed work is anticipated to take place, and adjacent private properties. The following sections present a summary of the existing conditions within the Cultural Heritage Study Area. For organizational purposes,in this section the Cultural Heritage Study Area is divided into the three principal street segments. The following represents the boundaries of the three principal street segments of the Cultural Heritage Study Area. Whitevale Road West (from Altona Road RR 27 to the west end of Whitevale Bridge); Whitevale Road East (from the east end of Whitevale Bridge to Golf Club Road); North Road (from the intersection with Whitevale Road to the limit of the village, approximately 175 m north) The body text emphasizes the existing conditions of the streetscape within the Cultural Heritage Study Area, which is most likely to be directly impacted by the Project (see Section 6). Additional details concerning individual properties adjacent to the proposed work, but still within the Cultural Heritage Study Area,can be found in Appendix B, Appendix C,and Appendix D, which correspond with the street segments indicated above. 5.1 Field Review A field review was completed by Preston Arens, Cultural Heritage Specialist with AECOM’s Cultural Heritage team on July 9, 2025, to photograph the existing conditions of the Cultural Heritage Study Area. The field review was conducted from the public right of way and does not include any interior assessments, nor assessments from within private properties. 5.1.1 Whitevale Road (West) Existing Conditions Whitevale Road, between Altona Road (RR 27) and the west end of the Whitevale Bridge is a two-lane paved road with narrow shoulders and shallow ditches. The road in this segment is generally level on the uplands near the intersection with Altona Road, then steeply descends from west to east before levelling on the flats at the valley bottom. The westernmost stretch of this section of Whitevale Road is situated on the uplands and is modestly treed, with extensive manicured lawns providing unobstructed views of residential dwellings on both sides of the right of way. As the road descends towards West Duffin Creek and levels in the valley bottom, the verges become heavily treed with mixed deciduous and coniferous trees and dense groundcover. The dwellings along this portion of Whitevale Road are accessed by either paved or gravel driveways and include a mixture of 19th and 20th century frame houses closer to West Duffin Creek, in addition to several mid 20th century brick bungalows on the uplands at the western extent of the Cultural Heritage Study Area . Within the Whitevale Road (West) segment, fourteen (14) properties have frontage along Whitevale Road, 13 of which are designated under Part V of the OHA, and seven (7) of which have structures that fall within the Cultural Heritage Study Area (Figure 5a). Descriptions of the 14 properties with structures within and adjacent to the Cultural Heritage Study Area of the Whitevale Road (West) segment are provided in Appendix B.The following table summarizes character-defining elements of the segment of Whitevale Road (West) streetscape within the Cultural Heritage Study Area: City of Pickering Heritage Impact Assessment: Whitevale Heritage Conservation District (HCD). Whitevale Master Drainage Plan Ref:60560495 AECOM Rpt_2026-05-27_Whitevale_Hia_60560495_Final 25 Table 3: Summary of Existing Conditions within the Whitevale Road (West) Streetscape Location Streetscape Description Photographs Whitevale Road between Altona Road and the Whitevale Bridge Whitevale Road (West) Streetscape The Whitevale Road (west) streetscape includes numerous character-defining elements which support the heritage character of the District. These include, but are not limited to: 14 adjacent properties, including 13 Part V designated properties; Slope defining the west entrance to the settlement area; Eastward view along Whitevale Road from Altona Road to Golf Course Road; Narrow asphalt pavement with gravel shoulders and side street/driveway aprons; Overhead wires and radial streetlights on wood hydro poles; Lack of sidewalks along the right of way; Well maintained residential landscape including foundation planting; Developed parkland on the west side of West Duffins Creek (Whitevale Park) including two heritage structures and access to the Seaton Trail. Manicured lawns, decorative fences, and gardens; and Mature tree cover including naturalized deciduous forest, specimen plantings, and cedar hedgerows. See below: Photographs 1-20 The following provides overview photographs of the existing conditions within the Cultural Heritage Study Area of the Whitevale Road (West) segment: Photograph 1:Streetview of the intersection of Altona Road and Whitevale Road, looking west. (AECOM, 2025) Photograph 2:Streetview of the west portion ofWhitevale Road, looking east from the Altona Road intersection (AECOM, 2025) City of Pickering Heritage Impact Assessment: Whitevale Heritage Conservation District (HCD). Whitevale Master Drainage Plan Ref:60560495 AECOM Rpt_2026-05-27_Whitevale_Hia_60560495_Final 26 Photograph 3:Historic houses along the west portion of Whitevale Road, including number 335 and 345 Whitevale Road. Looking south from the right of way (AECOM, 2025 Photograph 4:View of the western slope of Whitevale Road, including manicured lawns and narrow gravel shoulders. Looking east (AECOM, 2025) Photograph 5:South facing view of a typical property entrance on Whitevale Road, including gravel driveway, manicured lawns and gardens, and mature tree coverage. Located at 345 Whitevale Road (AECOM 2025) Photograph 6:Gravel driveway and mature cedar hedgerow at 360 Whitevale Road. Looking northwest (AECOM, 2025) City of Pickering Heritage Impact Assessment: Whitevale Heritage Conservation District (HCD). Whitevale Master Drainage Plan Ref:60560495 AECOM Rpt_2026-05-27_Whitevale_Hia_60560495_Final 27 Photograph 7:Historic house, manicured lawn and gardens, and private concrete stairs at 360 Whitevale Road. Looking north (AECOM, 2025) Photograph 8:Mature tree coverage and private concrete stairs along the Whitevale Road frontage of 3190 Byron Street. Looking south from Whitevale Road (AECOM, 2025) Photograph 9:The intersection of Whitevale Road and Byron Street, looking north from Byron Street (AECOM, 2025) Photograph 10:Mature cedar hedgerow along the Whitevale Road right of way. Looking west (AECOM, 2025) City of Pickering Heritage Impact Assessment: Whitevale Heritage Conservation District (HCD). Whitevale Master Drainage Plan Ref:60560495 AECOM Rpt_2026-05-27_Whitevale_Hia_60560495_Final 28 Photograph 11:Split rail cedar fence, gardens, and mature trees defining the entrance to a late 20th century infill house at 380 Whitevale Road. Looking northwest (AECOM, 2025) Photograph 12:Semicircular gravel driveway with central gardens at 395 Whitevale Road. Looking southeast (AECOM, 2025) Photograph 13:Mutal Street, looking south from Whitevale Road (AECOM, 2025) Photograph 14:Entrance to Whitevale Park at 405 Whitevale Road, looking southeast from Mutual Street at the “Christian House” (AECOM, 2025) Photograph 15:Looking north at the Whitevale Bridge commemorative feature within Whitevale Park. Note the Whitevale Road grade in the background (AECOM, 2025) Photograph 16:Narrow, irregular concrete sidewalk along the south side of Whitevale Road, looking east (AECOM, 2025) City of Pickering Heritage Impact Assessment: Whitevale Heritage Conservation District (HCD). Whitevale Master Drainage Plan Ref:60560495 AECOM Rpt_2026-05-27_Whitevale_Hia_60560495_Final 29 5.1.2 Whitevale Road (East) Existing Conditions Whitevale Road (East) between the east end of the Whitevale Bridge and Golf Club Road, Whitevale Road is a two-lane paved road with narrow shoulders and shallow ditches. The road passes from the level valley flats at the west end of this section and gradually ascends from west to east and before levelling on the uplands beyond Golf Club Road. This segment of Whitevale Road fronts the majority of the historic village, which includes numerous frame and brick residential dwellings from the 19th and early 20th century along both sides of the right-of-way. This segment of Whitevale Road also includes several current and former public and commercial buildings, including the former mill building and the former bank/library on the south side of the road, and the former general store and the former Methodist Chapel (now Orthodox Church) on the north side of the road. This segment features some use of manicured lawns along the right of way but is generally well treed in a fashion which shows sustained human Photograph 17:Mature trees and wildflowers along the Whitevale Road right of way. Looking northwest from the Seaton Hiking Trail (AECOM, 2025) Photograph 18:View of the Whitevale Community Centre (formerly the Miller House and likely the oldest structure in Whitevale), looking south from Whitevale Road (AECOM, 2025) Photograph 19:View of west slope of Whitevale Road, looking west from the valley bottom (AECOM, 2025) Photograph 20:View of the valley flats, looking east across Whitevale Bridge (AECOM, 2025) City of Pickering Heritage Impact Assessment: Whitevale Heritage Conservation District (HCD). Whitevale Master Drainage Plan Ref:60560495 AECOM Rpt_2026-05-27_Whitevale_Hia_60560495_Final 30 influence. Historical lot lines are clearly demarcated with trees and hedgerows, while residential dwellings are well accompanied by a variety of shade and ornamental trees and gardens. Within the Whitevale Road (East) segment, twenty-five (25) properties have frontage along Whitevale Road, of which twenty (20) are designated under Part V of the OHA, and twenty-one (21) of which have structures that fall within the Cultural Heritage Study Area (Figure 5b and Figure 5c). Descriptions of the 25 properties with structures within and adjacent to the Cultural Heritage Study Area of the Whitevale Road (West) segment are provided in Appendix C.The following table summarizes character-defining elements of the segment of Whitevale Road (West) streetscape within the Cultural Heritage Study Area: Table 4: Summary of Existing Conditions within the Whitevale Road (East) Streetscape Location Streetscape Description Photographs Whitevale Road between the Whitevale Bridge and Golf Club Road Whitevale Road (East) Streetscape The Whitevale Road (east) streetscape includes numerous character-defining elements which support the heritage character of the District. These include, but are not limited to: 25 adjacent properties including 20 Part V designated properties; Slope defining the east entrance to the settlement area; Narrow asphalt pavement with gravel shoulders and side street/driveway aprons; Overhead wires and radial streetlights on wood hydro poles; Non-contiguous narrow concrete and asphalt sidewalks along the right of way; Mature tree cover along the streetscape including specimen plantings and cedar hedgerows; and Well maintained residential landscape including foundation planting, manicured lawns, decorative fences, and gardens. See above: Photographs 21-58 The following provides overview photographs of the existing conditions within the Cultural Heritage Study Area of the Whitevale Road (East) segment: Photograph 21: View of the former mill complex, looking southeast from Whitevale Road (AECOM, 2025) Photograph 22: Southwest view of the former mill complex (AECOM, 2025) City of Pickering Heritage Impact Assessment: Whitevale Heritage Conservation District (HCD). Whitevale Master Drainage Plan Ref:60560495 AECOM Rpt_2026-05-27_Whitevale_Hia_60560495_Final 31 Photograph 23:View of the Seaton Hiking Trail access from Whitevale Road. Looking northwest (AECOM, 2025) Photograph 24:View of the gambrel roofed structure at 424 Whitevale Road associated with the former milling complex across the street. Looking north (AECOM, 2025) Photograph 25: Streetview of Whitevale Road, looking west across the gravel parking area around the mill complex towards Whitevale Bridge (AECOM, 2025) Photograph 26: Streetview of Mill Street, looking north across Whitevale Road (AECOM, 2025) City of Pickering Heritage Impact Assessment: Whitevale Heritage Conservation District (HCD). Whitevale Master Drainage Plan Ref:60560495 AECOM Rpt_2026-05-27_Whitevale_Hia_60560495_Final 32 Photograph 27:Streetview of Whitevale Road, looking east across the valley bottom (AECOM, 2025) Photograph 28:View of east slope of Whitevale Road, looking east (AECOM, 2025) Photograph 29:The Whitevale Road frontage of 3195 Factory Street, looking south. Note that this elevation of3195 Factory Street extends into the public right of way (AECOM, 2025) Photograph 30: Manicured lawns, mature tree coverage, and narrow concrete sidewalks at the cornerof Mill Street and Whitevale Road, looking east (AECOM, 2025) Photograph 31: Mature tree coverage along Whitevale Road, looking south (AECOM, 2025) Photograph 32: down the east slope of Whitevale Road, looking west. Note the radial street lights and wood hydro poles (AECOM, 2025) City of Pickering Heritage Impact Assessment: Whitevale Heritage Conservation District (HCD). Whitevale Master Drainage Plan Ref:60560495 AECOM Rpt_2026-05-27_Whitevale_Hia_60560495_Final 33 Photograph 33: Westward view of Whitevale Road, showing the sidewalk, sloped verges, and 3195 Factory Street in the background (AECOM, 2025) Photograph 34:Concrete stairs and gravel driveway aprons in disrepair on the north side of Whitevale Road (AECOM, 2025) Photograph 35: Northwest view across the Whitevale Road streetscape (AECOM, 2025) Photograph 36: Narrow, irregular concrete sidewalk along the south side of Whitevale Road, looking east (AECOM, 2025) City of Pickering Heritage Impact Assessment: Whitevale Heritage Conservation District (HCD). Whitevale Master Drainage Plan Ref:60560495 AECOM Rpt_2026-05-27_Whitevale_Hia_60560495_Final 34 Photograph 37: North facing street view of 460 Whitevale Road, showing the shallow ditches, grassed verges, wood hydro poles, manicured gardens and mature tree coverage typical to the settlement area (AECOM, 2025) Photograph 38:View of manicured lawns, gardens, and ornamental fences at 470 Whitevale Road. Looking north (AECOM, 2025) Photograph 39: View of the east slope for Whitevale Road, looking west (AECOM, 2025) Photograph 40: Narrow concrete sidewalk, mature trees, and well developed gardens along the north side of Whitevale Road. Looking west (AECOM, 2025) City of Pickering Heritage Impact Assessment: Whitevale Heritage Conservation District (HCD). Whitevale Master Drainage Plan Ref:60560495 AECOM Rpt_2026-05-27_Whitevale_Hia_60560495_Final 35 Photograph 41: Narrow concrete sidewalk, mature trees, ornamental fences, and well developed gardens along the north side of Whitevale Road. Looking east (AECOM, 2025) Photograph 42: The former Whitevale Hotel at 465 Whitevale Road, looking south (AECOM, 2025) Photograph 43:View of the corner of Gladstone Street and Whitevale Road, looking northwest (AECOM, 2025) Photograph 44:The Whitevale Arts & Culture Centre (WACC), with brick paved frontage, park benches, gardens and library box. Looking south (AECOM, 2025) City of Pickering Heritage Impact Assessment: Whitevale Heritage Conservation District (HCD). Whitevale Master Drainage Plan Ref:60560495 AECOM Rpt_2026-05-27_Whitevale_Hia_60560495_Final 36 Photograph 45: View of the community mailboxes to the immediate east of the WACC. Looking southeast (AECOM, 2025) Photograph 46: View of mural on east wall of the WACC (AECOM, 2025) Photograph 47:Streetscape along south side of Whitevale Road, looking southwest (AECOM, 2025) Photograph 48: View of streetscape along Whitevale Road, looking northeast (AECOM, 2025) City of Pickering Heritage Impact Assessment: Whitevale Heritage Conservation District (HCD). Whitevale Master Drainage Plan Ref:60560495 AECOM Rpt_2026-05-27_Whitevale_Hia_60560495_Final 37 Photograph 49: View of 480 Whitevale Road, looking northeast. Note the gravel apron of Gladstone Street, mature trees,manicured lawns, and ornamental fencing (AECOM, 2025) Photograph 50: View of the former Whitevale store, looking north (AECOM, 2025) Photograph 51: Narrow concrete sidewalk, mature trees, manicured lawn, and private gravel path along the north side of Whitevale Road. Looking east (AECOM, 2025) Photograph 52: View of 495 Whitevale Road showing private concrete path, mature tree coverage, and well developed gardens along the right of way. Looking south (AECOM, 2025) City of Pickering Heritage Impact Assessment: Whitevale Heritage Conservation District (HCD). Whitevale Master Drainage Plan Ref:60560495 AECOM Rpt_2026-05-27_Whitevale_Hia_60560495_Final 38 Photograph 53: View of the former cheese factory at 499 Whitevale Road. Looking south (AECOM, 2025) Photograph 54: View of irregular asphalt sidewalk along the north side of Whitevale Road, looking west.(AECOM, 2025) Photograph 55: View of overgrown sidewalk within the manicured lawns in front of Whitevale Church. Looking west (AECOM, 2025) Photograph 56: Whitevale Church, looking north (AECOM, 2025) City of Pickering Heritage Impact Assessment: Whitevale Heritage Conservation District (HCD). Whitevale Master Drainage Plan Ref:60560495 AECOM Rpt_2026-05-27_Whitevale_Hia_60560495_Final 39 5.1.3 North Road Existing Conditions North Road from the intersection with Whitevale Road to the limit of the village is a paved two-lane road with modest gravel shoulders and shallow ditches. The road gently ascends from the intersection with Whitevale road to the north extent of the village. Much like the adjacent stretch of Whitevale Road (East), this section of North Road is characterized by 19th and 20th century frame dwellings, manicured lawns, and diverse and varied tree coverage along the verges. Notable features of this section of North Road include the former Methodist Chapel along the east side of North Road as it intersects with Whitevale Road. This section of North Road also includes two mid 20th century bungalows along the east side of the road, near the north extent of the village. Within the North Road segment, seven (7) properties have frontage along North Road,of which three (3) are designated under Part V of the OHA and five (5) of which have structures that fall within the Cultural Heritage Study Area (Figure 5c and Figure 5d).Descriptions of the 7 properties with structures within and adjacent to the Cultural Heritage Study Area of the North Road segment are provided in Appendix D.The following table summarizes character-defining elements of the segment of North Road streetscape within the Cultural Heritage Study Area: Table 5: Summary of Existing Conditions within the North Road Streetscape Location Streetscape Description Photographs North Road between Whitevale Road and the northern limit of the village of Whitevale North Road Streetscape The North Road streetscape includes numerous character-defining elements which support the heritage character of the District. These include, but are not limited to: 7 adjacent properties including 3 Part V designated properties Slope defining the north entrance to the settlement area, Narrow asphalt pavement with gravel shoulders and side street/driveway aprons, Overhead wires and radial streetlights on wood hydro poles, Non-contiguous narrow concrete and asphalt sidewalks along the right of way, See above: Photographs 59- 76 Photograph 57: West facing view of Whitevale Road through the settlement area (AECOM, 2025) Photograph 58:View of the east extent of the Study Area with Golf Course Road on the right and the former Baptist church at 530 Whitevale Road on the left (AECOM, 2025) City of Pickering Heritage Impact Assessment: Whitevale Heritage Conservation District (HCD). Whitevale Master Drainage Plan Ref:60560495 AECOM Rpt_2026-05-27_Whitevale_Hia_60560495_Final 40 Well maintained residential landscape including foundation plantings, manicured lawns, decorative fences, and gardens, Mature tree cover along the streetscape including specimen plantings and naturalized forest Views over fields north of the village The following provides overview photographs of the existing conditions within the Cultural Heritage Study Area of the North Road segment: Photograph 59:Streetview of North Road, looking north from Whitevale Road (AECOM, 2025) Photograph 60:Streetview of the intersection between North Road and Whitevale Road, looking south from North Road (AECOM, 2025) Photograph 61:Commemorative sign on the church grounds at the corner of Whitevale Street and North Road, looking northeast (AECOM, 2025) Photograph 62:View of the wooden sitting area along the North Road frontage of the church grounds. Looking north (AECOM, 2025) City of Pickering Heritage Impact Assessment: Whitevale Heritage Conservation District (HCD). Whitevale Master Drainage Plan Ref:60560495 AECOM Rpt_2026-05-27_Whitevale_Hia_60560495_Final 41 Photograph 63:Streetview of North Road, showing mature trees, manicured lawns, and shallow ditches, looking north (AECOM, 2025) Photograph 64:View of 3225 North Road, showing the shallow grassed ditches, mature trees and gardens, and timber and gravel walkway (AECOM, 2025) Photograph 65:View of naturalized lot on North Road, looking west (AECOM, 2025) Photograph 66:View of narrow concrete sidewalk and naturalized overgrowth on the west side of North Road. Looking North (AECOM, 2025) City of Pickering Heritage Impact Assessment: Whitevale Heritage Conservation District (HCD). Whitevale Master Drainage Plan Ref:60560495 AECOM Rpt_2026-05-27_Whitevale_Hia_60560495_Final 42 Photograph 67:View of the North Road streetscape, looking south from the intersection between Churchwin Street and North Road.(AECOM, 2025) Photograph 68:View of the North Road streetscape, looking south (AECOM, 2025) Photograph 69:View of the mature trees and gardens at 3220 North Road. Looking west (AECOM, 2025) Photograph 70:Manicured lawns and mature trees surround the mid-century rancher style bungalow at 3235 North Road (AECOM, 2025) City of Pickering Heritage Impact Assessment: Whitevale Heritage Conservation District (HCD). Whitevale Master Drainage Plan Ref:60560495 AECOM Rpt_2026-05-27_Whitevale_Hia_60560495_Final 43 Photograph 71:West facing view of 3250 North Road, showing manicured lawns and gardens, mature trees, and ornamental split rail fencing (AECOM, 2025) Photograph 72:The east side of North Road at 3245 North Road, showing grassed shallow ditches and residential tree coverage (AECOM, 2025) Photograph 73:West facing view of the treeline along the north edge of the village, as seen from North Road (AECOM, 2025) Photograph 74:Northeastern view across open fields to the north of the village, as seen from North Road (AECOM, 2025) City of Pickering Heritage Impact Assessment: Whitevale Heritage Conservation District (HCD). Whitevale Master Drainage Plan Ref:60560495 AECOM Rpt_2026-05-27_Whitevale_Hia_60560495_Final 44 Photograph 75:Photograph 75: View of North Road as it leaves the Whitevale settlement area, looking north (AECOM, 2025) Photograph 76:View of North Road streetscape from the north edge of the settlement area, looking south. (AECOM, 2025) City of Pickering Heritage Impact Assessment: Whitevale Heritage Conservation District (HCD). Whitevale Master Drainage Plan Ref:60560495 AECOM Rpt_2026-05-27_Whitevale_Hia_60560495_Final 45 6.Evaluation of Anticipated Impacts The conservation of cultural heritage resources is a matter of public interest under Ontario planning policy. Roadway modifications, such as widening projects or intersection improvements, have the potential to negatively impact cultural heritage resources, including HCDs, through both direct and indirect impacts during and following construction. Indirect impacts may also arise from the introduction of new streetscape elements, visual changes, or designs that are inconsistent with the character of the HCD. This HIA evaluates the anticipated impacts of construction on the Whitevale HCD based on the 95% Detailed Design for Whitevale Road and North Road, which forms part of the Whitevale Drainage Master Plan.The intention of the impact assessment contained in this HIA is to: Review the 95% Detailed Design as it relates to the Whitevale HCD;Identify the impacts as outlined in the Ontario Heritage Toolkit (MCM, 2006) based on the 95% Detailed Design, on the Whitevale HCD;Provide a description and analysis of how the proposed site alterations may impact the integrity and character of the Whitevale HCD; Where necessary, recommend mitigation measures to avoid or reduce potential direct and indirect adverse impacts on the Whitevale HCD, its constituent properties and streetscapes, and the character defining elements that contribute to the district’s overall character. These mitigation measures will inform subsequent project planning and design decisions. 6.1 Screening for Potential Impacts To assess the potential impacts of the undertaking, identified cultural heritage resources are considered against a range of possible impacts based on the Ontario Heritage Tool Kit, Heritage Resources in the Land Use Planning Process,Info Sheet #5 Heritage Impact Assessments and Conservation Plans (MCM 2006:3) which include, but are not limited to: Destruction, removal or relocation of any, or part of any, significant heritage attributes or features Alteration that is not sympathetic, or is incompatible, with the historic fabric or appearance Shadows created that alter the appearance of a heritage attribute or change the exposure or visibility of a natural feature or plantings, such as a garden Isolation of a heritage attribute from its surrounding environment, context, or a significant relationship Direct or indirect obstruction of significant views or vistas from, within, or to a built or natural heritage feature A change in land use such as rezoning a battlefield from open space to residential use, allowing new development or site alteration to fill in the formerly open spaces Land disturbances such as a change in grade that alters soils, and drainage patterns that adversely affect an archaeological resource5 The MCM document defines “impact” as a change, either positive or adverse, in an identified cultural heritage resource resulting from a particular activity. This HIA identifies direct (physical) impacts,indirect impacts, and/or positive impacts as the types of impact that a construction component and/or activity may have on cultural heritage resources. A direct (physical) negative impact has a permanent and irreversible negative effect on the cultural heritage value or interest of a property, or results in the loss of a heritage attribute on all or part of the heritage property. Any land City of Pickering Heritage Impact Assessment: Whitevale Heritage Conservation District (HCD). Whitevale Master Drainage Plan Ref:60560495 AECOM Rpt_2026-05-27_Whitevale_Hia_60560495_Final 46 disturbance, such as a change in grade and/or drainage patterns that may adversely affect a heritage property, including archaeological resources. An indirect negative impact is the result of an activity on or near the property that may adversely affect its cultural heritage value or interest and/or heritage attributes. A positive impact will conserve or enhance the cultural heritage value or interest and/or heritage attributes of the property. 6.2 Additional Considerations The Hamlet of Whitevale, Heritage Conservation District Study: The District Plan (1990) and the Whitevale Heritage Conservation District Guidelines (2020) provide recommendations for conservation best practices within the Whitevale HCD. Both documents recognize that the completion of public works, including, but not limited to, road, sewer, and drainage projects, have the potential to cause considerable disruption to the character of the district and its component heritage resources. In light of this risk, the HCD Plan stipulates that every effort should be made to minimize adverse effects to the HCD and its components. Section 6.7 of the updated district guidelines further stipulates that: The road character of the District should be preserved. Modern suburban development standards are inappropriate in the District. The narrow pavement, shoulder treatments and grass ditches are essential to the heritage character of the District and should be maintained. When projects in the interest of public safety must be undertaken, they should be reviewed carefully so that the scenic road quality is not sacrificed. The removal or excessive pruning of significant tree plantings should be avoided. 6.3 Impact Assessment of the Whitevale HCD The impact assessment in Table 6 presents the potential impacts of the 95% Detailed Design to the Whitevale HCD,including properties and character-defining elements along Whitevale Road and North Road.The assessment considers localized roadway widening, paving of driveway and side street aprons, adjustments to ditch grading, and replacement of sidewalks. The evaluation of impacts to character-defining elements of the Whitevale HCD follows the guidance provided in the Ontario Heritage Toolkit: Heritage Resources in the Land Use Planning Process,InfoSheet #5 Heritage Impact Assessments and Conservation Plans (MCM, 2006:3).Table 6 also provides potential mitigation measures to inform the next steps of Project planning and design and ensures that potential adverse impacts on the cultural heritage value of the HCD and its constituent heritage properties are avoided or minimized wherever possible. Mapping of the 95% Detailed Design is included in Figure 5, Appendix A. City of Pickering Heritage Impact Assessment: Whitevale Heritage Conservation District (HCD). Whitevale Master Drainage Plan Ref:60560495 AECOM Rpt_2026-05-27_Whitevale_Hia_60560495_Final 47 Table 6:Impact Assessment of the Whitevale HCD Including Potential Mitigation Measures Impact Discussion of Impacts Potential Mitigation Measures Destruction, Removal, or Relocation Landscape Impacts: The 95% Detailed Design illustrates significant disruption to the Whitevale and North Road rights of way during the Project. This includes: Temporary removal of driveway aprons, private walkways, and street signage;Potential destruction or removal of manicured lawns, gardens, decorative fences, hedges, and mature trees located within or adjacent to the right-of-way;Removal of gravel paving areas in front of the former mill buildings; andRelocation of hydro poles and associated infrastructure by a third party. These elements collectively contribute to the rural character of the streetscape,which is a defining feature of the Whitevale HCD. While some impacts may be temporary, the permanent loss or alteration of these features have the potential result in a significant adverse impact on the heritage value and character of the District. Structural Impacts The circa 1855 structure at 3195 Factory Street extends into the Whitevale Road right-of-way and directly fronts the Study Area. The 95% Detailed Design illustrates road removal, paving, and sidewalk replacement occurring within approximately 3 m of the building. Although no direct impacts to the structure are proposed, its proximity to construction activities creates an elevated risk of accidental damage, either Landscape Mitigation Measures: Driveway Aprons and Private Walkways: Reconstruct all impacted driveway aprons and private walkways to their pre-construction condition using original or contextually appropriate materials. Reconstruction efforts must also align with the Landscape and Infrastructure principles outlined in Section 6.7 of the Guidelines Street Signage:Salvage and reinstate signage post-construction, ensuring placement and design are consistent with the heritage character of the streetscape.Where new signage is required,it should be simple in design,avoid the use of plastic, vinyl or backlit and comply with the City Sign By-law for Special Sign Districts. Mature Trees and Hedgerows: Every effort should be made to retain and protect the mature street trees and hedgerows that contribute to the tree canopy along Whitevale Road and North Road. Mature trees and hedgerows adjacent to the right-of-way shall be protected with fencing and root protection zones during construction under certified arborist supervision. If removal is unavoidable, replacement plantings should follow a like-for-like approach (species,placement, etc.)to maintain canopy continuity, consistent with recommendations in the 1990 HCD Plan (Unterman McPhail et al., 1990: 53). City of Pickering Heritage Impact Assessment: Whitevale Heritage Conservation District (HCD). Whitevale Master Drainage Plan Ref:60560495 AECOM Rpt_2026-05-27_Whitevale_Hia_60560495_Final 48 Impact Discussion of Impacts Potential Mitigation Measures through contact with machinery or through vibration generated by heavy equipment. As preserved 19th century housing stock is a defining characteristic of the Whitevale HCD, any damage to this building,or similar historic structures,would adversely impact the integrity and heritage value of the District. Landscape Elements: Every effort should be made to retain landscape elements that contribute to the heritage character of the HCD, including manicured lawns, gardens, decorative fences, hedges, and street furniture. Where impacts are unavoidable, restore these features promptly at project completion using materials, forms, and designs consistent with both the updated HCD Plan’s Landscape and Infrastructure policies (City of Pickering, 2020: 33) and the original HCD Plan’s recommendations for landscape conservation and enhancement (Unterman McPhail et al., 1990: 53). The design and restoration of landscape elements within the Whitevale HCD should be undertaken in consultation with Heritage Planning staff to ensure alignment with the HCD Plan. Hydro Poles and Overhead Lines: The rural character of the overhead power lines, including wooden poles and radial streetlights, are character defining- elements of the Whitevale Road streetscape. The third-party contractor shall be notified of the hydro poles and overhead lines cultural heritage value prior to relocation. In the event that the hydro poles are replaced during the Project, they should be replaced with wood poles in keeping with those throughout the HCD. The radial streetlights should be retained during any pole relocation work, either by salvaging and reinstating the existing radial streetlights, or by replacing them in kind. If replacement radial streetlights are considered, the design, exterior paint, and light hue should be matched to the existing streetlights.The specifications of replacement lights must be submitted to the municipal Heritage Planning Staff and/or members of the Whitevale and District Residents’ City of Pickering Heritage Impact Assessment: Whitevale Heritage Conservation District (HCD). Whitevale Master Drainage Plan Ref:60560495 AECOM Rpt_2026-05-27_Whitevale_Hia_60560495_Final 49 Impact Discussion of Impacts Potential Mitigation Measures Association to ensure that the design is in keeping with character of the HCD. Gravel Parking Area: Conserve the gravel parking areas around the former mill buildings, identified in the 1989 HCD Background Study as contributing to the village’s character (Unterman McPhail et al., 1989: 3-6–3-7). Ensure the final Detailed Design reflects conservation of these open gravel parking areas. The final Detailed Design should be reviewed by municipal Heritage Planning Staff and/or members of the Whitevale and District Residents’ Association to ensure that the Design is in keeping with the principles outlined in the HCD Plan. Structural Mitigation Measures: The historic house at 3195 Factory Street should be conserved during construction through the use of protective fencing or hoarding around the structure to prevent accidental contact by machinery. No-go zones should be clearly marked on construction plans. Ensure all contractors working within the vicinity of the structure are briefed on its significance and the protective protocols in place. Consider the development of a contingency plan for halting work and stabilizing the building if accidental impact results in damage. Alteration The 95% Detailed Design illustrates the replacement of the existing pavement, gravel shoulders, culverts, and sidewalks. While the existing road material and alignment will generally be maintained,the design includes: Slight extension of paved surfaces into currently unpaved driveway and side street aprons; Road Widening Mitigation Measures While existing pavement, gravel shoulders and culvert replacement are not antipcated to adversely impact the aesthetic quality of the streetscape, the introduction of paved aprons at driveway and side street intersections has the potential to diminish the rural character of the HCD. City of Pickering Heritage Impact Assessment: Whitevale Heritage Conservation District (HCD). Whitevale Master Drainage Plan Ref:60560495 AECOM Rpt_2026-05-27_Whitevale_Hia_60560495_Final 50 Impact Discussion of Impacts Potential Mitigation Measures Replacement and localized re-grading of sidewalks along the north side of Whitevale Road, with partial removal of sidewalk segments on the south side; andAddition of a speed hump on North Road. These changes represent alterations to the existing rural streetscape character of the Whitevale HCD, which is defined by its narrow road profiles, gravel shoulders, unpaved driveways, and non-contiguous sidewalks. However, the addition of aprons is justified in limited cases to address safety concerns related to loose gravel and drainage. To balance safety and heritage character, aprons should: o Be limited to the minimum width required for safe vehicle movement; o Use visually compatible materials; o Be edged with low vegetation or landscape treatments where feasible; and o Be designed in consultation with residents to maintain community support. Consider drainage controls and a long-term maintenance plan to reduce erosion and preserve the integrity of unpaved surfaces. Sidewalk Mitigation Measures The existing narrow, non-contiguous sidewalks are a character-defining element of the Whitevale streetscape. While replacement is warranted to improve accessibility and safety, the widened sidewalk sections must be carefully designed to avoid a suburban appearance. The 95% Detailed Design retains grass boulevards and proposes a narrower profile (1.2 m rather than the municipal standard of 1.5 m), consistent with HCD guidelines. Where sidewalks pass between mature trees or constrained rights- of-way, narrower or meandering alignments should be considered. To balance safety and heritage character, sidewalks should: o Use visually compatible materials; o Retain or enhance grass boulevards;and o Be designed in consultation with residents to maintain community support. Speed Hump Mitigation Measures City of Pickering Heritage Impact Assessment: Whitevale Heritage Conservation District (HCD). Whitevale Master Drainage Plan Ref:60560495 AECOM Rpt_2026-05-27_Whitevale_Hia_60560495_Final 51 Impact Discussion of Impacts Potential Mitigation Measures The proposed speed hump on North Road represents a minor alteration to the rural road profile. Similar traffic calming features already exist along Whitevale Road, and the design is consistent with the established character of the HCD. As a low-profile measure, the speed hump is expected to improve safety without detracting from the streetscape character, and no additional mitigation measures are required. Shadows The Project is not anticipated to result in any significant changes in shadows within the Whitevale HCD. No specific mitigation measures required. Isolation The Project is not anticipated to isolate any heritage structures or character-defining elements within the Whitevale HCD. No specific mitigation measures required. Direct or Indirect Obstruction of Significant Views The 1989 HCD Background Report identifies the eastward view along Whitevale Road from Altona Road to Golf Course Road, and the north-westerly view from North Road across the fields to the north of the village, as significant views contributing to the heritage character of the District. The Project is not anticipated to directly or indirectly obstruct or diminish these significant views. Accordingly, no adverse impacts to significant views associated with the Whitevale HCD are anticipated. No specific mitigation measures required. A Change in Land Use The Project is not anticipated to result in any changes in land use within the Whitevale HCD. No specific mitigation measures are required. Land Disturbance Due to the narrow setbacks of most of the properties within the Whitevale HCD, numerous buildings along Whitevale Road and North Road fall within the 11 m Cultural Heritage Study Area for the Project. These include 33 of the 46 A vibration and impact monitoring plan should be implemented prior to the start of construction. See Section 7.2.1. City of Pickering Heritage Impact Assessment: Whitevale Heritage Conservation District (HCD). Whitevale Master Drainage Plan Ref:60560495 AECOM Rpt_2026-05-27_Whitevale_Hia_60560495_Final 52 Impact Discussion of Impacts Potential Mitigation Measures structures fronting the right of way along Whitevale Road and North Road.1 1 The structures falling within the Cultural Heritage Study Area include: 335, 345, 360, 395, 405,425, 430, 440, 450, 455, 460, 465, 470, 475, 480, 485 (x2), 489, 490, 494, 495, 498,499, 507, and 510 Whitevale Road,3215, 3225, 3230, 3245, and 3250 North Road,3190 and 3191 Byron Street,and 3195 Factory Street.It should be noted that the properties at345,405 465, 480, 507, and 510 Whitevale Road,and 3245 North Road are marginally included in this tally, with the boundary of the Cultural Heritage Study Area in roughalignment with the façade of the structures on said properties.A modern shed at 385 Whitevale Road also falls within this zone but is not considered to be a cultural heritageresource. City of Pickering Heritage Impact Assessment: Whitevale Heritage Conservation District (HCD). Whitevale Master Drainage Plan Ref:60560495 AECOM Rpt_2026-05-27_Whitevale_Hia_60560495_Final 53 7.Mitigation Measures and Recommendations 7.1 Mitigation Measures Based on the results of the evaluation of anticipated impacts in Section 6.3, the Project has the potential to result in both direct and indirect adverse impacts to the Whitevale HCD.Mitigation measures are therefore required. 7.2 Recommendations The following recommendations have been developed based on background historical research, field review, professional expertise, and the evaluation of anticipated impacts within the Cultural Heritage Study Area. A summary of recommendations for the Whitevale HCD is provided below. For the complete discussion of mitigation measures, refer to Table 6. General Recommendations If any future changes to the proposed development extend beyond the current design shown in Figure 5, this HIA should be reviewed and updated to assess potential direct and indirect impacts on the CHVI and character-defining elements of the cultural heritage resources within the Cultural Heritage Study Area. Additional work may be required, which could include, but is not limited to, updating this HIA to reflect the revised design. Prior to commencing work, consultation with City Heritage Planning staff should be undertaken to confirm that the proposed activities are considered minor in nature and to determine whether a heritage permit is required. This will ensure compliance with the applicable regulatory framework and alignment with the objectives of the HCD Plan. Landscape Recommendations Driveway Aprons & Walkways: Reconstruct to pre-construction condition using original or compatible materials, consistent with HCD guidelines. Street Signage:Salvage and reinstate existing signage; new signage to be simple, non-backlit, and compliant with City by-laws. Mature Trees & Hedgerows:Retain and protect wherever possible with certified arborist oversight; replace removals on a like-for-like basis to maintain canopy continuity. Landscape Elements:Retain lawns, gardens, fences, hedges, and street furniture; restore unavoidable impacts using heritage-consistent designs in consultation with Heritage Planning staff. Hydro Poles & Overhead Lines:Retain rural character by reinstating wooden poles and radial streetlights if relocation/replacement is required. Gravel Parking Areas:In consultation with Heritage Planning staff, conserve gravel parking areas associated with former mill buildings to maintain village character. Structural Recommendations: Protect the historic house at 3195 Factory Street with fencing/hoarding and no-go zones; brief contractors on its significance. Establish a contingency plan for halting work and stabilizing the structure in the event of accidental damage. Road Widening Recommendations: Minimize impacts of paved aprons by limiting their size, using compatible materials, incorporating low vegetation/landscape treatments, and consulting with residents. Implement drainage controls and long-term maintenance measures to protect unpaved surfaces. City of Pickering Heritage Impact Assessment: Whitevale Heritage Conservation District (HCD). Whitevale Master Drainage Plan Ref:60560495 AECOM Rpt_2026-05-27_Whitevale_Hia_60560495_Final 54 Sidewalk Recommendations: Replace sidewalks with narrower, heritage-sensitive designs that retain grass boulevards, consider meandering alignments near mature trees, and use visually compatible materials. Design in consultation with residents to balance accessibility, safety, and heritage character. Speed Hump Recommendations: The proposed speed hump is consistent with existing traffic calming features and is not anticipated to affect heritage character. No specific mitigation required beyond vibration and impact monitoring during construction. Vibration Recommendations: A vibration and impact monitoring plan should be implemented prior to the start of construction. See Section 7.2.1. 7.2.1 Vibration Impacts and Monitoring Evaluation of impacts related to vibration activities requires assessment based on the identification of specific construction methods proposed, distance between the sensitive receptor (i.e. a cultural heritage resource) and the construction activity, local soil conditions, and anticipated vibration levels (mm/s). Historic buildings can be extremely suspectable to vibration damage and Project-specific vibration limits should be established prior to the commencement of construction. Given the proximity to historic buildings to the proposed work, it is anticipated that in some locations safe vibration limits may be exceeded.Accordingly, prior to the commencement of the Project, a professional engineer should complete a report assessing the potential vibration impacts of the Project on the surrounding area, including,but not limited to, identified cultural heritage resources.Appropriate vibration limits (i.e. prohibitions or no-go zones for certain types of construction machinery,etc.)and monitoring protocols (i.e., the use of seismographs,etc.)should then be implemented during construction in accordance with the information provided in the vibration report. City of Pickering Heritage Impact Assessment: Whitevale Heritage Conservation District (HCD). Whitevale Master Drainage Plan Ref:60560495 AECOM Rpt_2026-05-27_Whitevale_Hia_60560495_Final 55 8.Sources Primary and Secondary Sources: Architectural Conservancy of Ontario (ACO) 2009 Heritage Districts Work! Heritage Conservation District Study Whitevale –City of Pickering. Accessed online at: https://uwaterloo.ca/heritage-resources- centre/sites/default/files/uploads/documents/Whitevale_Pickering.pdf Beers, J.H. & Co. 1877 Illustrated Historical Atlas of the County of Ontario. Toronto: Gorrell Craig & Co. Accessed via the Internet Archive: https://archive.org/details/McGillLibrary-rbsc_county-atlas-maps- ontario_elfG1148O57J31877-22501/mode/2up City of Pickering 2020 Whitevale Heritage Conservation District Guidelines. Accessed online at: https://www.pickering.ca/media/t1sp42j2/whitevale-guidelines_final-2020.pdf 2022 Terms of Reference: Heritage Impact Assessments. Accessed online at: https://www.pickering.ca/media/ov1ll2j3/hia-terms-of-reference-april-2022_acc.pdf 2022 Pickering Official Plan, Edition 9.Accessed online at: https://www.pickering.ca/media/320h0m40/op9acc.pdf 2025 Official Plan Review. Accessed online at: https://www.pickering.ca/business-building- development/planning-and-development/official-plan/official-plan-review/ Colonial Office 1837 Orders in Council and Returns Respective the Sale of Lands in Upper Canada. London: HMSO. Accessed via the Canadiana Database. https://www.canadiana.ca/view/oocihm.9_01081/3 Ellis, Chris J. and D. Brian Deller 1990 Paleo-Indians. In The Archaeology of Southern Ontario to AD 1650, eds. Chris J. Ellis and Neal Ferris. Occasional Publication of the London Chapter, OAS Number 5. Farewell, John Edwin Chandler. 1907 County of Ontario: Short Notes as to the Early Settlement and Progress of the County. Whitby: Gazette-Chronicle Press. Accessed via the Internet Archive: https://archive.org/details/ontariocounty0000fare/page/n11/mode/2up Government of Ontario 1975 North Pickering Project: Summary of Recommended Plan. Accessed via the Internet Archive: https://archive.org/details/39201316070258/mode/2up 2023 Map of Ontario Treaties and Reserves.Webpage. https://www.ontario.ca/page/map-ontario- treaties-and-reserves#treaties McEvoy, H.N. 1866 Gazetteer & Directory for the County of Ontario. Toronto: Mitchell & Co. Publishers. Accessed via the Internet Archive: https://archive.org/details/1866-ontario-county- directory/page/n3/mode/2up McKay, William A. 1961 The Pickering Story. Pickering: Township of Pickering Historical Society. City of Pickering Heritage Impact Assessment: Whitevale Heritage Conservation District (HCD). Whitevale Master Drainage Plan Ref:60560495 AECOM Rpt_2026-05-27_Whitevale_Hia_60560495_Final 56 Parks Canada 2010 Standards and Guidelines for the Conservation of Historic Places in Canada. Accessed online at: https://www.historicplaces.ca/media/18072/81468-parks-s+g-eng-web2.pdf Robinson, C. Blackett 1885.History of Toronto and county of York, Ontario: containing an outline of the history of the Dominion of Canada; a history of the city of Toronto and the county of York, with the townships, towns, villages, churches, schools; general and local statistics; biographical sketches, etc., etc. Illustrated. Toronto: C. Blackett Robinson, Publisher. Accessed via the Internet Archive: https://archive.org/details/cihm_07392/page/n364/mode/1up Shearer, Wendy 2012 The Evolution of the Agricultural Cultural Landscape.Heritage Matters. Accessed online at: https://www.heritage-matters.ca/articles/the-evolution-of-the-agricultural-cultural-landscape Town of Pickering 1993 By-Law Number 4074/92: Being a by-law to designate the Whitevale Heritage Conservation District pursuant to the Ontario Heritage Act, Part V. Accessed online at: https://www.heritagetrust.on.ca/en/oha/details/file?id=11492 Union Publishing Company 1911 Farmers and Business Directory for the Counties of Haliburton, Ontario, Peterborough, Victoria and York [sic], 1911: Vol. XVI. Ingersoll: Union Publishing Company. Accessed via the Internet Archive: https://archive.org/details/halunionpublishi16uniouoft/page/n3/mode/2up Unterman McPhail Heritage Resource Consultants, David Cuming and Associates, and Wendy Shearer Landscape Architect Limited 1989 The Hamlet of Whitevale, Heritage Conservation District Study: Background Report. 1990 The Hamlet of Whitevale, Heritage Conservation District Study: The District Plan. WDRA N.D.Whitevale and District Residents’ Association.Webpage. http://www.whitevale.ca/WDRA.html Wood, William R. 1911 Past Years in Pickering: Sketches of the History of the Community. Toronto: William Briggs. Accessed via the Internet Archive: https://archive.org/details/pastyearsinpicke00wooduoft/page/n5/mode/2up Provincial Standards and Resources: Government of Ontario: O. Reg 385/21:General;made under the Ontario Heritage Act. Available online at: https://www.ontario.ca/laws/regulation/r21385#BK3 Government of Ontario: O. Reg. 9/06: Criteria for Determining Cultural Heritage Value or Interest; made under the Ontario Heritage Act. Available online at:https://www.ontario.ca/laws/regulation/060009 Government of Ontario: O Reg. 10/06: Criteria for Determining Cultural Heritage Value or Interest of Provincial Significance. Available online at:https://www.ontario.ca/laws/regulation/060010 City of Pickering Heritage Impact Assessment: Whitevale Heritage Conservation District (HCD). Whitevale Master Drainage Plan Ref:60560495 AECOM Rpt_2026-05-27_Whitevale_Hia_60560495_Final 57 Government of Ontario: Ontario Heritage Act, R.S.O. 1990, c.0.18.Available online at https://www.ontario.ca/laws/statute/90o18 Government of Ontario: Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P.13. Available online at: https://www.ontario.ca/laws/statute/90p13 Government of Ontario: Provincial Planning Statement, 2024. Available online at:https://www.ontario.ca/page/provincial- planning-statement-2024 Government of Ontario: Standards & Guidelines for the Conservation of Provincial Heritage Properties: Standards and Guidelines.Available online at: http://www.mtc.gov.on.ca/en/publications/Standards_Conservation.pdf Ministry of Citizenship and Multiculturalism, 2006: Ontario Heritage Tool Kit.http://www.mtc.gov.on.ca/en/heritage/heritage_toolkit.shtml Ministry of Citizenship and Multiculturalism, 2007: Heritage Conservation Principles for Land Use Planning. Available online at: http://www.mtc.gov.on.ca/en/publications/InfoSheet_Principles_Land use_Planning.pdf Appendix A Mapping Whit evale Rd Nort h Rd Churchwin St Factory St Altona Rd Whitevale Park Whitevale White vale Rd Golf Club Rd Ma p l o c a t i o n : L : \ D C S \ G I S \ P r o j e c t s \ 6 0 5 6 0 4 9 5 _ W h i t e v a l e \ D e s i g n \ 0 1 _ R e p o r t s \ C u l t u r a l H e r i t a g e \ 6 0 5 6 0 4 9 5 _ W h i t e v a l e _ C u l t u r a l H e r i t a g e \ 6 0 5 6 0 4 9 5 _ W h i t e v a l e _ C u l t u r a l H e r i t a g e . a p r x Da t e S a v e d : 8 / 2 9 / 2 0 2 5 1 1 : 0 2 A M U s e r N a m e : M a r i n c S Aug, 2025 Data Sources: Figure 3 V#:01P#:60560495 0 100 200 300 400 50050 MetersDATUM: NAD 1983 UTM Zone 17N https://digital.library.mcgill.ca/countyatlas/ searchmapframes.php* when printed 11"x17" Contains Information licensed under the Open Government Licence Ontario. This drawing has beenprepared for the use of AECOM's client and may not be used, reproduced or relied upon by third parties,except as agreed by AECOM and its client, as required by law or for use by governmental reviewingagencies. AECOM accepts no responsibility, and denies any liability whatsoever, to any party that modifiesthis drawing without AECOM's express written consent. ° Project Area on Historical Maps Whitevale Master Drainage Plan – Municipal Class Environmental Assessment (MCEA)° 1:7,000 Cultural Heritage Study Area Whit evale Rd Nort h Rd Chur chwin S t Factory St Altona Rd Whitevale Park Whitevale Whitev ale Rd Golf Club Rd Whit evale Rd Nor th Rd Churchwin St Factor y S t Altona Rd Whitevale Park Whitevale White vale Rd Golf Club Rd Whitev ale Rd Nor th Rd Churchwin St Factor y S t Altona Rd Whitevale Park Whitevale Whitevale Rd Golf Club Rd 1860 1914 1877 1943 Gladstone St By r o n S t Mill St Churchwin St Fa c t o r y S t Go l f C l u b R d Whitevale Rd No r t h R d Al t o n a R d QR27 Ma p l o c a t i o n : L : \ D C S \ G I S \ P r o j e c t s \ 6 0 5 6 0 4 9 5 _ W h i t e v a l e \ D e s i g n \ 0 1 _ R e p o r t s \ C u l t u r a l H e r i t a g e \ 6 0 5 6 0 4 9 5 _ W h i t e v a l e _ C u l t u r a l H e r i t a g e \ 6 0 5 6 0 4 9 5 _ W h i t e v a l e _ C u l t u r a l H e r i t a g e . a p r x Da t e S a v e d : 8 / 2 9 / 2 0 2 5 1 1 : 0 2 A M U s e r N a m e : M a r i n c S Aug, 2025 Data Sources: Figure 4 V#:01P#:60560495 0 100 200 30050 MetersDATUM: NAD 1983 UTM Zone 17N https://mdl.library.utoronto.ca/collections/air- photos/1954-air-photos-southern-ontario/index* when printed 11"x17" Contains Information licensed under the Open Government Licence Ontario. This drawing has beenprepared for the use of AECOM's client and may not be used, reproduced or relied upon by third parties,except as agreed by AECOM and its client, as required by law or for use by governmental reviewingagencies. AECOM accepts no responsibility, and denies any liability whatsoever, to any party that modifiesthis drawing without AECOM's express written consent. ° Project Area on 1954 Aerial Photography Whitevale Master Drainage Plan – Municipal Class Environmental Assessment (MCEA)° 1:4,000 Cultural Heritage Study Area Property Boundary By r o n S t Whitevale Rd Al t o n a R d QR27 Ma p l o c a t i o n : L : \ D C S \ G I S \ P r o j e c t s \ 6 0 5 6 0 4 9 5 _ W h i t e v a l e \ D e s i g n \ 0 1 _ R e p o r t s \ C u l t u r a l H e r i t a g e \ 6 0 5 6 0 4 9 5 _ W h i t e v a l e _ C u l t u r a l H e r i t a g e \ 6 0 5 6 0 4 9 5 _ W h i t e v a l e _ C u l t u r a l H e r i t a g e . a p r x Da t e S a v e d : 8 / 2 9 / 2 0 2 5 1 : 4 0 P M U s e r N a m e : M a r i n c S Aug, 2025 Data Sources: Figure 5a V#:01P#:60560495 0 5025 MetersDATUM: NAD 1983 UTM Zone 17N Ontario LIO, http://whitevale.ca/ heritageconservationdistrict.html* when printed 11"x17" Contains Information licensed under the Open Government Licence Ontario. This drawing has beenprepared for the use of AECOM's client and may not be used, reproduced or relied upon by third parties,except as agreed by AECOM and its client, as required by law or for use by governmental reviewingagencies. AECOM accepts no responsibility, and denies any liability whatsoever, to any party that modifiesthis drawing without AECOM's express written consent. ° Project Area 95% Design Whitevale Master Drainage Plan – Municipal Class Environmental Assessment (MCEA)° 1:800 Cultural Heritage Study Area Property Boundary Conceptual 95% Design Heritage Conservation District Gl a d s t o n e S t Mi l l S t Whitevale Rd Fa c t o r y S t Ma p l o c a t i o n : L : \ D C S \ G I S \ P r o j e c t s \ 6 0 5 6 0 4 9 5 _ W h i t e v a l e \ D e s i g n \ 0 1 _ R e p o r t s \ C u l t u r a l H e r i t a g e \ 6 0 5 6 0 4 9 5 _ W h i t e v a l e _ C u l t u r a l H e r i t a g e \ 6 0 5 6 0 4 9 5 _ W h i t e v a l e _ C u l t u r a l H e r i t a g e . a p r x Da t e S a v e d : 8 / 2 9 / 2 0 2 5 1 : 4 0 P M U s e r N a m e : M a r i n c S Aug, 2025 Data Sources: Figure 5b V#:01P#:60560495 0 5025 MetersDATUM: NAD 1983 UTM Zone 17N Ontario LIO, http://whitevale.ca/ heritageconservationdistrict.html* when printed 11"x17" Contains Information licensed under the Open Government Licence Ontario. This drawing has beenprepared for the use of AECOM's client and may not be used, reproduced or relied upon by third parties,except as agreed by AECOM and its client, as required by law or for use by governmental reviewingagencies. AECOM accepts no responsibility, and denies any liability whatsoever, to any party that modifiesthis drawing without AECOM's express written consent. ° Project Area 95% Design Whitevale Master Drainage Plan – Municipal Class Environmental Assessment (MCEA)° 1:800 Cultural Heritage Study Area Property Boundary Conceptual 95% Design Heritage Conservation District Go l f C l u b R d Whitevale Rd No r t h R d Ma p l o c a t i o n : L : \ D C S \ G I S \ P r o j e c t s \ 6 0 5 6 0 4 9 5 _ W h i t e v a l e \ D e s i g n \ 0 1 _ R e p o r t s \ C u l t u r a l H e r i t a g e \ 6 0 5 6 0 4 9 5 _ W h i t e v a l e _ C u l t u r a l H e r i t a g e \ 6 0 5 6 0 4 9 5 _ W h i t e v a l e _ C u l t u r a l H e r i t a g e . a p r x Da t e S a v e d : 8 / 2 9 / 2 0 2 5 1 : 4 0 P M U s e r N a m e : M a r i n c S Aug, 2025 Data Sources: Figure 5c V#:01P#:60560495 0 5025 MetersDATUM: NAD 1983 UTM Zone 17N Ontario LIO, http://whitevale.ca/ heritageconservationdistrict.html* when printed 11"x17" Contains Information licensed under the Open Government Licence Ontario. This drawing has beenprepared for the use of AECOM's client and may not be used, reproduced or relied upon by third parties,except as agreed by AECOM and its client, as required by law or for use by governmental reviewingagencies. AECOM accepts no responsibility, and denies any liability whatsoever, to any party that modifiesthis drawing without AECOM's express written consent. ° Project Area 95% Design Whitevale Master Drainage Plan – Municipal Class Environmental Assessment (MCEA)° 1:800 Cultural Heritage Study Area Property Boundary Conceptual 95% Design Heritage Conservation District Churchwin St No r t h R d Ma p l o c a t i o n : L : \ D C S \ G I S \ P r o j e c t s \ 6 0 5 6 0 4 9 5 _ W h i t e v a l e \ D e s i g n \ 0 1 _ R e p o r t s \ C u l t u r a l H e r i t a g e \ 6 0 5 6 0 4 9 5 _ W h i t e v a l e _ C u l t u r a l H e r i t a g e \ 6 0 5 6 0 4 9 5 _ W h i t e v a l e _ C u l t u r a l H e r i t a g e . a p r x Da t e S a v e d : 8 / 2 9 / 2 0 2 5 1 : 4 0 P M U s e r N a m e : M a r i n c S Aug, 2025 Data Sources: Figure 5d V#:01P#:60560495 0 5025 MetersDATUM: NAD 1983 UTM Zone 17N Ontario LIO, http://whitevale.ca/ heritageconservationdistrict.html* when printed 11"x17" Contains Information licensed under the Open Government Licence Ontario. This drawing has beenprepared for the use of AECOM's client and may not be used, reproduced or relied upon by third parties,except as agreed by AECOM and its client, as required by law or for use by governmental reviewingagencies. AECOM accepts no responsibility, and denies any liability whatsoever, to any party that modifiesthis drawing without AECOM's express written consent. ° Project Area 95% Design Whitevale Master Drainage Plan – Municipal Class Environmental Assessment (MCEA)° 1:800 Cultural Heritage Study Area Property Boundary Conceptual 95% Design Heritage Conservation District White vale Rd Altona Rd A ltona Rd Whitevale Rd Byron St Whitevale Rd M u t u al S t Whitevale Park >!( >!( >!(>!(>!( >!(>!( >!( >!( >!( >!( >!( >!( >!( >!( >!( >!( >!( >!(>!( 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 10 9 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 Ma p l o c a t i o n : L : \ D C S \ G I S \ P r o j e c t s \ 6 0 5 6 0 4 9 5 _ W h i t e v a l e \ D e s i g n \ 0 1 _ R e p o r t s \ C u l t u r a l H e r i t a g e \ 6 0 5 6 0 4 9 5 _ W h i t e v a l e _ C u l t u r a l H e r i t a g e \ 6 0 5 6 0 4 9 5 _ W h i t e v a l e _ C u l t u r a l H e r i t a g e . a p r x Da t e S a v e d : 8 / 2 9 / 2 0 2 5 1 1 : 0 2 A M U s e r N a m e : M a r i n c S Aug, 2025 Data Sources: Figure 6 V#:01P#:60560495 0 5025 MetersDATUM: NAD 1983 UTM Zone 17N Ontario LIO* when printed 11"x17" Contains Information licensed under the Open Government Licence Ontario. This drawing has beenprepared for the use of AECOM's client and may not be used, reproduced or relied upon by third parties,except as agreed by AECOM and its client, as required by law or for use by governmental reviewingagencies. AECOM accepts no responsibility, and denies any liability whatsoever, to any party that modifiesthis drawing without AECOM's express written consent. ° Project Area Photo Locations Whitevale Master Drainage Plan – Municipal Class Environmental Assessment (MCEA)° 1:800 Cultural Heritage Study Area >!(Photo Location Property Boundary Conceptual 95% Design Mill St Whi tev ale Rd Factory St Mill St Gla d st one S t Whitevale Rd Whitevale Rd >!(>!(>!( >!( >!( >!(>!( >!(>!( >!(>!(>!(>!( >!( >!(>!(>!( >!(>!(>!(>!(>!( >!(>!( >!( >!(>!(>!( >!(>!(>!(>!( 21 23 24 30 22 25 26 27 28 29 31 3334 32 3536 37 40 41 38 39 49 42 44 43 45 46 48 47 50 51 52 Ma p l o c a t i o n : L : \ D C S \ G I S \ P r o j e c t s \ 6 0 5 6 0 4 9 5 _ W h i t e v a l e \ D e s i g n \ 0 1 _ R e p o r t s \ C u l t u r a l H e r i t a g e \ 6 0 5 6 0 4 9 5 _ W h i t e v a l e _ C u l t u r a l H e r i t a g e \ 6 0 5 6 0 4 9 5 _ W h i t e v a l e _ C u l t u r a l H e r i t a g e . a p r x Da t e S a v e d : 8 / 2 9 / 2 0 2 5 1 1 : 0 2 A M U s e r N a m e : M a r i n c S Aug, 2025 Data Sources: Figure 6 V#:01P#:60560495 0 5025 MetersDATUM: NAD 1983 UTM Zone 17N Ontario LIO* when printed 11"x17" Contains Information licensed under the Open Government Licence Ontario. This drawing has beenprepared for the use of AECOM's client and may not be used, reproduced or relied upon by third parties,except as agreed by AECOM and its client, as required by law or for use by governmental reviewingagencies. AECOM accepts no responsibility, and denies any liability whatsoever, to any party that modifiesthis drawing without AECOM's express written consent. ° Project Area Photo Locations Whitevale Master Drainage Plan – Municipal Class Environmental Assessment (MCEA)° 1:800 Cultural Heritage Study Area >!(Photo Location Property Boundary Conceptual 95% Design Churchwin St Churchwin St Whit evale Rd Nor th R d Whitevale Rd No r th R d Whit e vale Rd Golf Club Rd >!( >!(>!(>!( >!(>!(>!(>!(>!(>!( >!( >!(>!( >!( >!(>!( >!(>!(>!( >!( >!( >!( > 45 46 48 47 50 51 52 53 54 59 57 56 58 55 61 66 60 63 65 64 69 Ma p l o c a t i o n : L : \ D C S \ G I S \ P r o j e c t s \ 6 0 5 6 0 4 9 5 _ W h i t e v a l e \ D e s i g n \ 0 1 _ R e p o r t s \ C u l t u r a l H e r i t a g e \ 6 0 5 6 0 4 9 5 _ W h i t e v a l e _ C u l t u r a l H e r i t a g e \ 6 0 5 6 0 4 9 5 _ W h i t e v a l e _ C u l t u r a l H e r i t a g e . a p r x Da t e S a v e d : 8 / 2 9 / 2 0 2 5 1 1 : 0 2 A M U s e r N a m e : M a r i n c S Aug, 2025 Data Sources: Figure 6 V#:01P#:60560495 0 5025 MetersDATUM: NAD 1983 UTM Zone 17N Ontario LIO* when printed 11"x17" Contains Information licensed under the Open Government Licence Ontario. This drawing has beenprepared for the use of AECOM's client and may not be used, reproduced or relied upon by third parties,except as agreed by AECOM and its client, as required by law or for use by governmental reviewingagencies. AECOM accepts no responsibility, and denies any liability whatsoever, to any party that modifiesthis drawing without AECOM's express written consent. ° Project Area Photo Locations Whitevale Master Drainage Plan – Municipal Class Environmental Assessment (MCEA)° 1:800 Cultural Heritage Study Area >!(Photo Location Property Boundary Conceptual 95% Design Churchwin St Glads t o n e St Glads t o n e S t NorthRd Nor th R d Churchwin St No r t h R d Nor th R d >!( >!( >!( >!( >!( >!( >!( >!(>!(>!( >!( 65 64 69 70 68 72 71 74 75 73 76 Ma p l o c a t i o n : L : \ D C S \ G I S \ P r o j e c t s \ 6 0 5 6 0 4 9 5 _ W h i t e v a l e \ D e s i g n \ 0 1 _ R e p o r t s \ C u l t u r a l H e r i t a g e \ 6 0 5 6 0 4 9 5 _ W h i t e v a l e _ C u l t u r a l H e r i t a g e \ 6 0 5 6 0 4 9 5 _ W h i t e v a l e _ C u l t u r a l H e r i t a g e . a p r x Da t e S a v e d : 8 / 2 9 / 2 0 2 5 1 1 : 0 2 A M U s e r N a m e : M a r i n c S Aug, 2025 Data Sources: Figure 6 V#:01P#:60560495 0 5025 MetersDATUM: NAD 1983 UTM Zone 17N Ontario LIO* when printed 11"x17" Contains Information licensed under the Open Government Licence Ontario. This drawing has beenprepared for the use of AECOM's client and may not be used, reproduced or relied upon by third parties,except as agreed by AECOM and its client, as required by law or for use by governmental reviewingagencies. AECOM accepts no responsibility, and denies any liability whatsoever, to any party that modifiesthis drawing without AECOM's express written consent. ° Project Area Photo Locations Whitevale Master Drainage Plan – Municipal Class Environmental Assessment (MCEA)° 1:800 Cultural Heritage Study Area >!(Photo Location Property Boundary Conceptual 95% Design City of Pickering Heritage Impact Assessment: Whitevale Heritage Conservation District (HCD). Whitevale Master Drainage Plan Ref: 60560495 AECOM Rpt_2026-05-27_Whitevale_Hia_60560495_Final 68 Appendix B: Existing Conditions –Whitevale Road (West) Location/ Address Property Description2 Cultural Heritage Recognition Photograph 320 Whitevale Road Circa 1960s. This is a one storey vernacular house with Ranch Style elements such as the low hipped roof and horizontal lines, The exterior walls have two colours of brick veneer. A large, off centre gable has been added to the front elevation to create a covered porch. Part V of the OHA (AECOM, 2025) 325 Whitevale Road Circa 2000s. Designed in a neo- eclectic fashion, this modern two storey house has freely adapted the characteristics of various architectural styles. It is clad in clapboard siding and has a prominent wrap-around verandah. Part V of the OHA (AECOM, 2025) 2 Most of the property descriptions in Appendix B, C, and D have been adapted from historical building survey included in Part 2 of The Hamlet of Whitevale HeritageConservation District Study: Background Report (1989). City of Pickering Heritage Impact Assessment: Whitevale Heritage Conservation District (HCD). Whitevale Master Drainage Plan Ref: 60560495 AECOM Rpt_2026-05-27_Whitevale_Hia_60560495_Final 69 Location/ Address Property Description2 Cultural Heritage Recognition Photograph 330 Whitevale Road Circa 1960s. Designed in the Ranch Style, this house has low pitched hip roof, wide eaves overhang and a combination of brick veneer and stone siding. None (AECOM, 2025) 335 Whitevale Road Circa 1900. This plain vernacular house is one-and-a-half storeys high with a front gable plan and balloon frame construction. It was probably constructed in the late 1800's to early 1900’s Although once clad in tongue and groove vertical board siding, it is now covered with modern metal siding. A portion of the house has been converted into a garage and a one storey rear addition extends from the back of the house. This structure may have been moved to the site from the Markham- Pickering Townline. Part V of the OHA (AECOM, 2025) City of Pickering Heritage Impact Assessment: Whitevale Heritage Conservation District (HCD). Whitevale Master Drainage Plan Ref: 60560495 AECOM Rpt_2026-05-27_Whitevale_Hia_60560495_Final 70 Location/ Address Property Description2 Cultural Heritage Recognition Photograph 340 Whitevale Road Circa 1850. Due to its Classical Revival detailing, it is generally felt that the Truman P. White house was built around 1850. The 1861 Census Return notes that T.P. White lived in a one-and-a-half storey frame dwelling. Originally the house had a front gable plan with a side entrance and return eaves detailing on the front facade. A later nineteenth century addition on the west side of the building gave the structure its present saltbox appearance. The exterior is clad in clapboard siding and most of the window sash still have the original 12/12 or 12/6 lights. The front entrance has a simple but elegant architrave consisting of an entablature and rectangular half sidelights over lower panels. The T.P. White house is one of the most important heritage structures in Whitevale and was highlighted as being of provincial architectural importance in the 1974 report, Architectural Evaluation of the North Pickering Project and the Toronto Airport Project Sites. Part V of the OHA (AECOM, 2025) City of Pickering Heritage Impact Assessment: Whitevale Heritage Conservation District (HCD). Whitevale Master Drainage Plan Ref: 60560495 AECOM Rpt_2026-05-27_Whitevale_Hia_60560495_Final 71 Location/ Address Property Description2 Cultural Heritage Recognition Photograph 345 Whitevale Road Circa 1865. Similar in design to the T.P. White house, this clapboard frame structure has retained its attractive Classical Revival detailing such as the entablature, side pilasters and half sidelights over lower panels around the front entrance door, the returned eaves,and the moulded cornice and frieze. This house may have been built by George Gilchrist, a local planer and later owner of a sash and door factory, in the mid-1860s after he purchased the property from T.P. White.It is considered to be one of the more important heritage buildings in Whitevale. Part V of the OHA (AECOM, 2025) 350 Whitevale Road Circa 1825; addition circa 1957. This one-and-one-half storey building was moved to its present site in 1980 from Brock Road. It incorporates a circa 1825 Vertical log structure under the exterior clapboard on the south end and a circa 1957 addition on the north end. A front porch was added in the 1980’s.The structure is deeply setback so as to look over the valley of West Duffins Creek and as such is not visible from the right of way. Part V of the OHA (AECOM, 2025) City of Pickering Heritage Impact Assessment: Whitevale Heritage Conservation District (HCD). Whitevale Master Drainage Plan Ref: 60560495 AECOM Rpt_2026-05-27_Whitevale_Hia_60560495_Final 72 Location/ Address Property Description2 Cultural Heritage Recognition Photograph 360 Whitevale Road Circa 1860s. This modest one-and- a-half storey frame building of post and beam construction has clapboard siding and a front gable plan. The front gable has returned eaves, a plain frieze and a side entrance with an unusual single half sidelight over a lower panel. A large two storey addition has been built on the rear of the original structure incorporating an existing one storey wing, the window openings have been made smaller and the exterior has been resided with new clapboard. Originally part of a farm complex, a Pennsylvania Style barn was demolished in the 1970's. Part V of the OHA (AECOM, 2025) 3190 Byron Street Circa early 1870s. Considered to be a good example of vernacular Gothic Revival architecture, this one-and-a-half storey clapboard house has a side gable roof with a front central wall gable and a three bay front facade. Decorative looped vergeboards adorn the front and side gables while the front entrance is highlighted by a simple but attractive entablature. The front gable has a triangular headed window with a multi-pane upper sash and an unusual hood ornament which duplicates the design of the looped gable Part V of the OHA (AECOM, 2025) City of Pickering Heritage Impact Assessment: Whitevale Heritage Conservation District (HCD). Whitevale Master Drainage Plan Ref: 60560495 AECOM Rpt_2026-05-27_Whitevale_Hia_60560495_Final 73 Location/ Address Property Description2 Cultural Heritage Recognition Photograph vergeboard. Most of the original window sash with its 6/6 panes remains intact. An extensive rear addition with board and batten and vertical tongue and groove siding extends to the rear of the main house. The gables on the addition also have looped vergeboard detailing, This house may have been built by Robert Vardon, a local planer, who purchased village Lots 7, 8 and 9 on the south side of Main Street in 1870. 3191 Byron Street Circa 1860s. It is believed that this house is the one-and-a-half storey T-shaped plan structure shown on the hill in the left forefront of the 1877 County Atlas view of Whitevale (Image 3).Once a typical example of local architecture, this building has undergone significant exterior changes probably ca. 1920s. A one storey addition has been added to the front northeast corner, across the front gable and in the northwest corner.A verandah on the west side was also part of this new section. Such architectural features on the addition as the one storey bay window, the decorative rafter ends under the eaves, the triple windows with small multi-paned upper sash and the slightly Part V of the OHA (AECOM, 2025) City of Pickering Heritage Impact Assessment: Whitevale Heritage Conservation District (HCD). Whitevale Master Drainage Plan Ref: 60560495 AECOM Rpt_2026-05-27_Whitevale_Hia_60560495_Final 74 Location/ Address Property Description2 Cultural Heritage Recognition Photograph cantilevered wooden shingle siding on the upper storey are reminiscent of the Craftsman style popular in the 1920s and 1930s.The two round headed windows on the upper storey of the north elevation and the segmental headed windows as well as the clapboard siding are probably original to the building. This house was used for many years as the United Church manse prior to a new manse was being built in the 1950s. 380 Whitevale Road Circa 1970s. A two storey house with an attached side garage which projects forward from the main house. The upper storey is clad in white clapboard while the lower facade has a stone finish. A one storey open verandah runs across the front facade from the garage. Part V of the OHA (AECOM, 2025) City of Pickering Heritage Impact Assessment: Whitevale Heritage Conservation District (HCD). Whitevale Master Drainage Plan Ref: 60560495 AECOM Rpt_2026-05-27_Whitevale_Hia_60560495_Final 75 Location/ Address Property Description2 Cultural Heritage Recognition Photograph 385 Whitevale Road Late 20th century. This building is a modern two storey frame house with wooden cladding. It has a front gable plan similar to many of the hamlet's earlier buildings, but is not visible from the right of way. A shed on the property is partially visible from Whitevale Road, but is heavily obscured by a historic cedar hedgerow that runs along the property edge. Part V of the OHA (AECOM, 2025) 395 Whitevale Road Early 20th century. This one-and-a- half storey frame house is located on a hill overlooking the park. The high hip roof with bellcase eaves, the wooden shingle clad hipped dormers with the Palladian inspired triple windows and multi-paned upper sash of the central unit are all reminiscent of the Craftsmen style of architecture of the 1920s and 1930s. The house is clad with board and batten siding This house was built on the foundations of an earlier house which was destroyed by fire in the early 1900's. Part V of the OHA (AECOM, 2025) City of Pickering Heritage Impact Assessment: Whitevale Heritage Conservation District (HCD). Whitevale Master Drainage Plan Ref: 60560495 AECOM Rpt_2026-05-27_Whitevale_Hia_60560495_Final 76 Location/ Address Property Description2 Cultural Heritage Recognition Photograph 405 Whitevale Road Circa 1860. This small plain frame house known as the Christian House is shown on the 1860 Plan of the Village of Major and in the 1877 County Atlas (Image 3). It consists of a one-and-a-half storey frame building with a side gable plan and a rear one storey kitchen addition. The front portion is clad in vertical board and batten while the rear addition has both clapboard and board and batten siding. The front facade has an off centre entrance door and a single side window. This building was designated under Part IV of the Ontario Heritage Act prior to the creation of the Whitevale HCD. Circa 1825-1835. Restored as a community hall by residents of Whitevale, this one-and-a-half storey frame house with gable roof, clapboard siding and early 19th century exterior detailing is believed to be the earliest surviving building in Whitevale. Known as the Miller House after James and Robenna Miller, who purchased the property from T.P. White in 1866, this house remained in the family until it was expropriated in 1972. It was designated under Part IV of The Ontario Heritage Act prior to the creation of the Whitevale HCD. Part V of the OHA (AECOM, 2025) (AECOM, 2025) City of Pickering Heritage Impact Assessment: Whitevale Heritage Conservation District (HCD). Whitevale Master Drainage Plan Ref: 60560495 AECOM Rpt_2026-05-27_Whitevale_Hia_60560495_Final 77 Location/ Address Property Description2 Cultural Heritage Recognition Photograph Local historians have suggested that this house was built as early as 1825 due to its unusual construction of vertical plank walls pegged to the upper beam and lower sill. It has been speculated that a French Canadian logger working in the Great Pine Ridge clearing in the early 1820s may have built the house since it is similar to the Lower St. Lawrence Valley construction methods of the period, The house is shown in the 1877 County Atlas and on the 1860 Plan of the Village of Major. The house has an unusual single sidelight at the main entrance, a front gable plan, returned caves detailing, corner boards and fascia and a fieldstone foundation. A one storey side addition extends to the east of the main entrance. A one storey verandah is located on the south side of the house. Whitevale Park also contains a commemorative structure dedicated to the history of the Whitevale Bridge, which includes a paved surface and two interpretive signs, along with two concrete portions of the circa 1926 and 1929 bridges. (AECOM, 2025) City of Pickering Heritage Impact Assessment: Whitevale Heritage Conservation District (HCD). Whitevale Master Drainage Plan Ref: 60560495 AECOM Rpt_2026-05-27_Whitevale_Hia_60560495_Final 78 Appendix C: Existing Conditions –Whitevale Road (East) Location/Address Property Description Cultural Heritage Recognition Photograph 424/430 Whitevale Road Associated with the milling complex across the street at 425 Whitevale Road, this is a late 19th to early 20th century gambrel roofed structure, with an attached garage at the east end. It is currently clad with sheet metal and is in a state of abandonment. Part V of the OHA (AECOM, 2025) 425 Whitevale Road The first sawmill was established in the early 1820s to the northwest of the present building. It was water powered with a mill pond to the north and a mill race running down to the east of the site. In 1855 a grist mill was built immediately to the north of the road and a planing mill was built just south of the sawmill. In the early 1870s, a brick woolen mill was constructed on the south side of the road. After fire destroyed most of the industrial buildings in the 1870s, the grist mill was re-established in the shell of the brick woolen mill in the late 1870s and continued to operate Part V of the OHA (AECOM, 2025) City of Pickering Heritage Impact Assessment: Whitevale Heritage Conservation District (HCD). Whitevale Master Drainage Plan Ref: 60560495 AECOM Rpt_2026-05-27_Whitevale_Hia_60560495_Final 79 Location/Address Property Description Cultural Heritage Recognition Photograph until 1961 when it was destroyed by fire. The present feed mill which is the only visible reminder of Whitevale's former Industrial past is a concrete block and sheet metal structure that was built on the foundations of the former woolens mill. The present mill was opened in November 1962 and now serves as a commercial outlet for wholesale giftware company Ace Annison Ltd. 3195 Factory Street Circa 1855. Shown in the 1860 Plan of the Village of Major, this building is believed to incorporate the 1855 store/residence of Donald McPhee. McPhee purchased the one acre site in Lots 28 and 29 in 1857 from T.P. White but was assessed as the occupant as early in 1856. The 1861 Census Return recorded that McPhee lived in a one-and-a-half storey frame dwelling. The T.L. Wilson family who owned and operated the mill,lived in the house from 1932 to its expropriation in 1972. Mi.11 owner Joseph Leary owned the house from 1903 to 1930. The building is also shown in the 1877 County Atlas as the village post office.The present house has an eclectic vernacular style due to additions and alterations. A photograph from the early 1900s shows that the north elevation facing Part V of the OHA (AECOM, 2025) City of Pickering Heritage Impact Assessment: Whitevale Heritage Conservation District (HCD). Whitevale Master Drainage Plan Ref: 60560495 AECOM Rpt_2026-05-27_Whitevale_Hia_60560495_Final 80 Location/Address Property Description Cultural Heritage Recognition Photograph Main Street once had a one storey verandah. According to former resident Audrey Hornshaw this verandah had been removed by 1932. A one storey verandah presently runs across the west elevation. The second storey dormer windows have Palladian-inspired windows with small multi-paned upper sashes. 440 Whitevale Road Circa 1900. Believed to have been built by Charles Rice, this two storey red brick house has a hipped roof with a recessed side front entrance, a two storey porch and balcony and segmental window openings, The first floor porch was originally open on the first floor level and was decorated with a square balustrade railing like the existing balustrade on the second floor balcony. This house was apparently located in front of Rice's earlier frame home and workshop. Part V of the OHA (AECOM, 2025) City of Pickering Heritage Impact Assessment: Whitevale Heritage Conservation District (HCD). Whitevale Master Drainage Plan Ref: 60560495 AECOM Rpt_2026-05-27_Whitevale_Hia_60560495_Final 81 Location/Address Property Description Cultural Heritage Recognition Photograph 450 Whitevale Road Circa 1860s.This modest one-and-a- half storey frame house has board and batten siding with a side gable plan. It is three bays wide with a central door and two flanking side windows. The window sash still has the original 6/6 lights. A small portico with decorative trim is presently located over the main entrance. This house is depicted in the 1877 County Atlas. Part V of the OHA (AECOM, 2025) 455 Whitevale Road Circa 1858. This building is a one- and-a-half storey frame house with narrow clapboard siding The main house originally had vertical board and batten siding. The front portion of the house which was probably built by local carpenter Joseph Vardon ca. 1858-1859 is three bays wide with a centre wall gable. The main entrance has rectangular half sidelights and a simple but attractive door frame. The side elevations have returned eaves detailing while plain cornerboards and a moulded cornice complete this attractive house. The window sash has 6/6 lights.Joseph Ellis, local manufacturer and operator of the Whitevale woolen mill during the 1860s and 1870s,owned the Part V of the OHA (AECOM, 2025) City of Pickering Heritage Impact Assessment: Whitevale Heritage Conservation District (HCD). Whitevale Master Drainage Plan Ref: 60560495 AECOM Rpt_2026-05-27_Whitevale_Hia_60560495_Final 82 Location/Address Property Description Cultural Heritage Recognition Photograph property from 1872 to 1877. Shoemaker Daniel Moodie owned the property from 1877 to 1892.It is generally believed that the original rear wing was built during Moodie’s ownership. The house also served as a funeral home at one time. In 1978 the building was purchased from the Ontario Land Corporation by Gordon and Anna Willson and the front portion of the house was restored. The original rear kitchen wing was dismantled and a new replica wing was constructed in its place. 460 Whitevale Road Circa 1870. This building is a one- and-a-half storey frame house clad in clapboard siding with a side gable plan and central wall gable on the front elevation, The centre gable has an attractive Gothic style pointed arch window and looped vergeboard and pendants are found in both the front and side gables. The front porch probably dates from the early 1900s and the side vestibule is a later addition. Constructed in the late 1860s, early 1870s, this building is depicted in the 1877 County Atlas. According to past owner Austin Metcalfe, a large shed with a coach house was taken down during the ate 1950s. Part V of the OHA (AECOM, 2025) City of Pickering Heritage Impact Assessment: Whitevale Heritage Conservation District (HCD). Whitevale Master Drainage Plan Ref: 60560495 AECOM Rpt_2026-05-27_Whitevale_Hia_60560495_Final 83 Location/Address Property Description Cultural Heritage Recognition Photograph 465 Whitevale Road Circa 1840s with late 1860s addition. This one-and-a-half storey frame building with clapboard siding is known to have been used as a hotel around 1865-1866 by Thomas Burton who was listed as an innkeeper on Concession 4 Lot 31 in the 1866 Assessment Rolls. In The Province of Ontario Gazetteer and Directory of 1869 Burton was listed as the proprietor of the Major Hotel. The present structure appears to consist of two different sections with the west side possibly being an earlier house moved to the site. The sidelight window on the west entrance bears the inscription "1847, T. Burton." The proportions of the west section and its classical revival entranceway bear a resemblance to the style of the T.P. White house while the eastern section appears to be a later addition of Gothic Revival proportions and style. At one time a ballroom and shed extended to the west of the present building but it was destroyed by fire in August 1961. As well, numerous sheds once stood to the rear of the building for stabling horses. The 1877 County Atlas depicts a large building with numerous wings owned by "J.F.". The building was last used as a hotel Part V of the OHA (AECOM, 2025) City of Pickering Heritage Impact Assessment: Whitevale Heritage Conservation District (HCD). Whitevale Master Drainage Plan Ref: 60560495 AECOM Rpt_2026-05-27_Whitevale_Hia_60560495_Final 84 Location/Address Property Description Cultural Heritage Recognition Photograph in the early 1900s and has been a private residence for most of this century.A headstone dated 1854 found in the Whitevale Cemetery is said to be that of an unknown stranger who perished at the hotel in that year. 470 Whitevale Road Circa 1870s. This vernacular Gothic- styled one-and-a-half storey frame building has a gabled ell plan with a steeply pitched roof. It is clad in V- groove board and batten siding and has window sash with 6/6 lights, an attractive one storey open verandah with decorative fretwork and spindle work runs across the front of the main block on the east side. The verandah has been restored without an earlier balustrade and an attractive nineteenth century designed picket fence now encloses this corner property. Daniel Moody purchased one quarter of an acre of Lot 31, Con. 5, Village Lot #9 in 1858 from Truman White for $61.00. A building (now removed) shown in the 1877 County Atlas in the southeast corner of Lot 9 was probably the shop built by shoemaker Daniel Moodie ca. 1858. It is believed that this earlier building was attached to the southeast front of the building where the porch is now situated.Daniel and Elizabeth Moody sold the property in 1873 to None (AECOM, 2025) City of Pickering Heritage Impact Assessment: Whitevale Heritage Conservation District (HCD). Whitevale Master Drainage Plan Ref: 60560495 AECOM Rpt_2026-05-27_Whitevale_Hia_60560495_Final 85 Location/Address Property Description Cultural Heritage Recognition Photograph James Cloakwell, harness-maker, for $600.00 but continued to occupy the premises until early 1874.James and Phoebe Taylor purchased the lot in 1900 Taylor was a local merchant. Samuel Pennock, undertaker, owned the property from 1913 to 1919; and Margaret Annis from 1919 to 1937., Edna and D.F.G. Turner purchased the lot in 1937. 475 Whitevale Road Circa 1900. This modest building has housed the local branch of the township library for many years. Prior to being a library, it was apparently used as a local bank branch. The front gable plan which is a typical Whitevale style is shingled while the rest of the building has clapboard siding. The building currently houses the Whitevale Arts & Culture Centre (WACC). Part V of the OHA (AECOM, 2025) City of Pickering Heritage Impact Assessment: Whitevale Heritage Conservation District (HCD). Whitevale Master Drainage Plan Ref: 60560495 AECOM Rpt_2026-05-27_Whitevale_Hia_60560495_Final 86 Location/Address Property Description Cultural Heritage Recognition Photograph Whitevale Road The community mailboxes on Whitevale road occupy a separate property that was included in the original bounds of the HCD but is not associated with a street address or heritage structure. It remains, nonetheless, a contributing property to the HCD. Part V of the OHA (AECOM, 2025) 480 Whitevale Road Circa 1860s. Once known as the Beaton House, this large multi-gabled house was originally a much smaller T-shaped plan consisting of the northwest section facing Gladstone St. and a wing running to the east. The present multi-gabled wing on the east side and the north multi-gabled wing were built in 1978. The eastern wing replaced an earlier wing which once housed the Pickering Township office during former owner Donald Beeton's residency.The original section is two storeys high with a steeply pitched multi-·gabled roof, board and batten siding and decorative vergeboard, finials and pendants. All of the original round headed windows were changed ca. Part V of the OHA (AECOM, 2025) City of Pickering Heritage Impact Assessment: Whitevale Heritage Conservation District (HCD). Whitevale Master Drainage Plan Ref: 60560495 AECOM Rpt_2026-05-27_Whitevale_Hia_60560495_Final 87 Location/Address Property Description Cultural Heritage Recognition Photograph 1920s to the present rectangular openings and multi-paned upper sash. The main entrance is located in the side wing. It has a handsome rectangular transom window, half sidelights over lower panels and decorative wooden trim. A second floor double lancet window is located over the entrance and one storey verandah. The verandah was restored to its present appearance in 1978.Mr. James Taylor purchased a quarter of an acre in the southeast corner of Lot 7 in 1868. The commercial building shown on Lot b in the 1877 County Atlas is probably the Taylor general store. 485 Whitevale Road Circa 1874. Francis von Scharfenstein, shoemaker, purchased one quarter of an acre of Lot 31, Con. 4 from Thomas and Susannah Burton in March 1874. Burton owned the hotel to the east of the property. Restored in 1976, this frame one-and a-half storey building was erected as a shoe maker’s shop and residence. Used throughout most of the 20th century for residential purposes, it was converted back to commercial use in the late 1970s and housed a Woolen Craft Shop into the late 20th century. Clad in vertical board and batten, the architectural style is typical of early Part V of the OHA (AECOM, 2025) City of Pickering Heritage Impact Assessment: Whitevale Heritage Conservation District (HCD). Whitevale Master Drainage Plan Ref: 60560495 AECOM Rpt_2026-05-27_Whitevale_Hia_60560495_Final 88 Location/Address Property Description Cultural Heritage Recognition Photograph commercial buildings. It is residential in form and appearance with a front gable roof. Two residential style windows and a side entrance door with a transom window are located on the commercial level, while a wooden storefront cornice divides it from the upper residential area. A rear summer kitchen was removed during the 1976 renovations.At one time there were apparently several outbuildings on this property which were part of the Spink brothers' carriage shop. In the 1877 County Atlas, Joseph Wilson, a local carriagemaker, is noted as the property owner. 489 Whitevale Road Circa 1870s. This one-and-a-half storey frame residence has clapboard siding and handsome exterior detailing. Its gabled ell plan is typical of many of the larger hamlet residences and the front gable is decorated with Gothic style looped vergeboard, finial and pendant. A one storey verandah is located at the main entrance. At one time there appears to have been several ancillary structures associated with the Spink brothers’ carriage shop. The 1877 County Atlas identifies Joseph Wilson, a local carriage maker, as the registered owner of the property at that time. Part V of the OHA (AECOM, 2025) City of Pickering Heritage Impact Assessment: Whitevale Heritage Conservation District (HCD). Whitevale Master Drainage Plan Ref: 60560495 AECOM Rpt_2026-05-27_Whitevale_Hia_60560495_Final 89 Location/Address Property Description Cultural Heritage Recognition Photograph (AECOM, 2025) 490 Whitevale Road Circa 1961. According to local history, the first store located on this property was built by Israel Burton and sold to Mr. Porteous. The nineteenth century general store was destroyed by fire in 1961. The present two storey concrete block structure immediately replaced the previous store and was used as the only general store in Whitevale until the late 1970s. The former store was clad with clapboard and finished to an early 20th century appearance to complement the surrounding HCD in 1993. None (AECOM, 2025) City of Pickering Heritage Impact Assessment: Whitevale Heritage Conservation District (HCD). Whitevale Master Drainage Plan Ref: 60560495 AECOM Rpt_2026-05-27_Whitevale_Hia_60560495_Final 90 Location/Address Property Description Cultural Heritage Recognition Photograph 494 Whitevale Road Circa 1860. This two storey buff brick residence was designated under Part IV of the Ontario Heritage Act prior to the creation of the Whitevale HCD. It is believed to have been built ca. 1860 as a frame structure with the exterior brickwork being added around 1876. It has a steeply pitched gable roof with a front centre wall gable. A round headed window is located in the centre gable. The window and door openings have been decorated with contrasting corbelled and moulded red brick voussoirs. At one time the house had a one storey wrap-around verandah. Part V of the OHA (AECOM, 2025) 495 Whitevale Road Circa 1857. One of two pre-1900 brick residences in the hamlet, this house was originally clad in board and batten and later reclad with a brick veneer. It is one-and-a-half storeys with a front gable dormer and the main facade is three bays wide with a central door with a window on each side. Over the main entrance the centre wall gable has a pointed arch window. The front entrance has a rectangular transom window. The present one storey verandah on the front facade is a 20th century addition probably replacing the earlier verandah.Red brick voussoirs and quoins accent the exterior buff brick walls. A one storey rear addition Part V of the OHA (AECOM, 2025) City of Pickering Heritage Impact Assessment: Whitevale Heritage Conservation District (HCD). Whitevale Master Drainage Plan Ref: 60560495 AECOM Rpt_2026-05-27_Whitevale_Hia_60560495_Final 91 Location/Address Property Description Cultural Heritage Recognition Photograph extends to the back. This structure is shown on the 1877 County Atlas as the property of C. Dale, the original owner of the neighbouring cheese factory. 499 Whitevale Road Late 1860s. Originally built as a cheese factory, this two storey building was renovated during the 1980s when insulbrick siding was removed and replaced with the current board and batten siding. A large east addition and garage were added to the site during the renovations. This building represents one of a few nineteenth century commercial buildings readily identifiable within the hamlet. Built by C. Dale in the late 1860's this building was listed in the 1871 Census Return as the property of Peter Hoover and Co. It appears to have ceased to operate as a cheese factory during the mid-to-late 1870’s and has probably been used as a private residence since that time. Part V of the OHA (AECOM, 2025) City of Pickering Heritage Impact Assessment: Whitevale Heritage Conservation District (HCD). Whitevale Master Drainage Plan Ref: 60560495 AECOM Rpt_2026-05-27_Whitevale_Hia_60560495_Final 92 Location/Address Property Description Cultural Heritage Recognition Photograph 498 Whitevale Road Circa 1860. Apparently built as a temperance hall and later used by dentists Patterson and Fenton ca. 1866, this rectangular one-and-a-half storey frame building was probably originally clad in wooden siding. Presently it is covered in insulbrick. It has a front gable roof typical of an early public building. The front porch was probably a later addition based on the rusticated concrete block piers and smooth concrete porch surface, which are all that remain. This building is shown in the 1877 County Atlas and probably dates from the late 1850s to early 1860s. Mention is made in the local histories of the Whitevale temperance hall having been used by the founding fathers of the Baptist Church (once located at Church and Gladstone Streets) for their first Meeting House. It is presently owned by the Province of Ontario. Part V of the OHA (AECOM, 2025) City of Pickering Heritage Impact Assessment: Whitevale Heritage Conservation District (HCD). Whitevale Master Drainage Plan Ref: 60560495 AECOM Rpt_2026-05-27_Whitevale_Hia_60560495_Final 93 Location/Address Property Description Cultural Heritage Recognition Photograph 503 Whitevale Road 1980s. Constructed as a modern brick replica of a mid-nineteenth Ontario century farmhouse, this building is one and-a-half storeys in height with a side gable roof. A front: centre gable is located over an entrance door with a rectangular transom window and half sidelights. Dichromatic brickwork has been used to accent the window and door openings, the corners and the front facade. Part V of the OHA (AECOM, 2025) 507 Whitevale Road 1980s. The original building on this site was demolished and replaced by the present one-and-a-half storey house.It is clad in wooden shingle siding and has a one storey open verandah across the front facade. Part V of the OHA (AECOM, 2025) City of Pickering Heritage Impact Assessment: Whitevale Heritage Conservation District (HCD). Whitevale Master Drainage Plan Ref: 60560495 AECOM Rpt_2026-05-27_Whitevale_Hia_60560495_Final 94 Location/Address Property Description Cultural Heritage Recognition Photograph 510 Whitevale Road 1884. A one half acre property was sold by Dr. Jacob Taber in 1883 to the Trustees of the Methodist Church and the present church building was constructed in 1884 to replace the 1854 Methodist Church located behind the present cemetery to the rear of Lot 28, Concession 4. Its architectural style is typical of many late 19th century rural churches and has liberally used dichromatic and decorative brickwork to its advantage. The building is set atop a high dressed fieldstone foundation. The gothic influenced gable--end church has a steeply pitched roof with a bell tower placed at the peak of the front gable. Below the stone parapet of the roof exists a well-detailed corbel table. A large stained glass wheel window is featured below the corbelling over the lower gable roof main entrance which contains a quatrefoil window fitted into the gothic arch opening. A pair of lancet windows with stain glass decoration are found on either side of the projecting main entrance in the wall of the gabled nave. A brick label hood mould decorates each of the gothic style windows and doorway.The side elevation bays are divided by brick and stone buttresses. Each bay contains a paired set of gothic Part V of the OHA (AECOM, 2025) City of Pickering Heritage Impact Assessment: Whitevale Heritage Conservation District (HCD). Whitevale Master Drainage Plan Ref: 60560495 AECOM Rpt_2026-05-27_Whitevale_Hia_60560495_Final 95 Location/Address Property Description Cultural Heritage Recognition Photograph wooden windows complete with a trefoil, The basement is lit by 2/2 double hung windows found in the lower stone walling, 520 Whitevale Road Circa 1960s. This tiny house is one storey high with a hipped roof and a small portico over the front side entrance. Prior to its construction, a gas station was located at the front of the lot. None (Google Street View, 2020) 530 Whitevale Road Late 1940s.The former Trinity Baptist Church.Constructed in rusticated concrete block with redbrick accents, this structure was built in the late 1940s after a split in the main Baptist congregation.It has been used as a private residence since the late 1960s and was recently clad in stucco. None (AECOM, 2025) City of Pickering Heritage Impact Assessment: Whitevale Heritage Conservation District (HCD). Whitevale Master Drainage Plan Ref: 60560495 AECOM Rpt_2026-05-27_Whitevale_Hia_60560495_Final 96 Location/Address Property Description Cultural Heritage Recognition Photograph 3196 Golf Club Road 1988. Designed in a neo-eclectic fashion, this modern two storey house has freely adapted the characteristics of various architectural styles. It is clad in clapboard siding. None (Google Street View, 2020) City of Pickering Heritage Impact Assessment: Whitevale Heritage Conservation District (HCD). Whitevale Master Drainage Plan Ref: 60560495 AECOM Rpt_2026-05-27_Whitevale_Hia_60560495_Final 97 Appendix D: Existing Conditions –North Road Location/Address Property Description Cultural Heritage Recognition Photograph 3215 North Road Circa 1900. The front gable roof and rectangular plan of this house is common to the village. It has a two bay front facade with a side entrance and the window openings are square headed. The siding is vertical tongue and groove and the front entrance has a rectangular transom window. Renovations have resulted in the addition of two skylights on the southern slope of the roof and an extensive rear addition. A one storey verandah with a square balustrade runs across the front elevation and is approached from the side. Part V of the OHA (AECOM, 2025) 3220 North Road This is a modern gambrel roof house with an attached side garage.It is clad in clapboard siding. Part V of the OHA (AECOM, 2025) City of Pickering Heritage Impact Assessment: Whitevale Heritage Conservation District (HCD). Whitevale Master Drainage Plan Ref: 60560495 AECOM Rpt_2026-05-27_Whitevale_Hia_60560495_Final 98 Location/Address Property Description Cultural Heritage Recognition Photograph 3225 North Road Circa 1900. Built in a vernacular style typical of several houses in the village, this building is one- and-a-half storeys with a steeply- pitched side gable roof and a three bay front facade with a centre door and two side windows. It has segmental window openings, a one storey front porch and has been reclad in modern raised vertical board siding. A two storey addition extends from the rear of the building. The front entrance door has round headed upper panels reminiscent of Italianate detailing. None (AECOM, 2025) 3230 North Road Circa 1870. This one-and-a-half storey house has a side gable roof with a front projecting cross gable. The front gable has an ornamental vergeboard with a pendant and finial. Presently clad in two tone metal siding on the lower walls and board and batten metal siding in the gables, the house was probably originally clad with clapboard. The front entrance door has a simple entablature and some of the window sash has retained the original 6/6 lights. A one storey shed addition is attached to the rear of the house. Built circa 1870, this structure is probably Part V of the OHA (AECOM, 2025) City of Pickering Heritage Impact Assessment: Whitevale Heritage Conservation District (HCD). Whitevale Master Drainage Plan Ref: 60560495 AECOM Rpt_2026-05-27_Whitevale_Hia_60560495_Final 99 Location/Address Property Description Cultural Heritage Recognition Photograph the house depicted in the 1877 County Atlas view of Whitevale at the southwest corner of North and Churchwin Streets. Elder Tatten, who built the Christian Church across Church Street purchased part of Lot 43 in 1868 and may have been the original builder. 3235 North Road Mid-1980s. Designed in the Ranch style, this house has a gable roof form with an attached garage on the south end and a cross gable on the north end. The roofline has a moderate eaves overhang and the house has been clad in brick siding. None (AECOM, 2025) City of Pickering Heritage Impact Assessment: Whitevale Heritage Conservation District (HCD). Whitevale Master Drainage Plan Ref: 60560495 AECOM Rpt_2026-05-27_Whitevale_Hia_60560495_Final 100 Location/Address Property Description Cultural Heritage Recognition Photograph 3245 North Road Early 1950s. This modern, vernacular house has a hip roof with a front gable, The exterior is clad with wooden siding and fieldstone. None (AECOM, 2025) 3250 North Road This property was the location of the former Christian Church/Odd Fellow's Hall. This structure was taken to the Pickering Museum Village in Green River in the late 1970s after having been moved to the Major Farm earlier in the decade. The present clapboard clad house is a late 20th to early 21st century replica of the vernacular style house typical to the village, and includes a steeply pitched front gable with an upper lancet window, a door with upper sidelights, 6/6 sash windows, and fieldstone cladding over the concrete foundation None (AECOM, 2025) Appendix E Designation By-Law for the Whitevale HCD Ce document est tiré du registre aux fins de la Loi sur le patrimoine de l’Ontario, accessible à partir du site Web de la Fiducie du patrimoine ontarien sur www.heritagetrust.on.ca. This document was retrieved from the Ontario Heritage Act Register, which is accessible through the website of the Ontario Heritage Trust at www.heritagetrust.on.ca. THE CORPORATION OF THE TOWN OF PICKERING BY-LAW NUMBER 4074/92 I Being a by-law to designate the Whitevale Heritage Conservation District pursuant to the Ontario Heritage Act, Part V WHEREAS, pursuant to the provisions of section 41 of the Ontario Heritage Act, R.s.o. 1990, chapter 0.18, where there is in effect in a municipality an official plan that contains provisions relating to the establishment of he:citage conservation districts, the council of the municipality may by by-law designate the municipality or any defined area or areas thereof as a heritage conservation district; and WHEREAS Section II of Part I of the Town of Pickering District Plan, being an official plan, contains provisions relating to the establishment of hei:itage conservation districts, and has l:reen in effect since November 10, 1989, and continues to be in effect; and WHEREAS The Corporation of the Town of Pickering has examined that area within the Town of Pickering known as the Hamlet of Whitevale for deaignation as a heritage conservation district and has determined that a defined area thereof should be so designated; NOW THEREFORE, the Council of the Corporation of the Town of Pickering HEREBY ENACTS AS FOLLOWS: 1. The area of the Town of Pickering shaded on Schedule I to this By-law is hereby designated as a heritage conservation district to be known as The Whitevale Heritage conservation District. 2. By-law 3632/91 and 4039/92 are hereby repeale~. 3. This by-law shall not come i.nto force without the app:i:-oval of the Ontario Municipal Board. BY-LAW read a first and second time the 4th day of August, 1992. /9'9$,f? BY-LAW read a third time and finally passed the 7th day of June, ~. / / Clex:k I fJ~_ SCHEDULE I TO BY-LAW 4074/92 PASSED THIS 7th DAY OF~~-Ju_n_e~_1993 Appendix F Key Project Personnel Liam Ryan, MES, MCIP, RPP, CAHP Cultural Heritage Lead/Planner Education MES, Environmental Studies: Planning, York University, 2022. BA (Hons), Anthropology, University of Waterloo, 2019. Years of Experience Total of 7 years (5 with AECOM) Professional Affiliations Member of Ontario Professional Planner Institute (OPPI) Member of Canadian Institute of Planners (CIP) Member of Canadian Association of Heritage Professionals (CAHP) Areas of Expertise ✓ Project Management ✓ Policy Development and implementation ✓ Stakeholder Engagement ✓ Architectural and Landscape Analysis ✓ Heritage Conservation ____________________________________________________________________________ Profile Liam Ryan holds a master’s degree in Environmental Studies: Planning with a specialization in both urban and regional planning and heritage planning from York University. He is currently a Register Professional Planner (RPP) and a Professional Member of the Canadian Association of Heritage Professionals (CAHP). As a Cultural Heritage Planner at AECOM, Liam has extensive experience managing heritage planning projects, including Cultural Heritage Resource Assessment Reports (CHRARs), Cultural Heritage Evaluation Reports (CHERs), and Heritage Impact Assessments (HIAs). His work spans municipal stakeholders and large-scale infrastructure projects, with key clients including Metrolinx and the Ontario Ministry of Transportation (MTO). In addition, Liam has contributed to Documentation and Salvage Reports and provided policy analysis for a Heritage Conservation District Study. His expertise in cultural heritage evaluation, policy review, and impact assessment allows him to effectively navigate regulatory frameworks and develop strategic heritage conservation solutions that balance preservation and development. With a strong foundation in heritage planning, regulatory compliance, cultural heritage evaluation and heritage impact assessment, Liam is committed to protecting and managing Ontario’s cultural heritage resources. His leadership in project management, proactive stakeholder engagement, and strategic policy analysis enable him to effectively guide multidisciplinary teams, coordinate complex projects, and deliver practical, well-informed solutions that align with provincial and municipal heritage policies. Select Project Experience HIA Experience Ontario Ministry of Transportation (MTO), Highway 400 – Highway 404 (Bradford Bypass), Bradford Bypass Project., Heritage Impact Assessment (HIA): 3412 8th Line (2024- Present). Cultural Heritage Lead & Cultural Heritage Planner. Documented the results of the site visit and consultation undertaken for the Subject Property. Identified impacts resulting from the project and assessed conservation alternatives and recommended mitigation measures that conserve the cultural heritage value of the Subject Property while allowing the required infrastructure development. Peel of Region, Detailed Design, Contract Administration and Construction Inspection Airport Road Improvements Project. Heritage Impact Assessment (HIA): 15421 Airport Road, Caledon east, Ontario (2023- Present). Cultural Heritage Planner/Report Writer. Evaluated the Subject Property using Ontario Regulation 9/06 and assessed the proposed development impacts on the potential cultural heritage value and heritage attributes of the listed heritage property. The HIA assessed the proposed development impacts and proposed mitigation options with recommendations to avoid or reduce any negative impacts to the property. City of London, Heritage Impact Assessments (HIAs) for the London Rapid Transit and Infrastructure Improvements – Downtown Loop, London, Ontario (2021-2023). Cultural Heritage Planner/Report Writer. Completed four (4) HIAs for various heritage properties impacted by the London Rapid Transit and Infrastructure Improvements. The HIAs Identified impacts resulting from the infrastructure improvements, assessed conservation alternatives, and recommended mitigation measures that conserve the cultural heritage value of the properties while allowing the required infrastructure development. Ontario Ministry of Transportation (MTO), Highway 400 – Highway 404 (Bradford Bypass), Bradford Bypass Project., Heritage Impact Assessment (HIA): 2948 Yonge Street (2022- 2023). Cultural Heritage Planner/Report Writer. Documented the results of the site visit and consultation undertaken for the Subject Property. Identified impacts resulting from the project, assessed conservation alternatives, and recommended mitigation measures that conserve the cultural heritage value of the Subject Property while allowing the required infrastructure development. City of London, Western Road and Sarnia Road/Philip Aziz Avenue Improvements. Heritage Impact Assessment (HIA): 150 Philip Aziz Avenue (2022-2023). Cultural Heritage Planner/Report Writer. The HIA was written to address the impacts of the proposed infrastructure improvements to Western Road and Philip Aziz Avenue on the property, which is designated Part IV of the Ontario Heritage Act. The HIA assessed the proposed development impacts and proposed mitigation options with recommendations to avoid or reduce any negative impacts to the property. Monteith Brown Planning Consultants, Heritage Impact Assessment (HIA), 2473 Oxford Street West, London, Ontario (2022). Cultural Heritage Planner/Report Writer. Evaluated the Subject Property using Ontario Regulation 9/06 and assessed the proposed development impacts on the potential cultural heritage value and heritage attributes of the listed heritage property. Worked with the client to adjust the site design to mitigate and reduce any negative impacts to the heritage attributes of the Subject Property. No decision has been made on this application to date. Monteith Brown Planning Consultants, Heritage Impact Assessment (HIA), 146 Exeter Road, London, Ontario (2022). Cultural Heritage Planner/Report Writer. Evaluated the Subject Property using Ontario Regulation 9/06 and assessed the proposed development impacts on the potential cultural heritage value and heritage attributes of the listed heritage property. Worked with the client to adjust the site design to mitigate and reduce any negative impacts to the heritage attributes of the Subject Property. Related Experience Karmina Developments and The Biglieri Group Ltd. Former Goodyear Tire and Rubber Company Factory: Cultural Heritage Documentation and Salvage Report (2023- Present). Cultural Heritage Planner/Report Writer. Conducted in-depth research on land-use history, architectural analysis, and contributed to the adaptive reuse strategy and documentation/salvage components of the report. Hydro One Network Inc. Durham Kawartha Power Line Project Class EA, Cultural Heritage Existing Conditions (2024- Present). Cultural Heritage Planner. Identified the existing conditions of the Class EA study area and presented a built heritage resource and cultural heritage landscape inventory of known (i.e., listed and/or designated properties) or potential built heritage cultural heritage resources. WSP (MTO), Highway 413 Transportation Corridor Route Planning, Preliminary Design, and Provincial Environmental Assessment Project, stage 2, Cultural Heritage Evaluation Reports (CHER): (2022- Present). Cultural Heritage Lead & Cultural Heritage Planner. As the Cultural Heritage Team Lead, Liam is actively collaborating with MTO to draft Cultural Heritage Evaluation Reports (CHER) that incorporate in-depth historical research and evaluates properties based on Ontario Regulations 9/06 and 10/06. He has served as a writer, reviewer, and project manager for over 40 CHERs as part of the Highway 413 Transportation Corridor Environmental Assessment (EA) – Stage 2. His role includes reviewing MTO comments, engaging with stakeholders, and conducting field reviews to ensure thorough and accurate heritage evaluations that align with provincial heritage policies and EA requirements. Town of Lincoln. Downtown Beamsville Heritage Conservation District (HCD) Study (2022-2024). Cultural Heritage Planner/Report Writer. Assisted in creating an online inventory form using ArcGIS Collector and conducted a comprehensive inventory of 183 properties in the HCD study area. In response to Bill 23, the assessment covered both individual property heritage evaluation under Ontario Regulation 9/06, Part IV of the Ontario Heritage Act, and evaluation of the entire study area under Ontario Regulation 9/06, Part V of the Ontario Heritage Act. WSP (MTO), Highway 413 Transportation Corridor Route Planning, Preliminary Design, and Provincial Environmental Assessment Project, stage 2, Cultural Heritage Assessment Report (2022 - 2024) Cultural Heritage Planner/Report Writer. AECOM completed the Cultural Heritage Assessment Report in 2024, which included field reviews to identify potential built heritage resources and cultural heritage landscapes within the study area. For the original study area in 2015, 277 known and potential BHCHLs were documented during the field review. The final CHAR in 2024, fully describes 54 BHCHLs within the 30% Preliminary Design. Ontario Ministry of Transportation (MTO). Bradford Bypass, Holland River Subwatersheds Cultural Heritage Evaluation Report (CHER) (2022- 2024). Cultural Heritage Planner/ Report Writer. Provided research and writing support to the project team. Identified and developed themes in the history of the Holland River Subwatershed Areas using primary and secondary source materials. Undertook visits to archives and oversaw the collection of historic maps and written materials. Completed an evaluation of the Holland River using Ontario Regulation 9/06 and 10/06. MTO, Highway 401 Improvements from 1 km East of Highway 16 to 3.3 km West of Maitland Road, Preliminary Design and Environmental Assessment Study. Cultural Heritage Resource Assessment Report (CHRAR): Built Heritage Resources and Cultural Heritage Landscapes (2021- 2024). Cultural Heritage Planner/Report Writer. Identified the existing and potential cultural heritage conditions within the Study Area and completed a preliminary assessment of the potential impacts from the proposed project activities which was used to inform project planning and design by providing recommendations for the conservation of the cultural heritage conditions. MTO, Highway 400 – Highway 404 (Bradford Bypass), Bradford Bypass Project. Cultural Heritage Resource Assessment Report (CHRAR): Built Heritage and Cultural Heritage Landscapes (2022- 2023). Cultural Heritage Planner/Report Writer. Identified the existing and potential cultural heritage conditions within the Study Area and completed a preliminary assessment of the potential impacts from the proposed project activities which was used to assist the Ministry with development of the Preliminary Design for the project and to inform the Environmental Conditions Report and Environmental Impact Assessment Report. MTO, Highway 400 – Highway 404 (Bradford Bypass), Bradford Bypass Project. Cultural Heritage Evaluation Report (CHER): 2835-2879 Yonge Street, 2948 Yonge Street, 3412 8th Line, 2673 9th Line, 2779 9th Line, 3521 9th Line and 21138 Leslie Street (2021- 2023). Cultural Heritage Planner/Report Writer. Produced seven (7) CHERs, which included community engagement with groups and individuals with associations to the properties, in-depth historical research, field reviews to document the existing conditions of the properties, and evaluations of the properties using Ontario Regulation 9/06 and Ontario Regulation 10/06. Preston Arens,PhD Cultural Heritage Specialist Education PhD in History, 2020University of Waterloo MA in History, 2015 University of Waterloo BA in History, 2014 Thompson Rivers University Years of Experience Total of 6 years (2 with AECOM) Professional affiliations Intern Member of CanadianAssociation of Heritage Professionals (CAHP) Member of Ontario Archaeological Society(OAS) ______________________________________________________________________ Summary Preston Arens is a versatile professional with a holistic understanding of history and heritage that ranges from research and policy considerations to community engagement and fieldwork. He holds a Doctorate in History and has over ten years of experience in historical research and teaching which he brings to his work in the heritage field. He has three years of experience conducting archaeological fieldwork in southwestern Ontario and holds an Avocational Archaeological Licence. He has gained practical experience working with community stakeholders on heritage projects and cementing his knowledge of the Ontario Heritage Act in his capacity as a regional Heritage Advisory Committee Member.In his current role as a Cultural Heritage Specialist at AECOM, Preston specializes in background research and report writing, particularly Cultural Heritage Assessment Reports (CHARs), Cultural Heritage Evaluation Reports (CHERs), and Heritage Impact Assessments (HIAs). Select Project Experience City of Toronto. Gerrard Street East Heritage Impact Assessment (2025).Cultural Heritage Specialist Drafted HIA for Gerrard Street East between Sherbourne Street and Parliament Street for the Gerrard Street East Complete Streets Project, including description of existing conditions, historical background, assessment of project impacts, and recommended mitigation measures. City of Markham. 7750 Bayview Road Heritage Impact Assessment (2025)Cultural Heritage Specialist Drafted HIA for the property at 7750 Bayview Road as part of the Glynnwood Sewer Project, including description of existing conditions, historical background, assessment of project impacts, and recommended mitigation measures. Hydro One. North Shore Link Power Line Project Class EA: Preliminary Impact Assessment (2025). Cultural Heritage Specialist. Templated Preliminary Impact Assessment report including research and compilation of relevant background history. Hydro One. Wawa to Porcupine Power Line Project Class EA: Cultural Heritage Existing Conditions Report (2025)Cultural Heritage Specialist. Researched and compiled relevant background history for the report including the history of northern districts and treaties with Indigenous groups. Township of Centre Wellington Cultural Heritage Report: Existing Conditions and Preliminary Impact Assessment, New Water Supply Well Areas 3 & 7 Municipal Class Environmental Assessment Study (2025). Cultural Heritage Specialist Drafted desktop review of project areas, including historical background and preliminary impact assessment based on the anticipated project footprint. Marten Falls First Nation.Marten Falls First Nation Community Access Road,Cultural Heritage Report: Existing Conditions & Preliminary Impact Assessment (2024-Present).Cultural Heritage Specialist. Copy edited early drafts of Cultural Heritage Screening Report and worked with team to conduct preliminary impact assessment of preferred route and recommend mitigation work as needed.Responded to and incorporated comments from internal teams in addition to Indigenous communities and government ministries. Lifelong Developments (formerly Karmina Developments) and The Biglieri Group Ltd.Former Goodyear Tire and Rubber Company Factory: Cultural Heritage Documentation and Salvage Report, Ontario, Canada (2023 –2024). Cultural Heritage Specialist. Conducted in-depth research on land-use history and architectural evolution of former Goodyear plant and wrote associated report components.Revised statement of heritage significance emphasizing community ties to local industry. Presented report to local Heritage Committee per request by client and municipality Ontario Ministry of Transportation.Highway 413 Transportation Corridor Route Planning, Preliminary Design, and Provincial Project, Ontario, Canada (2023 –2024).Cultural Heritage Specialist.Worked on numerous Cultural Heritage Evaluation Reports (CHERs)including historical and architectural research and analysis to identify and protect built heritage resources and cultural heritage landscapes.Completed five CHERs, drafted two river CHERs, and fully revised thirteen CHERs to meet updated MTO standards. Ontario Ministry of Transportation.Heritage Evaluation Report: East and West Holland River Subwatershed, Ontario, Canada (2023 –2024).Cultural Heritage Specialist. Conducted archival research to uncover historical information relevant to heritage evaluation.Revised and copy-edited research reports and heritage evaluations to incorporate new data. Preston Arens, PhD Cultural Heritage Specialist Preston.arens@aecom.com Liam Ryan, MES, MCIP, RPP, CAHP Cultural Heritage Planner, Lead liam.ryan@aecom.com Adria Grant, MA, CAHP Associate Vice President, Technical Practice Lead Archaeology and Heritage Adria.grant@aecom.com AECOM Canada ULC 410 –250 York Street, Citi Plaza London, ON N6A 6K2 Canada T: 519.673.0510 F: 519.673.5975 www.aecom.com Whitevale Road Reconstruction Arborist Report and Tree Preservation Plan City of Pickering 60560495 March 2026 Attachment 3 to Report PLN 16-26 City of Pickering Whitevale Road Reconstruction Arborist Report and Tree Preservation Plan Ref: 60560495 AECOM Rpt_2026-03-23_Arborist-Whitevale-60560495_Draft X Statement of Qualifications and Limitations The attached Report (the “Report”) has been prepared by AECOM Canada ULC (“AECOM”) for the benefit of the Client (“Client”) in accordance with the agreement between AECOM and Client, including the scope of work detailed therein (the “Agreement”). The information, data, recommendations and conclusions contained in the Report (collectively, the “Information”): is subject to the scope, schedule, and other constraints and limitations in the Agreement and the qualifications contained in the Report (the “Limitations”); represents AECOM’s professional judgement in light of the Limitations and industry standards for the preparation of similar reports; may be based on information provided to AECOM which has not been independently verified; has not been updated since the date of issuance of the Report and its accuracy is limited to the time period and circumstances in which it was collected, processed, made or issued; must be read as a whole and sections thereof should not be read out of such context; was prepared for the specific purposes described in the Report and the Agreement; and in the case of subsurface, environmental or geotechnical conditions, may be based on limited testing and on the assumption that such conditions are uniform and not variable either geographically or over time. AECOM shall be entitled to rely upon the accuracy and completeness of information that was provided to it and has no obligation to update such information. AECOM accepts no responsibility for any events or circumstances that may have occurred since the date on which the Report was prepared and, in the case of subsurface, environmental or geotechnical conditions, is not responsible for any variability in such conditions, geographically or over time. AECOM agrees that the Report represents its professional judgement as described above and that the Information has been prepared for the specific purpose and use described in the Report and the Agreement, but AECOM makes no other representations, or any guarantees or warranties whatsoever, whether express or implied, with respect to the Report, the Information or any part thereof. Without in any way limiting the generality of the foregoing, any estimates or opinions regarding probable construction costs or construction schedule provided by AECOM represent AECOM’s professional judgement in light of its experience and the knowledge and information available to it at the time of preparation. Since AECOM has no control over market or economic conditions, prices for construction labour, equipment or materials or bidding procedures, AECOM, its directors, officers and employees are not able to, nor do they, make any representations, warranties or guarantees whatsoever, whether express or implied, with respect to such estimates or opinions, or their variance from actual construction costs or schedules, and accept no responsibility for any loss or damage arising therefrom or in any way related thereto. Persons relying on such estimates or opinions do so at their own risk. Except (1) as agreed to in writing by AECOM and Client; (2) as required by-law; or (3) to the extent used by governmental reviewing agencies for the purpose of obtaining permits or approvals, the Report and the Information may be used and relied upon only by Client. AECOM accepts no responsibility, and denies any liability whatsoever, to parties other than Client who may obtain access to the Report or the Information for any injury, loss or damage suffered by such parties arising from their use of, reliance upon, or decisions or actions based on the Report or any of the Information (“improper use of the Report”), except to the extent those parties have obtained the prior written consent of AECOM to use and rely upon the Report and the Information. Any injury, loss or damages arising from improper use of the Report shall be borne by the party making such use. This Statement of Qualifications and Limitations is attached to and forms part of the Report and any use of the Report is subject to the terms hereof. AECOM: 2024-12-21 © 2009-2024 AECOM Canada ULC / All Rights Reserved. City of Pickering Whitevale Road Reconstruction Arborist Report and Tree Preservation Plan Ref: 60560495 AECOM Rpt_2026-03-23_Arborist-Whitevale-60560495_Draft X Quality Information Prepared by Technical Review by electronic signature here for final electronic signature here for final Courtney Bender, B.EM. (Hons) ISA ON-3217A courtney.bender@aecom.com Brian Magee ISA Certified Arborist ON-1915A brian.magee@aecom.com Lead Verifier Review by electronic signature here for final Johanna Perz, M.Sc. Ecology Supervisor Johanna.Perz@aecom.com Distribution List # Hard Copies PDF Required Association / Company Name City of Pickering AECOM Canada ULC Revision History Revision #Date Author Description 00 2026-02-05 Courtney Bender Original Draft City of Pickering Whitevale Road Reconstruction Arborist Report and Tree Preservation Plan Ref: 60560495 AECOM Rpt_2026-03-23_Arborist-Whitevale-60560495_Draft X Prepared for: City of Pickering 1 The Esplanade South Pickering, ON L1V 6K7 Prepared by: Courtney Bender, B.EM. (Hons) ISA ON-3217A courtney.bender@aecom.com AECOM Canada ULC 250 York St. Suite 410 London, Ontario, N6A 6K2, Canada T +1 519-673-0510 www.aecom.com City of Pickering Whitevale Road Reconstruction Arborist Report and Tree Preservation Plan Ref: 60560495 AECOM Rpt_2026-03-23_Arborist-Whitevale-60560495_Draft i Executive Summary AECOM has been retained by the City of Pickering to complete an Arborist Report and Tree Preservation Plan in support of Whitevale Road Reconstruction Project. The tree inventory and assessment were completed by AECOM’s ISA Certified Arborists using the accepted standard arboricultural techniques as outlined in the Council of Tree & Landscape Appraisers’ Guide for Plant Appraisal (2020). Table 1 provides a summary of the results of the tree inventory, indicating tree ownership, the number of trees to be removed and the number of trees anticipated to be injured. Table 1: Summary of Anticipated Impacts Tree Ownership Anticipated Removal Anticipated Injury with Supervision Anticipated Injury without Supervision No Anticipated Impact Total City 15 42 152 110 319 Private 5 32 106 528 671 Total 20 74 258 638 990 The findings of this report indicated that 20 trees will require removal, and 332 trees are anticipated to be injured. Of the 332 trees identified to be injured, 74 are recommended for injury with supervision while the remaining 258 do not require supervision during construction. The remaining 638 trees are not anticipated to be impacted by the proposed work. In accordance with the City of Pickering By-law 8073/24 (2024), the number of trees required to compensate for trees to be removed is 30. City of Pickering Whitevale Road Reconstruction Arborist Report and Tree Preservation Plan Ref: 60560495 AECOM Rpt_2026-03-23_Arborist-Whitevale-60560495_Draft X Table of Contents 1.Introduction ................................................................................................ 1 1.1 Background ............................................................................................................. 1 1.2 Purpose ................................................................................................................... 2 1.3 Tree Inventory Area................................................................................................. 2 1.4 Legislation ............................................................................................................... 4 2.Methods ...................................................................................................... 5 2.1 Tree Inventory ......................................................................................................... 5 2.1.1 Tree Assessment ................................................................................................................... 5 2.1.2 Heritage, Memorial, and Special Status Trees ...................................................................... 6 2.2 Tree Impact Analysis ............................................................................................... 6 3.Results ........................................................................................................ 7 3.1 Tree Assessment .................................................................................................... 7 3.2 Tree Impact Analysis ............................................................................................... 7 3.3 Municipal Permits and Compensation ..................................................................... 8 3.3.1 Permits ................................................................................................................................... 8 3.3.2 Tree Compensation ............................................................................................................... 8 3.4 Species at Risk ....................................................................................................... 9 3.5 Heritage, Memorial, and Special Status Trees ........................................................ 9 4.Tree Preservation Plan Recommendations ............................................ 10 5.Conclusions ............................................................................................. 12 6.Limitations of the Assignment ................................................................ 13 7.Certification .............................................................................................. 14 8.References ................................................................................................ 15 Figures Figure 1. Tree Inventory Area ....................................................................................................................................... 3 Tables Table 1:Summary of Anticipated Impacts ................................................................................................................ i Table 2:Summary of Tree Condition ...................................................................................................................... 7 Table 3:Summary of Tree Ownership in the Tree Inventory Area ......................................................................... 7 Table 4:Summary of Tree Inventory and Total Trees in Each Category ................................................................ 8 Table 5:Summary of Tree Compensation – City of Pickering ................................................................................ 9 City of Pickering Whitevale Road Reconstruction Arborist Report and Tree Preservation Plan Ref: 60560495 AECOM Rpt_2026-03-23_Arborist-Whitevale-60560495_Draft X Appendices Appendix A. Legislation, Policies and Guidelines Appendix B. Tree Inventory and Preservation Plan Appendix C. Tree Assessment Results Appendix D. Tree Inventory Abbreviations Appendix E. Tree Protection, Preservation and Maintenance Measures and City of Pickering Tree Protection Measures City of Pickering Whitevale Road Reconstruction Arborist Report and Tree Preservation Plan Ref: 60560495 AECOM Rpt_2026-03-23_Arborist-Whitevale-60560495_Draft 1 1. Introduction AECOM Canada ULC (AECOM) has been retained by the City of Pickering (the City) to prepare an Arborist Report in support of the Detailed Design for the Whitevale Master Drainage Plan (MDP) Implementation Project (the Project). The tree inventory and assessment were completed by AECOM’s ISA Certified Arborists using the accepted standard arboricultural techniques as outlined in the Council of Tree & Landscape Appraisers’ Guide for Plant Appraisal (2020). This report is based on the 95% Detailed Design drawings. 1.1 Background AECOM completed the Whitevale MDP Municipal Class Environmental Assessment in 2013. The Whitevale MDP Municipal Class Environmental Assessment identified regular and significant flooding and erosion within the Hamlet of Whitevale, a small community in the City with a strong and well-represented resident associated the Whitevale and District Residents Association (WDRA). The proposed Detail Design reflects the preferred solution identified in the Whitevale MDP and includes road and drainage upgrades along Whitevale Road between Altona Road and Golf Club Road. The proposed work includes: Installation of storm sewer and two separate drainage systems (catch basin, ditch inlet and trench drain drainage systems); Improved roadside ditches on the east and west side of North Road and the north and south side of Whitevale Road; Replacement of driveway culverts and North Road culvert crossing; Replacement of damaged west outfall with new headwall and outlet pool in order to improve storm runoff quality and reduce erosion; Road resurfacing; Sidewalk restoration/reconstruction; Reconstruction of existing speed humps; and Excess soil management strategy. AECOM prepared the Whitevale Master Drainage Plan Implementation – Road Reconstruction, Storm Sewer and Sidewalk Installation Arborist Report and Tree Preservation Plan (hereafter referred to as the 2021 Arborist Report; AECOM, 2021) for this Project in 2021. However, due to WDRA concerns regarding tree removal impacts, as well as ongoing design revisions, the 2021 Arborist Report became outdated and no longer met the five-year industry standard for data validity. The tree inventory and assessment were updated for this Arborist Report to ensure all information reflects current conditions. The following proposed design changes were implemented at 95% to mitigate the tree impacts: Remove all existing and proposed sidewalk from the south side of Whitevale Road; Remove the proposed sidewalk on the north side of Whitevale Road, east of the Church entrance, east of North Road; Remove the existing and proposed sidewalk on North Road; Reassess the proposed sidewalk width from North Road to Gladstone Street; Reassess sidewalk width and alignment from Gladstone Street to the bridge. Eliminate proposed retaining wall and assess options that: City of Pickering Whitevale Road Reconstruction Arborist Report and Tree Preservation Plan Ref: 60560495 AECOM Rpt_2026-03-23_Arborist-Whitevale-60560495_Draft 2 o Keep existing sidewalk alignment / profile which would likely keep existing steps. o Move sidewalk to roadside with implementation of rolled curb. 1.2 Purpose The purpose of this Arborist Report is to complete a tree inventory to assess the general condition of the on-site trees (trees situated within the Project footprint), as well as quantify any impacts to trees that are associated with the Project within the Tree Inventory Area. The Tree Inventory Area for this assignment includes the Impact Area representing the limits of disturbance based on the 95% Detailed Design plus a Buffer Area of ten metres (m) to account for adjacent trees, their branches and roots. This report has been prepared in accordance with tree related by-laws and guidelines from the City and other relevant stakeholders as per the Project’s 95% Detailed Design. 1.3 Tree Inventory Area The tree inventory was conducted along Whitevale Road from east of Altona Road to east of Golf Club Road, within the road Right-of-Way (ROW) and private lands. The Tree Inventory Area consists primarily of residential and forested areas. West Duffins Creek and associated ravine was identified within the Tree Inventory Area. Tree Inventory Area is illustrated on Figure 1. Whitevale Rd Byron St M u tual S t Altona Rd Whitevale Rd Whitevale Park Whitevale Rd Nort h Rd Churchwin St Factory St Mill St Whitevale Golf Club Rd WestDuffinsCreek Ma p l o c a t i o n : Z : \ H a m i l t o n - C A H A M 1 \ D C S \ G I S \ P r o j e c t s \ 6 0 5 6 0 4 9 5 _ W h i t e v a l e \ D e s i g n \ 0 1 _ R e p o r t s \ A r b o r i s t \ 6 0 5 6 0 4 9 5 _ I m p a c t _ A n a l y s i s _ T r e e _ P r o t e c t i o n _ P r o g r a m \ 6 0 5 6 0 4 9 5 _ I m p a c t _ A n a l y s i s _ T r e e _ P r o t e c t i o n _ P r o g r a m . a p r x Da t e S a v e d : 2 / 2 5 / 2 0 2 6 1 2 : 4 4 P M U s e r N a m e : M e n o n P Feb, 2026 Data Sources: Figure 1 V#:01P#:60560495 0 19095 MetersDATUM: NAD 1983 UTM Zone 17N Ontario LIO* when printed 11"x17" Contains Information licensed under the Open Government Licence Ontario. This drawing has beenprepared for the use of AECOM's client and may not be used, reproduced or relied upon by third parties,except as agreed by AECOM and its client, as required by law or for use by governmental reviewingagencies. AECOM accepts no responsibility, and denies any liability whatsoever, to any party that modifiesthis drawing without AECOM's express written consent. ° Overview of Project Area Whitevale Master Drainage Plan° 1:2,550 Legend Proposed Sidewalk Proposed Location for Asphalt Proposed Location for Sub Drain Proposed Location for Curb ProposedDitch Proposed Storm Pipeline Proposed Slope (Engineering) Grading Limits Tree Inventory Area (10m) Impact Area Map Extent City of Pickering Whitevale Road Reconstruction Arborist Report and Tree Preservation Plan Ref: 60560495 AECOM Rpt_2026-03-23_Arborist-Whitevale-60560495_Draft 4 1.4 Legislation This Arborist Report and Tree Preservation Plan were conducted in accordance with standard arboriculture techniques, as outlined in the Tree and Landscape Appraiser’s Guide for Plant Appraisal, 10th Edition (ISA, 2020) and the Arborists’ Certification Guide (ISA, 2010). Other legislation, policies and guidelines may apply to this Project. A list of potentially applicable legislation in provided in Appendix A. City of Pickering Whitevale Road Reconstruction Arborist Report and Tree Preservation Plan Ref: 60560495 AECOM Rpt_2026-03-23_Arborist-Whitevale-60560495_Draft 5 2. Methods The tree inventory and assessment were completed by AECOM’s ISA Certified Arborists on July 11, 2025. Data were collected using the accepted standard arboricultural techniques as outlined in the Council of Tree & Landscape Appraisers’Guide for Plant Appraisal (2020). 2.1 Tree Inventory Trees were inventoried or tallied based on the following parameters: Municipal Trees o All purposely planted individual trees within the road ROW and parks within the Tree Inventory Area (Impact Area plus additional 10 m Buffer Area) o Naturalized areas were tallied with descriptions. Private Trees o All purposely planted individual trees with a Diameter at Breast Height (DBH)1 of 10 cm or greater within the Tree Inventory Area. All Species at Risk (SAR) trees regardless of DBH were inventoried if encountered within 30 m of the Impact Area. The locations of all identified trees were recorded using an online field map on the ESRI ArcGIS Field Maps app on a Samsung tablet or smartphone which was connected to an Emlid Reach Global Positioning System (GPS) unit for georeferencing purposes (accuracy < 1 m). Tree locations are displayed on Figures 1-1 to 1-5 in Appendix B. 2.1.1 Tree Assessment The DBH of all inventoried trees were measured using a metric diameter tape. The dripline of inventoried trees were estimated in meters. The tree assessment included a Visual Tree Assessment (VTA) to determine the health and structural condition of each tree. The VTA included recording abiotic and biotic disorders and conditions, as well as structural defects, recorded within the Observations/Comments column in Appendix C. Abbreviations for terms used in this appendix are detailed in Appendix D. For the purposes of this assignment, a qualitative rating is used for both health and structure as described below: Excellent – Nearly perfect or ideal for the species, free of defects. Good – Normal vigour, well developed structure, slight asymmetries. Fair – Reduced vigour, multiple moderate defects, minor asymmetries. Poor – Unhealthy and declining, multiple significant defects, major asymmetries. Very Poor – Poor vigour, dying, multiple severe defects, largely asymmetric. Dead It is at the discretion of the municipality and the associated property owners whether dead trees or trees with poor structure or health should be inspected further or whether any other mitigation measures should be implemented. Mitigation recommendations foe dead or trees in poor health will be provided in this report. 1 DBH is the diameter of a tree measured at 1.5 m above ground level as defined in the City of Pickering’s Tree Protection By-law8073/24 (2024). City of Pickering Whitevale Road Reconstruction Arborist Report and Tree Preservation Plan Ref: 60560495 AECOM Rpt_2026-03-23_Arborist-Whitevale-60560495_Draft 6 2.1.2 Heritage, Memorial, and Special Status Trees Special status trees will be identified as part of the background review and tree inventory, including heritage and memorial trees. Memorial trees will be noted and confirmed with the respective municipal authority where memorial plaques were identified on site. Whereas heritage trees designated under the Ontario Heritage Act (1990) or recognized by the Heritage Tree Program (Forests Canada, 2022) will be identified during the background review. 2.2 Tree Impact Analysis Using data collected during the tree inventory and assessment, a tree impact analysis was performed using ESRI ArcGIS software. Recommendations for each tree’s proposed action (i.e., remove, injure, injure with supervision, and no anticipated impact) were based on several factors including each tree’s current condition, species specific sensitivity to construction, its location in relation to the Impact Area, and the percentage of the Tree Protection Zone (TPZ) impacted. The Tree Protection Zone for a tree found within the Project’s Tree Inventory Area was determined based on the tree’s diameter class. For multi-stemmed trees, the sum of squares of the DBH of the five (5) largest stems was calculated and used to determine the TPZ. Additionally, the Structural Root Zone (SRZ)2 of each tree was calculated and included in Appendix C. In Appendix B, the TPZ is shown for live trees, with the SRZ indicated for dead trees. Generally, the following guidelines were followed in determining the recommended action for each tree: Trees, including dead trees, whose SRZ is impacted by the proposed works were recommended for removal. Trees with equal to or greater than 30% of their TPZ affected by proposed work activities were recommended for removal as the impacts are expected to lead to their decline. Although trees with 30% or greater TPZ encroachment were generally recommended for removal, some exceptions were made where the anticipated impacts were deemed unlikely to compromise the trees’ long- term health These trees were instead recommended for injury with supervision. Trees recommended for injury with supervision will require a qualified ISA Certified Arborist to conduct a root exploratory excavation prior to the start of construction or to supervise the work during construction to determine the feasibility of retaining the trees. Trees with less than 30% of their TPZ affected by proposed work activities were recommended for injury and protection to mitigate further damage to the trees’ below- and above-ground parts. Where the proposed work is not expected to encroach into their TPZ based on the impact analysis described above,no impact is anticipated to the subject trees. Depending on the location of the trees in relation to the proposed work activities, including construction laydown and site access, tree protection may be proposed to prevent encroachment into their TPZ and to protect them from injury. Following the impact analysis described above, tree recommendations were also reviewed manually by AECOM’s ISA Certified Arborists to confirm the recommendations based on factors such as the position of the trees in relation to the work, required pruning, and the trees’ overall conditions, species sensitivity, and age. Overall results of the tree impact analysis are summarized in Section 3.2, with specific results for SAR in Section 3.4, and special status trees in Section 3.5. 2 The SRZ is considered the minimum structural distance away from a tree for any type of encroachment under ideal conditions whereencroachment could lead to tree failure due to structural root loss (Coder, 2018). City of Pickering Whitevale Road Reconstruction Arborist Report and Tree Preservation Plan Ref: 60560495 AECOM Rpt_2026-03-23_Arborist-Whitevale-60560495_Draft 7 3. Results 3.1 Tree Assessment All individual trees surveyed as part of the tree inventory and assessment were found within an urban environment and consisted of small, medium and large trees with DBH measurements ranging from 1 cm to 130 cm; the average DBH was 25 cm. Several tree species were identified during the tree inventory, with the most abundant being Eastern White Cedar (Thuja occidentalis). The majority of the defects observed were caused by either human interference or natural occurrences including mechanical damage, insects, weather and natural environmental conditions. Biotic and abiotic disorders and structural defects observed are included in Appendix B. Table 2 provides a summary of the overall condition of trees ranging from a rating of good to dead. Table 2: Summary of Tree Condition Tree Condition Condition - Health Condition - Structure Good 261 167 Fair 623 699 Poor 67 83 Very Poor 5 7 Dead 34 34 Total 990 990 In terms of location of the trees, most of the trees were inventoried on private properties. Of the total 990 trees inventoried, 54 were located within the Impact Area, and 936 were located within the Buffer Area.Table 3 below provides a summary of tree ownership of the inventoried trees. Table 3: Summary of Tree Ownership in the Tree Inventory Area Ownership Trees Within the Impact Area Trees Within the Buffer Area Trees Outside the Tree Inventory Area Total City 41 278 0 319 Private 13 658 0 671 Total 54 936 0 990 3.2 Tree Impact Analysis Based on the results of the tree impact analysis, the full development of the Impact Area would lead to the removal of 20 trees, and the injury of 332 trees. The remaining 638 trees are not anticipated to be impacted by the proposed work, with protection proposed around retained trees located within the Buffer Area.Table 4 below provides an overall summary of the recommended action for all inventoried trees based on the current Impact Area.Appendix C lists the recommended action for each tree and Appendix D provides a definition of abbreviations and terms. City of Pickering Whitevale Road Reconstruction Arborist Report and Tree Preservation Plan Ref: 60560495 AECOM Rpt_2026-03-23_Arborist-Whitevale-60560495_Draft 8 Table 4: Summary of Tree Inventory and Total Trees in Each Category Ownership Anticipated Removal Anticipated Injury with Supervision Anticipated Injury without Supervision No Anticipated Impact Total City 15 42 152 110 319 Private 5 32 106 528 671 Total 20 74 258 638 990 Of the 332 trees identified for injury, 74 are recommended for injury with supervision. For these trees, root exploratory excavation is recommended prior to tree removals to assess the potential impacts to the root system and to help ensure that construction impacts will not lead to tree failure or impede construction progress. The specific methods and procedures for conducting this excavation are provided in Section 4 and Appendix E. All root exploratory excavation should occur under the supervision of an ISA Certified Arborist and with authorization from the City of Pickering. It is recommended that the proposed work as part of the Project is reviewed alongside the results of the tree impact analysis and the results of the root exploration, and that proposed impacts to trees are reduced wherever feasible to maximize tree preservation. Should the limits or nature of the proposed work change, an ISA Certified Arborist should be retained to review the additional impacts and determine whether the recommended actions in this report are still applicable. 3.3 Municipal Permits and Compensation 3.3.1 Permits As per Section 4.1(a) of the Regional Municipality of Durham’s Regional Woodland By-law 30-2020 (2020) and Section 2.2(b) of the City’s Tree Protection By-law 8073/24 (2024) activities undertaken by the City are exempt from the regulatory requirements outlined in these By-laws. As such, permits for the proposed private tree removals required to facilitate the proposed activities are not anticipated to be required. 3.3.2 Tree Compensation All regulated trees typically require compensation in the form of tree plantings if removal is permitted. As such, compensation is proposed for all tree removals with a DBH of 15 cm or greater, except for dead or Ash trees. Compensation requirements for tree removals under the City’s Tree Inventory, Preservation, and Removal Compensation Requirements (City of Pickering, no date) are provided in Table 5. Of the 20 trees identified for removal, seven fall within the regulation limits of the Toronto and Region Conservation Authority (TRCA). It is therefore recommended that TRCA review this Arborist Report along with the proposed work to allow for comments on compensation and recommended remediation measures. City of Pickering Whitevale Road Reconstruction Arborist Report and Tree Preservation Plan Ref: 60560495 AECOM Rpt_2026-03-23_Arborist-Whitevale-60560495_Draft 9 Table 5: Summary of Tree Compensation – City of Pickering DBH (cm) Range Replacement Ratio Number of Trees for Removal Number of Trees for Compensation 0-14 Compensation Not Required 5 0 15-29 1:1 4 4 30-49 2:1 8 16 50-74 3:1 2 6 75 cm or greater 4:1 1 4 Total 20 30 A total of 30 replacement trees are proposed as compensation. If there is insufficient space to plant the trees on the subject property, a cash-in-lieu payment may be accepted by the City. It is recommended that replacement trees are planted on site during the next available planting season following construction. Given the subject areas are within the jurisdiction of the TRCA, it is recommended that native tree species are chosen based on Flora Species Native to the TRCA Jurisdiction (TRCA, 2022). The replacement trees should have sufficient growing space for establishment and development. Replanting plans should be considered with the aid of a landscape architect based on the site conditions at the time of the replanting work, as approved by the City. 3.4 Species at Risk At the time of the tree inventory, two Butternuts (Juglans cinerea) were observed at the edge of the Tree Inventory Area. Butternut is listed as Endangered under Ontario Regulation 230/08: Species at Risk in Ontario List and is protected under the Endangered Species Act, 2007 (ESA). Under the amended ESA, habitat for SAR plants is defined as the species-specific Critical Root Zone3. Based on guidance3 provided by the Ministry of Environment, Conservation and Parks (MECP), the CRZ for Butternut is 17 m. While no direct impacts to the individual Butternuts are anticipated, the proposed works slightly infringe upon the trees’ CRZ (i.e., habitat). AECOM is of the opinion that the proposed activities do not constitute damage or destruction of habitat, as only a small proportion of the CRZ is affected and this area largely consists of existing hardscape. 3.5 Heritage, Memorial, and Special Status Trees At the time of the tree inventory, there were no heritage, memorial, or other trees with special status observed within the Tree Inventory Area. Heritage, memorial or other special status trees are defined by Heritage Tree Program (Forests Canada, 2022). 3 Guidance provided by MECP defined the CRZ as the radial distance from the stem equal to 18 times the species’ reported maximumDBH in Ontario, rounded up to the nearest metre. City of Pickering Whitevale Road Reconstruction Arborist Report and Tree Preservation Plan Ref: 60560495 AECOM Rpt_2026-03-23_Arborist-Whitevale-60560495_Draft 10 4. Tree Preservation Plan Recommendations The Tree Inventory and Preservation Plan is provided in Appendix B. Specific measures for the implementation of tree protection, preservation and maintenance measures are provided in Appendix E. The following provides a summary of the tree protection, preservation and maintenance measures that are recommended for implementation: 1.Tree protection fencing is to be installed around trees recommended for retention within the Buffer Area (as shown in Appendix B). The tree protection fencing shall be installed in accordance with City of Pickering Standard Detail P-1100 (Tree Protection Fencing) and P-1101 (Tree Protection Notes) (see Appendix E). 2.All tree protection fencing shall be installed prior to any construction activity taking place on site, and it shall remain standing in good repair until construction is complete. 3.As described in Appendix E, a root exploratory excavation is recommended for the 74 trees that are recommended for injury with supervision. a. The exploratory excavation shall be conducted prior to any tree removals. b. The exploratory excavation should be performed using hand digging or a low-pressure hydro-vac or pneumonic device, such as an air spade. c. No roots should be severed during the root exploration, and special care should be taken to avoid root damage during the excavation process. d. The excavated area should be backfilled with clean native fill as soon as reasonably possible, and the area should then be watered to prevent desiccation and promote root growth. e. The root exploration shall be conducted under the supervision of an ISA Certified Arborist and following the City of Pickering’s authorization. A memorandum shall be prepared summarizing the results of the root exploration including an assessment of whether each tree can be retained. f. Following the root exploratory excavation, if trees recommended for injury with supervision are confirmed safe to retain, tree protection fencing shall be installed near the tree’s trunks to provide adequate protection to the base of the trunk. Tree protection fencing will be displayed on an updated Tree Protection Plan as part of the memorandum. 4.All grade changes within and adjacent to TPZs shall be undertaken in accordance with the previously specified tree protection guidelines. 5.Roots encountered during excavation in or outside TPZ should be preserved wherever feasible. However, if it is determined that root pruning must occur to facilitate a grade change or other earthworks, where authorized by the applicable authorities, root pruning shall be conducted in accordance with acceptable arboricultural standards. 6.Where branches are likely to be damaged during construction, and pruning is approved by the relevant authorities, branches shall be pruned ahead of the work to avoid branches being broken off, so that bark is not torn, and wounds are not more extensive than necessary. 7.Any branches that overhang the work area and require pruning are to be pruned using clean tools as per the latest arboricultural practices (TCIA, 2008). 8.The pruning of Oak trees (Quercus spp.) is discouraged during the growing season. Avoiding pruning at this time reduces the likelihood of attracting beetles and minimizes the risk of the fungus being transferred to healthy trees. If pruning activities cannot be delayed, apply an appropriate tree wound paint or latex-based paint immediately to all exposed cut surfaces as soon as possible (Michigan State University, 2020). City of Pickering Whitevale Road Reconstruction Arborist Report and Tree Preservation Plan Ref: 60560495 AECOM Rpt_2026-03-23_Arborist-Whitevale-60560495_Draft 11 9.The Contractor(s) must report immediately to the Contract Administrator any damage to trees such as broken limbs, damage to roots, or wounds to the main trunk or stem systems so that the damage can be assessed immediately. 10. If required, clearing of vegetation should be conducted between December 1 and March 31, outside of the breeding bird season (April 1 to August 31) and active bat season (April 1 to September 30) to reduce potential impacts to migratory birds and SAR bats. 11. Nests searches, for the purpose of providing approval for vegetation removal during the nesting period (April 1 to August 31) must be completed by a qualified biologist (Government of Canada, 2022). 12. It is recommended all trees on site be inspected by an ISA Certified Arborist post construction to assess the health of each tree. Remedial care such as mulching, vertical mulching, fertilization or irrigation may be required based on each tree’s current condition. 13. If tree removal is required as the project progresses, trees shall be removed from the site in a manner that will prevent the emergence and spread of invasive species. 14. Invasive trees and shrubs (i.e., European Buckthorn [Rhamnus cathartica]) should be removed where applicable. City of Pickering Whitevale Road Reconstruction Arborist Report and Tree Preservation Plan Ref: 60560495 AECOM Rpt_2026-03-23_Arborist-Whitevale-60560495_Draft 12 5. Conclusions Of the 990 trees inventoried, 20 trees will require removal based on the results of the tree impact analysis. Furthermore, 332 trees are anticipated to be injured, of which 74 are recommended for injury with supervision while the remaining 258 do not require supervision during construction. The remaining 638 trees are not anticipated to be impacted by the proposed work, with protection proposed around retained trees located within the Buffer Area. Furthermore, a total of 30 replacement trees are proposed as compensation. A root exploratory excavation shall be conducted in advance of any tree removals for the 74 trees recommended for injury with supervision. A qualified ISA Certified Arborist shall conduct the root exploratory excavation to determine which trees can be retained and which may need to be removed. Details for root exploration are in Section 4 and Appendix E. Any additional removals identified during this process will be added to the 20 trees previously recommended for removal. Tree removals will be conducted prior to construction operations commencing. It is recommended that an ISA Certified Arborist be retained during tree removal operations to ensure proper arboricultural techniques are employed prior to and during proposed activities. It is also recommended that an ISA Certified Arborist supervise any root pruning that needs to be done to trees recommended for injury. Additionally, it is recommended that an ISA Certified Arborist return at the conclusion of construction to assess the health of preserved trees after construction is complete and to mitigate risk associated with falling limbs and declining health from potentially stressful conditions. Tree protection fencing must be installed prior to initiation of the work. Tree protection fencing shall be installed to protect trees recommended for retention within the Buffer Area. The installation of tree protection fencing will reduce the potential for negative impacts including soil and root compaction as well as the potential for mechanical damage to trunks or branches. Lastly, it is recommended that any necessary pruning be conducted prior to tree removal by an ISA Certified Arborist or trained professional with adequate arboricultural experience, to ensure that trees marked for preservation do not experience unnecessary stress or damage. Overall, it is recommended that the proposed works for the Project be reviewed with the results of the tree impact analysis, and that proposed impacts to trees be reduced wherever feasible to maximize tree preservation. Should the limits or nature of the proposed work change, an ISA Certified Arborist should be retained to review the additional impacts and determine whether the recommended actions in this report are still applicable. City of Pickering Whitevale Road Reconstruction Arborist Report and Tree Preservation Plan Ref: 60560495 AECOM Rpt_2026-03-23_Arborist-Whitevale-60560495_Draft 13 6. Limitations of the Assignment 1.Care has been taken to obtain all information from reliable sources. All data has been verified insofar as possible; however, AECOM can neither guarantee nor be responsible for the accuracy of the information provided by others. 2.Unless expressed otherwise: a. the information contained in this report covers only those items at the time of inspection; and b. the inspection is limited to visual examination of the accessible items without dissection, excavation, probing or coring. There is no warranty or guarantee, expressed or implied, that problems or deficiencies of the plants or property in question may not arise in the future. 3.The assessment of the subject trees, despite its rating, does not constitute a tree risk assessment. 4.It is at the discretion of the tree owner/manager and the associated property owners whether dead trees or trees with poor ratings should be inspected further or whether any other mitigation measures should be implemented. 5.Tree’s location, size, and condition were estimated if on adjacent properties where permission to enter was not available. 6.It is understood the relevant conservation authority will defer to applicable municipal by-laws and regulations. It is the responsibility of the tree owner/manager to ensure no further permitting will be required. 7.Every effort is made to correctly identify tree ownership during the tree inventory, and the Geographic Information System (GIS)-based tree impact assessment and tree ownership was estimated as best as possible by the arborist. It must be understood; tree ownership can only be determined by comparing the legally surveyed location of the tree trunk to the legally surveyed property boundary. 8.Shrubs, such as but not limited to, Staghorn Sumac (Rhus typhina) or European Buckthorn (Rhamnus cathartica), were not included in the tree inventory. City of Pickering Whitevale Road Reconstruction Arborist Report and Tree Preservation Plan Ref: 60560495 AECOM Rpt_2026-03-23_Arborist-Whitevale-60560495_Draft 14 7. Certification I certify that all the statements of fact in this assessment are true, complete, and correct to the best of my knowledge and belief, and that they are made in good faith. AECOM Canada ULC Report Certified By: electronic signature here for final Courtney Bender, B.EM. (Hons) ISA ON-3217A courtney.bender@aecom.com City of Pickering Whitevale Road Reconstruction Arborist Report and Tree Preservation Plan Ref: 60560495 AECOM Rpt_2026-03-23_Arborist-Whitevale-60560495_Draft 15 8. References AECOM, 2021: Whitevale Master Drainage Plan Implementation – Road Reconstruction, Storm Sewer and Sidewalk Installation Arborist Report and Tree Preservation Plan Canadian Food Inspection Agency (CFIA), 2021a: Emerald ash borer - Agrilus planipennis. Retrieved from http://www.inspection.gc.ca/plants/plant- protection/insects/emerald-ash-borer/eng/1337273882117/1337273975030 Coder, K.D., 2018: Conserving trees during site development: A training manual. University of Georgia Warnell School of Forestry & Natural Resources Outreach Publication WSFNR-18-35. Pp.74 Council of Tree and Landscape Appraisers, 2020: Guide for Plant Appraisal, International Society of Arboriculture. Tenth Edition City of Pickering, no date: Tree Inventory, Preservation, and Removal Compensation Requirements. City of Pickering, 2024: Tree Protection By-law 8073/24.2024. Accessed from https://corporate.pickering.ca/WebLink/DocView.aspx?id=253620&dbid=1&repo=PICKERING&cr=1. Dunster, J.A., E.T. Smiley, N.P. Matheny and S.J, Lilly, 2017: Tree Risk Assessment Manual. Second Edition. International Society of Arboriculture. Endangered Species Act: Revised Statutes of Ontario (2007, SO 2007, c 6), https://www.ontario.ca/laws/statute/07e06. Retrieved February 2026. Environment and Climate Change Canada, 2022: Environment and Natural Resources.Guidelines to reduce avoid harm to migratory birds. Retrieved from https://www.canada.ca/en/environment-climate-change/services/avoiding-harm-migratory-birds/reduce-risk- migratory-birds.html#toc3 Forests Ontario, 2022: Heritage Tree Program, https://forestsontario.ca/en/program/heritage-tree Forestry Act, 1990: Revised Statutes of Ontario (1990, c.F.26), https://www.ontario.ca/laws/statute/90f26. Retrieved February 2026. Halloran, J., H. Anderson and D. Tassie, 2013: Clean Equipment Protocol for Industry.Peterborough Stewardship Council and Ontario Invasive Plant Council. Peterborough, ON. Updated, 2016. Available at https://www.ontarioinvasiveplants.ca/wp- content/uploads/2016/07/Clean-Equipment-Protocol_June2016_D3_WEB-1.pdf Lilly, S.J, 2010:Arborists’ Certification Study Guide. Third Edition. International Society of Arboriculture. Invasive Species Act: Statutes of Ontario (2015, SO 2015, c.22), https://www.ontario.ca/laws/statute/s15022. Retrieved February 2026. City of Pickering Whitevale Road Reconstruction Arborist Report and Tree Preservation Plan Ref: 60560495 AECOM Rpt_2026-03-23_Arborist-Whitevale-60560495_Draft 16 Matheny, N.P. and J.R. Clarke, 1994: A Photographic Guide to the Evaluation of Hazard Trees in Urban Areas.Second Edition. International Society of Arboriculture. Michigan State University, 2020: Worried about oak wilt?Available at: https://www.canr.msu.edu/news/worried_about_oak_wilt Migratory Birds Convention Act: Revised Statutes of Canada (1994, SC 1994, c 22), https://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/m-7.01/. Retrieved February 2026. Migratory Birds Regulations: Revised Statutes of Canada [2022 (SOR/2022-105)], https://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/regulations/SOR- 2022-105/index.html. Retrieved August 2025. Ontario Heritage Act: Revised Statutes of Ontario (1990, c.O.18), https://www.ontario.ca/laws/statute/90o18. Retrieved February 2026. Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources (MNR), 2017: Recovery Strategy for Kentucky Coffee-trees (Gymnocladus dioicus) in Ontario. Ontario Recovery Strategy Series. Prepared by the Ministry of Ontario of Natural Resources, Peterborough, Ontario. v + 6 pp. + Appendix. Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources (MNR), 2023: Oak Wilt.Accessed from https://www.ontario.ca/page/oak-wilt Ontario Regulation 230/08: Species at Risk in Ontario List, O. Reg. 230/08 (2008) Under the Endangered Species Act, 2007. S.O. 2007, c. 6. Retrieved February 2026 from https://www.ontario.ca/laws/regulation/080230. Retrieved February 2026. Regional Municipality of Durham, 2020: Regional Woodland By-law 30-2020. 2020. Accessed from https://www.durham.ca/en/doing- business/resources/Documents/PlanningandDevelopment/By-law-Number-30-2020.pdf Tree Care Industry Association (TCIA), 2008: American National Standard for Tree Care Operations: Tree, Shrub and Other Woody Plant Maintenance – Standard Practices (Pruning). A300, Part 1.TCIA. Toronto and Region Conservation Authority, 2022: Flora Species Native to the TRCA Jurisdiction. October 2022. Access from: chrome- extension://efaidnbmnnnibpcajpcglclefindmkaj/https://trcaca.s3.ca-central- 1.amazonaws.com/app/uploads/2022/10/18104147/Flora-Species-Native-to-the-TRCA-Jurisdiction- October-2022.pdf Toronto and Region Conservation Authority, 2023: Guideline for Determining Ecosystem Compensation.Toronto and Region Conservation Authority, June 2023.Accessed from https://trcaca.s3.ca-central- 1.amazonaws.com/app/uploads/2023/08/18123313/TRCA-Ecosystem-Compensation-Guideline-June- 2023.pdf Weed Control Act: Revised Statutes of Ontario (1990, RSO 1990, c. W.5), https://www.ontario.ca/laws/statute/90w05. Retrieved February 2026. Appendix A Legislation, Policies and Guidelines Appendix A - Legislation, Policies and Guidelines 1 of 1 1Legislation, Policies and Guidelines Applicable to Project Legislation Governing Authority Relevant Information Applicability to the Project Federal Migratory Birds Convention Act (MBCA), 1994 Migratory Birds Regulations, 2022 Environment and Climate Change Canada (ECCC) • The MBCA is intended to protect migratory birds, their eggs, and their active nests. The Act includes protections for more than 700 species of birds. The MBCA prohibits the possession, destruction, and harm of migratory birds and/or their nests while there is a live bird or a viable egg in it for most migratory birds except for 18 species that have site fidelity and reuse their nests from year to year and receive year-round nest protection whether there are eggs or live birds in there or not. Registration under the Abandoned Nest Registry and permits are required to remove potential or confirmed nests of the 18 species listed on Schedule 1 of the Migratory Birds Regulations if removal is required before the end of designated wait periods for each respective species to confirm use of nest. • Tree removal should occur outside of the breeding bird season (April 1 to August 31) to reduce potential impacts to migratory birds and avoid contravention of the MBCA. Provincial Endangered Species Act (ESA), 2007 Amended 2025 Ministry of the Environment, Conservation and Parks (MECP) • On June 5, 2025, the Province of Ontario enacted amendments to the ESA through Bill 5: Protect Ontario by Unleashing our Economy Act,, with the goal of streamlining permitting processes and aligning species protection with economic development priorities. The amended ESA continues to provide legal protection for species listed as Threatened or Endangered under Schedules 2 and 3 of Ontario Regulation 230/08 (Section 9), as well as their habitat (Section 10). However, the definition of “habitat” has been revised for vascular plant species to refer only to the Critical Root Zone (CRZ). According to guidance provided by MECP “When assessing areas of potential habitat, best available information suggests that the critical root zone is generally the radial distance from the stem equal to 18 times the species’ reported maximum diameter at breast height (DBH) in Ontario (or a jurisdiction with comparable growing conditions), rounded up to the nearest metre, for trees and shrubs.” • In addition, under Schedule 10 of Bill 5, a new Species Conservation Act (SCA) is introduced which will repeal and replace the current amended ESA at a later date established by the Lieutenant Governor in Council. At the time of preparing this Arborist Report, the SCA was not in force. Where a proposed activity will affect a protected species or habitat, changes to timing, location and methods of the proposed activity should be considered, wherever feasible, to avoid impacts to Species at Risk (SAR). Where impacts cannot be avoided or mitigated, authorization from the MECP will be required under the amended ESA as applicable. • Two Butternuts (Juglans cinerea) were identified during the 2025 tree inventory. The CRZs of the two identified Butternut trees were determined to be located sufficiently far enough from the Impact Area that neither the species nor its habitat are anticipated to be impacted by proposed work. Therefore, contravention of Sections 9 or 10 of the ESA are not anticipated for Butternut. • Tree removal should occur outside of the breeding bird season and active bat season (combined from April 1 to November 30) to reduce potential impacts to SAR birds and bats. Heritage Act and Heritage Tree Program R.S.O. 1990 c.18 Ministry of Natural Resources (MNR) • Trees with heritage status may be designated as heritage trees under the Ontario Heritage Act or recognized by the Heritage Tree Program (Forests Ontario, 2022) and therefore may be afforded additional protection and require further authorization for injury and removal. • There are no trees with heritage status with the Project limits. Invasive Species Act, 2015 MNR • The Invasive Species Act regulates the prevention and management of invasive species in Ontario to prevent and control invasive species. There are two classes of invasive species regulated under the Act: • Prohibited: It is illegal to import, possess, transport, or release these species anywhere in Ontario, and, • Restricted: It is illegal to bring them into provincial parks or conservation reserves and illegal to release them anywhere in Ontario. These include Common Reed (Phragmites australis ssp. Australis), Dog-strangling Vine (Vincetoxicum rossicum) and Japanese Knotweed (Fallopia japonica). • All machinery, construction equipment and vehicles arriving on site should be in clean condition (e.g., free of fluid leaks, or attached soil potentially containing seeds of plant material from invasive species) and be inspected and washed in accordance with the Clean Equipment Protocol for Industry (Halloran et al., 2013) prior to arriving and leaving the construction site. Weed Control Act, 1990 Ministry of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs • The Weed Control Act regulates the designation and management of noxious (harmful, destructive) weeds in Ontario. There are currently 25 species listed as noxious weeds in Ontario, including but not limited to invasive species such as Dog-strangling Vine, Common Buckthorn (Rhamnus cathartica), Giant Hogweed (Heracleum mantegazzianum) and Wild Parsnip (Pastinaca sativa). • All machinery, construction equipment and vehicles arriving on site should be in clean condition (e.g., free of fluid leaks, or attached soil potentially containing seeds of plant material from invasive species) and be inspected and washed in accordance with the Clean Equipment Protocol for Industry (Halloran et al., 2013) prior to arriving and leaving the construction site. Municipal Regional Woodland By- law 30-2020 Regional Municipality of Durham • The Regional Woodland By-law applies to Woodlands within the region that are one hectare (2.5 acres) in size and greater. Areas that are less than one hectare are the responsibility of the local area municipalities. • The Regional Woodland By-law states that “any Person who intends to Cause Injury or Destruction to one or more Trees in a Woodland, in a manner that does not constitute Cumulative Removal or Clear Cutting, shall first complete and submit to the Region, an application for a Good Forestry Practice Permit.” The application will be reviewed by the area municipality, Conservation Authority and/or other commenting agencies to determine whether a permit is required. A Good Forestry Practice Permit may be waived if the tree removal being proposed involves a small number of trees and the impact of the removal is deemed to be negligible to the integrity of the overall woodland. • As per Section 4.1(a) of the By-Law, activities undertaken by the municipality are exempt from the regulatory requirements stated within. As such, permits for proposed private tree removals to facilitate the proposed activities are not anticipated to be required under the Regional Woodland By-Law. Tree Protection By-law 8073/24 (2024) City of Pickering • The Tree Protection By-law prohibits the injury, destruction or removal of a tree measuring 2.5 centimetres (cm) Diameter-at-Breast-Height (DBH) or larger in the Tree Protection Area without a permit issued under the By-law. • As per Section 2.2(b) of the By-Law, activities undertaken by the municipality are exempt from the regulatory requirements stated within. As such, permits for proposed private tree removals to facilitate the proposed activities are not anticipated to be required under the Tree Protection By-Law. Appendix B Tree Inventory and Preservation Plan Whitevale Rd Whitevale Rd Whitevale Rd Altona Rd Altona Rd 345 3190 280 340330320 295 325 335 310300290270 T180T181 T185 T237 T472 T473 T475 T482 T483T620 T624 T625 T626T642 T667T668 T723 T724 T753 T765 T770 T774 T186 T187 T198 T203T205T217T218 T477 T478 T479 T480 T481 T591 T592 T593 T594 T595T596 T597T598 T614 T615T616 T617T618 T619 T631 T635 T640 T649 T650 T651T653 T654 T655T657T658T659T660 T661 T669T670 T671 T672 T673T674T675 T682 T683 T684 T685 T686 T704T705 T706 T707 T708 T709T710T711 T721 T722 T725T726 T727 T754 T755T756 T757 T758T759T760T762 T763T764 T766 T769 Ma p l o c a t i o n : Z : \ H a m i l t o n - C A H A M 1 \ D C S \ G I S \ P r o j e c t s \ 6 0 5 6 0 4 9 5 _ W h i t e v a l e \ D e s i g n \ 0 1 _ R e p o r t s \ A r b o r i s t \ 6 0 5 6 0 4 9 5 _ I m p a c t _ A n a l y s i s _ T r e e _ P r o t e c t i o n _ P r o g r a m \ 6 0 5 6 0 4 9 5 _ I m p a c t _ A n a l y s i s _ T r e e _ P r o t e c t i o n _ P r o g r a m . a p r x Da t e S a v e d : 2 / 2 5 / 2 0 2 6 1 2 : 4 4 P M U s e r N a m e : M e n o n P Feb, 2026 Data Sources: V#:01P#:60560495 0 5025 MetersDATUM: NAD 1983 UTM Zone 17N Ontario LIO* when printed 11"x17" Contains Information licensed under the Open Government Licence Ontario. This drawing has beenprepared for the use of AECOM's client and may not be used, reproduced or relied upon by third parties,except as agreed by AECOM and its client, as required by law or for use by governmental reviewingagencies. AECOM accepts no responsibility, and denies any liability whatsoever, to any party that modifiesthis drawing without AECOM's express written consent. ° Tree Impact Analysis Whitevale Master Drainage Plan° 1:700 Legend Impact Area Tree Inventory Area (10m) TRCA Regulated Area Parcel boundary Tree protection fencing Tree Location Recommended Action Injure Injury with Supervision No Anticipated Impact - Protect No Anticipated Impact - Protect (SAR Tree) Remove Tree Protection Zone Recommended Action Injure No Anticipated Impact - Protect Detail of Work Grading Limits Proposed Slope (Engineering) Proposed Storm Pipeline ProposedDitch Proposed Location for Curb Proposed Location for Sub Drain Proposed Location for Asphalt river Map Extent Figure 1-1 Whitevale Rd Byron St Whitevale Rd M ut u al St Whit evale Rd WestDuffinsCreek 3190 385 395 360 3191 380 T35T36T41 T986 T1 T4 T232 T387 T393T966 T2 T5 T12 T13T19T29T44 T51 T68 T94 T95 T115 T119 T151T169T172 T180T181 T184 T197 T236T237T239 T262 T280T327T330 T343 T362 T386 T395 T410T529 T552T555 T557 T560 T561 T573T574 T575T576 T621T622T623T624 T625 T626 T632 T967 T3 T6 T7 T8 T9 T11 T15 T17 T18 T20 T26 T27 T28 T30 T32 T37 T43 T45 T46 T48 T49T52 T53T54 T55 T56 T58T59 T60 T61 T63T65 T69 T70 T72 T74 T76 T77 T78 T79 T80 T81 T82 T83 T84 T85T86 T88 T91 T93 T96 T97 T100 T103T112 T113T114 T122 T124 T126T128 T129T130 T131 T132T133 T134 T135 T137 T138 T140 T142 T143 T146 T166T177 T178 T186 T189 T190 T191 T192 T193 T194 T195 T196 T199 T203 T209 T210 T211 T212 T213 T215 T217 T219 T220 T221T223 T224 T226 T227 T228 T229T230T231 T233T234T235 T238 T240 T243 T244 T245 T247 T248 T249 T250 T251 T252 T254 T255 T259 T260 T263 T267 T268 T269T270 T271 T272T273 T274 T275 T276T277 T278 T279 T281T286T299 T300 T304 T305 T306 T307T308T309T310 T311 T312 T313 T314 T315T316 T317 T318T319 T321 T323 T324 T325 T326T329 T331 T332T336T337 T338 T340 T341 T342 T346 T361 T366 T371 T388 T389T391 T392T400 T404 T407 T408 T409 T415 T427 T431 T432 T433 T434T435 T437 T455 T550 T551 T554 T570T571 T572 T631 T635 T970 T972 T978 T990 Ma p l o c a t i o n : Z : \ H a m i l t o n - C A H A M 1 \ D C S \ G I S \ P r o j e c t s \ 6 0 5 6 0 4 9 5 _ W h i t e v a l e \ D e s i g n \ 0 1 _ R e p o r t s \ A r b o r i s t \ 6 0 5 6 0 4 9 5 _ I m p a c t _ A n a l y s i s _ T r e e _ P r o t e c t i o n _ P r o g r a m \ 6 0 5 6 0 4 9 5 _ I m p a c t _ A n a l y s i s _ T r e e _ P r o t e c t i o n _ P r o g r a m . a p r x Da t e S a v e d : 2 / 2 5 / 2 0 2 6 1 2 : 4 4 P M U s e r N a m e : M e n o n P Feb, 2026 Data Sources: V#:01P#:60560495 0 5025 MetersDATUM: NAD 1983 UTM Zone 17N Ontario LIO* when printed 11"x17" Contains Information licensed under the Open Government Licence Ontario. This drawing has beenprepared for the use of AECOM's client and may not be used, reproduced or relied upon by third parties,except as agreed by AECOM and its client, as required by law or for use by governmental reviewingagencies. AECOM accepts no responsibility, and denies any liability whatsoever, to any party that modifiesthis drawing without AECOM's express written consent. ° Tree Impact Analysis Whitevale Master Drainage Plan° 1:700 Legend Impact Area Tree Inventory Area (10m) TRCA Regulated Area Parcel boundary Tree protection fencing Tree Location Recommended Action Injure Injury with Supervision No Anticipated Impact - Protect No Anticipated Impact - Protect (SAR Tree) Remove Tree Protection Zone Recommended Action Injure No Anticipated Impact - Protect Remove Injury with Supervision Detail of Work Grading Limits Proposed Slope (Engineering) Proposed Storm Pipeline ProposedDitch Proposed Location for Curb Proposed Location for Sub Drain Proposed Location for Asphalt Proposed Sidewalk river Map Extent Figure 1-2 Mill St Whit evale Rd Factory St Mill St Gla dstone S t Whitevale Rd Whitevale Rd 475 430 3117 480 490 494 450 425 455 3195 465 485 440 470460 T448 T449 T450 T451 T452 T453 T454 T456 T457 T458 T459 T461 T462 T463 T464 T565T566 T567 T578T581 T590 T599 T600 T232 T421 T424 T447 T568T569 T410 T411 T412T414 T422 T423 T425 T440 T466 T469T470 T471 T487 T498 T500 T501 T502 T504 T507 T509 T512 T515 T517 T522 T536 T537 T540 T541 T542 T543 T544 T545 T562 T563 T577 T579 T580 T665T666T676 T677 T678 T680 T688 T698 T702 T215 T226 T227 T228 T229 T230 T409 T413 T426T438 T439 T441 T442 T443 T444T445 T446 T460 T465T467 T468 T488 T490 T492 T493 T494 T496 T523 T524T525T527 T538 T546T547 T548 T564 T582 T583 T584 T586T587 T588T589 T662 T663 T679 T691 Ma p l o c a t i o n : Z : \ H a m i l t o n - C A H A M 1 \ D C S \ G I S \ P r o j e c t s \ 6 0 5 6 0 4 9 5 _ W h i t e v a l e \ D e s i g n \ 0 1 _ R e p o r t s \ A r b o r i s t \ 6 0 5 6 0 4 9 5 _ I m p a c t _ A n a l y s i s _ T r e e _ P r o t e c t i o n _ P r o g r a m \ 6 0 5 6 0 4 9 5 _ I m p a c t _ A n a l y s i s _ T r e e _ P r o t e c t i o n _ P r o g r a m . a p r x Da t e S a v e d : 2 / 2 5 / 2 0 2 6 1 2 : 4 4 P M U s e r N a m e : M e n o n P Feb, 2026 Data Sources: V#:01P#:60560495 0 5025 MetersDATUM: NAD 1983 UTM Zone 17N Ontario LIO* when printed 11"x17" Contains Information licensed under the Open Government Licence Ontario. This drawing has beenprepared for the use of AECOM's client and may not be used, reproduced or relied upon by third parties,except as agreed by AECOM and its client, as required by law or for use by governmental reviewingagencies. AECOM accepts no responsibility, and denies any liability whatsoever, to any party that modifiesthis drawing without AECOM's express written consent. ° Tree Impact Analysis Whitevale Master Drainage Plan° 1:700 Legend Impact Area Tree Inventory Area (10m) TRCA Regulated Area Parcel boundary Tree protection fencing Tree Location Recommended Action Injure Injury with Supervision No Anticipated Impact - Protect No Anticipated Impact - Protect (SAR Tree) Remove Tree Protection Zone Recommended Action Injure No Anticipated Impact - Protect Remove Injury with Supervision Detail of Work Grading Limits Proposed Slope (Engineering) Proposed Storm Pipeline ProposedDitch Proposed Location for Curb Proposed Location for Sub Drain Proposed Location for Asphalt Proposed Sidewalk river Map Extent Figure 1-3 Whitevale Rd Whitevale Rd North Rd White vale Rd Golf Club Rd 540530 3117 480 490 494 3220 3196 503 485 507 498 520510 3215 3225 530A T565T566 T590 T599 T600 T601 T602 T603 T613 T643 T645 T646 T648 T776 T777 T790 T791 T794 T795 T796 T797 T929 T930 T931 T932 T933 T946T947 T948 T950 T712 T717 T720 T752 T778 T779 T466 T605 T606 T607 T644 T665T666T676 T677 T678 T680 T688 T698 T700 T701T702 T713 T714 T718 T719 T728 T730 T731 T733 T736T737 T739 T741 T780T781 T782 T820T821 T822T823 T833 T836 T839 T875 T877 T881 T882 T901T902 T906T919T920 T924T925 T928T954T955 T956 T465 T564 T582 T583 T584 T586T587 T588T589 T604 T608 T609 T611 T612 T647 T679 T691 T715T716 T734 T735 T740 T742 T743T744 T745 T747 T748 T783 T784 T785 T786T787 T788T789 T792T793 T798 T799 T800 T801 T802T803 T805 T816 T817T818 T819 T838 T843 T844 T846 T847 T850 T853 T855 T856 T872T874 T878 T879 T880 T884T904T907 T934T935 T936T937 T938 T939 T945 T949 T951 T952 T953 T957 T958 T960 T961 T962 T963 Ma p l o c a t i o n : Z : \ H a m i l t o n - C A H A M 1 \ D C S \ G I S \ P r o j e c t s \ 6 0 5 6 0 4 9 5 _ W h i t e v a l e \ D e s i g n \ 0 1 _ R e p o r t s \ A r b o r i s t \ 6 0 5 6 0 4 9 5 _ I m p a c t _ A n a l y s i s _ T r e e _ P r o t e c t i o n _ P r o g r a m \ 6 0 5 6 0 4 9 5 _ I m p a c t _ A n a l y s i s _ T r e e _ P r o t e c t i o n _ P r o g r a m . a p r x Da t e S a v e d : 2 / 2 5 / 2 0 2 6 1 2 : 4 4 P M U s e r N a m e : M e n o n P Feb, 2026 Data Sources: V#:01P#:60560495 0 5025 MetersDATUM: NAD 1983 UTM Zone 17N Ontario LIO* when printed 11"x17" Contains Information licensed under the Open Government Licence Ontario. This drawing has beenprepared for the use of AECOM's client and may not be used, reproduced or relied upon by third parties,except as agreed by AECOM and its client, as required by law or for use by governmental reviewingagencies. AECOM accepts no responsibility, and denies any liability whatsoever, to any party that modifiesthis drawing without AECOM's express written consent. ° Tree Impact Analysis Whitevale Master Drainage Plan° 1:700 Legend Impact Area Tree Inventory Area (10m) TRCA Regulated Area Parcel boundary Tree protection fencing Tree Location Recommended Action Injure Injury with Supervision No Anticipated Impact - Protect No Anticipated Impact - Protect (SAR Tree) Remove Tree Protection Zone Recommended Action Injure No Anticipated Impact - Protect Remove Injury with Supervision Detail of Work Grading Limits Proposed Slope (Engineering) Proposed Storm Pipeline ProposedDitch Proposed Location for Sub Drain Proposed Location for Asphalt Proposed Sidewalk river Map Extent Figure 1-4 Churchwin St North Rd Nor th Rd Churchwin St North Rd 3235 3245 486 492 479 3230 3220 3225 3250 T797 T806 T809 T810 T811 T812 T824 T825 T828 T829 T830 T857 T858 T859 T863 T864 T896T897T898 T899 T900 T908 T942 T946T947 T948 T798 T799 T807T808 T813 T814T815 T826T827 T831 T832 T860 T861 T862 T865 T866T867 T868T869 T870 T885 T886 T887T888 T909 T910 T911T913 T914T915 T916 T917 T918 T940 T941 T943T944 T945 Ma p l o c a t i o n : Z : \ H a m i l t o n - C A H A M 1 \ D C S \ G I S \ P r o j e c t s \ 6 0 5 6 0 4 9 5 _ W h i t e v a l e \ D e s i g n \ 0 1 _ R e p o r t s \ A r b o r i s t \ 6 0 5 6 0 4 9 5 _ I m p a c t _ A n a l y s i s _ T r e e _ P r o t e c t i o n _ P r o g r a m \ 6 0 5 6 0 4 9 5 _ I m p a c t _ A n a l y s i s _ T r e e _ P r o t e c t i o n _ P r o g r a m . a p r x Da t e S a v e d : 2 / 2 5 / 2 0 2 6 1 2 : 4 4 P M U s e r N a m e : M e n o n P Feb, 2026 Data Sources: V#:01P#:60560495 0 5025 MetersDATUM: NAD 1983 UTM Zone 17N Ontario LIO* when printed 11"x17" Contains Information licensed under the Open Government Licence Ontario. This drawing has beenprepared for the use of AECOM's client and may not be used, reproduced or relied upon by third parties,except as agreed by AECOM and its client, as required by law or for use by governmental reviewingagencies. AECOM accepts no responsibility, and denies any liability whatsoever, to any party that modifiesthis drawing without AECOM's express written consent. ° Tree Impact Analysis Whitevale Master Drainage Plan° 1:700 Legend Impact Area Tree Inventory Area (10m) TRCA Regulated Area Parcel boundary Tree protection fencing Tree Location Recommended Action Injure Injury with Supervision No Anticipated Impact - Protect No Anticipated Impact - Protect (SAR Tree) Remove Tree Protection Zone Recommended Action No Anticipated Impact - Protect Injury with Supervision Detail of Work Grading Limits Proposed Slope (Engineering) Proposed Storm Pipeline ProposedDitch Proposed Location for Sub Drain Proposed Location for Asphalt Proposed Sidewalk river Map Extent Figure 1-5 Appendix C Tree Assessment Results Appendix C. Tree Assessment Results Tree #Common Name Scientfic Name First DBH (cm) Second DBH (cm) Third DBH (cm) Fourth DBH (cm) Fifth DBH (cm) DBH Analysis (cm) Dripline (m) Tree Condition - Health Tree Condition - Structure Species at Risk (Yes or No)Observations/Comments TRCA Regulation Limits (Yes or No) Tree Ownership Tree Location (Impact Area, Buffer Area) Tree Protection Zone Area (m) Recommended Action Structural Root Zone Impacted? Removal Justification 1 Norway Maple Acer platanoides 46 38 46 5 Fair Poor No ML, BR, CV Yes City Impact Area 6 Remove Yes Significant grading will occur, resulting in root impacts. 2 Black Walnut Juglans nigra 15 15 2 Fair Fair No CON(T), SS, DW(S)Yes Private Buffer Area 3 Injure No Not Applicable 3 Black Walnut Juglans nigra 93 93 10 Good Fair No VC Yes Private Buffer Area 11 No Anticipated Impact - Protect No Not Applicable 4 Black Walnut Juglans nigra 13 13 2 Fair Fair No CON(T), SS, LN(L)Yes Private Impact Area 3 Remove Yes Significant grading will occur, resulting in root impacts. 5 Norway Maple Acer platanoides 3 3 1 Fair Fair No CON(T), SS, LN(L)Yes Private Buffer Area 2 Injure No Not Applicable 6 Norway Maple Acer platanoides 12 12 3 Fair Fair No PB, EG(T)Yes Private Buffer Area 4 No Anticipated Impact - Protect No Not Applicable 7 White Elm Ulmus americana 3 3 1 Fair Fair No CON(T), SS, LN(L)Yes Private Buffer Area 2 No Anticipated Impact - Protect No Not Applicable 8 Black Walnut Juglans nigra 2.5 2.5 1 Good Good No HL Yes Private Buffer Area 2 No Anticipated Impact - Protect No Not Applicable 9 Black Walnut Juglans nigra 29 29 4 Good Fair No CON(T), SS Yes Private Buffer Area 5 No Anticipated Impact - Protect No Not Applicable 10 Black Walnut Juglans nigra 64 64 7 Good Fair No CON(T), SS Yes Private Buffer Area 8 Injure No Not Applicable 11 Manitoba Maple Acer negundo 13.5 4 13.5 1 Fair Fair No DW(L),Yes Private Buffer Area 2 No Anticipated Impact - Protect No Not Applicable 12 Manitoba Maple Acer negundo 2.5 2.5 2 Good Fair No SS, DW(S), CT Yes Private Buffer Area 3 Injure No Not Applicable 13 Black Walnut Juglans nigra 82 82 8 Good Fair No CON(T), SS, DW(S)Yes Private Buffer Area 9 Injure No Not Applicable 14 Norway Maple Acer platanoides 7 7 3 Good Fair No CR, SS Yes Private Buffer Area 4 Injure No Not Applicable 15 Norway Maple Acer platanoides 10 10 1 Good Fair No CON(T), SS Yes Private Buffer Area 2 No Anticipated Impact - Protect No Not Applicable 16 Norway Maple Acer platanoides 3 3 1 Good Fair No CON(T), SS Yes Private Buffer Area 2 No Anticipated Impact - Protect No Not Applicable 17 Norway Maple Acer platanoides 17 17 1 Good Good No CT, EG(T)Yes Private Buffer Area 2 No Anticipated Impact - Protect No Not Applicable 18 Pagoda Dogwood Cornus alternifolia 6 6 1 Good Fair No CON(T), SS Yes Private Buffer Area 2 No Anticipated Impact - Protect No Not Applicable 19 Manitoba Maple Acer negundo 3 3 3 Good Good No SS Yes City Buffer Area 4 Injure No Not Applicable 20 Norway Maple Acer platanoides 10 10 1 Good Fair No CON(T), SS Yes City Buffer Area 2 No Anticipated Impact - Protect No Not Applicable 21 Pagoda Dogwood Cornus alternifolia 3 3 1 Good Fair No CON(T), SS Yes Private Buffer Area 2 No Anticipated Impact - Protect No Not Applicable 22 Other Other 11 11 0 Dead Dead No Dead Yes City Buffer Area 1 No Anticipated Impact - Protect No Not Applicable 23 Black Walnut Juglans nigra 7 7 1 Good Fair No CON(T), SS Yes Private Buffer Area 2 No Anticipated Impact - Protect No Not Applicable 24 Black Walnut Juglans nigra 11 11 2 Good Fair No CON(T), SS Yes Private Buffer Area 3 No Anticipated Impact - Protect No Not Applicable 25 Norway Maple Acer platanoides 17.5 6 17.5 3 Fair Fair No EG(B), EG(T), CR Yes City Buffer Area 4 Injure No Not Applicable 26 Norway Maple Acer platanoides 28 25 28 4 Poor Poor No CON(T), SS, ML, CV, BR Yes Private Buffer Area 5 No Anticipated Impact - Protect No Not Applicable 27 Norway Maple Acer platanoides 11 11 1 Good Good No SS Yes City Buffer Area 2 No Anticipated Impact - Protect No Not Applicable 28 Green Ash Fraxinus pennsylvanica 9 9 1 Fair Fair No SS, CON(T)Yes Private Buffer Area 2 No Anticipated Impact - Protect No Not Applicable 29 Norway Maple Acer platanoides 21 21 4 Good Good No SS Yes City Buffer Area 5 Injure Yes Not Applicable 30 Manitoba Maple Acer negundo 18 18 2 Fair Fair No SS, CON(T)Yes Private Buffer Area 3 No Anticipated Impact - Protect No Not Applicable 31 Norway Maple Acer platanoides 3 3 2 Fair Fair No SS Yes City Buffer Area 3 Injure No Not Applicable 32 Manitoba Maple Acer negundo 22 20 22 5 Fair Fair No SS, CON(T), LN(M)Yes Private Buffer Area 6 No Anticipated Impact - Protect No Not Applicable 33 Norway Maple Acer platanoides 18 10 18 3 Fair Fair No SS, CON(T), LN(L)Yes Private Buffer Area 4 No Anticipated Impact - Protect No Not Applicable 34 Norway Maple Acer platanoides 17 17 3 Fair Fair No SS, CON(T), LN(L)Yes Private Buffer Area 4 No Anticipated Impact - Protect No Not Applicable 35 Norway Spruce Picea abies 3 34.5 34.5 4 Poor Good No DW(L)Yes City Buffer Area 5 Injury with Supervision Yes Not Applicable 36 Norway Spruce Picea abies 44 44 4 Poor Fair No DW(L), PP Yes City Buffer Area 5 Injury with Supervision Yes Not Applicable 37 Norway Maple Acer platanoides 23 23 2 Fair Fair No CON(T), LN(L)Yes Private Buffer Area 3 No Anticipated Impact - Protect No Not Applicable 38 Manitoba Maple Acer negundo 23 23 2 Fair Fair No CON(T), LN(L)Yes Private Buffer Area 3 No Anticipated Impact - Protect No Not Applicable 39 Norway Maple Acer platanoides 13 13 1 Fair Fair No CON(T), LN(L), TW Yes Private Buffer Area 2 No Anticipated Impact - Protect No Not Applicable 40 White Elm Ulmus americana 12 12 2 Fair Fair No CON(T), LN(L), TW, ML Yes Private Buffer Area 3 No Anticipated Impact - Protect No Not Applicable 41 Norway Spruce Picea abies 58 58 4 Poor Poor No ML Yes City Impact Area 5 Injury with Supervision Yes Not Applicable 42 Norway Maple Acer platanoides 42 37 42 5 Fair Fair No CON(T), LN(L), TW, ML Yes Private Buffer Area 6 No Anticipated Impact - Protect No Not Applicable 43 Pagoda Dogwood Cornus alternifolia 5 5 1 Fair Fair No LN(L), ML Yes Private Buffer Area 2 No Anticipated Impact - Protect No Not Applicable 44 Wild Crab Apple Malus coronaria 25 14 25 2 Fair Fair No ML, EG(T), CR Yes City Buffer Area 3 Injure No Not Applicable 45 Pagoda Dogwood Cornus alternifolia 10 10 1 Fair Fair No LN(L), ML Yes Private Buffer Area 2 No Anticipated Impact - Protect No Not Applicable 46 Black Walnut Juglans nigra 4 4 1 Fair Fair No LN(L), ML Yes Private Buffer Area 2 No Anticipated Impact - Protect No Not Applicable 47 Norway Maple Acer platanoides 24.5 16.5 24.5 5 Fair Fair No ML, DW(S), EG(T), DW(L)Yes Private Buffer Area 6 Injure No Not Applicable 48 Manitoba Maple Acer negundo 3 3 3 2 Fair Fair No CON(T), LN(L)Yes Private Buffer Area 3 No Anticipated Impact - Protect No Not Applicable 49 Trembling Aspen Populous tremuloides 20 20 3 Fair Fair No LN(M), DW(S)Yes Private Buffer Area 4 No Anticipated Impact - Protect No Not Applicable 50 Norway Maple Acer platanoides 12 12 3 Fair Fair No 1SD Yes Private Buffer Area 4 Injure No Not Applicable 51 Trembling Aspen Populous tremuloides 19 19 3 Fair Fair No LN(M), DW(S)Yes Private Buffer Area 4 Injure No Not Applicable 52 Norway Maple Acer platanoides 5 5 1 Fair Fair No LN(L), CON(T), SS Yes Private Buffer Area 2 No Anticipated Impact - Protect No Not Applicable 53 Norway Spruce Picea abies 26 26 2 Fair Good No ER, DW(S), DW(L)Yes Private Buffer Area 3 No Anticipated Impact - Protect No Not Applicable 54 Norway Spruce Picea abies 30.5 30.5 4 Fair Good No DW(S)Yes Private Buffer Area 5 No Anticipated Impact - Protect No Not Applicable 55 Black Walnut Juglans nigra 81 81 8 Good Fair No DW(S), VC Yes Private Buffer Area 9 No Anticipated Impact - Protect No Not Applicable 56 Norway Spruce Picea abies 32 32 4 Fair Fair No DW(S)Yes Private Buffer Area 5 No Anticipated Impact - Protect No Not Applicable 57 Norway Maple Acer platanoides 4.5 4.5 1 Fair Fair No SS Yes Private Buffer Area 2 No Anticipated Impact - Protect No Not Applicable 58 Norway Maple Acer platanoides 4.5 4.5 1 Fair Fair No SS Yes Private Buffer Area 2 No Anticipated Impact - Protect No Not Applicable 59 Norway Spruce Picea abies 35 35 4 Fair Fair No DW(S)Yes Private Buffer Area 5 No Anticipated Impact - Protect No Not Applicable 60 Black Walnut Juglans nigra 55 55 8 Good Fair No DW(S), VC Yes Private Buffer Area 9 No Anticipated Impact - Protect No Not Applicable 61 Wild Crab Apple Malus coronaria 21 13 7 5 21 4 Fair Fair No DW(L), EG(T), ML Yes Private Buffer Area 5 No Anticipated Impact - Protect No Not Applicable 62 Norway Maple Acer platanoides 5.5 5.5 1 Good Fair No SS Yes Private Buffer Area 2 No Anticipated Impact - Protect No Not Applicable 63 Black Walnut Juglans nigra 35 35 0 Dead Dead No BR Yes Private Buffer Area 1 No Anticipated Impact - Protect No Not Applicable 64 Eastern White Cedar Thuja occidentalis 26.5 26.5 3 Good Good No HL Yes Private Buffer Area 4 No Anticipated Impact - Protect No Not Applicable 65 Eastern White Cedar Thuja occidentalis 8.5 8.5 0 Dead Dead No Dead Yes Private Buffer Area 1 No Anticipated Impact - Protect No Not Applicable 66 Norway Maple Acer platanoides 12 12 3 Good Good No DW(S)Yes Private Buffer Area 4 No Anticipated Impact - Protect No Not Applicable 67 Eastern White Cedar Thuja occidentalis 11 11 11 2 Good Fair No ML, DW(S)Yes Private Buffer Area 3 No Anticipated Impact - Protect No Not Applicable 68 Manitoba Maple Acer negundo 85 85 6 Very Poor Very Poor No CV, FU Yes Private Buffer Area 7 Injure No Not Applicable 69 Green Ash Fraxinus pennsylvanica 15 15 2 Fair Fair No CON(T), LN(L)Yes City Buffer Area 3 No Anticipated Impact - Protect No Not Applicable 70 Green Ash Fraxinus pennsylvanica 8 8 2 Fair Fair No CON(T), LN(L)Yes City Buffer Area 3 No Anticipated Impact - Protect No Not Applicable 71 Norway Maple Acer platanoides 18 18 2 Fair Fair No CON(T), LN(L)Yes City Buffer Area 3 No Anticipated Impact - Protect No Not Applicable 72 Norway Maple Acer platanoides 15 15 2 Fair Fair No CON(T), LN(L)Yes City Buffer Area 3 No Anticipated Impact - Protect No Not Applicable 73 Norway Maple Acer platanoides 12 12 2 Fair Fair No CON(T), LN(L)Yes City Buffer Area 3 No Anticipated Impact - Protect No Not Applicable 74 Eastern White Cedar Thuja occidentalis 19 19 2 Poor Poor No CON(T), LN(L), CD, LN(L)Yes Private Buffer Area 3 No Anticipated Impact - Protect No Not Applicable 75 Green Ash Fraxinus pennsylvanica 22 22 0 Dead Dead No CON(T), LN(L)Yes City Buffer Area 1 No Anticipated Impact - Protect No Not Applicable 1 of 14 Appendix C. Tree Assessment Results Tree #Common Name Scientfic Name First DBH (cm) Second DBH (cm) Third DBH (cm) Fourth DBH (cm) Fifth DBH (cm) DBH Analysis (cm) Dripline (m) Tree Condition - Health Tree Condition - Structure Species at Risk (Yes or No)Observations/Comments TRCA Regulation Limits (Yes or No) Tree Ownership Tree Location (Impact Area, Buffer Area) Tree Protection Zone Area (m) Recommended Action Structural Root Zone Impacted? Removal Justification 76 Black Walnut Juglans nigra 17 17 2 Fair Fair No CON(T), LN(L)Yes Private Buffer Area 3 No Anticipated Impact - Protect No Not Applicable 77 Black Walnut Juglans nigra 8 8 2 Fair Fair No CON(T), LN(L)Yes Private Buffer Area 3 No Anticipated Impact - Protect No Not Applicable 78 Black Walnut Juglans nigra 57 57 6 Good Good No VC, DW(S)Yes Private Buffer Area 7 No Anticipated Impact - Protect No Not Applicable 79 Black Walnut Juglans nigra 37 37 5 Good Good No VC, DW(S)Yes Private Buffer Area 6 No Anticipated Impact - Protect No Not Applicable 80 Black Walnut Juglans nigra 19 19 6 Fair Poor No VC, DW(S), LN(H)Yes Private Buffer Area 7 No Anticipated Impact - Protect No Not Applicable 81 Black Walnut Juglans nigra 15 15 3 Good Fair No VC, DW(S)Yes Private Buffer Area 4 No Anticipated Impact - Protect No Not Applicable 82 Black Walnut Juglans nigra 42 42 5 Good Fair No VC, DW(S), CON(T)Yes Private Buffer Area 6 No Anticipated Impact - Protect No Not Applicable 83 Black Walnut Juglans nigra 58 58 5 Good Fair No VC, DW(S), CON(T)Yes Private Buffer Area 6 No Anticipated Impact - Protect No Not Applicable 84 Green Ash Fraxinus pennsylvanica 27 27 5 Poor Fair No VC, DW(S), CON(T), EAB, PB Yes Private Buffer Area 6 No Anticipated Impact - Protect No Not Applicable 85 Black Walnut Juglans nigra 35 35 0 Dead Dead No DW(L)Yes Private Buffer Area 1 No Anticipated Impact - Protect No Not Applicable 86 Eastern White Cedar Thuja occidentalis 30 30 0 Dead Dead No DEAD Yes Private Buffer Area 1 No Anticipated Impact - Protect No Not Applicable 87 Eastern White Cedar Thuja occidentalis 30 21 30 0 Dead Dead No DEAD Yes Private Buffer Area 1 No Anticipated Impact - Protect No Not Applicable 88 Eastern White Cedar Thuja occidentalis 35 35 0 Dead Dead No DEAD Yes Private Buffer Area 1 No Anticipated Impact - Protect No Not Applicable 89 Eastern White Cedar Thuja occidentalis 32 32 2 Poor Poor No TW, PB Yes Private Buffer Area 3 No Anticipated Impact - Protect No Not Applicable 90 Eastern White Cedar Thuja occidentalis 26 26 2 Poor Poor No TW, PB, LN(L)Yes Private Buffer Area 3 No Anticipated Impact - Protect No Not Applicable 91 Eastern White Cedar Thuja occidentalis 26 26 2 Poor Poor No TW, PB, LN(L), CON(T)Yes Private Buffer Area 3 No Anticipated Impact - Protect No Not Applicable 92 Eastern White Cedar Thuja occidentalis 17 17 2 Fair Fair No DW(S)Yes Private Buffer Area 3 No Anticipated Impact - Protect No Not Applicable 93 Willow sp.Salix sp.5 3 2 5 1 Fair Fair No IE, ML Yes Private Buffer Area 2 No Anticipated Impact - Protect No Not Applicable 94 Eastern Cottonwood Populus deltoides 4 4 1 Fair Fair No IE, LN(L)Yes City Buffer Area 2 Injure No Not Applicable 95 Manitoba Maple Acer negundo 45 41 35 26 45 7 Fair Fair No CV, PP, DW(L), ML, CD Yes Private Buffer Area 8 Injure No Not Applicable 96 Manitoba Maple Acer negundo 32 30 32 4 Fair Fair No CV, PP, DW(L), ML, CD Yes Private Buffer Area 5 No Anticipated Impact - Protect No Not Applicable 97 Norway Maple Acer platanoides 15 15 2 Fair Fair No CV, PP, DW(L), ML, CD Yes Private Buffer Area 3 No Anticipated Impact - Protect No Not Applicable 98 Manitoba Maple Acer negundo 25 25 0 Dead Dead No DW(L)Yes Private Buffer Area 1 No Anticipated Impact - Protect No Not Applicable 99 Other Other 9.5 9.5 0 Dead Dead No Dead Yes Private Buffer Area 1 No Anticipated Impact - Protect No Not Applicable 100 Eastern White Cedar Thuja occidentalis 19 19 4 Good Good No HL Yes Private Buffer Area 5 No Anticipated Impact - Protect No Not Applicable 101 Eastern White Cedar Thuja occidentalis 15.5 15.5 3 Fair Fair No DW(S)Yes Private Buffer Area 4 No Anticipated Impact - Protect No Not Applicable 102 Eastern White Cedar Thuja occidentalis 7.5 7 7.5 3 Fair Fair No DW(S), ML Yes Private Buffer Area 4 No Anticipated Impact - Protect No Not Applicable 103 Norway Maple Acer platanoides 9 9 1 Fair Fair No LN(L)Yes Private Buffer Area 2 No Anticipated Impact - Protect No Not Applicable 104 Choke Cherry Prunus virginiana 5 3 5 1 Fair Fair No LN(L)Yes Private Buffer Area 2 No Anticipated Impact - Protect No Not Applicable 105 Choke Cherry Prunus virginiana 5 5 1 Fair Fair No LN(L)Yes Private Buffer Area 2 No Anticipated Impact - Protect No Not Applicable 106 Choke Cherry Prunus virginiana 5 5 1 Fair Fair No LN(L)Yes Private Buffer Area 2 No Anticipated Impact - Protect No Not Applicable 107 Choke Cherry Prunus virginiana 5 5 1 Fair Fair No LN(L)Yes Private Buffer Area 2 No Anticipated Impact - Protect No Not Applicable 108 Choke Cherry Prunus virginiana 6 6 1 Fair Fair No LN(L)Yes City Buffer Area 2 No Anticipated Impact - Protect No Not Applicable 109 Choke Cherry Prunus virginiana 10 10 1 Fair Fair No LN(L)Yes City Buffer Area 2 No Anticipated Impact - Protect No Not Applicable 110 Manitoba Maple Acer negundo 20 20 0 Dead Dead No LN(H), PB Yes Private Buffer Area 1 No Anticipated Impact - Protect No Not Applicable 111 Manitoba Maple Acer negundo 17 17 0 Dead Dead No LN(H), PB Yes Private Buffer Area 1 No Anticipated Impact - Protect No Not Applicable 112 Norway Maple Acer platanoides 20 20 2 Fair Fair No LN(H), PB Yes Private Buffer Area 3 No Anticipated Impact - Protect No Not Applicable 113 Norway Maple Acer platanoides 9 9 9 2 Fair Poor No LN(M), TT Yes City Buffer Area 3 No Anticipated Impact - Protect No Not Applicable 114 White Elm Ulmus americana 3 3 1 Fair Fair No SS Yes City Buffer Area 2 No Anticipated Impact - Protect No Not Applicable 115 White Elm Ulmus americana 5 5 1 Fair Fair No SS Yes City Buffer Area 2 Injure No Not Applicable 116 White Elm Ulmus americana 5 5 1 Fair Fair No SS, LN(L)Yes City Buffer Area 2 Injure No Not Applicable 117 White Elm Ulmus americana 5 5 1 Fair Fair No SS, LN(L)Yes City Buffer Area 2 Injure No Not Applicable 118 White Elm Ulmus americana 5 5 1 Fair Fair No SS, LN(L)Yes City Buffer Area 2 Injure No Not Applicable 119 White Elm Ulmus americana 5 5 1 Fair Fair No SS, LN(L)Yes City Buffer Area 2 Injure No Not Applicable 120 White Elm Ulmus americana 5 2 5 1 Fair Fair No SS, LN(L), ML Yes City Buffer Area 2 Injure No Not Applicable 121 Eastern White Cedar Thuja occidentalis 9.5 9.5 2 Fair Fair No DW(S)Yes Private Buffer Area 3 No Anticipated Impact - Protect No Not Applicable 122 Norway Maple Acer platanoides 17 17 2 Fair Fair No DW(S), CON(T)Yes Private Buffer Area 3 No Anticipated Impact - Protect No Not Applicable 123 Green Ash Fraxinus pennsylvanica 7 7 0 Dead Dead No PB Yes Private Buffer Area 1 No Anticipated Impact - Protect No Not Applicable 124 Manitoba Maple Acer negundo 3 3 0 Dead Dead No PB Yes Private Buffer Area 1 No Anticipated Impact - Protect No Not Applicable 125 Slippery Elm Ulmus rubra 23 23 5 Fair Fair No LN(M), EG(T)Yes Private Buffer Area 6 No Anticipated Impact - Protect No Not Applicable 126 Norway Maple Acer platanoides 24 24 5 Fair Fair No LN(M), EG(T)Yes Private Buffer Area 6 No Anticipated Impact - Protect No Not Applicable 127 Manitoba Maple Acer negundo 12 12 3 Fair Fair No LN(M), EG(T), TW, CON(T)Yes Private Buffer Area 4 No Anticipated Impact - Protect No Not Applicable 128 Manitoba Maple Acer negundo 8 7 8 3 Fair Fair No LN(M), EG(T), TW, CON(T), VC Yes Private Buffer Area 4 No Anticipated Impact - Protect No Not Applicable 129 Black Walnut Juglans nigra 8 8 1 Fair Fair No LN(L), CON(T)Yes Private Buffer Area 2 No Anticipated Impact - Protect No Not Applicable 130 White Elm Ulmus americana 39 39 0 Dead Dead No DED, DW(L)Yes Private Buffer Area 1 No Anticipated Impact - Protect No Not Applicable 131 White Elm Ulmus americana 14 14 2 Fair Fair No TW, PB, EG(T)Yes Private Buffer Area 3 No Anticipated Impact - Protect No Not Applicable 132 White Elm Ulmus americana 22 22 3 Fair Fair No TW, PB, EG(T)Yes Private Buffer Area 4 No Anticipated Impact - Protect No Not Applicable 133 Eastern White Cedar Thuja occidentalis 41 41 3 Fair Fair No CON(T)Yes Private Buffer Area 4 No Anticipated Impact - Protect No Not Applicable 134 Eastern White Cedar Thuja occidentalis 41 41 3 Fair Fair No CON(T)Yes Private Buffer Area 4 No Anticipated Impact - Protect No Not Applicable 135 White Ash Fraxinus americana 10 10 3 Good Good No HL Yes Private Buffer Area 4 No Anticipated Impact - Protect No Not Applicable 136 Eastern White Cedar Thuja occidentalis 9.5 9.5 2 Fair Fair No ML Yes Private Buffer Area 3 No Anticipated Impact - Protect No Not Applicable 137 White Elm Ulmus americana 36 36 4 Good Fair No CON(T), LN(L)Yes Private Buffer Area 5 No Anticipated Impact - Protect No Not Applicable 138 Norway Maple Acer platanoides 42 42 4 Good Fair No CON(T), LN(L)Yes Private Buffer Area 5 No Anticipated Impact - Protect No Not Applicable 139 Manitoba Maple Acer negundo 15 15 3 Fair Fair No CON(T), LN(M)Yes Private Buffer Area 4 No Anticipated Impact - Protect No Not Applicable 140 Pagoda Dogwood Cornus alternifolia 4 3 3 4 2 Fair Fair No CON(T), ML Yes Private Buffer Area 3 No Anticipated Impact - Protect No Not Applicable 141 Pagoda Dogwood Cornus alternifolia 4 3 3 4 2 Fair Fair No CON(T), ML Yes Private Buffer Area 3 No Anticipated Impact - Protect No Not Applicable 142 White Mulberry Morus alba 13 13 2 Fair Fair No CON(T), ML, LN(L)Yes Private Buffer Area 3 No Anticipated Impact - Protect No Not Applicable 143 White Elm Ulmus americana 5 5 1 Fair Fair No CON(T), SS, VC Yes Private Buffer Area 2 No Anticipated Impact - Protect No Not Applicable 144 Norway Maple Acer platanoides 21 21 3 Fair Fair No CON(T), SS, VC, LN(L)Yes Private Buffer Area 4 No Anticipated Impact - Protect No Not Applicable 145 Crack Willow Salix fragilis 72 40 72 8 Fair Fair No LN(L), ML Yes Private Buffer Area 9 No Anticipated Impact - Protect No Not Applicable 146 Norway Maple Acer platanoides 27 21 19 27 8 Fair Fair No LN(H), ML, CON(T)Yes Private Buffer Area 9 No Anticipated Impact - Protect No Not Applicable 147 Norway Maple Acer platanoides 31 31 5 Fair Fair No LN(L), ML, CON(T), PB Yes Private Buffer Area 6 No Anticipated Impact - Protect No Not Applicable 148 Sugar Maple Acer saccharum 108 108 7 Very Poor Very Poor No DW(L), CR, DE Yes Private Buffer Area 8 Injure Yes Not Applicable 149 Eastern White Cedar Thuja occidentalis 18.5 18.5 3 Fair Fair No ML Yes Private Buffer Area 4 Injure No Not Applicable 150 Norway Maple Acer platanoides 2.5 2.5 2.5 Fair Poor No CT Yes Private Buffer Area 3.5 No Anticipated Impact - Protect No Not Applicable 151 Eastern White Cedar Thuja occidentalis 19.5 19.5 3 Good Fair No ML Yes City Buffer Area 4 Injure No Not Applicable 152 Eastern White Cedar Thuja occidentalis 31 31 5 Fair Poor No LN(M), CR Yes City Buffer Area 6 Injure No Not Applicable 2 of 14 Appendix C. Tree Assessment Results Tree #Common Name Scientfic Name First DBH (cm) Second DBH (cm) Third DBH (cm) Fourth DBH (cm) Fifth DBH (cm) DBH Analysis (cm) Dripline (m) Tree Condition - Health Tree Condition - Structure Species at Risk (Yes or No)Observations/Comments TRCA Regulation Limits (Yes or No) Tree Ownership Tree Location (Impact Area, Buffer Area) Tree Protection Zone Area (m) Recommended Action Structural Root Zone Impacted? Removal Justification 153 Ash sp.Fraxinus sp.9 9 3 Fair Fair No DE Yes City Impact Area 4 Injure Yes Not Applicable 154 Eastern White Cedar Thuja occidentalis 34 34 5 Fair Fair No PP, ML Yes City Buffer Area 6 Injure No Not Applicable 155 Eastern White Cedar Thuja occidentalis 29 29 5 Fair Fair No PP, ML, CR Yes City Buffer Area 6 Injure No Not Applicable 156 Other Other 8 8 0 Dead Dead No DEAD Yes City Buffer Area 1 No Anticipated Impact - Protect No Not Applicable 157 Eastern White Cedar Thuja occidentalis 9.5 9.5 2 Fair Fair No DW(S)Yes Private Buffer Area 3 No Anticipated Impact - Protect No Not Applicable 158 Eastern White Cedar Thuja occidentalis 11 11 4 Fair Fair No DW(S)Yes Private Buffer Area 5 No Anticipated Impact - Protect No Not Applicable 159 Eastern White Cedar Thuja occidentalis 18 18 3 Fair Fair No DW(S)Yes Private Buffer Area 4 No Anticipated Impact - Protect No Not Applicable 160 Sugar Maple Acer saccharum 93 93 7 Fair Fair No ML Yes Private Buffer Area 8 Injure No Not Applicable 161 Eastern White Cedar Thuja occidentalis 14 14 2 Fair Fair No DW(S)Yes Private Buffer Area 3 No Anticipated Impact - Protect No Not Applicable 162 Eastern White Cedar Thuja occidentalis 5 5 3 Fair Fair No DW(S)Yes Private Buffer Area 4 No Anticipated Impact - Protect No Not Applicable 163 White Birch Betula papyrifera 4.5 4.5 1 Fair Fair No DW(S)Yes Private Buffer Area 2 No Anticipated Impact - Protect No Not Applicable 164 White Birch Betula papyrifera 6.5 6.5 1 Poor Fair No DW(L)Yes Private Buffer Area 2 No Anticipated Impact - Protect No Not Applicable 165 Other Other 4 4 0 Dead Dead No Dead Yes Private Buffer Area 1 No Anticipated Impact - Protect No Not Applicable 166 Eastern White Cedar Thuja occidentalis 19 19 3 Fair Fair No DW(S)Yes Private Buffer Area 4 No Anticipated Impact - Protect No Not Applicable 167 Eastern White Cedar Thuja occidentalis 28.5 28.5 3 Good Fair No DW(S)Yes City Buffer Area 4 No Anticipated Impact - Protect No Not Applicable 168 Eastern White Cedar Thuja occidentalis 12 12 3 Good Good No DW(S)Yes Private Buffer Area 4 No Anticipated Impact - Protect No Not Applicable 169 Eastern White Cedar Thuja occidentalis 18.5 18.5 3 Fair Fair No DW(S)Yes City Buffer Area 4 Injure No Not Applicable 170 Eastern White Cedar Thuja occidentalis 14 14 3 Fair Fair No DW(S)Yes City Buffer Area 4 Injure No Not Applicable 171 Eastern White Cedar Thuja occidentalis 22 22 3 Fair Fair No DW(S), W Yes City Buffer Area 4 Injure Yes Not Applicable 172 Eastern White Cedar Thuja occidentalis 7 7 2 Poor Poor No LN(M), DW(L)Yes City Buffer Area 3 Injure No Not Applicable 173 Eastern White Cedar Thuja occidentalis 23 23 3 Fair Fair No DW(S)Yes City Buffer Area 4 No Anticipated Impact - Protect No Not Applicable 174 Eastern White Cedar Thuja occidentalis 21 21 3 Fair Fair No DW(S)Yes Private Buffer Area 4 No Anticipated Impact - Protect No Not Applicable 175 Eastern White Cedar Thuja occidentalis 12 12 3 Fair Fair No DW(S)Yes Private Buffer Area 4 No Anticipated Impact - Protect No Not Applicable 176 Eastern White Cedar Thuja occidentalis 19 19 3 Fair Fair No DW(S)Yes Private Buffer Area 4 No Anticipated Impact - Protect No Not Applicable 177 Eastern White Cedar Thuja occidentalis 3 3 2 Good Good No DW(S)Yes Private Buffer Area 3 No Anticipated Impact - Protect No Not Applicable 178 Cherry sp.Prunus sp.2.5 2.5 1 Good Good No SS Yes City Buffer Area 2 No Anticipated Impact - Protect No Not Applicable 179 Elm sp.Ulmus sp.16 16 4 Fair Fair No DW(S)Yes City Buffer Area 5 Injure No Not Applicable 180 Buckthorn sp.Rhamnus sp.12 10.5 8 7 12 3 Fair Fair No DW(S)No City Buffer Area 4 Injure No Not Applicable 181 Eastern White Cedar Thuja occidentalis 19.5 19.5 3 Good Good No HL No Private Buffer Area 4 Injure Yes Not Applicable 182 Eastern White Cedar Thuja occidentalis 11 8 11 2 Good Good No HL No Private Buffer Area 3 Injure No Not Applicable 183 Eastern White Cedar Thuja occidentalis 14 14 3 Good Good No HL No Private Buffer Area 4 Injure No Not Applicable 184 Eastern White Cedar Thuja occidentalis 12 12 3 Good Good No HL No Private Buffer Area 4 Injure No Not Applicable 185 Eastern White Cedar Thuja occidentalis 13 13 3 Good Good No HL No Private Buffer Area 4 Injure No Not Applicable 186 Eastern White Cedar Thuja occidentalis 11 11 3 Good Good No HL No Private Buffer Area 4 No Anticipated Impact - Protect No Not Applicable 187 Eastern White Cedar Thuja occidentalis 12 12 3 Good Good No HL No Private Buffer Area 4 No Anticipated Impact - Protect No Not Applicable 188 Eastern White Cedar Thuja occidentalis 10 10 3 Good Good No HL No Private Buffer Area 4 No Anticipated Impact - Protect No Not Applicable 189 Eastern Cottonwood Populus deltoides 5 5 1 Fair Fair No CON(S), ML, EG(T)Yes City Buffer Area 2 No Anticipated Impact - Protect No Not Applicable 190 Norway Maple Acer platanoides 15 15 2 Fair Fair No CON(T), TW, EG(T)Yes Private Buffer Area 3 No Anticipated Impact - Protect No Not Applicable 191 Black Walnut Juglans nigra 7 3 7 1 Fair Fair No ML, SS Yes Private Buffer Area 2 No Anticipated Impact - Protect No Not Applicable 192 Willow sp.Salix sp.3 2 2 1 3 1 Fair Fair No ML, SS Yes Private Buffer Area 2 No Anticipated Impact - Protect No Not Applicable 193 Willow sp.Salix sp.3 2 2 1 3 1 Fair Fair No ML, SS Yes Private Buffer Area 2 No Anticipated Impact - Protect No Not Applicable 194 Alder sp.Alnus sp.10 8 3 3 2 10 2 Fair Fair No ML, EG(T), TK9 Yes Private Buffer Area 3 No Anticipated Impact - Protect No Not Applicable 195 Black Walnut Juglans nigra 21 13 21 2 Fair Fair No ML, EG(T), LN(L)Yes Private Buffer Area 3 No Anticipated Impact - Protect No Not Applicable 196 Manitoba Maple Acer negundo 18 11 18 2 Poor Poor No ML, EG(T), LN(L), PB, BR Yes Private Buffer Area 3 No Anticipated Impact - Protect No Not Applicable 197 Manitoba Maple Acer negundo 51 51 8 Poor Poor No LN(H), FU, TW Yes Private Buffer Area 9 Injure No Not Applicable 198 Eastern White Cedar Thuja occidentalis 14 14 3 Good Good No HL No Private Buffer Area 4 No Anticipated Impact - Protect No Not Applicable 199 Eastern White Cedar Thuja occidentalis 11 11 3 Good Good No HL No Private Buffer Area 4 No Anticipated Impact - Protect No Not Applicable 200 Eastern White Cedar Thuja occidentalis 13 13 3 Good Good No HL No Private Buffer Area 4 No Anticipated Impact - Protect No Not Applicable 201 Eastern White Cedar Thuja occidentalis 13 13 13 3 Good Good No HL No Private Buffer Area 4 No Anticipated Impact - Protect No Not Applicable 202 Eastern White Cedar Thuja occidentalis 17 17 3 Good Good No HL No Private Buffer Area 4 No Anticipated Impact - Protect No Not Applicable 203 Eastern White Cedar Thuja occidentalis 14 14 3 Good Good No HL No Private Buffer Area 4 No Anticipated Impact - Protect No Not Applicable 204 Eastern White Cedar Thuja occidentalis 14 14 3 Good Good No HL No Private Buffer Area 4 No Anticipated Impact - Protect No Not Applicable 205 Eastern White Cedar Thuja occidentalis 13 13 3 Good Good No HL No Private Buffer Area 4 No Anticipated Impact - Protect No Not Applicable 206 Eastern White Cedar Thuja occidentalis 12 12 3 Good Good No HL No Private Buffer Area 4 No Anticipated Impact - Protect No Not Applicable 207 Eastern White Cedar Thuja occidentalis 13 13 3 Good Good No HL No Private Buffer Area 4 No Anticipated Impact - Protect No Not Applicable 208 Manitoba Maple Acer negundo 38 38 12 Very Poor Very Poor No LN(H), FU, TW, CV Yes Private Buffer Area 13 Injure No Not Applicable 209 Manitoba Maple Acer negundo 12 8 5 3 12 2 Very Poor Very Poor No ML, LN(L), EG(T)Yes Private Buffer Area 3 No Anticipated Impact - Protect No Not Applicable 210 Norway Maple Acer platanoides 20 20 2 Fair Fair No LN(L), CON(T), ER Yes Private Buffer Area 3 No Anticipated Impact - Protect No Not Applicable 211 Choke Cherry Prunus virginiana 4 4 1 Fair Fair No SS, LN(L)Yes Private Buffer Area 2 No Anticipated Impact - Protect No Not Applicable 212 Black Walnut Juglans nigra 9 9 1 Fair Fair No SS, LN(L)Yes Private Buffer Area 2 No Anticipated Impact - Protect No Not Applicable 213 Manitoba Maple Acer negundo 6 6 6 2 Fair Fair No SS, LN(M), ML Yes Private Buffer Area 3 No Anticipated Impact - Protect No Not Applicable 214 Black Walnut Juglans nigra 8 8 1 Fair Fair No SS, VC Yes Private Buffer Area 2 No Anticipated Impact - Protect No Not Applicable 215 Manitoba Maple Acer negundo 15 15 1 Fair Fair No SS, VC, LN(L), TW, CON(S)Yes Private Buffer Area 2 No Anticipated Impact - Protect No Not Applicable 216 Eastern White Cedar Thuja occidentalis 16 15 16 3 Good Good No HL No Private Buffer Area 4 No Anticipated Impact - Protect No Not Applicable 217 Eastern White Cedar Thuja occidentalis 14 14 3 Good Good No HL No Private Buffer Area 4 No Anticipated Impact - Protect No Not Applicable 218 Eastern White Cedar Thuja occidentalis 20 20 3 Good Good No HL No Private Buffer Area 4 No Anticipated Impact - Protect No Not Applicable 219 Eastern White Cedar Thuja occidentalis 23 23 3 Good Good No HL Yes Private Buffer Area 4 No Anticipated Impact - Protect No Not Applicable 220 Eastern White Cedar Thuja occidentalis 27 27 3 Good Good No HL Yes Private Buffer Area 4 No Anticipated Impact - Protect No Not Applicable 221 Eastern White Cedar Thuja occidentalis 4 4 0 Dead Dead No Dead Yes Private Buffer Area 1 No Anticipated Impact - Protect No Not Applicable 222 Eastern White Cedar Thuja occidentalis 21 21 3 Good Good No HL Yes Private Buffer Area 4 No Anticipated Impact - Protect No Not Applicable 223 Eastern White Cedar Thuja occidentalis 24 24 3 Good Good No HL Yes Private Buffer Area 4 No Anticipated Impact - Protect No Not Applicable 224 Sugar Maple Acer saccharum 36.5 18 36.5 6 Good Fair No ML Yes Private Buffer Area 7 No Anticipated Impact - Protect No Not Applicable 225 Sugar Maple Acer saccharum 46 46 6 Fair Fair No DW(S)No Private Buffer Area 7 Injure No Not Applicable 226 Black Walnut Juglans nigra 9 9 1 Fair Fair No SS, CON(T), CON(S)Yes Private Buffer Area 2 No Anticipated Impact - Protect No Not Applicable 227 Black Walnut Juglans nigra 9 9 1 Fair Fair No SS, CON(T), CON(S)Yes Private Buffer Area 2 No Anticipated Impact - Protect No Not Applicable 228 Black Walnut Juglans nigra 5 5 1 Fair Fair No SS, CON(T), CON(S)Yes Private Buffer Area 2 No Anticipated Impact - Protect No Not Applicable 229 Black Walnut Juglans nigra 10 10 1 Fair Fair No SS, CON(T), CON(S)Yes Private Buffer Area 2 No Anticipated Impact - Protect No Not Applicable 3 of 14 Appendix C. Tree Assessment Results Tree #Common Name Scientfic Name First DBH (cm) Second DBH (cm) Third DBH (cm) Fourth DBH (cm) Fifth DBH (cm) DBH Analysis (cm) Dripline (m) Tree Condition - Health Tree Condition - Structure Species at Risk (Yes or No)Observations/Comments TRCA Regulation Limits (Yes or No) Tree Ownership Tree Location (Impact Area, Buffer Area) Tree Protection Zone Area (m) Recommended Action Structural Root Zone Impacted? Removal Justification 230 Black Walnut Juglans nigra 12 12 1 Fair Fair No SS, CON(T), CON(S)Yes Private Buffer Area 2 No Anticipated Impact - Protect No Not Applicable 231 Black Walnut Juglans nigra 13 13 2 Fair Fair No SS, CON(T), CON(S)Yes Private Buffer Area 3 No Anticipated Impact - Protect No Not Applicable 232 Black Walnut Juglans nigra 10 10 1 Fair Fair No WI, EG(T)No City Impact Area 2 Remove Yes At the base of the hydro pole, overgrown shrubs and grading activities will cause significant impacts. 233 Willow sp.Salix sp.5 3 5 1 Fair Fair No ML, LN(L), SS, CON(S)Yes City Buffer Area 2 No Anticipated Impact - Protect No Not Applicable 234 Willow sp.Salix sp.5 3 5 1 Fair Fair No ML, LN(L), SS, CON(S)Yes City Buffer Area 2 No Anticipated Impact - Protect No Not Applicable 235 Eastern White Cedar Thuja occidentalis 38 32 38 4 Very Poor Very Poor No Dead Almost No Private Buffer Area 5 No Anticipated Impact - Protect No Not Applicable 236 Norway Maple Acer platanoides 28 28 6 Fair Very Poor No CON(T)No Private Buffer Area 7 Injure No Not Applicable 237 Norway Maple Acer platanoides 31 31 6 Fair Very Poor No CON(T)No City Buffer Area 7 Injure No Not Applicable 238 Norway Maple Acer platanoides 17 17 2 Good Fair No DW(S)No City Buffer Area 3 No Anticipated Impact - Protect No Not Applicable 239 Norway Maple Acer platanoides 12 12 3 Good Fair No DW(S)No City Buffer Area 4 Injure No Not Applicable 240 Eastern White Cedar Thuja occidentalis 18 14 18 3 Fair Fair No ML No Private Buffer Area 4 No Anticipated Impact - Protect No Not Applicable 241 Sugar Maple Acer saccharum 16 16 3 Good Fair No DW(S)No Private Buffer Area 4 No Anticipated Impact - Protect No Not Applicable 242 Sugar Maple Acer saccharum 51.5 51.5 6 Good Good No DW(S)Yes Private Buffer Area 7 Injure No Not Applicable 243 Ash sp.Fraxinus sp.71 71 0 Dead Dead No DEAD Yes Private Buffer Area 1 No Anticipated Impact - Protect No Not Applicable 244 Willow sp.Salix sp.3 3 3 1 Fair Fair No ML, LN(L), SS, CON(S)Yes City Buffer Area 2 No Anticipated Impact - Protect No Not Applicable 245 Willow sp.Salix sp.9 5 9 1 Fair Fair No ML, LN(L), SS, CON(S)Yes Private Buffer Area 2 No Anticipated Impact - Protect No Not Applicable 246 Black Walnut Juglans nigra 39 39 5 Poor Fair No CD, VC, LN(L)Yes Private Buffer Area 6 No Anticipated Impact - Protect No Not Applicable 247 White Elm Ulmus americana 34 34 0 Dead Dead No DED,VC, LN(L)Yes Private Buffer Area 1 No Anticipated Impact - Protect No Not Applicable 248 Green Ash Fraxinus pennsylvanica 9 9 1 Fair Fair No SS, LN(L), CON(T)Yes Private Buffer Area 2 No Anticipated Impact - Protect No Not Applicable 249 Butternut Juglans cinerea 17 17 2 Poor Poor Yes CA, CD, TW Yes Private Buffer Area 3 No Anticipated Impact - Protect No Not Applicable 250 Black Walnut Juglans nigra 4 4 1 Fair Fair No SS, ML, VC Yes Private Buffer Area 2 No Anticipated Impact - Protect No Not Applicable 251 Black Walnut Juglans nigra 26 26 3 Fair Fair No SS, ML Yes Private Buffer Area 4 No Anticipated Impact - Protect No Not Applicable 252 Black Walnut Juglans nigra 7 7 1 Fair Fair No SS, ML, VC Yes Private Buffer Area 2 No Anticipated Impact - Protect No Not Applicable 253 Willow sp.Salix sp.5 5 1 Fair Fair No ML, LN(L), SS, CON(S)Yes Private Buffer Area 2 No Anticipated Impact - Protect No Not Applicable 254 Willow sp.Salix sp.8 8 1 Fair Fair No ML, LN(L), SS, CON(S)Yes Private Buffer Area 2 No Anticipated Impact - Protect No Not Applicable 255 Willow sp.Salix sp.13 13 1 Fair Fair No ML, LN(L), SS, CON(S)Yes Private Buffer Area 2 No Anticipated Impact - Protect No Not Applicable 256 Black Walnut Juglans nigra 33 33 3 Fair Fair No ML, IN(B)Yes Private Buffer Area 4 No Anticipated Impact - Protect No Not Applicable 257 Green Ash Fraxinus pennsylvanica 14 14 9 9 6 14 3 Fair Fair No ML, IN(B)Yes Private Buffer Area 4 No Anticipated Impact - Protect No Not Applicable 258 Walnut sp.Juglans sp.26 26 6 Fair Fair No DW(L)Yes Private Buffer Area 7 No Anticipated Impact - Protect No Not Applicable 259 Norway Spruce Picea abies 70 70 6 Fair Fair No ER, DW(S)Yes Private Buffer Area 7 No Anticipated Impact - Protect No Not Applicable 260 Walnut sp.Juglans sp.14.5 14.5 5 Fair Fair No ML Yes Private Buffer Area 6 No Anticipated Impact - Protect No Not Applicable 261 Ash sp.Fraxinus sp.3 3 2 Good Good No SS Yes Private Buffer Area 3 No Anticipated Impact - Protect No Not Applicable 262 Norway Maple Acer platanoides 27 27 6 Good Good No DW(S), EG(T)Yes City Buffer Area 7 Injure No Not Applicable 263 Buckthorn sp.Rhamnus sp.3 3 1 Good Good No SS Yes Private Buffer Area 2 No Anticipated Impact - Protect No Not Applicable 264 Buckthorn sp.Rhamnus sp.4 4 1 Good Good No SS Yes Private Buffer Area 2 No Anticipated Impact - Protect No Not Applicable 265 Buckthorn sp.Rhamnus sp.3 3 1 Good Good No SS Yes Private Buffer Area 2 No Anticipated Impact - Protect No Not Applicable 266 Buckthorn sp.Rhamnus sp.3 3 1 Good Good No SS Yes Private Buffer Area 2 No Anticipated Impact - Protect No Not Applicable 267 Norway Maple Acer platanoides 22 22 3 Fair Fair No VC, CD, TW, EG(T)Yes Private Buffer Area 4 No Anticipated Impact - Protect No Not Applicable 268 Norway Maple Acer platanoides 18 18 3 Fair Fair No VC, CD, TW, EG(T)Yes Private Buffer Area 4 No Anticipated Impact - Protect No Not Applicable 269 Green Ash Fraxinus pennsylvanica 10 10 1 Fair Fair No VC, CD, TW, EG(T)Yes Private Buffer Area 2 No Anticipated Impact - Protect No Not Applicable 270 Butternut Juglans cinerea 15 15 3 Poor Poor Yes CA, CD, LN(L), TW Yes Private Buffer Area 4 No Anticipated Impact - Protect No Not Applicable 271 Manitoba Maple Acer negundo 33 8 33 4 Fair Poor No LN(M), CON(T), EG(T), ML Yes Private Buffer Area 5 No Anticipated Impact - Protect No Not Applicable 272 Manitoba Maple Acer negundo 4 4 1 Fair Fair No LN(M), CON(T), EG(T), ML Yes Private Buffer Area 2 No Anticipated Impact - Protect No Not Applicable 273 Crack Willow Salix fragilis 67 67 8 Poor Poor No IE, LN(H), CON(T)Yes Private Buffer Area 9 No Anticipated Impact - Protect No Not Applicable 274 Black Walnut Juglans nigra 24 24 1 Fair Fair No SS, ML, VC Yes Private Buffer Area 2 No Anticipated Impact - Protect No Not Applicable 275 Manitoba Maple Acer negundo 8 8 1 Fair Fair No SS, ML, VC, LN(H)Yes Private Buffer Area 2 No Anticipated Impact - Protect No Not Applicable 276 Manitoba Maple Acer negundo 15 9 3 15 2 Fair Fair No ML, LN(L), CON(T)Yes Private Buffer Area 3 No Anticipated Impact - Protect No Not Applicable 277 Green Ash Fraxinus pennsylvanica 5 5 1 Fair Fair No ML, LN(L), CON(T)Yes Private Buffer Area 2 No Anticipated Impact - Protect No Not Applicable 278 Manitoba Maple Acer negundo 45 45 4 Fair Fair No ML, LN(L), CON(T)Yes Private Buffer Area 5 No Anticipated Impact - Protect No Not Applicable 279 Manitoba Maple Acer negundo 40 31 40 12 Fair Fair No ML, LN(H), CON(T)Yes Private Buffer Area 13 No Anticipated Impact - Protect No Not Applicable 280 Manitoba Maple Acer negundo 31 29 31 6 Fair Fair No ML, LN(H), CON(T)Yes Private Buffer Area 7 Injure No Not Applicable 281 Manitoba Maple Acer negundo 18 18 3 Fair Fair No ML, LN(H), CON(T)Yes Private Buffer Area 4 No Anticipated Impact - Protect No Not Applicable 282 Ash sp.Fraxinus sp.3 3 1 Good Good No DW(L)Yes Private Buffer Area 2 No Anticipated Impact - Protect No Not Applicable 283 Ash sp.Fraxinus sp.3 3 2 Good Good No SS Yes Private Buffer Area 3 No Anticipated Impact - Protect No Not Applicable 284 Buckthorn sp.Rhamnus sp.6.5 6.5 3 Fair Fair No SS Yes Private Buffer Area 4 No Anticipated Impact - Protect No Not Applicable 285 White Spruce Picea glauca 17 16 17 5 Fair Fair No ML, DW(L)Yes Private Buffer Area 6 No Anticipated Impact - Protect No Not Applicable 286 Buckthorn sp.Rhamnus sp.3 3 2 Fair Fair No SS Yes Private Buffer Area 3 No Anticipated Impact - Protect No Not Applicable 287 Buckthorn sp.Rhamnus sp.3 3 1 Fair Fair No SS Yes Private Buffer Area 2 No Anticipated Impact - Protect No Not Applicable 288 Ash sp.Fraxinus sp.3 3 1 Good Good No SS Yes Private Buffer Area 2 No Anticipated Impact - Protect No Not Applicable 289 Manitoba Maple Acer negundo 44 43 44 6 Good Poor No CR Yes Private Buffer Area 7 No Anticipated Impact - Protect No Not Applicable 290 Ash sp.Fraxinus sp.4.5 4.5 2 Good Good No SS Yes Private Buffer Area 3 No Anticipated Impact - Protect No Not Applicable 291 Buckthorn sp.Rhamnus sp.5 5 2 Good Good No SS Yes Private Buffer Area 3 No Anticipated Impact - Protect No Not Applicable 292 Ash sp.Fraxinus sp.5 5 2 Good Good No SS Yes Private Buffer Area 3 No Anticipated Impact - Protect No Not Applicable 293 White Spruce Picea glauca 56 56 5 Good Good No DW(S)Yes City Buffer Area 6 Injure No Not Applicable 294 Norway Maple Acer platanoides 3 3 1 Good Good No SS Yes City Buffer Area 2 No Anticipated Impact - Protect No Not Applicable 295 Ash sp.Fraxinus sp.2.5 2.5 1 Good Fair No SS Yes City Buffer Area 2 No Anticipated Impact - Protect No Not Applicable 296 Ash sp.Fraxinus sp.3.5 3.5 1 Good Fair No SS Yes Private Buffer Area 2 No Anticipated Impact - Protect No Not Applicable 297 Other Other 10 10 0 Dead Dead No Dead Yes Private Buffer Area 1 No Anticipated Impact - Protect No Not Applicable 298 Buckthorn sp.Rhamnus sp.4 4 1 Fair Fair No SS Yes Private Buffer Area 2 No Anticipated Impact - Protect No Not Applicable 299 Buckthorn sp.Rhamnus sp.6 6 1 Good Good No SS Yes Private Buffer Area 2 No Anticipated Impact - Protect No Not Applicable 300 Buckthorn sp.Rhamnus sp.5.5 4 5.5 1 Fair Fair No SS Yes Private Buffer Area 2 No Anticipated Impact - Protect No Not Applicable 301 Ash sp.Fraxinus sp.3 3 1 Good Good No SS Yes Private Buffer Area 2 No Anticipated Impact - Protect No Not Applicable 302 Buckthorn sp.Rhamnus sp.2.5 2 2.5 2 Good Good No SS Yes Private Buffer Area 3 No Anticipated Impact - Protect No Not Applicable 303 Norway Maple Acer platanoides 52 52 6 Fair Fair No CON(S)Yes City Buffer Area 7 Injure No Not Applicable 304 Manitoba Maple Acer negundo 15 13 12 10 15 5 Fair Fair No ML, LN(H), CON(T)Yes Private Buffer Area 6 No Anticipated Impact - Protect No Not Applicable 4 of 14 Appendix C. Tree Assessment Results Tree #Common Name Scientfic Name First DBH (cm) Second DBH (cm) Third DBH (cm) Fourth DBH (cm) Fifth DBH (cm) DBH Analysis (cm) Dripline (m) Tree Condition - Health Tree Condition - Structure Species at Risk (Yes or No)Observations/Comments TRCA Regulation Limits (Yes or No) Tree Ownership Tree Location (Impact Area, Buffer Area) Tree Protection Zone Area (m) Recommended Action Structural Root Zone Impacted? Removal Justification 305 Manitoba Maple Acer negundo 16 13 16 5 Fair Fair No ML, LN(H), CON(T)Yes Private Buffer Area 6 No Anticipated Impact - Protect No Not Applicable 306 Norway Maple Acer platanoides 40 40 5 Fair Fair No CON(T), ML Yes Private Buffer Area 6 No Anticipated Impact - Protect No Not Applicable 307 Crack Willow Salix fragilis 58 58 5 Fair Fair No CON(T), ML, EG(T)Yes Private Buffer Area 6 No Anticipated Impact - Protect No Not Applicable 308 Crack Willow Salix fragilis 72 72 5 Poor Poor No CON(T), ML, EG(T), CV, BR, TW, LN(M)Yes Private Buffer Area 6 No Anticipated Impact - Protect No Not Applicable 309 Manitoba Maple Acer negundo 36 36 5 Poor Poor No CON(T), ML, EG(T), TW, LN(M)Yes Private Buffer Area 6 No Anticipated Impact - Protect No Not Applicable 310 Crack Willow Salix fragilis 63 63 0 Dead Dead No CON(T), ML, EG(T), CV, BR, TW, LN(M), BR Yes Private Buffer Area 1 No Anticipated Impact - Protect No Not Applicable 311 Norway Maple Acer platanoides 22 14 22 5 Fair Fair No LN(L), ML, CON(T)Yes Private Buffer Area 6 No Anticipated Impact - Protect No Not Applicable 312 Green Ash Fraxinus pennsylvanica 10 10 2 Poor Fair No EG(T), TW, EAB Yes Private Buffer Area 3 No Anticipated Impact - Protect No Not Applicable 313 Manitoba Maple Acer negundo 18 18 2 Poor Fair No LN(M), ML, EG(T)Yes Private Buffer Area 3 No Anticipated Impact - Protect No Not Applicable 314 Manitoba Maple Acer negundo 19 16 12 19 2 Poor Fair No LN(M), ML, EG(T)Yes Private Buffer Area 3 No Anticipated Impact - Protect No Not Applicable 315 Manitoba Maple Acer negundo 15 15 2 Fair Fair No LN(M), ML, EG(T)Yes Private Buffer Area 3 No Anticipated Impact - Protect No Not Applicable 316 Manitoba Maple Acer negundo 4 4 2 Fair Fair No LN(M), SW Yes Private Buffer Area 3 No Anticipated Impact - Protect No Not Applicable 317 Manitoba Maple Acer negundo 4 4 2 Fair Fair No LN(M), SW Yes City Buffer Area 3 No Anticipated Impact - Protect No Not Applicable 318 Manitoba Maple Acer negundo 37 37 12 Fair Fair No LN(H), EG(T)Yes Private Buffer Area 13 No Anticipated Impact - Protect No Not Applicable 319 Manitoba Maple Acer negundo 47 47 4 Fair Fair No LN(M), CON(T)Yes Private Buffer Area 5 No Anticipated Impact - Protect No Not Applicable 320 Manitoba Maple Acer negundo 32 32 4 Fair Fair No LN(H), EG(T), IN(B)Yes Private Buffer Area 5 No Anticipated Impact - Protect No Not Applicable 321 Manitoba Maple Acer negundo 32 32 4 Poor Poor No LN(L), EG(T), IN(B), BR, TW Yes Private Buffer Area 5 No Anticipated Impact - Protect No Not Applicable 322 Norway Maple Acer platanoides 15 15 3 Poor Poor No LN(L), EG(T), IN(B), BR, TW Yes Private Buffer Area 4 No Anticipated Impact - Protect No Not Applicable 323 Manitoba Maple Acer negundo 39 39 6 Poor Poor No LN(M), EG(T), IN(B), BR, TW Yes Private Buffer Area 7 No Anticipated Impact - Protect No Not Applicable 324 Manitoba Maple Acer negundo 21 20 20 18 16 21 10 Poor Poor No LN(H), ML, EG(T), TW, CV, FU Yes Private Buffer Area 11 No Anticipated Impact - Protect No Not Applicable 325 Manitoba Maple Acer negundo 5 5 1 Poor Poor No LN(M), CON(T), EG(T)Yes Private Buffer Area 2 No Anticipated Impact - Protect No Not Applicable 326 Pagoda Dogwood Cornus alternifolia 10 8 10 2 Fair Fair No SS Yes Private Buffer Area 3 No Anticipated Impact - Protect No Not Applicable 327 Manitoba Maple Acer negundo 20 20 4 Fair Fair No LN(M), TW, IN(B)Yes Private Buffer Area 5 Injure No Not Applicable 328 Dogwood sp.Cornus sp.10 10 2 Fair Fair No LN(M), TW, IN(B)Yes Private Buffer Area 3 Injure No Not Applicable 329 Dogwood sp.Cornus sp.8 3 8 2 Fair Fair No ML, LN(L)Yes Private Buffer Area 3 No Anticipated Impact - Protect No Not Applicable 330 Black Walnut Juglans nigra 15 15 2 Fair Fair No ML, LN(L), VC, TW Yes Private Buffer Area 3 Injure No Not Applicable 331 Manitoba Maple Acer negundo 16 16 4 Fair Fair No IN(B), TW Yes Private Buffer Area 5 No Anticipated Impact - Protect No Not Applicable 332 Manitoba Maple Acer negundo 42 42 4 Fair Fair No LN(L), EG(T), IN(B)Yes Private Buffer Area 5 No Anticipated Impact - Protect No Not Applicable 333 Manitoba Maple Acer negundo 46 46 4 Fair Fair No LN(H), EG(T), IN(B)Yes Private Buffer Area 5 No Anticipated Impact - Protect No Not Applicable 334 Manitoba Maple Acer negundo 53 53 4 Fair Fair No LN(H), EG(T), IN(B)Yes Private Buffer Area 5 No Anticipated Impact - Protect No Not Applicable 335 Manitoba Maple Acer negundo 42 42 4 Fair Fair No LN(L), EG(T), IN(B)Yes Private Buffer Area 5 No Anticipated Impact - Protect No Not Applicable 336 Manitoba Maple Acer negundo 42 22 22 42 4 Fair Fair No ML, VC, LN(L)Yes Private Buffer Area 5 No Anticipated Impact - Protect No Not Applicable 337 Manitoba Maple Acer negundo 63 63 6 Fair Fair No ML, VC, LN(L)Yes Private Buffer Area 7 No Anticipated Impact - Protect No Not Applicable 338 Black Walnut Juglans nigra 10 10 1 Poor Fair No ML, VC, LN(L)Yes Private Buffer Area 2 No Anticipated Impact - Protect No Not Applicable 339 Eastern White Cedar Thuja occidentalis 42 29 42 4 Poor Fair No ML, VC, LN(L)Yes Private Buffer Area 5 No Anticipated Impact - Protect No Not Applicable 340 Eastern White Cedar Thuja occidentalis 28 17 28 3 Poor Fair No ML, LN(L), PB Yes Private Buffer Area 4 No Anticipated Impact - Protect No Not Applicable 341 Eastern White Cedar Thuja occidentalis 41 39 41 3 Poor Fair No ML, LN(L), PB Yes Private Buffer Area 4 No Anticipated Impact - Protect No Not Applicable 342 Black Walnut Juglans nigra 45 45 7 Good Good No HL, CON(T)Yes Private Buffer Area 8 No Anticipated Impact - Protect No Not Applicable 343 Black Walnut Juglans nigra 62 62 7 Good Good No HL, CON(T)Yes Private Buffer Area 8 Injure No Not Applicable 344 Black Walnut Juglans nigra 28 28 5 Good Good No HL, CON(T)Yes Private Buffer Area 6 No Anticipated Impact - Protect No Not Applicable 345 Choke Cherry Prunus virginiana 6 6 1 Fair Fair No SS, LN(L)Yes Private Buffer Area 2 No Anticipated Impact - Protect No Not Applicable 346 Choke Cherry Prunus virginiana 6 6 1 Fair Fair No SS, LN(L)Yes Private Buffer Area 2 No Anticipated Impact - Protect No Not Applicable 347 Choke Cherry Prunus virginiana 6 6 1 Fair Fair No SS, LN(L)Yes Private Buffer Area 2 No Anticipated Impact - Protect No Not Applicable 348 Pagoda Dogwood Cornus alternifolia 6 6 1 Fair Fair No SS, LN(L)Yes Private Buffer Area 2 No Anticipated Impact - Protect No Not Applicable 349 Pagoda Dogwood Cornus alternifolia 6 6 1 Fair Fair No SS, LN(L)Yes Private Buffer Area 2 No Anticipated Impact - Protect No Not Applicable 350 Pagoda Dogwood Cornus alternifolia 6 6 1 Fair Fair No SS, LN(L)Yes Private Buffer Area 2 No Anticipated Impact - Protect No Not Applicable 351 Norway Maple Acer platanoides 4 4 1 Good Good No SS Yes City Buffer Area 2 No Anticipated Impact - Protect No Not Applicable 352 Ash sp.Fraxinus sp.4 4 1 Good Good No SS Yes City Buffer Area 2 No Anticipated Impact - Protect No Not Applicable 353 Buckthorn sp.Rhamnus sp.3 3 1 Good Good No SS Yes Private Buffer Area 2 No Anticipated Impact - Protect No Not Applicable 354 Dogwood sp.Cornus sp.2.5 2.5 1 Good Good No SS Yes Private Buffer Area 2 No Anticipated Impact - Protect No Not Applicable 355 Dogwood sp.Cornus sp.3 3 2 1 3 3 Good Good No SS, ML Yes Private Buffer Area 4 No Anticipated Impact - Protect No Not Applicable 356 Norway Maple Acer platanoides 6.5 6.5 6 Good Good No SS Yes Private Buffer Area 7 No Anticipated Impact - Protect No Not Applicable 357 Lilac sp.Syringa sp.3 3 2 Fair Fair No SS, LN(M)Yes Private Buffer Area 3 No Anticipated Impact - Protect No Not Applicable 358 Cherry sp.Prunus sp.6 6 2 Fair Good No DIS Yes Private Buffer Area 3 No Anticipated Impact - Protect No Not Applicable 359 Willow sp.Salix sp.125 125 6 Poor Poor No PP Yes Private Buffer Area 7 Injure Yes Not Applicable 360 Ash sp.Fraxinus sp.6 6 3 Good Good No SS Yes Private Buffer Area 4 No Anticipated Impact - Protect No Not Applicable 361 Buckthorn sp.Rhamnus sp.4 4 2 Good Good No SS Yes Private Buffer Area 3 No Anticipated Impact - Protect No Not Applicable 362 Norway Maple Acer platanoides 4 4 4 Good Good No SS Yes City Buffer Area 5 Injure No Not Applicable 363 Dogwood sp.Cornus sp.2.5 2 2 2 2.5 2 Fair Poor No CON(S)Yes Private Buffer Area 3 Injure No Not Applicable 364 Cherry sp.Prunus sp.3.5 3.5 2 Fair Fair No SS Yes Private Buffer Area 3 Injure No Not Applicable 365 Dogwood sp.Cornus sp.4 3.5 3 3 3 4 2 Poor Poor No PP Yes Private Buffer Area 3 No Anticipated Impact - Protect No Not Applicable 366 Black Walnut Juglans nigra 71 71 7 Good Good No HL, CON(T)Yes Private Buffer Area 8 No Anticipated Impact - Protect No Not Applicable 367 Sugar Maple Acer saccharum 8 8 1 Good Good No HL, CON(T)Yes Private Buffer Area 2 No Anticipated Impact - Protect No Not Applicable 368 Eastern White Cedar Thuja occidentalis 43 41 28 24 18 43 6 Fair Poor No ML, TK6, CV, TW, ER Yes Private Buffer Area 7 Remove Yes A new drainage pool will be installed, which will cause significant root impacts. 369 Buckthorn sp.Rhamnus sp.5 5 2 Good Fair No SS Yes Private Buffer Area 3 No Anticipated Impact - Protect No Not Applicable 370 Buckthorn sp.Rhamnus sp.7 7 2 Good Fair No SS Yes Private Buffer Area 3 No Anticipated Impact - Protect No Not Applicable 371 Walnut sp.Juglans sp.10.5 10.5 4 Good Good No DW(S)Yes Private Buffer Area 5 No Anticipated Impact - Protect No Not Applicable 372 Norway Maple Acer platanoides 4 4 6 Good Good No SS Yes Private Buffer Area 7 Injure No Not Applicable 373 Buckthorn sp.Rhamnus sp.5 5 2 Good Good No SS Yes City Buffer Area 3 No Anticipated Impact - Protect No Not Applicable 374 Buckthorn sp.Rhamnus sp.4 4 2 Good Good No SS Yes City Buffer Area 3 No Anticipated Impact - Protect No Not Applicable 375 Buckthorn sp.Rhamnus sp.3 3 2 Good Good No SS Yes City Buffer Area 3 No Anticipated Impact - Protect No Not Applicable 376 Buckthorn sp.Rhamnus sp.2.5 2.5 2 Good Good No SS Yes City Buffer Area 3 No Anticipated Impact - Protect No Not Applicable 377 Buckthorn sp.Rhamnus sp.3 3 2 Good Good No SS Yes Private Buffer Area 3 No Anticipated Impact - Protect No Not Applicable 378 Buckthorn sp.Rhamnus sp.3 3 2 Good Good No SS Yes City Buffer Area 3 No Anticipated Impact - Protect No Not Applicable 379 Buckthorn sp.Rhamnus sp.3 3 2 Good Good No SS Yes City Buffer Area 3 No Anticipated Impact - Protect No Not Applicable 5 of 14 Appendix C. Tree Assessment Results Tree #Common Name Scientfic Name First DBH (cm) Second DBH (cm) Third DBH (cm) Fourth DBH (cm) Fifth DBH (cm) DBH Analysis (cm) Dripline (m) Tree Condition - Health Tree Condition - Structure Species at Risk (Yes or No)Observations/Comments TRCA Regulation Limits (Yes or No) Tree Ownership Tree Location (Impact Area, Buffer Area) Tree Protection Zone Area (m) Recommended Action Structural Root Zone Impacted? Removal Justification 380 Norway Maple Acer platanoides 2.5 2.5 1 Good Good No SS Yes City Buffer Area 2 No Anticipated Impact - Protect No Not Applicable 381 Ash sp.Fraxinus sp.4.5 4.5 3 Good Fair No SS Yes City Buffer Area 4 No Anticipated Impact - Protect No Not Applicable 382 Walnut sp.Juglans sp.7 7 3 Good Fair No DW(S)Yes City Buffer Area 4 No Anticipated Impact - Protect No Not Applicable 383 Ash sp.Fraxinus sp.4.5 4.5 3 Good Fair No SS Yes City Buffer Area 4 No Anticipated Impact - Protect No Not Applicable 384 Ash sp.Fraxinus sp.3.5 3.5 3 Fair Fair No SS Yes City Buffer Area 4 Injure No Not Applicable 385 Norway Maple Acer platanoides 2.5 2 2 2.5 2 Poor Poor No PP Yes City Buffer Area 3 Injure No Not Applicable 386 Norway Maple Acer platanoides 3.5 2 3.5 2 Good Fair No SS Yes City Buffer Area 3 Injure No Not Applicable 387 Willow sp.Salix sp.5 4 2 5 2 Fair Fair No ML, LN(H), CON(T)Yes City Impact Area 3 Remove Yes Tree is a roadside shrub. 388 Manitoba Maple Acer negundo 5 5 5 1 Fair Fair No LN(M), CON(T), ML Yes Private Buffer Area 2 No Anticipated Impact - Protect No Not Applicable 389 Manitoba Maple Acer negundo 5 5 4 5 1 Fair Fair No LN(M), CON(T), ML Yes City Buffer Area 2 No Anticipated Impact - Protect No Not Applicable 390 Manitoba Maple Acer negundo 7 5 5 5 4 7 1 Fair Fair No LN(M), CON(T), ML Yes City Buffer Area 2 No Anticipated Impact - Protect No Not Applicable 391 Manitoba Maple Acer negundo 7 5 5 5 4 7 1 Fair Fair No LN(M), CON(T), ML Yes City Buffer Area 2 No Anticipated Impact - Protect No Not Applicable 392 Manitoba Maple Acer negundo 7 5 5 7 1 Fair Fair No LN(M), CON(T), ML Yes Private Buffer Area 2 No Anticipated Impact - Protect No Not Applicable 393 Manitoba Maple Acer negundo 5 5 1 Fair Fair No LN(M), CON(T), ML Yes City Impact Area 2 Remove Yes A new drainage pool will be installed, which will cause significant root impacts. 394 Manitoba Maple Acer negundo 15 15 2 Fair Fair No LN(M), CON(T), ML Yes Private Impact Area 3 Remove Yes A new drainage pool will be installed, which will cause significant root impacts. 395 Dogwood sp.Cornus sp.6 5 3 3 2 6 3 Poor Fair No ML Yes City Buffer Area 4 Injure No Not Applicable 396 Norway Spruce Picea abies 21 21 3 Good Good No DW(S)Yes Private Buffer Area 4 Injure No Not Applicable 397 Dogwood sp.Cornus sp.6 6 3 Good Fair No LN(M)Yes Private Buffer Area 4 No Anticipated Impact - Protect No Not Applicable 398 Ash sp.Fraxinus sp.3 3 2 Good Good No SS Yes Private Buffer Area 3 No Anticipated Impact - Protect No Not Applicable 399 Norway Maple Acer platanoides 6 6 3 Good Good No SS Yes Private Buffer Area 4 Injure No Not Applicable 400 Dogwood sp.Cornus sp.4 4 4 2 Good Fair No CON(S)Yes Private Buffer Area 3 No Anticipated Impact - Protect No Not Applicable 401 Dogwood sp.Cornus sp.5 5 2 Good Fair No ML Yes Private Buffer Area 3 No Anticipated Impact - Protect No Not Applicable 402 Black Walnut Juglans nigra 76 76 6 Good Fair No VC, DW(L), DW(S)Yes Private Buffer Area 7 No Anticipated Impact - Protect No Not Applicable 403 Dogwood sp.Cornus sp.3.5 3.5 3 Good Fair No LN(M)Yes Private Buffer Area 4 No Anticipated Impact - Protect No Not Applicable 404 Dogwood sp.Cornus sp.3.5 3.5 3 Good Fair No LN(M)Yes Private Buffer Area 4 No Anticipated Impact - Protect No Not Applicable 405 Dogwood sp.Cornus sp.3.5 2.5 2 2 3.5 3 Fair Fair No LN(M)Yes Private Buffer Area 4 No Anticipated Impact - Protect No Not Applicable 406 Dogwood sp.Cornus sp.3.5 2.5 3.5 2 Fair Fair No LN(M)Yes Private Buffer Area 3 No Anticipated Impact - Protect No Not Applicable 407 Black Walnut Juglans nigra 19 19 3 Fair Fair No VC, CON(T), ML Yes Private Buffer Area 4 No Anticipated Impact - Protect No Not Applicable 408 Black Walnut Juglans nigra 21 21 4 Fair Fair No VC, CON(T), ML Yes Private Buffer Area 5 No Anticipated Impact - Protect No Not Applicable 409 Common Pear Pyrus communis 10 10 1 Fair Fair No LT Yes City Buffer Area 2 No Anticipated Impact - Protect No Not Applicable 410 Common Pear Pyrus communis 10 10 1 Fair Fair No LT Yes City Buffer Area 2 Injure No Not Applicable 411 Littleleaf Linden Tilia cordata 29 29 2 Fair Fair No LT, PP, GR, CD No Private Impact Area 3 Injure Yes Not Applicable 412 Norway Spruce Picea abies 39 39 3 Fair Fair No LT, PP, GR No Private Buffer Area 4 Injure No Not Applicable 413 White Fir Abies concolor 10 10 1 Good Good No WI, LT No Private Buffer Area 2 No Anticipated Impact - Protect No Not Applicable 414 Red Oak Quercus rubra 12 12 2 Good Good No WI, LT No Private Buffer Area 3 Injure No Not Applicable 415 Walnut sp.Juglans sp.46 46 6 Fair Fair No DW(S)Yes Private Buffer Area 7 No Anticipated Impact - Protect No Not Applicable 416 Walnut sp.Juglans sp.52 52 6 Fair Fair No DW(S)Yes Private Buffer Area 7 No Anticipated Impact - Protect No Not Applicable 417 Dogwood sp.Cornus sp.3.5 3.5 2 Fair Fair No LN(M)Yes Private Buffer Area 3 No Anticipated Impact - Protect No Not Applicable 418 Dogwood sp.Cornus sp.3.5 3.5 3 Good Fair No LN(M)Yes Private Buffer Area 4 No Anticipated Impact - Protect No Not Applicable 419 Cherry sp.Prunus sp.2.5 2.5 1 Poor Poor No DE Yes Private Buffer Area 2 No Anticipated Impact - Protect No Not Applicable 420 Dogwood sp.Cornus sp.2.5 2.5 2 Good Good No SS Yes Private Buffer Area 3 No Anticipated Impact - Protect No Not Applicable 421 Sugar Maple Acer saccharum 82 82 8 Fair Poor No LT, SM, WC(P), TW, CV, CD No City Buffer Area 9 Remove Yes A new catch basin will be installed, which will cause significant root impacts. 422 White Spruce Picea glauca 18 18 2 Poor Fair No LT, CD, PP, DW(S)No City Buffer Area 3 Injure No Not Applicable 423 Manitoba Maple Acer negundo 15 15 6 Fair Fair No CON(S), TT, EG(T), LN(M)No Private Buffer Area 7 Injure No Not Applicable 424 Manitoba Maple Acer negundo 17 17 6 Fair Fair No CON(S), TT, EG(T), LN(M)No Private Buffer Area 7 Remove No Overgrown shrubs with grading impacts will cause significant root impacts. 425 Common Pear Pyrus communis 27 25 20 18 15 27 6 Poor Poor No CON(S), TT, EG(T), LN(M), CV, BR, OB No Private Buffer Area 7 Injure No Not Applicable 426 Black Walnut Juglans nigra 37 37 5 Fair Fair No CON(T), CON(S), GR No Private Buffer Area 6 No Anticipated Impact - Protect No Not Applicable 427 Dogwood sp.Cornus sp.2.5 2.5 2 Fair Fair No LN(M)Yes Private Buffer Area 3 No Anticipated Impact - Protect No Not Applicable 428 Dogwood sp.Cornus sp.3 3 2 Fair Fair No LN(M)Yes Private Buffer Area 3 No Anticipated Impact - Protect No Not Applicable 429 Dogwood sp.Cornus sp.4.5 4.5 2 Fair Fair No LN(M)Yes Private Buffer Area 3 No Anticipated Impact - Protect No Not Applicable 430 Dogwood sp.Cornus sp.3.5 3.5 2 Fair Fair No LN(M)Yes Private Buffer Area 3 No Anticipated Impact - Protect No Not Applicable 431 Dogwood sp.Cornus sp.5.5 5.5 2 Fair Fair No LN(M)Yes Private Buffer Area 3 No Anticipated Impact - Protect No Not Applicable 432 Dogwood sp.Cornus sp.4 3 4 2 Fair Fair No LN(M)Yes Private Buffer Area 3 No Anticipated Impact - Protect No Not Applicable 433 Manitoba Maple Acer negundo 2.5 2.5 2 Good Good No SS Yes Private Buffer Area 3 No Anticipated Impact - Protect No Not Applicable 434 Norway Maple Acer platanoides 2.5 1 2.5 2 Fair Fair No SS Yes Private Buffer Area 3 No Anticipated Impact - Protect No Not Applicable 435 Manitoba Maple Acer negundo 7.5 7.5 4 Good Good No SS Yes Private Buffer Area 5 No Anticipated Impact - Protect No Not Applicable 436 Manitoba Maple Acer negundo 5 5 2 Fair Fair No SS Yes Private Buffer Area 3 No Anticipated Impact - Protect No Not Applicable 437 Dogwood sp.Cornus sp.6 6 4 Good Good No SS Yes Private Buffer Area 5 No Anticipated Impact - Protect No Not Applicable 438 Manitoba Maple Acer negundo 35 32 30 22 20 35 5 Fair Fair No TK8, ML, LN(H), CON(S), CON(T), CV No Private Buffer Area 6 No Anticipated Impact - Protect No Not Applicable 439 Black Walnut Juglans nigra 26 26 3 Fair Fair No CON(T), CON(S), GR No Private Buffer Area 4 No Anticipated Impact - Protect No Not Applicable 440 Manitoba Maple Acer negundo 47 47 8 Fair Fair No CON(T), CON(S), GR, ML, GR No Private Buffer Area 9 Injure No Not Applicable 441 Manitoba Maple Acer negundo 20 20 4 Fair Poor No CON(T), CON(S), GR, ML, BR No Private Buffer Area 5 No Anticipated Impact - Protect No Not Applicable 442 Black Walnut Juglans nigra 22 22 4 Fair Fair No CON(T), CON(S), GR No Private Buffer Area 5 No Anticipated Impact - Protect No Not Applicable 443 Manitoba Maple Acer negundo 15 15 4 Fair Poor No CON(T), CON(S), LN(L), EG(T)No Private Buffer Area 5 No Anticipated Impact - Protect No Not Applicable 444 Black Walnut Juglans nigra 13 13 2 Fair Fair No CON(T), CON(S), EG(T)No Private Buffer Area 3 No Anticipated Impact - Protect No Not Applicable 445 Manitoba Maple Acer negundo 41 41 10 Fair Poor No CON(T), CON(S), LN(H), ML No Private Buffer Area 11 No Anticipated Impact - Protect No Not Applicable 446 Eastern White Cedar Thuja occidentalis 18 15 18 2 Fair Fair No CON(S), ML, TW, PP No Private Buffer Area 3 No Anticipated Impact - Protect No Not Applicable 6 of 14 Appendix C. Tree Assessment Results Tree #Common Name Scientfic Name First DBH (cm) Second DBH (cm) Third DBH (cm) Fourth DBH (cm) Fifth DBH (cm) DBH Analysis (cm) Dripline (m) Tree Condition - Health Tree Condition - Structure Species at Risk (Yes or No)Observations/Comments TRCA Regulation Limits (Yes or No) Tree Ownership Tree Location (Impact Area, Buffer Area) Tree Protection Zone Area (m) Recommended Action Structural Root Zone Impacted? Removal Justification 447 Eastern White Cedar Thuja occidentalis 33 33 3 Fair Fair No CON(T), LN(L)No Private Buffer Area 4 Remove Yes A new catch basin will be installed, which will cause significant root impacts. 448 Norway Spruce Picea abies 87 87 8 Fair Poor No ML, PP, IN(B), IN(U)No Private Buffer Area 9 Injury with Supervision Yes Not Applicable 449 Sugar Maple Acer saccharum 10 10 1 Fair Fair No LT, TW,No City Impact Area 2 Injury with Supervision Yes Not Applicable 450 Norway Maple Acer platanoides 37 29 37 5 Fair Fair No LT, TW, WI, ML LN(L), PP No City Impact Area 6 Injury with Supervision Yes Not Applicable 451 Colorado Spruce Picea pungens 28 28 3 Fair Fair No LT, WI, PP, ER No Private Buffer Area 4 Injury with Supervision Yes Not Applicable 452 Norway Maple Acer platanoides 17 17 2 Poor Poor No EG(T), LN(L), WI No City Impact Area 3 Injury with Supervision Yes Not Applicable 453 Norway Maple Acer platanoides 28 19 28 3 Poor Poor No EG(T), LN(L), WI No City Impact Area 4 Injury with Supervision Yes Not Applicable 454 Norway Maple Acer platanoides 30 30 3 Fair Fair No PP, LT, ML No City Impact Area 4 Injury with Supervision Yes Not Applicable 455 Green Ash Fraxinus pennsylvanica 29 29 3 Good Good No HL Yes Private Buffer Area 4 No Anticipated Impact - Protect No Not Applicable 456 Norway Spruce Picea abies 42 42 3 Fair Fair No PP, LT, ML No Private Buffer Area 4 Injury with Supervision Yes Not Applicable 457 Norway Maple Acer platanoides 41 41 5 Fair Fair No PP, LT, ML No City Impact Area 6 Injury with Supervision Yes Not Applicable 458 Norway Maple Acer platanoides 41 41 5 Fair Fair No PP, LT, ML No City Impact Area 6 Injury with Supervision Yes Not Applicable 459 White Elm Ulmus americana 86 86 8 Fair Poor No ML, PB, GR, EG(T), CON(T), WI No Private Buffer Area 9 Injury with Supervision Yes Not Applicable 460 Norway Maple Acer platanoides 15 15 2 Fair Poor No CON(T), SS, PP No Private Buffer Area 3 No Anticipated Impact - Protect No Not Applicable 461 Sugar Maple Acer saccharum 37 37 4 Good Fair No PP, LT, DW(S)No Private Impact Area 5 Injury with Supervision Yes Not Applicable 462 Sugar Maple Acer saccharum 32 32 4 Good Fair No PP, LT, DW(S)No Private Buffer Area 5 Injury with Supervision Yes Not Applicable 463 Sugar Maple Acer saccharum 71 71 4 Fair Fair No PP, LT, DW(S)No City Impact Area 5 Injury with Supervision Yes Not Applicable 464 Littleleaf Linden Tilia cordata 22 22 2 Poor Poor No PB, TW, CD, PP, WI No Private Impact Area 3 Injury with Supervision Yes Not Applicable 465 Norway Spruce Picea abies 18 18 2 Fair Fair No DW(S)No Private Buffer Area 3 No Anticipated Impact - Protect No Not Applicable 466 Norway Spruce Picea abies 24 24 2 Fair Fair No DW(S)No Private Buffer Area 3 Injure No Not Applicable 467 Norway Spruce Picea abies 32 32 0 Dead Dead No HL, LT No Private Buffer Area 1 No Anticipated Impact - Protect No Not Applicable 468 Norway Spruce Picea abies 22 22 0 Dead Dead No HL, LT, ID No Private Buffer Area 1 No Anticipated Impact - Protect No Not Applicable 469 Norway Maple Acer platanoides 18 18 2 Fair Fair No CON(T), LN(L), PP No City Buffer Area 3 Injure Yes Not Applicable 470 Norway Maple Acer platanoides 14 14 2 Fair Fair No CON(T), LN(L), PP No City Impact Area 3 Injure Yes Not Applicable 471 Norway Maple Acer platanoides 25 25 3 Fair Fair No CON(T), LN(L), PP No City Buffer Area 4 Injure Yes Not Applicable 472 Norway Spruce Picea abies 40 40 5 Good Good No DW(S)No City Buffer Area 6 Injure No Not Applicable 473 Norway Spruce Picea abies 23 23 5 Good Good No DW(S)No City Buffer Area 6 Injure No Not Applicable 474 Norway Spruce Picea abies 23 23 5 Good Good No DW(S)No City Buffer Area 6 Injure No Not Applicable 475 Norway Spruce Picea abies 47 47 5 Good Good No DW(S)No City Buffer Area 6 Injure No Not Applicable 476 Norway Spruce Picea abies 69 69 6 Fair Fair No DW(S), PP No Private Buffer Area 7 Injure No Not Applicable 477 White Spruce Picea glauca 10 10 2 Good Good No IE No Private Buffer Area 3 No Anticipated Impact - Protect No Not Applicable 478 White Spruce Picea glauca 10 10 2 Good Good No IE No Private Buffer Area 3 No Anticipated Impact - Protect No Not Applicable 479 Norway Maple Acer platanoides 16 16 2 Good Good No HL No Private Buffer Area 3 No Anticipated Impact - Protect No Not Applicable 480 Sugar Maple Acer saccharum 78 78 6 Good Good No WI, PP No Private Buffer Area 7 No Anticipated Impact - Protect No Not Applicable 481 Sugar Maple Acer saccharum 90 90 6 Good Good No PP, IN(B)No Private Buffer Area 7 No Anticipated Impact - Protect No Not Applicable 482 Sugar Maple Acer saccharum 73 73 6 Good Good No PP, DW(L)No Private Buffer Area 7 Injure No Not Applicable 483 Norway Maple Acer platanoides 54 54 6 Good Fair No WI, DW(S), ER, PP No Private Buffer Area 7 Injure No Not Applicable 484 Norway Maple Acer platanoides 21 21 2 Fair Fair No CON(T), LN(L), PP No City Impact Area 3 Injure Yes Not Applicable 485 Norway Maple Acer platanoides 10 10 1 Fair Fair No CON(T), LN(L)No City Buffer Area 2 No Anticipated Impact - Protect No Not Applicable 486 Sugar Maple Acer saccharum 17 17 2 Fair Fair No CON(T), LN(L)No City Buffer Area 3 Injure No Not Applicable 487 Norway Maple Acer platanoides 21 21 2 Fair Fair No CON(T), LN(L), PP No City Impact Area 3 Injure Yes Not Applicable 488 Green Ash Fraxinus pennsylvanica 13 13 1 Poor Poor No CON(T), LN(L), PB, EAB No Private Buffer Area 2 No Anticipated Impact - Protect No Not Applicable 489 Green Ash Fraxinus pennsylvanica 17 17 2 Poor Poor No CON(T), LN(L), PB, EAB No Private Buffer Area 3 No Anticipated Impact - Protect No Not Applicable 490 Black Walnut Juglans nigra 47 47 7 Good Good No CON(S), CON(T)No Private Buffer Area 8 No Anticipated Impact - Protect No Not Applicable 491 Norway Spruce Picea abies 19 19 2 Fair Fair No CON(S), CON(T), CD No Private Buffer Area 3 No Anticipated Impact - Protect No Not Applicable 492 Norway Spruce Picea abies 12 12 2 Fair Fair No CON(S), CON(T), CD No Private Buffer Area 3 No Anticipated Impact - Protect No Not Applicable 493 Sugar Maple Acer saccharum 15 15 2 Fair Fair No CON(S), CON(T), CD No Private Buffer Area 3 No Anticipated Impact - Protect No Not Applicable 494 Black Walnut Juglans nigra 51 51 7 Good Good No CON(S), CON(T)No Private Buffer Area 8 No Anticipated Impact - Protect No Not Applicable 495 Black Walnut Juglans nigra 11 11 2 Fair Fair No CON(S), CON(T), LN(L)No Private Buffer Area 3 No Anticipated Impact - Protect No Not Applicable 496 Black Walnut Juglans nigra 16 16 2 Fair Fair No CON(S), CON(T), LN(L)No Private Buffer Area 3 No Anticipated Impact - Protect No Not Applicable 497 Green Ash Fraxinus pennsylvanica 18 18 2 Poor Poor No CON(S), CON(T), LN(L), EAB, PB No Private Buffer Area 3 No Anticipated Impact - Protect No Not Applicable 498 Black Walnut Juglans nigra 32 32 7 Good Good No CON(S), CON(T)No Private Buffer Area 8 Injure No Not Applicable 499 Norway Spruce Picea abies 39 39 4 Fair Fair No CON(S), CON(T), CD No City Buffer Area 5 Injure Yes Not Applicable 500 Eastern White Cedar Thuja occidentalis 43 43 2 Fair Fair No CON(S), CON(T), CD No City Buffer Area 3 Injure Yes Not Applicable 501 Eastern White Cedar Thuja occidentalis 25 25 2 Fair Fair No CON(S), CON(T), CD No City Buffer Area 3 Injure No Not Applicable 502 Sugar Maple Acer saccharum 77 77 6 Poor Poor No CV, DEH, SM, LN(L), CD, TW No City Buffer Area 7 Injure Yes Not Applicable 503 Norway Maple Acer platanoides 30 30 3 Fair Fair No CON(S), CON(T), CD No City Buffer Area 4 Injure No Not Applicable 504 Eastern White Cedar Thuja occidentalis 29 29 3 Fair Fair No CON(S), CON(T), CD No City Buffer Area 4 Injure Yes Not Applicable 505 Sugar Maple Acer saccharum 31 31 3 Fair Fair No CON(S), CON(T), CD No City Buffer Area 4 Injure No Not Applicable 506 Norway Maple Acer platanoides 34 34 3 Fair Fair No CON(S), CON(T), CD No City Buffer Area 4 Remove Yes A ditch line change will cause significant root compaction. 507 Norway Maple Acer platanoides 13 9 4 13 3 Fair Fair No CON(S), CON(T), CD No City Buffer Area 4 Injure Yes Not Applicable 508 Norway Spruce Picea abies 36 36 3 Fair Fair No CON(S), CON(T), CD, PP No City Buffer Area 4 Injure Yes Not Applicable 509 Sugar Maple Acer saccharum 15 15 3 Fair Fair No CON(S), CON(T), CD, PP No City Buffer Area 4 Injure No Not Applicable 510 Sugar Maple Acer saccharum 18 18 3 Fair Fair No CON(S), CON(T), CD, PP No City Buffer Area 4 Injure Yes Not Applicable 511 Norway Maple Acer platanoides 11 11 3 Fair Fair No CON(S), CON(T), CD, PP No City Buffer Area 4 Injure No Not Applicable 512 Sugar Maple Acer saccharum 13 13 2 Fair Fair No CON(S), CON(T), CD, PP No City Buffer Area 3 Injure No Not Applicable 513 Norway Maple Acer platanoides 10 10 1 Fair Fair No CON(S), CON(T), CD, PP No City Buffer Area 2 Injure No Not Applicable 514 Norway Maple Acer platanoides 15 15 1 Fair Fair No CON(S), CON(T), CD, PP No City Buffer Area 2 Injure No Not Applicable 515 Norway Maple Acer platanoides 20 20 1 Fair Fair No CON(S), CON(T), CD, PP No City Impact Area 2 Injure Yes Not Applicable 516 Norway Maple Acer platanoides 17 17 2 Fair Fair No CON(S), CON(T), CD, PP No City Impact Area 3 Injure Yes Not Applicable 517 Norway Maple Acer platanoides 10 10 2 Fair Fair No CON(S), CON(T), CD, PP No City Buffer Area 3 Injure No Not Applicable 518 Norway Maple Acer platanoides 16 16 2 Fair Fair No CON(S), CON(T), CD, PP No City Buffer Area 3 Injure Yes Not Applicable 519 Norway Maple Acer platanoides 13 13 2 Fair Fair No CON(S), CON(T), CD, PP No City Buffer Area 3 Injure No Not Applicable 520 Norway Maple Acer platanoides 18 18 2 Fair Fair No CON(S), CON(T), CD, PP No City Buffer Area 3 Injure Yes Not Applicable 7 of 14 Appendix C. Tree Assessment Results Tree #Common Name Scientfic Name First DBH (cm) Second DBH (cm) Third DBH (cm) Fourth DBH (cm) Fifth DBH (cm) DBH Analysis (cm) Dripline (m) Tree Condition - Health Tree Condition - Structure Species at Risk (Yes or No)Observations/Comments TRCA Regulation Limits (Yes or No) Tree Ownership Tree Location (Impact Area, Buffer Area) Tree Protection Zone Area (m) Recommended Action Structural Root Zone Impacted? Removal Justification 521 Norway Maple Acer platanoides 18 18 0 Dead Dead No PB, CON(T)No City Buffer Area 1 No Anticipated Impact - Protect No Not Applicable 522 Black Walnut Juglans nigra 130 130 10 Good Fair No PP, VC, EG(T)No Private Buffer Area 11 Injure No Not Applicable 523 Eastern White Cedar Thuja occidentalis 18 18 2 Good Fair No PP, VC, EG(T)No Private Buffer Area 3 No Anticipated Impact - Protect No Not Applicable 524 Eastern White Cedar Thuja occidentalis 13 13 2 Good Fair No PP, VC, EG(T)No Private Buffer Area 3 No Anticipated Impact - Protect No Not Applicable 525 Black Walnut Juglans nigra 51 51 6 Fair Fair No PP, VC, EG(T)No Private Buffer Area 7 No Anticipated Impact - Protect No Not Applicable 526 Sugar Maple Acer saccharum 17 17 2 Fair Fair No PP, VC, EG(T),No Private Buffer Area 3 No Anticipated Impact - Protect No Not Applicable 527 Eastern White Cedar Thuja occidentalis 17 17 2 Good Fair No PP, VC, EG(T)No Private Buffer Area 3 No Anticipated Impact - Protect No Not Applicable 528 Eastern White Cedar Thuja occidentalis 17 17 2 Good Fair No PP, VC, EG(T)No Private Buffer Area 3 No Anticipated Impact - Protect No Not Applicable 529 Sugar Maple Acer saccharum 24 24 3 Good Fair No DW(S)Yes City Buffer Area 4 Injure No Not Applicable 530 White Spruce Picea glauca 34 34 4 Fair Fair No PP, DW(L)Yes City Buffer Area 5 Injure Yes Not Applicable 531 Norway Maple Acer platanoides 10 10 3 Fair Fair No SS Yes City Buffer Area 4 Injure No Not Applicable 532 Sugar Maple Acer saccharum 93 93 6 Fair Fair No ML, CR(V)Yes City Buffer Area 7 Injure Yes Not Applicable 533 Black Walnut Juglans nigra 48 48 7 Good Good No CON(T)No Private Buffer Area 8 Injure No Not Applicable 534 Eastern White Cedar Thuja occidentalis 18 18 2 Good Fair No PP, VC, EG(T)No City Impact Area 3 Injure Yes Not Applicable 535 Eastern White Cedar Thuja occidentalis 20 20 2 Good Fair No PP, VC, EG(T)No City Impact Area 3 Injure Yes Not Applicable 536 Eastern White Cedar Thuja occidentalis 17 17 2 Good Fair No PP, VC, EG(T)No City Impact Area 3 Injure Yes Not Applicable 537 Norway Spruce Picea abies 34 34 4 Fair Fair No LT, ER, DW(S), CD No Private Buffer Area 5 Injure No Not Applicable 538 Norway Spruce Picea abies 50 50 6 Fair Fair No LT, ER, DW(S), CD No Private Buffer Area 7 No Anticipated Impact - Protect No Not Applicable 539 Eastern White Cedar Thuja occidentalis 15 12 15 2 Fair Fair No ML, PP, CON(T)No Private Buffer Area 3 No Anticipated Impact - Protect No Not Applicable 540 Eastern White Cedar Thuja occidentalis 25 23 18 11 25 2 Fair Fair No ML, PP, CON(T)No Private Buffer Area 3 Injure No Not Applicable 541 Sugar Maple Acer saccharum 42 42 6 Good Fair No DW(S)No Private Buffer Area 7 Injure Yes Not Applicable 542 Sugar Maple Acer saccharum 50 10 50 6 Fair Fair No DW(S)No City Buffer Area 7 Injure Yes Not Applicable 543 Siberian Elm Ulmus pumila 65 65 7 Fair Fair No ML, ID, CON(T), DW(S), WI No City Buffer Area 8 Injure Yes Not Applicable 544 Sugar Maple Acer saccharum 29 29 4 Fair Fair No TW, ML, IN(U), WI No Private Buffer Area 5 Injure Yes Not Applicable 545 Black Walnut Juglans nigra 114 114 11 Fair Fair No SM(V), ML, IN(U), PP No Private Buffer Area 12 Injure No Not Applicable 546 Eastern White Cedar Thuja occidentalis 16 16 2 Fair Fair No LN(L), CON(T), PP No Private Buffer Area 3 No Anticipated Impact - Protect No Not Applicable 547 Eastern White Cedar Thuja occidentalis 15 8 15 2 Fair Fair No LN(L), CON(T), PP No Private Buffer Area 3 No Anticipated Impact - Protect No Not Applicable 548 Eastern White Cedar Thuja occidentalis 15 15 2 Fair Fair No LN(L), CON(T), PP No Private Buffer Area 3 No Anticipated Impact - Protect No Not Applicable 549 Norway Spruce Picea abies 57 57 6 Fair Fair No CON(S), DW(L)Yes Private Buffer Area 7 No Anticipated Impact - Protect No Not Applicable 550 Norway Spruce Picea abies 61 61 6 Fair Fair No CON(S), DW(L), IE Yes Private Buffer Area 7 No Anticipated Impact - Protect No Not Applicable 551 Norway Spruce Picea abies 61 61 6 Fair Fair No CON(S), DW(L), IE Yes Private Buffer Area 7 No Anticipated Impact - Protect No Not Applicable 552 White Spruce Picea glauca 22 22 4 Fair Fair No DW(S)Yes City Buffer Area 5 Injure No Not Applicable 553 White Spruce Picea glauca 30 30 4 Fair Fair No DW(S)Yes Private Buffer Area 5 Injure No Not Applicable 554 Norway Spruce Picea abies 74 74 4 Fair Fair No DW(S)Yes Private Buffer Area 5 No Anticipated Impact - Protect No Not Applicable 555 Sugar Maple Acer saccharum 21 21 3 Good Fair No DW(S)Yes City Buffer Area 4 Injure No Not Applicable 556 Sugar Maple Acer saccharum 19 19 3 Good Fair No DW(S)Yes City Buffer Area 4 Injure No Not Applicable 557 Sugar Maple Acer saccharum 12 12 3 Good Fair No DW(S)Yes City Buffer Area 4 Injure No Not Applicable 558 White Spruce Picea glauca 21 21 4 Fair Fair No PP, DW(L)Yes City Buffer Area 5 Injure No Not Applicable 559 Sugar Maple Acer saccharum 18 18 3 Good Fair No DW(S)Yes City Buffer Area 4 Injure No Not Applicable 560 Sugar Maple Acer saccharum 12 12 3 Good Fair No DW(S)Yes City Buffer Area 4 Injure No Not Applicable 561 White Spruce Picea glauca 12 12 4 Fair Fair No PP, DW(L)Yes City Buffer Area 5 Injure Yes Not Applicable 562 White Elm Ulmus americana 45 16 45 7 Fair Fair No ML, EG(T), PP, TT No City Buffer Area 8 Injure Yes Not Applicable 563 Black Walnut Juglans nigra 61 28 18 61 6 Fair Poor No DW(L), PP, CON(T), BR, ML No Private Buffer Area 7 Injure Yes Not Applicable 564 White Elm Ulmus americana 16 16 1 Poor Poor No CON(T), PP, EG(T), DW(S)No Private Buffer Area 2 No Anticipated Impact - Protect No Not Applicable 565 Littleleaf Linden Tilia cordata 39 39 6 Fair Fair No TW, PP, WI No City Impact Area 7 Injury with Supervision Yes Not Applicable 566 Littleleaf Linden Tilia cordata 51 51 6 Fair Fair No TW, PP, WI No Private Impact Area 7 Injury with Supervision Yes Not Applicable 567 Callery pear Pyrus calleryana 23 23 4 Fair Fair No TW, PP, WI No City Impact Area 5 Injury with Supervision Yes Not Applicable 568 Callery pear Pyrus calleryana 23 23 3 Fair Fair No TW, PP, WI No City Buffer Area 4 Remove Yes A new catch basin will be installed, which will cause significant root impacts. 569 Eastern White Cedar Thuja occidentalis 47 47 3 Fair Poor No ID, TW, WC(P), ER, LN(L)No City Buffer Area 4 Remove Yes A new catch basin will be installed, which will cause significant root impacts. 570 Sugar Maple Acer saccharum 54 54 6 Fair Fair No ER, DW Yes Private Buffer Area 7 No Anticipated Impact - Protect No Not Applicable 571 Eastern White Cedar Thuja occidentalis 26 26 2 Good Fair No LN No Private Buffer Area 3 No Anticipated Impact - Protect No Not Applicable 572 Norway Spruce Picea abies 50 50 6 Fair Fair No DW(L)No Private Buffer Area 7 No Anticipated Impact - Protect No Not Applicable 573 Norway Spruce Picea abies 63 60 53 63 6 Fair Fair No DW(L), CV Yes Private Buffer Area 7 Injure No Not Applicable 574 Norway Spruce Picea abies 87 87 6 Fair Fair No DW(L), ML Yes Private Buffer Area 7 Injure No Not Applicable 575 Norway Spruce Picea abies 41 41 6 Fair Fair No DW(L), ML No Private Buffer Area 7 Injure No Not Applicable 576 Norway Spruce Picea abies 58 58 6 Fair Fair No DW(L) ML CON(S)No Private Buffer Area 7 Injure No Not Applicable 577 Eastern White Cedar Thuja occidentalis 56 56 3 Fair Fair No BR, SM(V), PP, ID, CD No City Buffer Area 4 Injure Yes Not Applicable 578 Sugar Maple Acer saccharum 32 32 4 Good Fair No WC(P), ML, ER No Private Impact Area 5 Injury with Supervision Yes Not Applicable 579 Black Walnut Juglans nigra 49 49 9 Good Fair No PP, WC(P), SM(V), ML No Private Buffer Area 10 Injure No Not Applicable 580 Black Walnut Juglans nigra 62 62 10 Good Good No PP, ML No Private Buffer Area 11 Injure Yes Not Applicable 581 Littleleaf Linden Tilia cordata 43 43 5 Fair Fair No PP, LN(L), EG(T)No Private Buffer Area 6 Injury with Supervision Yes Not Applicable 582 Norway Spruce Picea abies 18 18 2 Fair Fair No DW(S)No Private Buffer Area 3 No Anticipated Impact - Protect No Not Applicable 583 Eastern White Cedar Thuja occidentalis 10 10 1 Fair Fair No ML, LN(L), GTF No Private Buffer Area 2 No Anticipated Impact - Protect No Not Applicable 584 White Mulberry Morus alba 12 12 2 Fair Fair No ML, LN(L), GTF No Private Buffer Area 3 No Anticipated Impact - Protect No Not Applicable 585 Eastern White Cedar Thuja occidentalis 10 10 2 Fair Fair No ML, CON(S), CON(T)No Private Buffer Area 3 No Anticipated Impact - Protect No Not Applicable 586 Eastern White Cedar Thuja occidentalis 10 10 2 Fair Fair No ML, CON(S), CON(T)No Private Buffer Area 3 No Anticipated Impact - Protect No Not Applicable 587 Eastern White Cedar Thuja occidentalis 10 10 2 Fair Fair No ML, CON(S), CON(T)No Private Buffer Area 3 No Anticipated Impact - Protect No Not Applicable 588 Eastern White Cedar Thuja occidentalis 10 10 2 Fair Fair No ML, CON(S), CON(T)No Private Buffer Area 3 No Anticipated Impact - Protect No Not Applicable 589 Eastern White Cedar Thuja occidentalis 10 10 2 Fair Fair No ML, CON(S), CON(T)No Private Buffer Area 3 No Anticipated Impact - Protect No Not Applicable 590 Japanese Lilac Syringa reticulata 18 15 15 12 11 18 2 Fair Fair No ML, TK12, CD No City Impact Area 3 Injury with Supervision Yes Not Applicable 591 Pear sp.Pyrus sp.22 22 2 Fair Fair No EG(T), DW(S), WI No City Buffer Area 3 No Anticipated Impact - Protect No Not Applicable 592 Pear sp.Pyrus sp.24 24 2 Fair Fair No EG(T), DW(S), WI No City Buffer Area 3 No Anticipated Impact - Protect No Not Applicable 593 Sugar Maple Acer saccharum 89 89 7 Good Fair No CON(S), DW(S)No Private Buffer Area 8 No Anticipated Impact - Protect No Not Applicable 8 of 14 Appendix C. Tree Assessment Results Tree #Common Name Scientfic Name First DBH (cm) Second DBH (cm) Third DBH (cm) Fourth DBH (cm) Fifth DBH (cm) DBH Analysis (cm) Dripline (m) Tree Condition - Health Tree Condition - Structure Species at Risk (Yes or No)Observations/Comments TRCA Regulation Limits (Yes or No) Tree Ownership Tree Location (Impact Area, Buffer Area) Tree Protection Zone Area (m) Recommended Action Structural Root Zone Impacted? Removal Justification 594 White Spruce Picea glauca 54 54 3 Fair Fair No PP, DW(L), DW(S), LN(B)No Private Buffer Area 4 No Anticipated Impact - Protect No Not Applicable 595 Eastern White Cedar Thuja occidentalis 14 14 14 3 Good Fair No IN(U)No City Buffer Area 4 No Anticipated Impact - Protect No Not Applicable 596 Eastern White Cedar Thuja occidentalis 10.5 6.5 10.5 3 Good Fair No IN(U), LN No City Buffer Area 4 No Anticipated Impact - Protect No Not Applicable 597 Eastern White Cedar Thuja occidentalis 15 15 12 10 8 15 3 Good Fair No IN(U), LN No City Buffer Area 4 No Anticipated Impact - Protect No Not Applicable 598 Eastern White Cedar Thuja occidentalis 13 9 8 13 3 Good Fair No IN(U), LN, WI No City Buffer Area 4 No Anticipated Impact - Protect No Not Applicable 599 Norway Maple Acer platanoides 48 48 5 Fair Fair No WI, CD, SM(V), PP No City Impact Area 6 Injury with Supervision Yes Not Applicable 600 Norway Maple Acer platanoides 36 36 5 Fair Fair No WI, CD, SM(V), PP, ML No City Impact Area 6 Injury with Supervision Yes Not Applicable 601 Norway Maple Acer platanoides 41 41 5 Fair Fair No WI, CD, ML, PP, DW(S)No City Impact Area 6 Injury with Supervision Yes Not Applicable 602 Norway Maple Acer platanoides 32 32 5 Fair Fair No WI, CD, ML, PP, DW(S)No City Impact Area 6 Injury with Supervision Yes Not Applicable 603 Norway Maple Acer platanoides 38 38 5 Fair Fair No WI, CD, ML, PP, DW(S)No City Impact Area 6 Injury with Supervision Yes Not Applicable 604 Sugar Maple Acer saccharum 21 21 5 Good Fair No CON(T), ML, DW(S), LN(L)No Private Buffer Area 6 No Anticipated Impact - Protect No Not Applicable 605 Manitoba Maple Acer negundo 10 8 5 10 2 Fair Poor No EG(T), PP, ML, VC No Private Buffer Area 3 Injure No Not Applicable 606 Black Walnut Juglans nigra 10 10 2 Fair Fair No CON(T), DW(S), VC No Private Buffer Area 3 Injure No Not Applicable 607 Black Walnut Juglans nigra 31 31 6 Fair Fair No EG(T), LT, ML, IN(B)No Private Buffer Area 7 Injure No Not Applicable 608 Norway Maple Acer platanoides 11 11 2 Fair Fair No LN(L), CON(T), SS No Private Buffer Area 3 No Anticipated Impact - Protect No Not Applicable 609 Black Walnut Juglans nigra 10 10 1 Fair Fair No SS, CON(T)No Private Buffer Area 2 No Anticipated Impact - Protect No Not Applicable 610 Black Walnut Juglans nigra 22 22 6 Fair Fair No ML, CON(T), DW(S)No Private Buffer Area 7 Injure No Not Applicable 611 Black Walnut Juglans nigra 10 10 1 Fair Fair No SS, CON(T)No Private Buffer Area 2 No Anticipated Impact - Protect No Not Applicable 612 Sugar Maple Acer saccharum 67 67 0 Dead Dead No snag No Private Buffer Area 1 No Anticipated Impact - Protect No Not Applicable 613 Littleleaf Linden Tilia cordata 41 10 8 5 5 41 4 Fair Fair No WI, EG(T), PP No City Impact Area 5 Injury with Supervision Yes Not Applicable 614 Norway Maple Acer platanoides 61 61 6 Good Good No EG(T), PP, CON(S)No Private Buffer Area 7 No Anticipated Impact - Protect No Not Applicable 615 Norway Maple Acer platanoides 13 13 3 Good Good No EG(T), PP, CON(S)No City Buffer Area 4 No Anticipated Impact - Protect No Not Applicable 616 Norway Maple Acer platanoides 32 22 20 17 32 5 Good Good No EG(T), PP, ML No City Buffer Area 6 No Anticipated Impact - Protect No Not Applicable 617 Norway Maple Acer platanoides 76 76 4 Fair Fair No PP, WI,No Private Buffer Area 5 No Anticipated Impact - Protect No Not Applicable 618 Manitoba Maple Acer negundo 14 12 12 11 14 3 Good Fair No PP, ML No City Buffer Area 4 No Anticipated Impact - Protect No Not Applicable 619 Colorado Spruce Picea pungens 34 34 3 Poor Fair No LN(M), DW(L)No Private Buffer Area 4 No Anticipated Impact - Protect No Not Applicable 620 Norway Maple Acer platanoides 45 45 6 Good Fair No WI, DW(S), ER, PP No Private Buffer Area 7 Injure Yes Not Applicable 621 Walnut sp.Juglans sp.12 12 2 Fair Fair No SS Yes City Buffer Area 3 Injure No Not Applicable 622 Norway Maple Acer platanoides 15 10 15 3 Fair Fair No SS Yes City Buffer Area 4 Injure No Not Applicable 623 Norway Spruce Picea abies 45 45 6 Fair Fair No ML, CR No Private Buffer Area 7 Injure Yes Not Applicable 624 Walnut sp.Juglans sp.34 34 5 Fair Fair No DW(S)No City Buffer Area 6 Injure Yes Not Applicable 625 Norway Spruce Picea abies 35 35 6 Fair Fair No DW(L), ML, CON(S), IE No Private Buffer Area 7 Injure No Not Applicable 626 Norway Spruce Picea abies 60 60 6 Fair Fair No DW(L), ML, CON(S), IE No Private Buffer Area 7 Injure Yes Not Applicable 627 Norway Maple Acer platanoides 13 13 3 Fair Fair No SS No City Buffer Area 4 Injure No Not Applicable 628 Manitoba Maple Acer negundo 26 26 5 Fair Fair No SS No City Buffer Area 6 Injure No Not Applicable 629 Norway Maple Acer platanoides 28 28 5 Fair Fair No SS No City Buffer Area 6 Injure No Not Applicable 630 Norway Maple Acer platanoides 10 10 3 Fair Fair No SS No City Buffer Area 4 Injure No Not Applicable 631 Ash sp.Fraxinus sp.21 21 1 Fair Fair No IE, SS No City Buffer Area 2 No Anticipated Impact - Protect No Not Applicable 632 Eastern White Cedar Thuja occidentalis 25 21 25 4 Poor Poor No DW(S)No City Buffer Area 5 Injure No Not Applicable 633 Eastern White Cedar Thuja occidentalis 25 25 4 Poor Poor No CV No Private Buffer Area 5 Injure No Not Applicable 634 Eastern White Cedar Thuja occidentalis 25 25 4 Poor Poor No CV No Private Buffer Area 5 Injure No Not Applicable 635 Eastern White Cedar Thuja occidentalis 10 10 0 Dead Dead No Dead No City Buffer Area 1 No Anticipated Impact - Protect No Not Applicable 636 Norway Maple Acer platanoides 12 12 3 Fair Fair No SS No City Buffer Area 4 Injure No Not Applicable 637 Norway Maple Acer platanoides 12 12 3 Fair Fair No SS No City Buffer Area 4 Injure No Not Applicable 638 Norway Maple Acer platanoides 20 20 3 Fair Fair No SS No City Buffer Area 4 Injure No Not Applicable 639 Norway Maple Acer platanoides 13 13 3 Fair Fair No SS No City Buffer Area 4 Injure No Not Applicable 640 Norway Maple Acer platanoides 11 11 3 Fair Fair No SS No City Buffer Area 4 No Anticipated Impact - Protect No Not Applicable 641 Norway Maple Acer platanoides 17 17 3 Fair Fair No SS No City Buffer Area 4 Injure No Not Applicable 642 Norway Maple Acer platanoides 14 14 3 Fair Fair No SS No City Buffer Area 4 Injure No Not Applicable 643 Littleleaf Linden Tilia cordata 34 12 34 4 Fair Fair No WI, EG(T), PP No Private Impact Area 5 Injury with Supervision Yes Not Applicable 644 Norway Maple Acer platanoides 12 12 2 Fair Fair No SS, LN(L), EG(T)No Private Buffer Area 3 Injure No Not Applicable 645 Black Walnut Juglans nigra 41 41 6 Good Fair No DW(S), CON(T)No Private Buffer Area 7 Injury with Supervision No Not Applicable 646 White Mulberry Morus alba 38 27 24 38 6 Fair Fair No DW(S), CON(T), ML, TW, WC(P)No Private Buffer Area 7 Injury with Supervision Yes Not Applicable 647 Norway Maple Acer platanoides 27 27 4 Fair Fair No GR, DW(S), LN(L)No Private Buffer Area 5 No Anticipated Impact - Protect No Not Applicable 648 Manitoba Maple Acer negundo 18 16 18 3 Fair Poor No TW, LN(L), ML No Private Buffer Area 4 Injury with Supervision Yes Not Applicable 649 Norway Maple Acer platanoides 10 10 3 Fair Fair No WI, SS No Private Buffer Area 4 No Anticipated Impact - Protect No Not Applicable 650 Eastern White Cedar Thuja occidentalis 12 12 2 Good Good No HE No Private Buffer Area 3 No Anticipated Impact - Protect No Not Applicable 651 Eastern White Cedar Thuja occidentalis 16 16 2 Good Good No HE No Private Buffer Area 3 No Anticipated Impact - Protect No Not Applicable 652 Eastern White Cedar Thuja occidentalis 13 13 2 Good Good No HE No Private Buffer Area 3 No Anticipated Impact - Protect No Not Applicable 653 Eastern White Cedar Thuja occidentalis 20 16 12 20 2 Good Good No HE No Private Buffer Area 3 No Anticipated Impact - Protect No Not Applicable 654 Silver Maple Acer saccharinum 51 51 48 51 6 Good Poor No IE No Private Buffer Area 7 No Anticipated Impact - Protect No Not Applicable 655 Eastern White Cedar Thuja occidentalis 15 15 2 Good Good No IE No Private Buffer Area 3 No Anticipated Impact - Protect No Not Applicable 656 Eastern White Cedar Thuja occidentalis 12 12 2 Good Good No IE No Private Buffer Area 3 No Anticipated Impact - Protect No Not Applicable 657 Eastern White Cedar Thuja occidentalis 12 12 2 Good Good No IE No Private Buffer Area 3 No Anticipated Impact - Protect No Not Applicable 658 Eastern White Cedar Thuja occidentalis 12 12 2 Good Good No IE No Private Buffer Area 3 No Anticipated Impact - Protect No Not Applicable 659 Eastern White Cedar Thuja occidentalis 12 12 2 Good Good No IE No Private Buffer Area 3 No Anticipated Impact - Protect No Not Applicable 660 Eastern White Cedar Thuja occidentalis 12 12 2 Good Good No IE No Private Buffer Area 3 No Anticipated Impact - Protect No Not Applicable 661 Manitoba Maple Acer negundo 10 10 3 Fair Fair No SS, IE No City Buffer Area 4 No Anticipated Impact - Protect No Not Applicable 662 Manitoba Maple Acer negundo 3 3 1 Fair Fair No VC, CON(T)No Private Buffer Area 2 No Anticipated Impact - Protect No Not Applicable 663 Manitoba Maple Acer negundo 3 3 1 Fair Fair No VC, CON(T)No Private Buffer Area 2 No Anticipated Impact - Protect No Not Applicable 664 Eastern White Cedar Thuja occidentalis 5 5 1 Fair Fair No PP, VC, EG(T)No Private Buffer Area 2 No Anticipated Impact - Protect No Not Applicable 665 Black Walnut Juglans nigra 10 10 2 Fair Fair No VC, ML No City Impact Area 3 Injure Yes Not Applicable 666 Lilac sp.Syringa sp.10 8 5 3 10 2 Fair Fair No VC, ML No City Impact Area 3 Injure Yes Not Applicable 667 Pear sp.Pyrus sp.22.5 22.5 3 Fair Good No DW(S)No City Buffer Area 4 Injure No Not Applicable 668 Pear sp.Pyrus sp.23 23 3 Fair Fair No DW(S), CR, PP, EG(T)No City Buffer Area 4 Injure No Not Applicable 669 Juniper sp.Juniperus sp.15 15 2 Good Fair No LN(M)No Private Buffer Area 3 No Anticipated Impact - Protect No Not Applicable 670 Norway Spruce Picea abies 10 10 3 Good Fair No DW(S)No Private Buffer Area 4 No Anticipated Impact - Protect No Not Applicable 9 of 14 Appendix C. Tree Assessment Results Tree #Common Name Scientfic Name First DBH (cm) Second DBH (cm) Third DBH (cm) Fourth DBH (cm) Fifth DBH (cm) DBH Analysis (cm) Dripline (m) Tree Condition - Health Tree Condition - Structure Species at Risk (Yes or No)Observations/Comments TRCA Regulation Limits (Yes or No) Tree Ownership Tree Location (Impact Area, Buffer Area) Tree Protection Zone Area (m) Recommended Action Structural Root Zone Impacted? Removal Justification 671 Manitoba Maple Acer negundo 47 47 5 Good Fair No ML, SS No Private Buffer Area 6 No Anticipated Impact - Protect No Not Applicable 672 Willow sp.Salix sp.36 18 16 14 13 36 4 Fair Fair No CON(T), ML No Private Buffer Area 5 No Anticipated Impact - Protect No Not Applicable 673 White Birch Betula papyrifera 45 45 4 Fair Fair No DW(S), ML No Private Buffer Area 5 No Anticipated Impact - Protect No Not Applicable 674 Walnut sp.Juglans sp.16 16 5 Good Fair No SS No City Buffer Area 6 No Anticipated Impact - Protect No Not Applicable 675 Walnut sp.Juglans sp.15 15 4 Good Fair No SS No City Buffer Area 5 No Anticipated Impact - Protect No Not Applicable 676 Black Walnut Juglans nigra 33 33 5 Fair Fair No VC, DW(S)No Private Buffer Area 6 Injure No Not Applicable 677 Norway Spruce Picea abies 77 77 5 Fair Fair No VC, DW(S)No City Buffer Area 6 Injure Yes Not Applicable 678 Norway Maple Acer platanoides 24 34 5 Fair Fair No LN(L), PP, TW No City Buffer Area 6 Injure Yes Not Applicable 679 Black Walnut Juglans nigra 10 10 1 Fair Fair No SS, CON(T)No City Buffer Area 2 No Anticipated Impact - Protect No Not Applicable 680 Black Walnut Juglans nigra 37 37 5 Fair Fair No LN(L), CON(T)No Private Buffer Area 6 Injure No Not Applicable 681 Black Walnut Juglans nigra 38 38 5 Fair Fair No LN(L), CON(T)No Private Buffer Area 6 Injure No Not Applicable 682 White Spruce Picea glauca 55 55 6 Good Good No PP No Private Buffer Area 7 No Anticipated Impact - Protect No Not Applicable 683 Norway Maple Acer platanoides 68 68 6 Good Good No EG(T), PP, ML No Private Buffer Area 7 No Anticipated Impact - Protect No Not Applicable 684 White Spruce Picea glauca 38 38 4 Fair Good No PP, DW(S)No Private Buffer Area 5 No Anticipated Impact - Protect No Not Applicable 685 White Spruce Picea glauca 42 42 4 Fair Good No PP, DW(S)No Private Buffer Area 5 No Anticipated Impact - Protect No Not Applicable 686 Eastern White Cedar Thuja occidentalis 12 9 8 12 2 Good Good No HE No Private Buffer Area 3 No Anticipated Impact - Protect No Not Applicable 687 White Elm Ulmus americana 69 60 55 69 8 Fair Fair No ML, CON(T), IN(U), IN(B), PP No Private Buffer Area 9 Injure No Not Applicable 688 Eastern White Cedar Thuja occidentalis 10 10 1 Fair Fair No CON(T), LN(L), ML No City Buffer Area 2 Injure No Not Applicable 689 Eastern White Cedar Thuja occidentalis 10 10 1 Fair Fair No CON(T), LN(L), ML No Private Buffer Area 2 No Anticipated Impact - Protect No Not Applicable 690 Eastern White Cedar Thuja occidentalis 10 10 1 Fair Fair No CON(T), LN(L), ML No Private Buffer Area 2 No Anticipated Impact - Protect No Not Applicable 691 Eastern White Cedar Thuja occidentalis 10 10 1 Fair Fair No CON(T), LN(L), ML No Private Buffer Area 2 No Anticipated Impact - Protect No Not Applicable 692 Eastern White Cedar Thuja occidentalis 10 10 1 Fair Fair No CON(T), LN(L), ML No Private Buffer Area 2 No Anticipated Impact - Protect No Not Applicable 693 Eastern White Cedar Thuja occidentalis 15 15 1 Fair Fair No CON(T), LN(L), ML No Private Buffer Area 2 No Anticipated Impact - Protect No Not Applicable 694 Eastern White Cedar Thuja occidentalis 27 27 2 Fair Fair No CON(T), LN(L), ML No Private Buffer Area 3 Injure No Not Applicable 695 Eastern White Cedar Thuja occidentalis 20 20 2 Fair Fair No CON(T), LN(L), ML No Private Buffer Area 3 No Anticipated Impact - Protect No Not Applicable 696 Manitoba Maple Acer negundo 16 16 2 Fair Fair No CON(T), LN(L), ML No Private Buffer Area 3 Injure No Not Applicable 697 Eastern White Cedar Thuja occidentalis 19 14 10 10 19 3 Fair Fair No CON(T), LN(L), ML No City Buffer Area 4 Injure No Not Applicable 698 Eastern White Cedar Thuja occidentalis 22 11 6 22 2 Fair Fair No CON(T), LN(L), ML No City Buffer Area 3 Injure Yes Not Applicable 699 Eastern White Cedar Thuja occidentalis 16 16 3 Fair Fair No CON(T), LN(L), ML No City Buffer Area 4 Injure No Not Applicable 700 Eastern White Cedar Thuja occidentalis 20 16 15 20 3 Fair Fair No CON(T), LN(L), ML No City Impact Area 4 Injure Yes Not Applicable 701 Norway Maple Acer platanoides 10 10 1 Fair Fair No CON(T), LN(L), ML No Private Buffer Area 2 Injure No Not Applicable 702 Norway Maple Acer platanoides 26 26 4 Fair Fair No CON(T), LN(L), ML No Private Buffer Area 5 Injure No Not Applicable 703 Eastern White Cedar Thuja occidentalis 14 14 3 Fair Fair No CON(T), LN(L), ML No City Buffer Area 4 Injure No Not Applicable 704 Eastern White Cedar Thuja occidentalis 13 8 8 13 2 Good Good No HE No Private Buffer Area 3 No Anticipated Impact - Protect No Not Applicable 705 Eastern White Cedar Thuja occidentalis 13 13 2 Good Good No HE No Private Buffer Area 3 No Anticipated Impact - Protect No Not Applicable 706 Eastern White Cedar Thuja occidentalis 16 16 2 Good Good No HE No Private Buffer Area 3 No Anticipated Impact - Protect No Not Applicable 707 Eastern White Cedar Thuja occidentalis 12 12 12 2 Good Fair No HE No Private Buffer Area 3 No Anticipated Impact - Protect No Not Applicable 708 Eastern White Cedar Thuja occidentalis 14 14 2 Good Fair No HE No Private Buffer Area 3 No Anticipated Impact - Protect No Not Applicable 709 Norway Maple Acer platanoides 30 30 5 Fair Fair No CON(T)No Private Buffer Area 6 No Anticipated Impact - Protect No Not Applicable 710 Norway Maple Acer platanoides 36 36 5 Fair Fair No CON(T)No Private Buffer Area 6 No Anticipated Impact - Protect No Not Applicable 711 Norway Maple Acer platanoides 22 22 5 Fair Fair No CON(T)No Private Buffer Area 6 No Anticipated Impact - Protect No Not Applicable 712 Littleleaf Linden Tilia cordata 43 43 4 Fair Fair No ID, PP, LN(L)No City Buffer Area 5 Remove Yes A ditch line change will cause significant root compaction. 713 Norway Maple Acer platanoides 30 30 4 Fair Fair No LN(L), EG(T)No City Buffer Area 5 Injure No Not Applicable 714 Norway Spruce Picea abies 27 27 4 Fair Fair No LN(L), EG(T), PP No Private Buffer Area 5 Injure No Not Applicable 715 Black Walnut Juglans nigra 102 102 9 Good Fair No PP, ML, DW(S)No Private Buffer Area 10 No Anticipated Impact - Protect No Not Applicable 716 Colorado Spruce Picea pungens 22 22 3 Fair Fair No PP, ML, DW(S), LN(L)No Private Buffer Area 4 No Anticipated Impact - Protect No Not Applicable 717 Littleleaf Linden Tilia cordata 42 42 5 Poor Poor No PP, ID, CV, DE(S)No City Buffer Area 6 Remove Yes A ditch line change will cause significant root compaction. 718 Linden sp.Tilia sp.15 15 2 Fair Fair No LN(L), PP No City Impact Area 3 Injure Yes Not Applicable 719 Norway Maple Acer platanoides 13 9 5 13 2 Fair Fair No LN(L), PP No City Impact Area 3 Injure Yes Not Applicable 720 Black Walnut Juglans nigra 73 73 7 Good Good No HL, PP No City Buffer Area 8 Remove Yes A ditch line change will cause significant root compaction. 721 Beech sp.Fagus sp.13 13 3 Good Poor No HL No Private Buffer Area 4 No Anticipated Impact - Protect No Not Applicable 722 Eastern White Cedar Thuja occidentalis 10 10 2 Good Fair No CON(T)No Private Buffer Area 3 No Anticipated Impact - Protect No Not Applicable 723 Norway Maple Acer platanoides 96 96 7 Fair Fair No LN(M), CON(T)No Private Buffer Area 8 Injure No Not Applicable 724 Pear sp.Pyrus sp.21 12 11 21 3 Fair Fair No PP, ML No City Buffer Area 4 Injure No Not Applicable 725 Eastern White Cedar Thuja occidentalis 53 53 3 Good Good No HL No City Buffer Area 4 No Anticipated Impact - Protect No Not Applicable 726 Eastern White Cedar Thuja occidentalis 31 31 3 Good Good No HL No City Buffer Area 4 No Anticipated Impact - Protect No Not Applicable 727 Eastern White Cedar Thuja occidentalis 10 10 2 Good Good No HL No Private Buffer Area 3 No Anticipated Impact - Protect No Not Applicable 728 Black Walnut Juglans nigra 78 78 7 Good Fair No ML, PP No Private Buffer Area 8 Injure Yes Not Applicable 729 Black Walnut Juglans nigra 75 75 7 Good Good No HL, PP No Private Buffer Area 8 Injure Yes Not Applicable 730 Eastern White Cedar Thuja occidentalis 16 16 2 Fair Fair No PP, CON(T), DW(S)No Private Buffer Area 3 Injure No Not Applicable 731 Eastern White Cedar Thuja occidentalis 13 13 2 Fair Fair No PP, CON(T), DW(S)No City Buffer Area 3 Injure No Not Applicable 732 Eastern White Cedar Thuja occidentalis 13 13 2 Fair Fair No PP, CON(T), DW(S)No Private Buffer Area 3 Injure No Not Applicable 733 Sugar Maple Acer saccharum 18 18 2 Poor Fair No DIS, EG(T), DW(S)No City Buffer Area 3 Injure No Not Applicable 734 Black Walnut Juglans nigra 18 18 2 Fair Fair No CON(T), DW(S), ML No Private Buffer Area 3 No Anticipated Impact - Protect No Not Applicable 735 Black Walnut Juglans nigra 15 15 2 Fair Fair No CON(T), DW(S), ML No Private Buffer Area 3 No Anticipated Impact - Protect No Not Applicable 736 Eastern White Cedar Thuja occidentalis 24 24 2 Fair Fair No CON(T), DW(S), ML No City Buffer Area 3 Injure No Not Applicable 737 Eastern White Cedar Thuja occidentalis 18 18 2 Fair Fair No CON(T), DW(S), ML No City Impact Area 3 Injure Yes Not Applicable 738 Black Walnut Juglans nigra 48 48 7 Fair Fair No CON(T), DW(S), ML No City Buffer Area 8 Injure Yes Not Applicable 739 Black Walnut Juglans nigra 74 74 9 Good Fair No CON(T), DW(S), ML No Private Buffer Area 10 Injure No Not Applicable 740 Black Walnut Juglans nigra 71 71 8 Good Fair No CON(T), DW(S), ML No Private Buffer Area 9 No Anticipated Impact - Protect No Not Applicable 741 Black Walnut Juglans nigra 45 45 8 Good Fair No CON(T), DW(S), ML No Private Buffer Area 9 Injure No Not Applicable 742 Black Walnut Juglans nigra 57 57 8 Good Fair No CON(T), DW(S), ML No Private Buffer Area 9 No Anticipated Impact - Protect No Not Applicable 743 Eastern White Cedar Thuja occidentalis 10 10 1 Fair Fair No CON(T), GTF No Private Buffer Area 2 No Anticipated Impact - Protect No Not Applicable 744 Eastern White Cedar Thuja occidentalis 10 10 1 Fair Fair No CON(T), GTF No Private Buffer Area 2 No Anticipated Impact - Protect No Not Applicable 10 of 14 Appendix C. Tree Assessment Results Tree #Common Name Scientfic Name First DBH (cm) Second DBH (cm) Third DBH (cm) Fourth DBH (cm) Fifth DBH (cm) DBH Analysis (cm) Dripline (m) Tree Condition - Health Tree Condition - Structure Species at Risk (Yes or No)Observations/Comments TRCA Regulation Limits (Yes or No) Tree Ownership Tree Location (Impact Area, Buffer Area) Tree Protection Zone Area (m) Recommended Action Structural Root Zone Impacted? Removal Justification 745 Eastern White Cedar Thuja occidentalis 14 14 1 Fair Fair No CON(T), GTF No Private Buffer Area 2 No Anticipated Impact - Protect No Not Applicable 746 Eastern White Cedar Thuja occidentalis 10 10 1 Fair Fair No CON(T), GTF No Private Buffer Area 2 No Anticipated Impact - Protect No Not Applicable 747 Eastern White Cedar Thuja occidentalis 10 10 1 Fair Fair No CON(T), GTF No Private Buffer Area 2 No Anticipated Impact - Protect No Not Applicable 748 Eastern White Cedar Thuja occidentalis 10 10 1 Fair Fair No CON(T), GTF No Private Buffer Area 2 No Anticipated Impact - Protect No Not Applicable 749 Eastern White Cedar Thuja occidentalis 10 10 1 Fair Fair No CON(T), GTF No Private Buffer Area 2 No Anticipated Impact - Protect No Not Applicable 750 Eastern White Cedar Thuja occidentalis 10 10 1 Fair Fair No CON(T), GTF No Private Buffer Area 2 No Anticipated Impact - Protect No Not Applicable 751 Manitoba Maple Acer negundo 19 19 3 Fair Fair No CON(T), GTF, LN(L)No Private Buffer Area 4 Injure No Not Applicable 752 Black Walnut Juglans nigra 56 56 8 Fair Poor No TW, PB, DW(S)No City Buffer Area 9 Remove Yes A ditch line change will cause significant root compaction. 753 Eastern White Cedar Thuja occidentalis 86 86 6 Good Fair No ML, IN(U)No City Buffer Area 7 Injure No Not Applicable 754 Wild Crab Apple Malus coronaria 15 10 8 15 3 Good Good No ML No Private Buffer Area 4 No Anticipated Impact - Protect No Not Applicable 755 Wild Crab Apple Malus coronaria 17 17 3 Good Good No ML No Private Buffer Area 4 No Anticipated Impact - Protect No Not Applicable 756 Wild Crab Apple Malus coronaria 12 12 3 Good Good No ML No Private Buffer Area 4 No Anticipated Impact - Protect No Not Applicable 757 Wild Crab Apple Malus coronaria 14 14 3 Good Good No ML No Private Buffer Area 4 No Anticipated Impact - Protect No Not Applicable 758 Norway Maple Acer platanoides 95 35 20 95 8 Fair Fair No IE, ML, DW(S)No Private Buffer Area 9 No Anticipated Impact - Protect No Not Applicable 759 Norway Maple Acer platanoides 75 75 8 Fair Fair No IE, DW(S)No Private Buffer Area 9 No Anticipated Impact - Protect No Not Applicable 760 Norway Maple Acer platanoides 20 20 3 Fair Fair No IE, DW(S)No Private Buffer Area 4 No Anticipated Impact - Protect No Not Applicable 761 Sugar Maple Acer saccharum 16 16 3 Fair Fair No IE, DW(S)No Private Buffer Area 4 No Anticipated Impact - Protect No Not Applicable 762 Sugar Maple Acer saccharum 53 53 3 Fair Fair No IE, DW(S)No Private Buffer Area 4 No Anticipated Impact - Protect No Not Applicable 763 Sugar Maple Acer saccharum 42 42 3 Fair Fair No IE, DW(S)No Private Buffer Area 4 No Anticipated Impact - Protect No Not Applicable 764 Sugar Maple Acer saccharum 10 10 1 Fair Fair No IE, DW(S)No Private Buffer Area 2 No Anticipated Impact - Protect No Not Applicable 765 Sugar Maple Acer saccharum 31 31 3 Fair Fair No IE, DW(S)No Private Buffer Area 4 Injure No Not Applicable 766 Sugar Maple Acer saccharum 65 65 3 Fair Fair No IE, DW(S)No Private Buffer Area 4 No Anticipated Impact - Protect No Not Applicable 767 Eastern White Cedar Thuja occidentalis 31 15 31 3 Good Fair No IN(U), ML No Private Buffer Area 4 Injure Yes Not Applicable 768 Norway Maple Acer platanoides 13 13 13 3 Good Good No SS No Private Buffer Area 4 No Anticipated Impact - Protect No Not Applicable 769 Norway Maple Acer platanoides 13 13 13 3 Good Good No SS No City Buffer Area 4 No Anticipated Impact - Protect No Not Applicable 770 Norway Maple Acer platanoides 27 27 5 Good Fair No SS, ER No City Buffer Area 6 Injure No Not Applicable 771 Norway Maple Acer platanoides 41 41 5 Good Fair No SS, ER No City Buffer Area 6 Injure No Not Applicable 772 Norway Maple Acer platanoides 13 13 3 Good Good No SS, IE No Private Buffer Area 4 No Anticipated Impact - Protect No Not Applicable 773 Sugar Maple Acer saccharum 64 64 4 Fair Fair No DE No City Buffer Area 5 Injure No Not Applicable 774 Walnut sp.Juglans sp.11 11 4 Fair Fair No SS, LN(M)No City Buffer Area 5 Injure No Not Applicable 775 Norway Maple Acer platanoides 10 10 3 Good Fair No SS, LN(L)No City Buffer Area 4 Injure No Not Applicable 776 Sugar Maple Acer saccharum 69 69 6 Good Fair No ER, WI, ML, CV, CR No City Buffer Area 7 Injury with Supervision Yes Not Applicable 777 Sugar Maple Acer saccharum 91 91 6 Fair Fair No WI, ML, CV No City Buffer Area 7 Injury with Supervision Yes Not Applicable 778 Sugar Maple Acer saccharum 27 27 3 Fair Fair No LN(L), PP No City Buffer Area 4 Remove Yes A ditch line change will cause significant root compaction. 779 Black Locust Robinia pseudoacacia 34 34 4 Fair Fair No LN(L), PP, WI No City Buffer Area 5 Remove Yes A new drainage swale will be installed, which will cause significant root impacts. 780 Norway Maple Acer platanoides 39 39 4 Fair Fair No SM(V), LN(L), GR No Private Buffer Area 5 Injure No Not Applicable 781 Norway Maple Acer platanoides 28 28 4 Fair Fair No LN(L), GR, DW(S), IN(B), CV No Private Buffer Area 5 Injure No Not Applicable 782 Norway Maple Acer platanoides 29 29 4 Fair Fair No LN(M), DW(S), IN(B), CV, TW No Private Buffer Area 5 Injure No Not Applicable 783 Colorado Spruce Picea pungens 24 24 2 Fair Fair No CD, LN(L), PP No Private Buffer Area 3 No Anticipated Impact - Protect No Not Applicable 784 Black Locust Robinia pseudoacacia 30 27 30 2 Fair Fair No CD, LN(L), PP, WI No Private Buffer Area 3 No Anticipated Impact - Protect No Not Applicable 785 Cherry sp.Prunus sp.12 10 12 2 Fair Fair No CD, LN(L), PP, WI No Private Buffer Area 3 No Anticipated Impact - Protect No Not Applicable 786 Black Locust Robinia pseudoacacia 10 10 2 Fair Fair No SS, PP, CON(T)No Private Buffer Area 3 No Anticipated Impact - Protect No Not Applicable 787 Norway Maple Acer platanoides 22 22 3 Fair Fair No PP, CON(T), ML No Private Buffer Area 4 No Anticipated Impact - Protect No Not Applicable 788 Black Walnut Juglans nigra 11 11 0 Dead Dead No VC No City Buffer Area 1 No Anticipated Impact - Protect No Not Applicable 789 Black Locust Robinia pseudoacacia 22 20 20 22 3 Fair Fair No VC, ML, LN(L)No City Buffer Area 4 No Anticipated Impact - Protect No Not Applicable 790 Sugar Maple Acer saccharum 91 50 91 6 Fair Fair No WI, ML, CV No Private Buffer Area 7 Injury with Supervision No Not Applicable 791 Sugar Maple Acer saccharum 67 67 6 Fair Fair No ML, CV No Private Buffer Area 7 Injury with Supervision No Not Applicable 792 Sugar Maple Acer saccharum 84 84 6 Fair Fair No ML, CV No Private Buffer Area 7 No Anticipated Impact - Protect No Not Applicable 793 Sugar Maple Acer saccharum 21 21 4 Fair Fair No ML, CV No Private Buffer Area 5 No Anticipated Impact - Protect No Not Applicable 794 Sugar Maple Acer saccharum 20 20 4 Fair Fair No SS No Private Buffer Area 5 Injury with Supervision No Not Applicable 795 Norway Maple Acer platanoides 30 28 30 6 Fair Fair No ML, IN(U)No Private Buffer Area 7 Injury with Supervision Yes Not Applicable 796 Sugar Maple Acer saccharum 75 75 6 Fair Fair No ML, PP No City Buffer Area 7 Injury with Supervision Yes Not Applicable 797 Sugar Maple Acer saccharum 78 78 6 Fair Fair No ML, PP, 1SD No Private Impact Area 7 Injury with Supervision Yes Not Applicable 798 White Spruce Picea glauca 15 15 3 Good Good No CON(S)No Private Buffer Area 4 No Anticipated Impact - Protect No Not Applicable 799 White Spruce Picea glauca 15 15 3 Good Good No CON(S)No Private Buffer Area 4 No Anticipated Impact - Protect No Not Applicable 800 Black Locust Robinia pseudoacacia 42 35 30 42 5 Fair Fair No VC, ML, LN(L)No City Buffer Area 6 No Anticipated Impact - Protect No Not Applicable 801 Black Locust Robinia pseudoacacia 72 70 64 31 72 7 Fair Fair No VC, ML, LN(L), CD, DW(S)No Private Buffer Area 8 No Anticipated Impact - Protect No Not Applicable 802 Manitoba Maple Acer negundo 16 16 2 Fair Fair No VC, CON(T), LN(L)No Private Buffer Area 3 No Anticipated Impact - Protect No Not Applicable 803 Manitoba Maple Acer negundo 11 11 2 Fair Fair No VC, CON(T), LN(L)No City Buffer Area 3 No Anticipated Impact - Protect No Not Applicable 804 Black Locust Robinia pseudoacacia 32 32 4 Fair Fair No VC, ML, LN(L)No City Buffer Area 5 No Anticipated Impact - Protect No Not Applicable 805 Manitoba Maple Acer negundo 12 12 2 Fair Fair No VC, ML, LN(L)No Private Buffer Area 3 No Anticipated Impact - Protect No Not Applicable 806 Sugar Maple Acer saccharum 90 90 5 Poor Fair No pp, DW(L) DW(S)No Private Buffer Area 6 Injury with Supervision No Not Applicable 807 Eastern White Cedar Thuja occidentalis 14 11 14 3 Good Good No HL No Private Buffer Area 4 No Anticipated Impact - Protect No Not Applicable 808 Austrian Pine Pinus nigra 45 45 3 Fair Fair No FS No Private Buffer Area 4 No Anticipated Impact - Protect No Not Applicable 809 Austrian Pine Pinus nigra 54 54 3 Fair Fair No FS No City Buffer Area 4 Injury with Supervision Yes Not Applicable 810 Austrian Pine Pinus nigra 54 54 3 Fair Fair No FS No City Buffer Area 4 Injury with Supervision No Not Applicable 811 Sugar Maple Acer saccharum 80 80 6 Fair Poor No CV, DW(L), IN(B)No City Buffer Area 7 Injury with Supervision Yes Not Applicable 812 Sugar Maple Acer saccharum 57 57 5 Fair Poor No CV, DW(L), IN(N), PP No City Buffer Area 6 Injury with Supervision Yes Not Applicable 813 White Birch Betula papyrifera 40 40 6 Fair Fair No CON(S)No Private Buffer Area 7 No Anticipated Impact - Protect No Not Applicable 814 White Birch Betula papyrifera 40 40 6 Fair Fair No CON(S)No Private Buffer Area 7 No Anticipated Impact - Protect No Not Applicable 815 White Birch Betula papyrifera 33 33 6 Fair Fair No CON(S)No Private Buffer Area 7 No Anticipated Impact - Protect No Not Applicable 816 Manitoba Maple Acer negundo 15 15 2 Fair Fair No VC, ML, LN(L)No Private Buffer Area 3 No Anticipated Impact - Protect No Not Applicable 817 Black Locust Robinia pseudoacacia 32 32 7 Fair Fair No CON(T), ML, LN(L)No City Buffer Area 8 No Anticipated Impact - Protect No Not Applicable 11 of 14 Appendix C. Tree Assessment Results Tree #Common Name Scientfic Name First DBH (cm) Second DBH (cm) Third DBH (cm) Fourth DBH (cm) Fifth DBH (cm) DBH Analysis (cm) Dripline (m) Tree Condition - Health Tree Condition - Structure Species at Risk (Yes or No)Observations/Comments TRCA Regulation Limits (Yes or No) Tree Ownership Tree Location (Impact Area, Buffer Area) Tree Protection Zone Area (m) Recommended Action Structural Root Zone Impacted? Removal Justification 818 Black Locust Robinia pseudoacacia 15 15 4 Fair Fair No CON(T), ML, LN(L), BR No City Buffer Area 5 No Anticipated Impact - Protect No Not Applicable 819 Black Locust Robinia pseudoacacia 21 21 6 Fair Fair No LN(L), DW(S), CON(T)No City Buffer Area 7 No Anticipated Impact - Protect No Not Applicable 820 Black Locust Robinia pseudoacacia 81 74 81 8 Fair Poor No LN(L), DW(S), CON(T), IN(B), CV No City Buffer Area 9 Injure No Not Applicable 821 Manitoba Maple Acer negundo 32 30 28 17 32 6 Fair Poor No LN(H), DW(S), CON(T)No City Buffer Area 7 Injure No Not Applicable 822 Sugar Maple Acer saccharum 24 24 5 Fair Fair No LN(L), CON(T)No City Buffer Area 6 Injure No Not Applicable 823 Norway Maple Acer platanoides 36 36 7 Fair Fair No LN(L), CON(T), EG(T)No City Buffer Area 8 Injure No Not Applicable 824 Norway Spruce Picea abies 54 54 4 Good Good No HL No City Buffer Area 5 Injury with Supervision No Not Applicable 825 Common Hackberry Celtis occidentalis 12 12 3 Good Good No HL No Private Buffer Area 4 Injury with Supervision No Not Applicable 826 Sugar Maple Acer saccharum 84 84 6 Poor Poor No DW(L)No Private Buffer Area 7 No Anticipated Impact - Protect No Not Applicable 827 Sugar Maple Acer saccharum 73 73 5 Fair Fair No DW(S)No Private Buffer Area 6 No Anticipated Impact - Protect No Not Applicable 828 Sugar Maple Acer saccharum 59 59 5 Fair Fair No DW(S)No Private Buffer Area 6 Injury with Supervision No Not Applicable 829 Sugar Maple Acer saccharum 47 47 5 Fair Fair No DW(S)No City Buffer Area 6 Injury with Supervision Yes Not Applicable 830 Manitoba Maple Acer negundo 60 30 60 6 Fair Fair No SS, IE No City Buffer Area 7 Injury with Supervision No Not Applicable 831 Walnut sp.Juglans sp.35 35 35 5 Good Fair No IE, ML No Private Buffer Area 6 No Anticipated Impact - Protect No Not Applicable 832 Ash sp.Fraxinus sp.14 14 3 Good Good No DW(S)No Private Buffer Area 4 No Anticipated Impact - Protect No Not Applicable 833 Black Locust Robinia pseudoacacia 52 52 8 Fair Fair No LN(L), CON(T), GR, ML No City Buffer Area 9 Injure No Not Applicable 834 Black Locust Robinia pseudoacacia 36 36 6 Fair Fair No LN(L), CON(T), GR, ML No City Buffer Area 7 Injure No Not Applicable 835 Black Locust Robinia pseudoacacia 61 37 61 6 Fair Fair No LN(L), CON(T), GR, ML No City Buffer Area 7 Injure No Not Applicable 836 Black Locust Robinia pseudoacacia 28 28 6 Fair Fair No LN(L), CON(T), GR, ML No City Buffer Area 7 Injure No Not Applicable 837 Norway Maple Acer platanoides 29 29 5 Fair Fair No LN(L), CON(T), GR, ML No City Buffer Area 6 Injure No Not Applicable 838 Manitoba Maple Acer negundo 14 14 3 Fair Poor No DW(S), LN(L), TW No Private Buffer Area 4 No Anticipated Impact - Protect No Not Applicable 839 Norway Maple Acer platanoides 11 11 3 Fair Fair No ER, GD1M No City Buffer Area 4 Injure No Not Applicable 840 Norway Maple Acer platanoides 15 15 3 Fair Fair No ER, GD1M No City Buffer Area 4 Injure No Not Applicable 841 Norway Maple Acer platanoides 17 17 3 Fair Fair No ER, GD1M No City Buffer Area 4 Injure No Not Applicable 842 Norway Maple Acer platanoides 10 10 2 Fair Fair No ER, GD1M No City Buffer Area 3 No Anticipated Impact - Protect No Not Applicable 843 Norway Maple Acer platanoides 19 19 2 Fair Fair No ER, GD1M No City Buffer Area 3 No Anticipated Impact - Protect No Not Applicable 844 Norway Maple Acer platanoides 22 22 3 Fair Fair No ER, GD1M, LN(L)No City Buffer Area 4 No Anticipated Impact - Protect No Not Applicable 845 Sugar Maple Acer saccharum 10 8 10 2 Fair Fair No ER, ML No City Buffer Area 3 No Anticipated Impact - Protect No Not Applicable 846 Black Locust Robinia pseudoacacia 19 19 3 Fair Fair No ER, ML, CD, LN(M)No City Buffer Area 4 No Anticipated Impact - Protect No Not Applicable 847 Black Locust Robinia pseudoacacia 20 18 20 3 Fair Fair No ER, ML, CD, LN(L), CON(T)No City Buffer Area 4 No Anticipated Impact - Protect No Not Applicable 848 Norway Maple Acer platanoides 10 10 2 Fair Fair No ER, CON(T), ML No City Buffer Area 3 No Anticipated Impact - Protect No Not Applicable 849 Black Locust Robinia pseudoacacia 63 63 7 Fair Fair No LN(L), DW(L), EG(T)No City Buffer Area 8 No Anticipated Impact - Protect No Not Applicable 850 Black Locust Robinia pseudoacacia 76 76 7 Fair Poor No LN(L), DW(L), CV, DEH No City Buffer Area 8 No Anticipated Impact - Protect No Not Applicable 851 Norway Maple Acer platanoides 16 16 2 Fair Fair No CON(T), ER, GD1M, CT No City Buffer Area 3 No Anticipated Impact - Protect No Not Applicable 852 Norway Maple Acer platanoides 28 28 5 Fair Fair No CON(T), ER, GD1M, ML No City Buffer Area 6 No Anticipated Impact - Protect No Not Applicable 853 Black Locust Robinia pseudoacacia 25 25 4 Fair Fair No DW(S), LN(L), ER, CON(T)No City Buffer Area 5 No Anticipated Impact - Protect No Not Applicable 854 Norway Maple Acer platanoides 29 29 3 Fair Poor No DW(S), LN(L), ER, CON(T), BR No City Buffer Area 4 No Anticipated Impact - Protect No Not Applicable 855 Black Locust Robinia pseudoacacia 44 44 4 Fair Poor No TW, DE(S), CT, CV No Private Buffer Area 5 No Anticipated Impact - Protect No Not Applicable 856 Black Locust Robinia pseudoacacia 40 40 4 Fair Poor No TW, DE(S), CT, CV, LN(L)No Private Buffer Area 5 No Anticipated Impact - Protect No Not Applicable 857 White Spruce Picea glauca 16 16 3 Fair Good No PP, DW(S)No Private Buffer Area 4 Injury with Supervision No Not Applicable 858 Walnut sp.Juglans sp.26 26 5 Good Good No PP No City Buffer Area 6 Injury with Supervision No Not Applicable 859 Walnut sp.Juglans sp.52 36 52 5 Good Good No PP No Private Buffer Area 6 Injury with Supervision No Not Applicable 860 Walnut sp.Juglans sp.45 45 5 Good Good No PP No Private Buffer Area 6 No Anticipated Impact - Protect No Not Applicable 861 Walnut sp.Juglans sp.42 42 5 Good Good No PP No Private Buffer Area 6 No Anticipated Impact - Protect No Not Applicable 862 Walnut sp.Juglans sp.22 22 5 Good Good No PP No Private Buffer Area 6 No Anticipated Impact - Protect No Not Applicable 863 Walnut sp.Juglans sp.30 30 5 Good Good No PP No City Buffer Area 6 Injury with Supervision No Not Applicable 864 Norway Maple Acer platanoides 16 16 4 Fair Fair No SS No City Buffer Area 5 Injury with Supervision No Not Applicable 865 Norway Maple Acer platanoides 14 14 4 Fair Fair No SS No Private Buffer Area 5 No Anticipated Impact - Protect No Not Applicable 866 Sugar Maple Acer saccharum 15 15 3 Fair Fair No IE No Private Buffer Area 4 No Anticipated Impact - Protect No Not Applicable 867 Sugar Maple Acer saccharum 20 20 4 Fair Fair No IE No Private Buffer Area 5 No Anticipated Impact - Protect No Not Applicable 868 Sugar Maple Acer saccharum 35 35 4 Fair Fair No IE No Private Buffer Area 5 No Anticipated Impact - Protect No Not Applicable 869 Ash sp.Fraxinus sp.6 6 4 Fair Fair No IE No Private Buffer Area 5 No Anticipated Impact - Protect No Not Applicable 870 Other Other 60 60 0 Dead Dead No IE No Private Buffer Area 1 No Anticipated Impact - Protect No Not Applicable 871 Sugar Maple Acer saccharum 16 16 3 Fair Fair No LN(L), CON(T), SS No Private Buffer Area 4 No Anticipated Impact - Protect No Not Applicable 872 Green Ash Fraxinus pennsylvanica 18 18 1 Poor Poor No PP, BR, EG(T), EAB No City Buffer Area 2 No Anticipated Impact - Protect No Not Applicable 873 Black Locust Robinia pseudoacacia 37 37 6 Fair Fair No LN(L), CT No City Buffer Area 7 Injure No Not Applicable 874 Black Locust Robinia pseudoacacia 11 11 0 Dead Dead No LN(L), CON(T), PB No City Buffer Area 1 No Anticipated Impact - Protect No Not Applicable 875 Black Locust Robinia pseudoacacia 46 46 7 Fair Fair No LN(L), CT, CON(T)No City Buffer Area 8 Injure No Not Applicable 876 Norway Maple Acer platanoides 13 13 3 Fair Fair No LN(L), CT, CON(T)No City Buffer Area 4 No Anticipated Impact - Protect No Not Applicable 877 Sugar Maple Acer saccharum 28 25 20 28 3 Fair Poor No PP, ML, TW, WC(P)No City Buffer Area 4 Injure No Not Applicable 878 Colorado Spruce Picea pungens 18 18 1 Fair Fair No PP, LT No Private Buffer Area 2 No Anticipated Impact - Protect No Not Applicable 879 Black Locust Robinia pseudoacacia 15 15 2 Fair Fair No PP, CON(T), CON(S), DW(S)No Private Buffer Area 3 No Anticipated Impact - Protect No Not Applicable 880 Black Locust Robinia pseudoacacia 15 15 2 Fair Fair No PP, CON(T), CON(S), DW(S)No Private Buffer Area 3 No Anticipated Impact - Protect No Not Applicable 881 Norway Maple Acer platanoides 32 32 3 Fair Fair No PP, CON(T), DW(S)No City Buffer Area 4 Injure Yes Not Applicable 882 Norway Spruce Picea abies 20 20 2 Fair Fair No PP, CON(T), DW(S), CD No City Buffer Area 3 Injure No Not Applicable 883 Colorado Spruce Picea pungens 10 10 1 Fair Fair No PP, CON(T), DW(S), CD No City Buffer Area 2 No Anticipated Impact - Protect No Not Applicable 884 Colorado Spruce Picea pungens 10 10 1 Fair Fair No PP, CON(T), DW(S), CD No City Buffer Area 2 No Anticipated Impact - Protect No Not Applicable 885 Manitoba Maple Acer negundo 65 65 5 Fair Fair No IE No Private Buffer Area 6 No Anticipated Impact - Protect No Not Applicable 886 Manitoba Maple Acer negundo 4 4 2 Fair Fair No SS No Private Buffer Area 3 No Anticipated Impact - Protect No Not Applicable 887 Walnut sp.Juglans sp.15 15 2 Fair Fair No SS No Private Buffer Area 3 No Anticipated Impact - Protect No Not Applicable 888 Other Other 15 15 0 Dead Dead No Dead No Private Buffer Area 1 No Anticipated Impact - Protect No Not Applicable 889 Other Other 4.5 4.5 0 Dead Dead No Dead No Private Buffer Area 1 No Anticipated Impact - Protect No Not Applicable 890 Walnut sp.Juglans sp.4.5 4.5 3 Poor Poor No LN(M)No Private Buffer Area 4 No Anticipated Impact - Protect No Not Applicable 891 Walnut sp.Juglans sp.35 35 5 Poor Poor No IE No Private Buffer Area 6 No Anticipated Impact - Protect No Not Applicable 892 Manitoba Maple Acer negundo 4 4 2 Fair Fair No SS No Private Buffer Area 3 No Anticipated Impact - Protect No Not Applicable 893 Manitoba Maple Acer negundo 4 4 2 Fair Fair No SS No Private Buffer Area 3 No Anticipated Impact - Protect No Not Applicable 894 Manitoba Maple Acer negundo 4 4 2 Fair Fair No SS No Private Buffer Area 3 No Anticipated Impact - Protect No Not Applicable 12 of 14 Appendix C. Tree Assessment Results Tree #Common Name Scientfic Name First DBH (cm) Second DBH (cm) Third DBH (cm) Fourth DBH (cm) Fifth DBH (cm) DBH Analysis (cm) Dripline (m) Tree Condition - Health Tree Condition - Structure Species at Risk (Yes or No)Observations/Comments TRCA Regulation Limits (Yes or No) Tree Ownership Tree Location (Impact Area, Buffer Area) Tree Protection Zone Area (m) Recommended Action Structural Root Zone Impacted? Removal Justification 895 Manitoba Maple Acer negundo 6 6 2 Fair Fair No SS No Private Buffer Area 3 No Anticipated Impact - Protect No Not Applicable 896 Eastern White Cedar Thuja occidentalis 16 13 16 5 Good Fair No LN(M)No City Impact Area 6 Injury with Supervision Yes Not Applicable 897 White Spruce Picea glauca 32 32 5 Fair Good No PP, DW(S)No Private Buffer Area 6 Injury with Supervision No Not Applicable 898 Norway Maple Acer platanoides 43 43 4 Fair Fair No EG(T), DW(S)No City Buffer Area 5 Injury with Supervision No Not Applicable 899 Norway Maple Acer platanoides 43 43 4 Fair Fair No EG(T), DW(S)No City Buffer Area 5 Injury with Supervision Yes Not Applicable 900 Sugar Maple Acer saccharum 16 16 4 Fair Fair No EG(T), DW(S)No City Buffer Area 5 Injury with Supervision No Not Applicable 901 Norway Spruce Picea abies 32 32 2 Fair Fair No PP, CON(T), DW(S), CD No City Buffer Area 3 Injure No Not Applicable 902 Colorado Spruce Picea pungens 22 22 2 Fair Fair No PP, CON(T), DW(S), CT No City Buffer Area 3 Injure No Not Applicable 903 Norway Spruce Picea abies 18 18 18 2 Fair Fair No PP, CON(T), DW(S), CT No City Buffer Area 3 No Anticipated Impact - Protect No Not Applicable 904 Norway Spruce Picea abies 14 14 2 Fair Fair No PP, CON(T), DW(S), CT No City Buffer Area 3 No Anticipated Impact - Protect No Not Applicable 905 Norway Maple Acer platanoides 19 19 3 Fair Fair No PP, CON(T), ML, ER No City Buffer Area 4 Injure No Not Applicable 906 English Oak Quercus robur 26 26 4 Fair Poor No PP, CV, DEH, SM(V), CT, CD No City Buffer Area 5 Injure No Not Applicable 907 Magnolia sp.Magnolia sp.15 13 12 15 2 Fair Fair No LT, PP, SM(V), ML No Private Buffer Area 3 No Anticipated Impact - Protect No Not Applicable 908 Norway Spruce Picea abies 10 10 4 Fair Fair No EG(T), DW(S)No Private Buffer Area 5 Injury with Supervision No Not Applicable 909 Austrian Pine Pinus nigra 22 22 2 Poor Poor No DW(L)No Private Buffer Area 3 No Anticipated Impact - Protect No Not Applicable 910 Austrian Pine Pinus nigra 20 20 0 Dead Dead No Dead No Private Buffer Area 1 No Anticipated Impact - Protect No Not Applicable 911 Eastern White Pine Pinus strobus 10 10 2 Poor Poor No DW(L)No Private Buffer Area 3 No Anticipated Impact - Protect No Not Applicable 912 Eastern White Pine Pinus strobus 13 13 3 Fair Fair No DW(L)No Private Buffer Area 4 No Anticipated Impact - Protect No Not Applicable 913 Sugar Maple Acer saccharum 49 49 3 Poor Poor No DW(L), DIS No Private Buffer Area 4 No Anticipated Impact - Protect No Not Applicable 914 White Spruce Picea glauca 38 38 5 Good Good No DW(L)No Private Buffer Area 6 No Anticipated Impact - Protect No Not Applicable 915 Sugar Maple Acer saccharum 23 23 3 Good Good No DW(S)No Private Buffer Area 4 No Anticipated Impact - Protect No Not Applicable 916 Eastern White Cedar Thuja occidentalis 10 10 3 Good Fair No DW(S)No Private Buffer Area 4 No Anticipated Impact - Protect No Not Applicable 917 Eastern White Cedar Thuja occidentalis 10 10 3 Good Fair No DW(S)No Private Buffer Area 4 No Anticipated Impact - Protect No Not Applicable 918 Sugar Maple Acer saccharum 89 89 6 Poor Poor No DIS No Private Buffer Area 7 No Anticipated Impact - Protect No Not Applicable 919 Eastern White Cedar Thuja occidentalis 22 22 1 Fair Fair No CON(T), ML, VC No Private Buffer Area 2 Injure Yes Not Applicable 920 Eastern White Cedar Thuja occidentalis 10 6 10 1 Fair Fair No CON(T), ML No Private Buffer Area 2 Injure No Not Applicable 921 Eastern White Cedar Thuja occidentalis 10 10 1 Fair Fair No CON(T), ML, PP No Private Buffer Area 2 Injure No Not Applicable 922 Eastern White Cedar Thuja occidentalis 12 12 1 Fair Fair No CON(T), ML, PP No Private Impact Area 2 Injure Yes Not Applicable 923 Eastern White Cedar Thuja occidentalis 10 8 10 1 Fair Fair No CON(T), ML, PP No Private Impact Area 2 Injure Yes Not Applicable 924 Eastern White Cedar Thuja occidentalis 10 8 10 1 Fair Fair No CON(T), ML, PP, VC No City Impact Area 2 Injure Yes Not Applicable 925 Eastern White Cedar Thuja occidentalis 12 8 12 1 Fair Fair No CON(T), ML, PP No City Impact Area 2 Injure Yes Not Applicable 926 Eastern White Cedar Thuja occidentalis 10 10 1 Fair Fair No CON(T), ML, PP No Private Impact Area 2 Injure Yes Not Applicable 927 Eastern White Cedar Thuja occidentalis 14 14 1 Fair Fair No CON(T), ML, PP No Private Impact Area 2 Injure Yes Not Applicable 928 Eastern White Cedar Thuja occidentalis 25 22 20 19 25 2 Fair Fair No CON(T), ML, PP No Private Buffer Area 3 Injure Yes Not Applicable 929 Black Walnut Juglans nigra 27 27 5 Good Good No HL, CON(T)No Private Buffer Area 6 Injury with Supervision Yes Not Applicable 930 Black Walnut Juglans nigra 35 35 5 Good Good No HL, CON(T)No Private Buffer Area 6 Injury with Supervision Yes Not Applicable 931 Black Walnut Juglans nigra 12 5 12 2 Fair Fair No SS, ML No City Impact Area 3 Injury with Supervision Yes Not Applicable 932 Black Walnut Juglans nigra 12 12 2 Fair Fair No SS, WI, VC No City Buffer Area 3 Injury with Supervision Yes Not Applicable 933 Black Walnut Juglans nigra 31 31 5 Fair Fair No SS, WI, VC No City Buffer Area 6 Injury with Supervision Yes Not Applicable 934 Sugar Maple Acer saccharum 13 13 2 Fair Fair No LN(L), CT, TW No Private Buffer Area 3 No Anticipated Impact - Protect No Not Applicable 935 Sugar Maple Acer saccharum 17 17 3 Fair Fair No LN(L), CT, TW No Private Buffer Area 4 No Anticipated Impact - Protect No Not Applicable 936 Sugar Maple Acer saccharum 21 21 3 Good Good No DW(S), HL No Private Buffer Area 4 No Anticipated Impact - Protect No Not Applicable 937 Black Walnut Juglans nigra 20 20 3 Fair Fair No DW(S), VC No Private Buffer Area 4 No Anticipated Impact - Protect No Not Applicable 938 Black Walnut Juglans nigra 32 15 32 7 Fair Fair No DW(S), VC, ML No Private Buffer Area 8 No Anticipated Impact - Protect No Not Applicable 939 Black Walnut Juglans nigra 22 22 5 Fair Fair No DW(S), VC No Private Buffer Area 6 No Anticipated Impact - Protect No Not Applicable 940 Cherry sp.Prunus sp.11 11 4 Fair Fair No LN(M)No Private Buffer Area 5 No Anticipated Impact - Protect No Not Applicable 941 Sugar Maple Acer saccharum 83 83 4 Poor Poor No CR, CV No Private Buffer Area 5 No Anticipated Impact - Protect No Not Applicable 942 Walnut sp.Juglans sp.58 58 6 Fair Fair No PP, DW(L)No City Buffer Area 7 Injury with Supervision Yes Not Applicable 943 Walnut sp.Juglans sp.24 28 28 5 Fair Fair No PP, DW(L)No Private Buffer Area 6 No Anticipated Impact - Protect No Not Applicable 944 Sugar Maple Acer saccharum 23 23 3 Fair Fair No CR, CV No Private Buffer Area 4 No Anticipated Impact - Protect No Not Applicable 945 Wild Crab Apple Malus coronaria 29 29 4 Fair Fair No IN(B)No Private Buffer Area 5 No Anticipated Impact - Protect No Not Applicable 946 Silver Maple Acer saccharinum 57 57 6 Fair Fair No DW(S)No Private Buffer Area 7 Injury with Supervision Yes Not Applicable 947 Norway Spruce Picea abies 30 30 5 Good Good No DW(S)No Private Buffer Area 6 Injury with Supervision No Not Applicable 948 Norway Spruce Picea abies 30 30 5 Good Good No DW(S)No Private Buffer Area 6 Injury with Supervision No Not Applicable 949 Norway Spruce Picea abies 22 22 5 Poor Poor No DW(S)No Private Buffer Area 6 No Anticipated Impact - Protect No Not Applicable 950 Norway Spruce Picea abies 22 22 5 Poor Poor No DW(S)No Private Buffer Area 6 Injury with Supervision No Not Applicable 951 Norway Maple Acer platanoides 13 13 2 Fair Fair No CON(T), CT No Private Buffer Area 3 No Anticipated Impact - Protect No Not Applicable 952 Sugar Maple Acer saccharum 20 20 3 Fair Fair No CON(T), CT No Private Buffer Area 4 No Anticipated Impact - Protect No Not Applicable 953 Green Ash Fraxinus pennsylvanica 14 14 0 Dead Dead No CON(T), ID, EAB No Private Buffer Area 1 No Anticipated Impact - Protect No Not Applicable 954 Sugar Maple Acer saccharum 91 91 8 Good Fair No ER, PP, OL No Private Buffer Area 9 Injure Yes Not Applicable 955 Sugar Maple Acer saccharum 67 67 8 Good Fair No ER, PP, OL No Private Buffer Area 9 Injure No Not Applicable 956 Norway Spruce Picea abies 43 43 5 Good Fair No ER, PP, LN(L)No Private Buffer Area 6 Injure No Not Applicable 957 Norway Spruce Picea abies 12 12 2 Poor Poor No DW(S)No Private Buffer Area 3 No Anticipated Impact - Protect No Not Applicable 958 Black Walnut Juglans nigra 26 26 6 Fair Fair No DW(S)No Private Buffer Area 7 No Anticipated Impact - Protect No Not Applicable 959 Norway Spruce Picea abies 33 33 6 Fair Fair No DW(S)No Private Buffer Area 7 No Anticipated Impact - Protect No Not Applicable 960 Manitoba Maple Acer negundo 14 7 6 6 5 14 5 Fair Fair No SS, ML No Private Buffer Area 6 No Anticipated Impact - Protect No Not Applicable 961 Norway Spruce Picea abies 47 47 5 Good Good No DW(S)No Private Buffer Area 6 No Anticipated Impact - Protect No Not Applicable 962 Norway Spruce Picea abies 55 55 5 Good Good No DW(S)No Private Buffer Area 6 No Anticipated Impact - Protect No Not Applicable 963 Norway Spruce Picea abies 58 58 4 Poor Poor No DW(S)No Private Buffer Area 5 No Anticipated Impact - Protect No Not Applicable 964 Pagoda Dogwood Cornus alternifolia 5 5 2 Fair Fair No SS Yes City Buffer Area 3 Injure No Not Applicable 965 Pagoda Dogwood Cornus alternifolia 5 5 2 Fair Fair No SS Yes City Buffer Area 3 Injure No Not Applicable 966 Pagoda Dogwood Cornus alternifolia 6 6 2 Fair Fair No SS Yes City Buffer Area 3 Remove No A new drainage pool will be installed, which will cause significant root impacts. 967 Pagoda Dogwood Cornus alternifolia 7 7 2 Fair Fair No SS Yes City Buffer Area 3 Injure No Not Applicable 968 Black Walnut Juglans nigra 61 61 6 Fair Fair No DW(S)Yes City Buffer Area 7 No Anticipated Impact - Protect No Not Applicable 969 Eastern White Cedar Thuja occidentalis 61 61 4 Fair Fair No DW(S)Yes City Buffer Area 5 No Anticipated Impact - Protect No Not Applicable 13 of 14 Appendix C. Tree Assessment Results Tree #Common Name Scientfic Name First DBH (cm) Second DBH (cm) Third DBH (cm) Fourth DBH (cm) Fifth DBH (cm) DBH Analysis (cm) Dripline (m) Tree Condition - Health Tree Condition - Structure Species at Risk (Yes or No)Observations/Comments TRCA Regulation Limits (Yes or No) Tree Ownership Tree Location (Impact Area, Buffer Area) Tree Protection Zone Area (m) Recommended Action Structural Root Zone Impacted? Removal Justification 970 Black Walnut Juglans nigra 61 61 6 Fair Fair No DW(S)Yes City Buffer Area 7 No Anticipated Impact - Protect No Not Applicable 971 Eastern White Cedar Thuja occidentalis 51 51 5 Fair Fair No DW(L), IE Yes City Buffer Area 6 No Anticipated Impact - Protect No Not Applicable 972 Eastern White Cedar Thuja occidentalis 51 51 5 Fair Fair No DW(L), IE Yes City Buffer Area 6 No Anticipated Impact - Protect No Not Applicable 973 Eastern White Cedar Thuja occidentalis 45 45 5 Fair Fair No DW(L), IE Yes City Buffer Area 6 No Anticipated Impact - Protect No Not Applicable 974 Eastern White Cedar Thuja occidentalis 45 45 5 Fair Fair No DW(L), IE Yes City Buffer Area 6 No Anticipated Impact - Protect No Not Applicable 975 Eastern White Cedar Thuja occidentalis 51 51 5 Fair Fair No DW(L), IE Yes City Buffer Area 6 No Anticipated Impact - Protect No Not Applicable 976 Eastern White Cedar Thuja occidentalis 51 51 5 Fair Fair No DW(L), IE Yes City Buffer Area 6 No Anticipated Impact - Protect No Not Applicable 977 Honey Locust Gleditsia triacanthos 51 51 5 Fair Fair No 1SD, PP Yes Private Buffer Area 6 Injure No Not Applicable 978 Cherry sp.Prunus sp.9 7 7 9 2 Fair Fair No DW(L)Yes Private Buffer Area 3 No Anticipated Impact - Protect No Not Applicable 979 Pagoda Dogwood Cornus alternifolia 3 4 4 2 Fair Fair No SS, ML, IE Yes City Buffer Area 3 No Anticipated Impact - Protect No Not Applicable 980 Pagoda Dogwood Cornus alternifolia 5 5 2 Fair Fair No SS Yes City Buffer Area 3 No Anticipated Impact - Protect No Not Applicable 981 Manitoba Maple Acer negundo 10 10 1 Fair Fair No SS Yes City Buffer Area 2 No Anticipated Impact - Protect No Not Applicable 982 Black Walnut Juglans nigra 61 61 6 Fair Fair No DW(L)Yes City Buffer Area 7 No Anticipated Impact - Protect No Not Applicable 983 Cherry sp.Prunus sp.5 5 1 Poor Fair No DIS Yes City Buffer Area 2 No Anticipated Impact - Protect No Not Applicable 984 Manitoba Maple Acer negundo 7 7 1 Fair Fair No SS Yes City Buffer Area 2 No Anticipated Impact - Protect No Not Applicable 985 Norway Maple Acer platanoides 5 5 1 Fair Fair No LN(M)Yes City Buffer Area 2 No Anticipated Impact - Protect No Not Applicable 986 Black Walnut Juglans nigra 24 24 4 Fair Fair No PP No City Buffer Area 5 Injury with Supervision Yes Not Applicable 987 Eastern White Cedar Thuja occidentalis 12 10 5 4 12 4 Fair Fair No PP Yes City Buffer Area 5 No Anticipated Impact - Protect No Not Applicable 988 Eastern White Cedar Thuja occidentalis 20 20 4 Fair Fair No DW(S)Yes City Buffer Area 5 No Anticipated Impact - Protect No Not Applicable 989 Eastern White Cedar Thuja occidentalis 20 20 4 Fair Fair No DW(S)Yes City Buffer Area 5 No Anticipated Impact - Protect No Not Applicable 990 Eastern White Cedar Thuja occidentalis 25 25 4 Fair Fair No PP Yes City Buffer Area 5 No Anticipated Impact - Protect No Not Applicable 14 of 14 Appendix D Tree Inventory Abbreviations Tree Inventory Abbreviations DBH = Diameter at Breast Height (i.e. 1.4 metres) Last Updated: June 6th, 2023 1SD One-Sided Crown AD Animal Damage BH Bat Habitat BR Broken Branches BW Basal Trunk (Below 1.4 Metres) Wound or Root Damage CA Cankers CD Crown Dieback CL Chlorotic Leaves CON(x) Conflict: (x = Structure [S], Tree [T], Hardscape [H], Utility [U]) CR(x) Crack: (x = Vertical [V], Horizontal [H]) CS Close to Building CT Crooked/Bent Trunk CV Cavity DE(x) Decay: (x = Heartwood [H], Softwood [S]) DED Dutch Elm Disease DIS Diseased DW(x) Deadwood: (x = Small [S], Large [L]) EAB Emerald Ash Borer EG(x) Epicormic Growth: (x = Basal [B], Trunk [T], Crown [C]) EM Excessive Mulch or Soil EP Excessive Pruning ER Exposed Roots ET Enlarged Trunk Abnormality FC Frost Crack FK#@#M Forks, # of Trunks at # Metres FO(x) Form: (x = Globe [G], Weeping [W], Columnar [C], Pyramidal [P]) FS Fused or Crossing Branches/Limbs FU Fungus/Conk/Fruiting Body GC Grade Change GD#M Grade Difference, # Metres GR Girdling Root(s) GTF Growing Through Fence HE Hedge/Sheared HL Healthy Specimen IC Impacted by Construction ID Insect Damage IE Information Estimated, Inaccessible IN(X) Included: (x = Bark [B], Union [U]) LG Laying on Ground LN(x) Lean: (x = Low[L], Moderate [M], High[H]) LS Light or Spatially Suppressed Tree LT Landscape Tree ML Multi-Leaders/Limbs NST Bird Nest in Tree (x)OB Bank (x = Top [T], Middle [M], Bottom [B]) OL Overextending Limb PB Peeling Bark PC Pollarded Crown PF Previous Failure PP Past Pruning PT(x) Planted Too (x = High [L], Low [L]) RFS Regeneration from Stump RH Remove Tree Hardware RPM Root Plate Movement SM(x) Seam: (x = Vertical [V], Horizontal[H]) SN Squirrel Nest SP Sapling SS Self-Seeded TBP Tight Bud Progression TG# # of Trees in Close Proximity TK# # of Trunks at or Below 1.4 Metres TT Twisted Trunk TW Trunk Wound UC Unbalanced Crown VC Vine Covered WC(x) Wound Compartmentalization: (x = Full [F], Partial [P], None [N]) WI Tree Under/Over/Adjacent to Wires Appendix E Tree Protection, Preservation and Maintenance Measures and City of Pickering Tree Protection Measures Appendix E – 1 Tree Protection, Preservation and Maintenance Measures Appendix E-1 – Tree Protection, Preservation and Maintenance Measures and City of Pickering Tree Protection Measures 1 of 5 Tree Protection, Preservation and Maintenance Measures General recommendations included in this section are based on the latest arboricultural standards. Recommendations in this section assume that all required permits and authorizations have been obtained prior to construction commencing. It is recommended that an ISA Certified Arborist be retained to regularly monitor the Project’s construction activities as they relate to tree protection and retention in accordance with standard arboricultural practices and the tree protection protocols. Similarly, encroachment into the Tree Protection Zone (TPZ) of trees permitted for injury should be conducted under the supervision of an ISA Certified Arborist. Where a permit to injure or remove was not previously issued, no grading, excavation, construction access, or material storage shall occur within the TPZ of those trees. Tree protection fencing, as described below, shall be installed as per the local by-laws and regulations to protect all trees proposed for retention throughout the construction process. It is recommended that an ISA Certified Arborist conducts a post-construction assessment to evaluate the health and structure of trees that were retained during construction and identify opportunities for mitigation should any trees display signs of stress (i.e., falling limbs, declining health, etc.). Additional mitigation measures may be prescribed following construction such as monitoring, mulching, vertical mulching, irrigation, fertilization, and pruning. 1. Tree Protection Fencing Tree protection fencing is to be installed around trees recommended for retention within the Buffer Area as shown in Error! Reference source not found.The tree protection fencing shall be installed in accordance with City of Pickering Standard Detail P-1100 (Tree Protection Fencing) and P-1101 (Tree Protection Notes) (see Appendix E-2). Tree protection fencing may include vertical fencing or horizontal fencing and tree protection signage. A total of 74 trees are recommended for injury with supervision. These trees are recommended to undergo a root exploratory excavation (see Section 2) to determine the extent of damage to the tree’s root system by the proposed work. Following the excavation, tree protection fencing shall be installed around any trees confirmed safe to retain. The fencing will be placed close to the trunk to provide adequate protection to the trunk base. The tree protection fencing will be displayed on an updated Tree Protection Plan as part of the memorandum discussed in Section 2. Vertical Fencing Vertical fencing is designed to prevent access into the TPZ of protected trees and shall be installed as per Standard Detail P-1100 (Tree Protection Fencing) and P-1101 (Tree Protection Notes) (Appendix E-2). Vertical fencing should encompass as much of the TPZ of protected trees as possible, extending to existing public sidewalks and roads. Horizontal Fencing Horizontal fencing is to be installed to supplement vertical fencing to prevent compaction and root damage where encroachment into the minimum TPZ is required and authorized. In conjunction with the vertical fencing shown in Appendix B, it is recommended that horizontal fencing is installed wherever the full TPZ cannot be protected with vertical fencing and where temporary disturbance is anticipated, such as site access and material storage. General horizontal tree protection guidelines are as follows: Appendix E-1 – Tree Protection, Preservation and Maintenance Measures and City of Pickering Tree Protection Measures 2 of 5 ◼ Place two (2) 1.22 x 2.44 m (4 ft x 8 ft) plywood boards (minimum 0.75” [3/4”] thick) within the TPZ between the trunk or vertical fencing and the limit of excavation. Field fit may be necessary and board width and length may vary depending on available space. ◼ Boards are to be placed atop 300 mm (1 ft) of shredded bark mulch, framed with 2”x4”x8’ lumber. ◼ Upon completion of required and authorized work within the TPZ, remove boards and spread mulch in a two-metre diameter around the trunk to a depth of 75 mm (3”), and reinstate vertical tree protection fencing to protect the full extent of the minimum TPZ. ◼ Steel plates may also be accepted as horizontal tree protection fencing. Overall, installation of tree protection fencing will reduce the potential for negative impacts including soil and root compaction, as well as the potential for mechanical damage to trunks or branches. All tree protection fencing shall be installed prior to any construction activity taking place on site, and it shall remain standing in good repair until construction is complete. Photographs of the fencing are required to be submitted to the City of Pickering prior to construction commencing; the City of Pickering may conduct an inspection at this time to ensure that fencing is installed in accordance with their guidelines. Once approved by the City of Pickering, fencing shall not be modified or removed during construction without written acknowledgment from the City of Pickering. If modification of fencing is required during construction, the City of Pickering should be informed, and an ISA Certified Arborist should be retained to review the revised scope of work as it relates to tree impacts. The City of Pickering may then provide additional authorization to modify the fencing, and the Arborist may provide further recommendations to reduce impact to the existing trees. Post-construction, the Contractor shall contact the City of Pickering to confirm that all protection fencing/fencings have remained in place and shall provide pictures to the City of Pickering with trees clearly identified and fencing intact post construction. The City of Pickering staff may complete a fencing inspection to confirm this information. Thereafter, the City of Pickering shall provide written confirmation that fencing may be removed. No tree protection fencing/fencings shall be removed until this written confirmation has been received from the City of Pickering. Tree Protection Signage Tree protection signage shall be installed on the fence by the Contractor to clearly identify TPZs. The sign shall be a minimum of 40 cm x 60 cm, made of white gator board and outline the following: ◼ That no grade change, storage of materials or equipment is permitted within the TPZ. ◼ Contact information of the municipal forestry department. ◼ The potential fine for contravention of disobeying bylaws in which the TPZ was installed. 2. Root Exploration A root exploratory excavation is recommended for the 74 trees that are recommended for injury with supervision. For these trees, root exploratory excavation is recommended prior to tree removals to assess the potential impacts to the root system and to help ensure that construction impacts will not lead to tree failure or impede construction progress. The exploratory excavation should be performed using hand digging or a low-pressure hydro-vac or pneumonic device, such as an air spade. No roots should be Appendix E-1 – Tree Protection, Preservation and Maintenance Measures and City of Pickering Tree Protection Measures 3 of 5 severed during the root exploration, and special care should be taken to avoid root damage during the excavation process. The excavated area should be backfilled with clean native fill as soon as reasonably possible, and the area should then be watered to prevent desiccation and promote root growth. The root exploration shall be conducted under the supervision of an ISA Certified Arborist and following the City of Pickering’s authorization. A memorandum shall be prepared summarizing the results of the root exploration including an assessment of whether each tree can be retained. The memorandum shall include an updated Tree Protection Plan that reflects the results of the root exploration. Additionally, the memorandum shall outline recommended next steps, which may include modifications to the proposed design or construction methods, excavation and root pruning, or additional remediation measures as required. 3. Excavation Methods of excavation within the TPZ of trees proposed for preservation shall include those which are less harmful to the tree, such as hand digging or excavation using a low-pressure hydro-vac or pneumatic soil excavation device, such as an air spade. These methods include tools which use pressured air or water to remove the soil around the roots without damaging the larger roots. It is recommended that any excavation within the TPZ of tree, if approved, occur using a hydro-vac at a low pressure of less than 100 psi to ensure roots are not unnecessarily damaged. Any roots observed during excavation shall be pruned by an ISA Certified Arborist (or under the supervision of an ISA Certified Arborist) using proper arboricultural techniques. If excavation is to occur, fill within the TPZ shall not be permitted unless mitigated in a way that maintains air and water availability for roots. Additionally, all grade changes within and adjacent to TPZs shall be undertaken in accordance with the previously specified tree protection guidelines. 4. Root Pruning Roots encountered during excavation in or outside TPZ should be preserved wherever feasible. However, if it is determined that root pruning must occur to facilitate a grade change or other earthworks, where authorized by the applicable authorities, root pruning shall be conducted in accordance with acceptable arboricultural standards which may include: ◼ Maintenance and pruning during hot and dry weather should be avoided. ◼ To expose the roots, the area should be excavated by hand digging or using a low-pressure hydro-vac or pneumatic soil excavation device. ◼ Exposed roots should be neatly cut to the limit of disturbance with a sharp saw to minimize decay and entry points for disease. ◼ To prevent desiccation, exposed roots should be wrapped with dampened burlap, so that the roots maintain optimum soil moisture during construction and backfilling operations. ◼ If the root can be preserved while conducting the proposed work, temporary protection can be provided such as using a PVC pipe, cut in half, filled with loamy soil, placed over the root to protect it from injury ◼ Trees to be pruned should be watered after digging, along with an application of soil and mulch. ◼ The excavated area should be backfilled with the excavated material and reinstated to the original condition or better. Appendix E-1 – Tree Protection, Preservation and Maintenance Measures and City of Pickering Tree Protection Measures 4 of 5 ◼ Where needed, the use of clean, uncontaminated topsoil from an approved source may be used. It is recommended that the texture of backfill be coarser than existing soils, and that the backfill is applied directly onto existing soils (i.e., remove air pockets, sod, etc.) ◼ Root pruning must first be exposed using pneumatic excavation by hand digging or the use of a low pressure hydraulic (water) excavation. The water pressure, less than 3500 Kpa for hydraulic excavation must be low enough that root bark is not damaged or removed and on the lowest temperature setting. This will allow a proper pruning cut and minimize tearing of the roots. ◼ Upon completion, tree protection fencing should be reinstated to maximize protection of the minimum TPZ. ◼ All tree maintenance and pruning should be carried out by a qualified tree care specialist that is also an ISA Certified Arborist or under the supervision of an ISA Certified Arborist. 5. Branch Pruning Where branches are likely to be damaged during construction, and pruning is approved by the relevant authorities, branches shall be pruned ahead of the work to avoid branches being broken off, so that bark is not torn, and wounds are not more extensive than necessary. Any branches that overhang the work area and require pruning are to be pruned using clean tools as per the latest arboricultural practices (TCIA, 2008). The Contractor(s) must report immediately to the Contract Administrator any damage to trees such as broken limbs, damage to roots, or wounds to the main trunk or stem systems so that the damage can be assessed immediately. 6. Oak Wilt Oak Wilt (Bretziella fagacearum) is a fungus that grows on the outer sapwood of Oak trees (Quercus spp.) and restricts the flow of water and nutrients throughout the tree (MNR, 2023). It spreads through connected root systems or by beetles. In spring, beetles are attracted to the fungal mats that form on infected tree stems. Spores from the fungal mats will stick to the beetles and are subsequently transferred to fresh wounds on healthy Oak trees (MNR, 2023). With increased concern for Oak Wilt becoming established in Ontario, the pruning of Oak trees during the growing season is discouraged. Avoiding pruning at this time reduces the likelihood of attracting beetles and minimizes the risk of the fungus being transferred to healthy trees. If pruning activities cannot be delayed, apply an appropriate tree wound paint or latex-based paint immediately to all exposed cut surfaces as soon as possible (Michigan State University, 2020). The Contractor(s) must report immediately to the Contract Administrator any damage to trees such as broken limbs, damage to roots, or wounds to the main trunk or stem systems so that the damage can be assessed immediately. 7. Tree Removal and Vegetation Clearing If tree removals are required to facilitate the Project as it progresses, they should be removed following permit issuance where applicable and prior to construction activities commencing on site, as trees proposed for removal may become hazardous once construction and excavation begin on site. It is recommended that an ISA Certified Arborist be retained during tree removal operations to monitor the application of standardized arboricultural techniques. Appendix E-1 – Tree Protection, Preservation and Maintenance Measures and City of Pickering Tree Protection Measures 5 of 5 If required, clearing of vegetation should be conducted between October 1 and March 31, outside of the breeding bird season (April 1 to August 31) and active bat season (April 1 to September 30) to reduce potential impacts to migratory birds and Species at Risk (SAR) bats and avoid contravention of the Migratory Birds Convention Act (1994) and Endangered Species Act (2007). Nests searches, for the purpose of providing approval for vegetation removal during the nesting period (April 1 to August 31) must be completed by a qualified biologist (Government of Canada, 2022). Such nest searches are typically only conducted in simple habitats, referring to habitats that contain few likely nesting spots or a small community of migratory birds. Clearing in simple habitats during the nesting season can only occur if a qualified biologist has confirmed it would not affect the nest or young of a protected species. Searching for nests is not recommended within complex habitats, as the ability to detect nests is low while the risk of disturbance to active nests is high. This disturbance increases the risk of nest predation or abandonment by adults. 8. Post Construction Monitoring and Remedial Care It is recommended all trees on site be inspected by an ISA Certified Arborist post construction to assess the health of each tree. Remedial care such as mulching, vertical mulching, fertilization or irrigation may be required based on each tree’s current condition. 9. Invasive Species and Emerald Ash Borer If tree removal is required as the project progresses, trees shall be removed from the site in a manner that will prevent the emergence and spread of invasive species. Invasive trees and shrubs [i.e., European Buckthorn (Rhamnus cathartica)] should be removed where applicable Appendix E – 2 City of Pickering Tree Protection Measures Courtney Bender, B.EM. (Hons) ISA ON-3217A courtney.bender@aecom.com AECOM Canada ULC 250 York St. Suite 410 London, Ontario, N6A 6K2, Canada T +1 519-673-0510 www.aecom.com