Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPD-145-95 ON: OPRMEP.coJHE CORPORATION OF THE MUNICIPAUTY OF CLARINGTON REPORT Meeting: Report to Special Meeting of Council Date: Thursday, December 71995 Report #: PD-145-95 File #: Subject: RECOMMENDED OFFICIAL PLAN FOR THE MUNICIPAUTY OF CLARINGTON Rle # ~O"6 ' Res. #C:.EJ..1=....5 S By-law #. Recommendations: 1. It is respectfully recommended to Council the following: THAT Report PD-145-95, Public Consultation Report # 8 and the Recommended Official Plan be received for information; THAT the regular Council Meeting of January 29, 1996 be scheduled for adoption of the new Clarington Official Plan; THAT the deputations be acknowledged and be advised of the adoption date of the Clarington Official Plan. . 2. 3. 1. INTRODUCTION The staff Recommended Official Plan was published on November 7,1995. This represents the culmination of the technical work undertaken by staff and consultants, public consultation with residents, developers and other stakeholder over three years, and the direction given to staff by Council on various issues over recent years, including the special meetings on public submissions held on September 14,15 and 25, 1995. To date there have been 13 reports prepared by staff outlined in Attachment #1 to the Report. Provided to Members of Council under separate cover is a copy of the Public Consultation Report 8 which documents the public meetings and additional submissions received since September, 1995. " ~ ~.; .,.... PAGE~ The purpoee of thia report is to present the staff recommended OffiCIal Plan for "'- purpo$8 of~ a statutory public meeting under the PlanningAl:;t At...... .eellng,CounciII .. not dowed to lUke any declalone on any p8I't of the ~ 0IIIcIaI Plan .. stipulated under .... PaannlngAc\ A further rm!l8ting, proposed for January 29,1 _,is scheduled for Council's consideration and; adoptiOrI of a new Official Plan. 2. FROM -oRAFT" TO -RECOMMENDED" OFFICIAL PLAN A Draft OffjciaJ Plan was pubHshed in November of 1994. The purpose of presenting a "draft" document was to elicit public comments on the directions that were belng considered by staff. By placing it in the public forum, staff were hoping to receive comments that would help clarify policies, determine errors, and identify ptobIems for implementation. In addition to public submissions, the Draft Official Plan was circulated to all government agencies for their review and comment. BalWeen the publication of the Draft Official Plan and the staff Recommended Official Plan, the Province introduced the ComprehelJ$lVe s.t otProvlncIa1 PolIcies and the related Implementation Guidelines. A number of revisions have been made to the plan to make the Plan consistent with ProvinciaJpoIlcies. Staff edited the text of the Plan to clarify or revise policies and; to make the Plan easy to read. The structure of the Draft Official Plan was retained although some policies were moved to different sections. Numerous changes were made throughout the Official Plan. Some of the k$y changes are highlighted below: . the treatment of the 20 year lands has been modified to delete the "Interim Urban Area Boundary". The urban resldentiallands beyond the. 20 year requirement are now identified as "Future Urban ResldentlaI Ar$a,1; <"'-".~ ~.:~'15. p~GE 3 . additionIII I8nds were Incorporated within the 20 year boundary as identified In Public Consultation Report 7 and in SectIon 3. of this Report; . a secondary plan for the Bowmanville West Main Central Area was added consistent with the decisions of the Ontario Munici~ Board; . a secondary plan for the Nev.castle Main Central Area was added; . the mapping was redone utilizing digital 1 : 1 0,000 Ontario Base. Mapping which provides the most accurate interpretation of natural features.; . popuIatlon capacities have been calculated on the basis of projected household sizes for 2016 and with the concurrence of the Region of Dutham. TheDtaft Official Plan utilized current household sizes; Since the relll8Se of the Recommended Official Plan, several errors and clarifications have been Identified. They are indicated on the Errata page, being Attachment 2 and will be incorporated in the Official Plan upon Council's adoption of same. 3. MATTERS FOR FURTHER REVIEW 3.1 CourtICe MIIIn c.ntral Area During the Public Meetings on the Courtice Main Central Area, Bryce Jordan, consultant for Mr. Rick Gay, noted an error in Public Consulta\tion Report 7 (Submlssions V 10S and W 198B) with respect to the size of the proposed Courtice Main Central Area The report indicated the area was "*Pproximately 18 ha (45 acres)' whereas Mr. Jordan of G.M. Sernas indicated that there was only 13.4 ha (SS acres). Staff confirm that the Semas figure represents the net area available for development. This, however, does not changestaff'$ conclusion about the boundary for the Courtice Main Central Area There are sufficient lands to accommodate a mix of uses including the 25,000 square metres of retail and personal service f1oorspace. . ) Be.eo8I..tlO.: ~1~ PAGJ 4 In addition, it Is noted that Mr. Gay's lands are proposed to be deslgnetedSpecial Policy Area F - King Street Corridor. This designation recogm.s the suitability for higher krt8l1sity,transit-supportive uses along King Street including high and medium density resIdentlaI. community facilities, institutional uses and limited office cleveIopment. This provides for the many of the high . intensity uses permitted in a Main Central Area. Retail uses, however, are restricted to the Central Areas. The staff recommended OfJIcial Plan does not propose to adjust the CourticeMain Central Area boundary. 3.2 Chura... In Employment and Rural Areas On September 2g, 1995 Council resolved "that submission W 173.from Robert Merrlf"l, St. Anthony of Padua Paris requesting that Sections 11.4.2 and 11.5.3 be modified to permit churches in Prestige Employment Areas and Ught Industrial Areas, be referred back to staff for further review.' It is recognized that residential land prices make it difficult for churches to acquire lands in urban areas. However, as a facility serving the broader community, it is not desirable to locate churches in iooustrial parks. It is proposed thatchurcheIJ be permitted to locate in General Agricultural Areas. These are generally poorer quality soils or lands which have limited agricultural capability due to previous severance activity. Many of these areas are immediately adjacent to Urban Areas or hamlets. Section 13.3.3 of the staff recommended Official Plan would permit places of worship in General Agricultural Areas provided they are intended to serve local residents. It should be noted that this provision does not conforrnto the Durham Region Official Plan and will require the necessary amendment. ~NO.: ~1~ P~E5 3..3 N.w-Il.... ~r ao V.., UrbM Bounc:I8ry At the PublIc MeeIlngs in September, Mr. Bob Stephenson raised concerns about the proposed ~ of urban area boundary for Newcastle Village. On Saptember 25,1995, Council resolved "that Map 6 - Recommended 2016 Urban Area Boundary: N6Vl.'CastIe ViMage Urban Area, be referred back ... to aUow for a rtlIlieW of the engineering data submitted by Bob Stephenson.. Mr. Stephenson's submissions, numbered W242 A,B,C and 0, are c:on~ned in PIJbjjc Consultation. Report 8 for Council's review. These will not be repeated here in detail. New IQformation At the time of the preparation of Public Consultation Report 7, the following matters ~ not considered: i) The Region of Durham Preliminary Sanitary Sewerage Planning Study for Newcastle ViHage was completed in September 1995 and therefore not available to staff at the time of our recommendation. ii) Mr. Stephenson did not make a submission until September. As a result, staff did not have the benefit of the material provided by Mr. Stephenson In order to make a comparative evaluation his lands versus the AmbergIen/SeIby lands. The receipt of these materials has resulted in staff revising its position. Revised Evaluation After reviewing all materials presented by both parties, it is staff's conclusion that the proposed expansion to the west, including the Stephenson and Garthwood lands, merits favourable consideration for a number of reasons, . including the following: M!Qltt "-9.: PQ-l~ PAqE I . development would take place within clear defined urban boundaries. . it would allow for the completion of a neighbourhood planning UI'1it. . there is opportunity to utiUze existing or planned infrastructure improvements (eg.RudelI Road, existing Zone 1 water supply system) priOr to investment in new infrastructure (eg. road Improvement for Arthur Street, establishment of Zone 2 water system). . servicing for the East and West portions of Foster Neighl:)owhood is interconnected for such matters as sanitary sewers, water supply and storm water management, parks and schools. . there is no major barrier such as the C.P.A. rail line. . it allows for orderly retreat of agricultural uses without premature disturb$1Ce of a larger and separate agricultural parcel. ~~~ Densities for Newr.-Ue Villaae In finalizing the land budget for NewcastJe Village for the Recommended Official Plan. staff have reduced gross residential densities in all neighbourhoods from those proposed in the Draft OffIcial Plan. Gross residential densities were reduced to: . bring the ultimate population capacity for NewcastJe Village closer to conforming with the population target of 17,500 established in the Durham Regional Official Plan; and . allow for Council's allocation of additional housing units to Wilmot Creek Retirement Community at the September 25, 1995 meeting. The change in gross residential densities is shown on Table 1 below: TABLE 1 GROSS RESIDENTIAL DENSITIES UNITS PER HECTARE (UNITS PER ACRE) Dnlll ReaolllilOMded OfIIoIaIP"n 0fII0IaI. P'-n Moat Neighbourhoods 13.8 uph (5.5 upa) 12.3 uph (5.0 upa) Port of Ne\\-....... 18.1 uph (8.5 up&) 14.$ uph (0.0 upa) REP081' NO.: ~146-95 PAGE 7 The Recommended Official Plan stiN maintains a relatively higher density for the Port of Newcutle neighbourhood on the waterfront. All Jands have had to accept a.1ower density to enable the Recommended Plan to conform to the Regional Official Plan. Revised 20 year Boundary As a result of the reduction in density, it is possible for the 20 year boundary to incorporate both an expansion to the west, which is preferred, and also allow for the start of expansion to the north, as previously proposed. All of the above are reftected in the Recommended Official Plan. 3.4 Goodye" Pond Charlie Trim, on behalf of Goodyear Canada Inc., appeared. at the public meetings in September (Submission V75). Goodyear is concerned that upstream erosion is necessitating the regular dredging of their pond on the Bowmanville Creek at a cost of approximately $26,000.00. Planning and Public Works staff subsequently met with Goodyear officials to review this situation. Since there .has been very minimal development in the upstream portion of the Bowmanville Creek watershed, erosion and siltation appears to be naturally occurring or due to rural activities. Prior to the collapse of the Vanstone Dam, siltation was deposited in the Vanstone pond. With its collapse, the Goodyear pond acts as a sediment trap for all upstream erosion. TO address the long term concerns of Goodyear, there is a process established for watershed plans and subwatershed (master drainage) plans to be undertaken which address the impacts of Mure development. Section 4.3.5 of the Recommended Official Plan indicates that the Municipality will establish priorities for the preparation of watershed plans. tmPOftt.NQ.;p~1__ PAGE 8 Most impoJtant, ~r, is the need to implement specific erosion control works. This can be dont through the municipal budget process, development charges aM other funding mechanisms. Public Works Department is aware of Goodyear's C\!)n08ITlS and has undertaken to meet with Ministry of Natural Resources to ~ if there 81'8 any short term solutions. 4. NEW ISSUES 4.1 Rtf....... 111 (Klngaberry Propertiea) RfJf8llal #1 to'" Regional Official Plan did not proceed to a hearlog before the ontario Municipal Board as a result of a settlement between the parties to the h$aring. 8eQaI1N the Municipality was not a party to the hearing, the Municipality was not a p4Vty to the settlement. The settlement would recognize Referral Area #.1 (south of Pebblestone Road and east of Trull; Road) as part of the CQUrtice U~ Area boundll/Y but the lands would be designated asa SpecIal Study Area. ~ a result of this settlement, the Municipality would need to rElllisethe Official Plan to incorporate the lands into the Courtice Urban Area Staff wiN address this ll1atter in a subsequent report in January. 4.2 couruce Road Network A! number of matters have recently been referred to staff for consideration with r~ to the road network in Courtice. This include$: . Delegation of Mr. John Stezik with respect to G1enabbey DriVe . Delegation of Mr. Hugh Neil with respect to Prestonvale Road . Submission by Bryce Jordan of G.M. Semasand Associates on behalf of 848601 Ontario Inc. These issues will be addressed in a subsequent report in Janull/Y. 4.3 ~r Protection on November 27, 1995, Council referred to staff a letter dated November 24, 1995 BIfQ8j: NO.: PP-14M5 PAQE 9 frOm StIn Rac8nsky with respect to groundwater protection. Staff will report back on thI$ mIllter In January. 4.4 ,... GCJL.......nt PIMnIng Rei..... In the coming months, the Harris Government Planning Reform ~e (Bill 20) wlI1 be con$idered by the Province. This will necessitate certain changes to the QfficiaI Plan. The extent of the changes will be determined subsequent to CpunciI's adoption and prior to Regional approval. 4.5 ApartmenIt-In-Houaea TI!1eMII'li$ter of Municipal Affairs and Housing has indicated that changes to the Planning Act wiD allow for Municipalities to regulate S(IC()I1d units in houses and nQt be subject to the override provisions of Section 16 (2) of the current Planning Act. In, Ught of this pending change, staff will bring forward revisions to the Plan In ~ary which would: . indicate that the second units are accessory to.the main use; . not permit apartment4n-houses in townhouses; and . reference the need to register houses with two units. 5. WHERE DO WE GO FROM HERE? 5.1 TI!1e Planning Act requires that there be a minimum of 14 days between the Public Hearing and the adoption of the new Official Plan. It is proposed that Council consider adoption of the Official Plan at its regular meeting scheduled for January 29, 1996. 5.2 A isubsequent report will be prepared for Council's consideration at its meeting of! January 29.1996. The January report will address the necessary amendments tQ the 0lIrham Regional 0fficiaJ Plan to deal with specific areas of nOf'HX)l'lformity . , NPORt.N9~: &'.... ~~GE 1.0 of the CI8rlngton 0fIiciaI Plan. In addition, staff will be reportitlg on eny rnilW i.... that Council may refer to staff as a result of the public meeting held on December 7, 1995. 5..3 upon adoption of the new Official Plan, including any changes that. Council may direct, staff will print the Council-adopted version of the 0flicjaJ Plan. . The ~ted Official Plan end all supporting documentation will be fOrwarded to the ~ for approval. 5.4 The Region's review of the Plan will likely take 6 to 12 months. This will indude c:lfculationto agencies for comment, consideration. of modifications through a ~-circulation letter, and written notice to all parties of their intent to approve, modify or refuse the Official Plan. The latter notice provides the final date for any F*1Y to request referral of portions of the Official Plan to the ontario Municipal Board. 5.5 It is staffs intention to deal with outstanding official plan amendment and related d~opment applications shortly after Council's adoption of the new Official Plan. 5.6 DlJring the time that the Region is reviewing the Municipality's new Official Plan, there may be the need to initiate some modifications to address such issueS as the decisions from referrals to the Regional Official Plan or consideration of site specific applications. These modifications will be brought forward for Council's ~sideration prior to the Region's approval. 6. CONCLUSION The staff Recommended Official Plan is the culmination of a long process intended to establish a planning framework for the development of this community over the next 20 years. This has included a number of technical studies and , fl~ NO.: PD-1ft4ll P~11 extfJASive public consultation program. The PurPose of this meetil'lg Is to hear pl,.lblle.input on the Recommended Official Plan. Under the provisions of The Planning Act, it is recommended that the regular IT188ting of Council on January 29,1996 be scheduled for Council's consideration 8/ild adoption of the new Clarington Official Plan. Respectfully submitted, Reviewed by, dr~~ Franklin !Wu, M.C.I.P., R.P.P. Director of Planning and ~opment ~ W.H. Stockwell Chief Administrative Officer DC*FW"'df 1 December 1995 Attachment No.1: Reports Prepared for Official Plan Review AttachlTlent No.2: Errata . , ATTACKMENT NO. 1 REPORTS PREPARED FOR OFFICIAL PLAN REVIEW A New 0taci8I PIM for the Town 01 Newc..U. . Introductory .~ p.... SeptemJ:iler 1991 Phase qM: B8ckground p..... NOvem'- 1992 Phu. Two: Planning ...ues and OpUone November 1993 Draft 0fIIchII Plan May 1994 Reconunended OffIcial Plan Novemb.. 1996 Public qonaultatlon Reports: 1.. Ph... One: Information Centres F$br:Uary 1993 2. Public AttItudM SUrvey Septemb$l' 1993 3. Ph... One: Subm18slone ~b$I' 1993 4. Ph... Two: Information Centres and SubmINlona December 1994 5. Phu. Three: Public Meetings and Subm18slone V~umes 1 and 2 - June 1994, Volume 3 - August 1994 6. Agency Comments on Drllft OffIcial Plan June 1995 7. Phue Four: Revl.w 01 Public Subm18slona on Drllft Official Plan ~ust 1996 8. Phu. Four: Public MeetIngs and Submlulona December 1995 Sediion 14.6.4 SectIon 14.7.8 Section <4.8.9 Sectlon 6.3.7 Sectlon ~.3.9 <a) Section 6.3.9 (b) Section t 0.3.6 Section ~ 9;3.7 Section ~ 1.6.5 Section 15.3.7 SectIon i 8.5.4 Section 18.5.6 ATTAClllIIEm' NO.2 ERRATA December 7, 1"1 OFFICIAL PLAN TEXT Replace the words "new conservation .... with thewords"nat1Jre . re&eN8.. Replace the numeraJ "14" with the nul1llIIIr'8I "14.4.. Replace the words. "EnvIronment PrcJtection Acf'. wKh the words "Environmental Protection AI::t"., Replace the word .impose. with "recommend". Replace the word "meet" wlth "implel'lWlt". 0eJete the words "the" and "ratio. and . the end of the $EInt8l'lCe add the words .of total assessment". After the words "Any application" add the words "fOfr8ZOl'\it')g". Replace the words "SIte design criteria" with1tle words "Site development criterIa". Replace the words "rqcling of mat.s" with the worQs "Waste proces8/rl; facilities for non-toxic materiel."; add thell'O!'ds 1>ysite ~c zoning"after 1tle words "may be pIIrmItted"; 8I'ld replace the words "structure 8I'ld outside storage Is In accordance With Section 11.6.3" with the words "Structure. W.... transfer stationS may be permitted by site-specific zoning. Outside storage may be permitted In accordance with Section 11.6.3, pI'QYided that~ or unprocessed waste Is Wholly enclosed." Replace the word "Studies" with the words "An Erw/t'onmerItaIlmpact Study and other appropriate studies". Replace the words "gc>vemment offices, b~sand ~ facilities" with the words "gc:wemment offices 8I'ld hospItat.. After the words"Sectlon 1aS.2" add the words .."aQd 18.5;4". "-l! Sedion 1..5.8 SeetfoA fZ4.9 ~~4.12 u.pA4. Pap 2.. AIitd the words ~ SecIlon 18.$.2" addthe~ of the first sentence. a.llte theworcl8 "In effect on the date of RegionaIepprov$I,dtbis Plen: Add- definition for significant as foIIow:$; "SIgnilklant - In regard to NIl\JI'a1 fealurelIMctfundlons. ~ important to the natural environmentln ~Qtltte~ CO(Itent, repr...ntatiofl,or effect, thereby conblbutlnglO'-quIlIIty and Integrity of an ~ltIlIJlIlble ~ regiOn or ~,~ . system. Significance is bnta on criteria and _.....ab\iShed by the province or on comparable munlolpal evaIUfllIionIs. OFFICIAL PLAN MAPS PublIc Secondary SChool symbol to be revised IBOWMANYIUE EAST MAIN CENTfW. AREA SliCDtlDMWPLAN SeetfoA $.3 (8) Section $.3 (b) Replace the sub$eclion with the following; "a) a floor spp index for CClmmercial~onany. shaiI not txeled 0.40;" Replace the subsection with the following: "b) acomblned floor space Index for mixedU8e~ shall not$(fJeed 1.5 where there are Al8identiaI ... Iocatedldxwethe groundtoor:"