HomeMy WebLinkAboutPD-107-99
..
.
R .. ..
'"
.t
,
DN: PDI07-99
THE CORPORATION OF THE MUNICIPALITY OF CLARINGTON
REPORT
Meeting:
General Purpose and Administration Committee
File # Thq
Res. ;(dJA~ '-tx, --CfCj.
Date:
Monday, September 20,1999
Report #:
PD-107-99
FILE#: COPA97-007, 18T-92014 By-Iaw#
18T-94027, DEV 92-033 & DEV 94-067
Subject:
ONTARIO MUNICIPAL BOARD DECISION - COURTICE HEIGHTS DEVTS.
AMENDMENT NO. 10 TO THE CLARlNGTON OFFICIAL PLAN
REFERRAL NO.3 TO THE CLARlNGTON OFFICIAL PLAN
PLANS OF SUBDIVISION: 18T-92014 AND 18T-94027
BY-LAWS 99-7 AND 99-8
Recommendations:
It is respectfully recommended that the General Purpose and Administration Committee recommend to
Council the following:
1. THAT Report PD-107-99 be received FOR INFORMATION.
I. BACKGROUND
l.l In January of 1999, a hearing of the Ontario Municipal Board commenced with respect to
Amendment No. 10 to the Clarington Official Plan, Referral No.3 of provisions of the Clarington
Official Plan and two plans of subdivision and related rezoning applications submitted by Courtice
Heights Developments for the construction of261 dwelling units in the Hancock Neighbourhood.
1.2 Two planners from the Municipality's Planning and Development Department testified before the
Board as a panel in support of the proposals. The panel entered evidence that the various planning
instruments before the Board represented the application of sound planning principles. Although
the panel was cross-examined at length by Libby Racansky, one of the parties to the hearing, no
other professional planning witness testified for the Board's consideration.
654
.
,
- .
,
.
REPORT NO.: PD-I07-99
PAGE 2
1.3 In addition, a panel of four professional witnesses, comprised of an engineer, a hydrogeologist and
two enviromnental planners, offered evidence on behalf of the proponent. The panel was cross-
examined by Mrs. Racansky and their evidence was disputed by Mrs. Racansky's own
enviromnental planner and hydrogeolgist.
1.4 The Board's decision was received in August of 1999 and supported the Municipality's position. Of
the three major issues raised by Mrs. Racansky, the Board determined the following:
. based upon the analysis of pertinent evidence with respect to hydrogeology, the Board found
that the proposal does not cause an unacceptable adverse impact upon ground water and well
water levels in the area;
. no further studies, as proposed by the objector, are warranted and the studies submitted by the
applicant are acceptable and not contradicted; and
. the proposal does not cause an unacceptable adverse impact upon the functioning of the
ecosystem as a whole.
1.5 The Board's written decision is too lengthy to attach to this report but is available for viewing in the
Planning and Development Department.
Reviewed by,
Davld . rome, .C.I.P., R.P.P.
Director of Planning & Development
d f!~~ ~
Franklin Wu, M.C.I.P., R.P.P.
Chief Administrative Officer
WM*DC*jip
September 9, 1999
655