Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPD-91-99 Ejfb Pb-91.95 'x. ••••T•�••••• KEYUKE flu n THE CORPORATION OF THE MUNICIPALITY OF CLARINGTON REPORT Meeting: Council File# 2 Date: Monday,July 19, 1999 Res. # r—y8'7— q Report#: PD-91-99 File#: 18T-98012 By-law# Subject: PROPOSED DRAFT PLAN OF SUBDIVISION APPLICANT: D. G.BIDDLE ON BEHALF OF H. KASSINGER CONSTRUCTION LTD. AND GEARING FARMS LTD PART LOT 33,CONC.3,FORMER TOWNSHIP OF DARLINGTON AND BLOCK 219, IOM-826 FILE NO.: 18T-98012 Reconunendations: It is respectfully recommended to Council the following: 1. THAT Report PD-91-99 be received; 2. THAT the application for proposed plan of subdivision, submitted by D. G. Biddle and Associates Ltd. on behalf of H. Kassinger Construction Ltd. and Gearing Farms Ltd. be APPROVED subject to the conditions of draft approval contained in this Report; 3. THAT the Mayor and the Clerk be authorized by by-law to execute a Subdivision Agreement between the Owner and the Municipality of Clarington at such time as the agreement has been finalized to the satisfaction of the Director of Public Works and the Director of Planning and Development; 4. THAT a copy of this report and Council's decision be forwarded to the Reigon of Durham Planning Department; and 5. THAT all interested parties listed in this report and any delegations be advised of Council's decision. 1. APPLICATION DETAILS 1.1 Applicant: H. Kassinger Construction Ltd. and Gearing Farms Ltd. 1.2 Agent: D. G. Biddle and Associates Ltd. 1.3 Draft Plan of Subdivision: to develop a draft plan of subdivision containing 10 lots and 12 blocks, for a total of 16 single detached dwelling units, two open space blocks and a retained 1.27 hectare block having frontage on Tooley Road 1.4 Site Area: 3.37 hectares REPORT PD-91-99 PAGE 2 2. LOCATION 2.1 The area proposed for development is located at the western end of McLellan Drive in Courtice. The site has frontages onto both McLellan Drive and Tooley Road,as depicted in Attachment No. 1. The portion which fronts onto Tooley Road is in Part Lot 33, Concession 3, former Township of Darlington. The McLellan Drive portion is Block 219, 1OM-826, which was a reserved block within the Kassinger Highland Gardens subdivision immediately to the east. 3. BACKGROUND 3.1 On September 3, 1998, the applicant filed the application for draft plan of subdivision with both the Region of Durham Planning Department and the Clrrington Planning Department. On September 18, 1998, the Region of Durham notified Caalington Planning of the file number for the application and the proposal was duly circulated. On June 8, 1999, a revised draft plan was submitted and was also circulated for comment (Attachment No. 2). 4 EXISTING AND SURROUNDING USES 4.1 Existing Use: Tooley Road portion - large lot residential Block 219, 1OM-826 - vacant land 4.2 Surrounding Uses: North - large lot residential South - large lot residential East - urban residential West - large lot residential 5. OFFICIAL PLAN POLICIES 5.1 The Durham Regional Official Plan identifies the subject property as being designated "Living Area" and "Major Open Space" with `Environmentally Sensitive Areas". The primary function of the Living Area designation is for housing purposes. The Major Open Space system is noted for its ecological benefits with stream valleys being identified as one of the main features of the system. It is the goal of the Durham k , REPORT PD-91-99 PAGE 3 Regional Official Plan to link the Lake Ontario shoreline to the Oak Ridges Moraine by utilizing the Major Open Space system corridors through-out the Municipality. 5.2 The subject lands are designated "Urban Residential' and "Environmental Protection` Area" within the Clarington Official Plan. The Environmental Protection Area designation covers approximately one half of the entire site. This designation identifies Farewell Creek, which flows in a north south direction through the middle of the property, as well as the environmentally sensitive areas surrounding the creek bed. The balance of the property is designated Urban Residential. 5.3 Section 14.4 of the Clarington Official Plan contains specific policies addressing Environmental Protection Areas. On such lands the setback for development is to be determined in consultation with the conservation authority and the province. The setback is to be from top-of-bank and is to be based on the stability of the slope and the sensitivity of the valley. The setback for all other natural features within the Environmental Protection Area, such as woodlots, shall be determined based on the sensitivity of the specific natural feature. i 5.4 The Natural Features Map Cl identifies Farewell Creek as a Cold Water Stream with Hazard Lands. A Tableland Woodlot is indicated, and the entire property falls within the Lake Iroquois Beach. These natural features are recognized as major components of the natural environment. 5.5 The Lake Iroquois Beach is identified for its extensive forested areas and wildlife habitat, and its locally significant functions of groundwater discharge and recharge. Plans of subdivision located within the Lake Iroquois Beach are to contain ,provisions for the maintenance of groundwater functions. These may include special house design and infrastructure design requirements, storm water management or construction techniques. Section 4.7.4 of the Clarington Official Plan states that prior to the approval of the development proposal which includes the removal of part or all of the woodlot, the significance of the woodlot shall be assessed in accordance with Section 4.2.8 of the , REPORT PD-91-99 PAGE 4 Plan. If appropriate, a woodlot preservation plan and management plan shall be prepared. 5.6 Section 4.3.8 requires that an Environmental Impact Study (EIS) be undertaken for development applications located within or adjacent to any natural feature identified on Map C. The expense of the study is to be borne by the applicant. The EIS has been prepared and reviewed and the results of the Study are discussed in Section 9 of this report. 5.7 Section 20.2.3 of the Clarington Official Plan requires a sub-watershed plan to be prepared and approved prior to approval of any draft plan of subdivision unless prior to the approval of the Official plan, a master drainage plan has been approved for the area subject to development. This proposed application has been included in the master drainage plan for the Highland Gardens development. Therefore, a sub-watershed plan is not required for this development 6. ZONING BY-LAW CONFORMITY 6.1 The subject lands are currently zoned "Urban Residential Type One (Rl)" for the area west of Farewell Creek, "Holding — Urban Residential Type One ((H)Rl) for the area east of Farewell Creek, and "Environmental Protection (EP)" for the creek valley and its floodlands. The "Rl" zone permits single detached and semi detached/linked dwelling units. Single detached units require a minimum lot frontage of 15 metres. Semi-detached or linked dwelling units require a minimum lot frontage of 18 metres. The application proposes minimum lot frontages of 16 metres which would allow for the construction of single detached units only. The Environmental Protection zone does not permit the construction of any buildings or structures, and all construction must be set back a minimum of 3 metres from the"EP"boundary. 6.2 Prior to development of this plan of subdivision a removal of Holding would be required to be approved by the Municipality. As of the writing of this report, an application has not been filed to remove the Holding symbol REPORT PD-91-99 PAGE 5 7. PUBLIC NOTICE AND SUBMISSIONS 7.1 Pursuant to the Planning Act, a Public Meeting was held on November 2, 1998. Two neighbourhood residents spoke at the Public Meeting both noting that they wished that the mature pine trees on the property be preserved. 7.2 Prior to finalizing the report for the Public Meeting, staff received four verbal inquiries into the application. Two were from residents of Tooley Road, inquiring whether the proposal would be serviced from the Tooley Road frontage. A resident of Mull Cres., whose property back onto Block 219, expressed a desire for the preservation of the woodlot behind his property. The forth inquirer requested clarification of the site location. 7.3 Since the Public Meeting, staff have received three verbal inquires, one requesting a list of potential EIS consultants, one requesting to be placed on the interested parties list and the third requesting the name of the future house builder. 8. AGENCY COMMENTS 8.1 The application was circulated to solicit continents from other relevant agencies and departments. As a result of the EIS process, the application was revised to incorporate the recommendations of the Study. A revised plan was submitted and subsequently was also circulated to the appropriate agencies and departments for comment. Comments of no objection have been received from: • Ontario Hydro • Bell Canada • Clarington Fire Department • Clarington Community Services Department • Kawartha Pine Ridge District School Board. 8.2 The Peterborough Victoria Northumberland Clarington Separate School Board has no objection to the application but has suggested that sidewalks be provided. The Clarington Public Works Department has stated that they will not be requesting that sidewalks be REPORT PD-91-99 PAGE 6 installed as this cul-de-sac does not provide a walkway access leading to another residential area 8.3 The Clarington Public Works Department has no objection to the proposal subject to standard conditions and the following: • Prior to the issuance of building permits, the applicant must provide for the removal of the existing dead end barricade at the existing limit of McLellan Drive. • The applicant will be responsible for 100% of all costs required to connect the existing portion of McLellan Drive with the proposed development. The required connection shall include any works deemed necessary for the Director of Public Works including paving,curbs, sidewalks,boulevard trees, etc. • The applicant will be required to pay an appropriate share of the cost of oversized downstream storm sewers and downstream storm water management works. The final cost attributed to this development will be calculated in accordance with the terms and conditions of registered plan of subdivision l OM-809. • Specific grading and drainage concerns will be resolved at the engineering review stage of the development review process. • The grading shall conform to the intent of the Preliminary Lot Grading plan submitted by D. G. Biddle and Associates Ltd. (Drawing LG-1, Project No. 92017). Due to the severe grading constraints within the development, tree preservation may be difficult. The final decision to preserve any tree within the subdivision limits in consideration of the subdivision servicing, grading and drainage, will be determined at the discretion of the Director of Public Works. An appropriate clause noting this requirement shall be indicated on the Tree Preservation Plan. • The applicant will be required to provide an appropriate cash contribution in lieu of the normal parkland dedication. • The applicant will be required to deed the adjacent valleylands gratuitously to the Municipality as open space. 8.4 The Central Lake Ontario Conservation Authority has noted that the revised plan identifies Open. Space Block 23 as incorporating a portion of the valleylands to the centreline of Farewell Creek, which meets with their satisfaction. Block 25 of the plan has been identified as being retained by the applicant. These lands contain hazard lands associated with the valley slope of the Farewell Creek valley and the development limit within this Block has not been identified. They are willing to support draft approval of the balance of the lands subject to an appropriate clause being incorporated into the conditions of approval in regards to the future development of Block 25. Prior to . development, they requested that geotechnical investigations be conducted in order to REPORT PD-91-99 PAGE 7 determine the stability of the valley slope and that hazard limits will be determined for this Block. Their conditions of draft approval will be forwarded directly to the Region of Durham. 8.5 The Durham Regional Works Department has confirmed that there are municipal services available from the existing services on McLellan Drive. Requirements for the provision of these services will be satisfied through the appropriate conditions of draft approval. 9. STAFF COMMENTS . 9.1 Environmental Impact Study 9.1.1 As noted in Section 5 above, Section 4.3.8 of the Clarington Official Plan requires that an Environmental Impact Study (EIS) be conducted for this proposed plan of subdivision. The Study was undertaken by Aquafor Beech Limited to determine the impacts of the proposed development of the natural feature found on and adjacent to the site. The key components of the study included an assessment of the groundwater/infiltration characteristics at the site and the importance to baseflow in Farewell Creek, and the definition of development limits based upon the physical characteristics and the terrestrial resources of the Farewell Creek valley. 9.1.2 Section 14.4.3 of the Clarington Official Plan requires a minimum setback of 5 metres for all development from the top-of-bank as identified for a stream valley, as well as a minimum 5 metre setback from a tableland woodlot. Lot lines are not permitted to extend beyond the required setback. The original proposed draft plan of subdivision determined the Farewell Creek top-of-bank line to be the rear property line of Blocks 13 to 22. It also appeared as being close to, or within, the required 5 metre setback for Lots 7, 8 and 9. The exact location of the top-of-bank was to be determined through the` Environmental Impact Study. 9.1.3 The EIS report stated that following the development of the site, the amount of previous sandy surfaces available for infiltration can be expected to decrease. An analysis was conducted to estimate the potential impact of the development on the baseflows in REPORT PD-91-99 PAGE 8 Farewell Creek. It was concluded that there would be a negligible reduction in base flow due to the development of the site. 9.1.4 Defining adevelopment limit adjacent to the Farewell Creek valley was established by reviewing the valley hazard limit, the visual top-of-bank, and the ecological limit from the valley forest. The Valley hazard limit represents a setback to minimize the risk from flooding and long term erosion of the valley. The visual top-of-bank represents the physical edge of the valley and the ecological limit represents the transition between mature, relatively undisturbed forest vegetation and immature, planted or thinned trees near the top-of-bank. An additional setback from these limits was also incorporated to allow future access to the valley. 9.1.5 An interim EIS report was submitted for review and discussion in May. The report suggested a development limit based on existing physical and ecological characteristics. The EIS Steering Committee, consisting of a Planning and Public Works staff, the applicant's consultant, a CLOCA representative and two neighbourhood residents, reviewed the report at a meeting held on May 21, 1999. As a result of the EIS findings, and the discussions held at the Steering Committee meeting, the proposed subdivision plan was revised by decreasing the boulevard width, and reducing the lot depths. This allowed for a shift of the developable area to the south and east, resulting in a development limit setback from the top-of-bank which was satisfactory to staff and the conservation authority. 9.1.6 As noted in Section 9.1.2, the original plan of subdivision depicted the rear lot lines of Blocks 13 to 22 at the top-of-bank line. It also was close to or within the required 5 metre setback for Lots 7 to 9. The revised plan of subdivision now has the top-of-bank line a minimum of 4.5 metres from the rear property line of all lots and blocks. A 4.5 metre setback is deemed appropriate and in conformity with the policies contained in Section 24.5 of the Official Plan. REPORT PD-91-99 PAGE 9 9.1.7 The study concluded with a recommended development limit which is depicted in Attachment No. 3 and listed the following recommendations: • a tree preservation analysis should be undertaken to seek opportunities to incorporate and transplant individual specimens on the development lands; • grading plans should be finalized in consultation with a qualified ecologist in order to protect valuable trees with roots extending into the development lands; • although the anticipated reduction in baseflow is negligible, Best Management Practices (BMPs) which promote infiltration should be used to best preserve the existing hydrologic cycle; • to minimize bank erosion, lot grading plans should be designed to prevent overland runoff from draining over the face of the valley wall at concentrated locations; • an Erosion and Sediment Control Plan should be prepared as part of future detailed design with particular emphasis on the protection of the valley wall; • sediment and erosion control measures should be inspected frequently during construction; • monitoring should be undertaken to ensure that the forest edge treatments and water management practices are effective in protecting valley functions; • stewardship guidelines be prepared for homeowners, and consideration be given to incorporate tree conservation easements only in areas upgradient from the ecological limit. 9.2 Public Information Centre 9.2.1 Tree Preservation The Council approved Guidelines for the Preparation of Environmental Impact studies require that a Public Information Centre be held after the submission of the first draft of the EIS. The Public Information Centre was held on July 7, 1999. Eleven citizens attended, nine of which were from the immediate neighbourhood. Six written comments were submitted. Five of those addressed the same concern, that being the preservation of existing trees along the rear lot lines of Lot 6 and Block 11 and the relocation or planting of new trees along the rear lot lines of Lots 1 to 5. The developer provided a verbal commitment to preserve as many trees as possible and to replant or plant new trees, where requested. One of the neighbourhood representatives on the EIS Steering Committee provided a written submission on the EIS (Attachment No. 4) noting that "support for the development was strictly conditional upon the creation of a sustainable, effective, and REPORT PO-91-99 PAGE 10 durable vegetative visual barrier between the proposed dwellings and(their)properties". The EIS specifically identified large tree specimens on the western boundary of the plan of subdivision which they recommended for preservation, those being a Yellow Birch on Lot 7, a Sugar Maple and an Ash on Lot 8, and a Yellow Birch on Lot 10. Staff concur with the neighbourhood residents' concerns, and the recommendations of the EIS, and have included the preservation and planting of trees along Lots 1 to 6 and Block 11,and the preservation of trees on Lots 7, 8 and 10 in the conditions of draft approval. The preservation of these trees or planting of new trees will also depend on the required servicing, grading and drainage of the lots as indicated in the comments provided by Clarington Public Works. The sixth written comment addressed the reduced road allowance width,the court turning circle, potential parking problems and snow storage. Comments were also provided on the need for future homeowners stewardship of the valley areas. 9.3 Parking,Road Allowance and Valley Stewardship 9.3.1 The standard width of a local road allowance is 20 metres. This would include 8.5 metres of paved area, with the balance being sidewalks and grassed boulevard. The road allowance within this plan of subdivision has been reduced to 18 metres in order to shift the developable area further east away from the top-of-bank line for the Creek. The 2 metre reduction is in the boulevard width, not in the paved area. There will still be a 8.5 metre wide paved section so there will be no impact on the driveable portion of the road. As this development is entirely single detached units, snow storage will not be an issue as -there are fewer driveways than higher density developments leaving more boulevard to store the snow. The court turning circle has not been reduced in size. 9.3.2 The applicant submitted a parking plan for review and comment. The proposed plan of subdivision contains all single detached lots with frontage of 16 metres or greater. The applicant's agent has confirmed that these lots have been designed to accommodate large homes with double car garages. Therefore, each lot will have accommodation to park four vehicles on the property, two being within the garage space and two being in the J) REPORT PD-91-99 PAGE 11 doublewide driveway. This available on-site parking will help eliminate any excessive on street parking problems. The Clarington Public Works Department has reviewed the parking plan and concurs that on street parking should not be an issue for this development. Specific requirements addressing parking spaces are included in the conditions of draft approval. 9.3.3 The neighbourhood resident's concerns on the importance of the Farewell Creak valley system and the protection of its environmental resources can be addressed through stewardship guidelines for home owners. Staff will investigate the development of these guidelines in conjunction with groups which are currently practicing environmental monitoring programs. The conditions of draft approval will contain a requirement that the applicant be responsible for the preparation of these guidelines in conjunction with the Municipality, with such guidelines being registered on title of each of the residential lots. 10. CONCLUSION 10.1 The urban residential zoning has existed on this property since By-law 84-63 was approved in 1984. The Highland Gardens subdivision was designed to incorporate the development of these lands when the zoning was established in 1987. Municipal services were also provided to allow for the court's connection. All environmental issues have been reviewed through the EIS and the conditions of draft approval will ensure that both the EIS' recommendations and the neighbourhood residents' concerns are addressed. 10.2 In consideration of the submissions received from the various departments and agencies and the comments contained within this report, it is recommended that the application for proposed plan of subdivision be approved subject to the conditions of draft approval listed in Attachment No. 5. r PACE 12' � : te,"".,3 wys ' 1gaf t.,4 x'�' 1A, Reviewed by x : id 1.Cro M.C.I.P.,R.P.P. Franklin Wu,M.C.I.P.,R.P.P., Director of Planning&Development Chief Administrative Officer x ID*LDT"cc July 12, 1999 Attachment No. 1 - Key Map Attachment No. 2 - Proposed draft plan of subdivision Attachment No. 3 - Recommended development limit. Attachment No. 4 Steering Committee member submission Attachment No. 5 - Conditions of Draft Approval Interested parties to be notified of Council and Committee's decision: ATTACHMENT-U1 ® SUBJECT SITE OTHER LANDS OWNED BY APPLICANT LOT 33 LOT 32 � O HIGHLAND V)PARK T cn --� .............. w STR U Z O o `.; :•...::.:::.:::::.: :. U y SH R A A N KEY M 18T_9801 2 KEY MAP P AT:. TACHMENT / 2 F YMM We �3 ask. so a r1 / •_ D IIY w�!1 aY iN3 y ! BBOODD gdk yz;10 It PIS I of !;t W � o J a MULL CRESCENT W ° rar, ezc � • J � Of E pN i t 9 MIL m ,a b _ N� ^ V P e r i Me SA37001 Residential Development I ATTACHMENT #t3 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STUDY The McLellan Court Residential Development (Proposed Plan of Subdivision 18 T-98012) DEVELOPMENT LIMITS f xre r BILK 220 200 A v C7 201 w E p.] z i 70 807 BILK 24 N OPEN SPACE \ \\\ a Z 202 W Iq � IU 1 $ N6 0 �zb C Y J n YU'30'E � PROPOSED y r0 1py y Qy� REAP LOT LINE 8 � Rq®mdednwdopmmt �� �N.2° �'pe �°➢ •' 109 110 111 2 $ BLK 21 ' J Q DEVONDALE STREET +NYC 75 © f > Y PLAN q107 74 2 y 108 N 7Y3 V E >3P3 73 The following factors were considered to define the recommended development limit: -top of bank limit -valley hazard limit(flooding and erosion) -ecological limit -relevant setbacks for future valley access. ATTACHMENT 0 4 II i June 28, 1999 Janice Auger Szwarz, Senior Planner Municipality of Clarington 40 Temperance Street, Bowmanville, Ontario L1C 3A6 Dear Ms. Szwarz: SubiecC McLellan Court Environmental Impact Study As I canvassed my neighbours with respect to the subject proposed development it became clear that our support for the development was strictly conditional upon the creation of a sustainable, effective, and durable vegetative visual barrier between the proposed dwellings and our properties. It was my impression that the developer's representative did not regard this as an insurmountable burden. We would be very appreciative if you could advise as to the status of this aspect of the proposal at your earliest convenience. Yours very truly, �` L� /7 L Paul B. Sormnerville ATTACHMENT i 5 CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL OF FINAL PLAN REGISTRATION PLAN IDENTIFICATION 1. That this approval applies to draft Plan of Subdivision 18T-98012 prepared by D. G. Biddle and Associated Limited dated (revised) June 8, 1999 showing Lots 1 to 10 and Blocks 13 to 22 inclusive for single detached dwellings,Block 23 and 24 for Open Space, Block 25 to be retained and a 0.23 ha parcel for road allowance. FINAL PLAN REQUIREMENTS 2. That the street within the Plan of Subdivision shall be dedicated as public highway and shown as such on the final plan. 3. That the street shall be named to the satisfaction of the Municipality of Clarington and shown on the final plan. REQUIREMENTS TO BE SATISFIED PRIOR TO SUBDIVISION AGREEMENT 4. That the Owner shall retain a qualified landscape architect to prepare and submit a Landscaping Plan to the Director of Public Works and the Director of Planning and Development for review and approval. The Landscaping Plan shall reflect the design criteria of the Municipality as amended from time to time. 5. That the Owner shall retain a qualified Engineer to prepare and submit a Hydrogeologist Report to the Director of Planning and Development to demonstrate that the proposed development will not adversely impact the existing wells in the surrounding areas. 6. That the Owner shall retain a professional engineer to prepare and submit a Master Drainage and Lot Grading Plan to the Director of Public Works for review and approval. All plans and drawings must conform to the Municipality's Design Criteria as amended from time to time. 2 -2- CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL OF FINAL PLAN REGISTRATION REQUIREMENTS TO BE SATISFIED PRIOR TO SUBDIVISION AGREEMENT (CONT'D) 7. That the Owner shall retain a qualified consultant to prepare and submit a Tree Preservation plan to the Director of Planning and Development and Director of Public Works for review and approval and that a tree preservation analysis be undertaken to seek opportunities to incorporate transplant individual specimens on the development lands. REQUIREMENTS TO BE INCLUDED IN SUBDIVISION AGREEMENT 8. That the Owner shall enter into a Subdivision Agreement with the Municipality and agree to abide by all terms and conditions of the Municipality's standard subdivision agreement, including, but not limited to, the requirements that follow. 9. That all easements, road widening, and reserves as required by the Municipality shall be granted to the Municipality free and clear of all encumbrances. 10. That the Owner shall pay to the Municipality at the time of execution of the subdivision agreement, five percent (5%) cash-in-lieu of parkland dedication . 11. That the builder include a disclosure in all purchase and sale agreements advising home buyers of municipal parking regulations. 12. That Owner acknowledges and agrees to provide two (2) outdoor parking spaces for each single detached dwelliing unit to be constructed within draft plan of subdivision 18T- 98012. Where the two outdoor parking spaces are provided side by side, the combined minimum width of the two spaces may be reduced to 4.6 metres provided the minimum landscaped open space within the front yard is thirty (30%) percent. 3 -3- CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL OF FINAL PLAN REGISTRATION REQUIREMENTS TO BE INCLUDED IN SUBDIVISION AGREEMENT (CONT'D) 13. Any parking space within a garage shall have a minimum width of 3.0 metres and a minimum area of 18.58 mz. 14. That the Owner shall pay to the Municipality, the development charge in accordance to the Development Charge By-law as amended from time to time, as well as payment of a portion of front end charges pursuant to the Development Charge Act if any are required to be paid by the owner. 15. That the Owner shall provide and install sidewalks, street lights, temporary turning circles etc. as per the Municipality's standards and criteria. 16. That the Owner shall cause all utilities, including, hydro, telephone, Cable TV, etc. to be buried underground. 17. That the Owner shall provide the Municipality, at the time of execution of the subdivision agreement unconditional and irrevocable, Letters of Credit acceptable to the Municipality's Treasurer, with respect to Performance Guarantee, Maintenance Guarantee, Occupancy Deposit and other guarantees or deposit as may be required by the Municipality. 18. That the Owner shall adhere to architectural control requirements of the Municipality. 19. That prior to the issuance of building permits, access routes to the subdivision must be provided to meet Subsection 3.2.5.2(6) of the Ontario Building Code and, that all watermains and hydrants are fully serviced and the Owner agrees that during construction, fire access routes be maintained according to Subsection 2.5.1.2 of the Ontario Fire Code, storage of combustible waste be maintained as per Subsection 2.4.1.1 and open burning as per Subsection 2.6.3.4 of the Ontario Fire Code. -4- CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL OF FINAL PLAN REGISTRATION REQUIREMENTS TO BE INCLUDED IN SUBDIVISION AGREEMENT (CONT'D) 20. The Owner agrees that where the well or private water supply of any person is interfered with as a result of construction or the development of the subdivision, the Owner shall at his expense, either connect the affected party to municipal water supply system or provide a new well or private water system so that water supplied to the affected parry shall be of quality and quantity at least equal to the quality and quantity of water enjoyed by the affected party prior to the interference. 21. That the applicant provide the Planning Department, on disk in a CAD format acceptable to the Municipality a copy of the Plan of Subdivision as draft approved and the 40M Plan. 22. That grading plans be finalized in consultation with a qualified ecologist in order to protect valuable trees with roots extending into the development lands. 23. That stewardship guidelines be prepared for homeowners, and that consideration be given to incorporate tree conservation easements only in areas upgradient from the ecological limit. 24. That Best Management Practices (BMPs) which promote infiltration be used to best preserve the existing hydrologic cycle. 25. That lot grading plans be designed to prevent overland runoff from draining over the face of the valley wall at concentrated locations. 26. That an Erosion and Sediment Control Plan be prepared as part of future detailed design with particular emphasis on the protection of the valley wall; 27. That sediment and erosion control measures be inspected frequently during construction. 28. That monitoring be undertaken to ensure that the forest edge treatments and water management practices are effective in protecting valley functions.