The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About09/04/2007 Energizing Ontario`� GENERAL PURPOSE AND ADMINISTRATION COMMITTEE DATE: September 4, 2007 TIME: 7:00 P.M. PLACE: COUNCIL CHAMBERS 1. ROLL CALL 2. DISCLOSURES OF PECUNIARY INTEREST 3. MINUTES (a) Minutes of a Regular Meeting of July 30, 2007 301 4. (a) PRESENTATIONS (i) Steven Rowe, regarding Gap Analysis of EA Process and Site Selection Peer Review (ii) Stacey Fernandes & Dr. Doug Chambers, SENES Consulting Limited, regarding Peer Review of Generic Human Health and Ecological Risk Assessment, a component of the Durham/York Residual Waste EA. (iii) Dr. Tony Van der Vooren, AMEC Consultants, regarding Air Quality aspects of Generic Human Health, Ecological Risk Assessment and Site Selection segment of the Durham/York Residual Waste EA (b) DELEGATIONS (i) Kim Gavine, Foundation for Success on the Oak Ridges Moraine (ii) Frank Lockhart, Valleys 2000 Update (iii) Shirley Crago, regarding actions taken by Council at GP& A meetings (iv) Delbert Grills, Removal of a member from the Property Standards Committee (v) Matthew Johnston, Rezoning and Draft Plan of Subdivision Applications — Report PSD-101-07 (vi) Jaison Gibson, Durham/York Residual Waste EA and Cancer Treatment Facility CORPORATION OF THE MUNICIPALITY OF CLARINGTON 40 TEMPERANCE STREET, BOWMANVILLE, ONTARIO L1C 3A6 T 905-623-3379 G.P. & A. Agenda - 2 - September 4, 2007 (vii) David Climenhage, Durham/York Residual Waste EA (viii) Karen Buck, Durham/York Residual Waste EA (ix) Wendy Cartwright, Durham/York Residual Waste EA (x) Suzanne McCrimmon, Durham/York Residual Waste EA (xi) Kerry Meydam, Durham/York Residual Waste EA (xii) Shirley Crago, Durham/York Residual Waste EA (xiii) Kristen Robinson, Durham/York Residual Waste EA (xiv) Jim Richards, Durham/York Residual Waste EA (xv) Linda Gasser, Durham/York Residual Waste EA (xvi) Paul-Andre Larose, Durham/York Residual Waste EA (xvii) Don Wilkinson, Durham/York Residual Waste EA (xviii) Katherine McKeever, Durham/York Residual Waste EA (xix) Katherine Miles, Durham/York Residual Waste EA (xx) Wendy Bracken, Durham/York Residual Waste EA (xxi) Wayne Ellis, Durham/York Residual Waste EA (xxii) Kathi Bracken, Durham/York Residual Waste EA (xxiii) Alexandra Bennett, Durham/York Residual Waste EA (xxiv) Barry Bracken, Durham/York Residual Waste EA (xxv) Debra Jefferson, Durham/York Residual Waste EA 5. PUBLIC MEETINGS (a) Application to Amend Zoning By-Law 501 Applicant: William and Jean Kimball Report: PSD-094-07 (b) Application to Amend the Clarington Official Plan and Zoning By-Law 503 Applicant: Durham Church Network Report: PSD-095-07 G.P. &A. Agenda - 3 - September 4, 2007 (c) Application to Amend Zoning By-Law 84-63 505 Applicant: Hybridyne Power System Canada Report: PSD-096-07 6. PLANNING SERVICES DEPARTMENT (a) PSD-094-07 Proposed Zoning by-Law Amehdment to Facilitate the 601 Severance of a Hamlet Residential Lot Applicant: William and Jean Kimball (b) PSD-095-07 Proposed Official Plan and Zoning By-Law Amendments to 608 Permit a Place of Worship, Associated Day Care Facilities, Parking Lot and Playing Fields Applicant: The Durham Church Network (c) PSD-096-07 Solar Energy Generation Facility 618 Applicant: Hybridyne Power System Canada (d) PSD-097-07 Update on Municipal Peer Review of DurhamNork 637 Residual Waste Environmental Assessment (e) PSD-098-07 Monitoring of the Decisions of the Committee of 699002 Adjustment for the Meetings of July 26 and August 16, 2007 (f) PSD-099-07 Minor Variance to Sign By-Law 97-157 699015 Applicant: Terren's Wellness Centre, Orono (g) PSD-100-07 Proposed Regional Official Plan Amendment — Community 699022 Improvement Plans (h) PSD-101-07 Minutes of Settlement for Rezoning and Draft Plan of 699033 Subdivision Applications to Permit Medium Density Residential Uses Applicant: First-Tech Mechanical Systems Inc. Maria Wulczyn, and Percy Napper (i) PSD-102-07 Minutes of Settlement for Appeal to Amended Conditions 699058 of Draft Approved Plan of Subdivision Headgate Developments Inc. (j) PSD-103-07 Source Water Protection Regions and Committees 699066 G.P. &A. Agenda -4 - September 4, 2007 7. ENGINEERING SERVICES DEPARTMENT (a) EGD-050-07 Monthly Report On Building Permit Activity For July, 2007 701 8. OPERATIONS DEPARTMENT No Reports 9. EMERGENCY AND FIRE SERVICES DEPARTMENT No Reports 10. COMMUNITY SERVICES DEPARTMENT (a) CSD-012-07 Hydro One Networks Inc. — Capital Cost Recovery 1001 Agreement, Newcastle & District Recreation Complex (b) CSD-013-07 Lakeridge Health Oshawa Cardiovascular and 1011 Rehabilitation Program 11. CLERK'S DEPARTMENT No Reports 12. CORPORATE SERVICES DEPARTMENT (a) COD-046-07 Tender Awards Summer Council Break 1201 13. FINANCE DEPARTMENT (a) FND-016-07 Annual Leasing Report - 2007 1301 14. CHIEF ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICE No Reports 15. UNFINISHED BUSINESS 16. OTHER BUSINESS (a) 2008 Budget —tabled by Resolution GPA466-07 on June 18, 2007 1501 17. ADJOURNMENT CI .,a; OIl General Purpose and Administration Committee Minutes July 30, 2007 Minutes of a meeting of the General Purpose and Administration Committee held on Monday, July 30, 2007 at 9:30 a.m., in the Council Chambers. ROLL CALL Present Were: Mayor J. Abernethy Councillor A. Foster Councillor R. Hooper Councillor M. Novak Councillor G. Robinson Councillor C. Trim Councillor W. Woo Also Present: Chief Administrative Officer, F. Wu Facilities Manager, Community Services,G. Acorn Manager, Transportation & Design, Engineering Services, L. Benson Director of Planning Services, D. Crome Solicitor, D. Hefferon attended the meeting at 11:10 a.m. Director of Operations, F. Horvath Director of Corporate Services, M. Marano Deputy Treasurer. L. Gordon Fire Chief, Emergency Services, G. Weir Clerk II, E. Atkinson Municipal Clerk, Patti Barrie Mayor Abernethy chaired this portion of the meeting. DISCLOSURES OF PECUNIARY INTEREST Councillor Hooper indicated that he would be stating a pecuniary interest with respect to the delegation of Bill Stockwell and Report COD-043-07 MINUTES Resolution #GPA-472-07 Moved by Councillor Robinson, seconded by Councillor Trim THAT the General Purpose and Administration Committee minutes of the regular meeting held on June 18, 2007, be approved. CARRIED 301 General Purpose and Administration Committee Minutes July 30 2007 PRESENTATIONS Doug Allingham, TSH Engineers, Architects & Planners and Dan Remollino addressed the committee regarding the 407 EA Preferred Route. Mr. Remollino stated that there is still work that needs to be completed over the next 2 years and realizes there will be questions. He is available anytime to discuss issues and concerns. He also stated that all the information regarding the 407 extension evaluation process was very comprehensive and is being finalized and will be available for viewing on the website shortly. Mr. Allingham provided a PowerPoint Presentation out-lining the routes that were chosen and why they were chosen. DELEGATIONS Resolution #GPA-473-07 Moved by Councillor Robinson, seconded by Councillor Foster THAT the Agenda be altered to add Suzanne McCrimmon, Kerry Meydam, Shirley Crago, Kristen Robinson, Jim Richards, Karen Buck, Jaison Gibson, Linda Gasser, Paul-Andre Larose, Don Wilkinson, Katherine McKeever, Katherine Miles, Barry Bracken, Wendy Bracken, Wayne Ellis, Kathi Bracken and Alexandra Bennett to the list of Delegations; THAT the Agenda be altered to hear Kerry Meydam's delegation regarding Black Creek Developments following Libby Racansky; and THAT Alexandra Bennett be the first speaker regarding the DurhamNork Residual Waste project. CARRIED Libby Racansky addressed the Committee regarding the Ontario Stewardship Rangers and how they helped her with the removal of the invasive species within the Black-Farewell watershed. Ms. Racansky stated that she feels if the Municipality of Clarington had effective by-laws and OP policies and if the developer's EIS statements were truthful and beneficial to our society, there would not be any negative impacts visible in our watersheds in general. She feels that it should have been the Municipality of Clarington's responsibility to arrange for the clean-up and she requested that the Municipality of Clarington thank the Ontario Stewardship Rangers in writing. Libby Racansky spoke to the Committee regarding Report PSD-092-07, Black Creek Developments. She has concerns regarding the wetlands along George Reynolds Drive and would like to see the planning exercises of the Municipality of Clarington changed. Ms. Racansky feels the development will create devastating effects on the environment in the surrounding areas. - 2 - 302 General Purpose and Administration Committee Minutes July 30 2007 Kerry Meydam spoke regarding Report#PSD-092-07, Black Creek Developments and her concerns regarding the wetlands. She stated that any further developments will have a great detrimental effect on the wetlands and other environmentally sensitive areas. Ms. Meydam would like to see the development to the north of George Reynolds Drive denied. Glenn Genge, DG Biddle Associates addressed the Committee regarding Report #PSD-092-07, Black Creek Developments. Mr. Genge stated that they had reviewed the report and are in agreement with it. Jesse Parsons addressed the Committee regarding Camfest and Underwear Pick Up/Donation. Mr. Parsons provided an update on the Clarington Arts & Music Festival being held on August 25th, 2007and a brief outline of the events that would be taking place during the festival as well as a brief outline of the entertainers that would be performing. Underwear donations were received from the Committee for the sculpture being created by Jason Skinner. Councillor Hooper stated a pecuniary interest with respect to the delegation of Bill Stockwell and refrained from discussion on the subject matter. Councillor Hooper indicated that his parents reside in Wilmot Creek. Bill Stockwell addressed the Committee regarding the Waterfront Trail through Wilmot Creek Community. Mr. Stockwell stated that the residents feel they will lose their privacy and feeling of security if the trail continues the route that it is scheduled to take. Mr. Stockwell asked that the Committee refer the scheduled route back to staff for further review. The residents of Wilmot Creek signed a petition which Mr. Stockwell submitted to the Committee. Mr. Stockwell stated that he was unsure whether or not notification was sent out to the residents or if there was a public meeting on the trail route. Karin Dieter spoke to the Committee requesting an Exemption from Special Events By-Law Requirements. Ms. Dieter stated that she planning a music festival in support of the RS McLaughlin Durham Regional Cancer Centre and she was unaware of the need for a Special Events permit. Ms. Dieter gave a PowerPoint Presentation outlining dates, times and location of"Boonie Fest". She advised the Committee that she is looking into hiring a private security company to help out at the Fest because of the number of people 200 that are expected to attend. She assured the Committee that P P � ) P all other requirements of the By-Law are being addressed and this request is only for the requirement to obtain the Special Event Permit 30 days prior to the event. Linda Gasser addressed the Committee regarding the 407 EA Preferred Route. Ms. Gasser feels that the 407 Route will have a great impact on the Durham Region and stated that she would like to see the Municipality of Clarington obtain qualified consultants to review the preferred routes, considering there has been no consultant input on behalf of the Municipality since 2003. - 3 - 303 General Purpose and Administration Committee Minutes July 30 2007 Resolution # GPA-474-07 Moved by Councillor Robinson, seconded by Councillor Woo THAT the Committee recess for 10 minutes. CARRIED The meeting resumed at 11:45 a.m. Alexandra Bennett addressed the Committee regarding the Durham/York Residual Waste project. Ms. Bennett provided a PowerPoint presentation showing the Impact of Waste Incineration on Human Health. She also spoke regarding guidelines versus regulations and how 28 countries have higher air standards than Canada does. She questioned if the technology had been selected and asked who authorized the hiring of Ramboll. Kerry Meydam addressed the Committee regarding the Durham/York Residual Waste project, voicing her concerns on the entire process and the selection of consultants that were apparently hired by the Region. Ms. Meydam also stated that she was disappointed that the interim Report had been pulled from the Agenda and she would like the Report to be made available to the public before the September 4, 2007 General Purpose and Administration meeting. Ms. Meydam would still like to see an independent Peer Review done. Shirley Crago spoke to the Committee regarding the Durham/York Residual Waste project. Ms. Crago would like to see the Municipality of Clarington promote the 7 R's — Reduce, Reuse, Recycle, Research, Remove, React and Refuse. Ms. Crago feels the onus should be put on the manufacturer's to reduce the packaging of their products. Kristin Robinson addressed the Committee regarding the Durham/York Residual Waste project. Ms. Robinson stated that she realizes the incinerators are cleaner today than they were years ago, however, she still feels it is not the route to take. Ms. Robinson spoke about potential health risks to humans and animals as well as packaging used in today's society. Her biggest concern with the energy from waste facilities is that the David Suzuki Foundation is against them. Jim Richards addressed the Committee regarding the Durham/York Residual Waste. Mr. Richards stated that he was disappointed the Report was not on the Agenda and he would like to have the report released to the public immediately. Karen Buck addressed the Committee regarding the Durham/York Residual Waste project, stating concerns with the air emissions from incinerators and health risks. Ms. Buck also has concerns with guidelines versus regulations. She would like to see a zero waste sustainable society. - 4 - 304 General Purpose and Administration Committee Minutes July 30 2007 Jaison Gibson addressed the Committee regarding the DurhamNork Residual Waste project. As a father of two children, he is concerned with the health risks involved with the project. Mr. Gibson would like to see Clarington unified and find logical and sustainable solutions; he would not want the Municipality of Clarington to put profit before people. Linda Gasser addressed the Committee regarding the DurhamNork Residual Waste project. Ms. Gasser was disappointed that the Report was not on the agenda and she would like to have the report made available to the public immediately. Resolution # GPA475-07 Moved by Councillor Robinson, seconded by Councillor Foster THAT the Committee recess for 1 hour. CARRIED The meeting resumed at 2:00 p.m. Paul-Andre Larose addressed the Committee regarding the DurhamNork Residual Waste project. Mr. Larose feels this is the time for intellectual honestly. He would like to see an independent Peer Review done. Mr. Larose's concerns include truck traffic, importing of garbage, and all financial costs. Don Wilkinson was called but was not present. Katherine McKeever was called but was not present. Katherine Miles addressed the Committee regarding the DurhamNork Residual Waste project. Ms. Miles has concerns regarding health risks/effects and would like to see Clarington look at zero waste initiatives as a solution to the trash problems instead of an incinerator. Wendy Bracken addressed the Committee regarding the DurhamNork Residual Waste project. Ms. Bracken expressed her disappointment with the report not being on the agenda. She feels the standards are based on old studies and she has concerns regarding the air quality associated with incinerators. Wayne Ellis spoke to the Committee regarding the DurhamNork Residual Waste project. Mr. Ellis feels that zero waste is the direction to take and stated he would like Clarington to say "No" to hosting a incinerator. - 5 - 305 General Purpose and Administration Committee Minutes July 30 2007 Kathi Bracken spoke to the Committee regarding the DurhamNork Residual Waste project. Ms. Bracken feels that saying yes to an incinerator is a copout. Her concerns are importing of waste from other municipalities, traffic congestion, smog, dangerous emissions, and food chain toxicants. Ms. Bracken is worried because Clarington already has two nuclear plants and a cement factory; she does not want an incinerator as well. Louis Bertrand addressed the Committee regarding the DurhamNork Residual Waste. Mr. Bertrand moved to Bowmanville 15 years ago and was proud because Clarington showed leadership in waste reduction by the way of green boxes, blue boxes and computer recycling. He believes that an incinerator will have the opposite effect on people and they will not recycle as much as they are now. Mr. Bertrand would like to see both the Municipal Council and the Regional Council reject the incinerator and make the Provincial Government accountable for waste reduction by creating an active law on consumer and industrial packaging and waste removal. Councillor Novak chaired this portion of the meeting. PUBLIC MEETING (a) Subject: Application to Amend Zoning By-Law 84-63 Applicant: Hybridyne Power system Canada Report: PSD-089-07 Janaka Wijesundara, Senior Planner, Planning Services Department provided a verbal report supported by a PowerPoint presentation pertaining to Report PSD-089-07. Karen Buck spoke in opposition to the application contained in Report PSD-089-07. Ms. Buck does not like the idea of the land being stripped. She is in favour of the idea of solar panel energy but would like to see them put on flat roof tops, or on windows which would serve dual purpose by providing shade, or as roofs over parking lots. Paul-Andre Larose spoke in opposition to the application contained in Report PSD-089-07. He feels it is a noble initiative but does not want to see good farm land be taken out of production. Mr. Larose feels there are other areas that could be used for the solar panel farm. He feels that Wind farms should be looked at as well. Jim Bargent spoke in opposition to the application contained in Report PSD-089-07. Mr. Bargent lives on Brownsville Road and he has no issues with what the land is going to be used for but he does have concerns over the boundary and buffer zone. Mr. Bargent would like to see the buffer zone increased and better protected, perhaps by use of a fence. - 6 306 General Purpose and Administration Committee Minutes July 30 2007 Dan Boudreau spoke in opposition to the application contained in Report PSD-089-07. Mr. Boudreau has concerns regarding the buffer zone and what will be used as buffers. He stated that he does not want trees planted on the property line nor a fence, he would however like to see trees planted farther onto the property so he does not have to look out onto a solar panel farm. David Whalmsley, consultant for Hybridyne appeared before the Committee and stated that the solar farm is not permanent and that the land could be used again as farm land because it was not going to be stripped. Mr. Whalmsley advised the Committee that the property will have a security fence erected around the panels and the whole site will be maintained. There will be a 10 meter buffer zone with trees. He informed the Committee that the lease agreement is for twenty years with the option to extend. There will be no storing of energy on the property and there are no dangerous chemicals that will be used on the property. PLANNING SERVICES DEPARTMENT SOLAR ENERGY GENERATION FACILITY APPLICANT: HYBRIDYNE POWER SYSTEM CANADA Resolution #GPA476-07 Moved by Councillor Robinson, seconded by Councillor Foster THAT Report PSD-089-07 be received; THAT, provided there are no major issues raised at the Public Meeting, the application for Zoning By-law Amendment (ZBA 2007-0035) submitted by Hybridyne Power System Canada to change the zoning category of 10.5 acres land from "Agricultural (A) Zone" to "Agricultural Exception Zone A 80" to allow the proposed solar energy generation facility be approved and that the By-law contained in Attachment 2 to Report PSD-089-07 be passed; and THAT all interested parties listed in Report PSD-089-07 and any delegations be advised of Council's decision. CARRIED - 7 - 307 General Purpose and Administration Committee Minutes July 30 2007 MONITORING OF THE DECISIONS OF THE COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT FOR THE MEETINGS OF JUNE 21 AND JULY 5, 2007 Resolution #GPA-477-07 Moved by Councillor Foster, seconded by Councillor Woo THAT Report PSD-090-07 be received; THAT Council concurs with the decisions of the Committee of Adjustment made on June 21 and July 5, 2007 for applications A2007-0027, A2007-0029, A2007-0031, A2007-0032, A2007-0033, and A2007-0035 through A2007-0037 inclusive and that Staff be authorized to appear before the Ontario Municipal Board to defend the decisions of the Committee of Adjustment; and THAT Council supports the appeal by the Regional Municipality of Durham to the Ontario Municipal Board with respect to the decision of the Committee of Adjustment on application A2007-0028 and authorizes staff to attend the hearing. CARRIED REZONING TO REDEFINE THE FRONT YARD OF SIX (6) TOWNHOUSE UNITS APPLICANT: PRESTONVALE HEIGHTS LIMITED Resolution #GPA-478-07 Moved by Mayor Abernethy, seconded by Councillor Hooper THAT Report PSD-091-07 be received; THAT the Rezoning Application submitted by Prestonvale Heights Limited be approved and that the Zoning By-law Amendment attached to Report PSD-091-07 be passed by Council; THAT a copy of Report PSD-091-07, and the amending By-law attached thereto be forwarded to the Durham Regional Planning Department; and THAT the Region of Durham, the applicant, the Municipal Property Assessment Corporation, all interested parties listed in Report PSD-091-07 and any delegations be advised of Council's decision and forwarded a Notice of Adoption. CARRIED - 8 - 308 General Purpose and Administration Committee Minutes July 30 2007 REZONING AND PROPOSED DRAFT PLAN OF SUBDIVISION TO PERMIT THE DEVELOPMENT OF 48 RESIDENTIAL UNITS APPLICANT: BLACK CREEK DEVELOPMENTS LTD. Resolution #GPA-479-07 Moved by Mayor Abernethy, seconded by Councillor Foster THAT Report PSD-092-07 be received; THAT the application for Draft Approval of the proposed Plan of Subdivision submitted by Black Creek Developments Ltd. be approved as contained in Attachment 2 to Report PSD-092-07, subject to the conditions of Draft Approval, contained in Attachment 4 to Report PSD-092-07; THAT the application for Zoning By-law Amendment, submitted by Black Creek Developments Ltd. be approved as contained in per Attachment 5 to Report PSD-092-07; THAT the Mayor and Clerk be authorized by By-law to enter into an agreement with the Owners and the By-law be forwarded to Council at such time as the Owners are prepared to proceed with this development; THAT a By-law to remove the "Holding (H) Symbol be forwarded to Council at such time as the Owners have entered into a subdivision agreement with the Municipality; THAT a copy of Report PSD-092-07 and Council's decision be forwarded to the Region of Durham Planning Department and the Municipal Property Assessment Corporation; and THAT all interested parties listed in Report PSD-092-07 and any delegations be advised of Council's decision. CARRIED Councillor Foster chaired this portion of the meeting. ENGINEERING SERVICES DEPARTMENT MONTHLY REPORT ON BUILDING PERMIT ACTIVITY FOR JUNE 2007 Resolution #GPA-480-07 Moved by Councillor Robinson, seconded by Councillor Trim THAT Report EGD-048-07 be received for information. CARRIED - 9 - 309 General Purpose and Administration Committee Minutes July 30 2007 AGREEMENT OF UNDERSTANDING FOR SPRINGFIELD MEADOWS 111 — 708545 ONTARIO LIMITED (GERANIUM HOMES) Resolution #GPA-481-07 Moved by Councillor Novak, seconded by Mayor Abernethy THAT Report EGD-049-07 be received; THAT the Mayor and Clerk be authorized to execute, on behalf of the Corporation of the Municipality of Clarington, the Agreement of Understanding with 708545 Ontario Limited (Geranium Homes) for the fill and grading works and the erosion and sedimentation control works on the east side of Prestonvale Road in Springfield Meadows (18T-95028); THAT the by-law attached to Report EGD-049-07 to confirm its decision to enter into the Agreement of Understanding with 708545 Ontario Limited (Geranium Homes) be forwarded to Council for approval; and THAT 708545 Ontario Limited (Geranium Homes) be notified of Council's decision and that the Agreement of Understanding be forwarded to them for execution once it has been drafted to the satisfaction of the Director of Engineering Services and the Municipality's Solicitor. CARRIED OPERATIONS DEPARTMENT There were no reports to be considered under this section of the Agenda. EMERGENCY AND FIRE SERVICES DEPARTMENT There were no reports to be considered under this section of the Agenda. COMMUNITY SERVICES DEPARTMENT There were no reports to be considered under this section of the Agenda. - 10 - 310 General Purpose and Administration Committee Minutes July 30 2007 CLERK'S DEPARTMENT APPOINTMENT OF PRIVATE PROPERTY PARKING ENFORCEMENT OFFICERS Resolution #GPA482-07 Moved by Councillor Trim, seconded by Councillor Woo THAT Report CLD-027-07 be received; THAT the by-laws attached to Report CLD-027-07 to appoint Parking Enforcement Officers for private property be forwarded to Council for approval; and THAT P.R.O. Security and Investigation Agency Inc. and Group 4 Securicor be advised of Council's actions. CARRIED QUARTERLY PARKING REPORT Resolution #GPA483-07 Moved by Councillor Novak, seconded by Councillor Foster THAT Report CLD-028-07 be received; and THAT a copy of Report CLD-028-07 be forwarded to the Bowmanville Business Centre for their information. CARRIED APPROVAL OF TILE DRAINAGE LOAN APPLICATION — DAVID HANNAH Resolution #GPA-484-07 Moved by Councillor Foster, seconded by Mayor Abernethy THAT Report CLD-029-07 be received; THAT the Tile Drainage Loan Application submitted by David Hannah in the amount of $6,400 be approved; THAT the by-law attached to Report CLD-029-07 be approved and forwarded, together with all necessary supporting documents, to the Regional Municipality of Durham for processing; and THAT David Hannah be advised of Council's decision. CARRIED - 11 - 311 General Purpose and Administration Committee Minutes July 30 2007 Mayor Abernethy chaired this portion of the meeting. CORPORATE SERVICES DEPARTMENT CL2007-32, ONE (1) NATURAL GAS POWERED ICE RESURFACER Resolution #GPA-485-07 Moved by Councillor Robinson, seconded by Councillor Woo THAT Report COD-042-07 be received; THAT Resurfice Corp., Elmira, Ontario with a total bid in the amount of$72,771.91 (excluding G.S.T.), being the lowest responsible bidder meeting all terms, conditions, and specifications of Tender CL2007-32, be awarded the contract to supply One (1) Natural Gas Powered Ice Resurfacer, as required by the Municipality of Clarington, Community Services Department; and THAT the total funds required be drawn from the 2007 Community Services Garnet B. Rickard Recreation Complex Capital Account#110-42-421-84214-7401. CARRIED CL2007-5, SALE OF ADVERTISING REQUIREMENTS RINK BOARD SIGNS & LED DISPLAY BOARDS Councillor Hooper stated a pecuniary interest with respect to Report COD-043-07, and refrained from discussion and voting on the subject matter. Councillor Hooper indicated that he is a client of the firm that is the subject of the report. Resolution #GPA-486-07 Moved by Councillor Trim, seconded by Councillor Foster THAT Report COD-043-07 be received; THAT Futuresign Multimedia Displays, Inc., Markham, Ontario with a total submission of $82,800.00 (excluding GST) being the highest responsible bidder meeting all terms, conditions and specifications of Tender CL2007-5, be awarded the contract to provide the marketing, sale of space and the production of Rink Boards at the Garnet B. Rickard Recreation Complex, Darlington Sports Arena and South Courtice Arena,as required by the Municipality of Clarington, Community Services Department; - 12 - 312 General Purpose and Administration Committee Minutes July 30 2007 THAT the By-law attached to Report COD-043-07 marked Schedule "A" authorizing the Mayor and the Clerk to execute the necessary agreement be approved; and THAT the total funds received be credited to the Community Services Advertising Fees Revenue Account#100-42-130-00000-6491. CARRIED CO-OPERATIVE TENDER T-282-2007 SUPPLY AND DELIVERY OF WINTER SAND Resolution#GPA-487-07 Moved by Councillor Trim, seconded by Councillor Robinson THAT Report COD-044-07 be received; THAT C.D.R. Young's Aggregates Inc., Pontypool with a unit price of$6.25 per tonne for Orono Yard, $6.60 per tonne for Hampton Yard and $6.70 per tonne for Depot#42 for the first year of the agreement and meeting all terms, conditions and specifications of the Co-operative Tender T-282-2007 be awarded the contract for the supply and delivery of winter sand to the Municipality of Clarington for a one-year term; THAT, pending satisfactory service and pricing, the contract be renewed for a second and third one-year term; and THAT the funds required be drawn from the Department of Operations various current operating accounts. CARRIED TENDER CL2007-33 ROOFTOP HVAC REPLACEMENT AT GARNET B. RICKARD RECREATION COMPLEX Resolution #GPA-488-07 Moved by Councillor Robinson, seconded by Councillor Hooper THAT Report COD-045-07 be received; THAT Canadian Tech Air Systems, Scarborough, Ontario with a total bid in the amount of $75,400.00 (plus G.S.T.), being the lowest responsible bidder meeting all terms, conditions, and specifications of Tender CL2007-33, be awarded the contract for the Replacement of Rooftop HVAC Equipment at Garnet B. Rickard Recreation Complex as required by the Community Services Department; - 13 - 313 General Purpose and Administration Committee Minutes July 30 2007 THAT the total funds required in the amount of$80,900.00 (plus GST) which includes $75,400.00 for equipment and $5,500.00 for consulting fees be drawn as follows: a. $50,000.00 from 2006 Capital Budget Account# 110-42-421-84231-7401; b. with the remaining funds in the amount of $30,900.00 being transferred from the 2007 Capital Budget Garnet B. Rickard Recreation Complex project#110-42-421-84214-7401; THAT the By-law attached to Report COD-045-07 marked Schedule "A" authorizing the Mayor and the Clerk to execute the necessary agreement be approved. CARRIED FINANCE DEPARTMENT CASH ACTIVITY — SECOND QUARTER OF 2007 Resolution #GPA-489-07 Moved by Councillor Trim, seconded by Councillor Novak THAT Report FND-015-07 be received; THAT in accordance with provision of Chapter 25, Section 268 of the Municipal Act, S.O. 2001, the Treasurer reports the cash position of the Municipality of Clarington for the second quarter of the year 2007, as shown on the schedule attached to Report FND-015-07; and THAT part "A" of the expenditures for the second quarter of the year be confirmed. CARRIED CHIEF ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICE There were no reports to be considered under this section of the Agenda. UNFINISHED BUSINESS Resolution #GPA490-07 Moved by Councillor Novak, seconded by Councillor Trim THAT Libby Racansky and the Ontario Stewardship Rangers be thanked for all the Community work that they have done with the clean up of the evasive species within the Black-Farewell watershed. CARRIED - 14 - 314 General Purpose and Administration Committee Minutes July 30 2007 Resolution #GPA-491-07 Moved by Councillor Foster, seconded by Councillor Woo THAT the delegation of Jesse Parsons be received with thanks; and THAT a Road Occupancy Permit be issued for the Camfest Event: CARRIED Resolution #GPA-492-07 Moved by Councillor Robinson, seconded by Councillor Trim THAT the delegation of Bill Stockwell regarding the Waterfront Trail be referred to staff; and THAT Bill Stockwell be advised of Council's discussion. CARRIED Resolution #GPA493-07 Moved by Councillor Novak, seconded by Councillor Hooper THAT the delegation of Karin Dieter regarding the "Boonie Fest" event be received; THAT the request to waive the 30 day requirement for issuance of a Special Event permit prior to the event be approved provided all other conditions of the by-law are met; and THAT Karin Dieter be advised of Council's decision. CARRIED Resolution #GPA-494-07 Moved by Councillor Novak, seconded by Councillor Hooper THAT the delegation of Linda Gasser regarding the Highway 407 project be received. CARRIED Resolution #GPA-495-07 Moved by Councillor Robinson, seconded by Councillor Woo THAT the delegation of Suzanne McCrimmon be received with thanks. CARRIED - 15 - 315 General Purpose and Administration Committee Minutes July 30 2007 Resolution #GPA-496-07 Moved by Councillor Novak, seconded by Councillor Robinson THAT all delegations regarding the DurhamNork Residual Waste project be received with thanks. CARRIED Resolution #GPA-497-07 Moved by Councillor Novak, seconded by Councillor Trim THAT presentation of Doug Allingham and Dan Remollino regarding the 407 EA be received with thanks and referred to the Director of Planning Services. CARRIED OTHER BUSINESS Resolution #GPA-498-07 Moved by Councillor Robinson, seconded by Councillor Trim WHEREAS Council on November 28, 2005 approved the repayment of the interest-free loan to the Clarington Farmers' Market through the Clarington Board of Trade at $2,500 at the end of the market season in 2006 and $2,500 at the end of the market season in 2007; WHEREAS the Farmers' Market repaid the 2006 installment as per the repayment plan; WHEREAS the Farmers' Market has the opportunity to obtain provincial funding for marketing provided that matching funds are provided by the organization; WHEREAS to leverage this opportunity, the Farmers' Market would need to use funds that would have been utilized for the 2007 installment; AND WHEREAS the Municipality of Clarington's Corporate Strategic Business Plan recently adopted by Council includes on page 9 under Economic Development, Objective 5 —to support agricultural initiatives, the specific action of supporting current and future agricultural initiatives and projects such as the Farmers' Market; NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED THAT the repayment of$2,500 at the end of the 2007 market season be deferred to the end of the 2008 market season. CARRIED - 16 - 316 General Purpose and Administration Committee Minutes July 30 2007 Resolution #GPA499-07 Moved by Councillor Woo, seconded by Councillor Hooper WHEREAS with the growing conflicts around the world and Canada's deployment of military personnel into these hotspots to quell the unrest and bring peace and stability to these regions, there are inherent risks to life and body; AND WHEREAS it is not our mandate at the municipal level to question the wisdom of our country's involvement in global areas of conflict; AND WHEREAS it has become acceptable to show support for our troops whether by wearing a yellow ribbon on our garments, tying a yellow ribbon around a tree or placing a magnetic or decal yellow ribbon on vehicles; NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that magnetic or decal yellow ribbons showing support for our troops be allowed to be placed on all municipally-owned vehicles. CARRIED ADJOURNMENT Resolution #GPA-500-07 Moved by Councillor Robinson, seconded by Councillor Foster THAT the meeting adjourn at 4:05 p.m. CARRIED MAYOR MUNICIPAL CLERK - 17 - 317 PUBLIC MEETING REPORT # PSD-094-07 CORPORATION OF THE WILLIAM AND JEAN KIMBALL (e, � M MUNICIPALITY OF CLARINGTON ll!/■I NOTICE OF PUBLIC MEETING Ain the Wa DEVEL�PMENvT APPLICATION BY: WILLIAM AND JEAN KIMBALL , AN APPLICATION TO AMEND THE CLARINGTON ZONING BY-LAW TAKE NOTICE that the Council of the Corporation of the Municipality of Clarington will consider a proposed Zoning By-law Amendment, under Section 34 of the Planning Act, 1990, as amended. APPLICATION DETALS The proposed Zoning By-law Amendment submitted by William and Jean Kimball facilitates the severance of a hamlet residential lot by rezoning the rear portion of the proposed lot from Agricultural Exception(fr1)to Residential Hamlet(RH). The subject property is located in Part Lot 8, Concession 2, former Township of Clarke, at 4548 Highway 2, Newtonville, as shown on reverse. Planning File No.:ZBA2007-0022 Related Planning File No.: LD2007-0008 PUBLIC MEETING The Municipality of Clarington will hold a public meeting to provide interested parties the opportunity to make comments, identify issues and provide additional information relative to the proposed development The public meeting will be held,on: DATE: Tuesday,September 4,2007 TIME: 7:00 p.m. PLACE: Council Chambers,2n° Floor, Municipal Administrative Centre, 40 Temperance St.,Bowmanv file, Ontario ANY PERSON may attend the public meeting and/or make written or verbal representation either in support of or in opposition to the proposal. The start time listed above reflects the time at which the General Purpose and Administration Committee Meeting commences. If you cannot attend the Public Meeting on this application you can make a deputation to Council at their meeting on Monday, September 10, 2007, commencing at 7:00 p.m. Should you wish to appear before Council, you must register with the Clerks Department by the Wednesday noon, September 5, 2007, to have your name appear in the Agenda. COMMENTS OR QUESTIONS? If you wish to make a written submission or if you wish to be notified of subsequent meetings or the approval of the proposed Zoning By-law Amendment, you must submit a written request to the Clerk's Department, 2rd Floor, 40 Temperance Street, Bowmanville,Ontario L1C 3A6. Additional information relating to the proposal is available for inspection between 8:00 a.m. and 4:00 p.m. at the Planning Services Department, 3`" Floor, 40 Temperance Street, Bowmanville, Ontario L1 3A6, or by calling Bob Russell at (905)623-3379 extension 341 or by e-mail at brussell @clarington.net. APPEAL If a person or public body that files a notice of appeal of a decision for the proposed Zoning By-law Amendment to the Ontario Municipal Board does not make oral submissions at a public meeting or does not make written submissions before the proposed Zoning By-law Amendment is approved, the Ontario Municipal Board may dismiss all or part of the appeal. Dated,gflt et Municipality of Clarington this 3rO day of August 2007. Davi Crome, M.C.I.P., R.P.P. 40 Temperance Street Director of Planning Services Bowmanville,Ontario Municipality of Clarington L1C 3A6 501 Property Location Map(Newtonvllle) i N73'19'10"E 108.35m I I II II E oo_ �O H A 4 AY R� E s � 3p h8 m 1 4 0 t ' � " S• 0 t XgXWAY 01 ao n 0 00 r ZBA 2007-0022 ZONING BY-LAW AMENDMENT „5g•95w� � ® Subject Site H Lando Subiact To Rozonino 1 ` ® Other Lands Owned By Applicant '; OV�N�C+• Owner: William and Charlotte Kimball PUBLIC MEETING CORPORATION THE REPORT A 5-07 9Mff MUNICIPALITY OF F CLARINGTON THE DURHAM M CHURCH NETWORK NOTICE OF PUBLIC MEETING IDEVELUPME►3T APPLICATION BY: DURHAM CHURCH NETWORK AN APPLICATION TO AMEND THE CLARINGTON OFFICIAL PLAN AND ZONING BY-LAW TAKE NOTICE that the Council of the Corporation of the Municipality of Clarington will consider a proposed Official Plan Amendment and a proposed Zoning By-law Amendment under Sections 17 and 34 respectively, of the Planning Act, 1990, as amended. APPLICATION DETAILS The proposed Official Plan Amendment and proposed Zoning By-law Amendment submitted by Durham Church Network would permit a place of worship, associated day care facilities, parking lot and playing fields. Application for Site Plan will be submitted should,the application for Official Plan and Zoning Amendments be successful The subject property is located in Part Lot 35, Concession 4, former Township of Darlington, at 1437 Taunton Road as shown on reverse. Planning File No.: ZBA2007-0029 Related Planning file No.: COPA2007-0009 PUBLIC MEETING The Municipality of Clarington will hold a public meeting to provide interested parties the opportunity to make comments, identify issues and provide additional information relative to the proposed development. The public meeting will be held on: DATE: Tuesday,September 4,2007 TIME: 7:00 p.m. PLACE: Council Chambers, 2"d Floor, Municipal Administrative Centre, 40 Temperance St., Bowmanville, Ontario ANY PERSON may attend the public meeting and/or make written or verbal-representation either in support of or in opposition to the proposal. The start time listed above reflects the time at which the General Purpose and Administration Committee Meeting commences. If you cannot attend the Public Meeting on this application you can make a deputation to Council at their meeting on Monday, September 10, 2007, commencing at 7:00 p.m. Should you wish to appear before Council, you must register with the Clerks Department by the Wednesday noon, September 5, 2007, to have your name appear in the Agenda. COMMENTS OR QUESTIONS? If you wish to make a written submission or if you wish to be noted of subsequent meetings or the adoption of the proposed Official Plan Amendment and approval of the Zoning By-law Amendment you must submit a written request to the Clerk's Department, 2nd Floor, 40 Temperance Street, Bowmanville, Ontario L1 C 3A6. An Official Plan Amendment adopted by the Municipality of Clarington is forwarded to the Region of Durham for approval, unless it is determined during the review process that the Amendment is exempt from Regional approval. For an exempt Amendment, the decision to adopt by Clarington Council becomes final, subject to any appeal during the statutory appeal period. Additional information relating to the proposal is available for inspection between 8:00 a.m. and 4:00 p.m. at the Planning Services Department, 3rd Floor, 40 Temperance Street, Bowmanville, Ontario L1C 3A6, or by calling Bob Russell at(905)623- 3379 extension 341 or by e-mail at brussell(ftlarinaton net. APPEAL If a person or public body that files a notice of appeal of a decision for the proposed Official Plan and Zoning By-law Amendments to the Ontario Municipal Board does not make oral submissions at a public meeting or does not make written submissions before the proposed Official Plan Amendment is adopted or the Zoning By-law Amendment is approved, the Ontario Municipal Board may dismiss all or part of the appeal. Dated Municiypaaliitty of Clarington this 3°° day of August, 2007. David Gforne, M.C.I.P., R.P.P. 40 Temperance Street Director of Planning Services Bowmanville, Ontario Municipality of Clarington L1C 3A6 503 Property Location Map (Former Darlington Twp.) II I o TAUNTON ROAD (Durham Regional Road 4) I I I "' II k (. II s 4 W U� NZ EL PMYER ., G- m GARDEN , — 0 a. • O- a DRIVEWAY — PARKING LOT SEPTIC I O- W LL ZBA 2007-0029 ZONIN.0 BY-LAVA!AMENDMENT ' COPA 2007-0009 Clarington Official Plan Ainendment Q_ •ul m , .vn IH• uo ..... l i�u• •m.p I Owner: David Fowler In Trust Of The Durham Church Network _ PUBLIC MEETING �j•,�r CORPORATION OF THE REPORT # PS➢-096-07 MUNICIPALITY OF CLARINGTON HYBRI➢YNE POWER SYSTEM CANA] Leading iAe Nay NOTICE OF PUBLIC MEETING DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION BY: Hybridyne Power System Canada AN APPLICATION TO AMEND THE ZONING BY-LAW 84-63 TAKE NOTICE that the Council of the Corporation of the Municipality of Clarington has deemed the abovntd application complete and will consider a proposed Zoning By-law Amendment, under Sections 17 and 34 respectively of the Planning Act, 1990,as amended. APPLICATION DETAILS The proposed Zoning By-law Amendment submitted by Hybddyne Power System Canada would change the zone category of 10.5 acres parcel of land from "Agricultural (A) Zone" to permit the construction of 2'mega watt solar Photo voltaic grid-connected renewable electricity generation plant which is comprised with approximately 11,000 solar panels and 10 power inverters stored in five 8 feet X 40 feet metal containers.The subject property is located in Part Lots 19, Concession 2,former township of Clarke,as shown on reverse. Planning File No: ZBA2007-0035 PUBLIC MEETING The Municipality of Clarington will hold a public meeting to provide interested parties the opportunity to make comments, identify issues and provide additional information relative to the proposed development The public meeting will be held on: DATE: Tuesday,September 4,2007 TIME: 7:00 p.m. PLACE: Council Chambers, 2nd Floor, Municipal Administrative Centre, 40 Temperance St.,Bowmanville,Ontario ANY PERSON may attend the public meeting and/or make written or verbal representation either in support of or in opposition to the proposal. The start time listed above reflects the time at which the General Purpose and Administration Committee Meeting commences. If you cannot attend the Public Meeting on this application you can make deputation to Council at their meeting on must Monday, September 10, 2007, commencing at 7:00 p.m. Should you wish to appear before Council,ear in the register with the Clerks Department by Wednesday noon, September 5, 2007, to have your name app Agenda. COMMENTS OR QUESTIONS? If you wish to make a written submission or if you wish to be notified of subsequent meetings or the approval of the Zoning By-law Amendment, you must submit a written request to the Clerk's Department, 2"d Floor, 40 Temperance Street, Bowmanville, Ontario L1C 3A6. Additional information relating to the proposal is available for inspection between 8:3N0 a.m.and 4:30 P.M. (during July and August 8: 00 a.m. and 4:00p.m.) at the Planning Services Department, 3 FI cor, 40 Temperance Street, Bowmanville, Ontario L1C 3A6, or by calling Janaka Wijesundara, Community Planning and Design Branch at (905) 623-3379 extension 421 or by e-mail at iwiiesundara(a)clarington net APPEAL If a person or public body that files a notice of appeal of a decision for the proposed Zoning By-law Amendment to the Ontario Municipal Board does not make oral submissions at a public meeting or does not make written submissions before the proposed Zoning By-law Amendment is approved, the Ontario Municipal Board may dismiss all or part of the appeal. Dated at the Municipality of Clarington this 3'd, day of August 2007. David Crome, M.C.I.P., R.P.P. 40 Temperance Street Director of Planning Services Bowmanville, Ontario Municipality of Clarington L1C 3A6 mom 505 Property Location Map(Brownsville) Remainder of lands Owned by Applicant !'{ PHASE 5 PHASE 9 PHASE 2 PNASF$•t I I ; 2301 PPkELS, 2702PA�IE43 �p3,pANELS t 2 11 PALS y,TB P,k4FJ.Sf. S Mr mr°i.�°R.'�RrgJ•fr f' f 0 so�nAkn .a •'r t. •wf1eA. i�t a r°"*n '. vxe..o. 1. rn rr�rru- i m. menifw S can"ywr JRE,m , sawn f J T. ge 5 a e S I J I 0 ��,�tin• •� r .. J am TRIBB ENINa_ K I Z Ur UrFM m �xj r II _ r•RU Ur. ,xr..r ...(. er _.J-r[-.s1 ..-n•uvw r .w. rn..r._.„4..sr •s.o; 0 O ��, .`to. `r. axr•�.\ ` tBm TREE BCREENMG BUFFER 'r nPART .W II C ��! 3 D' �.I � I ce. I '.� :'�q'! rr e�le' ��1 •`Pbv 7erd'66 — 45P7/r?J• III /J I I i I E ; ti 8 8 8 I $ I. ; I'. '8 / 3 'ai I I I -� •PC AN' /OR '• 2249 T I I p PART'I 6 Subject Lands c ~ Ci x F �!� — °m ® Remainder of Lands Owned by Applicant I-K r • DURHAM HIGHWAY 2 IN AL 0 ° 1.3 NJ E Fa � E SERVICEACCE58 1. ZBA 2007-0035 fiERVICE/.CCE88 r ZONING BY-LAW AMENDMENT 7 5 Ur E"r ECB trams cn 1 0 SERVICE ACCESS r Panel Layout oB18n Owner: Blaise Pucci Clarin n REPORT Leading the Waq� PLANNING SERVICES PUBLIC MEETING Meeting: GENERAL PURPOSE AND ADMINISTRATION COMMITTEE Date: Tuesday, September 4, 2007 Report#: PSD-094-07 File #: ZBA 2007-0022 By-law#: Subject: PROPOSED ZONING BY-LAW AMENDMENT TO FACILITATE THE SEVERANCE OF A HAMLET RESIDENTIAL LOT APPLICANT: WILLIAM AND JEAN KIMBALL RECOMMENDATIONS: It is respectfully recommended that the General Purpose and Administration Committee recommend to Council the following: 1. THAT Report PSD-094-07 be received; 2. THAT the application submitted by William and Jean Kimball for Zoning By-law Amendment, be referred back to staff for further processing and the preparation of a subsequent report following the receipt of the hydrogeological report; and 3. THAT all interested parties listed in this report and any delegations be advised of Council's decision. Submitted by Reviewed by: id ome, M.0 .P.P. Franklin Wu (rector, lanning Services Chief Administrative Officer BR/CP/DJC/sh/df/sn 28 August 2007 CORPORATION OF THE MUNICIPALITY OF CLARINGTON 40 TEMPERANCE STREET, BOWMANVILLE, ONTARIO L1C 3A6 T (905)623-3379 F (905)623-0830 601 REPORT NO.: PSD-094-07 PAGE 2 1.0 APPLICATION DETAILS 1.1 Applicant: William and Jean Kimball 1.2 Owner: Same as applicant 1.3 Rezoning: To change the zoning of a portion of a lot from "Agricultural Exception (A- 1)" to "Residential Hamlet (RH)" to facilitate the severance of a hamlet residential lot 1.4 Area: Severed parcel — 0.40 hectares; Retained parcel — 1.82 hectares 1.5 Location: 4548 Durham Highway 2, Newtonville, being Lot 8, Concession 2, former Township of Clarke (see Attachment 1) 2.0 BACKGROUND 2.1 On May 4, 2007, William and Jean Kimball submitted a rezoning application for the rear portion of the lot they proposed to sever. They submitted a land division'application on December 5, 2006. The proposed lot fronts on the north side of Highway 2. Approximately half the lot is zoned "RH" and half is zoned "A": Clarington's comments to Land Division Committee included a condition that the applicants "make application and receive approval for rezoning the portion of the severed parcel that is zoned "Agricultural Exception (A-1) Zone." 3.0 LAND CHARACTERISTICS AND SURROUNDING USES 3.1 The property is used for crops despite being in the Hamlet of Newtonville with the exception of the southwest corner where the existing house, its driveway, an accessory building (shed) and the surrounding lawns are situated. The rectangular property is 2.228 hectares with a frontage of 76.3 metres and an average depth of approximately 201 metres. The proposed severed lot is located at the east end of the property, is 0.422 hectares in area, with a frontage of 30.48 metres and a depth of 138.35 metres. See the aerial photograph on next page and Attachment 1. 3.2 The surrounding uses are as follows: North - Agricultural South - Durham Highway 2 and beyond, Hamlet Residential East - Hamlet Residential and Agricultural West - Hamlet Residential and Agricultural 602 ¢ i! ` i- ro It tz 5 3 rya 3 r..0 ��-,.� ' ♦fix n��^T-t ��p'y�'✓ p _ x'� `�' t,.. y .. �+.: 5"S �` ! Sk iak" '7 � F��' P4�'4")yi � T +�< f � e. •g. 'w tt� CI ,�� v .�Pq F" '- t 5 t -w %'k �,p4��i• s t `""a E.4R S R� w i. N ' tk ff§ x w T a 1�� '}Fi^" # b li 9v 3`r IQ IL REPORT NO.: PSD-094-07 PAGE 4 5.0 OFFICIAL PLANS 5.1 Durham Regional Official Plan The Durham Region Official Plan recognizes Newtonville as a hamlet. Hamlets are the predominant location for residential development outside urban areas. Severance for limited infilling on the existing municipal water system conforms to the Plan. 5.2 Clarington Official Plan The Clarington Official Plan designates the proposed severed and retained lots as "Hamlet Residential". Hamlets are to be the predominant and preferred locations for rural population growth as opposed to scattered non-farm rural residential properties. The Clarington Official Plan requires a technical report be submitted in support of the creation of all rural lots. The report shall demonstrate there is no adverse impact on adjacent wells and septic systems and meets provincial guidelines for assessing water supply and risk of water quality impact. New residential lots in rural settlements are to have a minimum lot area of 4,000 square metres. However, the Official Plan policies allow the minimum Jot size in Newtonville to be reduced, for lots with municipal water, provided an engineering study such as the above technical report demonstrates to the satisfaction of the approval authorities that the soil and groundwater conditions can support reduced lot size without contaminating soil or groundwater. A technical report in support of the application has not been received. 6.0 ZONING BY-LAW 6.1 Zoning By-law 84-63 zones the southern half of the proposed lot "Residential Hamlet (RH)", whereas the northern half of the lot is "Agricultural Exception (A-1)0. Although the proposed severed lot has 30 metres of frontage all within the "RH" Zone and in this sense complies, said lot does not have the minimum 4,000 square metres of area within the "RH" Zone but rather, approximately 2,000 square metres. In this way the proposed lot does not comply. Hence, this application to rezone the remainder of the lot "RH" to provide 4,000 square metres of property within the "RH" Zone. 7.0 PUBLIC NOTICE AND SUBMISSIONS 7.1 Public notice was given by mail to each and owner within 120 metres of not just the proposed severed parcel but, the entire subject property. A public notice sign was installed on the proposed severed lot's Durham Highway 2 frontage, 22 days prior to the public meeting date. 7.2 As a result of the public notification process, to date, the Planning Services Department has received no inquiries or comments. 604 REPORT NO.: PSD-094-07 PAGE 5 8.0 AGENCY COMMENTS 8.1 Comments have been received from all of the circulated departments and agencies. 8.2 Clarington Engineering Services was circulated the related land division application and had only one comment, that prior to issuance of a building permit the Department requires, for review and approval, a grading plan for the severed lot. 8.3 The Regional Health Department and the Ganaraska Region Conservation Authority offered no objections to the proposed application. 8.4 The Regional Planning Department noted the Regional Official Plan designates the subject property "Hamlet" and the proposal is permitted by the policies of said Plan. Municipal water supply is available to the subject property from an existing watermain on Durham Highway 2 and service to the property has been installed. A private waste disposal system is proposed to service the property and the Regional Health Department has no objection. Durham Highway 2 is a Type W Arterial Road and a right-of-way minimum of 13.0 metres from the centre line of the original right-of-way to the property line will be required. The application was screened according to provincial plan review responsibilities. As the subject property is adjacent to Durham Highway 2, a noise study is required to identify any potential impacts from vehicular noise and identify appropriate noise mitigation measures. The noise study requirement remains a condition of approval on the related land division application. There are no other - matters of provincial interest applicable to this application. 9.0 STAFF COMMENTS 9.1 The Clarington Official Plan designates the subject property as hamlet residential, the predominant use of which is single detached dwellings. The proposed use, being a single detached dwelling, therefore conforms. This individual land severance due to its location and the surrounding property configurations does not jeopardize the future development of the hamlet's northeast quadrant. The proposal will utilize existing municipal water supply and roads, although a widening is required. 9.2 The technical report requirement mentioned in Section 5.2 of this report must be satisfied before a rezoning recommendation can be made. This requirement had previously been discussed in Clarington's January 2007 comments for the related land division, specifically, the conformity with Official Plan provisions section. 9.3 Depending on the technical report's findings it may be possible to permit a reduction in the proposed severed lot's area below 4,000 square metres and this rezoning application could be modified to facilitate this. 605 REPORT NO.: PSD-094-07 PAGE 6 10.0 CONCLUSION 10.1 The purpose of this report is to provided information for the Public Meeting required under the Planning Act. Staff respectfully requests that this report be referred back to staff for further processing and the preparation of a subsequent report. Attachments: Attachment 1 - Property Map and Site Location Key Map List of interested parties to be advised of Council's decision: William & Charlotte Kimball Valentine Lovekin 606 Property Location Map(Newtmrville) N73.19'10"E 108.35m I � E 0 r°i PY 1 Are E m Ht MN DURM7'M t E a t�D +gyp 4a o m 1 t � LO E •' n HIGHWAY 01 'm c6 1 � I GQ� E ZBA 2007-0022 ZONING BY-LAW AMENDMENT N5 v , fir•' ® Subject Site o H� B 0 Lands Subject To Rezoning � �� • f F ® Other Lands Owned By Applicant 0 •~rf H\ N P� Z can w 00 tte Kimball Owner: William and Charlo I o -- V s Clarin��W� /n Leadiag the Way V REPORT PLANNING SERVICES PUBLIC MEETING Meeting: GENERAL PURPOSE AND ADMINISTRATION COMMITTEE Date: Tuesday, September 4, 2007 Report#: PSD-095-07 File #: ZBA 2007-0029 and By-law#: COPA 2007-0009 Subject: PROPOSED OFFICIAL PLAN AND ZONING BY-LAW AMENDMENTS TO PERMIT A PLACE OF WORSHIP, ASSOCIATED DAY CARE FACILITIES, PARKING LOT AND PLAYING FIELDS APPLICANT: THE DURHAM CHURCH NETWORK RECOMMENDATIONS: It is respectfully recommended that the General Purpose and Administration Committee recommend to Council the following: 1. THAT Report PSD-095-07 be received; 2. THAT the applications submitted by The Durham Church Network for Official Plan and Zoning By-law Amendments, be referred back to Staff for further processing and the preparation of a subsequent report following the receipt of the outstanding agency comments; and 3. THAT all interested parties listed in this report and any delegations be advised of Council's decision. Submitted b*ire h U Reviewed by: om Fran lin Wu or, Planning Services Chief Administrative Officer BR/CP/DJC/shldf August 28 2007 CORPORATION OF THE MUNICIPALITY OF CLARINGTON 40 TEMPERANCE STREET, BOWMANVILLE, ONTARIO L1C 3A6 T (905)623-3379 F (905)623-0830 608 REPORT NO.: PSD-095-07 PAGE 2 1.0 APPLICATION DETAILS 1.1 Applicant: David Fowler in Trust of the Durham Church Network 1.2 Owner: (same as applicant) 1.3 Official Plan Amendment: To permit a site specific exception in the Rural Residential Cluster and the Green Space designations for a Place of Worship, associated day care facilities, parking lot and playing fields. 1.4 Rezoning: To permit a site specific exception in the Rural Cluster and Agricultural Zones for a place of worship, associated day care facilities, parking lot and playing fields. 1.5 Area: 3.8 hectares (9.38 acres) 1.6 Location: 1437 Taunton Road, being in Lot 35, Concession 4, former Township of Darlington (see Attachment 1). 2.0 BACKGROUND 2.1 On May 11, 2007, David Fowler in Trust of the Durham Church Network submitted official plan amendment and rezoning applications seeking permission for a place of worship, associated day care facilities, parking lot and playing fields. A future application will be made for site plan approval should the proposed Official Plan and Zoning Amendments be successful. 3.0 LAND CHARACTERISTICS AND SURROUNDING USES 3.1 The property is located in the southwest quadrant of Taunton and Fices Roads. The parcel is L-shaped, wrapping around three single detached residential lots located at the southwest corner of the above intersection. The property is currently occupied by a single detached dwelling, accessory building sheds, a barn, a silo and hayfield. The remainder of the property is valleyland for a tributary of Harmony Creek (see Attachment 1). 3.2 The surrounding uses are as follows: North - eastern portion — three single detached dwellings western portion — Taunton Road and beyond, a rural residential dwelling South - cropland and a rural residential dwelling East - cropland West - cropland and rural residential dwellings 609 REPORT NO.: PSD-095-07 PAGE 3 I 4.0 PROVINCIAL POLICY 4.1 Provincial Policy Statement Properties in the rural area, according to the Provincial Policy Statement (PPS), can accommodate limited residential development and other rural land uses. The PPS requires development be appropriate to available or planned infrastructure. Rural uses must comply with the minimum distance separation formulae. The applicant has submitted an agricultural report noting compliance regarding minimum distance separation and no interference with nearby agricultural uses. Natural features and areas be protected for the long term. The Environmental Impact Study will ensure all development is outside of and suitably buffered from the Harmony Creek Tributary Valleylands Environmental Protection Area. 4.2 Greenbelt Plan The property is in the rural area of the Protected Countryside. Rural area policies support and provide the primary location for a range of uses including institutional. A place of worship along with day care facilities and playing fields is consistent with these policies. The general non-agricultural use policies of the Greenbelt Plan apply. These policies state such uses must demonstrate appropriateness for a rural area and appropriate water and sewer servicing. 5.0 OFFICIAL PLANS 5.1 1991 Durham Regional Official Plan This Plan designates the property as Major Open Space Area and it recognizes residential clusters as identified in area municipal Official Plans and Zoning By-laws. 610 REPORT NO.: PSD-095-07 PAGE 4 Cultural facilities of a religious nature are encouraged to locate within urban areas but are permitted in any designation except Permanent Agricultural Reserve and General Agricultural Area. The proposed use with its location is permitted. Such uses shall be directed to locations that are visible and accessible to residents of the Region, preferably in close proximity to existing and future transit routes. Rural residential clusters are not to be zoned on Type A arterial roads such as Taunton. However the zoning of the Taunton cluster preceded this policy. Development in Residential Clusters is to occur on private services. The new Regional Official Plan (Amendment No. 114, adopted September 13, 2006) permits religious facilities in Urban Areas and if appropriate in scale, in Hamlets. This amendment does not allow religious and day care facilities to be located outside the urban area given possible land use compatibility issues and blurring of distinction between urban and rural areas, especially for facilities located on the urban fringe. Therefore, the proposed place of worship and day care uses would not conform to Section 5.2.1 of the Regional Official Plan, as amended by Amendment No. 114. 5.3 Clarinaton Official Plan The Clarington Official Plan designates the property as Rural Residential Cluster, Green Space and Environmental Protection Area. These designations do not permit a place of worship, associated day care facilities, parking lot and playing .fields and hence the official plan amendment application, to permit these uses on a site-specific basis in the Rural Residential Cluster and Green Space designations. Places of worship are considered community facilities but such facilities are encouraged to locate in urban areas and hamlets. The Environmental Impact Study will look at protection including buffering of environmentally significant areas and functions on and abutting the property. 6.0 ZONING BY-LAW 6.1 Zoning By-law 84-63 zones the property "Rural Cluster (RC)", "Agricultural (A)" and "Environmental Protection (EP)". These zones do not permit the proposed use, hence the application for amendment. 7.0 PUBLIC NOTICE AND SUBMISSIONS 7.1 Public notice was given by mail to each landowner within 120 metres of the subject property. Public notice signs were installed on the property's two frontages, one on Taunton Road and one on Fices Road, 21 days prior to the public meeting date. 7.2 As a result of the public notification process, to date, the Planning Services Department has received no inquiries or comments. 611 REPORT NO.: PSD-095-07 PAGE 5 8.0 AGENCY COMMENTS 8.1 Comments have been received from the majority of the circulated departments and agencies. 8.2 Clarington Emergency and Fire Services noted on-site water for firefighting purposes may be required, and additional comments dealing with the future site plan submission were also provided. 8.3 Clarington Operations noted a culvert off Fices Road is required and will measure 30' X 18", and a storm water management plan and a lot grading plan, certified by an engineer will be required. 8.4 Clarington Building Division expressed no concern with the official plan amendment or the rezoning and stated comments on fire routes and firefighting water supply will be made during the site plan approval process. 8.5 Clarington Engineering Services stated no objection in principle and that additional comment on the proposed development will be provided at the site plan approval stage of the development process. _ 8.6 Central--Lake_ Ontario Conservation_Authority noted- the property is in. their regulated area and approval from the Authority is required prior to any development occurring on the property. The western portion of the property has also been identified by the Authority as a wetland area based on the Ecological Land Classification system. An Environmental Impact Study (EIS) will be undertaken for the property to identify any significant features, determine the extent of any constraints on the property with respect to hazards, ensure any impacts that may occur from the proposed development are minimized as much as possible and determine any areas on the property where development could occur with little to no impacts on the identified features or hazards. While the authority has no major objections to the proposed development, until the Environmental Impact Study is completed and submitted for review and approval, the Authority is not in a position to support the approval of the applications. When the future site plan approval application is submitted, the Authority requires: a sediment and erosion control plan indicating the means by which sediment will be dealt with before, during and after construction; a site grading plan; a site servicing plan; a storm water management plan showing means by which water quality and quantity for the site will be addressed. 8.7 The Regional Planning Department commented that the property is subject to the Greenbelt Plan's rural area policies which provide for a range of uses including institutional which would permit the proposal subject to the Natural Heritage System policies, and Clarington's Environmental Impact Study, now underway. The Department commented the property is designated "Major Open Space" in the Regional Official Plan. Predominant uses within Major Open Space do not appear to include places of worship. Section 5.2.1 encourages religious and community facilities, including day care centres, to locate in Urban Areas although these uses are permitted 612 REPORT NO.: PSD-095-07 PAGE 6 in any designation except for the Permanent Agricultural Reserve and General Agricultural Area. The new Regional Official Plan (Amendment No. 114, adopted September 13, 2006) permits religious facilities in Urban Areas and if appropriate in scale, in Hamlets. This amendment does not allow religious and day care facilities to be located outside the urban area given possible land use compatibility issues and blurring of distinction between urban and rural areas, especially for facilities located on the urban fringe. Therefore, the proposed place of worship and day care uses would not conform to Section 5.2.1 of the Regional Official Plan, as amended by Amendment No. 114. The property will have to rely on private services and access to the proposed place of worship is to be from Fices Road only. As a condition of site plan approval, a Taunton Road widening will be required. An Archaeological Assessment has been done recommending complete clearance of the subject property unless the applicant proposes alteration to the existing 19`h Century farmhouse which would require a built heritage assessment first. An Agricultural Assessment with its positive conclusions was also noted. This Local Official Plan Amendment is not exempt. 8.8 Durham Region Health Department stated no objections but noted that a new sewage disposal system will be required for the church. 8.9 Durham Region Transit offered no objections to the proposed application. 9.0 STAFF COMMENTS 9.1 Although not encouraged, the Regional Official Plan which is currently in force would allow a place of worship in a Residential Cluster. Regional Council policy, however, as reflected in its adoption of Amendment No. 114 to the Durham Regional Official Plan would not permit the proposed use with its location in a residential cluster. 9.2 Residential Clusters are not to be located adjacent to a Type A arterial road such as Taunton Road. Given the existing zoning, this Residential Cluster exists adjacent to a Type A arterial but access would be restricted to Fices Road. 9.3 The applicants have chosen to submit applications for OPA and ZBA only, at this time to deal with the principle of development. Should these applications be successful; application for site plan approval will be submitted. As a result, the Environmental Impact Study has correspondingly been divided into two parts. Part 1 will focus on opportunities and constraints on the property regarding the Harmony Creek tributary valley lands, specifically, general functions and significance of the natural heritage features, location and extent of the natural heritage features, and location of lands to be preserved in their natural state. Part 2 will be initiated when the detailed proposal — the site plan approval application is submitted. Part 2 will focus on the potential impacts of the proposed development on the natural heritage features and their functions, identify 613 REPORT NO.: PSD-095-07 PAGE 7 mitigating measures to address the negative effects of the development on the natural . heritage features and their functions and the potential for restoration/creation of wildlife habitat and examination of cumulative impacts of development on surface water and groundwater. 9.4 The Agricultural Assessment submitted in support of the applications concludes that the proposal will have no loss to agricultural production and that the Minimum Distance Separation Formulae for new development will be complied with. 9.5 While much of the proposed development is within the zoned Rural Cluster, a portion of it is outside on lands designated as Greenspace. As a result, the approval of this application would effectively expand the Rural Residential Cluster. 10.0 CONCLUSION 10.1 The purpose of this report is to provide information for the Public Meeting required under the Planning Act. Staff respectfully requests that this report be referred back to staff for further processing and the preparation of a subsequent report. Attachments: Attachment 1 - Property Map and Site Location Key Map Attachment 2 - Air Photo with Key Features of Area Attachment 3 - Proposed Clarington Official Plan Amendment List of interested parties to be advised of Council's decision: David Fowler In Trust of the Durham Church Network Tunney Planning 614 Property Location Map(Former Darlington Twp.) TAUNTON ROAD (Durham Regional Road 4) I I I II o- I � s , L—.I I I 4 09- - vu L Z - a- 05 t PRAYER G DER Oa DRW AY PARKING Lar FSEPTIC _ � o 0 o W U ILL ZBA 2007-0029 ZONING BY-LAW AMENDMENT F COPA 2007-0009 Clarington Official Plan Amendment 0 Qo- O- I D - 0 Owner: David Fowler In Trust Of b 3 The Durham Church Network CD V � 1WS a 1 �x: � �s �s� r Fax � g G ` � �; s •• .3 t a - Vkl t� toc e �n r t 3S - ; e z _ X M . n �� .max-'ar.'.' f°;•;. a �'� 11 11 Attachment 3 To Report PSD-095-07 PROPOSED AMENDMENT TO THE CLARINGTON OFFICIAL PLAN DURHAM CHURCH NETWORK PURPOSE: The purpose of this amendment to the Clarington Official Plan is to modify the land uses permitted in Green Space and Rural Residential Cluster to allow for a Church, Day Care uses. LOCATION: Lands subject to this amendment consist of Part of Lot 35, Concession 4, the former Township of Darlington, located in the South West Quadrant of Taunton and Fices Road. BASIS: The Durham Church Network application to permit a Church, Day Care, associated Parking and Playing fields in the Rural Residential Cluster and Green Space is the basis of the Official Plan Amendment. ACTUAL AMENDMENT: The Clarington Official Plan, Section 14.5 is hereby amended to add the additional policy of "Notwithstanding Section 14.5.1 and 14.5.2, a church, daycare, parking area and playing, fields shall be permitted on the lands located within Part of Lot 35, Concession 4, former Township of Darlington." The Clarington Official Plan, Section 12.6 is hereby amended by adding the additional policy of "Notwithstanding Section 12.6.1 a church building shall be permitted on the property known as 1437 Taunton Road in Part of Lot 35, Concession 4, former Township of Darlington." IMPLEMENTATION: The provisions set forth in the Clarington Official Plan, as amended, regarding the implementation of the Plan shall apply to this amendment. INTERPRETATION: The provisions set forth in the Clarington Official Plan, as amended, regarding the interpretation of the Plan shall apply to this Amendment. 617 Clarington �ngrlewa� REPORT PLANNING SERVICES PUBLIC MEETING Meeting: GENERAL PURPOSE AND ADMINISTRATION COMMITTEE Date: Tuesday, September 4, 2007 Report#: PSD-096-07 File #: ZBA 2007-0035 By-law#: Subject: SOLAR ENERGY GENERATION FACILITY APPLICANT: HYBRIDYNE POWER SYSTEM CANADA RECOMMENDATIONS: It is respectfully recommended that the General Purpose and Administration Committee recommend to Council the following: 1. THAT Report PSD-096-07 be received; 2. THAT provided there are no major issues raised at the Public Meeting, the application for Zoning By-law Amendment (ZBA 2007-0035) submitted by Hybridyne Power System Canada to change the zoning category of 10.5 acres land from "Agricultural (A) Zone" to "Agricultural Exception Zone A-80" to allow the proposed solar energy generation facility and that the By-law contained in Attachment 2 to Report PSD-096-07 be PASSED; and, 3. THAT all interested parties listed in this report and any delegations be advised of Council's decision. Submitted by: ✓I Reviewed by: David . Crome, M.C.I.P., R.P.P. Franklin Wu, Director of Planning Services Chief Administrative Officer JW/COS/DJC/df 20 August 2007 CORPORATION OF THE MUNICIPALITY OF CLARINGTON 40 TEMPERANCE STREET, BOWMANVILLE, ONTARIO L1C 3A6 T(905)623-3379 F(905)623-0830 618 REPORT NO.: PSD-096-07 PAGE 2 1.0 APPLICATION DETAILS 1.1 Applicant: Hybridyne Power System Canada 1.2 Owner: Blaise Pucci 1.3 Proposal: 2 Mega Watt solar photo voltaic grid-connected renewable electricity generation plant (solar energy generation facility) 1.4 Area: 10.5 Acres 1.5 Location: Part Lot 19, Concession 2, former Township of Clarke 2.0 BACKGROUND 2.1 On June 15, 2007, Mr. Thomas Cleland, on behalf of Hybridyne Power System Canada, submitted an application for a Zoning By-law Amendment to allow for the development of a solar energy generation facility in 10.5 acres of subject land. 2.2 Prior to making the above application, the applicant had a pre-consultation meeting with planning staff on the proposal on February 23, 2007. 2.3 The Municipality held a public meeting on July 30, 2007 for this re-zoning application and at the subsequent council meeting on the same day, approved and passed the by-law to change the zoning designation to allow this development. Please refer the Attachment 3 which is the copy of the report (Report No. PSD-089-07) approved by Council at the previous meeting on July 30, 2007. 2.4 The Planning Department was notified that some residents who live within 120 meters distance to the subject property did not receive the public notice for the GP&A meeting as required by the Planning Act. The Municipality did confirm that this was due to a technical error in preparing the mailing list of public notices. 2.5 On August 3, 2007, the Municipality informed the applicant that there was an error in the mailing list and due to this 47% of the landowners (residents) within a distance of 120m from the subject land did not receive the public notices. The applicant was notified in writing that a statutory public meeting should be held to obtain the resident's comments on this application by re-mailing the public notices to all land owners within a 120m distance from the subject property in order to fulfill the Planning Act requirements. 3.0 PUBLIC NOTICE AND SUBMISSIONS 3.1 On August 3, 2007, pursuant to the requirements of the Planning Act, the appropriate notice was mailed to each landowner within the prescribed distance of 120 metres from 619 REPORT NO.: PSD-096-07 PAGE 3 the subject property. The appropriate signage, acknowledging the application, was originally installed on the subject lands on June 30, 2007. 3.2 Together with the notices, a letter signed by the Director of Planning Services Department notifying the error in mailing the public notices for the previous public meeting and the proposed Zoning By-law amendment were also sent to the each land owner. 3.3 Two residents spoke at the previous public meeting on July 30, 2007 and commented that additional trees are required in the buffer zone. The applicant has made a commitment to work with the neighbours on these issues through the site plan process. 3.4 One resident in Brownsville phoned to inquire on the details of the proposed project. No other comments or objections to the application were received. 4.0 STAFF COMMENTS 4.1 Since the time of the previous public meeting, staff has received no objections to the proposed development. Considering the public comments and staffs planning review of the proposal, as outlined in the previous Report PSD-089-07, staff recommends that the application be approved. 5.0 CONCLUSIONS 5.1 In consideration of the comments received from the circulated agencies and the public before and after the previous public meeting held on July 30, 2007 and our planning review of the proposal, it is recommended that the application for Zoning By-law Amendment (ZBA 2007-0035) submitted by Hybridyne Power System Canada to change the zoning of 10.5 acres of land to allow the proposed solar energy generation facility be passed. Attachments: Attachment 1 - Key Map Attachment 2 - Zoning By-law Amendment Attachment 3 Copy of the Report No PSD 089-07 submitted to the Council Meeting on July 30, 2007 List of interested parties to be notified of Council's decision: Dan Boudreak Michael McLenon Steve Whyte Jim Bargent 620 Remainder of Lands.Owned by Applicant Property Location Map(Brownsville) sl! PHA565 ,FF PUA$EA PHASE 'P.HASE 2, F'HAS�YS p 2701 P(1NEL5: 2302;PA{JEk,3 - 27PANEL3.. t Z�71 PAf1EL3 niEnrl a ' xrw'nns`x,Ypy i wcsaalrnowmw[x[eo'nnmrvl ax[sJ ri rgwxn J1 O r n P• .r sL o�w uJ 7.TS�PAr E.f S 1.1E I e a�xemw.mYPc LU Y[m — Q I rwxrsaeraro gg C °�'^+ -�.,w„ 1A��w�. 1 - TREESCREENING BUFFER 0 0 7' D . wn. wal .f - P•[.wl Iwo:.- ..}... 1 .w. _ Iw..a._ :).[... --,,p en I� w I� ' `[,v'• mvsu; 10m TREE SCREENING BUFFER 1 PART %A W `m .� .� 1 ••tea/ I� II 1'vJV hfsea - i�/Al j• aJ I I I v i �. I i I. 8 RZ 4N' 10,9 2249 i t/! Subject Lands ® Remainder of Lands Owned.by Applicant PA?7 5.., r V.q F .. ._ __ �. _._ . .. M-••• .. DURHAM HIGHWAY 2 EU %1 00 LJ1n IN Al 0 JO E P. C SEOVICEACCM 1711—n E Ue xx u art • ZBA 2007-0035 X BEWCE LGCE9l1 LJYY - ZONING BY-LAW AMENDMENT o .�. W P T. N SERVICE xCLE55 0 0 Panel Layout Detail Owner: BIei88 PUCCI tD 3 C) 4 Attachment 2 To Report PSD-096-07 THE CORPORATION OF THE MUNICIPALITY OF CLARINGTON BY-LAW NO.2007- being a by-law to amend By-law 84-03, the Comprehensive Zoning By-law for the Corporation of the Municipality of Clarington WHEREAS the Council of the Corporation of the Municipality of Clarington deems it advisable to amend By-law 84-63, as amended, of the former Town of Newcastle in accordance with application ZBA 2007-0035 to permit a photovoltaic grid connected electricity generation plant (a solar energy generation facility)development as a permitted use; NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED THAT the Council of the Corporation of the Municipality of Clarington enacts as follows: 1. That By-law 2007.172 be repealed. 2. Section 6.4"— Special Exceptions —Agricultural (A) zone"-is hereby amended by introducing a new sub-section 6.4.80 as follows: "6.4.80 AGRICULTURAL EXCEPTION (A-80)ZONE" Notwithstanding Section 6.1, 6.2 and 6.3 those lands zoned A-80 on the Schedules to this By- law shall only be used for a farm or a photovoltaic grid-connected electricity generation facility subject to the following definitions and zone regulations: a) Definitions i) Coniferous Planting Strip A landscape feature comprised of coniferous tree species planted in such a manner as to visually screen the view of one property from the adjacent property. b) Regulations i) Front Yard Setback(minimum) 75m ii) Rear Yard Setback(minimum) 10 m iii) Interior Side Yard Setback(minimum) 10 m IV) Lot Area(maximum) 5 he V) Total Floor Area of Buildings(maximum) 250 sq m vi) Planting Strip Requirements A coniferous planting strip shall be required along the south and east limits of the solar panels. 3. Schedule "2° to By-law 84-63, as amended, is hereby further amended by changing the zone designation from"Agricultural(A)Zone"to"Agricultural Exception(A-80) Zone", as illustrated on the attached Schedule"A"hereto. 4. - Schedule"A"attached hereto shall form part of this By-law. - 5. This By-law shall come into effect on the date of the passing hereof, subject to the provisions of Section 34 of the Planning Act. BY-LAW read a first time this day of 2007 BY-LAW read a second time this day of 2007 BY-LAW read a third time and finally passed this day of 2007 Jim Abernethy, Mayor Patti L.Barrie, Municipal Clerk 622 This is Schedule to / 1 passed day of 1 1 D. r-+sy�►see .aiecr�•ia► �s.eweo YA" 4 ®an�c t�f�v+Te d3 ^°mac �!eee�e y31'3��x°8�ry'q^°A3wSS5 �e�a'��a �c��.^"'a"3' �eeeee�eeeee ��6��'s^°t`;p�tr-3e•.��3?,+>��,io3^��•'.fiw�� ,.:�•e��'r'*�P.,'!�E+e��et ►�I�e�'��e�e-P`�'��5�a�'�aa°6�t$��s��3`':��drya o��'�a�-�:�?�►eeeei0eeeee� ' G��d�`�o�o a�o��a�'�"�°�°�'��e�P�$��°s�"��e"�a��'aa�►ieieieiei�i� • ►��^°.��'^�^vd°',�a'�6�3;t°�j�,�°��'6'``��r��'i'a�.�go��m6%6�'<'�AS:E�=o�°s'-4'•.►eeee®e�ee�e� ►i�1 v 1 i A v.i�®:.9:e�4'•&a'fi O 6''��O:�s:a_..s:e�:c;e o a°�:�6�a!c!.s!s!A!�!o ...... Q �nnm■■ ■n■ewe � � � ■111 L, _.... . 't� .�,±'� NOW vim - Attachment 3 To Report PSD-096-07 CJa � REPORT Leadang the Way PLANNING SERVICES PUBLIC MEETING Meeting: GENERAL PURPOSE AND ADMINISTRATION COMMITTEE Date: Monday, July 30, 2007 Report M PSD-089-07 File#: ZBA 2007-0035 By-law M Subject: SOLAR ENERGY GENERATION FACILITY APPLICANT: HYBRIDYNE POWER SYSTEM CANADA RECOMMENDATIONS: It is respectfully recommended that the General Purpose and Administration Committee recommend to Council the following: 1. THAT Report PSD-0.8947 be received; 2. THAT provided there are no major issues raised at the Public Meeting, the application for Zoning By-law Amendment (ZBA 2007-0035) submitted by Hybridyne Power System Canada to change the zoning category of 10.5 acres land from "Agricultural (A) Zone" to "Agricultural Exception Zone A- 80" to allow the proposed solar energy generation facility and that the By-law contained in attachment be PASSED; and, 3. THAT all interested parties listed in this report and any delegations be advised of Council's decision. Submitted by: '/� Reviewed by: David , Crome, M.C.I.P., R.P.P. Franklin Wu, Director of Planning Services Chief Administrative Officer JW/COS/DJC/df/sh/jd July 24, 2007 CORPORATION OF THE MUNICIPALITY OF CLARINGTON 40 TEMPERANCE STREET, BOWMANVILLE, ONTARIO L1C 3A6 T (905)623-3379 F(905)623-0830 ��a PAGE 2 REPORT NO.: PSD-089-07 1.0 APPLICATION DETAILS 1.1 Applicant: Hybridyne Power System Canada 1.2 Owner: Blaise Pucci 1.3 Proposal: 2 Mega Watt solar photo voltaic grid-connected renewable electricity generation plant (solar energy generation facility) 1.4 Area: 10.5 Acres 1.5 Location: Part Lot 19, Concession 2, former Township of Clarke 2.0 BACKGROUND 2.1 On June 15, 2007, Mr. Thomas Cleland, on behalf of Hybridyne Power System Canada, submitted an application for a Zoning By-law Amendment to allow for the development of a solar energy generation facility in 10.5 acres of subject land. 2.2 Prior to making the above application, the applicant had a pre-consultation meeting with planning staff on the proposal on February 23, 2007. 2.3 As part of the application, the applicant submitted the following documents/studies: • Agricultural Land Impact Analysis Report dated June 14, 2007 prepared by Toombs Consulting. • Conceptual Site Plan Drawing dated June 12, 2007, prepared by IBI Group. • Grading and Drainage Plan dated June 14, 2007, prepared by Jacques Whitford. 3.0 LAND CHARACTERISTICS AND SURROUNDING USES 3.1 The site is currently vacant. The subject property is characterized by bush vegetation and a few trees (see figure 1). To the south, seven existing residential buildings on Highway 2 and one residential building on Brownsville Road back on to the subject land. To the east, ten residential buildings front on Brownsville Road opposite to the subject property. The north and west sides of the property face to the existing farm lands. 625 EN �Rl • 4, q, v - s REPORT NO.: PSD-089-07 PAGE 4 3.2 The surrounding uses are as follows: North - Existing farm land and Golf Course South One and two storey residential buildings East - Brownsville Road and existing residential buildings West - Existing farm land and residential buildings 4.0 PROVINCIAL POLICIES 4.1 Provincial Policy Statement The Provincial Policy Statement (PPS) states that increased energy supply should be promoted by providing opportunities for energy generation facilities to accommodate current and projected needs, and the use of renewable energy systems and alternative energy systems, where feasible. These energy systems are to be permitted in settlement areas, rural and prime agricultural areas in accordance with the provincial and federal requirements. In rural areas and prime agricultural areas, these systems should be designed and constructed to minimize impacts on agricultural operations. The PPS also say that prime agricultural areas (where prime agricultural lands predominate) shall be protected for long-term use for agriculture. Specialty crop areas shall be given the highest priority for protection, followed by Classes 1, 2 and 3 soils, in this order of priority. Proposed new secondary uses and agriculture related uses shall be compatible with, and shall not hinder, surrounding agricultural operations. New land uses shall comply with the minimum distance separation formula. The proposed solar energy generating facility would contribute to the removal of the land from an agricultural area. Municipalities may only exclude land from prime agricultural areas for limited non-residential uses provided that: • the land does not comprise a specialty crop area; • there is a demonstrated need within the planning horizon provided for additional land to be designated to accommodate the proposed use; • there are no reasonable alternative locations which avoid prime agricultural areas; and, • there are no reasonable alternative locations in prime agricultural areas with lower priority agricultural lands. 4-2 Greenbelt Plan The Greenbelt Plan designates the lands as Protected Countryside area and the subject land is subject to the Rural Areas policies under the Agricultural System. The Natural Heritage System Policies state that new developments or site alteration as permitted by the policies of Official Plan shall demonstrate that there will be no negative effects on key natural heritage or hydraulic features, connectivity between key natural features are enhanced, removal of other natural features should be 627 PAGE 5 REPORT NO.: PSD-089-07 avoided and the disturbed area of any site does not exceed 25 percent, and the impervious surface does not exceed 10 percent, of the total development area. The proposals for non-agricultural uses must demonstrate that the use is appropriate for location in a rural area and there are no negative impacts on the biodiversity or connectivity of the Natural Heritage system. The subject land lies entirely within the Greenbelt, but is not located in proximity to the natural heritage system. The site falls outside the regulatory 120 m key hydraulic or natural area buffer zone. The site is generally level thus it experiences significantly little runoff even during larger precipitation events. No earth moving is required for the proposed development and there will be no negative impacts on the natural heritage system. 4.3 Provincial Growth Plan The Growth Plan states that the Municipalities are encouraged to plan for a variety of cultural and economic opportunities within rural settlement areas and the development outside of settlement areas, may be permitted in rural areas, if they can not be located in settlement areas. Municipalities will develop and implement official plan policies and other strategies in support of energy conservation including identification of opportunities for alternative energy generation and distribution. The proposal meets the policies of the PPS, Greenbelt, and the Provincial Growth plan. 5.0 OFFICIAL PLANS 5.1 Durham Regional Official Plan The Durham Regional Official Plan designates the subject lands as 'General Agricultural Area'. General Agricultural areas shall be used predominantly for agriculture and farm related uses. In addition, non-agricultural uses, such as riding and boarding stables, kennels, allotment gardens and fur and sod farms, may be permitted, provided that such uses are compatible with their surroundings, will not conflict with agricultural activities, and conform with the Agricultural Code of Practice. The policies restrict the development of the lands with class 1 to 4 soils as defined by Canada Land Inventory Soil Capability Classification for Agricultural Capability. The development of electric power facilities is to occur in an orderly manner to facilitate the efficient and reliable provision of adequate electric power. Electric power facilities are permitted in all land use designations, provided that the planning of all such facilities satisfies the requirements of the Environmental Assessment Act and is carried out having regard to the other policies of this plan. The proposal conforms to the Durham Regional Official Plan Policies. 628 PAGE 6 REPORT NO.: PSD-089-07 5.2 Clarington Official Plan The Clarington Official Plan designates the land as General Agricultural Area and they shall be predominantly used for farm and farm related uses including the use of land, buildings and structures for nurseries, the growing of crops and raising of livestock. Home-based occupations, limited home industry uses, seasonal farm produce stands are permitted provided the produce is grown locally. In-addition, lands may be used for farm related industrial/commercial uses such as grain drying, bulk storage and the sorting of produce, farm co-operatives, livestock sale barns, abattoirs, animal husbandry services and far machinery sales and repair. The Official Plan states that such permitted uses: • Are compatible with the existing and/or designated land uses in the surrounding areas and do not generate excessive amounts of odour, traffic and other nuisances; • Do not conflict with surrounding agricultural operations • Are not located on Class 1 or 2 soil as defined by the Canada Land Inventory of Soil Capability for Agriculture ■ Conform with the Minimum Distance Separation Formulae ■ . Do not abut any designated rural settlement areas. Although the Clarington Official Plan policy on Utilities states that new electrical generation stations proposed by private corporations shall only be permitted by amendment to the official plan, it does not specifically speak to a solar energy generation facility, which is significantly different than typical electrical generation stations in terms of building mass, visual impact, infrastructure demand, etc. Generally, the visual character of this kind of small scale solar panel farm would be much similar to a green house/nursery development which is permitted in the current Clarington Official Plan. The nature of the type of use proposed is passive; the type of use does not introduce or attract human activity. The proposed location for the solar energy generation facility at the south east corner of the block of existing farm land does not fragment the existing field patterns. 6.0 ZONING BY-LAW 6.1 Zoning By-law 84-63 zones the subject lands as Agricultural (A) Zone and permits a single dwelling, home occupation uses, cemeteries and places of worship, conservation and forestry, a farm, a wayside pit or quarry, commercial kennels (existed prior to June 28, 2004), fur farms, riding and boarding stables, seasonal farm produce sales outlet and private kennels. The Zoning By-law does not permit the proposed use and therefore this requires an Amendment to the By-law. 629 REPORT NO.: PSD-089-07 PAGE 7 7.0 CLARINGTON CORPORATE STRATEGIC PLAN 7.1 The Clarington Corporate Strategic Plan adopted by Council in June 2007 promotes alternative energy technologies and recommends giving high priority to the development applications that support alternative energy technologies. 8.0 SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND STUDIES 8.1 An Agricultural Lands Impact Analysis Report has been provided to support the application. The findings of the report are as follows: • The development does not take any farmland out of production. • There will be little disturbance to the land and no foreseen conflicts or impacts with any abutting agricultural uses. • Development complies with the Minimum Distance Separation requirements. • The site is not considered as a prime agricultural area as defined by Provincial Policy Statement. • There are no anticipated conflicts with the surrounding agricultural uses. 9.0 PUBLIC NOTICE AND SUBMISSIONS 9.1 Pursuant to the requirements of the Planning Act, the appropriate signage acknowledging the application was installed on the subject lands on June 30,2007. The appropriate notice was mailed'to each landowner within the prescribed distance of 120 metres from the site on June 29, 2007. 9.2 Three residents in Brownsville had phone inquiries on the proposed project. One . person commented that the security fencing should be installed around the solar panel construction area, and not along the property boundary. Furthermore, he mentioned that an intensive tree screening should be required along the south boundary of the property to deal with the negative visual impact due to the development. 10.0 AGENCY COMMENTS 10.1 The application was circulated to relevant agencies on June 20, 2007 and the following comments were provided. • Clarington Engineering Department had no objection to the application. The following technical issues will be dealt with as part of the site plan process. o A small ditch to be installed along the southern extent of the proposed site on the northern side of the tree buffer must be clearly shown. o The details of the proposed fencing should be provided and the costs related to the construction of an entrance/access to the subject property from Brownsville Road will be the responsibility of the developer. 630 REPORT NO.: PSD-089-07 PAGE 8 ■ Clarington Building Division has no objections to this application and the applicant will be requested to pay the required municipal and regional development charges on the enclosed solar inverters to be enclosed in shipping containers. • The Durham Regional Planning Department has provided following comments: "The solar power facility is proposing to generate two megawatts of power on ten acres of an uncultivated portion of an agricultural property; the remainder of the Property is being actively farmed. The proposal is permitted within the Regional OP General Agricultural designation and is exempt from EAA requirements. Both the Ian support renewable energy systems in rural areas. An and the Growth P p PPS a P impact analysis submitted in support of the application indicates that agricultural operation will not be impacted. A Regional Official Plan Amendment is not required and we have no objection to the proposal". • The Regional Health Department commented that they have no objections. • The Hydro One has no objection to this application. 11.0 STAFF COMMENTS 11.1 The Durham Regional Official Plan supports these type of uses and states that electric power facilities are permitted in all land use designations, provided that the planning of all such facilities satisfies the requirements of the Environmental Assessment Act and is carried out having regard to the other policies of this plan. The Clarington Official Plan did not contemplate commercial scale solar energy generation facilities but this project supports the sustainability objectives of the Plan and it is reasonable to consider this as a desirable use with minimal impact on surrounding uses. 11.2 Under the new Environmental Assessment (EA) requirements for electricity projects, the Ministry of Environment has classified electricity projects based on the type of fuel to be used, the size and, in some cases, the efficiency of the planned facility. There are three categories of projects, each with different requirements. Category 'A' projects are those which are expected to have minimal environmental effects. The Solar Energy generation projects are classified as Category 'A'. These projects do not require approval under the Environmental Assessment Act, and are not designated as b ing subject to the Act in the Electricity Projects Regulation. Also the applicant has stated that the proposed project has the transformer station capacity less than 115 KV, and therefore this does not require Certificate of Approval. 11.3 The subject land is not being farmed and it is not a part of a specialty crop area. As per the agricultural assessment report prepared by Toombs Consultants, the Canada Land Inventory mapping indicates that the eastern 70% of the site is a Class 4 soil with stoniness limitations and the western 30% portion is a complex of 70% class 1 and 30% class 3 soils with topography limitations. Therefore the majority of the site is not prime agricultural soil. The proposed use is justifiable in terms of the Provincial Policy Statement. 631 REPORT NO.: PSD-089-07 PAGE 9 11.4 Through a review of aerial photos since the 1980's, it was determined that the land has not been farmed for more than 20 years. As such, trees and other scrub vegetation have started to grow on the lands. This development will not take current farm lands out of production. The development is proposed in such a way that the physical disturbance to the land is minimal. The solar panels are to be fixed to the ground by steel poles directly driven into the soil and no concrete pad construction is proposed on the site. There will be no construction of any structures such as office buildings on the site and five containers which house solar invertors are to be placed on the ground. The applicant proposes that after anchor post and solar panel installation, the site will be generally reseeded with a shade tolerant grass mixture to reduce future soil loss and erosion from runoff. Therefore, if the development was decommissioned, the land could revert back to lands for farming without much effort. In that case, the entire solar photovoltaic system will be disassembled and removed from the site and steel support structure will be dismantled. Any concrete foundations and electrical conduits will be disposed of and all road ways will be removed and necessary methods will betaken to rehabilitate the soils to resume agricultural operations. 11.5 The visual disturbance to the adjacent residential land owners will be minimized by providing a screening with landscape buffer zones. Coniferous and other trees will be planted in the south and east boundaries. It is the applicant's intent to relocate many of the existing trees in the subject property within the buffer zone and maintain them to ensure their survival. Due to the relatively low height of the panels (1.5m from the ground), visual impact is expected to be minor. 11.6 The site is developed with a graveled access lane and the solar panel and shipping container area of the site is fully protected with a 2.4m high chain link security fence with a gate hence no public risk is anticipated. 11.7 The applicant has forwarded a site plan for the proposed project and it is under review. A site specific Zoning By-law Amendment is recommended on the following basis: • The proposal is consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement and Official Plans. The site is located predominantly on lower priority soils and it does not fragment the existing field patterns. • The proposal demonstrates that the disturbances to the existing agricultural operations are minimal. This development minimizes the disturbance to the soil and does not alter the site significantly and could revert for use as a farm. • . The proposal will be compatible with the adjacent land uses. • The equipments and electrical components do not create adverse noise. • There will be no increased traffic in the area. • The project supports the sustainability objectives of the Clarington Official Plan and the economic development objectives of the Municipality's Corporate Strategic Business Plan. • The site plan process that is running concurrently will deal with technical issues such as landscaping, landscaped buffers, drainage, and entrances. 632 REPORT NO.: PSD-089-07 PAGE 10 12.0 CONCLUSIONS 12.1 In consideration of the comments received from the circulated agencies the public and our planning review of the proposal it is recommended that, provided there are no major issues raised at the Public Meeting, the application for Zoning By-law Amendment (ZBA 2007-0035) submitted by Hybridyne Power System Canada to change the zoning category of 10.5 acres land from "Agricultural (A) Zone" to "Agricultural Exception Zone A- 80" to allow the proposed solar energy generation facility and that the By-law contained in attachment be PASSED. Attachments: Attachment 1 - Key Map Attachment 2 - Zoning By-law Amendment List of interested parties to be notified of Council's decision: Dan Boudreak Michael McLenon 633 Property Location Map(Brownsville) Remainder of Lands Owned by Applicant z pl/ PHA5E 5 �'PHASE 4 - PHASE3 'PHASE 2; PHASE9x 2301 PANELS, 2'.02;PA�EI,S 200�pANELS 2'11 PANELS 2110 PAOEISF. -; x acueiRrzvigxu9L -" R 0 �`, R4 1E01111WM t .♦ �\ � F'EIImRP�[OX'x64�i R EIXIN111JFRiLPB 8 RbFYR(fAR !.E Cdif NERI dRAiYI I j = / \Ip•m LLS.IiP' I•. ''ipWINYFR q' S' [pARINVf11VEA sa reR u ' I J I °•+w,R, �\ +R�+.�� +4� +q� - TREE SCREENING BUFFER m I V •��'* +e'O^e� "^•+•."tea'P""^e.. +.'^^+"'."..'° ! , ~. \F '� '"�.„,°� � `,.-„+, °"•mow'°®•'"',' : e°'�. \\\ '\\''., a ue.P .O ", ..®F Xry u G ' I$ IC y10M TREE SCREENING BUFFER W FIN 4646 - 0"(41) J F C E I I PCi7N /OR 779 1 lY I , i • . I I. ..1 i ' II DART, u Subject Lands Remainder of Lands Owned by Applicant DURHAM HIGHWAY 2 81 .X15 m B ❑PRE RI AL P. ITI` F bERVICEACCE55 JT � ZBA 2007-0035 B N1 lB ASm• .. 8 ZONING BY-LAW AMENOMEPIT SER EKCESS co FTTEEt 1m! O Q� w Owner: Blaine PUQCI MI m SERVICE ACCE65 - 7 Panel Layout Detail b Attachment z To PSD-089-07 THE CORPORATION OF THE MUNICIPALITY OF CLARINGTON BY-LAW NO.2007- being a by-law to amend By-law 84-63, the Comprehensive Zoning By-law for the Corporation of the Municipality of Clarington WHEREAS the Council of the Corporation of the Municipality of Clarington dee ms it advisable to _ amend By-law 84-63, as amended,of the former Town of Newcastle in accordance with applications ZBA 2007-0035 to permit a photovoltaic grid connected electricity generation plant ( a solar energy generation facility)development as a permitted use; NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED THAT the Council of the Corporation of the Municipality of Clarington enacts as follows: t. Section 6.4'-Special Exceptions-Agricultural (A) zone' is hereby amended by introducing a new sub-section 6.4.80 as follows: "6.4.80 AGRICULTURAL EXCEPTION(A-80)ZONE' Notwithstanding Section 6.1,6.2 and 6.3 those lands zoned A-80 on the Schedules to this By- law shall only be used for a farm or a photovoltaic grid-connected electricity generation facility . subject to the following definitions and zone regulations: a) Definilions i) Coniferous Planting Strio A landscape feature comprised of coniferous tree species planted in such a manner as to visually screen the view of one property from the adjacent property.. b) Regulations 75 m I) Front Yard set back(minimum) 10m iq Rear Yard Set back(minimum) torn i6) Interior side yard set back(minimum) 5 ha iv) Lot Area(maximum) 250 sq m v) Total floor area of buildings(maximum) v) Planting Strip Requirements A coniferous planting strip shall be required along the south and east limits of the solar panels. 2. Schedule '2'to By-law 8463 as amended, is hereby further amended by changing the zone designation from:'Agricultural (A) Zone', to'Agricultural Exception (A-80) Zone as illustrated on the attached Schedule W hereto. 3. Schedule"A"attached hereto shall form part of this By-law. 4. This By-law shall come into effect on the date of the passing hereof,subject to the provisions of Section 34 of the Planning AcL BY-LAW read a first time this day of 2107 - BY-LAW read a second time this Y of 2007 BY-LAW read a third time and finally passed this day of 2007 Jim Abernethy, Mayor Patti L. Barrie, Municipal Clerk 635 r � ��y�°�`°s'��'�ap�a ``��vQ��+6b°�`'yb��e4`y�B,��`��9� 4 ��E+sQ�?� ►�OG�Q®��9:s Remainder of Lands Owned by Applicant 416.30 1 cc LLI • ��EF��'�?�5��`e�`�S�g��d��$aJ�y®�s`y'L�•n"�� m�ffiC�A��ay�c3`Q°y�i�o�®��:�, DURHAM Zoning Change From "A'To "A-80" Jim Abernethy, MaYor Patti L Barrie, Municipal Clark LLI . ) � ■ M __■ �I ■ Q � �!�mf : uii�mi�� ■■.... � �wnonn �n�a+r Clarke MSubject Lands �� Rerncinder of Lands Owned by Applicant Claringto.� Leading the way REPORT PLANNING SERVICES Meeting: GENERAL PURPOSE AND ADMINISTRATION COMMITTEE Date: Tuesday, September4, 2007 Report#: PSD-097-07 File #: PLN 33.3.10 By-law#: Subject: UPDATE ON MUNICIPAL PEER REVIEW OF THE DURHAMNORK RESIDUAL WASTE ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT RECOMMENDATIONS: It is respectfully recommended that the General Purpose and Administration Committee recommend to Council the following: 1. THAT Report PSD-097-07 be received; 2. THAT Section 3.3 and Attachments 6 and 8A to this report be approved as the Municipality of Clarington's comments, to date, for the Site Selection segment of the EA process; 3. THAT Section 3.4 and Attachments 7 and 8B of this report be approved as the Municipality of Clarington's comments, to date, on the Generic Human Health and Ecological Risk Assessment, a component of the EA process; 4. THAT Clarington request that the Region provide the other reports; including the Traffic Impact Analysis, Archeological Assessment, Air and Groundwater Monitoring, Environmental Impact Study; Land Use, Infrastructure and Servicing Assessments; with sufficient time given to the Municipality and others to review and comment, prior to completing their analysis and selecting a preferred site; 5. THAT a copy of this report be forwarded to the Region of Durham, the Region of York and Ministry of Environment; 6. THAT all interested parties, including the Regions of York and Durham, and the Joint Waste Management Committee, be notified of Council's decision; and 7. THAT Council approve this recommendation FORTHWITH in compliance with the September 4`h deadline, set by the Region. Submitted by: Reviewed by: avid J. Crome, M.C. P RP., R.P.P. Franklin Wu, Director of Planning Services Chief Administrative Officer JAS/FL/DJC/sn 21 Aug 2007 CORPORATION OF THE MUNICIPALITY OF CLARINGTON 40 TEMPERANCE STREET, BOWMANVILLE, ONTARIO L1 C 3A6 T (905)623-3379 F(905)623-0830 637 REPORT NO.: PSD-097-07 PAGE 2 1.0 BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE OF REPORT 1.1 On April 16, 2007, Council adopted Resolution #C-211-07, as follows (in part): "THAT Staff be directed to examine comprehensively all the documentation prepared to date, the adequacy of the public consultation process and to report on alternatives available to the Municipality; THAT Staff investigate the implications of a proposed waste-to-energy facility on the Energy Business Park including the ability to attract prestige uses including offices and research facilities; THAT the Regions of York and Durham commit to design a waste-to-energy facility that will not impact the health of present and future residents;..." 1.2 On May 28, 2007, Council adopted the recommendations in Staff Report PSD-070-07 (Attachment 1-Resolution). This report defined the scope of work for the various peer reviews and economic studies to be undertaken to assist Council in determining its position with respect to the proposed Energy from Waste (EFW) facility to ensure that the interests of the Municipality and its residents are protected. In the same report, Staff were instructed to report regularly on the progress and findings of the peer review and analyses being undertaken. 1.3 In the consideration of PSD-070-07, Clarington Council confirmed that the "Alternatives To" (the different technologies for disposal of residual waste) will not be peer reviewed. As noted in Section 2.1.4 below, the thermal treatment of the waste identified by York and Durham Councils as the preferred system includes a number of different technologies, including mass burn incinerators, pyrolosis, and gasification, including plasma arc gasification. 1.4 Consultants have been retained to peer review various aspects of the Environmental Assessment (EA) process, including site selection, as well as the technology procurement process and the potential environmental effects of the proposed facility and not the "alternatives to". Staff and the peer review consultants have met with the Regions' project team on a number of occasions to seek clarification and probe further into the analysis and methodology of the various studies. The Regions' project team for the EA have been co-operative in providing information to the Municipality's peer review consultants and exploring the issues. 1.5 The purpose of this report is: • to update Council on the EA study and process to date • to update Council on the progress of the various peer reviews and studies being undertaken by the Municipality of Clarington, specifically those appended to this report: Attachment 6 Peer Review Report (Rowe) — EA Process and Site Selection Attachment 7 Peer Review Report (SENES) — Generic Human Health and Ecological Risk Assessment Attachment 8A Peer Review Report (AMEC) — Air Quality Aspects of Site Selection 638 REPORT NO.: PSD-097-07 PAGE 3 Attachment 8B Peer Review Report (AMEC) — Air Quality Aspects of Generic Human Health and Ecological Risk Assessment • to update Council on the EFW thermal technology procurement process . • to update Council on the financial impact studies 2.0 YORK/DURHAM RESIDUAL WASTE EA PROCESS 2.1 Environmental Assessment Study 2.1.1 The Regions of Durham and York are currently conducting an EA Study to determine how to manage the residual solid waste remaining after blue box and green box diversion efforts. Key dates in the study process as indicated on the Project website are: March 2006 Ministry of Environment approval of EA Study Terms of Reference • June 2006 Selection of preferred approach to managing residual waste Alternatives To • July 2007 Issuance of Request for Qualifications RFQ • September 2007 Consultant recommendation on preferred site (Alternative Methods • December 2007 Durham and York Region Council approval of preferre d site • Early 2008 Release of Request for Proposals RFP • Mid 2008 Selection of preferred technology vendor 2008 Completion of sitespecific studies Late 2008 Submission of final EA to Ministry of Environment (MOE) for a royal 2009 EA review and approval by Minister of Environment 2.1.2 The purpose of the undertaking, as set out in the approved Terms of Reference, is: • To process — physically, biologically and/or thermally — the waste that remains after the application of both Regions' at-source waste programs in order to recover resources — both material and energy — and to minimize the amount of material requiring landfill disposal. In proceeding with this undertaking, only those approaches that will meet or exceed all regulatory requirements will be considered. • The waste proposed to be managed will be primarily Municipal Solid Waste (MSW) from residential sources generated within Durham and York Regions remaining after at-source diversion, a portion of post-diversion Industrial, Commercial and Institutional (IC&I) waste traditionally managed by the Regions at their waste disposal facilities; and Municipal post-diversion residual waste from neighbouring non-Greater Toronto Area (GTA) municipalities that may provide disposal capacity for processing residues. 639 REPORT NO.: PSD-097-07 PAGE 4 2.1.3 A description of the proposed undertaking was developed for the purpose of initiating the EA Study. The undertaking would be a residual waste processing facility(ies) that would be capable of managing the minimum 316,000 tonnes/year of residual wastes projected to remain after the achievement of the Regions' diversion objectives. This amount includes the receipt of a quantity of additional post-diversion waste from other sources. Over the 35-year planning period (2011-2045), it is projected that a minimum of 13.3 million tonnes of residual waste will require management. 2.1.4 In June 2006, the Regions received their consultant's report on the "Alternatives To" (alternative processing systems) for the disposal of residual waste. At that time, both Regions approved the technology options for the EFW facility to be: • System 2(a) — Thermal treatment of MSW and recovery of energy followed by recovery of materials from ash/char. These include established technologies such as the "mass burn" of waste in an incinerator. • System 2(b) — Processing of MSW to recover recyclable materials and produce solid recovered fuel (SRF) followed by the thermal treatment of the SRF to produce energy. These are generally new technologies. 2.1.5 Current EA activity involves the identification of a preferred site for the construction and operation of the new thermal treatment facility ("Alternative Methods"). A site with an area of 10 to 12 hectares was determined to be required, although a smaller site could be considered if off-site infrastructure was shared with other sites. The site search was limited to lands within York and Durham Regions. On the short list of sites, five sites were identified in Clarington and one site in East Gwillimbury. Two sites in Clarington have been removed from the short list and are no longer being considered, as discussed in Section 2.2.2 below. The Regions' project team has advised that a preferred site will be recommended in September 2007, with both Regions approving a site by the end of 2007. 2.1.6 The Regions' project team has recently advised that it is their intention to submit an interim EA planning document to MOE in early 2008. This will be after the selection of a site for the proposed facility, but prior to the identification of the preferred specific thermal technology and vendor. The interim, in progress, submission would facilitate early review by Ministry Staff. The Regions must obtain the concurrence of the Ministry to make such an interim submission. 2.1.7 The EA Terms of Reference provide for flexibility in undertaking the study, including adjustments to the sequence of study events. However, they also indicate that the selection of a vendor will be necessary, prior to seeking EA approval, to allow for a sufficiently detailed description of the undertaking (including its design, operation, maintenance, monitoring and contingency measures) and respective net effects. 2.2 Recent Developments Short List of Sites 2.2.1 On May 22, 2007, Council for the Town of East Gwillimbury resolved that the Town should not be considered a willing host for the proposed thermal treatment facility (see Attachment 3). No commitment has so far been made to site the facility only where there 640 REPORT NO.: PSD-097-07 PAGE 5 is a "willing host". Therefore this decision should not affect the status of the East Gwillimbury site on the short list. However, there are concerns it may influence the selection of a preferred site which is discussed later in this report. 2.2.2 On June 19, 2007, the Joint Waste Management Group (JWMG), which is the joint committee of the Regions appointed as the project steering committee, agreed to delete short listed sites 2 and 3 in Clarington (see Attachment 4). The designation of Site 2 in the Durham Regional Official Plan has been confirmed as "Greenlands, Waterfront Areas", and the EA siting criteria are considered to disqualify the site from consideration for a thermal treatment facility. Site 3 was withdrawn by its owner. 2.2.3 As part of the site selection process the following reports: Traffic Impact Analysis; Archeological Assessment; Air and Groundwater Monitoring; Environmental Impact Study; Land Use, Infrastructure and Servicing Assessments, are necessary. The Regions' project team previously committed to release these reports in July; however, they have not been. The Municipality, our peer review consultants, other affected Municipalities and the public have not had an opportunity to review and comment on these studies. It is premature for the Regions' project team to complete their analysis and determine the preferred site in advance of these studies being released, comments provided and due consideration of them. York Region Participation in the EFW Project 2.2.4 On June 6, 2007, the York Region Solid Waste Management Committee adopted the recommendations in a report from their Director of Solid Waste Management.The report recommended that York Region enter into a revised Memorandum of Understanding with the Region of Durham for the EFW project consistent with a number of matters, including: • York commits to supply a minimum of 20,000 tonnes per year of municipal waste during the 25 year operating term of the EFW facility, at a rate established by the RFP for the project, less any revenues from the sale of material, heat or electricity. • York and Durham shall share the capital construction costs for the facility based on the tonnage commitments made for the initial operation of the facility. This represents 12% equity in the facility for York Region for 20,000 tonnes per year. • Durham will ensure that sufficient capacity exists for York at the EFW facility to service the 20,000 tonnes from York and that the plant is designed to allow future expansions. • Should York require additional capacity at the facility, it will have an option which it can exercise at any time during the 25 year operating term to expand the facility at its own costs and thereby acquire an increased ownership interest in the facility. The York Solid Waste Management Committee also passed a motion directing staff to ensure that York has the first right of refusal on any excess capacity at the EFW facility when negotiating the revised Memorandum of Understanding. 641 REPORT NO.: PSD-097-07 PAGE 6 2.2.5 On June 20, 2007, Durham Region Council adopted the following motions: • That staff be directed to examine the option of over-sizing the EFW facility beyond the immediate needs of the two Regions, and to partner on the capital construction and operating costs on an equal basis on facility capacity in excess of their immediate needs. • THAT York Region shall not have a right of first refusal on any capacity at the EFW facility that it has not contributed financially towards the construction, operating, and other related costs thereof for which it has not made a financial contribution. 2.2.6 On June 21, 2007, York Region Council adopted the report from the Solid Waste Management Committee, as amended by Council. The amendment referred the matter of negotiating the first right of refusal on any excess capacity to the Chief Administrative Officer. 2.2.7 Staff from Durham Region and York Region are currently working on developing a revised Memorandum which will govern the process by which the two Regions will undertake the next steps in the joint EFW project. 2.3 Environmental Protection Act and Other Required Environmental Approvals 2.3.1 The proposed EFW facility will require at least the following approvals under the Ontario Environmental Protection Act (EPA): • Certificate of Approval (Air) under Section 9 Part II which regulates emissions to the natural environment, in particular air. • Certificate of Approval (Waste) under Section 27 Part V of the Act for the use, operation, establishment, alteration, enlargement or extension of a waste management facility. 2.3.2 Notwithstanding the facility size developed for the EA study, the EFW facility will be built in phases and EPA approval will be required for each phase. To address the requirements of the EPA and to obtain the required approvals, supporting technical studies and design plans must be completed to a level of detail demonstrating no adverse effects on the natural environment and to show that the applicable environmental standards will be met. As such, the EPA applications will not be made until after a preferred vendor, the specific thermal technology and preferred site is selected, and site specific HHERA has been completed. The Regions' project team currently anticipates that the EPA applications will be submitted in late fall 2008. 2.3.3 The Environmental Bill of Rights (EBR) exempts EPA Act approvals arising from EA Act processes from the requirement to post on the EBR Registry (although they can be posted voluntarily). As such there is no formal opportunity for comment and no opportunity for leave to appeal under the EBR for these approvals. Also, while the EPA Act requires mandatory hearings for waste management projects that would include the proposed thermal waste treatment facility, Regulation 206/97 exempts facilities that are subject to an individual EA. Therefore, in this case, there would be no mandatory EPA Act hearing into these detailed technical approvals and related conditions of approval. 642 REPORT NO.: PSD-097-07 PAGE 7 2.3.4 However, the EA Terms of Reference states: • To establish and operate a solid waste management facility(ies), the Environmental Protection Act (EPA) requires that a Provisional Certificate of Approval be obtained. A detailed work program will be developed once the preferred site is selected and will be prepared in consultation with the public and relevant government agencies. The Region should provide a detailed work plan for consultation with agencies and the public in relation to the EPA approvals, when they announce a preferred site. 2.3.5 Other potential environmental approvals for an EFW facility include the Canadian Environmental Protection Act, the Federal Fisheries Act, and the Ontario Water Resources Act. The need for approvals under these Acts will depend on the site selected and the way in which the facility development will proceed, and as such application requirements may not be triggered. It is expected that any applications required under these Acts would also be submitted in fall 2008. 3.0 CLARINGTON'S PEER REVIEW OF EA DOCUMENTS (TO DATE) 3.1 Comments on the EA Public Consultation Process 3.1.1 Both the Environmental Assessment Act and terms of reference require public consultation during the EA process. Due to the length and broad scope of the initial phases of the EA it maybe difficult to engage the public in the early stages of the process. It was not until the announcement of the short list of sites that the public became widely engaged in the EA process. 3.1.2 The Regions' project team has provided the Municipality with its "go forward" communications strategy and Staff have provided comments on this strategy. The Region of Durham has responded positively to a number of suggestions made by Staff to capitalize on this heightened awareness. These include: • providing an additional overview session (June 25, 2007) on the entire process, so that residents can become updated with previous stages of work; • providing a brief outline of the EA process at the beginning of each meeting; • providing copies of the EA documentation for the Newcastle and Courtice libraries, in addition to the Bowmanville main branch; • providing the study documentation on CDs at the public information sessions (especially the Generic Human Health and Ecological Risk Assessment); • committing to the provision of displays for community events; • holding public information sessions in 3 locations in Clarington; • revising advertising material so that people understand that this is a waste project (i.e. remove "light switch" branding); and 643 REPORT NO.: PSD-097-07 PAGE 8 • agreeing to meet with community groups in the Municipality (e.g. Wilmot Creek homeowners, Port Darlington Community Association, Newcastle/Bondhead Ratepayers). Staff will continue to provide advice to the Region on how the public consultation can be improved for Clarington residents as the remaining steps of the EA study are carried out. However, this is the Regions process. 3.1.3 The EA Terms of Reference calls for the establishment of a public liaison or advisory committee representing a broad range of interests across the study area in order to 'focus public input' on the EA study. The Regions consider the appointment of public members to sit on the JWMG as fulfilling the requirement for a public liaison/advisory committee. Staff do not concur that the project steering committee can also function satisfactorily as the public liaison/advisory committee contemplated by the EA terms of reference. 3.1.4 The Regions have contemplated the formation of a citizen advisory group to "play a role in formulating the Host Community Agreement" as set out in Report #2007-J-14. The relevant extract forms Attachment 5 to this report. The mandate of this citizen advisory group as currently envisioned by the Regions would not address the role of the public liaison committee as set out in the EA Terms of Reference. 3.1.5 As indicated in section 2.3.4 of this report the Region should detail how the Environmental Protection Act application and conditions for approval are to be addressed as part of the public consultation process. 3.1.6 Because of the tight timeline that the Region is pursuing for this project, timely communication with the public about the process and any deviations from the anticipated schedule is highly important; as such providing clear and accurate messages through all available media outlets should be a priority for the Regions' project team. 3.2 Synopsis of the Peer Review Gap Analysis of EA Study Process (TO DATE) 3.2.1 A gap analysis is a comparison of the EA documentation to date and the requirements of the EA Terms of Reference, the Environmental Assessment Act and regulations. Consistency with the Terms of Reference is very important when the Minister of Environment or the Environmental Review Tribunal decide on an EA application. A gap analysis provides the Municipality and the Regions' project team with a check that their work to date meets or exceeds the requirements. 3.2.2 Numerous technical and background studies have been prepared as part of the EA study. The manner in which this information is communicated, disseminated and carried forward into the next stages of the process are all part of the EA process. The process is complex, multi-faceted and takes a considerable amount of time to complete. 3.2.3 It is important that the Municipality and Clarington residents have confidence in the EA process. As such, Council authorized a gap analysis peer review to audit compliance with the approved EA Terms of Reference, and the Environmental Assessment Act and its regulations. 644 REPORT NO.: PSD-097-07 PAGE 9 3.2.4 The Peer Review Consultant and Staff have met with the Region and their project team to probe where the links between the supporting information and analysis could be strengthened, some of which has been identified in the Site Selection comments below and Attachment 6. The Regions' project team is reviewing and addressing the areas in which additional analysis and information is required to address the gaps that have been identified. As the gap analysis is an iterative process it would be premature (other than for the site selection) to comment on the gap analysis until the Regions and their project team have an opportunity to respond. Staff can report that the discussions are collegial and productive and will provide updates as the process evolves. 3.3 Synopsis of"Alternative Methods" (Facility Siting) Draft Report and Peer Review Comments Background 3.3.1 The draft Terms of Reference, as prepared by the Regions and submitted to MOE, proposed an approach for identifying a site for the new waste management facility (Alternative Methods). Council, in its comments on the draft Terms of Reference in February 2006, questioned the adequacy of the site selection process and strongly objected to the focus on publicly owned lands. These comments noted that the then draft Terms of Reference unfairly prejudiced the site search in favour of lands owned by the two Regional governments, in particular the significant area of land owned by the Region of Durham near the Courtice waterfront. The Terms of Reference. for the EA Study, as approved by the Minister of Environment on March 31, 2006, were not revised to address Clarington's concerns. 3.3.2 The Municipality's peer review consultants, in consultation with staff, have identified a number of issues with the site selection process. These are summarized below and are discussed in more detail in the consultants' peer review of the site selection process, which are Attachments 6 and 8A (air quality) to this report. 3.3.3 The Municipality's peer review consultants have not had access to the other background studies such as the Traffic Impact Analysis, Archeological Assessment, Air and Groundwater Monitoring, Environmental Impact Study, Land Use, Infrastructure and Servicing Assessments as they have not been released. As such, the Municipalities comments on Site Selection are incomplete. The other studies would have provided additional insights and could have identified specific requirements that Clarington could request if that site were selected. As an example, if Site 1 is the preferred site it is most likely that a separate access road from the existing street network will be a Municipal requirement; however, without the Traffic Impact Analysis we have no basis to make this comment. 3.3.4 The delay of this Staff report and the attached peer review reports has facilitated the necessary discussion and finalization of Clarington's peer review comments, to date, by ensuring that the interpretations made and information gathered were accurate. While the Regions' project team has reviewed the peer review reports, changes made have been done so based on the clarification provided by the Regions' project team and to ensure the language is accurate. Clarington's peer review consultants are independent of the Regions' project team and are providing advice to Clarington. 645 REPORT NO.: PSD-097-07 PAGE 10 Site Selection Process (Attachment 6) 3.3.5 The Site Selection Short List Draft Report does not provide screening maps to show which parts of the study area were excluded under each of the criteria, and it does not provide sufficient explanation as to how each of the criteria were applied, This information has recently been supplied to the municipal peer review consultant; however; for this step of the process to be traceable, the proponent should provide screening maps at an appropriate scale and a description of how each of the criteria were applied as part of the project documentation. 3.3.6 The proponent has acknowledged that while the Regions' project team identified an exclusion area around federally regulated airports, this criteria was applied to the future Pickering airport, but was not applied to the Oshawa airport, which is federally regulated. This oversight will be addressed by the Regions' project team during the review period. 3.3.7 The information presented in the Site Selection Short List Draft Report does not describe a comprehensive approach to the identification of public lands. The Regions' project team has indicated that the distribution of materials to other public agencies such as federal and provincial ministries and land-related agencies was the same as the process to elicit interest from potential willing sellers. However, there was no follow-up by the Regions' project team with the various public agencies to ensure that all public sites were being considered. As such, the public lands identified at this step of the process may not have identified and considered all of the potential siting opportunities on public lands. 3.3.8 Inclusion within the "Protected Countryside" areas under the Greenbelt legislation is listed in the Site Selection Short List Draft Report as an exclusionary feature for the purpose of Step 2 of the site selection methodology. However, the Report indicates that a change in direction was undertaken to bring lands in the Greenbelt into the site selection process, but does not describe whether or how lands in the Greenbelt were examined to identify potential public and willing seller sites other than the East Gwillimbury Site 1. There may be other potential siting opportunities in the Greenbelt that have not been identified. 3.3.9 The Site Selection Short List Draft Report does not provide a full description of how consultation on the proposed methodology and criteria affected the approach now being undertaken. While the "Report on Consultation on Proposed Siting Methodology and Criteria" describes the consultation process undertaken, it is equally important to show how the results of the consultation were considered in making any changes to the methodology and criteria and in assigning priorities for the comparison of short listed sites. 3.3.10 While the land use designations (Official Plan and Zoning) are industrial they are not the same for the three sites under consideration. It will depend on which site is selected whether an Official Plan and/or zoning amendment will be necessary. Whether the Regions' project team has accurately interpreted Clarington's Official Plan and Zoning By-laws is difficult to discern without having access to Land Use Assessment study. 3.3.11 There are concerns with how the proposed EFW facility would integrate into the Energy Park in particular, with the objective of attracting high profile, prestige uses. For 646 REPORT NO.: PSD-097-07 PAGE 11 example, a prestigious office use would likely have concerns regarding compatibility with a large EFW facility including the impacts of garbage trucks passing through this area. Evaluation of Short List of Sites and Preferred Technology(Attachment 6) 3.3.12 There is uncertainty regarding the size of the facility being sought by the proponent and the size of site required to accommodate it. The EA Terms of Reference indicate the facility will be required to treat a minimum annual 316,000 tonnes/year over the 35 - year (2011-2045) planning period. However, a maximum, a range, or an actual proposed capacity for the facility, is not indicated, in effect providing for no upper limit on the scale of the facility. 3.3.13 The Terms of Reference also refer to a potential need to identify contingency or surplus disposal capacity and any capacity for waste from outside the study area, or IC&I waste from within York and Durham Regions when identifying the minimum site size requirement during the EA. In addition, one of the indicators for the criteria for the evaluation of the short listed sites includes "area surplus to minimum requirement provided by site'. This suggests that there is no maximum site size and that larger sites may be preferred. The site selection process, as presently structured, would appear to give preference to large sites. 3.3.14 This raises a concern with respect to the potential for continuous expansions of the proposed EFW facility in the future. Given economies of scale, the costs related to constructing a new EFW facility, and the new waste management regulation issued by the Province which allows for the fast-tracking of EA approvals for EFW facilities, there would appear to be a significant incentive to expanding the Durham/York EFW facility in the future rather than building a new facility. In this regard, it is imperative that the Regions commit to a maximum size for the proposed new facility. The Region should commit that any expansion beyond 450,000 tonnes would be a new and separate EA study and would address cumulative effects. 3.3.15 The recently revised study schedule provides for a preferred site to be identified and an interim EA planning document to be submitted to MOE prior to the selection of a vendor and specific thermal technology. The short-listed sites will be evaluated and a preferred site selected on the basis of the Generic Human Health and Ecological Risk Assessment (HHERA) and a generic project description for a thermal treatment facility. Given the wide range of thermal technologies available, each of which would have different environmental profiles, the actual effects of the facility cannot be determined until the preferred vendor/technology has been identified, bringing the validity of the site evaluation into question. In this regard, the Regions' project team has commited to re- visiting the short-list site evaluation after a vendor/technology has been selected to determine if the site comparison remains valid and if a change in the preferred site is warranted. 3.3.16 The additional studies (Traffic Impact Analysis; Archeological Assessment; Air and Groundwater Monitoring; Environmental Impact Study; Land Use, Infrastructure and Servicing Assessments) may eliminate some of the remaining 4 sites from consideration. The Region should consider carrying forward at least two geographically separate sites through the RFP to provide for the optimum siting opportunity in relation to the specific technology and the specific HHERA. 647 REPORT NO.: PSD-097-07 PAGE 12 3.3.17 The methodology to be employed by the Regions' project team in evaluating the sites has not been specified. In discussion, the Regions' project team have indicated that weightings will be given where applicable and the different sites will be assigned a series of advantages/disadvantages. Typically in an EA process either the "reasoned argument" or "arithmetical weighting" methods are employed, sometimes both are used as a cross-check on each other. Because the evaluation methodology has not been detailed in advance by the project team and since it has been publicly stated that there is "willing ost" reference we are unclear if the Clarin ton sites may be viewed 9 P 9 Y differently than the East Gwillimbury site. Evaluation of Air Quality Impacts in Site Selection Process(Attachment 8A) 3.3.18 The Regions' project team has developed a list of criteria and indicators for the evaluation of the short-listed sites, with a number of considerations (measures) identified for each. A number of modifications recommended by the Municipality's peer review consultants are discussed below. 3.3.19 Under the criterion "Air Quality Impacts and Ambient Air Quality Testing", it is recommended that two additional considerations be added: • Identification of other significant emissions sources (both current and future) for each of the candidate sites. This would include major industries and major transportation corridors, including the future Highway 407 extension. • Assessment of potential impact zone changes as a result of local meteorological conditions. Normally, impact zones are considered to be circular; however, this approach may not be appropriate for some sites due to such factors as local topography or the channelling of wind direction along the lake shore. 3.3.20 Under the criterion "Compatibility with Existing and/or Proposed Land Uses", specific attention should be given to sensitive receptors, in addition to residential uses (including designated lands in the Official Plan). Other sensitive uses include schools, day cares, and hospitals. 3.3.21 Under the criterion "Capital Costs, Operation and Maintenance Costs", additional site specific mitigation measures are listed as an indicator. This suggests that different sites might require different air pollution control systems, and that the cost of employing these systems will be a determining factor in site selection. It should be clarified that the best control technology available for emissions will be employed for each of the candidate sites. 3.3.22 The Regions' project team has responded that: "Through the competitive RFQ/RFP process, the Region will be looking for the Best Available Technology Not Entailing Excessive Cost (BATNEEC). Based on operating data around the world, it has been proven that the types of facilities being considered have the ability to operate below the current regulatory requirements in the Province of Ontario. Where a lower emission option is available (within reason) this will be identified and preferred..." 648 REPORT NO.: PSD-097-07 PAGE 13 Clarington's peer review consultants will comment further on the implications of the Regions' project team approach as more information is provided on the speck technology, facility design and anticipated emissions. 3.4 Synopsis of Generic Human Health and Ecological Risk Assessment and Peer Review Comments Background 3.4.1 A Generic Human Health and Ecological Risk Assessment (HHERA)was undertaken by the Regions' project team in order to study the potential health and environmental impacts and the feasibility of siting an EFW facility in either Durham or York Regions. The report was intended to identify potential issues of concern that should be closely examined during the conduct of a site specific risk assessment. 3.4.2 The generic study developed an extensive list of chemicals of potential concern (COPCs). Maximum emission concentrations for all selected COPCs were considered for the air dispersion modeling to illustrate a realistic worst-case scenario for the proposed technology. Three facility scenarios were modeled, ranging from 133,000 tonnes/year to 400,000 tonnes/year. A multiple exposure pathways assessment (air, agricultural products, soil, fish, surface water, country foods, backyard garden, breast milk) was used to determine human exposure risk for carcinogenic and non- carcinogenic chemicals. Several different human receptors were selected to represent a wide range of exposures, including a subsistence farmer, a first nations person, a commercial worker and a toddler at the daycare. Three life stages for most of the identified receptors (infants, toddlers, adult), as well as a composite receptor (from birth to 75 years), were assessed. 3.4.3 Based on the scientific methodology employed, the generic risk assessment concluded that contaminant emissions for a 400,000 tonne/year thermal waste treatment facility would be within MOE criteria for all chemicals, and that predicted concentrations of contaminant emissions to air (including background concentrations) did not pose an unacceptable risk to receptors at the maximum point of impingement. No unacceptable risk to the natural environment was identified. A limited number of potential human health and ecological concerns were identified; these were attributed to the overly conservative approach of the assessment. Nevertheless, these specific issues were identified as requiring attention during the site specific risk assessment. 3.4.4 Council directed that a peer review be undertaken of the Generic HHERA in response to concerns expressed by the public regarding the environmental and human health effects of the emissions from a thermal treatment facility. The peer review undertaken by the Municipality's consultants (Attachment 7) focused on whether the risk assessment had been undertaken competently in accordance with generally accepted principles for human health and ecological risk assessments, and whether or not, the scientific methodology used and the conclusions reached are appropriate and defensible. As well, a specific peer review was undertaken of the air quality aspects of the Generic HHERA (Attachment 8B). 649 REPORT NO.: PSD-097-07 PAGE 14 Peer Review of Generic HHERA (Attachment 7) 3.4.5 The peer review concluded that the Generic HHERA for the EFW treatment facility is comprehensive and conforms to risk assessment guidance. For example, the peer review noted that the selection of the different types of receptors, as well as the life stage for calculations of exposure to carcinogenic and non-carcinogenic chemicals, is appropriate as these life stages represent the most exposed fife stages. It was also found that the overall approach used in the Generic HHERA was conservative, potentially resulting in a significant over-estimation of exposure and risk. 3.4.6 The peer review identified a number of areas where the study could be clarified to be more transparent. However, it was concluded that these changes would not change the overall conclusions of the assessment as the risks are predicted to be very low, and in fact the calculated risks would likely be lower when the appropriate technology and site is selected. A specific discussion on nano-particles was suggested to address a concern identified by the public. As well, it was suggested that a "plain-language" summary of the report be prepared so that members of the public can better understand the approach and results of the risk assessment. Peer Review of Air Quality Aspects of Generic HHERA (Attachment 8B) 3.4.7 The air quality assessment for the HHERA was found to be reasonable for a generic assessment. The model used was the most appropriate for dispersion modeling. Emissions were conservatively assumed to be at a maximum and any actual system is expected to perform better than the emission levels used in the generic study. The COPCs assessed by the HHERA is extensive and it is unlikely that any chosen technology would emit a chemical that would be a cause for concern that has not been included in the generic assessment. As well, the meteorological data used (Pearson Airport and Buffalo) is consistent with MOE's recommended practice for assessing air quality in the York/Durham area, and is appropriate for the generic study. The study has also accounted for the localized effect of the lake on dispersion. 3.4.8 The only area of concern with respect to the air quality model relates to the background air quality data used. Key emissions sources in the Clarington area (e.g. St. Marys Cement, Oshawa urban area, General Motors, Ameristeel, Highways 401 and 35/115 and the future 407 link), could affect the conclusions of the HHERA. As well, the current background assessment only considers major contaminants measured by MOE monitoring stations. The air quality background assessment and risk assessment should consider the background levels of other contaminants of concern related to thermal waste treatment; specifically dioxins, furans and heavy metals such as mercury. 4.0 UPDATE ON THE REGIONS' TECHNOLOGY PROCUREMENT PROCESS 4.1 Throughout the public information sessions and as the technology selection process has evolved, there has been considerable discussion on the various technologies that could be considered for a thermal treatment facility. A number of different thermal technologies currently exist or are in the development stage. These range from well- established technologies such as conventional combustion/incineration to emerging technologies such as plasma arc. 650 REPORT NO.: PSD-097-07 PAGE 15 4.2 The Regions are employing a two-step process for selecting a vendor and a thermal treatment technology. The first step is the issuance of a Request for Qualifications (RFQ) to vendors of thermal treatment technologies, while the second step is the Request for Proposals (RFP) to qualified vendors. 4.3 On July 12, 2007, Durham and York Regions jointly issued a "Request for Qualifications to Design, Build and Operate an Energy From Waste Facility", with the closing date for submissions being October 11, 2007. The RFQ states that the capacity of the new facility of start-up in 2011 will be between 150,000 and 250,000 tonnes per year, with future scalability to accommodate growth to as high as 400,000 tonnes per year over the life of the anticipated contract (35 years). It is also stated that negotiations between Durham and other municipalities regarding waste supply commitments are presently on- going and the required initial capacity of the EFW facility will be finalized prior to the issuance of the RFP. 4.4 Following completion of the RFQ stage, an RFP will be issued, most likely in early 2008. The RFP will describe the Regions' requirements and performance expectations for the design, construction and operation of the EFW facility. Qualified respondents identified through the RFQ process will be invited to provide detailed proposals, including the design, construction and operating contract. After reviewing the RFP submissions, the successful qualified respondent (the "preferred vendor with a specific thermal technology") will be selected. This step is expected to occur in mid 2008. 4.5 The potential technologies to be considered through the RFQ/RFP process exhibit a wide range of advantages and disadvantages, and a number of factors will be used to evaluate the various systems and identify a preferred system. It is important to note that the factors the Regions may favour (e.g. minimal cost, optimum energy generation) may not necessarily coincide with those factors that would be most favourable to Clarington (e.g. lowest air emissions, high quality architectural treatment). 4.6 To respect the timelines identified for the RFQ the Peer Review comments on technology procurement will not be available until after October 11, 2007 or when the RFQ closes. The Municipality can make suggestions to the Region to include specific requirements in the RFP for the thermal technology, based on the recommendations from our consultants; however, it is the Region's RFP. It should also be noted that because of confidentiality requirements, the Municipality would not have any opportunity to review a draft RFP. Furthermore, the Municipality cannot participate in the process once the RFP is issued. 4.7 While the Municipality can make requests during the EA process with regard to the standards for emissions, monitoring and other aspects of the thermal treatment facility, it will not be until the vendor is chosen and a detailed facility design is developed that environmental protection measures will be identified. As such, the EPA submission and the conditions attached to the Certificates of Approval to operate the facility will be a very important aspect in ensuring that the Municipality's and residents concerns with respect to protection of human and environmental health are appropriately addressed. 4.8 It is important for Council to understand that a decision on the site will be made without knowing the technology vendor, the specific thermal technology, the contemplated design of the EFW plant or the results of the site specific HHERA. 651 REPORT NO.: PSD-097-07 PAGE 16 4.9 Subsequent reports from the Peer Review Consultants and Staff will address these issues more fully when the Site Specific Risk Assessment is prepared, the RFQ process is complete, and when the Municipality knows the timing of the EPA submission. 6.0 UPDATE ON FINANCIAL IMPACT STUDIES 5.1 Clarington Energy Business Park 5.1.1 The Energy Park contains two of the potential locations of the EFW facility that meet the siting criterion as set out in the EA Terms of Reference. Although the Energy Park planning contemplated that there may be some alternative power generation, there were concerns about the impact of an EFW facility, its scale and emissions. 5.1.2 Part of the preparation of the economic analysis will be to determine the impact (positive and/or negative) that an EFW facility will have on attracting other businesses to the Energy Park. The consultants for these studies have been retained and are working on the background analysis, their work will be reported on of a later date. 5.2 Assessment Base 5.2.1 As mentioned above, one of the major opportunities that the Energy Park represents is the anticipated improvement in the Municipality's tax base and ratio. Not only would the development of the Energy Park create a new stream of taxation income, it would help move the Residential/Commercial-Industrial ratio from the existing 91/9 towards the 75/25 target set out in the Official Plan. 5.2.2 The Municipality has waited a considerable length of time for sanitary sewer and municipal water services to be provided to industrial areas to increase their marketability. By providing serviced industrial areas, Clarington can begin the process of attracting more employers and providing a better live/work lifestyle for residents. 5.2.3 The Municipality, as part of its due diligence for both Section 5.1 above and this section, has retained two multi-national firms to assist in determining impacts, if any. At this time, the consultants work has not progressed to a point where an update can be provided, other than to indicate they are working through a number of different scenarios. 6.0 UPDATE ON OTHER ISSUES 6.1 Throughout the previous deputations to Council have identified a number of issues that will be addressed in part by the Municipality's peer review. These include: • A comparison of Ontario's A-7 Guidelines with the European Union and American guidelines; • The effect of differences in the waste stream between Europe and York/Durham on emissions from an EFW facility; • Costs related to achieving lowest possible emissions at an EFW facility; 652 REPORT NO.: PSD-097-07 PAGE 17 • The applicability of the conclusions in the peer review undertaken by Dr. Pengally of the health study component of the Halton Region EFW report; On June 20, 2007, Durham Region Council adopted the following motion: THAT in addition to providing his comments from the peer review of the results of the Consultant's Generic Human Health and Ecological Risk Assessment Study for the York/Durham EFW Environmental Assessment Project, Durham Region's Medical Officer of Health also be requested to conduct a separate review and report on the consultant's study for Halton Region on the potential health and environmental effects of an EFW facility and the peer review that were done on that study. Clarington's Peer Review comments on the Generic Human Health and Ecological Risk Assessment have been made available to the Medical Officer of Health to assist him in his review. These comments are summarized in section 3.4 of this report and Staff are recommending no further action on this item, at this time. 6.2 Other items that Staff are addressing as part of the recommendations of PSD-070-07 (Attachment 2) not included in this report are: • Matters to be included in the Request for Proposals; • Matters to be addressed in a Host Community Agreement. Staff and the peer review team are continuing to review information related to these issues. Future reports will provide more information on these topics. 7.0 CONCLUSION 7.1 As the purpose of this report is to meet the Regions deadline we are asking the Committee to approve the recommendations FORTHWITH as set out in this report. 7.2 It is premature for the Regions' project team to be making an announcement of the preferred site (scheduled for the September 25`" JWMG meeting) without the Municipality and others having access to the studies the Regions project team previously indicated would be available in July. These reports are critical to understanding the potential impacts on the Clarington sites, in particular the Energy Park. Sufficient time for the interested municipalities, agencies and public to review and comment, and the Regions' project team to consider the comments prior to recommending a preferred site is necessary. 7.3 The Regions' project team should provide the methodology for application of the evaluation criteria in the determination of the preferred site in advance of it being applied so that Clarington can be assured that the resolution by East Gwillimbury does not bias the application of the evaluation criteria and so that the process is traceable. 653 REPORT NO.: PSD-097-07 PAGE 18 7.4 The Region has committed to revisit the short-list site evaluation after a vendor/technology has been selected to determine if the site comparison remains valid and if a change in the preferred site is warranted. The Region should consider whether the anticipated cost saving of determining a preferred site prior to knowing the specific thermal technology is adequate justification given the potential costs to revisit the short- list site evaluation and the problems that changing the preferred site could involve. The Region should consider whether carrying forward at least two geographically separate sites through the RFP to provide for the option on siting in relation to the specific technology and the specific HHERA may be beneficial 7.5 Council has yet to determine if, and then under what conditions, Clarington will be a host community of the energy from waste facility. The Regions have not yet reached a number of key decision points in the EA process, such as the selection of a site and a specific thermal technology and vendor. 7.6 Staff will continue to work with the peer review consultants to monitor the EA process and provide comments/advice to Council. Attachments: Attachment 1 Glossary of Terms Attachment 2 Resolution from PSD-070-07. Attachment 3 Town of East Gwillimbury Resolution Attachment 4 Map— Short List of Alternative Sites in Clarington Attachment 5 Extract from Durham Region Report#2007-J-14 Attachment 6 Peer Review Report (Steven Rowe) — Gap Analysis of EA Process and Review of Site Selection Attachment 7 Peer Review Report (SENES) — Generic Human Health and Ecological Risk Assessment Attachment 8A Peer Review Report (AMEC) —Air Quality Aspects of Site Selection Attachment 8B Peer Review Report (AMEC) — Air Quality Aspects of Generic Human Health and Ecological Risk Assessment List of Interested Parties to be Notified of Councils decision: Joachim Baur Glenda Gies Jim Richards Alexandra Bennett Tenzin Gyaltsan Andrew Robson Barry Bracken Ron Hosein Yvonne Spencer Kathi Bracken Dr. Debra Jefferson Nicole Young Wendy Bracken Laurie Lafrance Lucy Wunderlich Karen Buck Lee McCue Ontario Power Generation Terry Caswell Warren McCarthy Anthony Topley Katie Clark Cathrine McKeever Paul Andre Larose Shirley Crago Kerry Meydam Don Wilkinson Kevin Diamond John Mutton, Municipal Noah Hannah Wayne Ellis Solutions Katherine Miles Linda Gasser Karen Nichol Jaison Gibson Dave Renaud 654 Attachment 1 To Report PSD-097-07 GLOSSARY OF TERMS BATNEEC Best Available Technology Not Entailing Excessive Cost COPC Contaminant of Potential Concern EA Environmental Assessment EBR Environmental Bill of Rights EFW Energy From Waste EPA Environmental Protection Act HHERA Human Health and Ecological Risk Assessment IC&I Waste Industrial, Commercial, and Institutional waste MOE Ontario Ministry of the Environment MSW Municipal Solid Waste RFP Request for Proposals RFQ Request for Qualifications SRF Solid Recovered Fuel 655 Attachment 2 To Report PSD-097-07 Resolution GPA 367 07 THAT Report PSD 070 07 be received. THAT Staff be instructed to carry out the requirements of Resolution C 211 07 by preparing the studies in accordance with the scope of work set out Report PSD 070 07. THAT Mr. Steven Rowe be retained to undertake the scope of work as outlined in Section 4 2 Site Selection and Section 4 Gap Analysis of Report PSD 070 07 and further to advise on the scope of work set out in Section 5 1 Oversight of Technology Procurement Process and 5 2 Potential Environmental Effects of Report PSD 070 07. THAT SENES Consultants Limited be retained to undertake the scope of work as outlined in Section 5 1 Oversight of Technology Procurement Process of Report PSD 070 07 and further to assist with the scope of work set out in Section 5 2 Potential Environmental Effects of Report PSD 070 07. THAT AMEC E C Services Ltd be retained to undertake the scope of work as outlined in Section 5 2 Potential Environmental Effects of Report PSD 070 07. THAT C B Richard Ellis Ltd be retained to undertake the scope of work set out in Section 6 1 Impact on Clarington Energy Business Park and Section 6 2 Impact on Assessment Base of Report PSD 070 07 and further to assist with the scope of work set out in Section 6 3 Community Stigma. THAT the Director of Finance be authorized to retain a multi disciplinary accounting firm to undertake the scope of work set out in Section 6 3 Community Stigma and Section 64 Host Community Agreement of Report PSD 070 07. THAT the Municipal Solicitor and Consulting Engineer Totten Sims Hubicki provide information professional opinion estimates and advice as deemed appropriate. THAT the Directors of Finance and Planning Services be instructed to strike a committee comprised of Clarington staff and consultants similar in composition to the Region of Durham s committee in order to facilitate discussions related to the Host Community Agreement. THAT the Directors of Finance and Planning Services be instructed to take any additional actions or retain any additional consultants deemed necessary to ensure the Municipality has carried out its due diligence. THAT the Region be requested to work in cooperation with Clarington Staff to improve the public engagement process as noted in Section 4 3 and the Air Shed Study process as noted in Section 5 2. THAT the Purchasing By Law 2006 127 be waived. THAT the Director of Planning Services and the Director of Finance be authorized to negotiate and approve contracts with the consultants deemed necessary to complete the due diligence for the Municipality as identified in Report PSD 070 07. 656 THAT Council authorize the Mayor and Clerk to sign the necessary by laws to engage the consultants and execute the contracts deemed satisfactory by the Director of Planning Services and the Director of Finance. THAT the peer reviews and studies referenced in Report PSD 070 07 be deemed to be part of the necessary studies to complete due diligence as referenced in the motion approved by Durham Region Council on April 18 2007 and that the Director of Finance be directed to recover these due diligence costs from the Region of Durham as set out in their motion. THAT Staff report regularly to Council on the progress and findings of the peer reviews and analyses being undertaken and the Host Community Agreement discussions and THAT all interested parties be notified of Council s decision including the Regions of York and Durham Councils and the Joint Waste Management Committee 657 Attachment 3 To Report PSD-097-07 H.S. Motion re Residual Waste Processing & Energy from Waste Facility Moved by Councillor Johnston Seconded by: Councillor Morton WHEREAS The Town of East Gwillimbury is supportive of waste diversion options that encourage the sustainability of the environment; AND WHEREAS one of the short-listed sites for the proposed "Residual Waste Processing and Energy from Waste Facility" is on Garfield Wright Drive in the Town of East Gwillimbury; AND WHEREAS Council of the Town of East Gwillimbury has considered this proposal and expresses the following concerns: WHEREAS, WITH RESPECT TO NATURAL HERITAGE, the proposed site is zoned industrial and is located in the Provincial Greenbelt, at the headwaters of the Black River — an important part of the Lake Simcoe watershed. There is a potential risk of environmental harm from spillage, emissions, or other unintended.events when placing a significant waste management facility in a headwaters area, and: WHEREAS, WITH RESPECT TO AIR EMISSIONS, although emissions from incineration at such a facility must meet provincial standards—any emission will have an environmental impact; AND FURTHER, WITH RESPECT TO AIR EMISSIONS, it is noted that the Town of Newmarket has had very negative experiences with the Halton Recycling facility adjacent to Highway 404, particularly with odour and air quality; AND WHEREAS, WITH RESPECT TO AGRICULTURE, the proposed facility would be located in close proximity to a number of food producing farms, and the Town is concerned about any possible effects emissions might have with respect to agricultural operations in East Gwillimbury; WHEREAS WITH RESPECT TO TRAFFIC AND IMPACT ON LOCAL ROADS, any waste facility brings with it the issue of truck traffic. The Town does not wish to experience truck traffic hauling waste to an incineration facility, and problems can arise with odour, spillage, debris, litter and pollution from engine exhaust; THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED THAT the Town of East Gwillimbury should not be considered as a willing host to the proposed "Residual Waste Processing and Energy from Waste Facility". Councillor Hauseman requested that a recorded vote be taken: Councillor Hackson -Yes Councillor Hauseman -Yes Councillor Johnston -Yes Councilor Morton- Yes Mayor Young—Yes Carried. C 2007-192DLS Mayor Young advised that Council will carry back to York Region the message that the Town of East Gwillimbury is not a willing host to this facility. 658 I � . • I �•r .d w 1•+ '�!,�L ti, l s I < 7 o . Py BOWMANVILLE i U Ap PN. I < _ _ .- _- _-.- c o COURTICE I � . HIOHWA 407 I Z ° I LAKE R HIO WAY io 5 A I 0 4 KPH .4 NPS\ONP � 1f c� C12H gton Energy Busman Park O LAKE ONTARIO X O O � D rn vii w Potential Clarington Sites - Energy From Waste Facility EM Sites Removed From Short List =' o3 � CD 6 = o .. 4 A Attachment 5 To Report PSD-097-07 Report#2007-J-14 Page 19. • Compliance with air emissions; • Reduced property values; • Vlsual impact of facility; • Monitoring and reporting of key performance parameters, • Traffic control measures; and, • Activating a Public Liaison Committee. • The formation of a Public Liaison Committee (PLC) can play a role in formulating a Host Community Agreement. The PLC can allow the boa[ residents to feel recognized and respected. It also allows them to understand that they are part of the process and thus empowered to participate. • After a site has been selected for the facility, a PLC can be formed and they can provide input into the final version of the Host Community Agreement to reflect the concerns of the community. • Funds have been provided in the 2007 EFW operating budget for external legal advice to assist in the preparation of a draft Host Community Agreement. It is anticipated that the final Host Community Agreement can be negotiated with the successful local area municipality. •. It is recommended that the Region agree to negotiate and be responsible for executing a Host Community Agreement with the local area municipality with the preferred site, to be based upon the principles included as Attachment d. 7,0 NON-FINANCIAL CONSIDERATIONS 7.1 Health and Environment The Ministry of the Environment Evaluation of Waste Disposal Options • In July 1999, the Ministry of the Environment(MOE)released a 290 page technical report on a series of risk assessments it conducted on two generic type waste disposal facilities,each having a disposal capacity of 6.5 million tonnes of waste over twenty years. • The final report was titled "Environmental Risks of Municipal Non-hazardous Waste Landfilling and incineration"and it evaluated a large-scale incinerator and a large landfill site (see details included as Attachment 5). • This is a highly technical and scientific document that examines all aspects and possible impacts that a landfill site or an incinerator might have on the environment, on public health, on the ecology including risks to humans, animal and aquatic life. 660 Attachment 6 To Report PSD-097-07 INTERIM REPORT: GAP ANALYSIS OF THE EA PROCESS AND REVIEW OF THE SITE SELECTION PROCESS Prepared for: The Municipality of Clarington By: Steven Rowe Environmental Planner August 2007 1 Interim Report: Review and Gap Analysis of Site Selection Process, Durham/York Residual Waste Study Steven Rowe Environmental Planner August 2007 661 Table of Contents 1.0 Introduction 1.1 Background 1.2 Status under the Environmental Assessment Act 1.3 The New Waste Management Regulation 1.4 Adoption of a Preferred Alternative to the Undertaking 1.5 Site Selection Process 2.0 Site Selection in the Approved Terms of Reference 2.1 Requirement that the EA is to be in accordance with the Terms of Reference 2.2 Participation of Preferred Vendors in the EA 2.3 The Facility Site Selection Process 2.3.1 Review of Evaluation Methodology and Criteria 2.3.2 Identify Areas Within Which Sites may be Located 2.3.3 Identify Minimum Site Size 2.3.4 Identify Long List of Sites 2.3.5 Identify Short List of Sites 2.3.6 Preferred Site and Vend orffechnology 2.3.7 Health and Ecological Risk Assessments 3.0 The Site Process Peer Review 3.1 Approach to Process Review 3.2 Identified Issues 3.2.1 Traceability of the Study Area Screening Process 3.2.2 Site Size and the Selection of a Reasonable Range of Alternatives 3.2.3 Identification of Public Lands in the Site Selection Process 3.2.4 Lands in the Greenbelt 3.2.5 Comparison of Alternatives to the Undertaking, Alternative Methods of Carrying Out the Undertaking, and Description of the Undertaking 3.2.6 Consultation 4.0 Conclusion 2 Interim Report: Review and Gap Analysis of Site Selection Process, Durham/York Residual Waste Study Steven Rowe Environmental Planner August 2007 662 i 1. Introduction 1.1 Background Steven Rowe Environmental Planner has been retained by the Municipality of Clarington to review a site selection process being conducted by the Regions of York and Durham that will ultimately lead to the identification of a preferred site and vendor/technology for a thermal treatment or Energy-from Waste facility. The facility would process waste derived from York and Durham Regions and potentially other municipalities. The site selection process forms part of a study being conducted under the Ontario Environmental Assessment (EA) Act to identify an undertaking "to process....the waste that remains after the application of both Regions' at — source waste diversion programmes in order to recover resources — both material and energy — and to minimize the amount of material requiring landfill disposal." The primary focus of this review is the approved Terms of Reference document and "Draft Report, Thermal Facility Site Selection Process, Results of Steps 1-5, Identification of the "Short List" of Alternative Sites", prepared by MacViro Consultants Inc. (now Genivar) and Jacques Whitford Limited and dated March, 2007 (the "Site Selection Short List Draft Report"). Consultation material in relation to the EA was also reviewed, and a meeting between Clarington and York/Durham staff and consultants was held on June 29, 2007 to identify issues requiring further clarification. 1.2 Status under the Environmental Assessment Act This EA is considered to be an "individual EA", and is to be carried out in accordance with Terms of Reference (TOR) that were approved on March 31, 2006 by the Ontario Minister of the Environment for this specific undertaking. The Terms of Reference indicate that the EA is to be carried out in accordance with Section 6.1(2) of the Act, which encompasses the requirements relating to the content of an environmental assessment. Section 6.1(2)) is as follows: Subject to subsection (3), the environmental assessment must consist of, (a) a description of the purpose of the undertaking; (b) a description of and a statement of the rationale for (i) the undertaking, (ii) the alternative methods of carrying out the undertaking, and (iii) the alternatives to the undertaking 3 Interim Report: Review and Gap Analysis of Site Selection Process, Durham/York Residual Waste Study Steven Rowe Environmental Planner August 2007 663 (c) a description of, (i) the environment that will be affected or that might reasonably be expected to be affected, directly or indirectly, (ii) the effects that will be caused or that might reasonably be expected to be caused to the environment, and (iii) the actions necessary or that may reasonably . be expected to be necessary to prevent, change, mitigate or remedy the effects upon or the effects that might reasonably be expected upon the environment, by the undertaking, the alternative methods of carrying out the undertaking and the alternatives to the undertaking; (d) an evaluation of the advantages and disadvantages to the environment of the undertaking, the alternative methods of carrying out the undertaking and the alternatives to the undertaking; and (e) a description of any consultation about the undertaking by the proponent and the results of the consultation. Section 6.1(3) referred to above allows the terms of reference to consist of information other than that required by subsection 6.1(2), however the submitted and approved TORs require the proponent to undertake the most -comprehensive level of EA planning under Section 6.1(2). The Terms of Reference show how the requirements of Section 6.1(2) are to be met. They do not replace Section 6.1(2). 1.3 The New Waste Management Regulation On March 23, 2007 a new Regulation 101/07 under the Environmental Assessment Act came into effect. The Regulation provides for an "Environmental Screening Process" for certain waste management projects in accordance with a new "Guide to Environmental Assessment Requirements for Waste Management Projects". This process is less rigorous and can be conducted more quickly than the individual EA process — for example there is no requirement for a Minister — approved TOR, and no requirement to identify and compare alternatives such as alternative technologies or systems (alternatives "to" the undertaking) or alternative sites (alternative methods of carrying out the undertaking). Some waste management undertakings — including thermal treatment facilities with energy recovery of the scale proposed by York and Durham Regions — are now permitted to proceed through the Environmental Screening Process rather than an individual EA. Section 10 of the Regulation provided an opportunity to proponents such as York and Interim Report: Review and Gap Analysis of Site Selection Process, Durham/York 4 Residual Waste Study Steven Rowe Environmental Planner August 2007 664 Durham Regions who had submitted EAs or proposed TORS to switch to the Environmental Screening Process if they notified the Director of the Environmental Assessment and Approvals Branch of the Ministry of the Environment within 60 days of the Regulation coming into effect. On April 24, 2007 the Joint Waste management Group (JWMG) established to oversee the EA process decided not to take advantage of this opportunity. Therefore, the proposed undertaking continues to be subject to requirements set out in the approved TOR. 1.4 Adoption of a Preferred Alternative to the Undertaking On May 30, 2006 the DurhamNork JWMG recommended that their respective Regional Councils approve of their consultants' recommendations regarding the preferred "alternative to the undertaking" or waste management technology system. In fact the recommendations encompass, potentially, two generic types of system: "Based on the comparative evaluation process we, the Consultant team, recommend that System 2(a) -Thermal Treatment of Mixed Solid Waste and Recovery of Energy followed by Recovery of Materials from Ash/Char -is the system that offers the preferred balance of advantages and disadvantages given the environmental priorities established by the study area communities and the Joint Waste Management Group. In reaching this recommendation, it is recognized that new technologies categorized in System 2(b) — Thermal Treatment of Solid Recovered Fuel may ultimately offer important benefits." System 2(a) would include established technologies such as the "mass burn" of waste in an incinerator. The "new technologies" forming part of System 2b include gasification of waste (and burning the resulting gas to provide energy), and plasma arc treatment. These processes are described more fully in the materials generated during the "alternatives to" part of the process. The recommended waste management technology system was adopted by the regional Councils of Durham and York on June 21 and 22 respectively, 2006. According to the Site Selection Short List Draft Report, the original proposal in the TOR to allow potential technology vendors to submit sites as well as technologies for consideration has been changed so that sites and technologies will now be considered separately. 1.5 Site Selection Process The site selection process, part of which is reviewed in this report, is being undertaken to identify a preferred site for the proposed residual waste management system. To date the proponents have: 5 Interim Report: Review and Gap Analysis of Site Selection Process, Durham/York Residual Waste Study Steven Rowe Environmental Planner August 2007 . 665 ■ Identified a required site size and configuration; ■ Confirmed that the process should identify a single site rather than two or multiple sites ■ Undertaken screening to identify a "long list" of sites, followed by evaluation to produce a "short list" of sites. This process is reported in the Site Selection Short List Draft Report, which has been released for consultation prior to the final step of the process that would identify a preferred site. While it is called a draft, we understand that it is considered by the proponents to be final, and will become so with the submission of the EA. The "Short List" comprises four sites (including two sites identified as one) in the Municipality of Clarington and one site in the Town of East Gwillimbury. The proponents have indicated that they wish to announce a recommended preferred site in late September 2007. The JWMG meeting summaries for January 20 and February 20, 2007 indicate that the preferred vendor and exact thermal technology for the facility will not be selected until after the preferred site is identified. More recently Clarington's staff and consultant were told that the proponent team intends to submit an interim EA planning document to enable the Ministry of the Environment and other interested parties to review the process to date at the end of 2007, before the preferred vendor has been selected. The Regions committed to having full information on the vendor's technology and the preferred site in its final EA submission. The proponents made a commitment that when the preferred vendor has been selected a sensitivity analysis would be undertaken to confirm that the process leading to the selection of the preferred site remains valid. There have been further developments in relation to the Short List and the process as a whole, subsequent to the release of the above draft report: On May 22, 2007 Council for the Town of East Gwillimbury resolved that the Town should not be considered a willing host for the proposed thermal treatment facility. Since no commitment has so far been made to site only where there is a "willing host", this decision does not affect the status of the East Gwillimbury site on the Short List. On June 20, 2007 Council for Durham Region adopted recommendations in a Special Works Committee report that staff be directed to examine the option of over-sizing the Energy from Waste facility beyond the immediate needs of the two Regions, and to partner on the capital construction and operating costs on an equal basis on facility capacity in excess of their immediate needs, and that York Region should not have right of first refusal on any capacity for which it has not made a financial contribution. On June 21, 2007 Council for York Region adopted recommendations in 6 Interim Report: Review and Gap Analysis of Site Selection Process, Durham/York Residual Waste Study Steven Rowe Environmental Planner August 2007 666 a Solid Waste Management Committee Report and decided to reduce its waste contribution to the proposed thermal treatment facility to 20,000 tonnes per year, with an option to expand the capacity of the facility in the future at its own cost. York has a contract with a waste pelletization firm to accept some of its waste and it also has an opportunity to utilize capacity at the Green Lane landfill facility near St. Thomas in Elgin County. The apparent disconnect between this resolution and the Durham Region resolution above remains to be resolved. On June 19, 2007 the JWMG agreed to delete short listed sites 2 and 3 in Clarington. The designation of Site 2 in the Durham Regional Plan has been confirmed as "Greenlands, Waterfront Areas", and the EA siting criteria are considered to disqualify the site from consideration for a thermal treatment facility. Site 3 was withdrawn by its owner. While the long-listed Whitby site was rejected due to land use and traffic constraints and Clarington Site 2 was later rejected due to its Official Plan designation there are also differences in the degree of potential impact among the remaining short listed sites. Sites 1 and 5 in Clarington are within the Clarington Energy Business Park. Site 1 is designated "Light Industrial 1" (approximately the north half) and "Light Industrial 2" (south part). The "Light Industrial 2" designation is the only one that allows for "waste-to energy facilities", which may be permitted by site specific zoning amendment, subject to conditions. Uses involving waste processing are specifically excluded from the "Light Industrial 1" designation. Site 5 is designated "Prestige Employment Node" (northfwest part) and "Light Industrial 1" (south part) in the Energy Business Park Secondary Plan. Uses involving waste are not listed among the permitted uses for the "Prestige Employment Node". Site 5 includes the western part of the proposed "Energy Drive", a primary road that would "provide the main entrance to the Energy Park and the primary address for development', according to the Secondary Plan. An energy-from waste plant occupying the whole of Site 5 would displace the main entrance to the Energy Park from the Courtice interchange on Highway 401. Clarington Sites 3 and 4 are within the Bowmanville Urban Boundary. Site 3 is designated Prestige Employment Area, Light Industrial Area and Environmental Protection Area. Site 4 is designated Prestige Employment Area. None of these designations specifically provides for thermal waste treatment facilities. There are existing and proposed residential uses in close proximity: the Port Darlington Neighbourhood Secondary Plan designates lands for residential use a short distance to the south of these sites, and the Wilmot Creek community is located to the east. Also, the Durham Region Official Plan and the Clarington Official Plan identify a 7 Interim Report. Review and Gap Analysis of Site Selection Process, Durham/York Residual Waste Study Steven Rowe Environmental Planner August 2007 667 proposed interchange between Lambs Road and Highway 401 that would be displaced by a thermal treatment facility on Site 4. A proposed industrial service road passes through both Sites 3 and 4. 2. Site Selection in the Approved Terms of Reference 2.1 Requirement that the EA is to be in Accordance with the Terms of Reference Section 6.1(1) of the EA Act states that: "The proponent shall prepare an environmental assessment for an undertaking in accordance with the approved terms of reference" In Section 9.(1)(2), "the Minister shall consider.....the approved terms of reference......when deciding an application". The same requirement applies if the Minister refers an EA decision to the Environmental Review Tribunal. Consistency with the TOR is therefore a very important consideration when the Minister or the Environmental Review Tribunal decides on an EA application. The "Reasons for Approval" in the Minister's March 31, 2006 Notice of Approval for the Terms of Reference are as follows: 1. The TOR ensures that the EA will be completed using a comprehensive public and government agency consultation process that is open and transparent; 2. The TOR ensures that the completed EA will contain a sufficient level of detail to accurately assess the environmental effects of the alternatives and the proposed undertaking; and, 3. The TOR sets out a planning process that will ensure the completed EA will be consistent with the purpose of the EAA and the public interest. These considerations would be relevant to any evaluation about whether an EA or a matter in an EA is in accordance with the TOR. 2.2 Participation of Preferred Vendors in the EA The point at which preferred vendors enter the EA process is relevant to the facility siting process because the design characteristics and the potential net effects of the facility (and therefore the site, or alternative sites) are not fully known until the waste processing system is identified. If the specific design and effects of the facility are not known during a site selection process, the potential effects of a site must be based on assumptions rather than actual knowledge. The proponents anticipate that because of the conservative assumptions being made that there will Interim Report. Review and Gap Analysis of Site Selection Process, Durham/York 8 Residual Waste Study Steven Rowe Environmental Planner August 2007 668 not be issues that would cause reconsideration of the site after the preferred vendor is selected. Section 2.2 of the TOR notes that "this EA Study may result in the identification of a preferred undertaking.... that would require a competitive process and selection of a vendor(s) to partner with the co- proponents in the development of the facility(ies) for the preferred residuals processing system. (This) will likely be necessary, prior to seeking EA Approval, to allow for a sufficiently detailed description of the undertaking (including its design, operation, maintenance, monitoring and contingency measures) and respective net effects". However; the date of the actual contract between the Region and the vendor does not affect the EA submission. 2.3 The Facility Site Selection Process 2.3.1 Review of Evaluation Methodology and Criteria "Step 1" of the site selection process involves review and confirmation of the proposed evaluation methodology and criteria with the public and agencies (TOR Section 6.2). This review process was undertaken and documented in a report: "Results of Public and Agency Consultation on Proposed Facility Siting Methodology and Criteria, Step 1 Report on Consultation", dated September 2006. The report describes the consultation approach and events, but provides little detail on how the proponents' team applied the results of the consultation in refining the proposed criteria or establishing priorities. Section 2.5 of the Site Selection Short List Draft Report describes four "refinements" to the process resulting from the consultation, but does not comprise a comprehensive description in this regard. 2.3.2 Identify Areas Within Which Sites may be Located Section 4.2 of the TOR states: "The process of identifying siting alternatives for a processing facility(ies) will not seek to consider all lands within the study area but rather, will focus on those lands considered to be generally suitable for the processing of post-diversion residual waste such as existing and/or designated industrial lands. Accordingly, the following types or categories of sites will be considered at the EA evaluation: • Publicly owned lands that meet the minimum site size and configuration requirements for the type of facility(ies) being pursued and that are located in areas that are considered to be generally suitable for the processing of residual waste; and, • Lands offered by a "willing seller" property owner that exhibit the s Interim Report: Review and Gap Analysis of Site Selection Process, Durham/York Residual Waste Study Steven Rowe Environmental Planner August 2007 669 minimum site size and configuration requirements for the type of facility(ies) being pursued and that are located in areas that are considered to be generally suitable for the processing of residual waste." Privately owned lands not being offered by the property owner would only be considered if it is determined that the above categories of sites do not present a reasonable range of siting alternatives. Step 2 of the siting process as identified in the TOR is to apply siting constraints to the entire study area (York and Durham Regions) and identify those lands "considered to be generally suitable for the purpose of locating the preferred disposal system". This evaluation is to be based on criteria in Table F-1, Appendix F, as further modified in Step 1. These exclusionary criteria comprise: • Designated lands protected by Provincial/Federal legislation and provincial land use plans and policies such as the Oak Ridges Moraine Conservation Plan, Green Belt Plan and Provincial Policy Statement; ■ Designated residential areas and appropriate separation distances • Specified natural heritage features and appropriate separation distances; ■ Prime agricultural lands ■ Institutional facilities (e.g. schools, hospitals) with appropriate separation distances; • Areas around federally regulated airports as per Transport Canada guidelines. Map 1 attached to this report is extracted from the Site Selection Short List Draft Report and shows the "unconstrained" areas remaining after the application of Step 2. There is no mapping showing the constraints under which different parts of the study area were excluded. 2.3.3 Identify Minimum Site Size Step 3 of the siting process involves identification of a required site size for the facility. The actual minimum site size is unclear from Section 4 of the Site Selection Short List Draft Report. The preferred range appears to be 9.1-13.7 ha. Interim Report: Review and Gap Analysis of Site Selection Process, Durham/York 10 Residual Waste Study Steven Rowe Environmental Planner August 2007 670 i 2.3.4 Identify Long List of Sites A "long list" of siting opportunities would be identified in Step 4 of the process through review of publicly owned lands and issuance of a request for "willing seller" properties if necessary. Step 4 also included an option to revise and reapply the criteria ff a reasonable number of "long list" alternatives was not identified. As reported in the Site Selection Process Draft Report, the proponents' team examined public lands, issued two calls for willing sellers, and identified a long list of seven sites — five in Clarington, one in Whitby and one in East Gwillimbury. 2.3.5 Identify Short List of Sites Step 5 in the TOR provides for the "long list" of sites to be evaluated to produce a short list if more than three long listed sites are identified. The evaluation would be based on "preliminary factors" in Table F-2. These factors are the same as those actually applied in Step 5 o the site selection process and comprise: • Proximity to required infrastructure; • Site accessibility; • Potential impact of the haul route (i.e. traffic, noise, land use, cost) • Property size; • Land use compatibility; • Availability of site; • Potential impacts on unregulated airport operation. When this step was undertaken the Whitby site was removed from the process based on identified constraints regarding the potential impact of the haul route, land use compatibility, and availability of the site. The remaining short list comprises four sites in Clarington (with Sites 1 and 2 paired and considered as one), and one in East Gwillimbury. The locations and features of the short-listed sites are provided as Maps 2 — 7 to this report. 2.3.6 Preferred Site and Vendor/Technology Steps 6 and 7 remain to be undertaken. Step 6 includes the issuance of a request for qualifications to technology vendors and consultation on the short listed sites. Step 7 includes the issuance of a Request for Proposals to qualified technology vendors. This would be done concurrently with the comparative evaluation of the short listed sites in accordance with criteria in Table F-3, Appendix "F". The proponents have subsequently provided Clarington with revised criteria, indicators and considerations for this evaluation, as provided in Appendix A to this report. The criteria are as follows: • Air quality impacts and ambient air quality testing; Interim Report Review and Gap Analysis of Site Selection Process, Durham/York 11 Residual Waste Study Steven Rowe Environmental Planner August 2007 671 • Water quality impacts (surface water and groundwater); • Environmentally Sensitive Areas and Species Impacts, Aquatic and Terrestrial Ecology Impacts; • Compatibility with existing and/or proposed land uses; ■ Archaeological and Cultural Heritage Resources; Traffic Impacts; ■ Capital Costs, Operation and Maintenance Costs; ■ Compatibility with Existing Infrastructure, Design/Operational Flexibility Provided by Site; ■ Complexity of Required Approvals; Complexity of Required Agreements. The TOR anticipated that the preferred vendor/technology would need to be known prior to seeking EA approval, however an interim EA planning document may be submitted to the MOE before the preferred vendor is selected. The final EA submission will have to include the preferred vendor and exact thermal technology. 2.3.7 Human Health and Ecological Risk Assessments The TOR does not specifically commit the proponents to undertake health and ecological risk assessments. In June 2007, however, the proponents produced a "Generic Human Health and Ecological Risk Assessment Study" prepared by their consulting firm Jacques Whitford. Although "a limited number of potential human health and ecological concerns were identified in this conservative, generic EFW facility risk assessment", "overall it was determined that an EFW thermal treatment facility could be sited in Durham and York Regions". A site specific health and .ecological risk assessment is to be conducted for the preferred site, however there will be no individual health and ecological risk assessments for each of the short listed sites. The comparison of short listed sites will not consider health and ecological risk information which would include not only the effects of emissions from the facility but also differing ambient air quality conditions and differences in the numbers and types of existing or proposed sensitive receptors around each site. The risk assessment work conducted in support of this process is being peer reviewed by Clarington's consultant team. 3 The Site Selection Process Peer Review 3.1 Approach to Process Review This review or "gap analysis" of the Site Selection Short List Draft Report is intended to identify whether the process conducted to date and as currently proposed is in accordance with the TOR and is consistent with the requirements of Section 6.1(2) of the EA Act, as required by the TOR. Considerations in this evaluation include: Interim Report., Review and Gap Analysis of Site Selection Process, Durham/York 12 Residual Waste Study Steven Rowe Environments!Planner August 2007 672 • Whether the proponent identified a reasonable range of siting alternatives, as required by the TOR; • Whether the proponent is following a clear, logical and traceable process to compare and evaluate siting alternatives. This principle has been established over many years of Ontario to practice as a requirement for EA planning. The current (June 2007) MOE Code of Practice for Terms of Reference states: "A clear, logical and traceable assessment is one in which anyone with the same information could reach the same conclusion without any additional assumptions." • Whether the proponent is utilizing a sufficient level of detail of information to accurately assess the environmental effects of all alternatives and the proposed undertaking, given as a reason for approval of the TOR by the Minister; • Whether the proponent consulted with interested parties and described the results of the consultation, as required by the EA Act. 3.2 Identified Issues The following initial issues have been identified in the review of the Site Selection Short List Draft Report to date. The significance of these issues will become clearer through dialogue with the proponents and their consultants as the peer review process unfolds. 3.2.1 Traceability of the Study Area Screening Process The Site Selection Short List Draft Report does not provide sufficient information to support the identification of the unconstrained areas shown in Map 3-1 of the Report (and Map 1 attached to this report). For this step of the process to be traceable, the proponent should have provided screening maps and a description of how each of the criteria were applied. Without this, it is not possible to assess whether the information used was accurate or was applied consistently. For example, there is insufficient information to demonstrate how land was screened from consideration around federally regulated airports. The screening criteria require exclusion of "areas around federally regulated airports as per Transport Canada Guidelines". The rationale for the criterion in Table 2-2 of the report relates to 'land uses that are hazardous to aircraft operations (i.e. organic waste at waste processing sites that may either attract birds or adversely affect flight visibility). There are at least three federally regulated airports in the study area — Pickering (proposed but already regulated), Oshawa, and Buttonville. All Interim Report: Review and Gap Analysis of Site Selection Process, Durham/York 13 Residual Waste Study Steven Rowe Environmental Planner August 2007 673 of these have federal airport zoning by-laws that regulate such matters as the height of structures and the location of waste disposal facilities in their vicinity. The height of structures is not specifically referenced in the criterion rationale, but was apparently considered based on consultation materials (e.g. the record of the PIC at the Clarington Beach .Centre in Bowmanville on April 2, 2007). The areas that could potentially be excluded by this criterion are quite large, but the by-law requirements vary and are subject to interpretation in some areas. The proponent team's response to a Greater Toronto Airports Authority comment on this criterion (Consultation on the TOR, Table 3) suggests that impact related to birds and organic waste would at least be limited because all operations at the facility would be "within a closed environment". The report does not explain how these requirements were interpreted for each airport, nor what parts of the study area were excluded based on that specific criterion. In Table 7-6 of the report, the Oshawa airport is identified as unregulated, which suggests that not all regulated airports were included in the screening process. Depending on the extent of the area to be excluded, this could conceivably affect short listed sites located in Clarington. The Site Selection Short List Draft Report should include screening maps showing those parts of the study area excluded under each criterion and a rationale as to how each criterion was applied. The unconstrained areas in Map 3-1 should be shown in at a larger scale so that their location and configuration can be properly identified. The proponent team has indicated to Clarington staff that it has screening maps, and these will be examined as part of the review process. Without this information it is not possible to conclude that Step 2 of the site selection process arrived at a complete range of siting opportunities, or whether there are additional parts of the study area that should have been screened out from further consideration, given the screening criteria. 3.2.2 Site Size and the Selection of a Reasonable Range of Alternatives The required capacity of the undertaking has a bearing on the size and configuration of the waste processing facility, and therefore the minimum size and configuration of sites that will be identified and considered during the site selection process. In Section 3.2 of the TOR it is stated that the undertaking would be capable of managing the minimum annual 316,000 tonnes/year that would remain after the achievement of the Regions' waste diversion objectives, also including post-diversion waste from other sources. It is estimated that a minimum of 13,300,000 tonnes of residual waste will require management over the 35 -year (2011-2045) planning period. The TOR also refers to a potential need to identify contingency or surplus disposal capacity and any capacity for waste from outside the study area, or Industrial and Commercial waste from within York and Durham Regions Interim Report., Review and Gap Analysis of Site Selection Process, Durham/York 14 Residual Waste Study Steven Rowe Environmental Planner August 2007 674 when identifying the minimum sits size requirement during the EA planning process. The approved TOR itself does not specify a maximum, a range, or an actual proposed capacity for the facility. As noted in Section 1.4 above, York Region has now reduced its proposed level of involvement in the thermal waste processing facility, although it still wishes to retain the option to expand the facility if required. There is no upper limit on the scale of the facility. Section 4.2 of the Site Selection Short List Draft Report describes how a required site size of 9.1-13.7 ha was established for the site selection process, based on a proposed configuration of a thermal waste processing site shown on Drawing 41, however this was based on waste quantity assumptions that were developed prior to York Region's announcement. This matter has been discussed with the proponent team and Clarington staff have been assured that the reduced volume of waste would not result in a substantially reduced site size, since the size is more dependent on fixed parameters such as buffers and queuing areas than on the scale of the facility building. Staff were assured that no sites previously rejected based on size would need to be brought back into the process. Clarington's peer review team will review the sizing assumptions against current predicted volumes and examine the screening maps and unconstrained areas to confirm this information. There is a further potential issue in relation to maximum site size. Section 4.3 of the Site Selection Short List Draft Report indicates a requirement for a site within the range of 9.1-13.7 or 16 ha, although some components would need to be accommodated off site for a site at the bottom end of this range. The November 2006 and February 2007 "calls for willing sellers" request a site of approximately 10-12 ha. for a "stand alone" facility. The sizes of the remaining short listed sites as calculated by the proponent team are 12.1, 15 and 27.4 ha for Clarington Sites 1, 3 and 5 respectively, and 11 hectares for the East Gwillimbury site. One of the indicators for the revised criteria for the evaluation of the short listed sites includes "area surplus to minimum requirement provided by site". This suggests that there is no maximum site size and that "bigger is better", even though occupation of a much larger site than needed (such as Clarington Site 5) could result in inefficiencies regarding the use of serviced industrial land and may not be consistent with policy provincial supporting land use intensification. The potential to locate a facility within a larger site in such a way as to minimize environmental impact and enable the site to be subdivided would be useful considerations in the evaluation. At the same time, there is now an indication that the proposed facility may be "oversized" (i,e the proponents would seek approval for and build a facility for a larger waste volume than they would actually need). Notwithstanding the requirement to fully describe the "purpose" of the Interim Report: Review and Gap Analysis of Site Selection Process, Durham/York 15 Residual Waste Study Steven Rowe Environmental Planner August 2007 675 undertaking in an EA (usually understood to include the a rationale for the required scale of facility), a larger site may provide more flexibility for facility oversizing, and a larger facility may prevent a need for further environmental approvals for expansion to meet needs that are so far unspecified. These issues raise a question over the role of this indicator in the evaluation process. 3.2.3 Identification of Public Lands in the Site Selection Process. Section 5.2 of the Site Selection Short List Draft Report indicates that public lands were identified both through discussion with the Durham and York Region Real Estate and Economic Development Departments, and through contact with of the public agency representatives, as part of the identification of "willing seller" sites. Section 5.3 indicates that the November 2006 "call for willing sellers" included distribution of the "call" to area municipal contacts. The February 2007 "Request for Expressions'of Interest" was identified in newspapers (local newspapers within the study area, plus the Daily Commercial News) and distributed to companies, associations and local municipalities (Appendix 5(b)). There is no indication in the report of distribution of materials to or direct contact with other public agencies such as federal and provincial ministries and land- related agencies. Public lands identified at this step are mapped in Appendix 6. The Site Selection Short List Draft Report does not give sufficient information to confirm that all potential siting opportunities on public land were identified and considered. If opportunities for siting on publicly owned sites other than municipal sites were not directly canvassed, there is potential for suitable sites owned by public agencies other than municipalities to have been omitted from the process. 3.2.4 Lands in the Greenbelt Section 2.5.2 of the Site Selection Short List Draft Report indicates that: "The location of a potential site within designated "Protected Countryside" areas under the Greenbelt legislation is listed as an exclusionary feature for the purpose of Step 2 of the site selection methodology. However, the Consultant Team decided that potentially suitable sites located in the Greenbelt Plan area would be considered for further review and public comment. Further, opportunities to expand an existing component of Durham's and/or York's solid waste management system located within the Greenbelt Plan area would also be considered in order to utilize existing resources. This approach would accommodate the possible identification of additional siting opportunities and reflect that this type of infrastructure is not prohibited under the Greenbelt Plan." Interim Report: Review and Gap Analysis of Site Selection Process, Durham/York 16 Residual Waste Study Steven Rowe Environmental Planner August 2007 676 The expansion of the search area to include the Greenbelt after a search for siting opportunities that excluded the Greenbelt carries the implication that there may be public and private siting opportunities in the Greenbelt that have not been identified. The proponents should clarify this situation and propose measures to resolve this uncertainty if required. 3.2.5 Comparison of Alternatives to the Undertaking, Alternative Methods of Carrying Out the Undertaking, and Description of the Undertaking As noted in Section 2.2 above, the Terms of Reference indicate that identification of a preferred vendor "will likely be necessary, prior to seeking EA Approval, to allow for a sufficiently detailed description of the undertaking (including its design, operation, maintenance, monitoring and contingency measures) and respective net effects". It could be argued that a preferred vendor/technology would also be required to enable the comparison of the short list of sites to reflect the actual characteristics and effects of the undertaking. While this could be implied to be required by Section 6.1(2) of the EA Act in terms of the requirement for "an evaluation of the advantages and disadvantages to the environment of the undertaking, the alternative methods of carrying out the undertaking and the alternatives to the undertaking", this is not specifically required by the TOR. We understand from discussion with the proponent's consultants that an interim EA planning document is now proposed to be submitted in advance of the selection of a preferred vendor/technology. The selected "Alternative to" in this process can accommodate a wide range of technologies including "mass burn" incineration, gasification and plasma arc processing, each of which would have different profiles in terms of environmental effects. While the proponents could impose minimum requirements and conduct site selection based on these assumptions, the actual effects and land requirement of the facility cannot be determined until the preferred vendor/technology has been identified. The proponent's intent not to undertake health and ecological risk assessments for each candidate site will also limit the extent to which the environment affected by the undertaking, i.e. background conditions and populations and features affected —will be considered for each site. The proponents will not be able to provide a complete description of the undertaking in the interim EA planning document, since it will be submitted before the vendor/technology has been identified. The proponents will provide additional information in the submitted EA document to describe the specific technology selected. In addition, as requested by the Clarington team, a sensitivity analysis will be conducted to determine whether the preferred site should change once the details of the specific 17 Interim Report: Review and Gap Analysis of Site Selection Process, Durhamlyork Residual Waste Study Steven Rowe Environmental PlannerAugust 2007 677 preferred technology and its environmental effects are known. In addition, one of the criteria for the evaluation of the short list is "complexity of required agreements" which, according to the "indicator" in the recently released criteria, would mean that the order of preference for sites would be a Region-owned site, willing seller sites, and expropriated sites. This is not strictly an environmental consideration, but would favour Region-owned over privately owned sites. The weighting of criteria and its application will be the subject of future review. While this review relates primarily to siting rather than vendor/technology selection, we also suggest that the proponent provide information to describe how the principles and requirements of the EA Act are to be applied in the comparison and selection of vendors and technologies. 3.2.6 Consultation While the "Report on Consultation on Proposed Siting Methodology and Criteria" describes the consultation process undertaken, it is equally important to show how the results of the consultation were considered in making any changes to the methodology and criteria and in assigning priorities for the comparison of short listed sites. During the initial review of documents Appendix 3, "Comment and Response Tables", was missing from the report as posted on the Internet, however we understand it has now been posted on the project website and it will be reviewed. 4. Conclusion The proponent team has used the approved Terms of Reference as a basis for identifying five short-listed sites for a proposed energy-from waste facility, four of which are in Clarington and one in the Town of East Gwillimbury The team is now evaluating and comparing these sites and intends to announce a recommended preferred site in late September 2007. An initial review of the site selection materials indicates that they do not provide enough information to support the conclusions reached. Additional information will be required from the proponents to verify the results arising from each step of the process to date. Issues in relation to the site selection process conducted to date are: • The Site Selection Short List Draft Report does not provide screening maps to show which parts of the study area were excluded under each of the criteria, and it does not provide sufficient explanation of how each of the criteria were applied. The process is not traceable as described. • Despite the lack of screening information it is apparent, for example, that not all federally regulated airports were Interim Report: Review and Gap Analysis of Site Selection Process, Durham/York 16 Residual Waste Study Steven Rowe Environmental Planner August 2007 678 considered in the screening, and it is not clear whether or how federal requirements were applied in relation to organic waste as an attractor for birds, or stack height as an obstruction to aircraft, or both. If all regulated airports are considered under a consistent approach this may result in the exclusion of additional lands from the study area. • The information presented in the Site Selection Short List Draft Report does not describe a comprehensive approach to the identification of public lands. There may be public lands in the study area owned by agencies that were not directly approached as part of the process. • There is uncertainty regarding the size of the facility being sought by the proponent team and the size of site required to accommodate it. The process as presently structured would give preference (other things being equal) to a large site such as the 27.4 hectare Clarington Site 5, when the site size being sought is around 10-12 ha. There is also ambiguity over the scale of facility that would be required, with a proposal by York Region to scale back its involvement, and by Durham Region to seek expanded capacity. On a large site there may be no physical limitation on the ultimate scale of a thermal treatment facility. • The `sites in the Clarington Energy Business Park are being analyzed as part of a different economic study and could have either a positive or negative affect; the effects are potentially different depending on which site is selected. • The Report indicates that a change in direction was undertaken to bring lands in the Greenbelt into the site selection process, but it does not describe whether or how lands in the Greenbelt were examined to identify potential public and willing seller sites other than the East Gwillimbury Site 1. There may be other potential sites in the Greenbelt that have not been identified. • The Site Selection Short List Draft Report does not provide a full description of how consultation on the proposed methodology and criteria affected the approach now being undertaken. In relation to the site evaluation and comparison currently under way: ■ The proponent team now proposes to identify a recommended preferred site and to submit an interim environmental 19 Interim Report: Review and Gap Analysis of Site Selection Process, Durham/York Residual Waste Study Steven Rowe Environmental Planner August 2007 679 assessment planning document to the Ministry of the Environment in the fall of 2007, before a preferred vendor and the exact thermal technology has been identified. This would mean that a site would be selected without knowledge of the facility that would be sited on it or its specific environmental effects. Therefore the assumption being made by the consulting team must be reviewed in light of information on the specific selected technology and its environmental effects. ■ It would be greatly preferred if information on the vendorttechnologies and their environmental effects was available for the site comparison. The final EA submission will have to include the vendor and specific technology to meet the EA terms of reference and EA Act. ■ There is also concern that the process of selecting a preferred vendor/technology through the ongoing Request for Qualifications and future Request for Proposals may not meet EA Act requirements. In relation to the short-listed sites identified in Clarington: • There are existing and proposed residential uses in close proximity to Sites 3 and 4, which are in the Bowmanville Urban Area. • The Durham Region Official Plan and the Clarington Official Plan identify a proposed interchange between Lambs Road and Highway 401 that would likely be displaced by a thermal treatment facility on Site 4. • A proposed industrial service road passes through both Sites 3 and 4. • A thermal treatment facility occupying the whole of Site 5 would displace the primary . entrance to the Clarington Energy Business Park from the Courtice Interchange, and the western part of the 'spine' route through the park. The Energy Business Park was initiated, planned and approved in partnership with Durham Region, and there is potential for an EFW facility to compromise the vision and planned function of the Park. The proponents are examining alternative siting concepts for each site and not all of each site will necessarily be required. The proponents' staff and consultants have been informed of these issues, and Clarington staff and consultants are continuing to work with the proponents' team to obtain more information in an attempt to resolve Interim Report., Review and Gap Analysis of Site Selection Process, Durham/York 20 Residual Waste Study Steven Rowe Environmental Planner August 2007 680 them to the extent possible. It is possible unresolved issues in the process will undermine the validity of the process as a whole. The information provided during the peer review should be provided to the public and other interested parties as well as to Clarington so that the EA process is traceable, supportable and complete. We will report on progress in this regard and on the potential significance of any remaining issues at some future date. 21 interim Report., Review and Gap Analysis of Site Selection Process, Durham/York Residual Waste Study Steven Rowe Environmental Planner August 2007 681 Attachment 7 To Report PSD-097-07 SENES Consultants Limited 121 Granton Drive ;jEjNE Unit 12 Richmond Hill, Ontario Canada L463N4 Tel: (905)764-9380 Fax: (905)764-9386 E-mail: senes @senes.ca Web Site: http://www.senes.ca 34574 12 July 2007 Municipality of Clarington via email: flangmaid @clarington,net jszwarz @clarington.net Attention: Faye Langmaid and Janice Szwarz RE: Peer Review of Generic Human Health and Ecological Risk Assessment — Durham-York Residual Waste Study Dear Faye and Janice, SENES Consultants Limited was retained by the Municipality of Clarington to undertake a peer review of the generic human health and ecological risk assessment conducted for the proposed thermal treatment energy from waste treatment facility to be sited in the Durham or York Region. The risk assessment document reviewed is entitled: Generic Human Health and Ecological Risk Assessment—Durham-York Residual Waste Study. Prepared by Jacques Whitford. June 14, 2007. The purpose of a peer review is to offer an opinion as to whether the risk assessment has been undertaken competently in accordance with the generally accepted principles for human health and ecological risk assessments. A peer review must also comment on whether or not the conclusions that have been reached are appropriate and defensible. The peer review was conducted in accordance with the Health Canada and the Ontario Ministry of the Environment guidelines for site-specific risk assessment and the "Reviewer's Checklist for Risk Assessments". In general, this peer review is organized according to the topics specified in the checklist. It should be noted that during the course of this review,the approach and the equations employed were evaluated. Spot-checks were completed for input parameters and for some of the calculations, and reasonableness checks were completed for the results. We did not attempt to reproduce all calculations. Specialists in Energy, Nuclear and Environmental Sciences 682 34574 12 July 2007 Letter to F. Langmaid and Z Szwarz (Continued) Page 2 1.0 GENERAL The scope of work as outlined in Section 1.1 is clearly stated. The report recognizes that this risk assessment serves as a tool in the much larger scope of siting an EFW facility. The assessment also fully recognizes that when a site and appropriate technology is selected that a site-specific risk assessment will be necessary to evaluate the potential health effects from this facility. 2.0 PROBLEM FORMULATION/HAZARD IDENTIFICATION 2.1 SELECTION OF CHEMICALS OF POTENTIAL CONCERN As the technology for the facility has not been selected, the risk assessment relied on several sources of information to derive their chemicals of potential concern such as MOE documents and guidelines relating to incineration as well as a U.S.EPA document on hazardous waste combustion facilities and a human health risk assessment for the Brampton Energy from Waste facility. This was an appropriate way to select the chemicals of potential concern and the report also acknowledges that the lack of specific data from the facility is a limitation of the assessment — this is appropriate. Even though site-specific data is not available, the list of chemicals of concern is quite lengthy and it is unlikely that a chemical that would be a cause for concern has been omitted from the list. 3.0 AIR QUALITY AND BASELINE MODELLING This section of the report provides a brief overview of the air quality modelling that is discussed in Appendix 1. Since the technology is unknown,three different scenarios involving treatment of waste were assessed from an air quality perspective namely the consideration of processing waste using one, two or three units (the maximum proposed capacity of the facility). This is an appropriate evaluation given the generic nature of the assessment. A review of the air dispersion modelling is being conducted by a separate company (AMEC). The initial review indicated that the general approach taken is reasonable and therefore we proceeded with the review of the remaining parts of the risk assessment. However, it is noted that there may be detailed comments on the air dispersion modelling provided in a separate document. Some information is provided on background air quality in order to assess the cumulative risk to airborne chemicals. The report acknowledges that the background concentrations used in the assessment are limited and that background data from the study area are important for use in the site-specific risk assessment. We agree with this statement and emphasize that the collection of background data especially on criteria pollutants such as NO., SOx, CO and fine particulate matter are integral to the site-specific risk assessment. 4 t. 683 34574 12 July 2007 Letter to F.Langmaid and J. Szwarz (Continued) Page 3 The comparison of predicted air concentrations to air quality criteria from the Ontario Ministry of the Environment is appropriate for the air quality section of the document. Health based comparisons are done later in the risk assessment. It should be noted that background S02 concentrations provided on Table 3-5 have not been used in Table 3-6 of the document; this should be corrected. 4.0 EXPOSURE POINT CONCENTRATIONS 4.1 PREDICTING MULTI-MEDIA EXPOSURE POINT CONCENTRATIONS The U.S.EPA methodology for Hazardous Waste Combustion Facilities was used to predict exposure point concentrations. This is appropriate. Three species of mercury were assessed in the risk assessment: direct inhalation of elemental mercury, direct and indirect exposure to vapour and particulate bound mercuric chloride and indirect exposure to methyl mercury. This is appropriate. Air Air concentrations used in the risk assessment came directly from the air dispersion modeling. This is appropriate. Soil Soil concentrations were predicted based on wet and dry deposition of particles as well as vapour deposition. This is appropriate. Soil concentrations were calculated differently depending on whether the chemical was a carcinogen or a non-carcinogen. For carcinogenic chemicals —soil concentrations were averaged over the operating lifetime of the facility (i.e. 35 years). For non- carcinogenic chemicals the highest annual soil concentration was used. This is appropriate for the HHRA. It is noted that for the comparison provided in Table 4-1 and for the ERA, it would be appropriate to use the highest annual soil concentration. A 10 cm deposition zone was selected for use in the soil calculations since]W contends that over a 35 year period there will be a downward migration of chemicals to at least this depth and that the majority of exposure is from media grown in tilled soil (e.g. garden produce). Although downward migration will occur, 10 cm is likely an over-estimate for a 35 year period. Nevertheless, we agree that for the HHRA it is reasonable to use the 10 cm soil mixing zone. This assumption may not be conservative for the exposure experience by ecological receptors, particularly as it relates to direct contact. In addition,this may have an impact on the runoff to a waterbody depending on the characteristics of the watershed. Therefore, a conservative approach was not necessarily adopted. However, considering the low HQ values presented in the report,a change in this parameter would not alter the conclusions of the report. YE•n'E1 C" 684 34574 12 July 2007 Letter to F.Langmaid and Z Szwarz (Continued) Page 4 The predicted soil concentrations are compared to background concentrations based on the OTR98; while this is appropriate, the assessment would benefit from some discussion of the Ontario Ministry of the Environment Table 1 values (i.e. background) as this document is more accessible. The statement on pg 20 needs to be modified as the statement says "....in all cases resulted in soil loadings of less than 1% of natural background concentrations." The soil concentration for dioxins is 1% of natural,background and thus the statement should be modified to indicate this. Surface Water Surface water concentrations were calculated for a hypothetical 1 square kilometer lake. This seems to be a reasonable assumption but some rationale should be provided as to the selection of the size of the lake. The risk assessment indicates that residents in Durham and York are on municipally.supplied water that will not be influenced by the selection of the sites. Thus the inclusion of the drinking water pathway is a conservative assumption. Backyard Gardens Garden produce was divided into above ground and below ground vegetables and above ground produce was further subdivided into exposed and protected categories. This is appropriate. Agriculture and Country Foods COPC concentrations were calculated in wildgame, beef and dairy products and chicken and eggs. This is appropriate. Breast Milk Concentrations of organic COPC were calculated in breast milk as the risk assessment indicated that metals would not accumulate in breast milk. A more detailed discussion was provided for lead and mercury and the rationale for exclusion from the breast milk pathway. This is appropriate. Need consistency in describing COPC—in the risk assessment use pollutant, analyte contaminant chemical. *£N£tr C 685 34574 12 July 2007 Letter to R Langmaid and J.Szwarz(Continued) Page 5 5.0 HUMAN HEALTH RISK ASSESSMENT I 5.1 SELECTION OF RECEPTORS Several different human receptors were selected to represent a wide range of exposures: • A resident with a backyard garden and who obtains fish from the local lake. • A subsistence farmer who harvests 100%of his/her food from the local area • A first nation person who hunts and fishes in the area and consumes 100% of their country food from the area. • A commercial worker and a toddler at the daycare. Infants and toddlers were considered for exposures to non-carcinogenic chemicals and a composite receptor which encompasses all life stages was considered for exposure to carcinogenic chemicals. For the commercial worker an adult was selected. The selection of the different types of receptors as well as the life stage for calculations of exposure to carcinogenic and non-carcinogenic chemicals is appropriate as these life stages represent the most exposed life stages. The selection of the residential receptor is also appropriate as this receptor represents the typically exposed individual in the study area. The consideration of the subsistence farmer covers someone who only eats locally raised food and nothing else and therefore serves as a surrogate for individuals in the study area who would consume only locally grown produce and meat. 5.1.2 Chemicals of Potential Concern This has already been addressed in Section 3 and thus this section is repetitious. 5.1.3 Exposure Pathways The risk assessment considered the following pathways: • Direct exposure to vapours or particulates; • Direct soil contact; • Drinking water; • Food chain uptakes: • Garden Produce; • Agriculture; • Hunting and Fishing; • Breast Milk. In this section the selection of receptor characteristics was discussed. Inhalation rates, soil ingestion rates and drinking water rates were all obtained from Health Canada(2004). Breast �t'na•� 686 34574 12 Jury 2007 Lener to F.Langmaid and J. Szwarz (Continued) Page 6 milk ingestion was taken from Richardson (1997) based on Canadian populations.: However, food chain intakes were obtained from the U.S.EPA. No discussion is provided in the food chain uptake section to indicate why the U.S.EPA rates were used over values provided by Health Canada. A reference is made to Appendix A; however, Appendix A only provides tables and no discussion. It is recommended that a clearer rationale for the selection of the values for the food chain intakes should be provided. 5.1.4 Conceptual Model This section provides illustrations as well as tabulates the different exposure pathways of the various receptors selected for the assessment. This is appropriate. 5.2 TOXICITY ASSESSMENT This section discusses the toxicity values that were selected for the assessment. The section outlines the various reputable agencies that were reviewed in the selection of the toxicity values. The section also discusses the precedence for the selection of the TRVs from IRIS or Health Canada first followed by other agencies. This is appropriate for this assessment. However, for the site-specific risk assessment it is recommended that a discussion of the selection of each TRV for each chemical of concern be provided based on a toxicological point of view since this is a requirement of the Ministry of the Environment. There is a somewhat detailed discussion on bioavailability; however a bioavailability of 100% was used in the assessment. For clarity of the discussion, it is suggested that this section be shortened to indicate that 100% bioavailability was used. This is appropriate for this type of assessment. In addition, all short term ambient air quality criteria are provided in the risk characterization section. These TRVs should be discussed in this section and not the risk characterization section. The short term values for the gaseous pollutants were mainly obtained from the WHO and are health based values. There is no discussion as to whether the short-term values from Texas are health based or the rationale for their use. This needs to be provided. It should also be acknowledged that AAQC values may not be true health based toxicological values and thus the use of them must be considered in this context. There is no discussion on fine particulate matter and why the U.S.EPA values were selected in this analysis over the Canada Wide standards for fine particulate matter. Also it needs to be acknowledged that the Canadian Environmental Protection Act/Federal Provincial Advisory Committee Working Group on Air Quality Objectives and Guidelines (CEPA/FPAC WGAQOG) recommends a 24-hour average PM2.5 health reference level of 15 µg/m3 below which statistically significant health effects cannot be determined. It is suggested that a small discussion on the applicability of the health based limits to nano particles be provided as that seems to be a community concern. 6ENE4 C 687 34574 12 July 2007 Letter to F. Langmaid and J. Szwarz(Continued) Page 7 5.3 EXPOSURE ASSESSMENT The exposure assessment discusses qualitatively how the intakes were calculated and provides some generic equations. Appendix C,D, and E provides the calculations. A few inconsistencies were found in our review of the appendices. For example, in Appendix C in the table on physical-chemical properties a MF of 0.01 is applied to all PAHs and is stated as obtained from USEPA 2005, yet a review of this document shows that this factor is only used for BEHR The text provides additional discussion that the MF of 0.01 for PAHs is based on a study by Hoefelt (2001). The complete citation for this reference is not included and we are unable to comment on the appropriateness of this factor. The equations for estimating concentrations in animals other than wild game were not provided. However, the input parameters for estimating the concentrations in other animals(e.g. cows) are provided in Table C.1 (note title of this table should be modified),and are appropriate. 5.4/5.5 RISK CHARACTERIZATION/EFFECTS ASSESSMENT The risk characterization for the human health risk assessment provides equations on how to calculate risks for carcinogens and HQ values for non-carcinogens. The report appropriately discusses the use of a 1 x 10-6 value for assessing cancer risks and.a HQ value of 0.2 for assessing non-cancer risks. The first part of the assessment discusses the assessment of short-term effects. As discussed in the previous section, ambient air quality standards were used for comparison for the metals and organic compounds. As these AAQC may not be true health-based values, the limitations of this approach should be discussed. There is also a discussion of the use of an HQ value of 1 to assess these effects. Care should be taken with this approach as background was not considered in some of the calculations. For example, S02 HQ Values presented in Table 5.8 do not include background even though background was presented in an earlier section. In addition, on this table,the title AAQC should be used with caution. No discussion is provided as to whether the Alberta Environment values are health-based and whether they are appropriate for use in this assessment. It should also be noted that hydrogen chloride and hydrogen fluoride are not considered combustion gases and thus a different terminology should be used for discussing these gaseous pollutants. The second part of the assessment focuses on the long term assessment using multi media pathways. This is appropriate; however a more detailed discussion should be provided based on the PEEL values on the Tables for dioxins since there is a perception that because the values were high, a substitution of the PEEL values was appropriate. Perhaps this discussion would be better suited to the uncertainty section since there is uncertainty in the emission values used in the assessment. C" 688 34574 12 July 2007 Letter to F.Langmaid and J. Szwarz (Continued) Page 8 5.6 UNCERTAINTY ASSESSMENT There is an extensive discussion on uncertainty in the report; however, there is no uncertainty discussion of the selection of the size of the hypothetical waterbody and the effect of this assumption on the calculations. The discussion on background concentrations is not applicable to uncertainty and needs to be changed to discuss the uncertainty in not using background and not on the background sampling program that would be undertaken. Similar to this is the discussion on drinking water which also does not focus on uncertainty. There is a discussion on transfer factors used to calculate concentrations in various media. The following statement is provided "Typically these assumptions are conservative and tend to overestimate rather than underestimate risks". Caution needs to be exercised in using this statement because for a number of chemicals this statement is not correct. The discussion on sensitive populations provided in Section 5.6.3.2 really is a discussion on TRVs and should be discussed in this section. The uncertainty section would benefit from a tabulation of the uncertainties and their effect on the assessment. 5.7 OVERALL HUMAN HEALTH RISK ASSESSMENT The human health risk assessment for the EFW treatment facility conforms to risk assessment guidance. However, there are a number of ways that it can be clarified for ease of reading and to be more transparent. These changes will not change the overall conclusions of the assessment as the risks are predicted to be very low. Nanoparticles were not explicitly discussed in the report and a discussion should be provided within the report to include these particles since it is a community concern. However, even though the report does not discuss these particles explicitly, they are captured within the assessment of fine particulate matter and thus have been captured within the assessment since they are assumed to act like vapours. Similarly, individuals who only eat food and produce in the York-Durham area are not explicitly evaluated in the assessment; however the inclusion of a subsistence farmer in the assessment captures their exposure, since the subsistence farmer is assumed to eat 100%of his food from the maximum concentration location. Individuals who consume agricultural food from the area would have a lower exposure since their produce and food would be coming from areas that would be located further away than the subsistence farmer and the air dispersion analysis shows that concentrations drop off substantially the greater the distance from the facility. There is some quantification of the effect of the assumptions provided in the uncertainty section. Overall, the approach was conservative and potentially results in an overestimation of exposure. Since the chronic exposure indicated that HQ values and risk values were orders of magnitude t=" 689 34574 12 Jury 2007 Letter to R Langmaid and J. Szwarz (Continued) Page 9 below a risk level of 1 x 10'6 and a hazard quotient of 0.2, substantial changes (i.e. orders or magnitude) would be needed to change the results of the assessment. Thus, the overall conclusions of the assessment will not change and in fact the calculated risks would likely be lower when the appropriate technology and site is selected. The summary of the risk assessment in Section 5.7 should reflect some of the discussion provided above. However, it must be emphasized that a site-specific assessment is needed when the appropriate technology and site is selected. 6.0 ECOLOGICAL RISK ASSESSMENT The ecological risk assessment follows the paradigm outlined by the CCME and other regulatory agencies. The scenarios selected are the same as for the human health risk assessment and are appropriate. 6.3 PROBLEM FORMULATION The problem formulation, identification of chemicals of concern and conceptual model are appropriate. The selection of ecological receptors is also appropriate. 6.4 EXPOSURE ASSESSMENT The selection of pathways of exposure is appropriate. We concur that the inhalation pathway is insignificant but caution the extrapolation of the results of the human health inhalation results to animals as there is a large uncertainty there since they may not act the same toxicologically and some ecological receptors may be more sensitive than humans. Generic equations are provided for exposure and Appendix H provides all the calculations for Intakes. There are some inconsistencies between the text in the appendix and the tables. For example,the body weight of a mallard duck is given as 1.16 kg in the discussion in H.1.1.8, whereas a value of 0.15 kg is provided in Table H.8. It appears that the table for the belted kingfisher and mallard are switched. In general, the ecological profiles appear reasonable although there are some parameters that we could not verify (e.g. food ingestion rate for muskrat appears low compared to the values given in USEPA 1993). The appendix states that a value of 0.01 for foc is used; this is not consistent with the default value of 0.001 used by the MOE. t� 690 34574 12 July 2007 Letter to F. Langmaid and J. Szwarz (Continued) Page 10 The equations provided for uptake factors in Appendix H are appropriate. The use of the bioavailability and metabolic factors is not clear. These factors have the effect of reducing the concentrations in biota by up to a factor of 100 yet the basis of their derivation is not provided. Further rationale and discussion needs to be provided before these values are applied. 6.5 HAZARD ASSESSMENT The toxicity values provided in Appendix H appear to be appropriate. One clarification that should be made is with respect to the use of the MOE generic guidelines. Some of the values provided in Table H.22 are cited as OME (2004). The value provided are the generic guidelines which do not necessarily correspond to phytotoxicity benchmarks. For example, for benzene the guideline is 5.3 mg/kg (correctly provided in Table H.22); however this value is based on protection of human health from the soil-to-indoor air pathway. The ecotoxicity component of the guideline for benzene is 25 mg/kg. For other CoPC such as chloroform, there is no ecotoxicity component of the generic guideline. Therefore, the use of the generic guidelines as benchmarks to assess potential effects on terrestrial vegetation (Table H.22) and soil invertebrates(Table H.23) is questionable. There is a discussion of scaling in this section;however an acknowledgement should be provided to indicate that while scaling is still being used in ERAS that there is a movement away from scaling and what the potential effect of this would be on the results. A rationale is needed fro the use of an uncertainty factor of 5 to convert from an acute or subchronic dose to a chronic dose and the use of a value of 6 to convert from a lethal dose to a LOAEL. Only S02 was assessed from a phytotoxicity perspective. It is suggested that NO2 also be evaluated and the WHO provides appropriate values for this assessment. 6.6 RISK CHARACTERIZATION The risk characterization equations are provided and indicate that a HQ value is calculated for each exposure pathway and then summed. While this is not inappropriate, the total intake is generally calculated as was done for the human assessment and then divided by the TRV. A benchmark of 0.2 was used for the comparison benchmark, this is likely appropriate as background concentrations have not been included in the modelling. 6.7 UNCERTAINTY ASSESSMENT There is an extensive discussion on uncertainty in the report; however, there is no uncertainty discussion of the selection of the size of the hypothetical waterbody and the effect of this assumption on the calculations. There is no discussion on the omission of background concentrations from the ERA. i£nE� C 691 34574 12 July 2007 Letter to R Langmaid and J.Szwarz(Continued) Page 11 There is a discussion on the use of TRVs and we agree that mammalian toxicity data should not be used for avain species; however no statement is provided as to the effect of this omission. The discussion on chemical speciation is really a discussion on TRVs and should be provided in this section. The uncertainty section would benefit from a tabulation of the uncertainties and their effect on the assessment. 6.8 OVERALL ERA The ecological risk assessment for the EFW treatment facility conforms to risk assessment guidance. However, there are a number of ways that it can be clarified for ease of reading and to be more transparent. These changes will not change the overall conclusions of the assessment as the risks are predicted to be very low. There is a qualitative discussion provided of the effect of the assumptions provided in the uncertainty section. Overall, the approach was conservative and potentially results in an overestimation of exposure. Since the assessment indicated that HQ values and risk values were orders of magnitude below a hazard quotient of 0.2, substantial changes (i.e. orders or magnitude) would be needed to change the results of the assessment. Thus, the overall conclusions of the assessment will not change and in fact the calculated risks would likely be lower when the appropriate technology and site is selected. 7.0 SUMMARY The human health and ecological risk assessment for the EFW treatment facility is comprehensive and conforms to risk assessment guidance. However,there are a number of ways that it can be clarified for ease of reading and to be more transparent. These changes will not change the overall conclusions of the assessment as the risks are predicted to be very low. Nanoparticles were not explicitly discussed in the report and a discussion should be provided within the report to include these particles since it is a community concern. However, even though the report does not discuss these particles explicitly, they are captured within the assessment of fine particulate matter and thus have been captured within the assessment since they are assumed to act like vapours. Similarly, individuals who only eat food and produce in the York-Durham area are not explicitly evaluated in the assessment; however the inclusion of a subsistence fanner in the assessment captures their exposure, since the subsistence farmer is assumed to eat 100% of his food from the maximum concentration location. Individuals who consume agricultural food from the area would have a lower exposure since their produce and food would be coming from areas that would be located further away than the subsistence farmer and the air dispersion analysis shows that concentrations drop off substantially the greater the distance from the facility. r' k£NE� G 692 34574 12 July 2007 Letter to E Langmaid and J. Szwarz (Continued) page I2 Overall, the approach was conservative and potentially results in an overestimation of exposure. Chronic exposure for humans indicated that HQ values and risk values were orders of magnitude below a risk level of 1 x 10-6 and a hazard quotient of 0.2. Similarly for the ecological risk assessment predicted HQ values were below a HQ value of 0.2. Therefore, substantial changes (i.e. orders or magnitude) would be needed to change the results of the assessment. Thus, the overall conclusions of the assessment will not change and in fact the calculated risks would likely be lower when the appropriate technology and site is selected. The ecological risk assessment should provide an analysis of the phytotoxic effects of nitrogen dioxide. It must be emphasized that a site-specific assessment is needed when the appropriate technology and site is selected and it is recommended that plain language summary of the report be provided so members of the public can understand the approach and results of the risk assessment. This report has been written by Harriet Phillips, Ph.D. and Stacey Fernandes,M.A.Sc., P.Eng., of SENES Consultants Limited. Yours very truly, SENES Consultants Limited Harriet A. Phillips, Ph.D. Stacey Fernandes, M.A.Sc., P.Eng. Senior Specialist Risk Assessment/Toxicology Environmental Engineer 4DW4 C 693 Attachment 8a To Report PSD-097-07 am; July 19, 2007 Faye Langmaid Manager of Special Projects Municipality of Clarington I Dear Faye Re: Peer Review Site Selection Criteria—"Evaluation of"Short-List' of Alternative Sites AMEC was retained by the Municipality of Clarington to undertake a peer review of the air quality issues for specific aspects of the Environmental Assessment for the proposed thermal treatment plant to be sited in either Durham Region or York Region. The following peer review addressed the process that is proposed for selecting the preferred site from the four short listed sites.The review addresses material in Background Document 2-3; Consideration of"Alternative Methods" of Implementing the Undertaking; Prepared by MacViro and Jacques Whitford. December 2005 and the revised Table 2-3 to that document. The criteria proposed for the selection of the preferred site address air quality in a number of areas.The primary criterion is"Air Quality Impacts and Ambient Air Quality Testing", with indicators of "local meteorological conditions"and "distance travelled from the main source (s)of waste generation to the site". The list of considerations indicates that this criterion is predominantly looking at background air quality and specific local meteorological conditions that might indicate that there are specific changes to potential impacts at the sites. This is appropriate. We would recommend two additions to the"considerations"; other significant sources (current and future) and an assessment of potential impact zones changes as a result of local meteorological conditions. It might be argued that the baseline monitoring that has recently started will capture some of these existing sources. Unfortunately, given the timing of the site selection, the baseline monitoring will be of short duration and may not do justice to other sources.As such, the deliverable should include a discussion and assessment of other nearby significant sources for each of the candidate sites (e.g. major transportation corridors, major industries). Similarly where proposed future plans are already being considered (e.g. 407 extension),these too should be assessed and a valuated under this criterion. The local meteorological conditions need to be assessed with respect to potential impact zones. The impact zones for air quality will be used in other criteria to assess potential impacts. Typically,these are considered to be circular zones radiating out from the plant. Local AMEC Americas Limited 2020 Winston Park Drive Oakville,ON,1-61-1 6X7 905-829-5400 www.amec.com Site Selection Process Review.doc 694 Page 2 meteorological conditions may indicate that a circular air qua lity impact zone is not appropriate. For example, if there were channelling of wind direction along the lake shore or due to local topography, impact zones may need to be extended in those directions. In the original document, it was noted under the criterion that "Air impacts associated with the facility are addressed under other criteria related to sensitive uses i.e., residential areas, institutions, etc.)". This comment has been dropped in the most recent table, but is still implicit in the approach for the various criteria. We accept this split, as a change in air quality Rself is not the impact; it is the impact on specific receptors that is important. The MOE has developed guidance materials for land use compatibility. These guidelines, entitled"Land Use Compatibility: Implementation D1-D6", were developed to provide recommendations for suitable distances from different industrial activities to sensitive land uses. The guides assume that industries are meeting all required standards, but recognizes that industries could still have nuisance (e.g. odour, dust, noise) impacts related to normal activities or upset conditions. MOE requires that distances to sensitive receptors be considered. Sensitive receptors include houses, schools, day-cares(even when located in industrial of commercial areas) and hospitals. This compatibility is considered separate criteria for residential and for institutional areas. The proposed indicators for residential sensitive receptors are appropriate, but we would recommend some clarification to these indicators. The distance to residential areas is important, but the actual distance to specific residential uses(i.e. actual residential, not just zoned residential) is also important. This might be captured under the "number and distribution of residences", but is not clearly mentioned. This may require the development of different levels (i.e. zones) of potential impact based on simple site specific modelling. As noted, any indicators would apply to both the facility and the haul route. Othersensitive receptors also need to be considered in the site ranking. Though some of this is captured under"institutional"assessment, specific attention should be given to sensitive uses such as schools, day cares and hospitals. As with the residential indicators, numbers and distances are key indicators. The above indicators focus on existing sensitive uses. A similar comparison should be done for approved development plans and proposed land uses. Under the criterion"capital costs, operation and maintenance costs"there is some discussion of additional site specific mitigation requirements. Though not discussed in this document, there is also a statement in the"Generic Hum an Health and Ecological R isk Assessment"that if the site specific risk assessment shows unacceptable risks that further emission reductions ("enhance the performance of the technology") could be undertaken to reduce the risk. This suggests that different sites might require different air pollution control systems. Though we recognize that any facility has to only meet specific air standards, we would recommend that as technology is assessed and options considered, that a thorough assessment be undertaken to ensure that any chosen site has the best contro I technology. It would not be acceptable to either increase Site Selection Process Re iew.doc 695 Page 3 emissions to just meet standards or ignore cost effective technologies that could reduce emissions well beyond standards. An appropriate discussion of the costs and benefits of these control technologies should be considered. i I Yours truly, AM EC Americas Limited Tony van der Vooren Ph.D., P.Eng., QEP Manager; Air Quality Environmental Department tony.vandervooren@amec.com Site Selection Process Review.doc 696 Attachment 8k To Report PSD-097-07 a mec July 19,2007 Faye Langmaid Manager of Special Projects Municipality of Clarington Dear Faye Re: Peer Review "Generic Human Health and Ecological Risk Assessment'—Ail Quality AMEC was retained by the Municipality of Clarington to undertake a peer review of the air quality issues for specific aspects of the Environmental Assessment for the proposed thermal treatment plant to be sited in either Durham Region or York Region. The following peer review addresses the air quality aspects of the generic human health and ecological risk assessment. ("Generic Human Health and Ecological Risk Assessment Durham-York Residual Waste Study; Prepared by Jacques Whitford; June 2007"(HHERA)) The peer review assessed the key aspects of the air quality assessment component.These included: - Model - Meteorological Data - Sources and Emissions - Site - Background Results These are discussed in the following sections. Model The assessment used the most recent version of the MOE's recommended AERMOD dispersion model. It is a U.S. EPA developed model that is widely used. This model assesses the dispersion on an hourly basis from multiple sources. It also accounts for building effects on contaminant dispersion. The model also accounts for deposition of metals and contaminants. This is currently the most appropriate model for.dispersion modelling. Meteorological Data Ideally dispersion modelling is done with very specific site meteorology. This is typically not available for most sites. Standard practice, recommended by all regulatory agencies, is to use the most appropriate near-by meteorological data set. In the HHERA, Pearson wind data and Buffalo upper air data was used for the assessment. This is consistent with MOE's AMEC Americas Limited 2020 Winston Park Drive Oakville,ON,L6H 6X7 905-829-5400 www.amec.mm HHERA AQ review.doc 697 Page 2 recommended practice for assessing air quality in the York/Durham area. This is appropriate for the Generic HHERA. One specific aspect that must be considered during any assessment is the localized effect of the lake on dispersion. The lake can decrease dispersion (i.e. higher concentrations) from tall stacks.The HHERA has considered this effect in their assessment of impacts. Local meteorological data will need to be considered during the site specific HHERAs. Sources and Emissions The HHERA used MOE Guidance documents and emission data for the Peel Energy from Waste facility to select the chemicals of potential concern. The HHE RA recognizes that these may change with the selection of final technology. Even though technology specific emission data is not yet available, the list of chemicals of concern is extensive. It is unlikely that any chosen technology would emit a chemical that would be a cause for concern that has not been included in this assessment. The HHERA uses the Peel incinerator emissions for most emissions. The study uses the maximum test results from three years of test data. (We have not yet reviewed this data). For the key components covered by MOE Guideline' A7, the HHERA uses the maximum emissions (i.e. the standards) allowed under those MOE guidelines.As a result, the modelling was really done under maximum potential emissions.Any actual system can and will do better than the emission levels used in the HHERA. The MOE guidelines are considered by MOE to be a combination of"Maximum Achievable Control Technology (MACT)"and "Lowest Achievable Emission Rate (LAER)20 principles depending on the parameters". As such, these levels are not specif is to human health or environmental impact. These emission guidelines are based on MOE's determination of lowest emissions based on their assessment of possible emission control technologies. Once it is demonstrated that these emissions can be met, further assessment is undertaken to determine if the impact of these emissions can then meet appropriate impact standards (see Results section below). The emission standards in the Guideline have not changed for at least five or more years. It would be appropriate for the proponent to get a specific statement from MOE that MOE will ' The standards are called"guidelines"by MOE.Though this may imply that these are not a legal requirement, MOE has been consistent in applying all of their guidelines in the review and approval requirements. MOE will not issue a Section 9 approval unless all guidelines are met. Z"MACT"is considered to be best emission reduction technology considering the costs and efficiencies of different technologies.This is usually defined by the regulators and is considered to be the most appropriate technology for emission reductions for an entire industry sector. "LAER"is considered to be the maximum emission reductions that can be achieved for a specific facility.This is typically defined in the U.S. and used where airsheds are already compromised for a given pollutant. Economics are not considered in a LAER determination, but control technologies must be demonstrated to be applicable to the industry. HHERA AQ mview.doc 698 Page 3 support the position that the standards in A-7 do reflect their current understanding of MACT and LAER.The current limits are reasonable, b ut not sure they would still define current LAER. We also recommend that a thorough comparison of MACT and LAER be undertaken and discussed for each key parameter reflecting the control technologies/thermal technologies that the MACT and LAER determinations are based on. The site specific HHERA should account for specific technology and expected emissions from the chosen technology. The modelling also accounted for on-site truck emissions. This is appropriate. Site The modelled site lay out accounted for a 257 m by 240 m (6.2 he) site. It was assumed that the buildings were 40 m from the property line. Building heights varied between 15 m and 40 m; with a stack height of 65 m. This is consistent with reasonable dimensions for other sites._ Dispersion would change with stack height. Taller stacks would increase dispersion and shorter stacks would cause the emissions to be caught in the building wake and increase concentrations. The approach used is a ppropriate for the generic HHERA. For the site specific HHERA, we would recommend using.actual building configurations appropriate for the chosen technology. As well, an assessment of stack height and concentrations should be undertaken for the final site plan to determine optimum stack height. Background The HHERA has considered background air quality based on existing MOE monitors. The MOE monitors were located in Newmarket, Stouffville, Oshawa and Mississauga. Though these are appropriate to provide a general regional background, these monitors will not pick up specific nearby sources.As a result, the generic HHERA does reflect the regional background air quality, but it does not reflect any significant sources near the short list sites. Key sources in the area that will impact the site specific local air quality include St. Marys Cement(SMC), Oshawa urban area, Genera I Motors and major transportation corridors (e.g. 401 and 35/115). As the site specific studies are undertaken and the final site selection is undertaken, local sources and specific local background has to be assessed as part of the air quality, site selection and HHERA assessments. The MOE monitoring stations only consider a number of the key emissions (e.g. SOs, NO„ PM2.e)• These stations do not monitor a number of the contaminants of concern related to thermal waste treatment. These would include dioxins and furans and key heavy metals (e.g. mercury).We would recommend that background levels for other contaminants also be developed.This could be done initially from key literature reports (e.g. Environment Canada's speciated VOC studies). This could have been included in the generic HHERA, but must be included in the site specific HHERAs. HHERA AQ review.doc 699 Page 4 - Results The results of the air quality assessment were used in the HHERA to assess risk through the air exposure pathway and through other multi-media pathways. The assessment focussed on the locations of maximum impacts for both inhalation exposure and deposition. The results were also compared against appropriate MOE standards.The MOE ambient airstandards are based on the effect that occurs at the lowest concentration. In some cases,this might be impacts on vegetation or even a nuisance basis (e.g. odour). Human health and impacts on humans are considered in all cases. All modelled compounds were below MOE air quality standards. Summary The air quality assessment for the HHERA was reasonable for a generic assessment. Emissions were conservatively assumed to be at potential maximum emissions. Actual emissions from any chosen technology will be less than emissions that were assessed. As such,predicted impacts related to the emissions from the facility are considered to be conservative and actual impacts will be lower. The only area of concern is the inclusion of background air quality data. We recognize that the HHERA is generic, but site specific backgrounds could significantly change the risk levels. Key sources in the area that will impact the site specific local air quality include St Marys Cement, Oshawa, General Motors and major transportation corridors(e.g.401 and 35/115). This could effect not only the conclusions of the HHERA, but must also be considered in the final site selection process. As well,the current background assessment only considers major contaminants measured by MOE monitoring stations. The air quality background assessment and risk assessment should also consider the background levels of other contaminants of concern; specifically dioxins and furens and heavy metals. Yours truly, AMEC Americas Limited Tony van der Vooren Ph.D., P.Eng., QEP Manager,Air Quality Environmental Department tony.vandervooren@amec.com cc: Janice Szwarz Steven Rowe HHERA AQ review.doc 699001 Clarington Le�rng me way REPORT PLANNING SERVICES Meeting: GENERAL PURPOSE AND ADMINISTRATION MEETING Date: Tuesday, September 4, 2007 Report#: PSD-098-07 File No's: A2007-0036, A2007-0038, By-law#: A2007-0039, A2007-0040, A2007-0041, A2007-0042, A2007-0043 and A2007-0044 Subject: MONITORING OF THE DECISIONS OF THE COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT FOR THE MEETINGS OF JULY 26 AND AUGUST 16, 2007 RECOMMENDATIONS: It is respectfully recommended that the General Purpose and Administration Committee recommend to Council the following: 1. THAT Report PSD-098-07 be received; 2. THAT Council concurs with the decisions of the Committee of Adjustment made on July 26, and August 16, 2007 for Applications A2007-0036, A2007-0038, A2007-0039, A2007-0041 through A2007-0044 inclusive and that staff be authorized to appear before the Ontario Municipal Board to defend the decisions of the Committee of Adjustment; and, 3. THAT Council concur that an appeal of the decision made by the Committee of Adjustment on July 26, 2007 for application A2007-0040 was not warranted. Submitted by: Reviewed by vi . Crome, M.C.I.P., R.P.P. Franklin Wu, Director of Planning Services Chief Administrative Officer P W/G F/C P/D C/d f/s h/j d August 21, 2007 CORPORATION OF THE MUNICIPALITY OF CLARINGTON 40 TEMPERANCE STREET, BOWMANVILLE, ONTARIO L1C 3A6 T(905)623-3379 F (905)623-0830 699002_ __ REPORT NO.: PSD-098-07 PAGE 2 1.0 APPLICATION DETAILS 1.1 All applications received by the Municipality for minor variance are scheduled for a hearing within 30 days of being received by the Secretary-Treasurer. The purpose of the minor variance applications and the Committee's decisions are detailed in Attachment 1. The decisions of the Committee are summarized below. DECISIONS OF THE COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT FOR JULY 26 AND AUGUST 16, 2007 JULY 26 -% A2007-0036 Approve A roved " A2007-0038 Deny and Table Denied and Tabled A2007-0039 Approve Approved A2007-0040 Deny Approved A2007-0041 Approve Approved A2007-0042 Approve Approved AUGUST 16 A2007-0038 Deny Denied A2007-0043 Approve A'pproved A2007-0044 Approve A roved 1.2 Application A2007-0036 was tabled from an earlier meeting (July 5, 2007) after it was discovered that the required circulation of this application had been incomplete. 1.3 Application A2007-0038 was filed to permit a reduction in the required setback for an accessory structure (hot-tub) to the main building from 1.2 metres to 0.05 metres (2 inches) and to reduce the required interior side yard and rear yard setbacks for an accessory building (shed) from 1.2 metres to 0.07 metres (3 inches) and 0.6 metres respectively. Committee agreed with staffs recommendation as it pertained to the hot-tub and that portion of the application was denied as per staffs recommendation. The appeal period has since expired and no appeals were lodged against the decision on the hot-tub portion of the application. The portion of the application pertaining to the shed was tabled at the July 26, 2007, meeting in order to allow the Applicant sufficient time to eliminate the roof projection extending over the westerly interior side lot line. Further staff determined that there were discrepancies between the measurements that were submitted with the application and the measurements taken by staff in the field. The Applicant indicated their intention to cut back the shed's roof projection across the lot line and apply for the original variance as indicated on their application. A site visit to the property on August 13, 2007, confirmed that the Applicant was yet to cut back the roof projection and they ere REPORT NO.: PSD-098-07 PAGE 3 informed that Committee cannot approve a projection across a lot line under any circumstances. At the August 16, 2007, meeting of Committee the portion pertaining to the shed was heard again and Committee denied the application as per staffs request as they found the applied for variance to not be minor or desirable in nature. The applicant has 30 days from August 16, 2007, to bring the shed into compliance with Zoning By-Law 84- 63 which would require them to maintain a 1.2 metre setback from both the westerly interior and northerly rear lot lines. However, should an appeal of the Committees decision be received, staff should be authorized to appear before the Ontario Municipal Board to support denial of this application. 1.4 Application A2007-0040 was filed to permit two accessory buildings (detached garage and garden shed) by increasing the total lot coverage from 40% to 65% of the main building floor area. Originally, a building permit was erroneously issued as staff was unaware that an illegal addition had been made to the detached garage which then resulted in a considerably higher total lot coverage for accessory buildings on the lot. Staff recommended denial of the application as the increase was considered to not be minor in nature. Committee instead approved the variance on total lot coverage for accessory buildings from 40% to 65% of the main building's floor area. Due to the nature of the variance and the limited impact on other properties, it was the opinion of staff that an appeal of this decision was not warranted. 2.0 COMMENTS 2.1 Staff have reviewed the Committee's decisions and are satisfied that applications A2007-0036, A2007-0039, A2007-0041 through A2007-0044 inclusive, are in conformity with both Official Plan policies, consistent with the intent of the Zoning By-law, are minor in nature and desirable. 2.2 Council's concurrence with the decisions of the Committee of Adjustment for applications A2007-0036, A2007-0038, A2007-0039, A2007-0041 through A2007-0044 inclusive, is required in order to afford staff official status before the Ontario Municipal Board in the event of an appeal of any decision of the Committee of Adjustment. Attachments: Attachment 1 - Periodic Report for the Committee of Adjustment 699004 Attachment ' To Report PSD-098-01 Clar.�ngton Lending the Wny PERIODIC REPORT FOR THE COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT APPLICANT: HAMILTON AND ASSOCIATE OWNER: BEVERLY BURGESS PROPERTY LOCATION: 1538 BLOOR STREET, COURTICE PART LOT 33, CONCESSION 2 FORMER TOWN(SHIP) OF DARLINGTON FILE NO.: A2007-0036 PURPOSE: TO PERMIT A BOUNDARY REALIGNMENT CREATING A NEW MELDED LOT BY REDUCING THE MINIMUM REQUIRED LOT AREA FOR NON-RESIDENITAL USES FROM 40 HA TO 3.6 HA. DECISION OF COMMITTEE: TO TABLE THE APPLICATION UNTIL THE NEXT MEETING OF THE COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT, DATE OF DECISION: July 5, 2007 LAST DAY OF APPEAL: July 25, 2007 699005 qding the Way PERIODIC REPORT FOR THE COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT APPLICANT: HAMILTON AND ASSOCIATE OWNER: BEVERLY BURGESS PROPERTY LOCATION: 1538 BLOOR STREET, COURTICE PART LOT 33, CONCESSION 2 FORMER TOWN(SHIP) OF DARLINGTON FILE NO.: A2007-0036 PURPOSE: TO PERMIT A BOUNDARY REALIGNMENT CREATING A NEW MELDED LOT BY REDUCING THE MINIMUM REQUIRED LOT AREA FOR NON-RESIDENITAL USES FROM 40 HA TO 3.6 HA. DECISION OF COMMITTEE: APPROVED TO PERMIT A BOUNDARY REALIGNMENT CREATING A NEW MELDED LOT BY REDUCING THE MINIMUM REQUIRED LOT AREA FOR NON-RESIDENTIAL USES FROM 40 HECTARES TO 3.6 HECTARES AS IT IS MINOR, DESIRABLE IN NATURE AND MEETS THE INTENT OF THE OFFICIAL PLAN AND ZONING BY-LAW. DATE OF DECISION: July 26, 2007 LAST DAY OF APPEAL: August 15, 2007 699006 qding the Way PERIODIC REPORT FOR THE COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT APPLICANT: LEANNE CHOLETTE OWNER: LEANNE CHOLETTE PROPERTY LOCATION: 4 LIVING COURT, COURTICE PART LOT 28, CONCESSION 2 FORMER TOWN(SHIP) OF DARLINGTON FILE NO.: A2007-0038 PURPOSE: TO APPROVE THE CONSTRUCTION OF A DECK BY REDUCING THE MINIMUM REQUIRED REAR YARD SETBACK FROM 6 METRES TO 4.4 METRES AS IT IS MINOR IN NATURE, DESIRABLE AND CONFORMS TO THE INTENT OF THE ZONING BY-LAW AND BOTH OFFICIAL PLANS. DECISION OF COMMITTEE: DENIED TO PERMIT A REDUCTION IN REQUIRED SETBACK FOR AN ACCESSORY STRUCTURE (HOT-TUB) TO THE MAIN BUILDING FROM 1.2 M TO 0.05 M AS IT IS NOT MINOR OR DESIRABLE IN NATURE AND TO TABLE THE PORTION TO REDUCE THE INTERIOR SIDE AND REAR YARD SETBACKS FOR THE SHED TO THE AUGUST 16, 2007 COMMITTEE MEETING TO ALLOW THE APPLICANT TIME TO CONSIDER OPTIONS AVAILABLE TO THEM. DATE OF DECISION: July 26, 2007 LAST DAY OF APPEAL: August 15, 2007 699007 Clarington Leading the Way PERIODIC REPORT FOR THE COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT APPLICANT: LEANNE CHOLETTE OWNER: LEANNE CHOLETTE PROPERTY LOCATION: 4 LIVING COURT, COURTICE PART LOT 28, CONCESSION 2 FORMER TOWN(SHIP) OF DARLINGTON FILE NO.: A2007-0038 PURPOSE: TO PERMIT A REDUCTION IN REQUIRED SETBACK FOR AN ACCESSORY STRUCTURE (HOT-TUB) TO THE MAIN BLDG FROM 1.2 M TO 0.05 M & TO REDUCE THE REQUIRED INTERIOR SIDE & REAR YARD SETBACKS FOR AN ACCESSORY BLDG (SHED) FROM 1.2 M TO 0.07 M & 0.60 M RESPECTIVELY. DECISION OF COMMITTEE: TO DENY THE PORTION OF THE APPLICATION TO REDUCE THE REQUIRED INTERIOR SIDE YARD AND REAR YARD SETBACKS FOR AN ACCESSORY BUILDING (SHED) FROM 1.2 METRES TO 0.07 METRES AND 0.6 METRES RESPECTIVELY AS IT IS NOT MINOR IN NATURE AND IS NOT DESIRABLE AND THAT THE SHED SHALL BE MOVED INTO COMPLIANCE WITH THE ZONING BY- LAW WITHIN THIRTY (30) DAYS OF THIS DECISION. DATE OF DECISION: August 16, 2007 LAST DAY OF APPEAL: September 5, 2007 699008 Qding the Way PERIODIC REPORT FOR THE COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT APPLICANT: DAVID MCINTYRE OWNER: DAVID MCINTYRE PROPERTY LOCATION: 191 KING LANE, HAMPTON PART LOT 19, CONCESSION 5 FORMER TOWN(SHIP) OF DARLINGTON FILE NO.: A2007-0039 PURPOSE: TO PERMIT THE CONSTRUCTION OF A LIVESTOCK BUILDING CONTAINING A MAXIMUM OF 2 HORSES BY REDUCING THE AGRICULTURAL SETBACK FROM 300 METRES TO 84 METRES TO THE NEAREST NEIGHBOURkS DWELLING. DECISION OF COMMITTEE: APPROVED TO PERMIT CONSTRUCTION OF A LIVESTOCK BUILDING CONTAINING A MAXIMUM OF TWO (2) HORSES BY REDUCING THE AGRICULTURAL SETBACK FROM 300 METRES TO 84 METRES TO THE NEAREST NEIGHBOUR'S DWELLING AS IT IS MINOR, DESIRABLE AND MEETS THE INTENT OF THE OFFICIAL PLAN AND ZONING BYLAW SUBJECT TO THE APPLICANT RECEIVING WRITTEN PERMISSION FROM CLOC PRIOR TO RECEIVING A BUILDING PERMIT. DATE OF DECISION: July 26, 2007 LAST DAY OF APPEAL: August 15, 2007 699009 Qding the Way PERIODIC REPORT FOR THE COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT APPLICANT: RICK OLAISEN OWNER: RICK OLAISEN PROPERTY LOCATION: 38 SIMPSON AVENUE, BOWMANVILLE PART LOT 12, CONCESSION 2 FORMER TOWN(SHIP) OF BOWMANVILLE FILE NO.: A2007-0040 PURPOSE: TO PERMIT TWO ACCESSORY BUILDINGS BY INCREASING THE TOTAL LOT COVERAGE FROM 40% TO 65% OF THE MAIN BUILDING FLOOR AREA. DECISION OF COMMITTEE: APPROVED TO PERMIT TWO ACCESSORY BUILDINGS BY INCREASING THE TOTAL LOT COVERAGE FROM 40% TO 65% OF THE MAIN BUILDING FLOOR AREA AS IT IS MINOR IN NATURE, DESIRABLE AND MEETS THE INTENT OF THE OFFICIAL PLAN AND ZONING BY-LAW. DATE OF DECISION: July 26, 2007 LAST DAY OF APPEAL: August 15, 2007 699010 Clarington Leadtng[he ay PERIODIC REPORT FOR THE COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT APPLICANT: ALFRED BUXCEY OWNER: ALFRED BUXCEY PROPERTY LOCATION: 56 COUSINS STREET, COURTICE PART LOT 35, CONCESSION 1 FORMER TOWN(SHIP) OF DARLINGTON FILE NO.: A2007-0041 PURPOSE: TO PERMIT THE CONSTRUCTION OF A DECK BY INCREASING THE MAXIMUM PERMITTED LOT COVERAGE FROM 40% TO 48%. DECISION OF COMMITTEE: APPROVED TO PERMIT THE CONSTRUCTION OF A DECK BY INCREASING THE MAXIMUM PERMITTED LOT COVERAGE FROM 40% TO 48% AS IT IS MINOR IN NATURE, DESIRABLE AND MEETS THE INTENT OF THE OFFICIAL PLAN AND ZONING BY-LAW. DATE OF DECISION: July 26, 2007 LAST DAY OF APPEAL: August 15, 2007 699011 Clar�t�to� Leading the Woy PERIODIC REPORT FOR THE COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT APPLICANT: D.G. BIDDLE AND ASSOCIATES LTD. OWNER: ALGOMA ORCHARDS LIMITED PROPERTY LOCATION: 3152 HIGHWAY 2, CLARKE PART LOT 35, CONCESSION 2 FORMER TOWN(SHIP) OF CLARKE FILE NO.: A2007-0042 PURPOSE: TO PERMIT THE CONSTRUCTION OF A WAREHOUSE/STORAGE BUILDING BY INCREASING THE PERMITTED MAXIMUM LOT COVERAGE WITHIN THE "A-4" ZONE FROM 5% TO 36%. DECISION OF COMMITTEE: APPROVED TO PERMIT THE CONSTRUCTION OF A WAREHOUSE/STORAGE BUILDING BY INCREASING THE PERMITTED MAXIMUM LOT COVERAGE WITHIN THE A-4 ZONE FROM 5% TO 36% AS IT IS MINOR IN NATURE, DESIRABLE AND MEETS THE INTENT OF THE OFFICIAL PLAN AND ZONING BY-LAW. DATE OF DECISION: July 26, 2007 LAST DAY OF APPEAL: August 15, 2007 699012 qa • ading the wag PERIODIC REPORT FOR THE COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT APPLICANT: AMANDA BARNEY OWNER: AMANDA BARNEY PROPERTY LOCATION: 7 SAWMILL COURT, BOWMANVILLE PART LOT 13, CONCESSION 2 FORMER TOWN(SHIP) OF BOWMANVILLE FILE NO.: A2007-0043 PURPOSE: TO PERMIT CONSTRUCTION OF A DECK BY REDUCING THE MINIMUM REQUIRED REAR YARD SETBACK FROM 6 METRES TO 4.4 METRES. DECISION OF COMMITTEE: TO APPROVE THE CONSTRUCTION OF A DECK BY REDUCING THE MINIMUM REQUIRED REAR YARD SETBACK FROM 6 METRES TO 4.4 METRES AS IT IS MINOR IN NATURE, DESIRABLE AND CONFORMS TO THE INTENT OF THE ZONING BY-LAW AND BOTH OFFICIAL PLANS. DATE OF DECISION: August 16, 2007 LAST DAY OF APPEAL: September 5, 2007 699013 ClLeaahe h"W4 PERIODIC REPORT FOR THE COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT APPLICANT: MUNICIPAL SOLUTIONS OWNER: CLIFFORD POTTER PROPERTY LOCATION: 3191 HIGHWAY 2, CLARKE PART LOT 35, CONCESSION 2 FORMER TOWN(SHIP) OF CLARKE FILE NO.: A2007-0044 PURPOSE: TO PERMIT THE CONSTRUCTION OF AN ACCESSORY BUILDING (DETACHED GARAGE) BY INCREASING THE MAXIMUM PERMITTED LOT COVERAGE FROM 40% TO 55% OF THE MAIN BUILDING FLOOR AREA. DECISION OF COMMITTEE: TO APPROVE THE CONSTRUCTION OF AN ACCESSORY BUILDING (DETACHED GARAGE) BY INCREASING THE MAXIMUM PERMITTED LOT COVERAGE FROM 40% TO 55% OF THE MAIN BUILDING FLOOR AREA, SUBJECT TO THE CONDITION THAT THE CURRENT ACCESSORY BUILDING BE REMOVED PRIOR TO THE CONSTRUCTION OF THE NEW BUILDING, AS IT IS MINOR IN NATURE, DESIRABLE AND CONFORMS TO THE INTENT OF THE ZONING BY-LAW AND BOTH OFFICIAL PLANS. DATE OF DECISION: August 16, 2007 LAST DAY OF APPEAL: September 5, 2007 699014 Leading the Way V REPORT PLANNING SERVICES Meeting: GENERAL PURPOSE AND ADMINISTRATION MEETING Date: Tuesday, September 4, 2007 Report#: PSD-099-07 File No's: SVA 2007-0001 By-law #: Subject: MINOR VARIANCE TO SIGN BY-LAW 97-157 APPLICANT: TERREN'S WELLNESS CENTRE, ORONO RECOMMENDATIONS: It is respectfully recommended that the General Purpose and Administration Committee recommend to Council the following: 1. THAT Report PSD-099-07 be received; 2. THAT the application for Minor Variance to the Municipality of Clarington Sign By-law 97-157, submitted by Terren's Wellness Centre, to permit an increase in the number of permitted signs from one permanent sign to three permanent signs be APPROVED and that the portion of the application to permit a temporary, A-board sign for a period of up to twelve months before a new permit must be issued, be DENIED; and, 3. THAT all interested parties listed in this report and any delegations be advised of Council's decision; Submitted by "� Reviewed by: D id J. Cro , M.C� Franklin Wu, irector of Planning Services Chief Administrative Officer PW/CP/DC/df/lw 27 August 2007 CORPORATION OF THE MUNICIPALITY OF CLARINGTON 40 TEMPERANCE STREET, BOWMANVILLE, ONTARIO L1C 3A6 T(905)623-3379 F (905)623-0830 699015 REPORT NO.: PSD-099-07 PAGE 2 1.0 APPLICATION DETAILS 1.1 Applicant: Terren's Wellness Centre 1.2 Owner: Edgar Brookings 1.3 Proposal: To vary the Sign By-law (97-157) to permit an increase in the number of permitted signs from one permanent sign to three permanent signs and to permit a temporary, A-board sign for a period of up to twelve months before a new permit must be issued 1.4 Location: 5324 Main Street, Orono 2.0 BACKGROUND AND PROPOSED VARIANCE 2.1 Terren's Wellness Centre has operated since 2000 as a street-front retail establishment within the Heritage Resource Area of downtown Orono. 2.2 On July 20, 2007, the Municipality received an application from Terren's Wellness Centre for a Minor Variance to Sign By-law 97-157. The application proposes to increase the number of permitted signs from one to three permanent signs, and to permit a temporary, A-board sign for a period of up to twelve months before a new permit must be issued. 2.3 Planning staff initially received an application for a sign permit on April 4, 2007, for one overhanging sign, two window signs, and one temporary A-board sign. Following correspondence between the sign maker/agent and the Municipality a package for minor variance to the sign by-law was faxed/mailed to the business owner and agent on May 1, 2007. This information explained the non-compliance of the proposed sign application and outlined the process required to apply for a Minor Variance to the Sign By-law in order to accommodate these deficiencies. Based on the original sign area calculations staff had determined that a variance was also required for the overhanging wall sign. Revised sign area calculations later determined that a variance to permit an increase in the maximum area for an overhanging wall sign was not required. 2.4 On May 22, 2007, the application fee for the Minor Variance to Sign By-law 97-157 was received, however, the completed application form for the minor variance was not submitted. Subsequent follow-up with the applicant corrected this oversight. 2.5 On July 20, 2007, the Municipality received a complete application from Terren's Wellness Centre for a Minor Variance to Sign By-law 97-157 to permit an increase in the number of permitted signs from one permanent sign to three permanent signs and to permit a temporary, A-board sign for a period of up to twelve months before a new permit must be issued. 699016 REPORT NO.: PSD-099-07 PAGE 3 3.0 SIGN BY-LAW PROVISIONS 3.1 The provisions of the Sign By-law permit the following: • One permanent window or wall sign and one temporary sign per multiple business site; and • Temporary, A-board signs may be permitted for a period of up to 60 days after which they must be removed for a period of 28 days before a permit can again be issued. A maximum of three (3) permits may be issued within a twelve (12) month period. 4.0 APPLICANT'S RATIONALE 4.1 The applicant has stated that their business requires increased visibility to advertise their location on Main Street in Orono. An overhanging, wall sign will provide their business with exposure to both pedestrian and vehicular traffic from further away while the "eye-level" window signs and A-board sign will provide better identification of their business from the sidewalk. 5.0 STAFF COMMENTS 5.1 The subject property is located on the west side of Main Street in downtown Orono. The business is located within a mutli-tenant commercial building with multiple entrances along Main Street. The applicant has removed the existing wall sign above the store in anticipation of erecting the proposed new signs. The following reviews each component of the application and staffs comments. 1. Permit an increase in the number of permitted signs from one permanent sign to three permanent signs A perpendicular, overhanging sign would not be easily visible to pedestrians standing on the opposite side of the street therefore additional signage is requested to ensure store identification from all areas along the street. The Sign By-law states that multiple commercial sites have only one permanent wall or window sign to serve as identification for each individual business. The intent of this section of the Sign By-law is to ensure a neat and uniform display of signage across the front of a building. The applicant has requested two additional window signs, placed in separate windows separated by a doorway, in addition to the overhanging wall sign. Staff believe that the intent of the By-law will still be maintained as the resulting three (3) signs will not appear along a single surface together and therefore will not result in unnecessary visual clutter. Both the window and overhanging signs maintain the character of the Heritage Resource Area of Orono. The two (2) window signs together with the overhanging sign have a combined area of 1.4 mz. This is considerably less than a typical wall 699017 REPORT NO.: PSD-099-07 PAGE 4 identification sign permitted by the sign by-law which has a maximum sign area of 3.75 m2. 2. Permit a temporary, A-board sign for a period of up to twelve (12) months before a new permit must be issued. Temporary signs are intended to advertise an activity or event that is transitory or impermanent in nature. Temporary signs may be displayed for no more than 60 days upon the issuance of a permit and must be removed from display for a minimum of 28 days before a new permit may be granted. A maximum of three (3) permits may be issued within a twelve (12) month period. The applicant's request to allow for the display of a temporary, A-board sign for a period of twelve (12) months on one permit suggests that the A-board sign will be used more as a permanent identification sign than as a temporary sign advertising a one-time event. Therefore, Staff believe that this request does not meet the intent of the Sign By-law and does not support this aspect of the application. 6.0 LEGISLATION 6.1 Section 11 of the Municipal Act, Subsection (3) provides the authority for Council to pass By-laws respecting matters related to signs. The same authority to pass these By- laws also permits Council to modify and amend these By-laws as they see fit. 7.0 CONCLUSION 7.1 Based on the comments provided in this report, it is respectfully recommended that the minor variance to the Sign By-law to permit an increase in the number of permitted signs from one (1) permanent sign to three (3) permanent signs be APPROVED and that the minor variance to permit a temporary, A-board sign for a period of up to twelve (12) months before a new permit must be issued be DENIED. Attachments: Attachment 1 — Key Map Attachment 2 — Sign Illustrations Interested parties to be notified of Committee and Council's decision: Terren's Wellness Centre Taylor Made Signs Edgar Brookings 699018 Attachment 1 To Report PSD-099-07 Lot 29 Lot 28 /V D/CkSC a N STREET z N � M m Ml h J g CENTREVIEW STREET C �N U) d V C O U x C 0 n x 15324 Main Street p PARK STREET M m STq r/oN STR�FT - 5324 Main Street, Orono ORONO KEY MAP SVA 2007-0001 . Attachment 2 To Report PSD-0 9-07 �O . CO . . . . C LU U ; . . . k \ 7 ) L § / & \ bE Eq > e $ . § . . . � E / d0 . § m § k Lu ® \ � D � � B . _ . \ / . . m = 9 a . t \� m CO � ? . 699020 � v. f � _ t'9` Yr A► 4 � 47` A.- °?z G- Y ` Iowa C E v, x <z, t -- 39 MAIN 5T. MILLBROOK LOA 1G0 TnxovmADE SIrwsANDSn.r NDr LCATe _ MAROi 28,2007_ d+ HD.UY DINA... 705- 932-3195 -nTAS NaeTKST Aws war nvoseovm m WU SI SMD AI WMaTO {[ pat@taylormadesigns.co WUY AT4R WAt g a WWV Tf Y:si -NFASF NaIR m Wl DuEm MI�GX AS n[c anon*DUSro 699021 REPORT Leading the Way PLANNING SERVICES Meeting: GENERAL PURPOSE AND ADMINISTRATION COMMITTEE Date: Tuesday, September 4, 2007 Report #: PSD-100-07 File Nos. #: ROPA 2007-003 By-law#: and PLN 37.0 Subject: PROPOSED REGIONAL OFFICAL PLAN AMENDMENT— COMMUNITY IMPROVEMENT PLANS RECOMMENDATIONS: It is respectfully recommended that the General Purpose and Administration Committee recommend to Council the following: 1. THAT Report PSD-100-07 be received; 2. THAT the Regional Municipality of Durham be requested to revise proposed policy 14.5.3 (as shown in bold) to read as follows: "That the region's participation in the implementation of an area municipal Community Improvement Plan shall be restricted to projects that contribute to achieving the goals of the Regional Official Plan for Regional Centres and Regional Corridors, Employment Areas, and Waterfront Places in accordance with policies 8.1.8 and 8.1.12, 8.1.15 to 8.1.17 and 10C respectively. These elements of the Urban System are planned as mixed- use residential, commercial, employment areas, and people places and are recognized as the focal point of urban activities"; 3. THAT the criteria for the Region's proposed Revitalization Program be developed to consider economic diversification and job creation objectives as part of the criteria; and 4. THAT a copy of Report PSD-100-07 be forwarded to the Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing and the Region of Durham Planning Department. Submitted by: Reviewed by:� Davifi J. ome, M.C.I.P., R.P.P. Franklin Wu, Director of Planning Services Chief Administrative Officer DJ/COS/DJC/df 23 August 2007 CORPORATION OF THE MUNICIPALITY OF CLARINGTON 40 TEMPERANCE STREET, BOWMANVILLE, ONTARIO L1C 3A6 T (905)623-3379 F (905)623-0830 699022 REPORT NO.: PSD-100-07 PAGE 2 1.0 INTRODUCTION 1.1 On June 5, 2007, the Planning Committee of the Regional Municipality of Durham passed the following resolution: ,,a) THAT Planning Committee authorize the initiation of an amendment to the Durham Regional Official Plan to incorporate policies addressing the Region's involvement in Community Improvement initiatives, as proposed in Attachment 1 of Commissioner's Report No. 2007-P-48; and b) THAT a copy of Commissioner's Report No. 2007-P-48 be forwarded to the Area Municipalities and the Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing." 1.2 A copy of the Region's Planning Commissioner's Report N0. 2007-P-48 is enclosed as Attachment 1 to this report. 1.3 The purpose of this report is provide formal comments on the proposed amendment to the Regional Official Plan, as set out in Attachment 1. 2.0 BACKGROUND 2.1 The Planning Act allows municipalities to prepare a Community Improvement Plan to set out what a municipality intends to do to address an inadequate state of affairs or opportunities in a certain defined area. "Community Improvement Project Area" means a municipality or an area within a municipality, the community improvement of which in the opinion of the council is desirable because of age, dilapidation, overcrowding, faulty arrangement, unsuitability of buildings or for any other environmental, social or community economic development reason. Since each community has its own unique opportunities and challenges, there is no predetermined definition of what a community improvement plan must include. Some plans may include land-use policies, zoning regulations, and public improvements like streetscape and infrastructure to encourage certain activities e.g. gathering and using the public realm. Other plans outline what grants a municipality is prepared to offer property owners as an economic development incentive to build or repair properties to meet the aims of the plan. The Clarington Official Plan states that the goal of Community Improvement is to provide for and encourage public and private sector activities for the purpose of the maintenance, rehabilitation and redevelopment of the existing built environment of the Municipality. All Community Improvement Plans start by setting the boundary of the community that is being considered for improvement. It keeps the study focused within a certain area that becomes the focus of specific policies and incentives. 699023 REPORT NO.: PSD-100-07 PAGE 3 2.2 The Municipality of Clarington has adopted two Community Improvement Plans in Orono and Bowmanville and has recently commenced a public consultation process for a proposed Community Improvement Plan within the Newcastle Village Town Centre. 2.3 The focus of Clarington's Community Improvement Plans evolve mainly around the revitalization of historic downtown areas and include actions such as fagade restoration and improvement, signage, street lighting and sidewalk reconstruction. 2.4 Before Bill 51, the Planning and Conservation Land Statute Law Amendment Act 2005, took effect, Community Improvement Plans (CIPs) could only be initiated and implemented by area municipalities. Under the new provisions that amended the Planning Act, upper-tier municipalities have the authority to: ■ Participate in locally-initiated Community Improvement Plans (CIPs) by giving grants or loans to area municipalities; and • Adopt Regional Community Improvement Plans (CIPs) for the following prescribed matters: ➢ Infrastructure that is within the Region's jurisdiction; ➢ Land and buildings within and adjacent to existing or planned transit corridors that have the potential to provide a focus for higher density mixed-use development and redevelopment, and ➢ Affordable housing. 2.5 The Regional Municipality responded by initiating a proposed Official Plan amendment with policies that would enable them to: • develop a revitalization program to detail Regional involvement in area municipal Community Improvement Plans; • focus community improvement efforts on Regional Centres and Regional Corridors as the Region's interest in area municipal Community Improvement Plans; and • monitor Regional involvement in Community Improvement Plan activities. 2.6 The key issue that needs to be discussed in this report is the proposed focus of the Region's community improvement policies only on Regional Centres and Regional Corridors and the implications it has for Clarington. 3.0 STAFF COMMENTS 3.1 Regional involvement in revitalization and redevelopment is welcomed given the importance of regional water and sewer services and for development of road. However, Staff question whether it is appropriate to restrict Official Plan policy to Regional Centres and Regional Corridors. This narrow focus implies that in the event 699024 REPORT NO.: PSD-100-07 PAGE 4 that the Region wants to be involved in different CIP such as infrastructure redevelopment within an industrial area or a waterfront redevelopment, it would require an Official Plan amendment. Certain parts in Bowmanville, Courtice and Newcastle (mainly the downtown areas and major business nodes) are designated Regional Centres and sections of Highway 2 through Clarington are designated a Regional Corridor. These areas are mainly the focus of intensification and mixed use development in Clarington and may benefit from Regional involvement. However, we are not aware of any significant servicing constraints that would benefit from the Region's involvement. 3.2 Community Improvement, by definition, speaks generally to any community. Although it is understandable that the Region wishes to be involved only in CIP's with regional implications, it's intentions seem to limit CIP involvement to the larger urban centres. For example, we are aware the Oshawa and Ajax downtowns have servicing constraints to intensification. The Region's efforts would be more beneficial if they were designed to support local priorities for community improvement as an integral part of the local planning process. 3.3 The Regional economy and infrastructure are interwoven and in its efforts to attain balanced growth and "complete" communities, municipalities and smaller communities alike should receive Regional contributions. The intent and "spirit" of Community Improvement Plans should be kept and the Region's involvement should be oriented to how it intends to support municipalities to implement regional and provincial policies at the local level. 3.4 In most cases, economic development is, for all practical purposes, the main outcome of community improvement efforts. One of the cornerstones of attaining "complete" communities is the creation of the right economic climate that will stimulate job creation locally. Economic development objectives should therefore be part of the criteria when developing regional Community Improvement policies. 3.5 Clarington has experienced considerable residential growth the past 15 years but has faced numerous challenges with regards to attracting industrial development, mainly because of the unavailability of regional municipal services to most of our employment lands. Clarington Council has identified servicing industrial lands is as one of its key priorities in the Strategic Business Plan for 1007-2010. The Energy Business Park in Clarington has already been identified as a Community Improvement Plan Area, as it lacks much needed infrastructure and it holds an important key to the creation of a complete community. Similarly, the Municipality will soon also propose to designate the East Bowmanville Industrial Area as a Community Improvement Area. Both employment areas are of regional significance in terms of location and potential, but cannot be developed yet because of the unavailability of municipal infrastructure. Employment Areas should be specifically recognized as an eligible area for the Region's involvement in CIPs. 3.6 "Waterfront Places, as designated in the Durham Regional Official Plan are to form significant focal points for social interaction, recreation, education, and economic 699025 REPORT NO.: PSD-100-07 PAGE 5 activity. Their role in structuring the urban area and creating complete communities, should not be underestimated. It would be advisable to also consider including Waterfront Places as a focus area for Regional involvement in Community Improvement Plans." Both the Port of Newcastle and Port Darlington are designated and Waterfront Places. 3.7 The Official Plan amendment is an enabling policy that allows the Region to adopt a Revitalization Program that will identify criteria to be satisfied as a prerequisite for regional involvement in CIPs. Until this more detailed program is developmed, we cannot access the impact on Clarington and it's ability to include regional services in CIPs. However the criteria should be developed to include economic diversification and job creation.. 4.0 CONCLUSIONS 4.1 The involvement of the Regional Municipality in Community Improvement Plans adds a new dynamic to the process and communities in Clarington may benefit from it. There is however concern regarding the Region's proposal to focus its CIP efforts only on Regional Centres and Corridors. The Regional Official Plan should set a broader policy framework on CIP's to support local efforts. Specifically Employment Areas should be eligible for their job creation and economic diversification contributions to community improvement. 4.2 Consequently we respectfully recommend that Council request: • That the Regional Municipality of Durham expand the focus of their involvement in Community Improvement Plans to include major employment areas and Land Waterfront Places; and • That the Regional Municipality of Durham consider economic diversification and job creation objectives in Employment Areas as part of the criteria when developing regional Revitalization Program. Attachment: Attachment 1 - Commissioner's Report No. 2007-P-48 dated June 5, 2007 699026 Attachment 1 To Report PSD-100-07 UWThe Regional Municipality of Durham To: The Planning Committee From: Commissioner of Planning Report No.: 2007-P-48 Date: June 5, 2007 SUBJECT: Proposed Regional Official Plan Amendment— Community Improvement Plans, File: A14-24 RECOMMENDATIONS: a) THAT Planning Committee authorize the initiation of an amendment to the Durham Regional Official Plan to incorporate policies addressing the Region's involvement in Community Improvement initiatives, as proposed in Attachment 1 of Commissioner's Report No. 2007-P-48; and b) THAT a copy of Commissioner's Report No. 2007-P-48 be forwarded to the Area Municipalities and the Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing. REPORT: 1. PURPOSE 1.1 On October 19, 2006, Bill 51, the Planning and Conservation Land Statute Law Amendment Act 2005 amended the Planning Act to give upper-tier municipalities (i.e. the Region) the authority to: • Participate in locally-initiated Community Improvement Plans (CIPs) by providing grants or loans to the area municipalities; and • Adopt Regional Community Improvement Plans (CIPs) for the following prescribed matters: - infrastructure that is within the Region's jurisdiction, - land and buildings within and adjacent to existing or planned transit corridors that have the potential to provide a focus for higher density mixed-use development and redevelopment, and - affordable housing. 14 699027 I Report No.: 2007-P-48 Page No. 2 1.2 For the Region to exercise this authority, the Planning Act requires that policies relating to community improvement in the municipality be included in the Regional Official Plan. 1.3 To satisfy this requirement, this report is seeking authorization to initiate an amendment to the Durham Regional Official Plan (ROP) to incorporate policies addressing the Region's involvement in area municipal community improvement initiatives. 2. PROPOSED AMENDMENT 2.1 The proposed amendment, included as Attachment 1 to this report, enables the Region to: • develop a Revitalisation Program to detail Regional involvement in area municipal CIPs. This confirms the Region's intent to adopt a Revitalisation Program that will define how the Region will participate financially, or otherwise, in area municipal CIPs; • focus community improvement efforts on Regional Centres and Regional Corridors as the Region's area of interest in area municipal CIPs. The ROP states that Regional Centres shall be planned and developed as the main concentrations of urban activities within area municipalities providing a fully integrated array of community, office, service and shopping, recreational and residential uses. Regional Corridors shall be planned and developed as mixed-use areas, including residential, commercial and service areas with higher densities, supporting higher order transit services and featuring a high degree of pedestrian- oriented design. Given the limited resources available for community improvement initiatives, focusing Regional involvement in area municipal CIPs, on Regional Centres and Regional Corridors is essential; and • monitor Regional involvement in community improvement activities. The development of a monitoring program will ensure that Regional resources are utilized effectively and appropriately. 15 699028 Report No.: 2007-P-48 Page No. 3 2.2 This amendment has been drafted assuming that approval will be considered when Amendment 114, which was approved by Regional Council on September 13, 2006, is in full force and effect. If this amendment is approved before, minor changes to terminology and section numbers will be made. 3. PROCEDURE FOR INITIATING A REGIONAL OFFICIAL PLAN AMENDMENT 3.1 In accordance with Regional procedures, authorization by Planning Committee is required to initiate the processing of the necessary ROP amendment. 3.2 The process will include formal consultation with the area municipalities, the Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing, adjacent municipalities, and other stakeholders. In addition, a statutory Public Meeting will be scheduled for September 4, 2007. Consideration of the proposed amendment by the Region and the Public Meeting will be advertised in the newspapers Region- wide. Subsequently, a final recommendation on the proposed amendment will be presented to Committee. 4. CONCLUSION 4.1 It is recommended that the Planning Department be authorized to proceed with the described ROP amendment. 4.2 It is also recommended that a copy of this Report be forwarded to the area municipalities and the Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing. A.L. Georgieff, M.C.I.P., R.P.P. Commissioner of Planning 16 699029 r Report No.: 2007-P-48 Page No. 4 RECOMMENDED FOR PRESENTATION TO COMMITTEE Garry ubitt, M.S.W. Chief Administrative Officer Attachment: 1. Proposed Community Improvement Plans Amendment to the Regional Official Plan H:\1-2\agendas@007\06-05-07\CIP.doc 17 699030 Attachment 1 Proposed Regional Official Plan Amendment Community Improvement Plans Purpose: The purpose of this amendment js to incorporate policies addressing area municipal Community Improvement Plans (CIPs) into the Regional Official Plan. Location: Any and all lands designated Regional Centre or Regional Corridor on Schedule A of the Regional Official Plan. Basis: On October 19, 2006, Bill 51, the Planning and Conservation Land Statute Law Amendment Act 2005 amended the Planning Act to allow upper-tier municipalities (i.e. the Region) the ability to: • Adopt Regional Community Improvement Plans (CIPs) for the following prescribed matters: — Infrastructure that is within the upper-tier municipality's jurisdiction, — Land and buildings within and adjacent to existing or planned transit corridors that have the potential to provide a focus for higher density mixed-use development and redevelopment, and — Affordable housing; and • Provide grants or loans to the area municipalities for the purpose of carrying out locally-initiated CIPs. However, in order for the Region to exercise this authority, the Planning Act requires that enabling policies relating to community improvement in the municipality be included in the Regional Official Plan. This amendment will allow the Region to work collaboratively with the area municipalities, through their CIPs, in the revitalisation of Regional Centres and Regional Corridors. It is the intent of the Regional Official Plan to develop Regional Centres as the main concentration of urban activities and Regional Corridors as mixed-use areas supporting higher densities. By permitting Regional financial involvement in area municipal CIPs, the proposed amendment will assist with implementing the Regional Official Plan policies for Regional Centres and Regional Corridors. Actual Amendment: The Durham Regional Official Plan is hereby amended by: �$ 699031 1) Adding a new subsection 14.5 as follows and renumbering subsequent sections appropriately: 14.5 COMMUNITY IMPROVEMENT PLANS 14.5.1 The Region of Durham recognizes that the area municipalities may adopt Community Improvement Plans in accordance with the Planning Act, to stimulate the re-use, revitalization, redevelopment and rehabilitation of Urban Areas, based on local needs and priorities. 14.5.2 To assist in the implementation of area municipal Community Improvement Plans, the Region may adopt a Revitalisation Program that will guide how the Region may participate financially, or otherwise, in area municipal Community Improvement Plans. 14.5.3 The Region's participation in the implementation of an area municipal Community Improvement Plan shall be restricted to projects that contribute to achieving the goals of the Regional Official Plan for Regional Centres and Regional Corridors, in accordance with policies 8.1.8 to 8.1.12. These elements of the Urban System are planned as mixed-use residential, commercial, and employment areas and are recognized as the focal point of urban activities. 14.5.7 The Revitalisation Program shall identify criteria that must be satisfied as a prerequisite for consideration of Regional participation. 14.5.8 The Revitalisation Program shall be monitored to ensure that Regional resources are being utilized effectively and appropriately. 2) Adding the following term to sub-section 15A Definitions: Community Improvement Plan: means a plan for the community improvement of a community improvement project area. Wstrategic PB\Policy\Regional OP\CIPs\Community Improvement Plan policies-May 2007-am only.doc - 19 2 699032 Clarington Leading the Way REPORT PLANNING SERVICES Meeting: GENERAL PURPOSE AND ADMINISTRATION COMMITTEE Date: Tuesday, September 4, 2007 Report#: PSD-101-07 File #: ZBA 2001-016 By-law#: S-C-2001-002 and COPA 2005-002 Subject: MINUTES OF SETTLEMENT FOR REZONING AND DRAFT PLAN OF SUBDIVISION APPLICATIONS TO PERMIT MEDIUM DENSITY RESIDENTIAL USES APPLICANT: FIRST-TECH MECHANICAL SYSTEMS INC., MARIA WULCZYN, AND PERCY NAPPER RECOMMENDATIONS: It is respectfully recommended that the General Purpose and Administration Committee recommend to Council the following: 1. THAT Report PSD-101-07 be received; 2. THAT the draft Minutes of Settlement between First-Tech Mechanical Systems Inc., Maria Wulczyn, and Percy Napper and the Municipality of Clarington contained in Attachment 2, be APPROVED; 3. THAT the By-law contained in Attachment 3, to authorize the Mayor and Clerk to execute Minutes of Settlement between First-Tech Mechanical Systems Inc., Maria Wulczyn, and Percy Napper and the Municipality of Clarington, substantially in the form of the draft Minutes of Settlement contained in Attachment 2, be PASSED; 4. THAT the Municipality's Solicitor and Staff be authorized to present the Minutes of Settlement to the Ontario Municipal Board to request the Board to approve the Zoning By-law Amendment, th a Conditions of Draft Approval, and the Land Division Conditions attached to the Minutes of Settlement; and 5. THAT the Ontario Municipal Board and all interested parties listed in this report and any delegatio be advised of Council's decision. Submitted by: Reviewed b .� Dav rome, M.C.I.P., .P.P. Franklin Wu, Director of Planning Services Chief Administrative Officer RH/CP/DJC/ 28 August 2007 CORPORATION OF THE MUNICIPALITY OF CLARINGTON 40 TEMPERANCE STREET, BOWMANVILLE, ONTARIO L1C 3A6 T(905)623-3379 F (905)623-0830 699033 REPORT NO.: PSD-101-07 PAGE 2 1.0 APPLICATION DETAILS 1.1 Applicant: First-Tech Mechanical Systems Inc., Maria Wulczyn, and Percy Napper 1.2 Agent: Weston Consulting Group Inc. 1.3 Draft Plan of Subdivision: To develop a draft plan of subdivision containing three (3) single detached dwelling units and a block for up to nine (9) townhouse dwelling units. 1.4 Rezoning: To rezone the subject lands from "Holding — Urban Residential Type One ((H)R1 Zone" and "Urban Residential Type Two (R2) Zone" to permit the development of a draft plan of subdivision. 1.5 Site Area: 0.39 hectares (0.98 acres) 2.0 BACKGROUND 2.1 Two properties are the subject of the applications. First-Tech Mechanical Systems Inc. and Maria Wulczyn own the property located at 1613 Highway 2, which fronts on Highway 2 and Kennedy Drive (see Attachment 1). A small parcel of land is required from Percy Napper at 33 Kennedy Drive immediately to the south to provide frontage for: • eastern-most single detached lot on Kennedy Drive; and • extension of municipal services from Kennedy Drive to the proposed townhouses. 2.2 The rezoning (ZBA 2001-016) and draft plan of subdivision (S-C-2001-002) applications were initially submitted by Weston Consulting Group Inc. on behalf of First-Tech Mechanical Systems Inc., Maria Wulczyn, and Percy Napper to the Municipality of Clarington on June 25, 2001. A total of three public meetings have been held for proposals on the subject lands. • An initial Public Meeting was held on September 4, 2001 for a proposal that contained 4 single detached dwelling units fronting on Kennedy Drive and a block for up to 7 townhouse dwelling units. The townhouses would access Highway 2 through a common rear lane while the single detached lots fronting on Kennedy Drive would gain individual access from Kennedy Drive. The proposal also contemplated severance of the existing single detached dwelling on the property from the remainder of the property. • Since severance of the existing single detached dwelling from the subject lands did not conform to the Clarington Official Plan, the applicant submitted an application to amend the Clarington Official Plan on January 21, 2005. A Public Meeting was held on March 7, 2005 to 699034 REPORT NO.: PSD-101-07 PAGE 3 consider a proposal that contained 3 single detached dwelling units ,fronting on Kennedy Drive and a block for up to 7 townhouse dwelling units, and the retention and severance of the existing single detached dwelling on the property from the remainder of the property. • A third Public Meeting was held on September 5, 2006 for a revised draft plan of subdivision submitted by Weston Consulting Group Inc. The revised application proposes a block for up to nine (9) townhouse dwelling units fronting on Highway 2 and three (3) single detached units fronting on Kennedy Drive. The existing single detached dwelling on the lands is now proposed to be removed from the site (see Attachment 1). • No member of the public has ever spoken in opposition to or support of these proposals at any of these Public Meetings. 2.3 The applicants had submitted two related severance applications in 2000. One application (LD 159/2000) would sever the existing single detached dwelling contained on the subject lands from the vacant property. The second application (LID 158/2000) would sever a small parcel of land from Percy Napper's property to provide Kennedy Drive road frontage for the proposed development. After being tabled on a number of occasions, Staff recommended at the August 16th 2004 meeting that LD159/2000 be denied because the proposed severance did not conform to the Clarington Official Plan policies. At the same meeting, Staff recommended that LD158/2000 be tabled for a further year. On September 14, 2004, the decisions of the Durham Region Land Division Committee were appealed to the Ontario Municipal Board. A hearing initially scheduled for February 16, 2005 on this matter was adjourned indefinitely. 2.4 Following the appeal of the consent applications on January 27, 2005, a Clarington Official Plan Amendment was submitted to amend the "Special Policy Area F — King Street Corridor" policies in the Clarington Official Plan to permit low and medium density residential uses as well as facilitating the severance and retention of the existing single detached dwelling fronting on Highway No. 2 from the subject lands. A Public Meeting was held for this application on March 7, 2005, at which no member of the public either spoke in opposition to or in support of the application. 2.5 On February 16, 2006, the applicant appealed the rezoning (ZBA 2001-016) and subdivision (S-C-2001-002) applications to the Ontario Municipal Board. In order to consolidate all appeals, the applicant also appealed the Official Plan amendment (COPA 2005-002) application to the Ontario Municipal Board on November 24, 2006. As such, Council no longer has the jurisdiction to make a decision on these applications. In preparing for the Municipality's position on the revised proposal, Staff felt that a further Public Meeting was necessary for the revised applications. On September 5, 2006, a public meeting on the revised proposed plan of subdivision and zoning by-law amendment was held to provide an opportunity for input from adjacent residents. No member of the public spoke either in opposition to or in support of the proposal. 699035 REPORT NO.: PSD-101-07 PAGE 4 2.6 The Municipality's solicitor and Staff attended an Ontario Municipal Board pre- hearing on August 1, 2007. The purpose of the pre-hearing was to determine the issues, interested parties, and future hearing dates. At the pre-hearing, both parties agreed that the revised draft plan of subdivision was acceptable in principle. Subsequently, the applicant agreed to withdraw the Official Plan Amendment (COPA 2005-002) and Land Division (LD 159/2000), at such time the draft plan of subdivision and rezoning application are approved, since they were no longer required. Therefore, this report contains a proposed zoning by- law amendment (see Attachment 2) and conditions of draft plan approval (see Attachment 3). Attachment 4 contains municipal conditions to be imposed on the Land Division (LD 15812000) application submitted by Percy Napper for the transfer of lands needed for the proposed draft plan of subdivision. 2.7 A further pre-hearing date has been scheduled for September 27, 2007. Should a settlement not be reached by this date, a hearing date has been scheduled for November 15 and 16, 2007 to hear the appeals. 3.0 SITE CHARACTERISTICS AND SURROUNDING USES 3.1 The property owned by First-Tech Mechanical Systems Inc. and Maria Wulczyn is vacant and contains some low vegetation and young trees around the perimeter. An existing single detached dwelling is located on the east side of the Highway 2 property. 3.2 Surrounding Uses: East - Urban residential North - Urban residential West - Courtice Motel and Scoops ice cream shop South - Urban residential 4.0 PROVINCIAL POLICY 4.1 Provincial Policy Statement The Provincial Policy Statement identifies settlement areas as the focus of growth and promotes residential intensification of vacant and underutilized property. The policies also promote a variety of higher density residential development within urban areas. The proposed development is consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement. 4.2 Growth Plan The Provincial Growth Plan promotes urban intensification of underutilized and vacant properties for intensive development. Emphasis is placed on intensification along major arterial roads to support transit use. The proposed development is consistent with the Growth Plan. 699036 REPORT NO.: PSD-101-07 PAGE 5 5.0 OFFICIAL PLANS 5.1 Durham Regional Official Plan The Durham Regional Official Plan designates the subject lands as "Living Area". Residential uses are permitted within this designation. The application conforms to the policies. 5.2 Clarinpton Official Plan The Clarington Official Plan designates the property "Special Policy Area F - King Street Corridor". Medium and high density residential uses are permitted within this designation. The proposed development conforms to the medium density housing range both in terms of density and housing mix. While there are three single detached dwellings proposed, the predominant proposed and future housing form is townhouse development. 6.0 ZONING BY-LAW CONFORMITY 6.1 Zoning By-law 84-63 zones the subject lands at 1613 Highway 2 as "Holding- Urban Residential Type One ((H)R1) Zone", which does not permit the proposed housing mix. In order to permit the proposal, a rezoning application was submitted for consideration. 6.2 Zoning By-law 84-63 zones the portion of land at 33 Kennedy Drive as "Urban Residential Type Two (R2) Zone", which recognizes the existing development. In order to permit the proposal, the rezoning application also covers this area. 7.0 PUBLIC SUBMISSIONS 7.1 A total of three Public Meetings were held for the various versions of the proposed draft plan of subdivision. The Planning Services Department has not received a written submission and no member of the public ever spoke either in opposition to or in support of the application. 8.0 AGENCY COMMENTS 8.1 A number of relevant agencies were circulated on this revised application for comment. Comments received are summarized below and applicable agency conditions have been incorporated in the Conditions of Draft Approval contained in Attachment 3. Neither school board nor utilities have raised any objections to the application or provided any conditions of approval. 699037 REPORT NO.: PSD-101-07 PAGE 6 8.2 The Clarington Emergency Services Department has reviewed the temporary 20 metre turning radius proposed by the applicant. The Emergency Services Department is prepared to accept the proposed configuration as a temporary situation until Kennedy Drive is extended further to the west in conjunction with redevelopment of adjacent lands. 8.3 The Clarington Engineering Services Department has no objections provided that the following issues can be addressed: • No access will be permitted to Kennedy Drive from the townhouses; • The driveway to 33 Kennedy Drive (Percy Napper's property) be modified to accommodate the driveway of the eastern-most proposed lot; and • A preliminary grading and drainage plan must be submitted to show how stormwater will be conveyed from the proposal. 8.4 The Durham Region Planning and Durham Region Public Works Departments have no further objections to the proposal and have as such provided conditions of draft plan approval. Standard conditions that must be fulfilled by the applicant include preparation of a draft plan of subdivision, conveyance of necessary road widening on Highway 2 and reserves, preparation of a noise report, extension of full municipal services, and preparation of a Record of Site Condition satisfactory for the Ministry of Environment. 8.5 Central Lake Ontario Conservation Authority has no objections provided that a detailed stormwater management design brief is submitted, that adequate measures have been undertaken to protect fish and wildlife habitat, and that an erosion and sedimentation report be prepared. 9.0 STAFF COMMENTS 9.1 The Highway 2 Corridor in Courtice is an area of transition from the original large lot single detached dwelling to an area of more intense uses to take advantage of the Regional Transit Spine. "Highway to Mainstreet: Courtice Highway 2 Corridor and Main Central Area Study" was completed in June 2001 to provide assistance with the transition of the area in facilitating redevelopment or infill development. The study recommended that the subject lands be designated for medium and/or high density residential uses. The proposed Secondary Plan presented in 2002 would permit low density housing fronting on Kennedy Drive as a buffer between existing low density areas and new medium or high density residential areas fronting on Highway 2. A Staff report and proposed Secondary Plan for this area met with opposition from land owners and was tabled by Council in 2002. The Secondary Plan has not been reconsidered to date. 9.2 Staff have reiterated that while the intensification portion of the proposal was acceptable, the original proposed severance and retention of the existing single detached dwelling fronting on Highway 2 could not be supported. The revised 699038 REPORT NO.: PSD-101-07 PAGE 7 application proposes a private rear lane for the townhouse block that could be extended eastwards in the future to facilitate intensification of properties located at 1615 and 1617 Highway 2. Staff have always been concerned that severing the existing dwelling would preclude an extension of this lane to the east. While previous plans had always proposed this severance, the revised application is a significant departure from previous submissions and no longer proposes to retain the existing single detached dwelling fronting on Durham Highway No. 2. Staff have indicated that the revised application is now consistent with the intent of the Clarington Official Plan and that Staff, in principle, support the proposal, provided that all technical agency issues are resolved. 9.3 The proposal shows a temporary turning circle on site to serve the proposed townhouse block, which would allow for emergency service vehicle turning movement and snow storage. Should development be extended further eastward, the turning circle could be replaced by additional development conforming to the Municipality's policies. 9.4 Since the applicant has appealed the Official Plan Amendment, rezoning, draft plan of subdivision, and both consent applications to the Ontario Municipal Board, Council no longer has the authority to make a decision on these applications. 9.5 The proposed townhouse development on Block 4 of the proposed draft plan of subdivision will be subject to site plan approval. However, specific zoning has been drafted providing exceptions from the standard 'R3' zoning regulations for lot frontage and interior side yard setbacks to accommodate the proposal. Through the site plan approval process, the development will be finalized and all applicable landscaping and amenity area policies will be implemented. Should the development be sold as condominium tenure, a draft plan of condominium must also be approved at a later date by Council. 9.6 The proposed Minutes of Settlement are contained in Attachment 2. The proposed settlement contains the proposed Conditions of Draft Plan Approval, the proposed Zoning By-Law Amendment, and the proposed Land Division Conditions. Together, the proposed draft plan of subdivision, the proposed zoning by-law amendment, and the land division conditions would permit three (3) single detached dwellings and a block for up to nine (9) townhouse dwelling units. 10.0 CONCLUSIONS 10.1 Based on the comments contained in this report, Staff would recommend that the Municipality request the Ontario Municipal Board to: 699039 REPORT NO.: PSD-101-07 PAGE 8 • APPROVE the revised draft Plan of Subdivision to permit three (3) single detached dwellings and a block for up to nine (9) townhouse dwelling units subject to conditions of approval contained in Attachment 2; • APPROVE the revised Zoning By-law Amendment contained in Attachment 2; • DISMISS the appeal of the proposed Official Plan Amendment application (COPA 2005-002) to permit the severance and retention of the existing single detached dwelling fronting on Highway 2 from the subject lands; • APPROVE the Land Division application (LD 158/2000) subject to the conditions contained in Attachment 2; • DISMISS the appeal of the Land Division application (LD 159/2000) to permit the severance and retention of the existing single detached dwelling fronting on Highway 2 from the subject lands; Attachment 3 contains a by-law authorizing the Mayor and Clerk to execute Minutes of Settlement between First-Tech Mechanical Systems Inc., Maria Wulczyn, and Percy Napper and the Municipality of Clarington, substantially in the form of the draft Minutes of Settlement contained in Attachment 2, and the recommendations, if adopted, authorize the Municipality's Solicitor and Staff to present the Minutes of Settlement to the Ontario Municipal Board. Attachments: Attachment 1 - Key Map and Proposed Draft Plan of Subdivision Attachment 2 - Minutes of Settlement Attachment 3 - Authorization By-law List of interested parties to be advised of Council's decision: Peter Weston, Weston Consulting Inc. Gerard Borean, Parente, Borean LLP Tom Robinson Gordon Lund First-Tech Mechanical Systems Inc. and Maria Wulczyn Percy Napper Bill Clark Ontario Municipal Board Marnie Scott 699040 Property Location Map(Courtice) DURHAM HIGHWAY 2 neee v.m 4 —`— —— _/-- - BLOCK 7 — — — — O.M R[HM RUCNLREE% iR & ee K CREEK ti 9 c wn f v+rt a wa -r o mn E uwr r u,R a w N wn I P PO ED ON MI ISM OWN OU ES m ��-I,�. OURHAM HIGHWAY P /x c ral I. i 7 -- u & � mREmr: � I J � srRn i LO 1 LOT 2 LOT 3 �I I I CK 9 i .S ZBA 2001-016 ZONING BY-LAW AMENDMENT %1 IN Lands owned by — Lands owned by First Tech S-C-2001-002 Percy and Marie Napper Mechanical Systems and Draft Plan of Subdivision o Marla Wulcryn .oc u wf�o x I?uarto 0 It— ��e �� , Owner: Maria Wulcryn and First Tech KENNEDY DRIVE W -0 v y Ao I „•-;, I Z I Mechanical Systems Inc. o lil Iwo I Percy and Marie Napper 3 r a 4 , Attachment 2 To Reports PSD-101-07 OMB Case No.PL040963 ONTARIO MUNICIPAL BOARD First-Tech Mechanical and Maria Wulczyn have appealed to the Ontario Municipal Board under subsection 22(7) of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c.P.13, as amended, from Council's refusal or neglect to enact a proposed amendment to the Official Plan for the Municipality of Clarington for the purpose of seeking an exemption from the"Special Policy Area—F—King Street Corridor'designation pertaining to lands respecting Part Lot 31, Concession 2 (Kennedy Drive)to permit the development of a residential development. Approval Authority File No.COPA 2005-002 OMB File No. 0070083 First-Tech Mechanical and Maria Wulczyn have appealed to the Ontario Municipal Board under subsection 34(11) of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c.P.13, as amended, from Council's refusal or neglect to enact a proposed amendment to Zoning By-law 84-63, as amended, of the Municipality Clarington to rezone lands respecting Part Lot 31, Concession 2 (Kennedy Drive) to permit the development of a residential development. Municipality of Clarington File No.ZBA 2001-016 OMB File No.Z060020 First-Tech Mechanical and Maria Wulczyn have appealed to the Ontario Municipal Board under subsection 51(34) of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c.P.13, as amended, from the failure of the Municipality of Clarington to make a decision respecting a proposed plan of subdivision on lands composed of Part Lot 31, Concession 2(Kennedy Drive)in the Municipality of Clarington. Approval Authority File No. S-C-2001-02 OMB File No. S070048 First- Tech Mechanical and Maria Wulczyn have appealed to the Ontario Municipal Board under subsection 53(19) of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c.P.13, as amended, from a decision of the Durham Region Land Division Committee which dismissed an application numbered LD 159/2000 for consent to convey part of the lands composed of Part Lot 31, Concession 2(Kennedy Drive). OMB File No. C040298 Percy Napper has appealed to the Ontario Municipal Board under subsection 53(14) of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c.P.13, as amended,from a decision of the Durham Region Land Division Committee which dismissed an application numbered LD 158/2000 for consent to convey part of the land composed of Part Lot 13, Concession 2(Kennedy Drive). OMB File No. C040299 MINUTES OF SETTLEMENT WHEREAS: A First-Tech Mechanical Ltd. ("First-Tech") and Maria Wulczyn ("Wulczyn") are the owners of certain lands ("Lands") known for municipal purposes in 2007 as 1613 Highway 2 and which are more particularly described Part Lot 31,Concession 2,former Township of Darlington, now in the Municipality of Clarington, Regional Municipality of Durham("Region:"); B. Percy Napper ("Napper") is the owner of certain land which abuts the Lands and is known for municipal purposes in 2007 as 33 Kennedy Road in the Municipality of Clarington, Regional Municipality of Durham; C. First-Tech and Wulczyn proposed to acquire a portion of Napper's land comprising approximately 15 square metres with frontage on Kennedy Road and merge such portion of Napper's land with the Lands; D. Under Application No. LD 15812000, Napper applied to the Durham Region Land Division Committee under subsection 53(14)of the Planning Act for its consent to the conveyance of the portion of Napper's land referred to in Recital C("Napper Application'); E. Napper has appealed to the Board from the failure of the Durham Region Land Division Committee to hake a decision on the Napper Application LID 15812000; F. Under Application No. LD 15912000, First-Tech and Wulczyn applied to the Durham Region Land Division Committee under subsection 53(14)of the Planning Act for its consent to convey certain land and an existing house located on the easterly portion of the Lands from the portion of the lands proposed to be included in the draft plan of subdivision referred to in Recital F; 699042 PL040953 G. First-Tech and Wulczyn have appealed to the Board from the decision of the Durham Region Land Division Committee which dismissed Application No. LD 15912000; H. First-Tech and Wulczyn applied for an amendment to the Municipality's Official Plan to exempt the Lands from the Special Policy Area F — King Street Corridor designation, an amendment to the Municipality's Zoning By-law 84-63, as amended, and the approval of a proposed draft plan of subdivision of the portion of the Lands which would remain after the severance of the land and existing house referred to in Recital E and the addition to the Lands of the portion of the lands described in the Napper Application referred to in Recital D; I. First-Tech and Wulczyn have appealed to the Ontario Municipal Board ("Board") from the Municipality's Council's failure or neglect to enact the proposed amendments to the Municipality's Official Plan and Zoning By-law 84-63, as amended, and to approve the proposed draft plan of subdivision referred to in Recital F, J. First-Tech, Wulczyn and Napper (collectively the "Appellants") and the Municipality wish to resolve their differences on the basis set out below in order to avoid contesting their differences at a hearing before the Board. NOW THEREFORE in consideration of the mutual covenants contained herein and the payment by each party to the other of the sum of$2.00, the receipt whereof is hereby acknowledged by each of them, First-Tech Mechanical Ltd., Maria Wulczyn, Percy Napper and the Municipality of Clarington covenant and agree as follows- 1. The appropriate resolution by the Board of the Appeal referred to in Recitals G, H and I would be to grant the Appellants' requests that the Board, (a) allow the appeal by Napper from the failure of the Durham Region Land Division Committee to make a decision on the Napper Application No. LD 158/2000 for a consent to the conveyance of the land referred to in the Application, subject to the condition set out in Schedule 1 hereto; (b) dismiss the appeal by First-Tech and Wulczyn from the dismissal of their Application No. _ LD 159/2000 to the Durham Region Land Division Committee; (c) dismiss the appeal by First-Tech and Wulczyn from the failure of the Municipality's Council to enact an amendment to the Municipality's Official Plan to exempt the Lands from the Special Policy Area F—King Street Corridor designation; (d) allow First-Tech and Wulcyzn's appeal from the Municipality's Council failure to approve the proposed draft plan of subdivision of the Lands and approve draft plan of subdivision S-C-2001-002, a copy of which is contained in Schedule 2 hereto, subject to the conditions contained in Schedule 3 hereto; and (e) enact the by-law to amend Zoning By-law 84-63, as amended, contained in Schedule 4 hereto. 2. The Appellants and the Municipality will tender these Minutes to the Board,will present them in positive terms, and will actively cooperate to promote acceptance by the Board of them. 3. The Appellants and the Municipality will not call any evidence nor advance any argument inconsistent with the letter and spirit of these Minutes. 4. The Municipality will call such evidence and advance such arguments as are required to support these Minutes. The Municipality will also oppose any evidence and argument presented by any other person to the Board which are inconsistent with the letter or spirit of these Minutes. 5. Neither the Appellants nor the Municipality will request the Board to make any order for the payment of costs by either of them to the other of them. 699043 PL040953 DATED at Bowmanville, Ontario, this 10"day of September,2007. THE CORPORATION OF THE MUNICIPLITY OF CLARINGTON Jim Abernethy, Mayor Patti L. Barrie, Municipal Clerk DATED at Toronto, Ontario,this_day of 2007. Gerald C. Borean, Solicitor for First-Tech Mechanical Ltd., Maria Wulczyn and Percy Napper i 699044 PL040953 Schedule 1 Conditions of Consent to Convey (Napper Application No. LD 15812000) CONDITIONS OF CONSENT TO CONVEY NAPPER APPLICATION No. LD 158/2000 1. The Owner shall provide Staff with two (2) copies of the registered reference plan prior to final clearance for consent by the Municipality. 2. The Owner shall merge the 15 mz parcel with the abutting property to the north. The applicant's solicitor should prepare and submit a draft deed for Staff review prior to final clearance for consent by the Municipality; 3. The Owner shall satisfy the Director of Engineering Services that the driveway serving the property located at 33 Kennedy Drive has been relocated appropriately to accommodate additional driveways onto Kennedy Drive for possible future development approvals granted through Draft Plan of Subdivision S-C-2001-002. 4. The Owner shall satisfy the Municipality of Clarington, financially and otherwise. 5. The Owner shall pay to the Municipality of Clarington a fee of $90.00 for a clearance letter to the Land Division Committee prior to final clearance for consent by the Municipality. 6. The Owner shall ensure that any new lots created through severance, whether retained, severed or melded comply with all applicable provisions of Zoning By-law 84-63. 699045 KEY PLAN mwau . REGIONAL HIGHWAY No. 2 t a — c ax BLOCK 2 9.00 _ SOCK 5 .96F[i v5u as _ /.�.� WESTON CONSULTING I,r GROUP INC. Y I I I DRAFT PLAN OF SUBDIVISION Ex. u.r u • um . v«i a m ew,or La m 9YnN.Y MO BLOC I 4 (.� MOTEL PR POSED NDOMINI M TOWNH USES `EX. RESIDENTIAL 2627 1 I r 1 S POTEN TIJRE p DEV�LO MENT mrrdr 1 ' _A, 1 I LO 1 LOT 2 LOT 3 356. m2 369.6 z .D m2 L& g `* tv� � 7 L L Y 8 q BLOCK m2 rN w51W[ Iv.m ' iff/xro RY.a m nu...A5 z�°'' °omi5 we.M fY.a vAl \a�Pvr/v "I`�`LOT 13 r^*u I� PIN 10M-839 rz a Y�__x50TT ' 6°`. \ 1 — �'uiuviur/ivuvr/i� KENNE DRNE�� CD E%. RESIDENTIAL it l I i WITHOUT PREJUDICE MWRESTON COONti� OUP INC. O - --- -- -- - --- I I I �I� Y..�..r. l l I I ® D2 YEi5n5 PL040953 Schedule 3 Conditions of Approval of Draft Plan of subdivision S-C-2001-002 CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL OF DRAFT PLAN OF SUBDIVISION S-C-2001-002 PLAN IDENTIFICATION 1. The Owner shall have the final plan prepared on the basis of approved draft plan of subdivision S-C-2001-002 prepared by Weston Consulting Group Inc. identified as job number 2213-5, dated August 30, 2006, which illustrates which illustrates 3 lots for single detached dwelling units, one block for townhouse development, two road widening blocks, and two blocks for 0.3 m reserves. REQUIREMENTS TO BE SATISFIED PRIOR TO SUBDIVISION AGREEMENT 2. The Owner shall submit plans showing the proposed phasing to the Region and the Municipality of Clarington for review and approval if this subdivision is to be developed by more than one registration. 3. The Owner shall, if necessary, apply to the Municipality of Clarington and obtain area municipal approval of the zoning for the land uses shown on the approved draft plan in accordance with the provisions of the Planning Act. 4. The Owner shall retain a qualified landscape architect to prepare and submit a Landscaping Plan to the Director of Engineering Services and the Director of Planning Services for review and approval. The Landscaping Plan shall reflect the design criteria of the Municipality as amended from time to time. 5. The Owner shall submit a detailed tree preservation plan to the satisfaction of the Municipality of Clarington. No trees shall be removed until such time as this plan has been approved except as authorized by the Municipality. 6. Prior to entering into a subdivision agreement, the Regional Municipality of Durham shall be satisfied that adequate water pollution control plant and water supply plant capacities are available to the proposed subdivision. 699048 PL040953 REQUIREMENTS TO BE INCLUDED IN SUBDIVISION AGREEMENT 7. 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. 8. The Owner shall convey a 1.60 metre road widening across the entire frontage of the draft plan to the Region of Durham for the purpose of widening Durham Highway No. 2. 9. The Owner shall convey a 0.3 metre reserve across the entire frontage of the draft plan along Durham Highway No. 2 to the Region of Durham, save and except a 9.0 metre wide opening at the western portion of the Durham Highway No. 2 frontage for access purposes. 10. The Owner shall convey an 83 square metre road widening on Kennedy Drive shown as Block 8 on the draft plan, to the Municipality of Clarington. 11. The Owner shall convey the 0.3 metre reserve shown as Block 6 on the draft plan, to the Municipality of Clarington. 12. All land conveyances to the Region of Durham and the Municipality of Clarington must be free and clear of all encumbrances and in a manner satisfactory to the respective solicitors. 13. The Owner shall provide cash payment in-lieu of parkland conveyance to the Municipality of Clarington for park or other public recreational purposes in accordance with the provisions of the Planning Act. 14. The Owner shall submit an Energy Management Plan to the satisfaction of the Director of Planning Services outlining various means that the Owner will implement to support energy conservation in the subdivision and house design. 15. The Owner shall grant such easements as may be required for utilities, drainage and servicing purposes to the appropriate authorities. 16. The Owner shall submit the following information to the Municipality of Clarington for approval: i) a grading and control plan; ii) a geotechnical soils analysis; iii) a siting and architectural design report and implementing site plans and architectural drawings; and iv) a well monitoring/well interference report. 17. The Owner shall retain a professional engineer to prepare and submit a Master Drainage and Lot Grading Plan to the Director of Engineering Services for review and approval. All plans and drawings must conform to the Municipality's Design Criteria as amended from time to time. 699049 PL040953 18. The Owner shall provide and install sidewalks, street lights, temporary turning circles etc. as per the Municipality's standards and criteria. 19. The Owner shall cause all utilities, including, hydro, telephone, Cable TV, etc. to be buried underground. 20. 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. 21. Prior to the registration of the first Phase of development for the subject lands, the Owner shall demolish all buildings located within Block 4. 22. The Owner agrees that where the well or private water supply of any person is interfered with as a result of the subdivision, the Owner shall at his expense, either connect the affected party to the municipal water supply system or provide a new well or private water supply system so that water supplied to the affected party 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. 23. The Owner shall provide on disk, in a CAD format acceptable to the Municipality of Clarington, a copy of the proposed Plan of Subdivision as Draft Approved and the 40M Plan. 24. The subdivision agreement between the Owner and the Municipality of Clarington shall contain, among other matters, the following provision: the Owner agrees that the display and marketing materials to be used for this development shall be submitted to the Director of Planning Services and the Director of Engineering Services for approval. Said plans and materials must receive approval prior to issuance of a building permit for a sales facility or model home to be constructed on any Part of the Lands. 25. The Owner shall provide the Municipality, 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. 26. 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. 27. Prior to final approval, the Owner is required to submit a signed Record of Site Condition (RSC) to the Regional Municipality of Durham, the Municipality of Clarington and the Ministry of Environment (MOE). This RSC must be to the satisfaction of the Region, including an Acknowledgement of Receipt of the RSC by the MOE. 699050 PL040953 28. Prior to any on-site grading or construction or final registration of the Plan of Subdivision, the Owner shall submit and obtain approval from the Municipality of Clarington, and the Central Lake Ontario Conservation Authority for reports describing the following: a) a detailed Stormwater Management Design Brief showing the proposed drainage system including methods to meet the restricted capacity of the downstream sewer system. Additional analysis for hydraulic grade lines may be required if site discharge is proposed to exceed allowable rates; b) the anticipated impact of the development on water quality, as it relates to fish and wildlife habitat once adequate protective measures have been undertaken; C) the means whereby erosion and sedimentation and their effects will be minimized on the site during and after construction in accordance with the provincial guidelines. The report must outline all actions to be taken to prevent an increase in the concentration of solids in any water body as a result of on-site or other related works, to comply with the Canada Fisheries Act; and, d) The Owner shall provide the Central Lake Ontario Conservation Authority with a copy of the subdivision agreement containing such provisions prior to final approval of the plan. 29. The Owner shall obtain all necessary permits from the Central Lake Ontario Conservation Authority under Ontario Regulation 42/06, prior to the registration of the plan. 30. The Owner shall satisfy all financial requirements of the Central Lake Ontario Conservation Authority. This shall include Application Processing Fees and Technical Review Fees owing as per the approved Authority Fee Schedule. 31. The Owner shall submit to the Regional Municipality of Durham and the Municipality of Clarington, for review and approval, an acoustic report prepared by an acoustic engineer based on projected traffic volumes provided by the Durham Region Planning Department and recommending noise attenuation measures for the draft plan in accordance with the Ministry of the Environment guidelines. The Owner shall agree in the Municipality of Clarington subdivision agreement to implement the recommended noise control measures contained in the acoustic report. The agreement shall contain a full and complete reference to the noise report (i.e. author, title, date and any revisions/addenda thereto) and shall include any required warning clauses identified in the acoustic report. The Owner shall provide the Region with a copy of the subdivision agreement containing such provisions prior to final approval of the plan. If development of any of Lots 1 — 3 proceeds prior to the development of Block 4, the Owner agrees to implement all recommended noise attenuation measures including warning clauses in the purchase and sale agreements identified in the report and any subsequent updates. 32. The Owner shall coordinate the preparation of an overall utility distribution plan to the satisfaction of Hydro One Networks Inc., Rogers Cable, Canada Post Corporation, Bell Canada, and Enbridge Gas. 699051 PL040953 33. Prior to commencing any work within the Plan, the Developer must confirm that sufficient wire-line communication/telecommunication infrastructure is currently available within the proposed development to provide communication/ telecommunication service to the proposed development. In the event that such infrastructure is not available, the Developer is hereby advised that the Developer may be required to pay for connection to and/or extension of the existing communication/telecommunication infrastructure. If the Developer elects not to pay for such connection to and/or extension of the existing communication/telecommunication infrastructure, the Developer shall be required to demonstrate to the municipality that sufficient alternative communication/telecommunication facilities are available within the proposed development to enable, at a minimum, the effective delivery of the communication/telecommunication services for emergency management services (i.e., 911 Emergency Services). 34. The Owner shall provide for the extension of such sanitary sewer and water supply facilities which are external to, as well as within, the limits of this plan that are required to service this plan. In addition, the Owner shall provide for the extension of sanitary sewer and water supply facilities within the limits of the plan which are required to service other developments external to this subdivision. Such sanitary sewer and water supply facilities are to be designed and constructed according to the standards and requirements of the Regional Municipality of Durham. All arrangements, financial and otherwise, for said extensions are to be made to the satisfaction of the Regional Municipality of Durham, and are to be completed prior to final approval of this plan. 35. Prior to final approval, the Regional Municipality of Durham shall be satisfied that any wells on the property have been decommissioned by the Owner in accordance with applicable Ministry of Environment standards. 36. The Owner shall satisfy all requirements, financial and otherwise, of the Municipality of Clarington. This shall include, among other matters, the execution of a subdivision agreement between the Owner and the Municipality of Clarington concerning the provision and installation of roads, services, drainage and other local services. 37. The Owner shall satisfy all requirements, financial and otherwise, of the Regional Municipality of Durham. This shall include, among other matters, the execution of a subdivision agreement between the Owner and the Region concerning the provision and installation of sanitary sewers, water supply, roads and other regional services. 38. The Owner agrees that development of Block 4 shall be subject to application for site plan approval to the Municipality of Clarington 39. The subdivision agreement between the Owner and the Municipality of Clarington shall contain, among other matters, the following provisions: a) The Owner agrees to include provisions whereby all offers of purchase and sale shall include information that satisfies Subsection 59(4) of the Development Charges Act, 1997. 699052 PL040963 b) The Owner agrees to fulfill the requirements of the Master Drainage Study as they apply to this site to the satisfaction of the Central Lake Ontario Conservation Authority. C) The Owner agrees to carry out the works referred to in Condition 28, Condition 29, and Condition 30 to the satisfaction of the Central Lake Ontario Conservation Authority. d) The Owner agrees to maintain all stormwater management and erosion and sedimentation control structures operating and in good repair until the site is stabilized, in a manner satisfactory to the Central Lake Ontario Conservation Authority. e) The Owner agrees to advise the Central Lake Ontario Conservation Authority 48 hours prior to commencement of grading or the initiation of any on-site works. f) The Owner agrees to place the following in all agreements of purchase and sale between the Developer and all prospective home buyers: i) "Due to the proximity of this plan to Durham Highway No. 2, purchasers should be aware that traffic noise may interfere with some activities of the dwelling occupants." ii) Despite the noise control features implemented within the development and/or within the individual dwelling units, noise levels from the adjacent Durham Highway No. 2 may occasionally interfere with some activities of the dwelling occupants." g) The Owner agrees to maintain all stormwater management and erosion and sedimentation control structures operating in good repair during the construction period, in a manner satisfactory to the Region of Durham, Municipality of Clarington, and the Central Lake Ontario Conservation Authority. h) The Owner agrees to strictly adhere to the site servicing plan as submitted by EMC Group Limited, titled Preliminary Servicing Report in support of Draft Plan of Subdivision S-C-2001-002 and as finally approved by the Region of Durham, the Municipality of Clarington, and the Central Lake Ontario Conservation Authority. i) The Owner agrees to implement those noise control measures recommended in the Noise Report required in Condition 31. 40. Prior to final approval of this plan for registration, the Director of Planning Services for the Municipality of Clarington shall be advised in writing by: a) Regional Municipality of Durham, how Conditions 2, 6, 8, 9, 15, 27, 31, 34, 35, 37 and 39 have been satisfied; and b) Central Lake Ontario Conservation Authority, how Conditions 28, 29, and 30 have been satisfied. 699053 PLO40953 NOTES TO DRAFT APPROVAL 1. If final approval is not given to this plan within three years of the draft approval date, and no extensions have been granted, draft approval shall lapse and the file shall be CLOSED. Extensions may be granted provided valid reason is given and is submitted to the Director of Planning Services for the Municipality of Clarington well in advance of the lapsing date. 2. As the Owner of the proposed subdivision, it is your responsibility to satisfy all conditions of draft approval in an expeditious manner. The conditions of draft approval will be reviewed periodically and may be amended at any time prior to final approval. The Planning Act provides that draft approval, may be withdrawn at any time prior to final approval. 3. All plans of subdivision must be registered in the Land Titles system within the Regional Municipality of Durham. 4. Where agency requirements are required to be included in the local municipal subdivision agreement, a copy of the agreement should be sent to the agencies in order to facilitate their clearance of conditions for final approval of this plan. The addresses and telephone numbers of these agencies are: a) Central Lake Ontario Conservation Authority, 100 Whiting Avenue, Oshawa, Ontario, LIH 3T3 Tel: (905) 579-0411. b) Regional Municipality of Durham, Planning Department, 605 Rossland Road East, 4"' Floor, Box 623, Whitby, Ontario, L1N 6A3 Tel: (905) 668-7711. 699054 Schedule 4 THE CORPORATION OF THE MUNICIPALITY OF CLARINGTON BY-LAW NO. 2007- being a By-law to amend By-law 84-63, the Comprehensive Zoning By-law for the former Town of Newcastle WHEREAS, the Council of the Corporation of the Municipality of Clarington deems it advisable to amend By-law 84-63, as amended, of the Corporation of the former Town of Newcastle to implement ZBA 2001-016 and S-C-2001-002; NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED THAT, the Council of the Corporation of the Municipality of Clarington enacts as follows: 1. Section 13.4 "SPECIAL EXCEPTIONS — URBAN RESIDENTIAL TYPE TWO (R2) ZONE" is hereby amended by adding thereto the following new Special Exception 13.4.50 as follows: "13.4.50 URBAN RESIDENTIAL EXCEPTION (R2-50)ZONE Notwithstanding Sections 13.2 a), those lands zoned "R2-50" on the attached Schedule to this By-law shall also be subject to the following zone regulations: a) Lot Area(minimum) - 355 square metres" 2. Section 14.6 "SPECIAL EXCEPTIONS— URBAN RESIDENTIAL TYPE THREE (R3) ZONE" is hereby amended by adding thereto the following new Special Exception 14.6.30 as follows: "14.6.30 URBAN RESIDENTIAL EXCEPTION(R3-30)ZONE Notwithstanding Sections 14.4 b) and 14.4 c) ii), those lands zoned "R3-30" on the attached Schedule to this By-law shall also be subject to the following .zone regulations: a) Lot Frontage (minimum) 9.0 metres b) Yard Requirements i) Interior Side Yard(minimum) 1.2 metres on the east side and 9.0 metres on the west side c) Private garages and their access shall be located within the south building fagade of the dwelling unit." 3. Schedule "4" to By-law 84-63 as amended, is hereby further amended by changing the zone designation from: "Holding - Urban Residential Type One ((H)R1) Zone" and "Urban Residential Type Two (R2) Zone" to "Holding - Urban Residential Exception ((H)R2-50) Zone" and "Holding - Urban Residential Type Exception ((H)R3-30) Zone" as illustrated on the attached Schedule"A" hereto. 4. Schedule"A" attached hereto shall form part of the By-law. 5. This By-law shall come into effect on the date of the passing hereof, subject to the provisions of Sections 34 and 36 of the Planning Act. BY-LAW passed by the Ontario Municipal Board this _ day of 2007 Ontario Municipal Board 699055 This is • - to By-law 200 passed day of / 1 • mmovarly, /, E1►SEE♦ ♦�E�EEE�EEEE�'I ./!M� so NO lj� 10 PAM Pao sod Y'd,P. I IN AM ♦>PEEE«;EEEEE�EEEEEE��JW IEEEEE'►EEEE♦ ►EEEEE UEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE�� NP►EEE��E�Ii►�►iE E ►E 1► �E�E�I t��E E�►►E E E A E i►i�E E I►i►�� ►EE�.E!"►EEI! EEOE.NOW, ►EEi,Ej�t`��'T�c>E�E�►�EEIii/EEEI�EEE� ,s ;ir�G��v��,;N e3�.►ESA�!.1►„E�1.��(� _.fr.�1 �/ . _ U►NONNI��1111111 �_ Now 11. ��anUr -. - Attachment o To Reports PSD-101-07 THE CORPORATION OF THE MUNICIPALITY OF CLARINGTON BY-LAW NO. 2007- being a By-law to authorize entering into of Minutes of Settlement between First- Tech Mechanical Systems Inc., Maria Wulczyn, and Percy Napper and the Corporation of the Municipality of Clarington to resolve an appeal to the Ontario Municipal Board regarding conditions of approval of draft Plan of Subdivision S- C-2001-002, rezoning application ZBA 2001-016, and conditions of consent to convey LID 158/2000 WHEREAS, Council by its approval of the recommendations contained in Report PSD-101-07 approved Minutes of Settlement of an appeal by First-Tech Mechanical Systems Inc., Maria Wulczyn, and Percy Napper to the Ontario Municipal Board of the rezoning application ZBA 2001-016, the Draft Plan of Subdivision S-C-2001-002, and consent application LD 158/2000 and authorized the execution of Minutes of Settlement with First-Tech Mechanical Systems Inc., Maria Wulczyn, and Percy Napperto resolve the appeal; NOW THEREFORE the Council of the Corporation of the Municipality of Clarington enacts as follows: 1. That the Mayor and Clerk are hereby authorized to execute, on behalf of The Corporation of the Municipality of Clarington Minutes of Settlement with First-Tech Mechanical Systems Inc., Maria Wulczyn, and Percy Napper substantially in the form of the draft Minutes of Settlement contained in Attachment 2 to Report PSD-101-07. BY-LAW read a first time this day of 2007 BY-LAW read a second time this day of 2007 BY-LAW read a third time and finally passed this day of 2007 Jim Abernethy, Mayor Patti L. Barrie, Municipal Clerk 699057 Clari�tgton REPORT Leaaeag me way PLANNING SERVICES Meeting: GENERAL PURPOSE AND ADMINISTRATION COMMITTEE Date: Tuesday, September 4, 2007 Report#: PSD-102-07 File#: 18T-89044 By-law#: Subject: MINUTES OF SETTLEMENT FOR APPEAL TO AMENDED CONDITIONS OF DRAFT APPROVED PLAN OF SUBDIVISION HEADGATE DEVELOPMENTS INC. RECOMMENDATIONS: It is respectfully recommended that the General Purpose and Administration Committee recommend to Council the following: 1. THAT Report PSD-102-07 be received; 2. THAT the draft Minutes of Settlement between Headgate Developments Inc. and the Municipality of Clarington contained in Attachment 2, be APPROVED; 3. THAT the By-law contained in Attachment 3 to authorize the Mayor and Clerk, to execute Minutes of Settlement between Headgate Developments Inc. and the Municipality of Clarington, substantially in the form of the draft Minutes of Settlement contained in Attachment 2, be PASSED; 4. THAT the Municipality's Solicitor and Staff be authorized to present the Minutes of Settlement to the Ontario Municipal Board to request the Board to approve the amendments to the Conditions of Draft Approval attached to the Minutes of Settlement; and 5. THAT all interested parties listed in this report and any delegations be advised of Council's decision. Submitted by: Reviewed by: vid . Cr e, M. ., R.P.P. Franklin Wu irector, Planning Services Chief Administrative Officer CS/CP/DJC/df 27 August 2007 CORPORATION OF THE MUNICIPALITY OF CLARINGTON 40 TEMPERANCE STREET, BOWMANVILLE, ONTARIO L1C 3A6 T(905)623-3379 F (905)623-0830 699058 REPORT NO.: PSD-102-07 PAGE 2 1.0 APPLICATION DETAILS 1.1 Applicant: Headgate Developments Inc. 1.2 Proposal: Amendment to Conditions of Draft Approved Plan of Subdivision 18T- 89044 containing 70 dwelling units comprised of: 21 lots for single-detached dwelling units; 14 lots for 28 semi-detached dwelling units; and • 3 blocks for 21 street townhouse units. 1.3 Area: 3.8 hectares (9.38 acres) 1.4 Location: The lands subject to the amendment are located east of Scugog Street and south of Concession Road 3, being Part Lot 12, Concession 2 in the former Town of Bowmanville (see Attachment 1). 2.0 BACKGROUND 2.1 On February 26, 1990 Council recommended draft approval of Plan of Subdivision 18T- 89044 subject to a number of conditions. Subsequently, on September 19, 1990, the Region of Durham issued Draft Approval. The lands at the time of draft approval were owned by 807877 Ontario Limited. The lands are now owned by Headgate Developments Inc. The Municipality of Clarington now has jurisdiction over the draft plan of subdivision. 2.2 In October 2006, Headgate Developments Inc. requested Staff prepare a subdivision agreement for the subject lands. In reviewing the conditions of draft approval, approved by Council 16 years earlier, Staff noted that a number of conditions were no longer applicable and a number of new standard conditions of draft approval were required. New standard conditions included requirements for Architectural Control, review of marketing material, changes in delegated authority between the Region of Durham and Municipality of Clarington and between various ministries and agencies. 2.3 Specific amendments were recommended to the conditions of draft approval to address new road design standards and financial contributions, only. The amended conditions dealt with the following items only: i) An increase in size of road widenings on both Concession Road 3 and Scugog Street from 3.0 metres to 5.0 metres. ii) An increase in the size of the site triangles on Street "A" and Scugog Street. iii) The addition of a site triangle at Scugog Street and Concession Road 3. iv) deleting Condition 11- which required the Developer to pay Development Charges at the time of execution of the subdivision agreement. Development Charges are now required prior to issuance of building permits. 699059 REPORT NO.: PSD-102-07 PAGE 3 v) deleting Conditions 21, 22, 23 and 24 - which required the Developer make monatary contributions to the reconstruction of Concession Road 3 and Scugog Street (Middle Road). Road reconstruction projects are typically financed through Development Charges if the development does not have lots that directly front onto the affected road. vi) adding a new condition to require the Developer to contribute to front ending payments required by the Development Charges Act. 2.4 The report did not recommend any changes to the number of units that were originally draft approved or to the lots, blocks or street pattern shown on the draft Plan of Subdivision. 2.5 Following the issuance of the Notice of Decision, an appeal was lodged by Headgate Developments Inc. The applicant appealed the number of units specified and the number of blocks in which they would be located shown on the draft plan of subdivision. A date to hear the appeal has been set for September 18th and 19`h, 2007. 2.6 After receiving notification of the Notice of Hearing, the solicitor for the Municipality of Clarington met with Staff to discuss the matter. It was concluded at the meeting that since the additional four (4) street townhouse units were permitted by the Municipality's Zoning By-law 84-63, as amended, and in the circumstances, the increase in units is minor, it would be in the Municipality's interest to resolve the issues raised by the appeal without the expense of a full Ontario Municipal Board hearing. Accordingly, the Municipality's Solicitor undertook to discuss the possibility of a settlement with Headgate Developments Inc.'s solicitor. 2.7 Subsequently, the Municipality's Solicitor advised Staff that a settlement in principle was reached, subject to Council's approval. The recommended draft Minutes of Settlement are contained in Attachment 2. 2.8 Should Council concur with the recommended settlement, the Municipality's Solicitor and Planning Staff will present the settlement described below to the Ontario Municipal Board for approval. 3.0 DETAILS OF PROPOSED SETTLEMENT 3.1 The proposed settlement would modify the Amended Conditions of Draft Approval dated October 2, 2006 under the heading "Plan Identification" as follows: i) increasing the total number of dwelling units from 70 to 74; ii) increasing the number of blocks for street townhouses from 3 to 4; and iii) increasing the total number of street townhouse units from 21 to 25. 3.2 The original draft approved plan of subdivision 18T-89044 showed a mix of single detached and semi-detached units and 3 blocks for 21 street townhouse units. The original street townhouse units had frontages greater than the prescribed minimum 699060 REPORT NO.: PSD-102-07 PAGE 4 frontage of 6.0 metres in Zoning By-law 84-63, as amended. Although an application for amendment to the draft plan to increase the number of street townhouse units for the additional units was not submitted, the applicant, in preparing his engineering submission, added four (4) additional townhouse units, stating that 25 townhouse units situated on four (4) blocks, could be accommodated and would comply with the minimum lot area and frontage requirements for street townhouses in the "Urban Residential Type (R3) Zone" of Zoning By-law 84-63. 3.3 Planning and Engineering Staff have both reviewed the implication of adding these additional units on technical merits and find that although it does not comply with Council direction to have 7.5 metre wide frontage for new townhouses, it does not offend Council's policies regarding on street parking or driveway access, nor would it have any adverse effects on grading or drainage resulting from the increase in townhouse units. In addition, as noted above the proposed 25 townhouse units will comply with the lot area and frontage requirements contained in the Municipality's Zoning By-law. 4.0 CONCLUSIONS 4.1 Staff recommends that Council approve the proposed settlement. Staff believe that the proposed settlement is in keeping with provision of the Zoning By-law and there are no other foreseeable technical issues raised by increasing the number of street townhouse units by four (4). 4.2 Accordingly, Staff recommend that Council pass the By-law contained in Attachment 3 to authorize the Mayor and the Municipal Clerk, on behalf of the Municipality, to execute Minutes of Settlement with Headgate Developments Inc. substantially in the form of the draft Minutes of Settlement contained in Attachment 2. Attachments: Attachment 1 - Key Map Attachment 2 - Minutes of Settlement Attachment 3 - Authorization By-law Interested parties to be notified of Council's decisions: A. Anderson, Headgate Developments Inc. Mark Flowers, Davies Howe Partners Region of Durham Planning Department Central Lake Ontario Conservation Authority Bell Canada 699061 Property Location Map(Bowmanville) CONCESSION ROAD 3 e oac u I 6! 27 1 a 29 70 11 31 32 2i . , tQ�.• I I i 29 ♦ 2S {� nM �1 wiame R7SS Iy'+ :' 34 �tl 24 9 1A, R ! 35 23 i M 1 01e R t 22 ! 21 29 19 56 19 • 17 18 ! 18t-89044 Up Ue 2 3 Subdivision 4 S 6 7 9 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 5 Dev 89-058 Zoning By-law Amendment 01 0 m rn eM o Owner: Headgate Developments Inc. ::L D rn ° 10 ° m N 3 O " V Attachment 2 To Report PSD-102-07 OMB Case No. PLO61138 ONTARIO MUNICIPAL BOARD IN THE MATTER OF Subsection 51(43) of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c.P.13, as amended Appellant: Headgate Developments Inc. Subject: Conditions of approval of draft plan of subdivision having reference to 3 blocks for street townhouses (21 units)" Property Address/Description: Part of Lot 12, Concession 2 Municipality: Municipality of Clarington, Durham Region Municipal File No.: Draft Plan of Subdivision 18T-89044 OMB Case No. PL061138 OMB File No.: S060098 MINUTES OF SETTLEMENT WHEREAS: A The lands within draft plan of subdivision 18T-89044 comprise about 3.8 ha and are described as Part of Lot 12, Concession 2, former Town of Bowmanville, now in the Municipality of Clarington, Regional Municipality of Durham; B. The lands are owned by Headgate Developments Inc. ("Appellant"); C. Draft plan of subdivision 18T-89044 was approved pursuant to the Planning Act by the then approving authority, the Regional Municipality of Durham on September 19, 1990, subject to certain conditions ("Region's Conditions"); D. On October 16, 2006, the Municipality of Clarington ("Municipality") which now is the approving authority of plans of subdivision of lands in the Municipality, passed Resolution GPA-369-06 which, among other things, deleted the Region's Conditions and replaced them with new amended conditions of approval of draft plan of subdivision 18T-89044 ("Amended Conditions"); E. Among other things, the Amended Conditions required the Owner to have the final plan prepared on the basis of approved draft plan of subdivision 18T-89044 showing 70 dwelling units consisting of 21 lots for single-detached dwellings, 14 lots for semi-detached dwellings (28 dwelling units), 3 blocks for street townhouses (21 dwelling units) and various road widenings and reserves subject to the revisions as contained in the Amended Conditions; F. The Appellant appealed ("Appeal") to the Ontario Municipal Board ("Board") pursuant to subsections 51(43) and 51(48) of the Planning Act to delete the reference "3 blocks for street townhouses (21 units)" within the Amended Conditions to the approval of draft plan of subdivision 18T- 89044; 699063 G. The Board has appointed September 18 and 19, 2007 for the hearing of the Appeal; H. In order to avoid contesting their differences at a hearing before the Board, the Appellant and the Municipality wish to resolve their differences on the basis set out below. NOW THEREFORE in consideration of the mutual covenants contained herein and the payment by each party to the other of the sum of $2.00, the receipt whereof is hereby acknowledged by each of them, Headgate Developments Inc. and the Municipality of Clarington covenant and agree as follows: 1. The appropriate resolution by the Board of the Appeal would be for the Board to grant the Appellant's and the Municipality's request that the Board amend the Amended Conditions of approval of draft plan of subdivision 18T-899044: (a) to increase the total number of dwelling units from 70 to 74; and (b) to increase the number of blocks for street townhouses from 3 to 4 and the number of street townhouse units from 21 to 25. 2. The Appellant and the Municipality will tender these Minutes to the Board, will present them in positive terms, and will actively cooperate to promote acceptance by the Board of them. 3. The Appellant and the Municipality will not call any evidence nor advance any argument inconsistent with the letter and spirit of these Minutes. 4. The Municipality will call such evidence and advance such arguments as are required to support these Minutes. The Municipality will also oppose any evidence and argument presented by any other person to the Board which are inconsistent with the letter or spirit of these Minutes. 5. Neither the Appellant nor the Municipality will request the Board to make any order for the payment of costs by either of them to the other of them. DATED at Bowmanville, Ontario, this 10`" day of September, 2007. THE CORPORATION OF THE MUNICIPALITY OF CLARINGTON Jim Abernethy, Mayor Patti L. Barrie, Municipal Clerk DATED at Toronto, Ontario, this day of September, 2007. Mark Flowers, Counsel for Headgate Developments Inc. 699064 Attachment 3 To Report PSD-102-07 THE CORPORATION OF THE MUNICIPALITY OF CLARINGTON BY-LAW NO. 2007- being a By-law to authorize entering into of Minutes of Settlement between Headgate Developments Inc. and the Corporation of the Municipality of Clarington to resolve an appeal to the Ontario Municipal Board regarding amended conditions of approval of draft Plan of Subdivision 18T-89044 WHEREAS, Council by its approval of the recommendations contained in Report PSD-102-07 approved Minutes of Settlement of an appeal by Headgate Developments Inc. to the Ontario Municipal Board from the Amended Conditions to Approved Draft Plan of Subdivision 18T- 89044 approved by Council's adoption of Resolution GPA-369-06 at its meeting on October 16, 2006 and authorized the execution of Minutes of Settlement with Headgate Developments Inc. to resolve the appeal; NOW THEREFORE the Council of the Corporation of the Municipality of Clarington enacts as follows: 1. That the Mayor and Clerk are hereby authorized to execute, on behalf of The Corporation of the Municipality of Clarington Minutes of Settlement with Headgate Developments Inc. substantially in the form of the draft Minutes of Settlement contained in Attachment 2 to Report PSD-102-07. BY-LAW read a first time this day of 2007 BY-LAW read a second time this day of 2007 BY-LAW read a third time and finally passed this day of 2007 Jim Abernethy, Mayor Patti L. Barrie, Municipal Clerk 699065 Q REPORT PLANNING SERVICES Meeting: GENERAL PURPOSE AND ADMINISTRATION COMMITTEE Date: Tuesday, September 4, 2007 Report#: PSD-103-07 File #: PLN 1.1.13 By-law#: Subject: SOURCE WATER PROTECTION REGIONS AND COMMITTEES RECOMMENDATIONS: It is respectfully recommended that the General Purpose and Administration Committee recommend to Council the following: 1. THAT Report PSD-103-07 be received; 2. THAT Faye Langmaid, Manager of Special Projects and a Member of Council be appointed to the Municipal Working Group for the Ganaraska area within the Trent Conservation Coalition Source Protection Region; 3. THAT Durham Region and Ganaraska Region Conservation Authority be sent copies of Report PSD-103-07; and 4. THAT all interested parties listed in this report and any delegations be advised of Council's decision. Submitted by: 46& Reviewed Davi . Crome, M.C.I.P., R.P.P. Franklin Wu Director, Planning Services Chief Administrative Officer FL/DJC/df 28 August 2007 CORPORATION OF THE MUNICIPALITY OF CLARINGTON 40 TEMPERANCE STREET, BOWMANVILLE, ONTARIO L1C 3A6 T (905)623-3379 F (905)623-0830 699066 REPORT NO.: PSD-103-07 Page 2 1.0 BACKGROUND 1.1 The Clean Water Act, 2006 received Royal Assent on October 19, 2006 and came into force on July 2, 2007 (Attachment 1). It was the result of Justice O'Connor's recommendations from the Walkerton Inquiry following the events of 2002. The purpose of the Clean Water Act is to "protect surface and groundwater sources from contamination and overuse (water quality and quantity) for now and for the future". The Clean Water Act focuses on municipal supplies of drinking water and has given the coordinating role for the planning process and developing the science to the Conservation Authorities. 1.2 On July 3rd, the Province of Ontario promulgated several regulations under the Clean Water Act with relate to the creation of Source Protection Committees across the Province. The Source Protect Authorities (Conservation Authorities) are now contacting municipalities about the process and timelines for establishing the Source Protection Committees in accordance with the regulations. 1.3 Clarington is part of two Source Protection areas, the Trent Conservation Coalition Source Protection Region which includes the Ganaraska Region Conservation Authority (GRCA) (see Attachment 2); and the Credit Valley/Toronto/CLOCA Source Protection Region (see Attachment 3). 2.0 PURPOSE OF REPORT 2.1 To provide Council with the background information on the appointment of the source protection committees including member qualifications and responsibilities (Attachment 4) as called for in the Ontario Reg. 288/07 under the Clean Water Act. 2.2 To update Council on the process that the Credit Valley/Toronto/CLOCA Source Protection Authority is proposing to obtain their sole municipal representative. 2.3 To request the appointment of one political and one staff member to the Municipal Working Group for the Ganaraska Area on the Trent Conservation Coalition Source Protection Region, who will nominate the sole municipal representative to the TCCSP Authority. 3.0 COMMENTS 3.1 Trent Conservation Coalition Source Protection Region 3.1.1 The Trent Conservation Coalition Source Protection Region is made up of the Crowe Valley CA, Ganaraska Region Conservation Authority, Kawartha 699067 REPORT NO.: PSD-103-07 Page 3 Conservation, Otonabee Conservation, Lower Trent Conservation. It covers 14,500 sq. km., 5 counties, 32 municipalities, 4 First Nations and a federal waterway. 3.1.2 GRCA have been working with their municipal representatives and staff (Durham Region, Clarington, Port Hope, Cobourg and Township of Hamilton) and are suggesting a local Municipal Working Group with representation from each Municipality (Attachment 5). The Municipal working group would have a Council and staff representative from each Municipality. In turn this working group will select one representative from the group to sit on the Source Protection Committee for the entire Trent Conservation Source Protection Region. Conservation Authority board members are ineligible for appointment to the Source Protection Committee. The Source Water Protection Committee representative can either be a Councillor or staff. The first meeting of this Municipal Working Group is Monday, September 10th, 2007 at 9:30 a.m. at the GRCA offices. 3.2 Credit Vallev/Toronto/CLOCA Source Protection Region 3.2.1 The Credit Valley/foronto/CLOCA Source Protection Region is composed of these three conservation areas. It encompasses all of the City of Toronto and portions of Durham, Peel, York, Halton Regions; in addition there are some 27 lower tier municipalities. 3.2.2 The Toronto Region Conservation Area is providing the lead for this Source Protection Area and they have contacted the Region of Durham to co-ordinate the appointment of one municipal representative from Pickering, Ajax, Whitby, Oshawa, Uxbridge, Scugog, Clarington or Durham Region as the member of the Committee (Attachment 6). Again, the representative can either be a Councillor or Staff. Clarington Staff attended a meeting on August 23rd at the Region to understand the process the Region is proposing for this appointment. The Region will be considering a report and recommendation at their September 19th 2007 meeting. 3.3 Municipal Endorsement of Source Protection Committee Members Under Ontario Reg. 288/07, the Source Protection Committee must be selected jointly by the groups of municipalities affected in the different areas. The joint selection process described in the regulation requires resolution from all municipal councils endorsing the one representative for each Source Protection Committee. The Source Protection Committees are to be established by November 2007. 699068 REPORT NO.: PSD-103-07 Page 4 4.0 CONCLUSIONS 4.1 The Trent Conservation Coalition Source Protection Region which Clarington is a member of through GRCA has developed a municipal working group for the GRCA affected municipalities. The Municipality has been asked to appoint a political and staff representative to this working group. The staff representative we are recommending is Faye Langmaid, Manager of Special Projects. Mayor Abernethy or Councillor Woo are eligible to be the political representatives to the Source Protection Committee (given the restriction placed on Conservation Authority Board members) and could be appointed from the Municipal Working Group. Alternatively, Councillor Trim or Councillor Robinson could be appointed with the understanding that they would not be eligible for appointment to the Source Protection Committee. When a representative is selected by the Municipal Working Group for the Source Protection Committee an endorsing resolution will be brought forward to Council in October, 2007. 4.2 The Credit Valley/Toronto/CLOCA Source Protection Region which Clanngton is a member of through CLOCA has asked the Region of Durham to determine the municipal representative, on behalf of the member municipalities. The Region will be making a recommendation for membership on the Source Protection Committee at their September 19th meeting. When a representative is selected an endorsing resolution will be brought forward to Council. 4.3 Both of these endorsing resolutions will be for the municipal membership on the respective source protection committees and are required by November 2007. Attachments: Attachment 1 - Province Proclaims the Clean Water Act Attachment 2 - Trent Conservation Coalition Source Protection Region Attachment 3 - Credit/Toronto/Central Lake Ontario Source Protection Region Attachment 4 - Current Proposed Qualification Criteria's Responsibilities Attachment 5 - Summary of Proposed Composition Trent Conservation Coalition Source Protection Committee Attachment 6 - Proposed Process for CTC Municipalities to Nominate Municipal Members 699069 Attachment 1 z To Report PSD-103 07 AC% 3ru a'+ 200 University Ave,Suite 801 Toronto,ON M5H 3C6 Tel. (416)971-9856 1 Fax:(416)971 E-mail:amo @amo.on.ca Association of Municipalities of Ontario MEMBER COMMUNICATION ALERT No: 071 To the attention of the Clerk and Council FOR MORE INFORMATION CONTA T `"€ ` Jul 5,2007 Craig Reid,AMO Senior Policy Advis r i . Y (416)971-9856 ext 334 OR Province Proclaims the Clean Water Act — Mu pal.w�. l Government Action is Required '' - Issue: On July 3, 2007, the Clean Water Act was proclaimed and the regulations regarding the preparation of Source Protection Plans came into force. Background: The Clean Water Act, which received Royal Assent on October 19, 2006, requires the creation Source Protection Plans to address threats to drinking water sources. The Act requires Source Protection Committees composed of municipalities, land owners, industry and the public to study drinking water source threats and to develop Source Protection Plans for their communities. On July 3, 2007 the Act and the regulations identifying Source Protection Areas and constituent municipalities came into effect. The first phase of the planning process will now begin with the grouping of municipalities and nomination of members to the Source Protection Committees. Municipalities have.the ability to appoint %3 of the members to each committee for their Source Protection Area. Appointment Process: The government has amended the Source Protection Committees Regulation to allow the Source Protection Authorities (SPA) to divide the municipalities that are located in whole or in part within the source protection arealregion into groups in an effort to streamline the appointment process and make municipal representation more effective. The SPAS are required to consult with municipalities on how to develop the groups to ensure that representation is fair and effective across the watershed. Municipalities and source protection authorities have approximately 60 days after the Act and its regulations have come into effect to develop groups within the source protection area/region. After 60 days, by September 3, 2007, the SPA must provide notification to the Clerks of municipal councils within the source protection area/region. The notice will include: • A description of the functions of the source protection committee; • A summary of the obligations of committee members; • The municipal groups that have been determined through a negotiated process with municipalities to select members; • The number of municipal representatives each group must select; • The date by which a joint list must be sent by the group(s) to the source protection authority. Association of A� 1-2 Municipalities of Ontario 699070 Member Communication From the date the notice is sent to the Clerks, each group of municipalities will then have ant$ y� hs approximately 60 days to work together and pass council resolutions that provide a list of _- potential municipal representatives to the source protection authority. The SPA would then , J, appoint these people as the municipal representatives on the committee. Once the committees are appointed, work will begin on the creation of terms of reference to guide the work of each committee and the source protection planning process. lao Action: It is recommended that each municipality contact their source protection area to begin discussing appropriate municipal groupings and the nomination process. Further information may be found at the Ministry of the Environment website at: www.ontario.ca/cleanwater. A copy of the regulations can also be found on the Environmental Bill of Rights Registry, www.ebr.gov.on.ca, EBR reference number 010-0122. This information is available in the Policy Issues section of the AMO website at www.amo.on.ca. Association of 2-2 Municipalities at Ontario i QP 699071 Attachment 2 To Report PSD-103-07 Proposed Source Protection Region TRENT CONSERVATION COALITION (Crowe Valley, Ganaraska Region, Kawartha, Lower Trent& Otonabee Conservation Authorities) {s . Windaii 4 Hastings only { R Y Outside Conservatio s t duns n t .LitKQf Kaa makes, tw p Pt# rborolfgh Count, t 1 TP y N {p rJ t Madolj r` ' arioora • "` M { I � 14, J �1' u {{ ,�tL3txisaY r r - '{ �� ' � ail i ., � ~•n � ,° I Y o"r Trent donk 6ellevJle dBnd` OUfdly , ^ Durham Region { t '{ sr TRENT CONSERVATION COALITION ' (Crowe Valley,Ganaraska Region, Kawartha,Lower Trent&Otonabee Conservahon Authorities) �,�' �`,� � Y ��a P,WUcetl Lvxer Tmnl COnxvalbnmpMaNpl ltla Tn,tt LOnedra6on ' i 4 CaYnwn vNi tlaYa avgYeO UMe,d a o E. Eymnnben Nme s eeo.oaD.e.dvaee A 699072 CTC (Credit/Toronto/Central Lake Ontario) Source Protection Region _Vxbttdp scuDo0.: Simcoe County sham Region Newmarket Vftc uroh New Tecumseth Stoulmlle Duff rin Count ' y Tosoo�no Aurora Central. take Ontario wa, Mono t 'Source Protection Area Richmontl T F s't Flckenng Amaranth Mil ^" o-� A f�t„ Markham e CalecWn ' rk Reg n AJe: �„ E 4 � nt ` Credit vaiiey Vaughan Source Protection, '� Toronto.&Region Area Source Protection Area w 4 r Peel egion Toronto Erin W ington Nh ,e pton co � � Lkr ( tsrl ; (} �. xwp 4° 3v t re -,d a R HaHon Hills ✓'-` r ^ r + t alt n ion ` ` Milton ,✓ r Ontario ° �. o maree�rnw>�rropn.n,s s�ocn dm.onua w.w,.mnr 'O O J fn Dj co _� � O NW 0 .. V W Attachment 4 To Report PSD-103-07 Current Proposed Qualification Criteria and Responsibilities of Source Protection Committee Members (Subject to revision by the Province) Proposed SPC Member Qualifications Mandatory 1. members must reside in, own or rent land in, or be employed or operate a business in the source protection region (in draft regulation); 2. members must not be board members or employees of a conservation authority (in draft regulation). Guidance , 3. demonstrated ability to understand source protection science, concepts and technical reports; 4. familiarity with the rules of operation for committee processes (e.g. Robert's Rules of Order); 5. proven ability to act as liaison to and from the sector(s) being represented; 6. solid problem-solving, analytical, communication and organizational skills; 7. an openness to work together, and with, representatives from other sectors; 8. knowledge of local watershed(s), communities and issues; 9. demonstrated ability to work with group dynamics and team environments; conciliatory decision-making skills; 10. strong communications skills; 11. willingness and ability to travel around the source protection region; 12. expected involvement in implementation of source water protection; 13. direct contact with residents and landowners; 14. perceived as a credible source of information; and, 15.demonstrated social/economic influence on the community. Proposed SPC Member Responsibilities Mandatory 1. must regularly attend meetings of the SPC (in draft regulation); 2. must abide by the SPC's code of conduct and conflict of interest policy (in draft regulation); Guidance 3. members should attend meetings of the committee until completion of the terms of reference, assessment report and source protection plan; 4. members may act as liaisons by bringing forward common concerns from their knowledge and experience in the sector to the committee and assist in communicating the committee's work; 5. members should make decisions at the committee table; 6. members should work collaboratively and respectfully with each other and other stakeholder groups such as the general public, etc; 7. members should attend public information sessions and participate in public consultation forums; 8. members should respect confidential information and abide by the process in place to safeguard confidential information. Dta!l for Purpose onl,, -subi. c. :,,iCOi tort bu:,e;1 under the ((an lfwcr:ct 699074 Attachment 5 To Report PSD-103-07 [ TRENT CONSERVATION R I KIN 6 WATER COALITION <e SO"' URCE {� � SOURCE PROTECTION •�[� € REGION ACT FOR CLEAN �!_ -_-__-.- Summary of proposed composition of the Trent Conservation Coalition Source Protection Committee The first set of regulations under the Clean Water Act have now been passed and the Act was enacted on July 3,2007. The Act and the Regulations are available at: http://`www,ene.gov.0n.calentwatertcleanwateriLn_dgx-oh p Ontario Regulation 288/07 sets out the process and requirements for formulating the Source Protection Committee. The Regulation stipulates that the Trent Conservation Coalition Source Protection Committee will have 22 members including the Chair of the Committee. In addition, 3 First Nations representatives may be appointed. The 21 members (outside of the Chair and First Nations representatives) are to be appointed as follows: 1/3 municipal (7 reps) 113 industriallcommercial (7 reps) 113 other(7 reps) Within these three broad categories,the Trent Conservation Coalition is proposing the following: IVlunicipaI Re resentatior Me munici at representative be selected from each of • Crowe Valle mumer a rou • Ganaraska Region rnunic! al grou • Lower Trent mun crpa group Two municipal representatives from each of.: • Kawartha-Hatiburton municipal group • Otonabee-Peterborough municipal group Industrial/Commercial Sector Representation • 3 Agricultural representatives I AggregatelMining representative • 1 RecreationlTourism representative • f Large Water Taker representative • 1 Economic Development representative "Other" Representatives • 1 Environmental Non Government Organization • 1 Waterfront Landowner(e.g. Lake Association member or other waterfront land owner) • 2 Drinking Water Expert • i Trent Severn Waterway representative • 2 Public representatives (one urban, one rural) The above noted information will be posted in local papers and on the internet by August 3 r for public comment on the committee composition and to invite individuals to submit applications for the non-municipal positions. TRENT CONSERVATION COALITION PARTNERS: Crowe Valfey,Gonoensha Region,Kowartha,Lower Trent&OLonobee Conservation Authorities 699075 Attachment 6 To Report PSD-103-07 Initial Draft for Discussion Proposed Process for CTC Municipalities to Nominate Municipal Members Assumptions (based on draft regulation): 1. The composition will be: a) 1/3 municipal representatives out of 15 members = 5; b) Note that the Province has proposed that persons who are on the board of a conservation authority or employed by a conservation authority are excluded from membership on the SPC. 2. All municipalities who are wholly or partially within the CTC Region must jointly endorse the municipal representatives and provide a list of members to TRSPA as the lead Source Protection Authority within 45 days of receiving notice. If municipalities fail to submit within the required timeframe or to submit the correct number of members, then the lead SPA may select municipal representatives who as a group are representative of all of the municipalities located in whole or in part within the CTC Region. 3. Working group(s) will be established to support the SPC municipal members to aid in representing all municipal perspectives. 4. Members must meet the selection criteria set out in the regulation and provincial rules and guidance (see Attachment D). 5. Members must be ready and willing to carry out duties as SPC members, abide by rules of conduct and conflict of interest policies, and be ready to serve the initial term to complete the first source protection plans (may be as long as 5+ years). (See Attachment D for current information on duties.) Rationale for Proposed Approach 1. Since it is unlikely that all municipalities will be able to endorse the slate of 5 candidates within the 45 day period as set out in the draft regulation without prior consultation, the CTC Region is proactively identifying a possible process for comment by the municipalities in advance of regulations and legislation. 2. CTC Region is proposing five groupings of municipalities to nominate a member each that will provide representation on a geographical basis across the CTC Region. It is recognized that it will be challenging for municipalities to work across regional/county boundaries. 3. The municipalities are not bound by this proposal and may choose a different approach to comply with the regulatory requirements. The purpose is to initiate discussions amongst municipalities and to ensure they are aware of the proposed requirements and provide more time for municipalities to consider the best way to proceed. Proposed Approach for Comment 1. All CTC Region municipal councils will be formally requested to endorse any process for selection of members as part of the anticipated formal consultation process. 2. If they concur with this nomination process, the councils of the grouped municipalities would be asked to jointly endorse their nominee. 3. The 4 regional municipalities and the City of Toronto will be requested to coordinate the nomination of 1 municipal representative each in consultation with the other municipalities specified in Item 6 below. The list of municipalities in Item 4 and 6 are located in whole or in part within the proposed CTC Region boundary. Di<fa P_uhoses OWN -Scbwci to ravmon based on and the promulgtition oCr gclatzols. M", Ch o,, N2urr. ct 699076 4. The townships of Adjala-Tosorontio and New Tecumseth in the County of Simcoe, and the Township of East Garafraxa in the County of Dufferin would not be asked to participate in nominating a representative as there are no municipal surface or groundwater supplies within the portion of these municipalities located within the CTC Region. They would however be asked to endorse the process. They could choose to participate on municipal working groups. 5. The groupings of municipalities in counties and regional municipalities are proposed on the basis of geographical proximity and likelihood of shared groundwater resources. 6. Proposed municipal member selection process: a. 1 member coordinated by the Region of York- endorsed by Regional Council and councils of the following municipalities: Whitchurch-Stouffville, Vaughan, Richmond Hill, Aurora and King; b. 1 mem er coordinated by the Region of Durham - endorsed by Regional Counci and councils of the following municipalities: Pickering, Ajax, Whitby,Oshawa, r lar. ton Uxbridge and Scugoq; C. 1 member selected by City of Toronto - endorsed by City Council; d. 1 member coordinated by the Region of Halton -endorsed by Regional Council and councils of the following municipalities: Halton Hills, Milton, Oakville, plus the Town of Erin in the County of Wellington. e. 1 member coordinated by the Region of Peel- endorsed by Regional Council and councils of the following municipalities: Caledon, Brampton, Mississauga; plus the towns of Orangeville and Mono, and Township of Amaranth in the County of Dufferin. T)Ia t i"r E orh•- s b7:rt to ro mo i bt ,d of coinmo ar;d tte pom tl vatic i ot 1 ;�n1�ir=ns 699077 _, C�aC1i��011 Leading the Way REPORT COMMUNITY SERVICES DEPARTMENT Meeting: GENERAL PURPOSE AND ADMINISTRATION COMMITTEE Date: September 4, 2007 Resolution#: Report#: CSD-012-07 File #: By-law#; Subject: HYDRO ONE NETWORKS INC. — CAPITAL COST RECOVERY AGREEMENT, NEWCASTLE & DISTRICT RECREATION COMPLEX Recommendations: It is respectfully recommended that the General Purpose and Administration Committee recommend to Council the following: 1. THAT Report CSD-012-07 be received; and 2. THAT the Mayor and Municipal Clerk be authorized to execute the Capital Cost Recovery Agreement between the Municipality and Hydro One Networks Inc. contained as Attachment #1. Submitted b Y Reviewed by: t- Jo9e h . Caruana Franklin Wu Dite for of Community Services Chief Administrative Officer JPC/GA/wg I CORPORATION OF THE MUNICIPALITY OF CLARINGTON 40 TEMPERANCE STREET, BOWMANVILLE, ONTARIO L1C 3A6 T(905)623-3379 F (905)623-5506 1001 REPORT NO.: CSD-012-07 PAGE 2 1.0 BACKGROUND 1.1 The Newcastle & District Recreation Complex on Rudell Road, Newcastle is located within the service area of Hydro One Networks Inc. and as such they will be responsible for the installation of the hydro service for the new facility. 1.2 " Hydro One has estimated the capital cost of the installation at $125,000.00. The costs include the extension of hydro lines from Cobbledick Road, east on Highway#2, south along Rudell Road to a hydro kiosk at the property line of the facility and the supply and installation of the pad mounted transformer. Hydro One is proposing the execution of this capital recovery agreement, which would relieve the Municipality of any of the capital costs. 1.3 In exchange for the capital costs, Hydro One is looking to secure the Municipality as a customer for a ten year period and to ensure an annual guaranteed incremental revenue for the ten (10) year term as stipulated in Schedule A to Attachment#1. Incremental revenue, as defined by Hydro One, relates to the direct costs for power demand and usage, excluding all delivery and regulatory charges as well as debt retirement charges that are included in monthly invoices. 1.4 During the term of this agreement any guaranteed revenues in excess of the minimum will be applied forward to retire the commitment earlier. In the event the minimums are not met on any given year, the shortfall will be invoiced by Hydro One at the end of the year of the agreement in question. 1.5 The Municipal solicitor has reviewed Capital Cost Recovery Agreement and advises it.is acceptable. 2.0 COMMENT 2.1 Based on the expenditures for hydro budgeted for this facility and comparisons with other recreation facilities, staff are confident the annual guaranteed incremental revenue will be achieved each year during the term of the proposed agreement. Attachments: Attachment # 1- Hydro One Capital Cost Recovery Agreement 1 002 Attachment #1 to CSI)-012-07 1 hydra nP Capital Cost Recovery Agreement THIS DISTRIBUTION CONNECTION and COST RECOVERY AGREEMENT made in duplicate as of the 03rd day of July 2007 between Hydro One Networks Inc.("Networks")and Municipality of Clarington. ("the Customer"); WHEREAS the Customer and Networks have entered into a Connection Service Contract: New Connections and Service Upgrades dated July 3rd, 2007 which is attached hereto as Appendix "C"(the"Contract")whereby the Customer has requested and Networks has agreed to construct a modification or addition of a connection to Hydro One Networks'Distribution System (the "Project")which triggers any or a combination or all of the following: (i)upgrades, (it) modifications; and/or(iii)addition of facilities,which require capital expenditure by Hydro One Networks; WHEREAS in order to reduce the Customer's capital contribution, the Customer has agreed to guarantee a minimum amount of revenue to be derived from Incremental Load in accordance with the terms and conditions of this Agreement; NOW THEREFORE in consideration of the mutual covenants, agreements, terms and conditions herein and other good and valuable consideration,the receipt and sufficiency of which is hereby irrevocably acknowledged, the parties agree as follows: DEFINITIONS: 1. Throughout this Agreement,the following terms shall have the following meanings: "Actual Cost" means Networks'charge for equipment, labour and materials including Networks` standard overheads and interest thereon. "Actual Incremental Revenue" means the actual amount of revenue attributable to the Incremental Load received by Networks through the Distribution Rates paid by the Customer for the annual period specified in Appendix"A". "Applicable Laws"means any and all applicable laws, including environmental laws, statutes, codes, licensing requirements, treaties, directives, rules, regulations, protocols, policies, by-laws, orders, injunctions, rulings, awards,judgements or decrees or any requirement or decision or agreement with or by any government or government department, commission, board, court authority or agency. "Distribution Rates" means the rates approved by the Ontario Energy Board for the distribution of electricity by Networks pursuant to Section 78(2)of the Ontario Energy Board Act, 1998(being Schedule"B"to the Energy Competition Act, S.O. 1998, c. 15). "Guaranteed Incremental Revenue"means the minimum amount of revenue specified in Appendix"A" attributable to the Incremental Load to be received by Networks through the Distribution Rates paid by the Customer for the annual period specified in Appendix "A". "Good Utility Practice" means any of the practices, methods and acts engaged in or approved by a significant portion of the electrical utility industry in North America during the relevant time period, or any of the practices, methods and acts which, in the exercise of reasonable judgement in light of the facts known at the time the decision was made, could have been expected to accomplish the desired result at a reasonable cost consistent with good business practices, reliability, safety and expedition. Good Utility Practice is not intended to be limited to optimum practice, method or act to the exclusion of all others, but rather to include all practices, methods or acts generally accepted in North America. Page 1 1003 hydroo e "Guaranteed Incremental Revenue Date" means 10 years after the Ready for Service Date. "Incremental Load" means the average monthly peak load in excess of the Minimum Average Monthly Peak Load. "Incremental Revenue" means Networks distribution related revenues associated with the Incremental Load. Incremental Revenue does not include the relevant commodity, transmission and IMO related charges, "In Service Date" means the date upon which the Networks Connection Work is fully and completely constructed, installed, commissioned and energised.Tentatively scheduled for August 2007 construction pending delivery of material. "Minimum Average Monthly Peak Load" means 0 kW. "Networks Connection Work" means the work to be performed by Networks described in Section 2.0 and 3.0 of the Contract. TERM: 2. This Agreement shall be binding on the parties as of the date first written above(the "Effective Date") and shall expire on the earlier of the Guaranteed Incremental Revenue Date and the dale that the debt owed by the Customer pursuant to Section 3 is reduced to zero(the"Term"). TERMS AND CONDITIONS: 3(a) Networks shall construct the Networks Connection Work at an estimated cost of $ 125, 000 (plus applicable taxes)(the"Estimate"). (b) The Customer shall pay Networks a capital contribution of$ 0.00 (plus applicable taxes) (c) If the Actual Cost of the Networks Connection Work: (1) exceeds the Estimate, the Customer shall pay an additional capital contribution proportionate to the difference between the Actual Cost of the Networks Connection Work and the Estimate(plus applicable taxes)within 60 days after the date of Networks' invoice therefor;or (ii) is less than the Estimate, Networks shall refund part of the capital contribution proportionate to the difference between the Actual Cost of the Networks Connection Work and the Estimate(plus applicable taxes)within 180 days after the In Service Date. (d) The difference between the Actual Cost of the Networks Connection Work and the capital contribution(s) paid by the Customer pursuant to the terms of this Agreement is a debt owed to Networks by the Customer and subject to Sections 4 and 5 below, that debt shall be paid by the Customer to Networks on the earlier of the following dates: L the Guaranteed Incremental Revenue Date; and 11. the date of termination of this Agreement. 4(a). Notwithstanding Section 3, the parties further agree that provided that the Actual Incremental Revenue received by Networks is equal to or exceeds the Guaranteed Incremental Revenue for a specified period, Networks will forgive an amount of the foregoing debt equal to the amount of the Guaranteed Incremental Revenue specified for the period in question. Page 2 1004 hydro` olle (b) If the Actual Incremental Revenue received by Hydro One Networks is less than the Guaranteed Incremental Revenue specified for the annual period in Appendix"A"in question, the Customer shall pay Networks the difference by no later than 30 days after the date of Networks' invoice therefor. (c) If the Actual incremental Revenue received by Networks is more than the Guaranteed Incremental Revenue specified for the annual period in Appendix "A in question the surplus amount shall be carried forward to the next annual period specified in Appendix "A". This may have the effect of shortening the Term of this Agreement. (d) Once a year throughout the Term of this Agreement, the Customer may request that Networks calculate a present value of the total outstanding Guaranteed Incremental Revenue for the remainder of the Term of the Agreement(the "Guaranteed Incremental Revenue Present Value"). The methodology used to determine the Guaranteed Incremental Revenue Present Value would be at Networks'sole discretion. Within 60 days of Networks providing the Customer with the Guaranteed Incremental Revenue Present Value, the Customer shall have the right to terminate this Agreement by paying Networks the Guaranteed Incremental Revenue Present Value. 5. If the Project is cancelled, or this Agreement is terminated for any reason whatsoever other than breach of this Agreement by Networks, or the Customer defers the Project, the Customer shall pay all Actual Costs incurred by Networks on and prior to the date that the Project is deferred, cancelled or terminated and all costs associated with the winding up of the Project, including, but not limited to, storage costs and facility removal expenses.The Customer understands and agrees that all materials ordered for the Project by Networks' shall remain as Networks'property and that the salvage value of the material will be credited against the Actual Costs referred to above. ASSIGNMENT: 6. This Agreement shall extend to, be binding upon and endure to the benefit of the Parties hereto and their respective successors and assigns. Notwithstanding the foregoing, the Customer shall not assign its Interest in this Agreement or any portion thereof in any way without the prior written consent of Networks,which consent may not be unreasonably withheld. For the purposes of this clause, transfer of contractual rights and obligations hereunder to an entity resulting from the amalgamation or merger of the Customer shall be deemed to require the consent of Networks. In the event that the Customer sells, leases or otherwise transfers or disposes of the Customer's Facilities to a third party during the Term of this Agreement, the Customer shall cause the third party to enter into an assumption agreement with Networks' to assume all of the Customer's obligations under this Agreement. SECURITY REQUIREMENTS: 7. The Customer, whenever required by Hydro One Networks'to do so, shall furnish security satisfactory to Networks'for the performance by the Customer of its obligations under this Agreement, and shall maintain the security in full force and effect during the continuance of this Agreement. Contemporaneously with the execution of this Agreement, the Customer shall provide Hydra One Networks'with security in the amount of(Nil). DEFAULT AND EARLY TERMINATION: a. Each of the following events shall constitute an"Event of Default" under this Agreement: Page 3 1005 hydra„ (a) failure by the Customer to pay any amount due under this Agreement, including any amount payable pursuant to Sections 3, 4 or 5 within the time stipulated for payment; (b) breach by the Customer or Hydro One Networks' of any term, condition or covenant of this Agreement or the Contract; and (c) the making of an order or resolution for the winding up of the Customer or of its operations or the occurrence of any other dissolution or liquidation proceeding instituted by or against the Customer. 9. In the Event of Default by the Customer hereunder(other than those specified in sub- section 8 (c)of the Agreement, for which no notice is required to be given by Networks), Networks'shall give the Customer written notice of the Event of Default and allow the Customer 30 days from the date of receipt of the notice to rectify the Event of Default, at the Customer's sole expense. If such Event of Default is not cured to Networks' reasonable satisfaction within the 30-day period,Networks may, in its sole discretion, exercise any remedies that may be available to Networks under the terms of this Agreement,at common law or in equity:and deem this Agreement to be terminated and, after giving the Customer at least 10 days'prior written notice thereof, recover, as liquidated damages and not as a penalty,the balance of the amounts, payable by the Customer. 10. In the Event of Default by Networks' hereunder,the Customer shall give Networks' written notice of the Event of Default and shall allow Networks' 30 days from the date of receipt of the notice to remedy the Event of Default at Networks'sole expense. If such Event of Default Is not cured to the Customer's reasonable satisfaction within the 30-day period, the Customer may pursue any remedies available to it at law or in equity. In addition to any other remedy provided hereunder, all overdue amounts that are outstanding for longer than 30 days shall bear interest at 18%per annum (calculated monthly). STANDARD OF PERFORMANCE, LIABILITY AND FORCE MAJEURE: 11. The Customer and Networks shall perform their respective obligations outlined in this Agreement in a manner consistent with Good Utility Practice, in compliance with all Applicable Laws and using duly qualified and experienced people. 12. Other than for sums payable under this Agreement, the Customer shall only be liable to Networks and Networks shall only be liable to the Customer for any damages that arise directly out of the wilful misconduct or negligence in meeting their respective obligations under this Agreement Despite the foregoing, neither Party shall be liable under any circumstances whatsoever for any loss of profits or revenues, business interruption losses, loss of contract or loss of goodwill, or for any indirect, consequential or incidental damages, including but not limited to punitive or exemplary damages, whether any of the said liability, loss or damages arise in statute, contract, tort or otherwise. In any event, the total liability of Networks to the Customer for any and all claims for damages under this Agreement whether it arises by statute, contract, tort or otherwise, will not exceed the Actual Cost of the Networks' Connection Work. This provision shall survive the termination of this Agreement. 13. Neither party shall be considered to be in default in the performance of its obligations under this Agreement or the Contract,except obligations to make payments with respect to amounts already accrued, to the extent that performance of any such obligation Is prevented or delayed by any cause, existing or future, which is beyond the reasonable control of, and not a result of the fault or negligence of, the affected party("Force Majeure")and includes, but is not Page 4 1006 hy&8(n limited to, strikes, lockouts and any other labour disturbances and manufacturer's delays for equipment or materials required for the Networks Connection Work. 14 If a party is prevented or delayed in the performance of any such obligation by Force Majeure, such party shall immediately provide notice to the other party of the circumstances preventing or delaying performance and the expected duration thereof. Such notice shall be confirmed in writing as soon as reasonably possible. The party so affected by the Force Majeure shall endeavour to remove the obstacles which prevent performance and shall resume performance of its obligations as soon as reasonably practicable, except that there shall be not obligation on the party so affected by the Force Majeure where the event of Force Majeure is a strike, lockout or other labour disturbance. NOTICES: 15. Any written notice required by this Agreement shall be deemed properly given only If either mailed or delivered to the Secretary, Hydro One Networks Inc., 483 Bay Street,South Tower, 10th Floor, Toronto, Ontario M5G 2P5, fax no: (416)345-6240 on behalf of Networks, and to the person at the address specified in Appendix"B" on behalf of the Customer. A faxed notice will be deemed to be received on the date of the fax if received before 3 p.m.or on the next business day if received after 3 p.m. Notices sent by courier or registered mail shall be deemed to have been received on the date indicated on the delivery receipt. The designation of the person to be so notified or the address of such person may be changed at any time by either party by written notice. GENERAL: 16. Any reference in this Agreement to any Act or statute or Section thereof or any regulation made pursuant thereto shall be deemed to be a reference to such Act or statute or Section or regulation as amended or re-enacted from time to time. Words importing the singular number include the plural and vice versa. 17. This Agreement and the Contract constitutes the entire agreement between the parties with respect to the subject matter of this Agreement and supersedes all prior oral or written representations and agreements concerning the subject matter of this Agreement. Appendices "A", "B"and"C" attached hereto are to be read with and form part of this Agreement. 18. No amendment, modification or supplement to this Agreement shall be valid or binding unless set out in writing and executed by the parties with the same degree of formality as the execution of this Agreement. 19. The failure of any party hereto to enforce at any time any of the provisions of this Agreement or to exercise any right or option which is herein provided shall in no way be construed to be a waiver of such provision or any other provision nor in any way affect the validity of this Agreement or any part hereof or the right of any party to enforce thereafter each and every provision and to exercise any right or option. The waiver of any breach of this Agreement shall not be held to be a waiver of any other or subsequent breach. Nothing shall be construed or have the effect of a waiver except an instrument in writing signed by a duly authorized officer of the party against whom such waiver is sought to be enforced which expressly waives a right or rights or an option or options under this Agreement. 20. This Agreement shall be construed and enforced in accordance with, and the rights of the parties shall be governed by, the laws of the Province of Ontario and the laws of Canada applicable therein, and the courts of Ontario shall have exclusive jurisdiction to determine all disputes arising out of this Agreement. Page 5 1007 hydro Pt 21. This Agreement may be executed in counterparts, including facsimile counterparts, each of which shall be deemed an original, but all of which shall together constitute one and the same agreement. 22. The obligation to pay any amount due and payable hereunder, including, but not limited to, any amounts due under Sections 3, 4, 5 and 9 shall survive the termination of this Agreement. [WHERE CUSTOMER IS AN INDIVIDUAL] IN WITNESS WHEREOF the Customer has set his hand and seal, and Hydro One has caused this Agreement to be executed by the signature of its proper officer duly authorized in that behalf as of the day and year first above written. SIGNED,SEALED AND DELIVERED in the presence of: Witness (Insert Customer Name) HYDRO ONE"" Name: Ka KTrolley Title: Business and Customer Servi s Manager 1 have the authority to bind the C rporation [WHERE CUSTOMER IS A CORPORATION] IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Parties hereto, intending to be legally bound, have caused this Agreement to be executed by the signatures of their proper officers duly authorized in their behalf. HYDRO ONE NETWORKS INC. Name: Title: I have the authority to bind the Corporation INSERT CUSTOMER'S FULL CORPORATE NAME Name: Title: I have the authority to bind the Corporation Page 6 1008 hydrWn Schedule Appendix"A': GUARANTEED INCREMENTAL REVENUE Period: Guaranteed Incremental Revenue Year 2008 $17,935 Year 2009 $35,870 Year2010 $35,870 Year2011 $35,870 Year 2012 $35,870 Year2013 $35,870 Year 2014 $35,870 Year 2015 $35,870 Year2016 $35,870 Year 2017 $35,870 Year 2018 $17,935 Page 7 1009 hydro "Schedule Appendix"B": Customer Notice Information: Municipality of Clarington Community Services Department i Attention: George Acorn, Facilities Manager Address: 40 Temperance Street Bowmanville, Ontario L1C 3A6 Page 8 1010 t}7RtfGOc Fri 3;37,'014 Clarington REPORT Leading the Way COMMUNITY SERVICES DEPARTMENT Meeting: General Purpose and Administration Committee Date: September 4, 2007 Resolution #: Report#: CSD-013-07 File #: By-law#: Subject: Lakeridge Health Oshawa Cardiovascular and Rehabilitation Program Recommendations: It is respectfully recommended that the General Purpose and Administration Committee recommend to Council the following: 1. THAT Report CSD-013-07 be received; 2. THAT Council endorse an extension to the agreement between the Municipality of Clarington and Lakeridge Health Cardiovascular Prevention and Rehabilitation Program; and 3. THAT Mr. Paul Sawyer of Lakeridge Health is informed of Council's decision. Submitted by: Reviewed 4 01-X J e P. Caruana Franklin Wu rector of Community Services Chief Administrative Officer CORPORATION OF THE MUNICIPALITY OF CLARINGTON 40 TEMPERANCE STREET, BOWMANVILLE,ONTARIO L1C 3A6 T (905)623-3379 F(905)623.5506 1011 REPORT NO.: CSD-013-07 PAGE 2 i 1.0 BACKGROUND 1.1 The Municipality of Clarington entered into an agreement with Lakeridge Health Oshawa in December 2005 to offer a Cardiovascular Prevention and Rehabilitation Program at the Bowmanville Indoor Soccer Facility. The Agreement was subsequently renewed in January 2007. 1.2 Since December 2005, the program has expanded to also utilize the Garnet B. Rickard Recreation Complex during the summer months when summer camps are held at Bowmanville Indoor Soccer Facility. 1.3 In 2001, Lakeridge Health introduced the Cardiovascular Prevention and Rehabilitation Program at their Oshawa campus. Shortly after its inception, the program was granted government funding through the Ministry of Health and Long Term Care. 1.4 Program participants are referred to the program by their general practitioner or cardiac specialist. Once referred, all program registration is handled by Lakeridge Health Oshawa. The Lakeridge Health staff on site at the program are specially trained to work with this special population. They also carry their own defibrillator for emergency purposes. 1.5 With an aim of prevention and recovery of patients suffering from heart attacktheart failure, diabetes, kidney disease, stroke, and/or angioplasty/stent, the program includes an educational portion, a warm-up and/or resistance training, followed by individualized exercise prescription. 1.6 The purpose of the program is to teach self-management skills, keep residents out of the hospital, improve cardiovascular fitness, prevent disease progression and improve quality of life. 2.0 COMMENTS 2.1 Since 2001, the Cardiovascular Prevention and Rehabilitation Program has served in excess of 500 Claringtoh residents. 2.2 Currently, resident participation in the Cardiovascular Prevention and Rehabilitation Program is comprised as followsf . Bowmanville 28 Courtice — 5 Newcastle— 14 Enniskillen — 1 Orono — 3 Newtonville— 1 Brighton — 3 Cobourg — 5 Grafton — 1 Hastings — 1 Oshawa — 4 Pontypool— 1 Port Hope - 3 1012 REPORT NO.: CSD-013-07 PAGE 3 2.3 As participation has continued to increase in this program, a new Cardiovascular Prevention and Rehabilitation program has recently started in Cobourg. 2.4 Continuing to offer the program in Clarington would further benefit our residents and those of surrounding areas by providing needed health care locally, as well as, encouraging those to attend who may not have previously due to transportation issues. 2.5 It is recommended that Council endorse an extension to the existing agreement between the Municipality and Lakeridge Health to offer the Cardiovascular Prevention Rehabilitation Program (Attachment#1). 3.0 FINANCIAL 3.1 Lakeridge Health will continue to be responsible for all registration,advertising, and marketing related to the program. 3.2 Upon approval of this Report, both parties will renew a third-party insurance agreement to the satisfaction of the Director of Finance. Attachments: Attachment #1 - Agreement between Municipality of Clarington and . Lakeridge Health Corporation Interested Parties to be advised of Council's Decision: Paul Sawyer Lakeridge Health Oshawa 1013 CSD-013-07 — Attachment#1 AGREEMENT This Agreement is effective as of the 1 st day of December 2007 ("Effective Date"). BETWEEN: Municipality of Clarington ("MOC") - and — LAKERIDGE HEALTH CORPORATION ("LHC11 a corporation incorporated under the laws of the Province of Ontario WHEREAS A) the MOC wishes to provide its space located at Bowmanville Community Park and the Garnet B. Rickard'Recreation Complex (collectively the "Arena") to LHC for the purposes of operating the LHC Cardiovascular Prevention and Rehabilitation Program for the residents of Clarington; and B) LHC wishes to occupy the MOC's Arena on the terms and conditions set out in this Agreement; THEREFORE, in consideration of the premises and the. mutual covenants and agreements herein, the parties agree as follows: 1. The MOC shall provide to LHC, at no cost, the use of the "Arena" for three hours on each Thursday for the purposes of operating the LHC Cardiovascular Prevention and Rehabilitation Program (CPRP). The MOC shall provide its space located at Bowmanville Community Park from the Effective Date to June 27, 2008, and September 1, 2008 to November 30, 2008 respectively to LHC. The MOC shall also provide its space located at the Garnet B. Rickard Recreation Complex in Bowmanville from June 28, 2008 to August 31, 2008. The Agreement may be renewed for an additional term of twelve (12) months provided that LHC requests such renewal in writing at least 30 days prior to the end of the Term and provided that both parties agree to the renewal in writing. ('Renewal Term"). 2. LHC agrees to operate the CPRP for the Term or any Renewal Term set out in section 1 of this Agreement. The CPRP shall consist of counseling, education, prescriptive exercise and risk factor lifestyle modification strategies. 3. Either party reserves the right to terminate this Agreement for any reason provided that the following notice is provided to the other party in writing: (i) if the termination occurs during the initial Term, at least 14 days written notice is provided to the other party; or 1014 Agreement Between 2 Municipality of Clarington And Lakeridge Health Corporation (ii) if the termination occurs during any Renewal Term, at least 30 days written notice is provided to the other party. 4. Neither party shall be liable in damages or have the right to terminate this Agreement for any delay or default in performing its obligations if such delay or default is caused by conditions beyond its control including, but not limited to Acts of God, Government restrictions, wars, insurrections and/or any other cause beyond the. reasonable control of the party whose performance is affected ("force majeure"). In the event that a force majeure should arise, the parties agree that the obligation to provide the CPRP maybe suspended by either party until such time that the affected party determines it is reasonably able to fulfill its obligations. 5. LHC agrees to provide sufficient staff for the purpose of operating the CPRP as described in this Agreement. 6. The MOC shall maintain general commercial liability insurance including a cross- liability clause in a minimum amount of two million dollars ($2 Million) per occurrence to protect it and LHC from any claims for damages, personal injury including death, and from claims for property damage caused by the negligence of the MOC, its servants, agents or employees related to or arising out of services or other matters to Which this Agreement pertains. An original Certificate of Insurance shall be submitted to LHC. The Certificate shall name Lakeridge Health Corporation as an Additional Insured. 7. The MOC agrees to indemnify and save LHC harmless from all losses, costs, expenses, judgments or damages for injuries caused to persons, or property, including death, arising from the negligence of the MCC, its servants, agents, or employees related to or arising out of the use of the Arena or other matters relating to this Agreement, including all legal expenses and costs incurred by LHC in defending any such claims. 8. LHC agrees to maintain general liability insurance including a cross-liability clause in a minimum amount of two million dollars ($2 Million) per occurrence to protect it and the MOC from any claims for damages, for personal injury including death, and from claims for property damage caused by the negligence of LHC, its servants, agents or employees related to or arising out of services or other matters to which this Agreement pertains. An original Certificate of Insurance shall be submitted to MOC. The Certificate shall name The Municipality of Clarington as an Additional Insured. 9. LHC agrees to indemnify and save the MOC harmless from all losses, costs, expenses, judgments or damages for injuries caused to persons, or property, including death, arising from the negligence of LHC, its servants,'agents, or employees related to or arising out of the use of the Arena, including all legal expenses and costs incurred by the MOC in defending any such claims. 10. This Agreement constitutes the entire agreement between the parties. No other statements, representations, warranties, undertakings or agreements made or 1015 Agreement Between _ 3 . Municipallty of Clarington And Lakeridge Health Corporation purportedly made by or on behalf of either party or any of their directors, officers, agents, employees or other legal representatives, shall be binding upon them unless agreed to in writing by the parties. 11. This Agreement may be executed in counterparts, each of which shall be deemed to be an original and both of which together shall constitute one and the same instrument. 12. This Agreement shall be interpreted in accordance with the laws of the province of Ontario. 13. Any notices to be provided pursuant to this Agreement shall, unless otherwise agreed, be sent by registered or certified mail, by delivery or courier service, or by facsimile transmission (confirmed by subsequent first class postal transmission) and shall be sent: in the case of LHC to: Ms. Chris Kooy Vice President Clinical Programs & Chief Nursing Executive Lakeridge Health Corporation 1 Hospital Court Oshawa, ON LIG 2139 Telephone: 905-576-8711 ext: 1461 Facsimile: 905-7214763 in the case of Clarington to: Joe Caruana Director of Parks, Recreation& Culture The Municipality of Clarington 40 Temperence St. Bowmanville, ON L1C 3A6 i caruanaQclarinZon.net Telephone 905-623-3379 Facsimile: Any notice sent by mail or delivery/courier service shall be deemed to have been received on the date of actual delivery. Any notice sent by facsimile transmission shall be deemed to have been received on the day it was actually sent. 1016 Agreement Between _ 4 Municipality of Clarington And Lakeridge Health Corporation IN WITNESS WHEREOF the parties have caused this Agreement to be executed by their duly authorized officers as of the date first written above. JIM ABERNETHY Mayor Date Municipality of Clarington Patti Barrie Municipal Clerk Date Municipality of Clarington Chris Kooy Date Vice President Clinical Programs & Chief Nursing Executive Lakeridge Health Corporation Brian Lemon Date Chief Executive Officer Lakeridge Health Corporation MoC Agreement(2007-06-22) 1017 Claringto� L�Rg�>�way REPORT CORPORATE SERVICES DEPARTMENT Meeting: GENERAL PURPOSE AND ADMINISTRATION COMMITTEE Date: Tuesday, September 41h, 2007 Report#: COD-046-07 File # By-law# Subject: TENDER AWARDS SUMMER COUNCIL BREAK Recommendations: It is respectfully recommended that the General Purpose and Administration Committee recommend to Council the following: 1. THAT Report C6D-046-07 be received; 2. THAT the attached By-law, marked Schedule "B" authorizing the Mayor and Clerk to enter into the necessary agreement be approved; and 3. THAT the Purchasing By-law be waived and the Manager of Purchasing be authorized to invite bids from the five bidders on Tender CL2007-35, Supply Delivery and Installation of Gas Furnace Replacement. Submitted by: Reviewed Marie Marano, H.B.Sc., C.M.O. Franklin Wu, Directo�f Corporate S rvic Chief Administrative Officer an ayl .B. ., C.A., Director of�inan MM\JB*rn Attachments: Attachment 1 —Schedule"A", Memo RE: Stevens Rd Culvert Construction & Stream Realignment TSH Letter Attachment 2 -Schedule"B", By-law CORPORATION OF THE MUNICIPALITY OF CLARINGTON 40 TEMPERANCE STREET, BOWMANVILLE, ONTARIO L1C 3A6 T(905)623-3379 F (905)6231 1 REPORT NO.: COD-046-07 PAGE 2 BACKGROUND AND COMMENT In accordance with Purchasing By-law 2006-127, the following contracts were awarded during the July/August Council Break: 1. CL2007-35, Supply Delivery and Installation of Gas Furnaces — Hampton Operations Depot; and 2. CL2007-36, Stevens Road Culvert Construction & Stream Alignment With respect to Tender CL2007-35; Gas Furnaces at the Hampton Depot, shortly after receiving approval to proceed with the award, staff discovered that the tender mistakenly called for the replacement of five furnaces, when only four were required. The.fifth furnace had been replaced early in 2007 as a result of an emergency requirement. To correct this situation, the project has been cancelled and it is recommended that a revised tender will be issued inviting the original five bidders to submit new tenders on a revised scope of work. On completion of this process a report will be provided outlining the results of the invited tender and providing a recommendation for award. 1202 REPORT NO.: COD-046-07 PAGE 3 1. CL2007-35, SUPPLY DELIVERY AND INSTALLATION OF GAS FURNACES— HAMPTON OPERATIONS DEPOT In view of the fact there are no Council meetings scheduled until September 10, 2007, authorization is requested to award the above noted contract to Vic' Mechanical Contracting, Toronto, Ontario. The total project amount is $137,322.53 which includes the total bid price of $117,600.00,excluding GST, detailed design, contract administration fees and site refurbishments: This tender CL2007-35 covers the supply and installation of four(4) new gas fumaces required to replace existing obsolete furnaces at the Hampton Operations Depot and the total project cost of $137,322.53 is within the approved Capital Budget amount of$152,000.00 (2005 Capital Budget- $72,000.00 and 2007 Capital Budget-$80,000.00). Tenders were advertised on the Clarington and OPBA Website and advertised in the Canadian Statesman. A tabulation of bids received on the above noted tender is as follows: BIDDER TOTAL BID (EXCLUDING G.S.T. Vic's Mechanical Contracting Toronto $117,600.QO Crozier Mechanical Orono $127,200.00 Canadian Tech Air Systems Scar borough $131,660.00 Advantage Air Tech $140,000.00 Pickering Mutual Mechanical $142,000.00 Oshawa After review and analysis of the bids by the Operations Department and the Purchasing Division, it is mutually agreed that the low bidder, Vic's Mechanical Contracting, Toronto, Ontario, be recommended for the supply and installation of the four(4) gas fired furnaces as required by the Municipality of Clarington. The required funds will be drawn from Capital Account#110-32-370- 83631-7401 Hampton Centre which has an approved budget for 2005 and 2007of$152.000.00 leaving a surplus of$15,249.47. Vic's Mechanical Contracting has performed satisfactory work for the Municipality of Clarington in the past. The Director of Finance has reviewed the funding requirements and concurs with the recommendation. Written authorization is requested for this contract. NOTE: Recommendation #3 provides for re-tender of the above project due to a change in requirements. 1203 REPORT NO.: COD-046-07 PAGE 4- 2 CL2007-36, STEVENS ROAD CULVERT CONSTRUCTION & STREAM ALIGNMENT In view of the fact there are no Council meetings scheduled until September 10, 2007, authorization is requested to award the above noted contract to Dave Boyle Excavating Limited, Bowmanville, Ontario. The total project amount is$356,000.00 which includes the total bid price of $205,480.00, excluding GST, a 6% contingency, detailed design, contract administration fees, environmental studies and utility relocations. This tender CL2007-36 is Phase One—Culvert Construction & Stream Realignment for the Stevens Road capital project and the total project cost of$356,000.00 is within the approved 2006 Capital Budget amount of$413,000.00. Phase Two for Stevens Road is in the 2007 Capital Budget in the amount of$1,320,000.00. Tenders were advertised on the Clarington and OPBA Website and advertised in the Daily Commercial News and the Canadian Statesman. A tabulation of bids received on the above noted tender is as follows: BIDDER BID AMOUNT Dave Boyle Excavating Limited Bowmanville $205,480.00* Ron Robinson Limited Bowmanville $245,122.30 Elirpa Construction and Materials Limited Pickering $362,549.13 F.D.M. Contracting Company Limited Thornhill $423,015.00 'Extension Error After review and analysis of the bids by Totten Sims Hubicki Associates, Engineering Services Department and-the Purchasing Division, it is mutually agreed that the low bidder, Dave Boyle Excavating Limited, Bowmanville, Ontario, be recommended for the Stevens Road Culvert Construction and Stream Realignment contract as required by the Municipality of Clarington. The required funds will be drawn from Capital Account#110-32-330-83296-7401 Phase One— Culvert and Creek Realignment which has an approved budget for 2006 and 2007of$1,733,000.00 leaving a surplus of$1,377,000.00. The Engineering Services Department requests that the $1,377,000.00 surplus be allocated to Phase Two of the construction project. Dave Boyle Excavating Limited has performed satisfactory work for the Municipality of Clarington. The Director of Finance has reviewed the funding requirements and concurs with the recommendation. A copy of the recommending memos from Engineering Services Department and Totten Sims Hubicki Associates are attached as Schedules"A" and "B" respectively, are attached. Written authorization is requested for this contract. 1204 Attachment 1 Clar�ngton Leading the Woy MEMO TO: Jerry Barber, Purchasing Manager FROM: Bruno Bianco, P. Eng., Design Engineer DATE: July 25, 2006 SUBJECT: Stevens Road Culvert Construction'& Stream Realignment Contract No. CL2007-36 Our File No: CRC.StevensRd.2 The Engineering Services Department has reviewed the recommendation provided by TSH and offers the following comments concerning the culvert construction and creek realignment of Stevens Road. This project is phase one of a two phase project. The second phase of the project will involve the construction of the road section above the culvert from Regional Road 57 to Clarington Blvd. The overall project budget for the both projects is $1,733,000.00 and entirely funded through development charges. We concur with the recommendation to award the contract to Dave Boyle Excavating Limited in the amount of $205,480.00 exclusive of G.S.T. Due to our current knowledge of the site, a contingency amount of 6% is carried forward for the project. Therefore, including detailed design, contract administration fees, environmental studies, and utility relocations, the engineering department advises the following Municipal breakdown for phase one of the above referenced project; Phase One — Culvert and Creek Realignment Account 110 32 330 83296 7401 Total Project Amount $356,000.00 Approved Budget $1,733,000.00 Amount 2006&2007 Estimated Budget Surplus $1,377,000.00 The Engineering Services Department therefore requests that the remaining $1,377,000.00 of the approved Municipal budget funds be allocated to phase two of the construction project. 1205 Attachment No. 1 We recommend staff award based on the above apportionments. Attached for your files is the recommendation provided by TSH. Should you have any further question, please feel free to contact the undersigned. Regards, Bruno M. Bianco, P. Eng. Design Engineer BB/al Cc: William McCrae, P. Eng., Totten Sims Hubidd Nancy Taylor, Director of Finance CORPORATION OF THE MUNICIPALITY OF CLARINGTON 40 TEMPERANCE STREET, BOWMANVILLE, ONTARIO L1C 3A6 T(905)623-3379 1206 Attachment No. 1 IfH Totten Sims Mubicki Associates ■ engineers 513 Division Street, architects Cobourg.Onlario,Canada K9A 5G6 (905)372-2121 Fax:1905)372 3621 _ planners E-mail:cpbourg0tsh.ca www.tsh.ce July 24,2007 Mr.A.S.Cannella,C.E.T. Director of Engineering Services Corporation of the Municipality of Clarington 40 Temperance Street BOWMANVILLE,Ontario. L1C 3A6 Dear Mr.Cannella: Re: Stevens Road Culvert Construction and Stream Realignment,Bowmanville Contract No. CL2007-36,Municipality of Clarington TSH Project No. 12-29561 Tenders for the above project were opened at the Municipal offices on Monday,July 16,2007 at 2:15:00 p.m. The bids received, excluding GST, are summarized as follows: BIDDER TOTAL BID Dave Boyle Excavating Limited,Bowmanville,ON $205,480.00 • Ron Robinson Ltd.,Bowmanville,ON $245,122.30 Elirpa Construction and Materials Limited,Pickering,ON. $362,549.13 F.D.M.Contracting Company Limited,Thornhill,ON $423,015.00 • Extension Error TSH has reviewed all bids accepted by the Clarington Purchasing Department and have confirmed the bid values noted above. Dave Boyle Excavating Limited has recently completed replacement of the Goo.A. Stephen Bridge,Cedar Park Road Bridge and Concession Road 6 Culvert for the Municipality of Clarington and administered by TSH,under Contract No. CL2006-29 and is currently completing Contract No.CL2006-53,Green Road and Baseline Road Reconstruction. Contract No.CL2006-29 was completed and Contract No.CL2006-53 is progressing in a satisfactory manner. They have also carried out other prejaGN in the area including work at On ower enerauon ar mgton and numerous construction projects at Durham College. All references contacted assessed Dave Boyle Excavating Limited's performance to be satisfactory. Estimated project costs based on Dave Boyle Excavating Limited's low bid are provided below: Construction $205,480.00 Preliminary and Detailed Design, Class EA Environmental Assessment (to June 30, 2007) S99,907.62 Contract Administration $21,000.00 Utility Relocation $ 8,936.38 Contingencies 2$ 0.676.00 Total $356,000.00 1207 1 f Attachment No. 1 Mr.A.S.Cannella C.E.T. July 24,2007 2. The above Design and Environmental Assessment costs are for the entire Stevens Road extension between Clarington Boulevard and Regional Road 57 and also include required improvements on Regional Road 57. The remainder of the road works will be tendered later this summer pending approval of works on Regional Road 57 by Region of Durham Staff. The Municipality of Clarington's share of Contract No. CL2007-36 is projected to be on budget based on a budget amount of$413,000.00 from Account# 110-32-330-83296-7401. We recommend that the tender in the amount of$205,480.00(exclusive of G.S.T.)be awarded to Dave Boyle Excavating Limited ofBowmanville,Ontario. Deposit cheques or bid bonds shall be retained for the low and second low bids until the contract has been executed. Should you require any further information,please contact the undersigned Yours truly, Ron Albright,P.E Project Engineer RA/cg PA12,-9UIICaee*=32Uw PC: Mr.Bruno Bianco,P.Eng.,Municipality ofClarington M8 Attachment 2 -Schedule "B" THE CORPORATION OF THE MUNICIPALITY OF CLARINGTON BY-LAW 2007- Being a By-law to authorize a contract between the Corporation of the Municipality of Clarington and Dave Boyle Excavating Limited, Bowmanville, Ontario, to enter into an agreement for the Stevens Road Culvert Construction & Stream Alignment. THE COPORATION OF THE MUNICIPALITY OF CLARINGTON HEREBY ENACTS AS FOLLOWS: 1. THAT the Mayor and Clerk are hereby authorized to execute, on behalf of the Corporation of the Municipality of Clarington and seal with the Corporation Seal, a contract between Dave Boyle Excavating Limited, Bowmanville, Ontario and said Corporation; and 2. THAT the contract attached hereto as Schedule "A"form part of this By-law. By-law read a first and second time this day of 2007. By-law read a third time and finally passed this day of 2007. Jim Abernethy, Mayor Patti L. Barrie, Municipal Clerk 1209 Claris`7V�l��V/n -LeadinglheWay`✓ REP.ORT.. FINANCE DEPARTMENT Meeting: GENERAL PURPOSE AND ADMINISTRATION COMMITTEE Date: TUESDAY, SEPTEMBER 4, 2007 Resolution #: Report#: FND-016-07 File #: By-law#: Subject: ANNUAL LEASING REPORT - 2007 Recommendations: It is respectfully recommended that the General Purpose and Administration Committee recommend to Council the following: 1. THAT Report FND-016-07 be received for information. Aancy_Tp(y1or,'B.VA.,,Submitted by: Reviewed by: .A., Franklin Wu, Director of Finance/Treasurer. Chief Administrative Officer. NT/cd 1301 REPORT NO.: FND-016-07 PAGE 2 BACKGROUND: Under Ontario Regulation 266/02, the Treasurer is required to report annually to Council details of existing material leases confirming that they comply with the lease policy, a summary of material leases, estimated cost of the material leases and the impact of these leases on the financing arrangements and debt servicing levels of the Municipality. As required by the Municipal Act, 2001, Council adopted a Statement of Lease Financing Policies and Goals in report FND-021-03, on Monday, September 8, 2003. To-date, Clarington has typically chosen to purchase or debenture (if necessary), rather than to use financial leases with the exception of small office equipment. All existing leases are immaterial according to Council policy and therefore have no impact on long term financing or debt service levels of the Municipality. The total of all of Clarington's minor leases do not exceed the threshold for a single lease to be material. CONCLUSION: At this time, the Municipality of Clarington does not have any material leases. It is recommended that this annual lease report be received for information in compliance with Ontario Regulation 266/02. CORPORATION OF THE MUNICIPALITY OF CLARINGTON 40 TEMPERANCE STREET, BOWMANVILLE, ONTARIO L1C 3A6 T(905)623-3379 F (905)623-4169 1302 Unfinished Business General Purpose and Administration Committee Minutes June 18, 2007 Resolution #GPA-465-07 Moved by Councillor Robinson, seconded by Councillor Woo THAT the delegation of Rick Howe be received; and THAT Rick Howe and the Orono Amateur Athletic Association be thanked for their participation and cooperation. OTHER BUSINESS CARRIED 2008 BUDGET Resolution #GPA-466-07 Moved by Councillor Trim, seconded by Councillor Novak WHEREAS the 2007 property tax increase in Clarington was one of the highest increases in Durham Region; and WHEREAS the 8% plus municipal property taxes for residential owners in 2007 was totally unacceptable to the taxpayers of Clarington: NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED THAT staff be directed to bring forward the following: 1. A one-half day education session pertaining to the 2008 municipal budget be held prior to December 3, 2007; 2. A 2008 draft budget for the General Purpose and Administration Committee meeting of December 3, 2007; 3. A 2008 final budget for the January 28, 2008 Council meeting; and 4. The final 2008 final budget residential tax increase not to exceed 2% plus assessment growth. SEE FOLLOWING MOTION Resolution #GPA-467-07 Moved by Councillor Foster, seconded by Councillor Robinson THAT the foregoing resolution be divided to allow for consideration for item 4 separately from items 1, 2 and 3. CARRIED - 23 - 1501 General Purpose and Administration Committee Minutes June 18, 2007 Items 1, 2 and 3 of the foregoing Resolution #GPA466-07 were then put to a vote and carried. Resolution #GPA-468-07 Moved by Councillor Foster, seconded by Councillor Robinson THAT item #4 of the foregoing resolution #GPA-466-07, which reads as follows °The final 2008 final budget residential tax increase not to exceed 2% plus assessment growth" be tabled to the September 4, 2007 meeting. CARRIED ORONO 175TH ANNIVERSARY FIREWORKS DISPLAY Resolution #GPA-469-07 Moved by Councillor Robinson, seconded by Councillor Trim WHEREAS 2007 marks the 175`h anniversary of the Village of Orono; AND WHEREAS various activities are planned for the weekend on June 30, 2007 to celebrate the anniversary: NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED THAT permission be granted for the 175"' Anniversary Committee to hold a fireworks display in Orono Park on June 30, 2007, provided the organizers apply for and obtain the required permit from the Municipal Clerk's Department; and THAT the 175 ' Anniversary Committee be advised of this decision, FORTHWITH. CARRIED LEGAL MATTER— "CLOSED MEETING" Resolution #GPA-470-07 Moved by Councillor Robinson, seconded by Councillor Trim THAT the recommendations contained in Confidential Report COD-028-07 be approved. CARRIED Mayor Abernethy advised members of the upcoming public meeting scheduled by the Region of Durham regarding site options for the Energy from Waste facility. - 24 - 1502 HANDOUTS / CIRCULATIONS FOR GP&A Presentation to Clarington GPA Committee-September 4, 2007 By Wendy Bracken Thank you to all staff who have been working hard to protect our interests in Clarington. I appreciate the thorough analysis of Stephen Rowe in his gap analysis. There are many of us who have followed this issue closely and who have felt that the site selection process and other key aspects of this study were mishandled from the beginning and his careful analysis has exposed some of the faults which must be addressed. Today I registered my comments and concerns to the Durham York Residual Waste Study. I submitted my concern that the Generic Human Health and Ecological Risk Assessment Study did not provide a sufficient level of detail of information to accurately assess the health and environmental effects of thermal treatment. I understand there are two main approaches used when examining the health consequences of exposure to environmental contaminants. The first approach involves close examination and review of epidemiological studies of human disease as related to thermal treatment. The second approach consists of emissions based studies which measure emissions being released into the environment from one or more sources, and based on this, human exposures to emitted substances can be estimated, and the risks to human health can be estimated. These two approaches should be used together as each has its own strengths and weaknesses. The HHERA relied solely on emissions based studies, and there was not a proper review of the epidemiological literature on the health effects of incineration and thermal treatment. This is clearly unacceptable. As Dr. David Pengally pointed out in his peer review of the Halton Project, "all of the recent epidemiological literature on particulate and gaseous combustion-related pollutants demonstrate clearly that statistically significant associations with a suite of different outcomes at lower and lower concentrations form a coherent picture of adverse effects on public health". There should have been a thorough and traceable approach taken to review the primary literature available on thermal treatment and the effects on human health. Furthermore, the HHERA used many differing sets of standards (Ontario Guidelines, US EPA Guideslines, Texas Commission on Environmental Quality, etc.) and provided no traceable and consistent method for the criteria to select which set of standards against which they would assess the risks. Having read Dr. Pengally's peer health review of the Halton report, I was disappointed with the peer review performed by Senes for Clarington Council. It lacked the thorough and comprehensive approach taken by Pengally. I found the Senes report simply looked over what was in the HHERA document and checked for errors, but did not look at the whole picture and determine what was NOT in the HHERA report that should have been in order to provide a sufficient level of investigation and detail of information to accurately assess the health and environmental effects. This is critical to protect the health and environmental interests of Clarington. The weakness of emissions based studies is that risk calculations rely on many assumptions and inferences and they depend on the assumption that the regulations that risk is compared against are protective of human health. I hoped that Senes and Amec would do an analysis of the guidelines as Dr. Pengally did and pointed out where many of the current guidelines are outdated and not protective of human health. Some of the carcinogens and toxins emitted (like benzene) are not even regulated. Again, Senes should have also looked at epidemiological studies on incineration and human health to establish health and environmental risks and give the peer review a complete,balanced and more accurate assessment. The Series review did not identify that the Regions should include a thorough review of epidemiological studies in their HHERA. Series and Amec did not discuss smog and ozone formation, nor did they provide an assessment of the impact of global warming by this facility, nor did they identify that the Regions need to provide these assessments to accurately and completely assess health and environmental effects. While SENES did say that nanoparticles should be discussed, they did not go far enough. More than a"discussion" is needed as a thorough investigation should be done on nanoparticulate risks of incineration. This should include a review of all the primary literature on the subject. Nanoparticulate research is emerging and is currently a"hot bed" of activity with many, many studies being conducted on their impact on human health. This area must be thoroughly addressed since nanoparticles are able to evade the best available technology pollution control devices. The issues addressed in Section 6.1 of Report PSD-097-07 are important and well included. May I suggest that, in addition to a comparison of Ontario A-7 Guidelines with the other guidelines, there would also be a comparison of the MONITORING done on thermal treatment facilities in these jurisdictions? I also strongly suggest, as I indicated above, that an epidemiological assessment be done . When Councillor Woo asked Ms. Fernandes about nanoparticles, she responded that they are able to penetrate deeper into the lungs and stay there. That was not correct in that they do not just stay in the lungs, but , because of their extremely small size are able to pass into the bloodstream, circulate through all of the body, and penetrate cell membranes, including the blood brain barrier. She indicated that nanoparticles are everywhere, which I hope was not misinterpreted that they are a common problem like dust. I think it is important the councillors understand that it is the fact that these nanoparticles are associated with the toxic byproducts of incineration like heavy metals and dioxins that make them very dangerous. They are a way heavy metals and dioxins can be ferried into our tissues, and organs including even our brain. I was also troubled by an answer given by Ms. Fernandes to Councillor Hooper when he asked about picograms. She responded correctly that a picogram is 10i2 grams. What she said next was incorrect. She said that, if a paperclip was 1 g, a picogram would be one-twelfth of that. One twelfth of a gram (1/12 g) would be about 0.083 grams, but a picogram is actually 0.000 000 000 001gram. This is a huge error and troubling, because those involved in risk assessment should be very familiar with powers and negative exponents and scientific notation. Finally, I again submit my concern that all waste alternatives were not fully explored at the timc the "Alternatives To" document was released and that a decision was made to go to Thermal Treatment without a sufficient level of detail of information to accurately assess the health and environmental effects of all alternatives, including thermal treatment. I have been present in Committee meetings when Regional Councilors have stated they voted in favour of thermal treatment under the premise that only water vapour was coming out of the stack and my father, Barry Bracken, has heard the same from a citizen representative on the Joint Waste Management Group. This clearly indicates a decision to go to thermal treatment was made without sufficient information provided. I conclude by saying I strongly urge Clarington Council to declare themselves unwilling hosts to any incinerator/thermal treatment facility. PETITION TO BE PRESENTED TO MUNICIPALITY OF CLARINGTON GENERAL PURPOSE AND ADMINISTRATION COMMITTEE SEPTEMBER 4, 2007 As physicians who provide medical care to the residents of Clarington, we wish to register our opposition to the planned solid waste incinerator currently short-listed for our community. The operation of such an incinerator will further degrade the air quality in Clarington. ,-Even the proponents of incineration admit that solid waste incineration will have the greatest negative impact on our air shed. The mass-burning of solid wastes by incineration creates dioxins and furans which are deposited on surrounding lands and waters, then bioaccumulate as they make their way up the food chain. These chemicals, which are extremely toxic even in small quantities, have been linked to various cancers, genetic and reproductive disorders. We urge the elected Clarington council to put the health and environmental concerns of its citizens in the forefront, and tell Durham Region that this municipality will not be a willing host for the proposed incinerator facility. Respectfully submitted, SIGNATURE PRINTED NAME ADDRESS n Submission to Clarinciton GPA Committee Tuesday 2007/09/04 Submission by: Paul-Andre Larose, Ph.D., Oshawa, Ontario, CANADA. tel: 905-404-2929; E-Mail: LarosePACuD-Sympatico.Ca EA: Comments on Clarington "Peer Review" Document(Incineration Project) A digital version of this presentation will be forwarded to the Clerk. Important points below are bolded. I-Introduction Members of the Clarington GPA Committee and members of the Audience, my name is Paul-Andre Larose. I reside in Oshawa. As in stated in previous presentations to you, I am a physicist. I want to keep this presentation rather brief. In my earlier talks on the subject, I have tried to address the issue on the basis factual data and scientific evidence;whether this was at all effective remains to be seen. Consequently, in this presentation, I will not talk about dioxins, nano-particulates or bio-chemical implications;we should now be well beyond this. If there are any who want to believe that 1 + 1 = 3,or that the Earth is flat,or that the moon is made of Gruyere Cheese,then I am afraid that there is not much rehashing of the facts that one can do in order to enlighten the"unwilling". Rather, I want to address report-specific issues such as: • The waste treatment options; • The based-lining of the risks; • The"Exposure Pathways". II—The Waste Treatment Options I see nowhere in the report any mention to waste management alternatives other than incineration. I ask the following... Are we not missing the point entirely when we fail to look at all the possibilities,including that of reduction at the source? Moreover,the report makes the claim that there is a"tight timeline" (Item 3.1.6). This is not exactly true if due consideration for alternatives was given both for the short-term and for the long-term;these are not even considered. III—The Base-lining of the Risks The risks are not determined relative to other solutions;these'other solutions"simply are not there. Risks are evaluated in terms of the predictability of a model relative to currently known acceptability levels. The fact that experience often leads to tighter standards apparently does not appear to be an issue. Compliance with standards currently in force will be of little comfort if subsequent experience shows that these were too lax or that other options should have been considered. And remember: bridges are not supposed to collapse (does this sound familiar?). We should appreciate the need for prudence, redundancy and precaution in dealing with issues. IV—The"Exposure Pathways" The exposure pathways are represented in a rather simplistic manner. One can rightfully ask:what about the mere fact of breathing, even before issues such as the impact on the food consumption and the food chain are considered? It is most important to appreciate the two following issues: • Contrary to what some may claim,the atmosphere is NOT an infinite sink. On a yearly basis, 70%of the waste tonnage of 316,000 ((2.1.3)or 400,000 (3.4.2)tonnes, i.e.221,000 and 280,000 tonnes,will be sent up the stack! Can we not see the problem here? Is it not a fact that only a few short years ago, oceans were deemed to be limitless in terms of fisheries and contribution to the food supply? Is it not a fact that we are now finding out the hard way that we were sold a bill of goods on this issue? • Irrespective of the lethality of the substances in terms of environmental concentrations,the fact of the matter is that 100%of the citizens will be unwilling hosts to known carcinogenic substances. I am not talking about Clarington being an unwilling host; I am talking about each and everyone of us unwillingly carrying these substances in our own body. I do not want this and I doubt that anybody wants this. V—Conclusion If the presentation of scientific evidence is powerless in the current political process, maybe we should resort to the legal system to ensure protection of Health that public officials are mandated to uphold. On this we are on legal solid grounds, as the Supreme Court has already strongly sanctioned the use of the precautionary principle defined in parag. 7 of the Bergen Ministerial Declaration on Sustainable Development of 1990)as follows, and I quote: "In order to achieve sustainable development, policies must be based on the precautionary principle. Environmental measures must anticipate, prevent and attack the causes of environmental degradation. Where there are threats of serious or irreversible damage, lack of full scientific certainty should not be used as a reason for postponing measures to prevent environmental degradation." Let us hope that rationality will prevail and that such actions will not be necessary. Executive Summary One is critical of report-specific issues such as: • The waste treatment options:where the range of options is not considered; • The based-lining of the risks: where is not measured relative to the lowest baseline alternative; • The"Exposure Pathways":where ingestion pathways are over simplified and/or ignored. From a legal perspective,there is now ample legal evidence that issues relating to health supercede all other considerations when specific projects are being addressed. r Atkinson, Ellen From: Paul-Andre Larose [LarosePA @Sympatico.Ca] Sent: Wednesday, September 05,2007 9:37 AM To: Carola_Media/TrtoStarNyhnak; Jennifer_Media/OshaTW/Stone; Atkinson, Ellen; Clerks Depatment Outside Subject: Presentation of Tuesday 2007/09/04 to Clarington GPA Committee Municipal Clerk, Clarington City Hall. Metroland Media Group, Att'n: Jennifer Stone. The Toronto Star, Att'n: Carola Vyhnak. Please find attached copy of my presentation of Tuesday 2007/09/04 to Clarington GPA Committee. Thank you. Paul-Andre Larose, Ph.D., 435 Glendale Avenue, Oshawa, Ontario, CANADA, LU 3H9. tel: 905-404-2929 E-Mail: LarosePA @Sympatico.Ca TransConsult @Sympatico.Ca "Quality is never an accident; it is always the result of high intention, sincere effort, intelligent direction and skilful execution; it represents the wise choice of many alternatives."---William A. Foster 9/5/2007 Che text below is from the notes I used and aren't word for word on what I stated Tuesday 2007/09/04 to ^larington GPA Committee. Wendy Cartwright, VP CAW Durham Regional Environment Council (CAW D.R.E.C.) could not stay. I, Dave Renaud ?resident of CAW D.R.E.C. and a concerned spoke to Clarington GPA Council in Wendy's place. was asked by Mayor Abernathy if I represented the CAW. I stated that I represent the CAW Durham Regional 'nvironment Council and that I stand here also as a concerned Courtice citizen. 1,000 delegates, (in which I'm one) at the CAW Joint Council meeting in St. John's Aug. 10-12/2007 unanimously ;ndorsed a new policy paper(climate Change and our Jobs: Finding the Right Balance) that fully commits the CAW o the fight against climate change,while also strengthening Canada's auto industry and other crucial domestic sectors. [lie paper contains a detailed strategy for"greening"the Canadian automotive industry, which directly employs over .50,000 manufacturing workers,but has suffered deeply in the face of one-way offshore imports. Che discussion paper acknowledges the work of CAW members on promoting environmentalism through union :ducation, collective bargaining and various campaigns on conservation, extended producer responsibility(EPR), ncineration, cancer prevention and green auto issues. The paper also calls on union leaders and activists to increase thei :obective efforts on environmental activism. 'he full text of Climate Change and our Jobs:Finding the Right Balance policy paper is available on the CAW lational website - see below for link. ittp://www.caw.ca/-%n.howeare/CAWpoliciesandstatements/pdfs/Environment Paper E pdf '.hris Buckley, President of CAW Local 222 appointed me to the CAW National Extended Producer Responsibility EPR) Advisory Committee with representatives from Ford Daimler Chrysler and G.M. The objective of the committee s to research on the current practice of EPR in the Auto Industry, (also know in the European Union as End of Life /ehicle Legislation). We are to report to the respective Auto Councils for discussion on how to move forward an EPR ampaign to lobby for legislation .'ou can see by the button I'm wearing, it has the CAW logo on it and say's EPR Now! want to give you a definition to; ?xtended Producer Responsibility(EPR) is a strategy that requires that producers either take back spent products and aanage them through reuse, recycling, or remanufacturing, or delegate this responsibility to a third party, a so-called producer responsibility organization, which is paid by the producer for spent-product management or other wise know s end of life products. 'he idea underlying EPR is that placing responsibility for waste management with producers creates a strong incentive or them to redesign products with an aim toward less material use and improved recyclability. They won't want to candle some of the nasty chemicals twice, thus eliminating the possibility to workers and consumers potential chemical ;xposures which may contribute cancers and other diseases. We believe that a legislated EPR policy will create Jobs, fobs, Jobs. I etting up municipal programs does NOT let producers off the hook, as we know that municipal programs for toxics ;enerally only collect 1-10% of the materials that are out there. EPR programs are needed to get the majority of the naterials and products. We can also use the real data from municipal programs to make the case why EPR is seeded. Municipalities should be asked to share their data to help us all make the case for provincial and federal EPR )rograms that are needed. That's how we'll work together to get to the Zero Waste future we all want to achieve. Che Region is working towards a 35 year plan to incinerate our residual waste. Imagine working towards a 35 year plan o enact EPR policy. We can give those who inherit this planet after us a fighting chance for better environmentally ;ustainable future. Jere's another idea, how about we build solar fields like we heard about from a previous delegation in the lands chosen or the potential incinerator. Would they produce enough energy to offset the energy the incinerator may generate by >urning potentially reusable or recyclable residual waste? read the complete peer review documents. The issue of nanoparticles is briefly noted. The science is vague and needs pore research. If we don't know for sure the full impact these nanoparticles will have on human health then we need to Lbide by the precautionary principle "he Supreme Court also strongly sanctions the use of the precautionary principle(defined as follows in parag. 7 of the Bergen Nnisterial Declaration on Sustainable Development- 1990): 'in order to achieve sustainable development,policies must be based on the precautionary principle. Environmental neasures must anticipate,prevent and attack the causes of environmental degradation. Where there are threats of serious or irreversible damage, lack of full scientific certainty should not be used as a reason for postponing measures o prevent environmental degradation." Jere is another prop. Check out my t-shirt reads Swim, Drink and Fish....Know you're Rights.... Ve all have a right to clean water. I love fishing in Lake Ontario and as a previous delegation stated we cannot eat fish if a certain size now from the lake. This bothers me that we looking at a technology that will add more dioxins, furans, ianoparticles and what ever to our drinking water. We are going in the wrong direction. n solidarity, )ave Renaud, President CAW D.R.E.C. 905) 404-1279 )ave.Renaud@rogers.com Atkinson, Ellen From: DAVE RENAUD [dave.renaud @rogers.com] Sent: Wednesday, September 05, 2007 11:45 AM To: Carola_Media/TrtoStarNyhnak; Jennifer_Media/OshaTW/Stone; Atkinson, Ellen; Clerks Depatment Outside Subject: Presentation of Tuesday 2007/09/04 to Clarington GPA Committee re: Incineration Hi Folks, Please find attached copy of my presentation of Tuesday 2007/09/04 to Clarington GPA Committee In solidarity, Dave Renaud CAW Environment Rep. Oshawa Autoplex President,CAW Durham Regional Environment Council W:(905)644-1374 H:(905)404-1279 F:(905)6444608 W:Dave.Renaud@gm.com H:Dave.Renaud@rogers.com Web:www.cawdrec.com 9/5/2007 DurhamNork Residual Waste Study Presentation to Clarington General Purpose and Administrative Committee By Barry Bracken—Sept. 4,2007 First of all, I wish to thank the Clarington staff and the members of council,who voted in favour, for their courage and foresight in standing up to Mr. Anderson and the Region of Durham, and insisting on an independent peer review of the Environmental Assessment (EA)process to date. After reading these reports it is clear that the reviews were well worthwhile as they drew our attention to numerous flaws and shortcomings in the process to date. These shortcomings have very serious implications for Durham and especially Clarington residents. Briefly, for the benefit of people who may not have been involved before, it has been highlighted several times in the past that this EA process was flawed from the very beginning by the lack of sufficient study of the alternatives to the waste disposal problem. From the beginning the focus has been on incineration as the preferred solution. To this end the Region retained the firms, Genivar and Jacques Whitford as consultants. It has been brought to our attention that both these firms are members of the Canadian Energy— from-Waste Coalition. This coalition has hired a professional lobbyist to lobby various government offices on their behalf. The real capper for me is that one of the members of the coalition is the Canadian Plastics Association. If you manufacture plastics you love incinerators! Plastics are an important source of fuel for incinerators and when we burn it, more plastic has to be manufactured. Unfortunately, for the general public, when certain types of plastic are burned,they produce very harmful toxic emissions. The point is that these consultants who are guiding the Region in the EA process have a vested interest in the incineration business. We,who have been opposing this project, have noticed how Regional councilors seem to be more influenced by them then they are by the scientists and scientific community who don't have a vested interest. Scientists such as Dr. Pengelly and Dr. Connett, and organizations such as the David Suzuki Foundation oppose the use of incinerators due to the potential health effects and global warming issues As mentioned,the independent peer reviews have drawn our attention to several short- comings in the EA process to date. Several of these concern the process used to develop the short list of sites. One of the things that prompted me to look into the EFW project in the first place was when the short list of sites was posted. I wondered how it was possible that in all of Durham and York five of the six sites were in a small section in the south east corner of Clarington. Further, if incinerators are harmless,how could this be when trucking costs would be perhaps one of the most important considerations in determining the location of an incinerator. Perhaps cynically, I wondered if the Region officials suggested to the consultants that these five sites should be considered and could they make the analysis make it so. The deficiencies identified by Mr. Rowe's report seem to support my assumption.Now I am wondering if other sites, some perhaps in Oshawa or Whitby,would have been considered if the analysis had been more thorough. I want to focus now on what happens next. The PSD-097-07 report recommends that the report be received and that various sections of the report be approved as the Municipality of Clarington's comments. With all due respect,in my opinion that's not good enough! I'm afraid that the Region's response will simply be, "so what",and that they will just move on with their agenda. I think that Clarington council, if they still are unable to declare themselves an unwilling host, should do the following. In the interests of the people who elected them, they should insist that all of the shortcomings and suggestions identified in the peer review be addressed satisfactorily and further,that the facility should be designed to facilitate the disposal of Durham Region's garbage only (with the possible exception of 20,000 tons from York). People need to know that, as it stands now, there is no upper limit on the size of the proposed facility. This will at least prevent Clarington from becoming the next Michigan. If these terms can't be met then Clarington should say NO to incineration and NO to being a willing host. For me personally, I can't understand why Clarington would want to consider themselves as a willing host. After considering all the information brought forward regarding the health risks, the air quality issues, the truck traffic, the costs etc.,etc.; what could possibly make this a good idea?East Gwillimbury didn't think so and neither did Halton and Niagara Regions. Barry Bracken Port Perry, Ontario 905-985-2186 Good Evening. I'm Shirley Crago from Courtice Sept 4,2007 Who brain-washed you into believing there are only 2 methods of waste disposal - landfill and incineration?Durham ruled out landfill a long time ago. The public meetings were a mockery, supplying little if any information&very few satisfactory replies to questions. The Waste Study never took place because Durham `preferred incineration'. Any studies, including unnecessary municipality paid travel, were aimed strictly at incineration. The internet can provide a great deal of information including the destruction and bankruptcy of Detroit. Due to an incinerator they spent one billion dollars between 1989 and the present. They are hundreds of millions of dollars in debt and the contract doesn't end until 2009. Financially Clarington can't afford to subsidize the GTA, including Toronto, Northumberland, York Region and other municipalities Incineration is extremely expensive taking in all the necessary components—including 2 sites— 1 for the plant& another for the toxic bottom ash; public meetings, holidays& fuel to fire the furnace. Planning of the Energy Park must be added, as the likely hood of such an enterprise will have to be cancelled due to toxic conditions& lack of space If Courtice is selected the result will be a disaster. Traffic jams,new roads, bridges, underpasses&the 407 intersection will end in astronomical chaos. There are also the elements of stock piles, odours,rats, spillage, debris, litter,engine exhaust& lost of 401 highway profile. Why don't you consider recycling?The basic elements are in place. The greatest expense is research. Find the basic ingredient in the different types of plastic, change them to a non-toxic substance and there is a possibility of a 10%drop or more in the non- recyclable group. Reeardins incineration—32%weight is toxic bottom ash, 10% is non-disposable &2% by weight is fly ash for a total of 44%of the garbage collected. Trash vanishing up the stack into the air is 56%. The higher the stack the farther the particles are spread. If they go into the lake the drinking water will become more toxic. Any waste disposal technology that has a negative impact on Public and Environmental Health should not be considered as suitable for waste management purposes. The powers that be are counting on recycling and composting to bring the total down. Without them waste disposal using incineration cannot improve. Regardine recycling—In late August we had 55%recycled. The aim is for 60%by 2010. Use the last figure, add 10%non-disposable and 70%is accounted for. By 2010 we could dispose of 14%more by using recycle rather than incineration. By developing markets and recyclable plastics the remaining trash should be even less. Selling the results of recycle collection reduces the expenses. The income could be used to help the program be self supporting. Definitely recycle is much cheaper and has the advantage of reaching up to 80/90% recovered waste. Does Durham Region have the legal right to force Clarington to spend money it can't afford? Can Clarington legally decide the size of the incinerator? Can Clarington decide to recycle? What is contained in the Charter of Rights? Just because other municipalities don't want their trash are we compelled to take it? Gwillimbury & Newmarket councils say no. Why can't we? Who is the driving force in York? There is no incentive to recycle if you are going to import garbage. If you insist on incineration all my unwanted trash will become garbage& others feel the same. We are wasting our efforts. One of the Municipality of Clarington employees told me our land would be devaluated as a result of a `YES' vote. A life-time of hard work& our old age pension swept away. Why hasn't every newspaper from Whitby, Oshawa, Port Perry, Orono, Bowmanville & Newcastle printed a true, full explanation concerning waste disposal,particularly the issue concerning incineration, its effects,proposed site, tax increase and health risks? This is a vital issue. It should be on the front page and the papers should not be allowed to suppress it. The only reason the resistance is low is because the vast majority knows nothing about the scheme being perpetrated. How many of the councillors have notified their wards? There were an extravagant number of signs plastered all over the place at election time. `There is nothing to prevent York from increasing the amount in years to come', Curtis said. For Curtis,the decision by Toronto to buy Green Lane landfill site is a short-term solution. With only 12%why can't we dump York? York is committing only 20,000 T. to keep its foot in the door. They want to insure that no one else has precedence over them while expending a minimum of capital. In the meantime they have a contract with a waste pelletization firm & an opportunity to utilize capacity at the Green Lane landfill. A reliable source said `Don't kidd yourself; Toronto is expecting to use Clarington's incinerator'. Build a heavy barb-wire fence around Clarington, posted"NO TRASH ALLOWED" The Durham Waste Study specifically states `Economical'. Be ruthless, tighten the purse strings. Where are the undisclosed municipally owned sites? Clarington is not serviced by municipal water. Part of Courtice, Bowmanville& Newcastle are the main sources of chlorine. Most of Clarington is using wells as we are. Trash Buckingham Palace,encourage more rigorous recycling, save on taxes,keep the economy going and Clarington will bless you. The stores in Bowmanville are closing at an alarming rate. GM has cut 1200 jobs permanently &that is just the tip of the iceberg. The spin-off from this slash is going to be widely felt. People are struggling to meet expenses now. With no job& a huge mortgage the future looks grim for many. The US has totally banned new incinerators. They dismantled 100 plants manufacturing them. The 3 plants left build for export only. You are contemplating buying a US model. If it's not good enough for the Yanks it's sure not good enough for us. Please REFUSE to allow other districts, including Durham& Toronto to intimidate you into bankruptcy. As council, you represent the people; don't let others speak for you VOTE NO Date: Tuesday, September 4, 2007 For: General Purpose and Administration Committee of Council Re: Zoning Bylaw Amendment and Power Generation Station Construction by Hybridyne Power System Canada (Planning File#: ZBA 2007-0035) This letter and the attached report is to advise Council and the Citizens of Clarington of our opposition to the above stated proposal and re-zoning of 10 acres of land in Brownsville. The subject property is affectionately referred to as the "Brownsville Nature Area" by local residents and consists of forest woodlands, open meadows and seasonal wetlands, supports a diverse collection wildlife species and helps to protect the groundwater resources for nearby wells. A system of nature trails has been maintained and utilized on the property for decades. Furthermore, the subject property meets the standards to be considered a "Woodlot" as defined by the current Durham Region Tree Conservation By-Law or more appropriately described as a "Woodland" as outlined in the proposed Durham Region Forest Conservation By-Law, which is currently being considered by Regional Council. The attached Report together with a Slide Presentation was prepared by Brownsville residents and gives an overview of the property, its current status, and outlines some of the most common tree, plant and animal species that utilize the area. Our hope was to give Council and the Planning Dept. the accurate information they needed to make an informed decision on this matter. The construction of a large Solar Generating Station would require the clearing of the entire property which would involve the removal of thousands of trees and native plants, and the displacement of numerous bird and animal species. Solar Power is normally considered to be clean, quiet and having minimal environmental impact, but this is definitely not the case in this situation, where it involves the clear-cutting of a Woodland to construct it. There must be a better alternative. In our opinion, this property is best suited for wildlife habitat and light outdoor recreation. Therefore we would suggest that the best course of action for the Municipality of Clarington would be to include this land in the Natural Heritage System and re-zone it as an Environmental Protection Area and/or permanent Green Space. The residential Hamlet of Brownsville is almost completely surrounded by commercial agriculture with no official public parkland. The Brownsville Nature Area could adequately fill this purpose by providing an island of green space. We would further recommend that Council enters into an agreement with the land owner to either assume the 20 year lease, negotiate a land swapping settlement and/or purchase the land outright, to maintain this area for future generations. Respectfully submitted on behalf of the residents of Brownsville, Kevin Arbour dh qr �'ev Xj r� r ti r 2. i aid P�•+1 � E�� 41` «��ii� - Brownsville Nature Area Located just east of Newcastle Village, adjoining the Hamlet of Brownsville, this natural area is only 10 acres (4 hectares) in size but contains forest woodlands, open meadows, seasonal wetlands, diverse wildlife species and helps to protect the groundwater resources for the residents of Brownsville. It is a perfect example of a 1St and 2nd generation Successional Mixed Forest Ecosystem. The property is affectionately referred to as the "Brownsville Nature Area", and a system of trails has been maintained and utilized for decades by the residents of Brownsville for recreation and wildlife viewing. Recreation includes hiking, cycling, horseback riding, snowshoeing and cross-country skiing and the area is great for butterfly and bird watching. The following report contains a Catalog of Wildlife Species, Trail Maps and Photographs of the area. Additional high resolution photos are available to be viewed by visiting www.brownsvillenature.com N � i 39 u J L y ]{ '7 i #° 2 sQ;ml Mai CONCE Si• r w 6,4 aw x IN� � ate,'.• `�' ��. .. i « Nature Trail System The Brownsville Nature Area has an extensive trail system that has been maintained by the local residents for many years. The nature trails are moderately easy for hiking, with only gradual inclines, and the surface primarily consists of groomed grass. The following Trail Map shows the location of the existing trails superimposed over a satellite image of the Brownsville area. Please note that the photo is several years old and was taken in early spring before the deciduous plants have gone to leaf. a i ° � t Go to www.brownsvillenature.com to see a larger version of this picture. 4 Trees & Shrubs Often reclaimed agriculture areas offer limited biodiversity (ex. Cedars only), but the Brownsville Nature Area includes a wide variety of woody perennial species making it a more diverse mixed woodland. Eastern White Pine - y� Scots Pine ,. .° White Ash - ; Black Locust Pin Cherry Choke Cherry Manitoba Maple Silver Maple Norway Maple Eastern White Cedar .. Common Buckthorn Hawthorn (various species) Second Generation Growth Trembling Aspen (Poplar) After the pioneer tree species have become White Birch established, second generation tolerant Red Osier Dogwood hardwoods like this Maple Tree begin to take hold. Apple (various species) A good example of natural forest succession. White Elm Common (Creeping) Juniper Poison Ivy (Shrub & Vine) Staghorn Sumac American Mountain Ash Willow (various species) r .✓ e ' Red Osier Dogwood Very abundant in this area and an important winter browse species for White Tailed Deer as well as a good spring food source for numerous birds. 5 Plants & Wild Flowers This is by no means a comprehensive list of the numerous species found in this area, but outlines some of the most commonly occurring plants. Fern (multiple species) Aster (multiple species) Queen Anne's Lace Black Eyed Susan jf Goldenrod (multiple species) Virginia Creeper Wild Cucumber Wild Grape Vine Pinesap Milkweed ' Wild Red Raspberry Thistle (multiple species) Blue-Eyed Grass Pinesap Cow Vetch This uncommon plant found in several locations of Birdsfoot Trefoil the Nature Area is one of only 2 plants in Ontario Yarrow that contains no chlorophyll. It instead gets its nourishment from fungi associated with the roots Canadian Dwarf Cinquefoil of neighbouring coniferous trees and from Bladder Campion decaying organic matter. Pinesap grows in Mature Meadow Horsetail Conifer or Mixed Forests only. Wild Strawberry Clover (multiple species) Grasses (multiple species) x `` Sedges (multiple species) Mosses (multiple species) Upright Wood-Sorrel Ox-Eye Daisy 4 Heal-All �•� Daisy Fleabane ► Tall Buttercup St. John's-Wort y • Yellow Hawkweed Devil's Paintbrush SSpotted Joe-P e Weed Sensitive Fern p y Found growing in wet organic forest soils. 6 Birds Birds listed here utilize the area for habitat and/or feeding, and include only those species that have been directly identified by the authors of this report. American Robin Northern Oriole , White Crowned Sparrow Song Sparrow House Sparrow Chipping Sparrow 4 Hairy Woodpecker Downy Woodpecker - f American Goldfinch Blue Jay Northern Flicker ' Red-Tailed Hawk Nesting Northern Harrier Some of the birds residing in the Nature Area, Turkey Vulture such as the White Crowned Sparrow, build their Barred Owl nests directly on the ground and are sensitive to Great Grey Owl human interference. American Crow Black Capped Chickadee Gray Catbird Common Yellow Throat Cedar Waxwing Rose-Breasted Grosbeak ` Northern Cardinal Common Grackle Yellow-Bellied Sapsucker House Finch Killdeer Mourning Dove Ruby-Throated Hummingbird Eastern Kingbird Tree Swallow Fruit-Bearing Plants Barn Swallow There are more than a dozen species of fruit- bearing trees, shrubs and plants in the Brownsville White-Breasted Nuthatch Nature Area providing an invaluable food source Golden-Crowned Kinglet for a variety of birds. Dark-Eyed Junco 7 Animals This includes Large & Small Mammals, Reptiles and Amphibians. As stated earlier, this may not be a complete list, and only those species that have been observed by the authors of this report have been included. Eastern Cottontail Rabbit American Toad Spring Peeper Gray Tree Frog Red Fox q , Coyote White Tailed Deer Striped Skunk �Y Meadow Vole Field Mouse Eastern Grey Squirrel Red Squirrel Spring Peeper Eastern Chipmunk Seasonal wetlands on the property provide Hairy-Tailed Mole valuable breeding habitat for the Spring Peeper, Eastern Garter Snake Gray Tree Frog and the American Toad. Little Brown Bat Raccoon `W Gray Tree Frog This chameleon of the forest is able to change/ colours to match its surroundyin s `` ► a bra Red Squirrel r Found only in mature forest ecosystems with Coniferous trees exceeding 40 years of age. 8 Monarch Butterfly — Species at Risk The Monarch Butterfly and Larva are considered a `Species of Concern' according to the Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources' Species at Risk program, which monitors wildlife species to reduce the risk of extinction due to human interference. (Endangered Species Act) Milkweed and Monarchs Although the Adult Monarch Butterfly can feed on a variety of wildflowers, the Larva (or Caterpillar) must feed on Milkweed, its only food source. Habitat loss for .E Milkweed is one of the primary reasons for the decline of the Monarch in Ontario. The Brownsville Nature Area supports an abundance of Milkweed plants as well as multiple species of wildflowers allowing the Monarch to K: complete its entire life cycle in this one small area. In September, the Monarch Butterflies will begin their long migration south to Mexico to spend the winter, and then return again to Brownsville in the spring! s Adult Monarch (feeding on Asters) Monarch Larvae (feeding on Milkweed) 9 Greentree, Anne From: Linda Gasser[lagasser @netrover.com] Sent: Wednesday, September 05, 2007 12:55 PM To: Novak, Mary;Trim, Charlie; Hooper, Ron;Woo,Willie; Foster, Adrian; Robinson, Gord; Barrie, Patti; Greentree,Anne; Abernethy, Jim Cc: Wendy Cartwright; Steve. Katherine; Wendy Bracken and Ron Hosein; Steve Conway; Shirley Crago; Paul-Andr6 Larose; Kathi Bracken; Kerry Meydam; Jim Richards; Jaison Gibson; 'Deb Jefferson'; Dave. Renaud; Dave Renaud; Barry Bracken; Steve Conway Subject: Conduct of Delegations and Council; Copy of Sept.4 Clarington GPA delegation in September 4.07- Delegation to... Mayor Abernethy and Council Members: I copy this message to all delegations speaking on the Durham/York Waste issue last night for whom I have email addresses, many of whom witnessed the Mayor's antics last night when I spoke. Last night, a "Code of Conduct" for delegations and presentations was handed out to some members of the public. Attached is a copy of my comments as read out to GPA Committee last night. As is quite clear from reading my attached comments, while individual Council members may not have liked what I had to say, NONE of my comments were in any way disrespectful, offensive, off-topic, contrary to a Council/Committee decision, part of a debate nor did I use or assume any unallocated time. Please do review your own Conduct for Delegations criteria. Besides, I know better. Nevertheless, Mayor Abernethy saw fit to interrupt me twice, first warning me though nothing inappropriate had been said, and then he attempted to misrepresent a subsequent comment as being an insult to ,a member of Council. Thank you Councillor Trim for recognizing my right to speak, and for saying you did not perceive my comment as an insult, which, of course, it wasn't. At least someone was thinking. Perhaps our Mayor and other members should hold themselves to the same standards they set for the public. Over the last few months, particularly around the Waste issue, Mayor Abernethy has engaged in what I, and others, have interpreted as berating, and attempts to discredit, delegations and on occasion misinterpreting and/or misrepresenting what was actually said - as he did with me last night. Mayor Abernethy often prefaces his comments saying he "can't resist", and then proceeds to indulge himself by making gratuitous comments he should know could be perceived as being either disrespectful, personal, off-topic or as an attempt to attack a speaker's credibility. In my view, it is generally Mayor Abernethy who winds up looking "small" . While Mayor Abernethy doesn't have the ability to knock me off topic, I do find his behaviour embarrassing - as in embarrassing any Mayor would feel compelled to behave that way in a public forum. I am concerned that other speakers could be thrown off-balance, and that this could impact their ability to deliver the rest of their comments as they intended. I believe most Council members conduct themselves appropriately most of the time. However, tolerating inappropriate interruption of delegations demeans the positions which you hold, and greatly diminishes our respect for, and confidence in, all our elected representatives. While some people understand that in the political arena the "scoring" of political points is a tactic employed by some politicians, inappropriate behaviour by Council members 1 should not be acceptable to anyone. Yet, some members of the public are subjected to this as there appears to be no similar "Conduct for Council Members" that I'm aware of. If there is such a document, please provide it to the public. If there isn't, there should be one. Linda Gasser Tel: (905) 983-5249 2 September 4, 2007 - Delegation to Clarington GPA Committee Re: PSD 097-07 and PSD 093-07—Update on Municipal Peer Review of Durham/York Residual Waste Environmental Assessment Good Evening Mr. Mayor, Committee members, Ladies & Gentlemen: Tonight I wish to provide you with a different kind of"gap analysis". That is, Council's credibility gap and how this has undermined public confidence and tainted the entire Waste EA process. Recall on July 30th that our CAO said, in these chambers, that he couldn't sign the report in time for that meeting because he got it too late, etc. In an interview with Rogers on August 8th, Mr. Wu said the report was delayed at the Region's request, that it missed a deadline and that it was a draft for councillors to look over due to its complexity. We have the report and we have the Rogers tape. The July report was signed, you have it and it is not stamped"draft". I'm amazed no one's pants have caught on fire yet. What Council remains silent when senior staff provide incorrect information to the public, information Council would absolutely know is incorrect? In my view, only a Council devoid of capable and ethical leadership, a Council not committed to honest communication with residents and taxpayers, could have acted as you did on July 30th To add insult to injury, in an August 22"a Statesman article, Councillor Trim then likened the public who awaited the reports because the project could affect the health of their families and the future of our community, to kids who couldn't wait to open their Christmas presents. Councillor Trim, I stopped believing in Santa Claus and fairy tales a. long time ago. In a September 2nd Clarington This Week article, Mayor Abernethy apparently said that at the end of the day, most Clarington residents simply want assurance than an incinerator sited here would be safe. Mr. Mayor, we've been told repeatedly by Clarington and Regional councillors that no decision has been made about the thermal technology, yet you mention an incinerator. What information do you have that we do not because mass burn incineration is what we suspect will be the preferred technology? Mayor Abernethy went on to say"I don't think the people of Clarington are so much concerned about the site process". Where the heck are you getting your information? The fact that all the short-listed sites are in Clarington continues to be a huge concern to all Clarington residents. The Gap Analysis consultant appears to share some of those concerns, and I quote from his July report attached to PSD-093: " It is possible that the cumulative impacts of unresolved errors in the process will undermine the validity of the process as a whole". A little wordsmithing-perhaps inspired by the Region's Project Team, resulted in the word "errors"to be changed to "issues" in his August report attached to PSD-097. Linda Gasser I P.O.Box 399,Orono,LOB 1 MO E-Mail: lagasser,a netrover.com.Tel:(905)983-5249 A key concern raised by staff is that the Region has not provided reports to Clarington that would be critical to our understanding of the Site Selection Process. In the September 2nd article, Mayor Abernethy responded that: "There's nothing nefarious about that..."A lot of those reports simply are not finished yet". I understand the reports Clarington staff referenced in PSD-097 could have been released in time for us to have them before us today. Your staff advise in Sec. 3.3.3 in the clearest possible terms that the Regional studies would have provided"additional insights and could have identified specific requirements that Clarington could request if a site were selected". In Sec. 4.8, staff state: "It is important for Council to understand that a decision on the site will be made without knowing the technology vendor, the specific thermal technology, the contemplated design of the EFW plant, or the results of the site specific Human Health and Ecological Risk Assessment." Section 7.2 states: "It is premature for the Regions' project team to be making an announcement of the preferred site (scheduled for the Sept. 25`h JWMG meeting), without the Municipality having access to the studies the Regions' project team previously indicated would be available in July. These reports are critical to understanding the potential impact on the Clarington sites, in particular the Energy Park. Sufficient time for the interested municipalities, agencies and public to review and comment, and the Regions' project team to consider the comments prior to recommending a preferred site, is necessary." This puts Clarington in the position of reacting to regional decisions, rather than providing staff, public and Clarington Council with the option to be pro-active, and thus take all steps to protect the interests of residents and the municipal corporation, and, to have our input considered by the consultants prior to their recommendation. Are the Regions and their consultants not confident their studies would pass muster, or are they unwilling to have this information scrutinized and challenged prior to their planned release to JWMG? Perhaps there is another explanation. Further, in Sec. 7.3. staff write: "The Region's project team should provide the methodology for application of the evaluation criteria in the determination of the preferred site in advance of it being applied... Both reports highlight several areas where proponent commitments in the EA Terms of Reference have not been met. While some of you appear to be abandoning Clarington residents,what you and Durham Region are doing, in my opinion, is providing an awful lot of information for the Minister of Environment to review when considering approval of the project, or ammunition to be used in an appeal of any approval. This Council allowed Durham Region and/or our CAO to derail our local consultation process in July by withdrawing a local report at the Region's request (according to our CAO). Irrespective of your individual opinions on waste management, you all have an obligation to understand and consider relevant facts, whether these agree with your preferred views or not. Linda Gasser 2 P.O. Box 399,Orono,LOB 1 MO E-Mail: la a� sser.ri netrover.com.Tel:(905)983-5249 In my opinion, Clarington Council as a whole has not consistently supported a fair and transparent local consultation process -which you promised. In my opinion, you have not been effective advocates for an orderly and inclusive regional EA study. Indeed, you allowed one major opportunity for a productive exchange in July to evaporate by bowing to a request of the Region. You were elected and are paid to do all of the above, and it is a reasonable expectation on our part that you deliver on your commitments and obligations to us. Please ensure that when you support staff recommendations, make clear that as per Recs. 2 and 3, these are to be considered Clarington's incomplete (interim) comments based on information provided to date only. Ensure that the Region provides the reports, and adapts their schedule to meet our needs, so we could do our due diligence. Thank you for your attention. Linda Gasser Linda Gasser 3 P.O. Box 399,Orono,LOB 1 MO E-Mail: la asser 6i netrover.com.Tel:(905)983-5249