HomeMy WebLinkAboutPSD-012-08
Cl~mgron
REPORT
PLANNING SERVICES
PUBLIC MEETING
Meeting:
Date:
Report #:
GENERAL PURPOSE AND ADMINISTRATION)MEETING
Monday, February 4, 2008 O!(OSo\().tiOYl:::tt~PA- O~g--08
PSD-012-08 File No's: 18T-89055 and DEV 89-067 and By-law #:
18T-90003 and DEV 90-007
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STUDY - KINGSBERRYITONNO
APPLICATIONS FOR DRAFT PLAN OF SUBDIVISION AND ZONING BY-LAW
AMENDMENT
APPLICANT: WILLIAM TONNO CONSTRUCTION LIMITED AND
KINGSBERRY PROPERTIES
Subject:
RECOMMENDATIONS:
It is respectfully recommended that the General Purpose and Administration Committee
recommend to Council the following:
1. THAT Report PSD-012-08 be received;
2. THAT the Environmental Impact Study for the KingsberryfTonno development proposals
be received for information;
3. THAT staff continue processing the applications to amend the Zoning By-law and the
proposed Plan of Subdivision, submitted by William Tonno Construction Limited to
permit the development of 84 residential units;
4. THAT Staff continue processing the applications to amend the Zoning By-law and the
proposed Plan of Subdivision, submitted by Kingsberry Properties to permit the
development of 72 residential units;
5. THAT the applicant, Region of Durham, all interested parties listed in this report and any
delegations be advised of Council's decision; and
6. THAT Rev. Earle Hawley be thanked for his effort and time as an area representative
on the Steering Committee.
REPORT NO.: PSD-012-08
Submitted by:
David J. Creme, M.C.I.P., R.P.P.
Director of Planning Services
TW/CPIDJC/df
January 28, 2008
PAGE 2
Reviewed by: ~-~
Franklin Wu,
Chief Administrative Officer
CORPORATION OF THE MUNICIPALITY OF CLARINGTON
40 TEMPERANCE STREET, BOWMANVILLE, ONTARIO L 1 C 3A6 T (905)623-3379 F (905)623-0830
REPORT NO.: PSD-012-08
PAGE 3
1.0 PURPOSE
1.1 The purpose of this report is to provide background details on two subdivision and
rezoning applications in the Courtice Urban Area submitted by William Tonno
Construction Limited and Kingsberry Properties. The report also provides details on the
Environmental Impact Study undertaken for the referenced applications in accordance
with the Municipality of Clarington Official Plan policies.
2.0 APPLICATION DETAILS
2.1 Application One
2.1.1 Applicant:
William Tonno Construction Limited
2.1.2 Proposed Draft Approved Plan of Subdivision:
The proposed Draft Plan of Subdivision includes 84 residential units
consisting of 22 lots for 10.0 metre single detached dwellings; 25
lots for 12 metre single detached dwellings; 5 lots for 13.5 metre
single detached dwellings; 8 blocks for 32 townhouse dwellings, a
block for a portion of a public elementary school, stormwater
management pond and an open space block.
2.1.3 Rezoning:
To change the current zoning to permit the development of the
proposed Draft Plan of Subdivision.
2.1.4 Site Area:
9.058 hectares (22.382 acres)
2.2 Application Two
2.2.1 Applicant:
Kingsberry Properties
2.2.2 Proposed Draft Approved Plan of Subdivision:
The proposed Draft Plan of Subdivision includes 72 residential units
consisting of 30 lots for 10.0 metre single detached dwellings, 10
lots for 12 metre single detached dwellings, 2 lots for 15 metre
single detached dwellings, 7 blocks for 30 townhouse dwellings,
and a block for a portion of a public elementary school.
2.2.3 Rezoning:
To change the current zoning to permit the development of the
proposed Draft Plan of Subdivision.
2.2.4 Site Area:
6.218 hectares (15.364 acres)
REPORT NO.: PSD-012-08
PAGE 4
3.0 LOCATION
3.1 The subject lands are located between Tooley Road and Trulls Road in Courtice north
of George Reynolds Drive and Daiseyfield Drive (Attachment 1 and Attachment 2).
4.0 SITE CHARACTERISTICS AND SURROUNDING LAND USES
4.1 The subject site is currently vacant. Less than half of the site is covered with mature
trees. The balance of the'site which had been cleared approximately twenty years ago
is in a state of re-growth. A tributary of Farewell Creek runs through the north-west
corner of the site.
4.2 Surrounding Uses (Attachment 3)
North -
South -
East -
Vacant lands, Farewell Creek and its tributary
Urban Residential - Kassinger subdivision
Urban Residential and Vacant lands subject to applications DEV90-007 and
18T-90003
Portion of the Farewell Creek and associated valley and beyond that lands
fronting on Tooley Road
West -
5.0 BACKGROUND
5.1 Application bv William Tonno Construction Ltd.
5.1.1 On January 9, 2008, D.G. Biddle & Associate Limited, on behalf of William Tonno
Construction Limited, submitted a revised draft plan in support of the subdivision and
rezoning applications. These applications would permit a subdivision containing a total
of 84 units consisting of twenty-two, 10.0 metre single detached dwellings; twenty-five,
12.0 metre single detached dwellings; five, 13.5 metre single detached dwellings; thirty-
two, townhouse units, a portion of a public elementary school block, stormwater
management pond and an open space block.
The revised draft plan was submitted in response to the findings of the Environmental
Impact Study (EIS) prepared by Aquafor Beech. The draft EIS was presented to the
public on November 1, 2007. The final report was completed in December, 2007. An
overview of the EIS is contained in Section 8.
5.1.2 The current proposal is the second revision. The first revision submitted in January
2002, proposed a total of 116 dwelling units. The original application submitted in May
1989 contained a total of 93 dwelling units. The following chart illustrates the
differences between the May 1989 proposal, the January 2002 revision and the current
proposal.
REPORT NO.: PSD-012-08
PAGE 5
10.0 m single detached units nla nla 22
12.0 m single detached units 36 58 25
13.5 m single detached units nla nla 5
15.0 m single detached units 57 51 nla
18.0 m semi-detached units nla 22 nla
7.0 m townhouse units nla 15 32
Total Residential Units 93 116 84
Total Residential Area (hal 4.794 4.7 3.207
Retained by owner (ha) nla nla 0.220
Future Residential (ha) 0.529 0.03 0.042
School (ha) nla 0.72 0.713
Stormwater Management Pond (ha) nla 1.35 0.887
Open Space (ha) 0.997 0.75 1.447
Park (ha) 0.309 nla nla
0.3m Reserves (ha) 0.007 0.01 0.012
Road Allowance (ha) 2.114 3.40 2.530
Total Area of Submission (hal 8.750 10.96 9.058
The total area of the submission increased in 2002 with the inclusion of lands north of
the proposed Adelaide Avenue for a stormwater management pond and open space
block. This area was removed from the plan in the latest submission as these lands are
located within Special Study Area 6 of the Clarington Official Plan. Prior to considering
development within this study area a watershed planning study for the Farewell and
Black Creeks must be completed and approved by the Province, Conservation
Authority, Region of Durham and the Municipality.
5.2 Application bv Kinasberrv Properties
5.2.1 On July 26, 2007 D.G. Biddle & Associate Limited, on behalf of Kingsberry Properties,
submitted a revised draft plan drawing in support of the subdivision and rezoning
applications. The revised drawing proposes a subdivision containing a total of 72 units
consisting of thirty, 10.0 metre single detached dwellings; ten, 12.0 metre single
detached dwellings; two, 15 metre single detached dwellings; thirty townhouse units,
and a portion of a public elementary school block.
The revised applications were submitted in response to the research findings for the
Environmental Impact Study (EIS) prepared by Aquafor Beech. The draft EIS was
REPORT NO.: PSD-012-08
PAGE 6
presented to the public on November 1, 2007. The final report was completed in
December, 2007. An overview of the EIS is contained in Section 8.
5.2.2 The original application submitted in January 1990 consisted of 116 residential units.
The first revision, submitted in the spring of 2000, contained 76 dwelling units. The
following chart illustrates the differences between the 1990 proposal, the 2000 revision
and the current proposal.
10.0 m single detached units n/a n/a 30
12.0 m single detached units 14 4 10
13.5 m single detached units n/a 4 n/a
15.0 m single detached units n/a n/a 2
18.0 m semi-detached/link lots (9.0m 102 36 n/a
units)
7.0 m townhouse units n/a 32 30
Total Residential Units 116 76 72
Total Residential Area (ha) 4.0796 2.64 2.663
Future Residential (ha) 0.1386 0.09 0.090
School (ha) n/a 1.5 1.5
0.3m Reserves (ha) 0.0020 0.01 0.01
Road Allowance (ha) 1.8993 1.95 1.955
Total Area of Submission (ha) 6.1195 6.19 6.218
5.2.3 The difference in area between the proposals is attributed to the addition of a lot that
fronts onto Trulls Road in the vicinity of the proposed Adelaide Avenue extension; and
the removal of a portion of Daiseyfield Avenue at the southwest corner of the plan.
5.3 In November 1989, Council adopted a resolution suspending all decisions on existing
and future subdivision and rezoning applications north of Nash Road pending the
results or a Need and Route Study for the extension of Adelaide Avenue. The 1991
Durham Region Official Plan recognized this need by identifying Adelaide Avenue as
extending from Townline Road to Courtice Road.
5.4 In June 2004, the Region of Durham initiated an Environmental Assessment for the
extension of Adelaide Avenue from Townline Road to Trulls Road. The purpose of the
Study was to assess the need for the extension, identify the environmental impacts of
alternative solutions and the design alternatives, and finally to identify the preferred
alternative. The Study completed on November 18, 2005, recommended the
construction of a three lane urban/semi-urban road extension from Townline Road to
Trulls Road with a culvert bridge crossing over Harmony and Farewell Creeks. The
REPORT NO.: PSD-012-08
PAGE 7
existing McLean Road right-of-way would be incorporated into the proposed Adelaide
Avenue right-of-way. The proposed subdivisions include the Adelaide Avenue
alignment in whole or in part generally as recommended in the Environmental
Assessment.
A local resident has requested that the Minister of the Environment (MOE) make an
order for the project to comply with Part II of the Environmental Assessment Act. The
primary concerns identified in the request were the crossing of the road through a
provincially significant wetland, roads that may cause groundwater contamination and
land pollution by spreading invasive species into environmentally sensitive areas and
the use of culverts instead of free span bridges in proximity to fish spawning grounds.
The Region is awaiting a decision from the MOE on the Part II order request. Until a
decision is made, the route for the Adelaide Avenue extension is not finalized and a final
recommendation on the proposed applications will not be forwarded to Council.
6.0 PROVINCIAL POLICY
6.1 Provincial Policy Statement
The subject applications were submitted prior to the release of the new Provincial Policy
Statement (PPS) on March 1, 2005. At the time of the original application a PPS
regarding land use planning and management of natural heritage resources had not
been issued.
7.0 OFFICIAL PLAN POLICIES
7.1 Durham Region Official Plan
The lands are designated Living Area within the Durham Regional Official Plan. Lands
designated as Living Area permit the development of communities with defined
boundaries, incorporating the widest possible variety of housing types, sizes and tenure.
The proposed uses appear to conform to the Plan.
7.2 Clarinaton Official Plan
The subject lands are predominantly designated Urban Residential. There is also an
Environmental Protection Area designation related to a branch of the Farewell Creek.
The Medium Density symbols and a Public Elementary School symbol are also
identified on the subject lands. The lands are within the Highland Neighbourhood,
which has a population target of 4100 people and a housing target of 1400 units. The
extension of Adelaide Avenue is designated as a Type 'c' Arterial and generally forms
the north boundary of the urban residential designation. In accordance with Map 82, a
Collector Road in the vicinity of Street "A" is to connect Adelaide Avenue with George
Reynolds, which is also a Collector Road. The remaining streets within the proposed
plan of subdivision are classified as Local Roads.
REPORT NO.: PSD-012-08
PAGE 8
Low Density residential uses shall be developed at a density of 10-30 units per net
residential hectare. The predominant housing form shall be single detached, semi-
detached and duplex to a maximum height of 2.5 stories. Medium Density residential
uses shall be developed at 31-60 units per net residential hectare. The predominant
housing form shall be townhouses, triplex/quadraplex, and low-rise apartments to a
maximum of four storeys.
The Clarington Official Plan requires the minimum site area for future elementary
schools on full municipal sewers to be approximately 2.5 hectares in size. The
proposed school block is divided between the two subject subdivision applications.
Official Plan policies require an Environmental Impact Study (EIS) be undertaken for
development applications located on lands within or adjacent to the Lake Iroquois
Beach, or any natural heritage feature identified on Map C. An EIS is also required for
development proposals within 120 metres of the boundary of a wetland or wetland
complex. Map 'C' identifies the branch of the Farewell Creek as a cold water stream
with significant valleys as well as wetlands along the north limits of the submissions.
This study has been undertaken in accordance with the policies of the Clarington
Official Plan
8.0 ZONING BY-LAW
8.1 Within Comprehensive Zoning By-law 84-63 as amended the lands are zoned
"Agricultural (A)". A zoning by-law amendment will be required in order for development
to proceed.
9.0 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STUDY
9.1 In March 2006 Aquafor Beech was retained by the Municipality to conduct a joint
Environmental Impact Study (EIS) in support of the proposals submitted by Kingsberry
Properties and William Tonno Construction Limited. The expense for the study was
borne by the applicants. The consultant examined the site in the spring, summer and fall
of 2006. The draft EIS findings were presented to the public at an open house on
November 1, 2007 at the Courtice Community Complex.
9.2 A Steering Committee for the EIS was formed including a citizen representative from the
area; staff from the Central Lake Ontario Conservation Authority, the Region of Durham,
Clarington Engineering Services and Planning Services Departments; the applicants;
and the EIS consultant.
9.3 The purpose of the EIS was to fulfil the requirements of the Clarington Official Plan and
other applicable legislation and policies. This included identifying significant natural
heritage features, how those features function, and potential impacts the proposed
developments may have on those features. The EIS was to identify lands to be
REPORT NO.: PSD-012-08
PAGE 9
preserved, propose mitigating measures to address negative effects, identify the
potential for restoration and/or creation of wildlife habitat; and examine the potential
impact of development on groundwater function and quality.
9.4 The EIS concluded that the site was comprised of interspersed cultural communities
and thicket swamps in the mid to late stages of succession. It was determined that the
soils have poor infiltration potential with a high water table. Multiple wetland pockets
were discovered, however, most occurred as a result of human disturbance associated
with previous agricultural and clearing practices. With the exception of a riparian
wetland feature associated with the drainage swale that crosses the subject properties,
none of the wetland pockets are considered part of the Harmony-Farewell Iroquois
Beach Provincially Significant Wetland Complex. A high level of human disturbance
was noted in the form of tracks, trails and the dumping of household debris. No
provincially significant plants, birds, mammals or amphibians were located.
It was determined that there is an abundance of breeding frogs which is unusual for an
agricultural landscape. This is likely attributed to the time of year the Amphibian survey
was conducted and the fact that the spring of 2006 was relatively wet compared to
previous years. Frogs require pools of water absent of predatory fish for breeding in the
spring; and adjoining forests for summer and winter habitat.
9.5 Recommendations
The EIS supports development provided the design compensates for and/or avoids
impacts where possible to; amphibian breeding, significant plant species, the riparian
wetland feature, and the small wetland on the north side of the Adelaide Avenue
extension and on adjacent lands. Approximately 2 hectares of wetland habitat will
need to be created and must interconnect with upland forest habitat to support
amphibian habitats. The provision of a 30 metre setback is required to act as a buffer
from the Provincially Significant Wetland. Regionally and locally rare plant species are
to be transplanted in either the buffer area or wetlands to the north. The Environmental
Constraints map contained in Attachment 5 shows the location of the proposed buffer
areas with opportunity for wetland creation. A total of twelve recommendations for
subdivision re-design were provided.
The current submissions are reflective of these recommendations which will be
incorporated into the conditions of draft approval in the event that the proposals are
recommended for approval. The final design will be peer reviewed, as a condition of
draft approval, to ensure all recommendations are addressed and the potential for
hydrological impacts on the remaining wetlands are identified and the appropriate
mitigation measures are in place. The recommendations for the EIS are included as
Attachment 4 and the Final EIS is available for review in the Planning Services
Department.
REPORT NO.: PSD-012-08
PAGE 10
10.0 PUBLIC NOTICE AND SUBMISSIONS
10.1 Public Notice was given by mail to each landowner within 120 metres of the subject site.
Public Meeting signs were installed on the property along the Islay Court, Daisyfield
Avenue and Trulls Road frontages.
10.2 Previous Public meetings were held on November 20, 1989, April 2, 1990, July 3,2000
and March 4, 2002 to review the previous submissions. An Open House for the
Environmental Impact Study (EIS) was held on November 1, 2007. The Open House
was attended by approximately 40 residents.
10.3 Numerous inquiries and submissions have been received since the applications were
submitted in 1989. Concerns and comments expressed to date focus on the following
matters:
Natural Environment
. What is the impact of development on lands adjacent to provincially
significant wetland, natural features, plants and wildlife.
. A regenerated wetland and woodland would be more desirable and essential
benefit to our local environment rather than another incidence of urban
sprawl.
. Why is a buffer not recommended south of Adelaide on the Kingsberry
Properties site; and why were the wetlands south of Adelaide Avenue not
included in the Harmony Farewell Iroquois Beach Provincially Significant
Wetland.
. Increase the amount of protected lands and provide a conservation beltway
on either side of Firwood Avenue.
. These sites would provide a regional corridor between' Farewell Creek Valley
and Trulls Road.
. The EIS recommended that more important vegetation can be moved
northwardly to the Special Study Area. The writer is concerned that when it
will come time to develop that area the owner will not desire to keep these
species! Without vegetative cover the groundwater recharge function cannot
be performed successfully. That is the reason for the water table decline in
the Courtice north water basin. With climate change, the groundwater will
become more and more rare to find.
. Recommendations like transplanting or creating wetland habitat somewhere
else seldom work because there is no monitoring of successffailure after
completion of subdivision.
. Sites identified as substitutes for linkages and transplanting are overtaken by
invasive species of flora and fauna. Will the transplanted rare plants survive?
. Assumption that the Adelaide extension would proceed reduces the scope of
the EIS to one of mitigating risk to the adjacent PSW, rather than allowing the
study the latitude to suggest outright protection of the study areas.
. Natural features will be removed by the extension of Adelaide Avenue. Major
roads create more damage not only to nature but to humans in many ways,
REPORT NO.: PSD-012-08
PAGE 11
among them air and water and noise pollution and further expansion of urban
boundary.
School Site
. A couple of comments were received questioning the need for another
elementary school in North Courtice. One citizen expressed support of the
proposed school site.
Subdivision Construction and Desian
. The timing of the development was questioned.
. Concerns about increased construction traffic, noise and dust were raised.
. The proposed lots should be consistent with existing development.
. A buffer should be located between the existing and proposed development.
This could provide opportunity to incorporate a trail.
. We need more greenbelt walkways in the community rather than more soccer
and baseball fields.
. We need to build sustainable and healthy communities that are walkable
and safer without major roads like Adelaide Ave. that will transect the remains
of natural features.
Tressoassina
. Adequate fencing should be installed by the developer to discourage
trespassing upon sensitive lands and the privately held valley lands in order
to minimize associated liability.
Stormwater Manaaement
. Issues of ponding north of Islay Court and flooding of basements was noted.
. Questions on how stormwater will get to Farewell Creek were raised.
. Questions regarding potential erosion and destabilization of the Farewell
Creek valley wall due to increased flow (volume and duration).
. The Storm Water Management Pond design should be visually pleasing
. Properties that abut a portion of the William Tonno Construction Ltd. (Ton no)
Plan of Subdivision to the west contain a minor watercourse that will serve as
the stormwater discharge for both plans of subdivision. The watercourse is
already stressed from additional runoff attributable to the removal of
vegetative cover and removal of a number of small natural ponds from the
Tonno and Kingsberry lands. The watercourse runs at the toe of a marginally
stable valley wall. Two property owners express concerned that additional
flow, and resultant scour of the stream, will result in a slope failure. One
owner proposed possible solutions that include acquisition of drainage
easements (with full indemnification) or outright acquisition and transfer of
major portions of the valley lands into public ownership.
REPORT NO.: PSD-012-08
PAGE 12
11.0 AGENCY COMMENTS
11.1 Application bv William Tonno Construction Ltd.
11.1.1 A number of departments and agencies have been circulated the recently revised
submission for comments. They will be addressed through subsequent reports.
11.2 Application bv Kinqsberrv Properties
11.2.1 Clarington Emergency and Fire Services, Rogers Cable, Durham Region Transit and
Hydro One offered no concerns or objections to the proposal. Bell Canada and
Enbridge Gas Distribution Inc., offered no objections to the proposal and asked that
standard conditions be included in the conditions of draft approval.
11.2.2 Clarington Operations Department indicated that the closest stormwater management
ponds do not appear to have been sized to accommodate stormwater from this
development. Confirmation on how stormwater run-off from this development will be
handled is required. The Operations Department also requested a phasing plan
clarifying how road connections to the south and Adelaide Avenue will be implemented;
and the planned access for winter road maintenance during construction.
11.2.3 The Clarington Engineering Services Division reviewed the above-noted application and
found the proposal to be premature in nature. Prior to any approval or endorsement in
principle for the proposed development, it will be necessary for the developer to address
the following concerns to the satisfaction of the Director of Engineering Services:
. Adelaide Avenue Extension
The northerly limit of the proposed development is designated in the current
Official Plan as the location for a future mid-block arterial road commonly referred
to as Adelaide Avenue. The future alignment for this roadway as well as the
specific location within the proposed draft plan for the future roadway has not yet
been finalized. The future alignment of the mid-block arterial road must be
established and approved by the Region of Durham, the Central Lake Ontario
Conservation Authority and the Director of Engineering Services prior to any
approval, in principle, of the subject draft plan.
. StormWater Management
A significant portion of the subject lands are situated within a watershed that is
tributary to a downstream stormwater management facility referred to as
Kassinger Pond. It is not clear if the subject development can be engineered in a
manner that directs all stormwater flows to this downstream facility. The applicant
will be required to provide the Engineering Services Department with an updated
Stormwater Management Implementation Report which identifies all of the
separate watershed areas contained within the subject draft plan and adjacent
REPORT NO.: PSD-012-08
PAGE 13
plans of subdivision. The report must update the February 07, 1997 Penwest
Subdivision - Stormwater Drainage Assessment (G.M. Sernas & Associates Ltd.)
and must confirm where restrictor plates have been installed. This report shall be
subject to the approval of the Director of Engineering Services prior to any
approval of the subject application.
The downstream stormwater management facility known as Kassinger Pond is
subject to an endeavour to collect agreement. This plan of subdivision under
consideration is a beneficiary of the oversized works and the applicant will be
required to pay an appropriate share of previously constructed downstream
works.
The applicant's engineer will be required to prepare a Master Grading and
Drainage Plan that details the configuration of the on-site storm sewer system
(minor system) and the conveyance of the overland flow (major system) from the
subject development. The required Plan must identify all tributary watershed
areas, outfall locations and proposed stormwater management facilities. The
Plan will be subject to the approval of the Director of Engineering Services prior
to the approval of the subject draft plan.
11.2.4 The Central Lake Ontario Conservation Authority noted that until such time as the
Adelaide Avenue Environmental Assessment process has been finalized, Authority staff
would not be able to provide conditions of draft approval.
A preliminary site servicing/stormwater report is required to be submitted in support of
the application. While a proposed stormwater facility is located within the proposed plan
of subdivision to the west (Tonno), the proponent of 18T-90003 (Kingsberry) may be
able to convey stormwater flows southerly into the existing storm sewer system.
The submitted final draft of the EIS indicates that a peer review should be undertaken
for the individual plans of subdivision. This work would address the transplanting and
relocation of the regionally/locally significant flora species on the sites as well as how
potential hydrological impacts of the provincially significant wetland (pSW) will be
addressed through the site design. It is staffs belief that until site servicing has been
addressed and identified within 18T-90003, it is difficult to assess the hydrological
impacts upon the surrounding PSW.
Therefore, until such time as the final alignment of Adelaide Avenue has been approved
and a preliminary site servicing/stormwater management report has been submitted, we
are unable to provide conditions of draft approval for plan of subdivision 18T -90003.
12.0 STAFF COMMENTS
12.1 Much of the input received from the Public to date focused on preserving the subject
lands in a natural state. It was indicated that this would provide a habitat for plants and
animals, provide an additional buffer to the Harmony Farewell Iroquois Beach
REPORT NO.: PSD-012-08
PAGE 14
Provincially Significant Wetland, act as a wildlife corridor, protect the groundwater
recharge function and help curb urban sprawl.
Staff is sensitive to these requests and understand that the neighbouring residents have
taken the opportunity to enjoy the subject property and adjacent land which the owners
have left to regenerate to a natural state since it was last cleared in the late 1980's to
early 1990's.
It should be noted that these lands do not exhibit environmental characteristics
significantly different than the lands did in residentially developed area abutting to the
south. These lands are within the Urban Boundary and are designated for residential
development in both the Clarington Official Plan and Region of Durham Official Plan.
The Urban Boundary was established to provide areas for urban growth in an effort to
curb urban sprawl into surrounding rural areas. If residential development is prohibited
within already designated areas, the municipality may experience development
pressures in less desirable areas to accommodate an expected population of 130,000
by 2016.
12.2 An EIS was conducted in accordance with the polices contained within Section 4 of the
Clarington Official Plan and provides recommendations that will minimize impacts on
the natural environment including the groundwater, flora, fauna and adjacent
Provincially Significant Wetland.
12.3 The public questioned the scope of the EIS based on the assumption that the Adelaide
Avenue extension would receive final approval. If it is not approved then the proposal
would require revisions as Adelaide Avenue plays a major role in the design of the plan.
A major revision could require amendments to the final EIS. The cost of which would be
borne by the applicant.
12.4 The need for another public elementary school site was questioned by the residents.
Staff is awaiting comments from the Kawartha Pine Ridge District School Board who will
determine if the site is still required. The Clarington Official Plan requires elementary
school sites to be approximately 2.5 hectares in size. The subject applications contain
a 1.5 hectare block (Kingsberry) to be combined with a 0.713 hectare block (Tonno),
creating a school site that is 2.213 hectares. The school board will need to confirm the
adequacy of the proposed site.
12.5 Two residents from Tooley Road expressed concern about the possibility of stormwater
from the proposed development draining into Farewell Creek and adding to the erosion
and destabilization of portions of the Farewell Creek Valley located within their
properties. Additional concerns regarding ponding and the flooding of basements in the
vicinity of Islay Court were also expressed.
The applicants have yet to submit a Stormwater Management Implementation Report
and Master Grading and Drainage Plan which would detail how stormwater from the
development would drain. These reports must be submitted for review by the Region of
REPORT NO.: PSD-012-08
PAGE 15
Durham, Central Lake Ontario Conservation Authority and Clarington Engineering
Services in order for this application to be further processed.
12.6 Staff will need to discuss the intent of Block 61 within 18T-89055 with the applicant. It is
identified as being 'Retained by Owner'. However it may be appropriate to add these
lands to the Open Space Block. The EIS identifies this area as having 'Opportunities for
Wetland Creation' (Attachment 4).
13.0 CONCLUSIONS
13.1 The purpose of this report is to satisfy the Public Meeting requirements under the
Planning Act and taking into consideration the outstanding comments, staff respectfully
request that this report be referred back to staff for further processing and the
preparation of a subsequent report.
Attachments:
Attachment 1 -
Attachment 2 -
Attachment 3 -
Attachment 4 -
Location Map - William Tonno Construction Limited
Location Map - Kingsberry Properties
Air Photo of the Subject Lands
KingsberryfTonno Environmental Impact Study Final Report - Section 9.0
Conclusion and Recommendations
KingsberryfTonno Environmental Impact Study Final Report - Figure 6:
Environmental Constraints
Attachment 5 -
Interested parties to be notified of Council and Committee's decision:
Rocco Berlino
Michael Smith
Brenda & Louie Strumenikovsky
Ronald Whalley
Michael Kirkus
Linda Garrett
Nigel Sullivan
Johanne Joly
Gary Zolumoff
Doris Reid
Mike Munce
Fred Gilmour
Scott & K. Shepley
John & K. Barriball
Paul Barta & Stacey MacNeil
Brad & Carolyn Mullin
Emily Pardy
Daniel Sharp
Derek Hampson & Mary McCracken
Bill & D. Knott
Michael & Carolyne Pennell
Scott & M. McConnell
Henry and M. McTear
Scott Devlin
Cheryl and Paul Kelly
Glenn and Janet Lance
Scott & Tricia Mitchell
Brian Broadbent & Joelle Dove
David & Amy Ross
John & Norma Hardy
Scott Millar & Melanie Campbell
Joel Peron & Katherine Ross
REPORT NO.: PSD-012-08
PAGE 16
Arthur mann
Sean Cumming and Charlene Kay
Stewart Prouty
Kerry Meydam
Erhard Witzke
Mark Foley
Ivan Kehoe
Bill Rothman
Cliff Curtis
Libby Racansky
Marge & Rod Painter
Brad Greentree
Nick Mensink
Michael and Deborah Rogan
Lorraine & Larry Barlow
Daniel & Donna Lamb
Lorraine & Jim Porter
Robin Keith
John & Julie Pluister
S. & P. Sweeny
Mark & Shannon Handy
Klaus & J. Cockhop
Gary Norwick
David Tonkin
Bob & Joan Blackburn
Darlene Smith
John Sklavos
Don & Doreen Hicks
David Tonkin
Scott Shepley
Scott Devlin
Stewart Prouty
Lianne Dixon
Timothy & Beverly Collins
Darlene and Phil Yahn
Bill and Evelyn Mason
Peter and Julie Guimond
r 8';Q
rrm rp-~' ~ J
~l~ ' I
~ ~ ~
==
;:::
II T~.
_ -F~
~ll ['~''".,~
-
..
u
'E
::l
8 I
Q: I
..
:IE
1\
.3
~
J
a..
~'"
~y
\\\
\0
\\\~
\
~~~
<[
.
P'1
q
w
z
~
o
Vl
q
Z
<[
-.I
DC
W
:r:
c-
D
o \\
( ~
\ 0 (L:::;
I b '---/ ~ /r.I
~1~1d rnn.:l
..10100=
I-
Z
w
::E
c
"Z
U)W
C::E
,ee
~3:
:>:5
w>.
elD
C>
z
z
2
I/I/;" ;V
.,,, /
I
29 :>1"18:
m
,
, i
M~
~c
:s~
~~
~ l~
- ~
_ 1 ~ l~
8 -. fT - '! I ~
~ ~ '~... ~ot,~ ~I ~og;[,' IJi ! g ~ ~
~__ r.'L1 I"'LI ~09'~ I ~ I;:!"'"
, I"'LI l < ;.-
,tJ, 133~lS ~ i:l ~ ~
_ _ _ .., c
~ 2. " "I ~ ~ ~I ' - ... B30iS
"I OlJ. B J, '22'"
'1':' .0,- I ~
~:\ ~~ l~
1 'C~\ll io.~,~ I iof,1 j 1II n I ~~
I N'..l 1''1e1 l"'ll 1 f~Oli I - : :-
, _ .g. 10noo -4' .
"'" ~/~_ or -' I ~- ~ ~ _\ \ \
"h - - - 1 .. ej'-,
z
<
0'
~
i ~ 'I N N I ~ I ~- ~.
\ '. ,,\ ~ ~_ ~ _ U I . ~ ~
~ 'l, ".\ N "'-'0 l~ ~~
\." \:'<~> /\(~ ~ I.. ~~~~~M_~ :
~' "\'\\,.Y' .
li _ - ' ,e-.
.\ :; ~ \ ~., '
, ~ '..;\l, I~, \\... 'l
_~ ~"_ _,..'\ I '"
u
~
z
u
>
<
~i
~.
. 11
,
,
.
,
~ I
,
.
,
M
,
-
C
CD
E
'C
C
CD
E
ee
." c
.".2
c.!!!
0) >
co .-
,'C
J-.D
co :l
....0
...
o
C
III
0.
=
l!!
c
'7'/ ' .
!fI
wk
>
~f-
~ L-
~
~~
w
o
nt 1
-08
~
i.:
CD
~
1
~ w
0
0 L- I
c
" w
0
R L-
~ l--
.
~\)J If
'r(:: J
In"
. \ ~
~
~
ir-.-
"
o
~
c
U
I \~
!'!'o.,
Attachment 2
To Report PSD:D~2-08
-
c
Gl
~ E Ul
~ Z 'tl Gl
.. W c t::
u ::& Gl
'f E Gl
::J C <( Co
0 Z ~
(.) "- w c
- c:> ::& t") 0 Q.
CL c:> <( c:> .- ~
II , c:> .!!l
c:> ...
:Ii ~ :i: c:> .~ Gl
c: "::5 ~'tl ,Q
0 ....,Q Ul
~ >, Cl
W>- co ::I C
u ....1/)
0 em 52
..J '0
~ C) c i.:
Z Cll Gl
.. Z c
CL ii: ~
!! 0 = 0
a. N l!
c
~ A.-flht'A
"] D .
DO 21
~. ~~
.,
~
w
~
Z ....
w w
;:: w
'"
t;;
. w 1<
. 0 0
~ ~
. ~
"'
w "
0
<{
a.....Oll Sllnlll
J
~
"
~l:i~~~:;I~
.
- - . -
-,
..-
-~
.-
.
~~
~
:i
o
..
~
,~
~ ::!I ~ ~l!::: ~
. ~
w
. >
"'
. 0
N 9
0
~ ~
w
~ -~ u:
N ~
N '"
" ~ ~ t=
~
~ ~
-,
u.-,,-=:
.-
,
N -
"'I <<>1....1 <;g II) .,.:..,
3nN3^,1 aOOM~I;I
,
-"..........
i'l
"~<
.~<
~u~
.
'"
z
B
....
o
-l
w
u
Z (\j
o '"
....
::J
~I
";
Attachment 3
. To Report PSD-012-08
~~~
Ii
It)
It)
c
en
co
.
I-
co
....
"C
C
III
......
co
C
I
en
co
'>
CI)
c
m
It)
It)
c
en
co
I
I-
co
....
"C
C
III
......
CO
C
I
en
CO
'>
CI)
C
~
;-
~i
Attachment 4
To Report PSD-012-08
Kingsberry Tonno Environmental Inventory Study
Final Report
December 2007
9.0 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
The site is composed of interspersed cultural communities and thicket swamps in mid to
late stages of succession. Soils are silt loams and sandy loams with poor infiltration
potential, and a high water table. There are many wet depressions and swales on the
subject properties. Although 4 ofthese wetland pockets appear to be natural, none of the
wetland pockets are considered part ofthe Harmony-Farewell Creek Iroquois Beach
Provincially Significant Wetland Complex, which ends at the north edge ofthe Adelaide
Street extension (Figure 6). The riparian wetland feature associated with the drainage
swale that crosses the study area is also part ofthe PSW. Generally, human impacts on
the site are high. There are numerous tracks and trails on the site, and some dumping of
household debris. Just north of the site, there are areas used for bike trails.
The Environmental Assessment for the Adelaide Street Extension makes no provision for
maintaining any north-south linkages between the PSW and the lands to the south of the
road right of way, except for a culvert or spanning structure (yet to be determined) over
the riparian wetland feature, and a spanning structure over Farewell Creek. Thus except
for this riparian feature, there is no benefit in establishing a buffer to be associated with
the southerly limit of the PSW features. On the north side, 30 m buffers have been
shown around each of the wetland features that are part of the PSW; however it is
apparent that portions ofthese features will be eliminated by the road extension. In
addition, there is one small feature that is within the study area on the north side of the
Adelaide Street Extension Right of Way.
9.1 Site Function
The site is a reservoir for local and some regionally significant plant and animal species
of successional transitional and wetland habitats. There is evidence that several bird
species of conservation concern in Durham Region nest on the site, particularly in
wetlands. The wetlands on the site provide breeding habitat for abundant frogs,
particularly species that require temporary pools in spring and wooded upland habitat in
summer and winter. These wetlands contribute to the function of the HFIBW complex as
a whole by providing habitat for breeding amphibians, and thus increasing reproduction
in the region. Though other wetlands within the complex and in the region provide
habitat for abundant amphibians, for example wetlands to the northwest (McCormick
Rankin 2005), the wetlands on the subject properties may especially boost reproduction
in wet years, assisting in maintaining regional populations through adverse conditions
such as dry years or unusually cold winters. These frogs tend to become extirpated in
urbanized landscapes (for example, there are almost no locations for these species in
Mississauga or Toronto, even in larger river and creek systems, because ofthe lack of
vernal pools). They are highly sensitive to development, because in the course of
development small temporary wetlands are developed, hydroperiod within wetlands is
changed, andlor the connections between upland and wetland habitat are disrupted.
The site also likely functions as a movement corridor between the habitat on the site, the
habitat to the west along Farewell Creek and the wetlands east and north of the site, as
Aquafor Beech LId
North South Environmental Inc.
17
Kingsberry Tonno Environmental Inventory Study
Final Report
December 2007
noted by McCormick Rankin and reinforced by the fmdings of the present study. It is
likely that the surrounding area is highly interconnected in terms of animal movement,
except to the south, where residential development forms an ecological barrier.
9.2 Potential Impacts of Adelaide Street Extension
The function ofthe wetlands on the site is likely to be completely compromised by the
Adelaide A venue extension across the north boundary of the site. The extension will
essentially eliminate four ofthe most important wetlands on the site, and will form an
ecological barrier to animal movement north and south across the extension. In addition,
there may be impacts on the water balance of the wetlands on the site from impairment of
surface drainage and groundwater patterns. Impacts of the Adelaide A venue Extension
will inevitably compound impacts from the current subdivision design, as the subdivision
design will eliminate most wetlands on the site, while the connection to wetlands to the
north will be disrupted by the road.
9.3 Potential Impacts of Subdivision Design
The function ofthe non-provincially significant wetlands on the site as an amphibian
breeding habitat and as reservoirs for locally and regionally significant species would be
seriously impaired by the current subdivision design. The interconnection between
wetland habitats on the site and upland habitat along Farewell Creek, as well as to forests
north of the site, would be disrupted, and this connection is likely critical in maintaining
amphibian populations.
Impacts from the present subdivision design on the PSW would likely include
. Direct impacts of removal of habitat (elimination of wetlands and wooded upland
habitat for species that breed in wetlands);
. potential impacts from construction (siltation);
. potential impacts on water quality;
. potential impacts of pets such as cats and dogs;
. potential impacts from human encroachment;
. potential impacts on water levels in wetlands because of changes to water balance
from installation of services;
9.4 General Recommendations
Figure 6 shows the limits ofthe PSW with a 30 m setback that is considered as a
minimum to provide a buffer between the wetland features and adjacent development. In
this case, the Adelaide Street Extension defines the southerly limit of the PSW wetland
features within the boundaries ofthe PSW, except for the small riparian feature on the
westerly side of the study area, near the Farewell Creek valley.
Aquafor Beech LId
North South Environmental Inc.
18
Kingsberry Tnnno Environmental Inventory Study
Final Report
December 2007
The subdivision design should be revised to compensate for and/or avoid impacts where
possible to amphibian breeding and significant plant species in the riparian wetland
feature and the small wetland in the study area, on the north side of the road extension
and on the adjacent lands. Two sections of the PPS (sections 2. I.l and 2.1.6) apply to
Provincially Significant Wetlands as follows:
2.1.1 Develooment and site alteration shall not be permitted in:
a) significant habitat of endanllered soecies and threatened species:
b) sillnificant wetlands in Ecoregions 5E, 6E and 7Ei; and
c) sillnificant coastal wetlands.
2.1.6 Development and site alteration shall not be permitted on adiacent lands to the
natural heritalle features and areas identified in policies 2.1.3,2.1.4 and 2.1.5 unless
the ecoloftical function of the ad/acent lands has been evaluated and it has been
demonstrated that there will be no neftative imoacts on the natural features or on
their ecolollical functions.
The following issues should be considered:
. Wetlands require sufficient buffering to allow ecological processes to continue
after development. Wetland buffers of 30 m are required by Central Lake Ontario
Conservation Authority (CLOCA). Therefore, a 30 m buffer around the riparian
feature and the wetland pocket within the PSW is shown on Figure 6.
. To compensate for the loss of about 2 ha of wetland habitat, a wetland feature
should be created in one or more ofthe areas identified in Figure 6. This feature
(or features) would be a vernal pool type of habitat that would not support fish
and likely would only persist into the early to late summer.
. To function effectively, amphibian breeding habitat must be interconnected with
upland habitat, as frogs need to be able to move out of ponds into woodlands and
forest in order to forage during the summer and find hibernation sites in the
winter. The riparian wetland associated with the minor drainage feature crossing
the study area provides an opportunity to maintain and establish this linkage in
association with the 30 m buffer. The created wetland features would also be
located in areas where access to forested habitat is available
. Consideration should be given to transplanting regionally and locally rare plant
species in buffer areas for the northern wetlands or in the created wetlands.
9.5 Recommendations for Re-design of Subdivision
A 30 m buffer should be implemented around the preserved wetlands to ensure their
function is not compromised by the development or the road. The subdivision should be
re-designed to conform with the necessity to preserve these wetlands as well as a 30 m
buffer.
It is recommended that a natural linkage be retained with the Farewell Creek corridor to
the west along the northern border ofthe site, via the riparian PSW feature.
Aquafor Beech LId
North South Environmental Inc.
19
Kingsberry Tonno Environmental Inventory Study
Final Report
December 2007
The subdivision design should consider designing compensatory amphibian breeding
ponds within the 30 m buffer and in the areas designated in Figure 6. The location and
design of compensatory ponds/vernal wetlands should be determined by a qualified
biologist to ensure they are functional with the objective of creating about 2 ha of habitat.
Breeding ponds must be linked with appropriate upland habitat. The hydroperiod also
needs to be of sufficient duration to ensure amphibian larvae have time to transform into
aduhs. Ponds should be "fish less" to ensure that larvae have a reasonable chance of
survival. In terms of creating this new wetland habitat, some flexibility should be
provided that may allow the following:
o Design of the wetland may be done in concert with the proposed stormwater
management facility, provided that any wetland habitat constructed as part of the
functional design of the facility is not counted as part ofthe created wetland
o The location ofthe stormwater pond should be outside of the 30 m buffer area,
ahhough some natural landscaping associated with the pond may be permitted within
the bu ffer area.
o The stormwater management facility cannot be located north of the Adelaide Street
Extension
Subdivision design should include the following general design considerations:
o Development should not encroach within the 30 m buffer of wetlands;
o The significant flora identified in Figure 6 will be relocated to the wetlands north
of the Adelaide Street Extension, or the riparian feature, or the created wetlands,
as appropriate
o The subdivision should not sever a linkage between remaining wetlands and the
Farewell Creek corridor;
o The subdivision design should limit access to the natural heritage portion of the
site, and should propose trail routes to limit impacts of human traffic through the
site.
o Stormwater management for the site shall be consistent with protection of the
coldwater fish community of Farewell Creek. This requires an enhanced level of
protection (Levell) as outlined in the MOE Stormwater Management Planning
and Design Guidelines (2003).
o Based on the water budget and groundwater assessment, there is limited potential
for infiltration on the site; however, the design of stormwater management
facilities should consider moderating temperatures to avoid thermal impacts on
Farewell Creek. This would include options such as a bottom draw outlet or a
buried discharge.
o While the site conditions suggest moderate groundwater infiltration potential, this
is confined to the upper 1-2 m, which explains in part the presence of numerous
vernal pool features on the site. This shallow groundwater may discharge locally
to the riparian wetland feature and Farewell Creek, at least within the valley of
Farewell Creek. As part of the design and construction of the subdivision,
measures should be implemented to ensure that this shallow westerly groundwater
flow is not impeded, or more importantly diverted along infrastructure, but
installing clay plugs to prevent "piping" of groundwater along storm sewers, for
Aquafor Beech Ltd
North South Environmental Inc.
20
Kingsberry Tonno Environmental Inventory Study
Final Report
December 2007
example. Low flow monitoring ofthe riparian wetland feature, just upstream of
its confluence with Farewell Creek and in Farewell Creek, just downstream ofthis
confluence should be completed to establish a baseline to assess the impact ofthe
development on shallow groundwater flow.
· It has been identified that there may be an opportunity to address stormwater
management concerns on the easterly property within the study area, by routing
stormwater southerly through the existing subdivision lands (south of
Daiseyfield). This will require a review of the existing stormwater management
facility within this subdivision to ensure that it can meet the required
quantity/quality control criteria (the site would have to meet the enhanced level of
protection. Several options for stormwater management may be considered for
this site as follows:
o The use ofa stormcepter and perhaps some additional retrofitting of the
existing stormwater management facility
o Some form of "cash in lieu" whereby the funds may be used to address
other stormwater management priorities
o Proceed to address stormwater management on the property by utilizing
the proposed stormwater management fucility that will be required for the
westerly property
When a new subdivision design has been developed, it should be peer reviewed to ensure
that the recommendations in this EIS report are appropriately addressed. In particular,
the final design should address the potential for hydrological impacts on the remaining
wetlands, and determine appropriate mitigation for potential effects of the subdivision on
the water quality and hydroperiod of the wetlands.
10.0 REFERENCES
Couturier, A. 1999. Conservation priorities for the birds of southern Ontario.
http://www . bsc-eoc.org:/conservationlconservmain.html.
Hannah, R. 1984. Life Science Areas of Natural and Scientific Interest in Site District 6-
13. Parks and Recreational Areas Section, Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources,
Central Region, Richmond Hill, Ontario. Vii + 57 pp + folded map, illus.
Kaiser, J. 1983. Native and exotic plant species in Ontario: a numerical synopsis. The
Plant Press 1(2):25-26.
Lee, H.T., W.D. Bakowsky, J. Riley, J. Bowles, M. Puddister, P. Uhlig, and S.
McMurray. 1998. Ecological Land Classification for Southern Ontario: First
Approximation and Its Application. Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources, Southcentral
Science Section, Science Development and Transfer Branch. SCSS Field Guide FG-02.
McCormick Rankin Corporation. 2005. Adelaide Avenue Extension Class
Environmental Assessment Study: Environmental Study Report. Report for the Region
of Durham.
Aquafor Beech Ltd
North South Environmental Inc.
21
To R Attachment 5
eportPSD-O~-08
4i g
i g ~
s ... ;;l: ...,
" . 0 I
l! .t! ~ m
,,~q
~ .2 ~ ll..
.b .Ii " S
~ ?] ~ t: ::
! ~ . ~ <,
dH~
@ (
.
~ III
_ 011 ~
; S..2 41
~ 'l~ _:
_ '::. < C 8 'E
&-iiilll"e~-"<;
U5F8"~i~l':ti~
~ii;&8E~.!:B~
CI ",.r (i,i"" 41 .:: ~ i
&jdl.t~~~i:ig-8~
.sf...:; czot::E
....I1i..SOC)
'"
.
'i'!
'"
.
8
:;;
"' ~
. ~
".
~~