HomeMy WebLinkAboutPSD-084-09Clarln n
Leading the Way ~ - REPORT
PLANNING SERVICES
Meeting: GENERAL PUIRPOSE AND ADMINISTRATION COMMITTEE
~ie~pl u~-~ ov~*1~P(-l- ~-`i ~-o`~
Date: Monday, September 14, 2009
Report #: PSD-084-09 File #: COPA2007-0007, By-law #:
ZBA2007-0026 & SPA2007-0021
Subject: ONTARIO MUNICIPAL BOARD DECISION ON OFFICIAL PLAN
AMENDMENT, ZONING BY-LAW AMENDMENT AND SITE PLAN CONTROL
APPLICATION, FILES COPA2007-0007, ZBA2007-0026, SPA2007-0021
APPELLANT: ADESA/IMPACT AUTO AUCTION CANADA CORP.
RECOMMENDATIONS:
It is respectfully recommended that the General Purpose and Administration Committee
recommend to Council the following:
THAT Report PSD-084-09 be received for information.
Submitted by:
Da id . Crome, MCIP, RPP
Director of Planning Services
SA/CP/df
2 September 2009
Reviewed by:
Franklin Wu,
Chief Administrative Officer
CORPORATION OF THE MUNICIPALITY OF CLARINGTON
40 TEMPERANCE ST EET, BOWMANVILLE, ONTARIO L1C 3A6 T (905)623-3379 F (905)623-0830
REPORT NO.: PSD-084-09 PAGE 2
1.0 BACKGROUND
1.1 On May 4, 2007, Adesa/Impact Auto submitted applications to the Municipality of
Clarington for the development of a motor vehicle auction at 1550 Trulls Road. As part
of the proposed development they require extensive outdoor storage of the motor
vehicles and thus requested an amendment to the policies of the General Industrial
Area designation to increase the outdoor storage permitted from 50% to 70% of a 19 ha
property.
1.2 A decision was made on April 7, 2008 by Clarington Council to deny the Official Plan
amendment and Zoning By-law amendment applications. Council found the
development to be inappropriate development for the Courtice Industrial Area; the
applicant had not represented their applications accurately; and there is potential for
environmental issues.
1.3 The applicant's subsequently appealed Council's decision on the Official Plan
amendment and Zoning By-law amendment to the Ontario Municipal Board (OMB). The
applicant also appealed the site plan application, which did not require a Council
decision, to the OMB and have requested the Board hold a consolidated hearing to hear
all the applications as a whole.
2.0 ONTARIO MUNICIPAL BOARD
2.1 At apre-hearing conference in September 2008 an issues list, containing eight (8)
issues was arbitrated by the Board. The main issues were: full disclosure of the use;
stigmatization on future development in the Courtice Employment Area; the adverse
impact on the timing and type of development; the intensity of the development with
regard to the Provincial Policy Statement, Growth Plan and Official Plans; provision of
collector roads; the impact on future servicing in the Courtice Employment Area;
impacts of the lack long term environmental planning (due to lack of disclosure); and did
the proposed development represent good planning.
2.2 The Ontario Municipal Board Hearing commenced on May 12, 2009, and sat two to
three days each week, ending on June 17, 2009 for a total of 13 days. The Municipality
was represented by Nick Macos and Dennis Hefferon and were supported by a team of
expert witnesses, including Municipal staff, Conservation Authority staff, and
consultants.
2.3 Two local residents also attended the OMB hearing with participant status. As
participants the residents were able to present statements to the Board on issues of
importance to them regarding the case. Participant status may be given to persons who
did not give an oral or written submission to Council previously.
Decision:
2.4 The Board found, with respect to full disclosure on the application, that incorrect
information was provided and that the applicant's environmental consultant took no
REPORT NO.: PSD-084-09
PAGE 3
steps to correct the assumptions used by the Municipality's environmental consultant in
the Environmental Impact Study.
2.5 Further, the Board found that the low intensity use proposed would not be consistent
with the Provincial Policy Statement, nor conform to the Growth Plan which promotes
greater densities (for industrial uses also) in Greenfield Areas. The Board determined
that this use may be more appropriately located in the outer ring of the Greater Golden
Horseshoe (municipalities such as Barrie, Peterborough, Kawartha Lakes, etc.). The
outer ring has less restrictive density targets.
2.6 On other issues the Board ruled that:
• As per the Municipality's Official Plan, if would be reasonable that the proposal
proceed by plan of subdivision to accommodate the proposed collector roads;
• The approval of this use would promote clustering of auto-related uses such as
Dom's, Copart, Manheims etc., to the exclusion of other industrial uses;
• Approval of the development would have an adverse impact on the progression
of municipal servicing of these lands.
2.7 The related site plan application was deferred at the start of the hearing, until the
resolution of the Official Plan and Zoning By-law Amendments. As such, with the denial
of the appeals by Impact Auto for the Official Plan and Zoning Amendments, the Board
ordered the denial of the site plan application also.
2.8 The Board's ruling is important for Clarington and all Greater Golden Horseshoe
municipalities in that it states that these types of uses, low intensity and land extensive,
do not conform with the Growth Plan; `Greenfield' policies the Province has set out for
the inner ring municipalities. Industrial uses using extensive land areas and having low
employment rates are not considered supportive of the Province's objectives expressed
through the Growth Plan. A copy of the Board's decision is attached.
Attachments:
Attachment 1 -Key Map
Attachment 2 -OMB Decision
Attachment 1
To Report PSD-084-09
c.
~' o
m v
m z E ~
-
w 'a a c
0
' ~ ~ R +r
o 1`
~ W V~
N
O O a oa
~ O~
~ ° a ti
° ~ ° a
i o
~ ~
~ s
s N •v ~ ~
m m a ~
~, o .
E
~ ~ c -
Q
N ~ .
.
o Z V ~ c
Z ~
a
~
c
. ~
~
N ~
~ C.
V Q
Q
L O T 3 0
TRUCES
ROAD
~
~ ~ ~- ~ -
~ x a r
x s. t x o
x
~ PaN1r = itfRtiilillilii~ AUTO AUC 110N
e e a a a l a s e a
a E ~W ': ~ ING FAgL1TY
S Ei ~ ~~ ~ TR CKINO
O GE B +o lean E T ST
Mf 1 ~
~ ~ VEMQ.E a
~3 iii Gtl IDx • DROP ZONE Ka+ o xa
I
' II~
8 AG
Nlx vle
P
aroxwwx~roe I
1
II -
e
z
• )I~ 1 3 T. N 1
a 0 Y - B 0 D Y )~ ,Z, n
S Y 1 DBB)
~
...
._. -
~ 4
. _.
L 0 T 3 1 .,.........
INST. N o. l a l a a e -
S B C O ~
N D L Y
~ 1
e.
C O N C E S S I O N 1 ~
L
O T [NSr. No.lusae
- TN/SDLY
3 2
rn+oa s~~nal
w
w
0
0
m
Attachment 2
To Report PSD-084-09
ISSUE DATE:
Juiy 21, 2009
MM080016
~~~/~
Ontario
Ontario Municipal Board
Commission des affaires municipales de ('Ontario
ADESA Auctions Canada Corporation and Impact Auto Auctions Ltd. have appealed to the
Ontario Municipal Board under subsection 22(7} of the Planning Acf, R.S.O. 1990, c. P.13, as
amended, from Council's refusal or neglect to enact an Official Plan Amendment for an
automotive remarke#ing, auction and logistics facility (Approval Authority File No. COPA2007-
007) .
OMB File No. PL080622
ADESA Auctions Canada Corporation and Impact Auto Auctions Ltd. 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 for the Municipality of Clarington to rezone lands respecting 1550 Trulls Road from
Agricultural (A) to an appropriate zone to permit the proposed development
OMB File No. PL080623
ADESA Auctions Canada Corporation and Impact Auto Auctions Ltd. have referred to the
Ontario Municipal Board under subsection 41(12) of the Planning Acf, R.S.O. 1990, c. P.13, as
amended, determination and settlement of details of a site plan for lands composed of 1550
Trulls Road, in the Municipality of Clarington
OMB File No. MM080016
APPEARANCES:
Parties
ADESA Auctions Canada Corporation and
Impact Auto Auctions Ltd.
Municipality of Clarington
Counsel
M. Flynn-Guglietti and A. Warman
N. Macos, D. Hefferon and
A. Artopoulo (student-at-law)
DECISION DELIVERED BY D. R. GRANGER AND J. G. WONG AND
ORDER OF THE BOARD
These are appeals by ADESA Auctions Canada Corporation and Impact Auto
Auctions Ltd. (Applicant) from the Council of the Municipality of Clarington's
(Municipality) refusal to approve amendments to the Municipal Official Plan (OP) and
Zoning By-law 84-63 (By-law} and for the determination and settlement of the details of
_ 2 _ MM080016
a site plan- to permit the development of a motor vehicle remarketing, auction and
logistics facility, including the outdoor storage of motor vehicles, (Proposal) at 1550
Trulls Road {Subject Property).
At the commencement of the hearing, the Parties agreed to have the Board
primarily address the merits of the appeals as they relate to the proposed OP and By-
law amendments and, if appropriate, withhold its Order pending final resolution of the
site- plan referral. In that regard, these Board Members would remain seized of any
outstanding dispute of the site plan details.
On behalf of the Applicant, and in support of the proposal, M. Goldberg and V.
Cranmer provided expert land use planning evidence and opinion; T. Daniels, managing
director of Impact Auto Auctions Ltd. provided operational evidence; D. MacGillivray
provided expert hydrogeology and geotechnical evidence and opinion; M. Jozwik
provided expert civil engineering evidence and opinion reia#ed to site servicing, grading
and storm water management; G. Gaspardy provided expert natural heritage planning
evidence and opinion; R. Hudson provided expert environmental engineering evidence
and opinion related to the environmental impacts of the proposed use; A. Jacobs
provided expert land economics and municipal financing evidence and opinion; and, T.
Recoskie, branch manager for the London, Ontario, Impact Auto Auctions Ltd. site,
provided evidence regarding its operation, including spill and leak protocols and
practice.
Area residents, David Jowitt and Richard Klawitter, presented evidence in
opposition to the proposal. Their concerns, also raised with them by other neighbours,
included reduced property values, increased truck traffic, noise, dust, light pollution, and
concern for the potential negative, environmental effects of vehicles' leaking fluids on
the Subject Property. Both residents acknowledged their understanding that their
homes are located within the area designated as General lndustriai, in the approved
OP.
On behalf of the Municipality and in opposition to the proposal, D. J. Crome and
R. Palmer provided expert land use planning evidence and opinion; S. Ashton provided
land use planning evidence regarding the subject application approval process; A. S.
Cannella provided expert evidence and. opinion regarding the municipal servicing of the
.II
_ g _ MM080016
proposal including proposed new roads; W. G. McCrae provided expert evidence and
opinion regarding the sanitary sewer servicing of the area; J. N. Hooey provided expert
automobile mechanical evidence and opinion regarding the impact of not draining
vehicles; N. Mcllveen provided expert hydrogeology evidence and opinion; R. J.
McNeice, a fish biologist with the Central Lake Ontario Conservation Authority (CLOCA)
provided expert fishery management evidence related to the Robinson Creek; R. P.
Sisson, director of engineering and field operations with CLOCA, provided expert storm
water management evidence and opinion; P. Nib{ett provided expert environmental
impact study evidence and opinion; and, J. S. Climans provided expert
industrial/commercial marketing and financial analysis and property valuation evidence
and opinion.
This was a 13-day hearing with 55 exhibits presented. The appeals were subject
to a Board conducted pre-hearing conference process that resulted in the following
agreed issues for the hearing:
1. Was the proposed development of the subject lands adequately disclosed to
the Municipality of Clarington?
2. Are there physical and operational characteristics arising from, or associated
with, businesses engaged in automobile storage and auction, that could
adversely impact the development of the General Industrial Area and the
adjacent Light Industrial lands?
3. Is the proposed development of the subject lands likely to have an adverse
impact on the type and timing of development in the General Industrial and
___. _______adjacent Light Industrial lands?
4. Is the proposed development of the subject lands consistent with the intent of
relevant policies of the Municipality of Clarington and Region of Durham
Official Plans, the Provincial Planning Policy Statement, the Places to Grow
Act and the Growth Plan for the Greater Golden Horseshoe, including on-
_. .
going studies and decisions by the Province an - egion . - --- -
5. Is the proposed development of the subject lands likely to have an adverse
_ i hE-timing-ofi-finding-of~he-provision of local sanitary sewers to
_ 4 _ MM080016
serve businesses in the General Industrial Area and adjacent Light Industrial
lands?
6. Has adequate provision been made in the proposed development of the
subject lands for the location and construction of the north-south and east-
west collector roads- shown in the Municipality of Claringtorr Official Plan,
including the services that will be located in these roads, that will ensure
orderly development of the adjacent lands?
7. Have adequate studies been prepared to identify, and has adequate provision
been made to monitor and contrail the potential adverse environmental
impacts from spills or leakage from damaged vehicles on ground water and
surface water?
8. Does the proposed development of the subject lands represent good planning
in the public interest?
The Board has considered all of the evidence that was presented along with the
qualified expert opinions and together with an analysis of the relevant portions of the
Provincial Policy Statement (PPS), the Growth Plan for the Greater Golden Horseshoe
(GP), the Region of Durham Official Plan (ROP) and the Municipality of Clarington
Official Plan (OP). Our analysis and findings of these matters are set out below.
There was no dispute that the approximate 19.1-hectare Subject Property has
been designated as General Industrial and Environmental Protection Area in the
approved OP since 1996. The Environmental Protection Area relates to a small portion
of the Subject Property, with an intermittent upstream tributary of the Robinson Creek.
The Subject Property has also been designated as Employment .Area within the Urban
Area of the Region of Durham Official Plan since 1993.
The General Industrial Area according to OP Policy 11.7.3 permits outdoor
storage covering up to 50 percent of the property. Specifically, OP Policy 11.7.3 states:
"Outside storage will be permitted provided that it is properly screened from public view
and sha{I generally not exceed 50% of the site area and a maximum height of 5 metres.
Outside storage shall generally be located at the rear of the property." The Applicant is
requesting 70 percent outdoor storage.
_ 5 _ MM080016
The Applicant's proposal is for "re-marketing, auction and logistics of vehicles"
with "outdoor storage to 70%". The proposed operation includes the receipt, inspection,
staging and selling by auction of total loss vehicles and off-lease vehicles with a normal
turn around on the property of approximately 30-45 days. Vehicles include automobiles,
motorcycles, other recreational vehicles and some heavy equipment and other
commercial vehicles. Vehicles are stored in an orderly fashion with aisles and setbacks
to facilitate inspection by purchasers. Vehicles that are not roadworthy are moved by a
large forklift vehicle.
Total loss vehicles are primarily vehicles that have been damaged beyond
reasonable repair cost but also include up to 25 percent roadworthy vehicles, such as
stolen vehicles where insurance companies have already settled with clients.
Off-lease vehicles are just that and they are usually roadworthy.
There was no dispute that the Subject Property would be used primarily for total
loss vehicles, the Applicant's confirming at least 70 percent in that regard and that the
operation would begin as an Impact total Loss vehicle facility with ADESA, adding to the
operation over time. The only other dual operation cited by the Applicant was the
Ottawa facility, although it was confirmed by the land use planner for the Municipality
who visited the site to be an ADESA operation that is beside an Impact operation but is
not fully integrated. ADESA operations generally include automotive repair facilities and
fully paved site surfaces that are not present in this proposal.
Fundamental to the dispute between the parties was a disagreement related to
the use and operation proposed.
It was acknowledged by the Applicant and its experts that a fundamental
misunderstanding occurred related to whether or not vehicles coming onto the Subject
Property were fully and purposefully drained of all fluids or not. The Applicant submits
that regardless of the misunderstanding, its experts have confirmed that the proposal
adequately addresses any potential for minor leaks and/or spills that may occur, finding
the risk to be minimal. It was confirmed that a Certificate of Approval (C of A) #rom t e
Ministry of the Environment (MOE} would be required for the operation to proceed on
the Subject Property.
_ 6 _ MMO$0016
The Municipality and its experts submit that its analysis of the proposal was
always premised on only fully drained total loss vehicles or other roadworthy vehicles
being brought to the site, and that further analysis would be required to confirm that total
loss vehicles that have no# been fully drained of fluids would not have negative
environmental effects on the Subject Property and downstream Robinson Creek, a
recognized environmentally sensitive natural feature.
The Board does find that the misunderstanding was promulgated by language in
the Geotechnical Study (Exhibit 25(c)) undertaken by the Applicant. The language is
clear in setting out the operational plan as removing all liquids under controlled
conditions. Exhibit 25(c), page 16 states: "The liquids would be removed from the
vehicles under controlled conditions in a facility designed to collect and retain such
harmful liquids in a secure fashion."
The misunderstanding was u~ ear rein orce y ~f'~e~ratt~ralfieYita~g~planner-for
the Applicant, not clarifying the matter in the "draft' environmental impact statement
terms of reference prepared by him or raising the matter in his response to the draft
environmental impact statement prepared by Niblett. He was forthright in his admission
that he had not clarified the use nor whether or not vehicles would be purposefully
drained as set out in the geo-technical report and that he knew the statement in the
draft environmental impact statement prepared by Niblett specifically stating: "even
though the vehicles are supposed to be drained of all fluids before arrival on-site" to be
wrong and took no action to correct it.
The Board finds that any reasonable person or expert would have assumed that
vehicles coming to the Subject Property, that were not roadworthy, were to be fully and
_. __.
purposefully drarne .
This begs the question of whether or not this misinformation/confusion over the
draining of the vehicles has resulted in an incomplete environmental impact study such
that it cannot be relied upon to provide a complete and thorough. analysis of the
proposal's environmental impacts as intended in accordance with ROP section 2.3.17
and OP policy 4.4.35. ROP section 2.3.17 states: "In consideration of development
applications in proximity to environmentally sensitive area, or development applications
• n.m~.a. _ • nnsllltatlon~e-ith the
_ 7 _ MM080016
respective area municipality, shall select and retain a qualified environmental consultant
to prepare an environmental impact study at the expense of the proponents ..." OP
policy 4.4.35 states: "An Environmental Impact Study shall be undertaken for
development applications located on lands within or adjacent to the Lake Iroquois
Beach, any natural heritage feature identified on Map C, and any natural heritage
feature which may exist but is not presently identified on Map C but on which notice is
given in accordance with Section 4.4.9. The Municipality in consultation with the Region
of Durham ..." OP policy 4.4.9 states: `The policies of the Plan shall also apply to any
natural heritage feature which has been identified by the Municipality, the Region, a
Conservation Authority or the Province, but which is not presently shown on Map C or
Map D...." Both the ROP section 2.3.17 and OP policy 4.4.35 require the preparation
of an Environmental Impact Study (EIS) when development occurs in proximity to
environmentally sensitive area and the need to identify the resulting impacts from the
proposed development and the requirement for any mitigation measures.
The branch manager of the Impact London, Ontario operation was forthright in her
admission that drips do occur on the gravelled portion of the site, guesstimating in the
order of 20 reports for one year. She also confirmed that damaged engine areas are
not routinely covered to protect them from weather. The Board notes that the proposed
site is in the order of at least 2'/z times the site area and volume of vehicles of the
London facility.
It was the opinion of the director of engineering and fish biologist for CLOCA, that
the risk from the potential leakage of the many chemicals found in vehicles that have
not been drained has not been properly evaluated and could pose a threat to the
existing sensitive Robinson Creek cold water fishery located downstream from the
subject property.
The hydrogeology expert for the Municipality confirmed that the site evaluation
had been primarily based on impacts from the proposed septic tank and the bed
proposed and not the potential from up to 5000 total loss vehicles that have not been
purposefully drained of all f{uids being parked on the gravelled site-at-any_given..time.
It was the opinion of the environmental impact study expert for the Municipality,
-who-undertook the EIS for the Subject Property, that had the fact that the vehicles were
_ g . MM080016
not to be drained of all fluids been known, he would have recommended further study to
fully assess the risk posed by potential leakage of chemicals. it was his opinion, that
further study would have included an independent storm water management evaluation,
an impact assessment of all relevant automotive chemicals, a modelling of potential
leakage volumes and flows and proposals for more stringent monitoring and
contingency action plans.
The Board also notes that with respect to the issue of environmental impacts,
that the misunderstanding regarding the draining of vehicles to be sufficient to raise the
potential for greater adverse impact on Robinson Creek.
The Applicant submits that these risks can be addressed through the final site
plan approval process, given the role of the MOE and CLOCA, to approve the final
design of any storm water management plan. However, the Board is not satisfied that
there is a reasonable expecTat~on o e e- a i i -gement
system. The Board expects that the draining status of vehicles to be known and
assessed at the time of the application and considered in the supporting studies
undertaken by the Applicant. The Board finds that this analysis should have been
completed as part of the required environmental impact study included with the
proposal, to demonstrate that this use can proceed without adverse environmental
impacts.
The Board finds that the requirement in ROP section 2.3.17 and OP policy 4.4.35
for an EIS has not been satisfied, and therefore the proposal is premature. !n addition,
the protection and maintenance of natural features and resources is also referred to in
Sections 2.1.2 and 2.2.1 of the Provincial Policy Statement and in Section 1.2.2 of the
Growth Plan for the Greater Golden Horseshoe. The Board is not satisfied that the
proposal is consistent with or conforms to these policies in light of the incomplete nature
of the required EIS.
Another fundamental issue of dispute in this matter relates to the intensity of use
--that-is proposed-on-the--subject-property-in-thee-context--of-.the..policies of_ the Provincial
Policy Statement (PPS) and Growth Plan for the Greater Golden Horseshoe (GP).
The land use experts for the Municipality, while acknowledging that the-General
Industrial designation of the OP may be the most suitable designation for the use, as
_ g _ MM080016
proposed, question the low intensity of that use, especially with the increased outdoor
storage requested. They believe that it may conflict with the policies of the PPS,
restated in the GP, that encourage the efficient use of existing infrastructure. !n this
case, a new sewage treatment facility has now been constructed to serve the area
including the Subject Property. It was the opinion of the municipal servicing experts for
the Municipality that the proposal represents an inefficien# use of existing infrastructure
specifically designed to encourage greater intensity of use in the area of the Subject
Property. They noted that the Applicant's intent to service the Subject Property with
private septic tank and the bed together with the low intensity of the use proposed,
would not encourage the extension of sanitary sewers into the area nor assist through
the collection of development charges in the fair sharing of the costs incurred in
providing those services.
The Applicant on the other hand notes that the Subject Property has been
designated for thirteen years without any take up of industrial use. The proposal would
provide for some tax revenue and employment and according to the land use planner
for the Applicant would commit to pay for sanitary sewers on a frontage basis upon
arrival to the area. In addition, the Applicant will be extending water services to the area
to the benefit of others.
Up until 2007, industrial development had been exempt from development
charges representing a municipal initiative to attract industry and con#irming that
industrial development had not been expected to pay its fair share of new growth
infrastructure. This changed in 2007, to the phasing in of development charges for
industrial development to 50 percent of the normal calculated value, by July 2010 still
representing a less than fair share contribution.
The Board is cognizant of the competing interests in the dispute before it.
Should the Board favour the approval of a low intensity use in the context of a general
lack of take up of industry in an area designated for heavier, less-attractive and often
times less intensive general industrial uses in the light of recently developed
infrastructure that provides the hope of greater employment densities and building area
and thus, more efficient use of the infrastructure?
- 10 - MM080016
The Board notes that while no development has occurred over the past 13 years,
the Subject Property designation was planned for within a 30-year planning horizon. In
this respect, the lack of development to date, with no urban services available, is not
unusual and it is reasonable to expect that full municipal services will be available well
within the 30-year planning horizon, as confirmed by the servicing experts.
Even without the proposed outdoor storage at 70 percent of the total area of the
Subject Property, the use is uncontested to represent a low intensity development. The
Board finds that any initiative that might further lower the potential intensity of use from
the minimum standards specifically set out in OP policy runs counter to the Provincial
policies to be cost-effective and efficient. To provide a policy, allowing far more less-
intensive outdoor storage uses, prejudices the potential of the Subject Properly and
may dissuade other property owners in the vicinity from achieving a more efficient
developmen# over the life of the OP in conformity with the OP.
While the Applicant relies to some degree on the General Industrial M2 Zoning in
Section 24 of Zoning By-law 84-63 that permits 70% outdoor storage and the Board
notes that the property is presently zoned Agricultural; both the existing zoning and By-
law 84-83 predate the ROP and the OP. As such, the Board finds that the newer ROP
and OP represent the more currently applicable local planning policy.
The proposal represents a level of intensity far below the target to be achieved
throughout the Municipality and Region of 50 jobs/persons per hectare as now specified
in the applicable GP section 2.2.7 for Designated Greenfield Areas. The most recent
proposed amendment for the ROP, Proposed Amendment 128 (Exhibit 43(c), Tab 3}
dated May 19, 2009, re-iterated the target of 50 jobs/persons per hectare is unchanged.
Furthermore, section 3.2.2 of Proposed Amendment 128 has listed a target ratio of jobs
to population of 50% (1 job for every 2 persons) as a means of supporting a close work-
live relationship for residents of the Region. This proposal represents a net density of
2.6 employees per hectare.
To date, the-site-specific allocation-or employment_density conformity exercise as
referenced in the GP has not been done by the Region and Municipality.
The Board finds that increasing the maximum outdoor storage area from 50
percent to 70 percent does not represent a minor deviation from OP policy and this
_ 11 _ MM080016
would not be consistent with the PPS nor conform to the GP as they all endeavour to
ensure the efficient use of existing infirastructur~. In this instance, the proposed 70
percent outdoor storage combined with other factors such as low employment density
does not represent an efficient use of the land.
PPS policies 1.1, 1.1.3, 1.6 and 1.7 speak to promoting efficient development,
efficient use of infrastructure and service facilities, optimizing resources, the need for
intensification and the promotion ofi a compact form. The GP policies 2.1, 2.2.2 and
2.2.7 call for compact communities, intensification and density targets. The potential
lowering of density and intensity in the development of the Subject Property from the
well-established existing policy runs counter to these overriding provincial policies. The
Board finds that pursuant to subsection 3(5) of the Planning Act, this proposal fails to be
consistent with or conform to these policies.
- ~~-~1Nhen asked, 'the M^nicipality's--Director of Planning Services--testifiied that e
believes that this proposal is better suited elsewhere and it is likely to be outside of the
inner ring of the urban area. The Board notes that GP policy 2.2.7.5 refers to the
consideration of an alterative density target for municipalities in the outer ring. The GP
defines the "outer ring" as "The geographic area consisting of the cities of Barrie,
Brantford, Guelph, Kawartha Lakes, Orillia, and Peterborough; the Counties of Brant,
Dufferin, Haldimand, Northumberland, Peterborough, Simcoe, and Wellington; and the
Regions of Niagara and Waterloo." This would seem to suggest that this proposal may
be more appropriately located in the outer ring as opposed to the inner ring of the
Greater Golden Horseshoe.
Another area of dispute involves the provision of a new collector road through the
northerly half of the Subject Property as set out in Map B2, Transportation Courtice
Urban Area from the OP.
The Municipality contends that it is entitled to require the development to be
subject to the approval of a Plan of Subdivision and have the proposed collector road
dedicated--to the __.Municipality_.____OP _policy _ 1_,1.8.2. sets _ out__that development of
Employment Areas will generally occur by Plan of Subdivision, with the option of
development by land severance in certain circumstances.
_ 12 _ MM080016
The Applicant asserts that there is no need for a Plan of Subdivision as it intends
to maintain its property as one block. The Applicant has provided fora 120-metre swath
to be kept free from any form of development that might prejudice the Municipality's
right to acquire land for future road purposes. The Municipality acknowledges that the.
road may not be constructed for some time and this may facilitate the desire of the
Applicant to utilize the proposed road allowance area for an interim period.
Both parties acknowledged that there had been discussion that considered the
possibility of the Applicant granting an option to the Municipality for the acquisition of
lands for the future road. But any potential option that was discussed was subsequently
not endorsed by the Municipality
1n this case, the Board finds that the OP clearly sets out the location for a
proposed collector road through the Subject Properly. This designation was never
appealed. OP Policy 11.8.2 does set an expectation that development will genera y
occur by plan of subdivision from which roads would normally be dedicated.
In this case, the Applicant questions the- need for the road entirely but
acknowledges that the Municipality may acquire the road through other means when
necessary. No evidence of need for the said road was proffered, other than the OP
designation.
In light of the explicit existing OP policy and the absence of any transportation
planning evidence to the contrary regarding proposed roads and development generally
occurring by Plan of Subdivision, the Board finds it to be a reasonable requirement of
the Municipality to require the Subject Property to be developed by a plan of
subdivision:. ___.._ --.. ----.._.__..-- ---- -- --- __....... ..-
The Board will now address the remaining issues as set out in the Procedural
Order Issues List, noting that Issues 1, 4, 6, and 7 have now been addressed.
Issues 2 and 3 relate to the potential for adverse impacts on the adjacent Light
Industrial lands. The Applicant's evidence is that the"Gerieral lndustri~al-Area-is-part o a
hierarchy of uses that planned to accommodate a range of heavier industrial uses that
include the potential for waste processing facilities or concrete batching plants. Section
__
11.72 of the OP lists the predominate -uses- of~ General Industrial Area as "...
_ 1g _ MM080016
manufacturing, assembling, processing, fabricating, refining, warehousing, storage and
repair and servicing operations...."
It is the Applicant's evidence that there is already an existing cluster of auto
related uses in the area. Among these current users is Dom's Auto Parts (Dom's), a
prominent long time fixture in the area that the Municipality's Director of Planning
Services admits is not going away, and it would not be permitted elsewhere in
Clarington. Therefore, any perceived negative stigma to this area already exists and
will likely remain as long as Dom's remains. The Board does however note that OP
policy 16.6.1 has as a goal the relocation of Dom's in the future.
The Municipality's evidence was that to permit an operation such as Impact
would discourage higher order uses from locating in the area. An Impact type
development will stigmatize the area because of its type of use, and its inventory
consis g~of~otal-I~vel~i~cfie~'arrd-1~arg~e-amount-crf-votside-gtot-a~ge--I#-i~lso--likely ~to
encourage similar auto industry and salvage related uses.
The Municipality also notes that the proposed use is a "dry use" that does not
require municipal services. The presence of this use will encourage similar dry uses,
industries that do not require municipal services (i.e. sewer and water) that typically
include low employment density and low investment type uses.
The Board recognizes that the presence of Dom's, Manheim's and Copart
automotive facilities in proximity to the proposed development, creates a cluster of
automotive related uses in the area. It is assumed that any sort of "negative stigma"
attached to these respective uses already exists. However, permitting an additional
_ ____ major..like-use_such .as the Applicant's proposed operation__at 19 hectares would further
promote and reinforce the existing clustering. This would also likely attract additional
automotive like-users to the area to the exclusion of other industries and uses.
The Board notes that municipal water service is being brought to the subject
lands and the Applicant intends to hook-up to the water service but will rely on an on-
_.__ _ ._ .
site septic system for sewage disposal. The Applicant's lack of need for full municipa
services will very likely affect and possibly delay the development of adjacent industrial
lands as municipal servicing is most effectively provided in a linear fashion from one
area to the next. The presence of full municipal services is needed to attract higher
- 14 - MM080016
intensity investment uses and higher employment intensity uses. The Board finds that
the proposed use is likely to adversely affect the timing of the development of the
adjacent industrial lands.
Issue No. 5 speaks to impact from the proposed development on the provision of
local sanitary sewers to serve businesses in the General Industrial Area and adjacent
Light Industrial lands. This issue is very closely related to Issues 2 and 3, and some of
the earlier comments apply.
According to the Applicant, the Municipality's expert on the sanitary sewer
servicing of the area testified that trunk sewers are currently not available and that the
proposed development can proceed on the basis of private services that involves an on-
site septic system. In addition, he acknowledged that the trunk sewer location has not
been decided and if it goes up Trulls Road this proposal would not hold up anything.
Furthermore, the Munici all - s -Plannin -Re ~~f1i~~~ ~1-~}-dn-e-s-not--idet~tify
any specific concerns relating to servicing. It does state that the Applicant would be
responsible for related water service connection charges. Because sanitary sewer
services are not needed for their operations, there is no requirement to extend sanitary
sewer services.
The Municipality submits that the proposed development does not require
sanitary sewers and therefore, it will attract similar dry uses that also do not require
municipal services and that this reduced demand for services will delay or frustrate the
expansion of local sanitary sewers into the area. This proposal will result in non-
sequential development and impose additional servicing casts to by-pass the subject
lands and extending the required services for developments located to the north and
east: As a consequence of not requiring sewer service, this proposal will not contribute
to the sanitary sewer cost and it will not provide the expected level of development
charges {typically based on 25% lot coverage) because of the very low level of on-site
construction.
The evidence of-the Municipality's-Qirector.of_Planning.Services.i5 that the area
is in the midst of an "Infrastructure Tsunami" with the imminent extension of GO train
service to Bowmanvifle, with the proposed station in close proximi#y to the Subject
Property,-imminent-extension-of-High-way-407-~-constr-uctiara-~f-a-north:~.outhlink.~hrough
- 15 - MM080016
Courtice from Highway 407 to Highway 401, extension of trunk sewer from the newly
completed Courtice sewage treatment plant, Darlington Nuclear Generating Station
refurbishment and rebuilding and the construction of new Ontario Power Generation
offices. The imminent improvement and extension of sanitary sewer services along with
improved transportation will foster increased development and intensification.
The Board finds that the proposed development will likely slow the progression of
' the full municipal services into this area. If approved, it will encourage similar uses
hoping to benefit from the existing synergies of like-industries. In light of this level of
new infrastructure commitment, this proposal does not represent an efficient use,
especially since it is proposed to be less intensive than set out in the approved OP.
The remaining issue is Issue No. 8 that asks if the proposal represents good
planning. The Applicant's position is that this is the first application in the General
_ ---I n usfrial Are~irfthirt~eYrye -it-wi+l-bring-t~t~r~ieipa+-water'-~erv'iEe-#a-t~e-site
and surrounding area and this will aid any new development. It represents a diverse
use adding another use to the existing economic and employment base. It will raise the
property tax base of the Municipality and bring new investment into an industrial area.
The Municipality contends that the proposed development will frustrate the
servicing and development of the adjacent lands; it will not contribute its fair share of
infrastructure servicing costs; and, it does not diversify employment uses and
opportunities but will simply attract like uses. They also reject the argument that there
have been no applications on subject lands but point to a lack of servicing and not a
lack of interest.
Ln _conclusQn, the Board.finds that_ the proposed development is premature in
terms of a fully completed EIS as previously noted. The request for 70% outdoor
storage space and low-employment intensity runs contrary to the policies in the PPS
and GP, which call for increased intensification in urban areas and a density target for
designated Greenfield areas. In this instance, together with all of the other evidence
presented, and for all of the reasons set out in_this decision, the Board does not find the
application to represent good planning and finds that it is not in the overall public
interest of the community.
THE BOARD ORDERS that the appeals are dismissed and the proposed Official
Plan Amendment and corresponding Zoning By-law Amendment are not approved.
In addition, in the circumstance, the Site Plan is not approved.
This is the Order of the Board.
"D. R. Grange'
D. R. GRANGER
VICE-CHAIR
"J. G. Wong"
J. G. WONG
MEMBER