HomeMy WebLinkAboutPD-106-98~.
DN: PD 10698
THE CORPORATION OF THE MUNICIPALITY OF CAARINGTON REPORT
..
Meeting: General Purpose and Administration Committee File #"i~~i.COPl3 . ~/'7. ~-7
Date: September 21, 1998 Res. #C~F~ -4~i9- `I~
Report #: PD-106-98 FILE # COPA 97-007 By-law #
(XREF: PLN 32.12.3)
Subject: AMENDMENT NO. 10 TO THE CLARINGTON OFFICIAL PLAN
MODIFICATION NO. 171 TO THE CLARINGTON OFFICIAL PLAN
REFERRAL NO. 3 OF THE CLARINGTON OFFICIAL PLAN
APPLICATION TO AMEND THE OFFICIAL PLAN
OF THE FORMER TOWN OF NEWCASTLE
APPLICANT: CLARET INVESTMENTS LTD. & UVALDE INVESTMENT CO.
(COURTICE HEIGHTS DEVELOPMENTS)
PART LOT 27, CONC., 3, FORMER TWP. OF DARLINGTON
FILES: COPA 97-007; PLN 32.12.3; OPA 92-N/007
Recommendations:
It is respectfully recommended that the General Purpose and Administration Committee
recommend to Council the following:
1. THAT Report PD-106-98 be received;
2. THAT the Ontario Municipal Board be requested to:
i) with respect to the private Official Plan Amendment appeal, to amend the
Clarington Official Plan by incorporating in it the changes set out in proposed
OPA No. 10;
ii) with respect to Referral No. 3, to modify in accordance with Modification No.
171 contained in Attachment No. 2, the referred provisions of the Clarington
Official Plan, amended by proposed OPA No. 10 set out in recommendation
2(i) and to approve the referred provisions of the Official Plan as so amended
and modified; and
iii) to refuse to approve the application to amend the former Town of Newcastle
Official Plan (File: OPA 92-N/007) and to dismiss the appeal in respect of it".
3. THAT the revisions to Amendment No. 10 be deemed minor in nature and that a new
Public Meeting to consider the revised Amendment be deemed not necessary; and,
4. THAT a copy of the decision of Committee and Council be forwarded to the Regional
Planning Department, the applicant and any delegation.
636
i
REPORT NO.: PD-106-98 PAGE 2
1. APPLICATION DETAILS
1.1 Owners: Claret Investments Limited and Uvalde Investment Company
1.2 Applicant Claret Investments Limited and Uvalde Investment Company carrying
on business as Courtice Heights Developments
1.3 Agent: WDM Consultants
1.4 Official Plan:
The applicant is seeking the approval of an amendment to the
Clarington Official Plan. The proposed amendment submitted by the
applicant (Attachment No. 3) contemplates the following:
• the removal of a Medium density (M) symbol from the Hancock
Neighbourhood as shown on Map A2;
• an adjustment to the Hancock Neighbourhood population
allocation from 2800 to 2900 as shown on Map E1; and
• various adjustments to the housing unit targets for the Hancock
Neighbourhood and the Courtice Urban Area as detailed in Table 9-
2 in the Clarington Official Plan.
2. LOCATION AND EXISTING LAND USES
2.1 The Hancock Neighbourhood is bounded on the north by the north limit of the
Courtice Urban Area, Black Creek and Highway No. 2 to the south, Hancock Road to
the east and Courtice Road to the west (Attachment No. 4).
2.2 North of Nash Road, there is strip large lot residential development along Courtice,
Nash and Hancock Roads. South of Nash Road, a plan of subdivision has been
657
t
REPORT NO.: PD-106-98 PAGE 3
developed which contains a mix of single detached, linked and townhouse units.
Cultivated fields, fallow farmland, and wooded areas comprise the balance of the
Hancock Neighbourhood.
3. BACKGROUND
3.1 Application to Amend the Official Plan of the Former Town of Newcastle
In April of 1992, WDM Consultants filed an application to amend the Official Plan for
the former Town of Newcastle. The application (OPA 92-N/007) contemplated the
following:
• an increase in the target population of Neighbourhood 3C from 1900 to 3600;
• the introduction of a Neighbourhood Commercial site;
• the designation of medium and low density residential areas;
• the realignment of the collector road network;
• the introduction of Minor Open Space designations; and,
• the re-definition of Hazard Land Areas.
In September of 1995, the applicant requested that the Durham Regional Planning
Department refer the application to the Ontario Municipal Board. The Clarington
Official Plan was approved by Clarington Council in January of 1996, and
incorporated many of the changes contemplated by OPA 92-N/007. Nevertheless,
the applicant received legal advise to continue with the referral of application OPA
92-N/007 and the referral remains before the Ontario Municipal Board.
3.2 Referral No. 3
The Clarington Official Plan was approved by the Regional Municipality of Durham
on October 31, 1996. The applicant referred the following portions of the Clarington
Official Plan (Referral No. 3):
658
t
REPORT NO.: PD-106-98 PAGE 4
• the population figure for the Hancock Neighbourhood;
the low density housing unit targets for the Hancock Neighbourhood, the
Courtice Urban Area and the corresponding totals; and,
• Section 14.4.3 which requires a minimum setback for development from natural
features and Environmental Protection Areas, other than stream valleys.
3.3 Application to Amend the Clarington Official Plan
On June 27, 1997, an application for an amendment to the Clarington Official Plan,
(COPA 97-007) was received from WDM Consultants. The main purpose of this
application was to remove the Medium Density (M) Symbol on the applicant's
northern plan of subdivision (18T-94027). The amendment application also proposes
related adjustments to population and housing targets for the neighbourhood. A
Public Meeting as required by the Planning Act with respect to the proposed
amendment was held on September 8, 1997.
The applicant referred this application (COPA 97-007) to the Ontario Municipal Board
in February of 1998 in order to allow it to be consolidated with Referral No. 3 to the
Clarington Official Plan.
3.4 Settlement Discussions
Staff met with the applicant and his consultants a number of times over the past year.
Through the preparation of the Neighbourhood Design Plan, including conceptual
servicing plans many of the issues surrounding the development of this area have
been resolved.
b .~
L
f
REPORT NO.: PD-106-98
PAGE 5
One issue was the requirement in the Official Plan for a setback from natural features
identified as Environmental Protection Areas. Section 14.4.3 requires a setback of lot
lines from natural features such as valleylands and woodlots with the setback to be
determined on asite-specific basis. In no case shall the setback be less than 5 metres.
Staff are proposing a modification to add an exception to Section 14.4. Modification
No. 171 introduces a new subsection 14.4.5 in the Clarington Official Plan as
detailed in Attachment No. 2. The proposed modification is discussed in Section 7.5
of this report.
The cumulative effect of proposed Amendment No. 10 and Modification No. 171
would be the resolution of Referral No. 3 to the Clarington Official Plan, thus
substantially reducing the length of time for the Ontario Municipal Board Hearing.
3.5 Related Subdivision and Zoning Applications
The applicant currently has active applications for two proposed developments within
the Hancock Neighbourhood; one in the southeast quadrant (18T-92014 and DEV 92-
033) and the second in the northwest quadrant (18T-94027 and DEV 94-067). These
applications are also before the Board and have been consolidated with the hearing
regarding Referral No. 3 to the Clarington Official Plan. Reports PD-107-98 and PD-
108-98 will deal with these applications separately.
4. PUBLIC NOTICE AND SUBMISSIONS
4.1 In accordance with the Planning Act, a Public Meeting with respect to the matter was
held on September 8's, 1997. As prescribed by the Planning Act, notice of the
September 8~', 1997 Public Meeting was provided to all assessed property owners
within 120 metres of the subject lands.
640
t
REPORT NO.: PD-106-98
PAGE 6
4.2 One verbal submission was received in support of development in the Hancock
Neighbourhood. Four written submissions have been received expressing concerns
regarding the following:
• the need for a watershed study
• storm water management
• destruction of the natural environment
• residential density
• increased traffic
These issues will be elaborated upon within Section 7 of this Report. The
submissions are attached to this report.
5. OFFICIAL PLAN POLICIES
5.1 Durham Regional Official Plan
Within the Durham Regional Official Plan, the subject property is designated as a
Living Area, with indications of Environmentally Sensitive Areas. Lands designated for
Living Areas shall be used primarily for housing purposes. In light of their ecological
functions and scientific and educational values Environmentally Sensitive Areas, are
subject to environmental impact studies to determine the degree of sensitivity, the
potential cumulative effects of any proposed development and need for mitigating
measures.
5.2 Clarington Official Plan
Within the Clarington Official Plan, the Hancock Neighbourhood is predominantly
designated low density urban residential. The Neighbourhood contains three
Medium Density (M) symbols along the east side of Courtice Road.
Two woodlots and the valley lands associated with Black Creek and its tributaries are
641
REPORT NO.: PD-106-98
PAGE 7
designated as Environmental Protection Areas. These areas and their ecological
functions are to be preserved and protected from the effects of human activity.
Development on these lands is not permitted.
Map C1 indicates that the entire neighbourhood falls within the Lake Iroquois Beach.
The Lake Iroquois Beach is a geological feature in the Municipality identified in
recognition of its extensive forested areas and wildlife habitat, and its significant
functions of groundwater recharge and discharge.
Map C7 also indicates hazard lands and a small portion of the tableland woodlots are
shown associated with Black Creek, its tributaries and the valley lands of both.
6. AGENCY COMMENTS
The application for an amendment to the Clarington Official Plan was circulated to
various departments and agencies for comments. In addition, proposed Modification
No. 171 was circulated to Central Lake Ontario Conservation and the Durham
Regional Planning Department. The following provides a brief synopsis of the
comments received.
6.1 Durham Regional Planning Department
The Regional Planning Department reviewed the proposed amendment and
Modification No. 171 in relation to the policies of the Durham Regional Official Plan
and the Provincial Policy Statements. The Regional Planning Department advised that
both the proposed amendment and Modification No. 171 meet the general intent of
the policies of both documents.
642
t
REPORT NO.: PD-106-98 PAGE 8
6.2 Central Lake Ontario Conservation (CLOG)
CLOG has advised that they have no objection to either the removal of the Medium
Density (M) symbol from Map A2 of the Clarington Official Plan or the adjustments to
the housing unit targets as proposed by Amendment No. 10.
With respect to Section 14.4.3, CLOG advises that ideally a minimum 5 metre
setback, as contemplated by Section 14.4.3 would be incorporated into the two
related plans of subdivision (18T-92014 and 18T-94027). However, the clearing of
native vegetation and the subsequent agricultural activities has resulted in new edge
growth around the perimeter of sensitive areas which abut these two plans. Given
these changes and the site specific mitigative measures recommended by the
Environmental Impact Statement, CLOG has no objection to the introduction of a new
subsection 14.4.5 as contemplated by Modification No. 171.
6.3 Separate School Board
The Separate School Board has no objection to the proposal and notes that specific
conditions of draft approval have been forwarded for the two related draft plans of
subdivision.
6.4 Clarington Fire Department
The Clarington Fire Department did not object to the proposed Official Plan
Amendment. However, it was noted that Station #4 in Courtice is manned by full
time staff only between the hours of 6:00 a.m. and 6:00 p.m. After 6:00 p.m. fire
fighters must respond when notified by pager and response times are becoming more
difficult to attain as increased growth occurs along with the corresponding increase in
traffic.
643
REPORT NO.: PD-106-98 PAGE 9
6.5 Other Agencies/Departments
The balance of the agencies which provided comments with respect to the proposed
amendment were Ontario Hydro, the Regional Health Department, the Regional
Works Department, the Clarington Public Works Department and the Clarington
Community Services Department. None of these agencies have objections to the
proposed amendment application. Although the Kawartha Pine Ridge District School
Board provided comments and conditions of draft approval for the two related plans
of subdivision, a response with respect to COPA 97-007 has not been received.
7. STAFF COMMENTS
7.1 Removal of Medium Density (M) Symbol
The applicant's proposal includes the removal of a Medium Density (M) symbol
from the north west portion of the Neighbourhood. The location of the Medium
Density (M) symbol in the Neighbourhood generally corresponds with the location
of the proposed plan of subdivision 18T-94027.
The applicant originally intended to include a townhouse component within plan. of
subdivision 18T-94027. However, once the location of the Type "C" Arterial road
was finalized, the applicant concluded that it would be difficult to proceed with a
street townhouse development since the Municipality would be reluctant to
approve street townhouses with direct access onto a Type "C" Arterial.
In addition, the applicant's position is that the size of the property is not conducive
to the development of a block townhouse or apartment development without
seriously impacting upon the ability of the balance of the lands to develop in a
comprehensive manner.
644
REPORT NO.: PD-106-98
PAGE 10
The Clarington Official Plan establishes the following housing targets by housing
type:
70% detached, semi-detached and similar housing forms
20% townhouse, walk-up apartment and similar housing forms
10% apartments
It is noted that these targets are for the Municipality as whole and not individual
neighbourhoods.
The removal of the Medium Density (M) symbol would result in the following
changes to the distribution of housing types in the Neighbourhood:
detached, semi-detached housing and similar
housing forms
townhouse, walk-up apartment and similar
housing forms
Existing Proposed
Official Plan Amendment
81% 89%
19%
11%
While the applicant's proposal would lead to less diversity of housing types within
this neighbourhood, it will not impact the overall targets for the Municipality.
Moreover, the environmental considerations including a high water table has led
staff to recommend lower densities for this Neighbourhood, and consequently a
greater portion of detached and semi-detached housing types.
Given the foregoing, staff have no objection to the removal of the Medium Density
(M) symbol as proposed by the applicant and detailed in Amendment No. 10 to the
Clarington Official Plan.
645
REPORT NO.: PD-106-98 PAGE 11
7.2 Housing Targets by Neighbourhood
The applicant's proposal also includes various adjustments to Table 9-2 of the
Clarington Official Plan. The adjustments to the housing targets by neighbourhood
are detailed in the following:
• medium density units adjusted down by 75 units to reflect the removal of the
Medium Density (M) symbol;
intensification units adjusted down by 25; and
• low density units adjusted up by 100 units to reflect the removal of the Medium
Density (M) symbol and reduction of intensification.
The following chart details the differences between the Council adopted Official
Plan, the proposal of Courtice Heights and Amendment No. 10 as proposed by staff.
HANCOCK NEIGHBOURHOOD HOUSING TARGETS
Low Medium High Intensify- Total
cation
COUNCIL ADOPTED 750 t75 0 50 975
OFFICIAL PLAN
COURTICE HEIGHTS 875 too o to 985
PROPOSAL
PROPOSED sso too 0 2s 975
AMENDMENT NO. 10
Although the number of total units for the Hancock Neighbourhood would remain
constant at 975, there is also a marginal increase in population as a result of
differences in occupancy rates. In order to determine population, an occupancy
rate of 3.0 persons per unit is used for low density development while an
occupancy rate of 2.6 persons per unit is used for medium density development.
The increased number of low density units results in an increase in the planned
population of 60 persons, even though the total number of units is constant. Due to
rounding, this proposed increase in population proposed in Amendment No. 10 is
646
REPORT NO.: PD-106-98
PAGE 12
from 2800 to 2900. It is noted that under the interpretation provisions of the
Official Plan, an adjustment to population figure is not required but simply included
for the sake of completeness.
7.3 Intensification Target
Section 6.2.4 of the Clarington Official Plan states that one objective of the Plan will
be to provide for opportunities for residential intensification. Recognizing this, the
Council adopted Official Plan has established an intensification component of 50
units within Table 9-2. This component is intended to accommodate not only
future severances from the large residential lots along Courtice, Nash and Hancock
Roads but also the potential for apartments-in-houses. The proposed Amendment
submitted by the applicant included a reduction in the intensification figure from 50
to 10.
The applicant's position was that the proposed reduction was justified given the
limited opportunities for intensification within the Neighbourhood. The Hancock
Neighbourhood Design Plan indicates a potential for approximately 10 infill lots,
but the applicant's proposed amendment did not allow for the possibility of future
apartments-in-houses. Apartments-in-houses are a valuable component of the
Municipality's housing stock, aiding in the provision of a broad range of housing
types and tenures. As such, staff felt it was inappropriate to reduce the
intensification figure from 50 to 10. However, staff would support a reduction of the
intensification targets to 25 allowing for approximately 10 infill lots and 15
apartments-in-houses. It would also maintain the housing target for the
neighbourhood at 975.
647
REPORT NO.: PD-106-98
PAGE 13
7.4 Density
Overall, the development of the Hancock Neighbourhood will proceed with a gross
density of 5.09 units per acre (12.58 units per hectare). This is lower than the
density of most neighbourhoods in Courtice; the typical density is 7 units per acre
(17.3 units per hectare). As noted earlier, the lower density for the Hancock
Neighbourhood is a reflection of various environmental considerations including a
high water table. The density will allow for larger single detached lots (15 m
frontages), most located on lands other than those owned by Courtice Heights
Developments.
7.5 Development Setback from Woodlots
As noted in Section 3.3 of this Report, Staff also entered into discussions with the
applicant in the fall of 1997 on matters referred to the Ontario Municipal Board. A
draft modification was prepared in consultation with CLOC staff and forwarded to the
applicant, who subsequently indicated concurrence.
Modification No. 171 introduces new Subsection 14.4.5 within Chapter 14 of the
Clarington Official Plan. The new Subsection would read as follows:
"Notwithstanding Section 14.4.3, a development setback for the woodlots designated
Environmental Protection Area shall not be required for Plans of Subdivision 18T-
92014 and 18T-94027. Appropriate measures to protect Environmental Protection
Areas on adjacent lands shall be implemented through the conditions of draft
approval for the subdivision."
Although the applicant is being provided an exception from the requirements of
Section 14.4.3, it is noted that this is a unique situation. Ideally, a minimum 5 metre
setback should be provided but the clearing of native vegetation prior to the Woodlot
Preservation By-law has disturbed the natural forest edge. Environmental reports
64~
REPORT NO.: PD-106-98 PAGE 14
indicated that the existing edge disturbed by woodlot clearing and subsequent
farming activities has pre-stressed the trees and resulted in new edge growth.
Additional disturbances to the woodlot should be minimal with restrictive conditions
of draft approval for those lots backing on to the woodlots.
It is noted that all lots backing onto woodlots are deeper and the proposed zoning by-
law requires accessory buildings to be setback from the rear property line at least 2
metres.
7.6 Environmentallssues
Several submissions from area residents expressed environmental concerns,
specifically:
• the environmental sensitivity of the site and the destruction of natural habitat;
and,
• the need for a watershed study.
With respect to the environmental sensitivity of the site and the destruction of habitat,
staff note that the most significant environmental features have been selected for
protection under the Environmental Protection Area designation in the Official Plan.
However, the designation of these lands for urbanization in the 1976 Durham
Regional Official Plan has inevitably led to a conflict between the natural
environment and approved land uses. Through the numerous environmental reports,
acceptable means of mitigating impacts have been identified. Furthermore, the
requirement to prepare Environmental Management Construction Plans through
conditions of draft approval for every plan of subdivision in this neighbourhood will
ensure that the recommendations of these reports are consolidated and implemented
on a site specific basis at the time of construction. Thus, while there will be impacts
on the natural environment and wildlife habitat, every possible action will be taken to
649
REPORT NO.: PD-106-98
PAGE 15
preserve the most significant components and to mitigate the impacts of urbanization.
As for the need for a watershed study, staff note that this issue has been addressed by
both Regional and Municipal staff in the past. Watershed plans are prepared in large
part to establish the limits of development. As noted above, the principle of
development in the Courtice Urban Area was established more than 20 years ago
with the approval of the 1976 Durham Regional Official Plan. Sub-watershed plans
are then prepared to identify conceptual implementation plans including storm water
management facilities. It is noted that the Official Plan requires the preparation of a
sub-watershed study prior to municipal approval of any draft plan of subdivision.
However, where a master drainage plan was prepared prior to the adoption of the
new Official Plan, the master drainage plan is sufficient. As noted below, a master
drainage plan covering Hancock Neighbourhood has been prepared and approved.
Accordingly, the Official Plan imposes no requirement for either a watershed study or
asub-watershed study.
In 1980 a storm water management study was prepared for Central Lake Ontario
Conservation for the Courtice Urban Area. It has been updated in 1989, 1990 and
1991. This study was updated to meet increasing standards along with the findings of
Environmental Impact Studies. Central Lake Ontario Conservation and Public Works
staff indicate that these studies, the environmental impact studies and the various
addendum provide for development in Hancock Neighbourhood to meet all current
standards. Accordingly, it is staff's view that a watershed study is not necessary for
the assessment of this application nor the two related plans of subdivision (18T-92014
and 18T-94027).
7.7 Storm Water Issues
Two residents raised concerns regarding surface water flows. However, it should be
650
REPORT NO.: PD-106-98
PAGE 16
noted that this issue is not relevant to the matters addressed in the proposed official
plan amendment or the proposed modification. This concern is addressed in the
reports on the southerly draft plan of subdivision and the related rezoning (PD-107-
98).
7.8 Increase in Traffic
One submission from an area resident raised concerns about future increases in
volume of traffic. Staff note that the Hancock Neighbourhood is evolving from a rural
environment to a more urban environment in accordance with the designations in the
Durham Regional and Clarington Official Plans. Although, this evolution will likely
take a number of years, the development of the Hancock Neighbourhood will
increase traffic on Hancock, Courtice and Nash Roads. It should also be noted that
within the Clarington Official Plan, Courtice Road is a Type "A" Arterial, while Nash
Road is a Type "B" Arterial and Hancock Road is a Collector. All three of these road
classifications are intended to move higher volumes of traffic than local roads.
8. CONCLUSION
8.1 The purpose of this Report is to provide a Council position before the Ontario
Municipal Board as detailed in Section 3 of this Report.
8.2 Amendment No. 10 provides for fewer medium density housing units and a
reduction of intensification targets. These changes are relatively minor and
appropriate given the unique circumstances in this neighbourhood, including the
large woodlots and the environmental sensitivity. As such, staff recommend the
endorsement of proposed Amendment #10 as the municipal position before the
Ontario Municipal Board.
651
REPORT NO.: PD-106-98 PAGE 17
8.3 Although, Modification No. 171 provides an exception from the setback
requirements from woodlots (Section 14.4.3 of the Clarington Official Plan), this is a
unique situation and the recommendations of the various environmental studies will
provide for appropriate measures in order to protect the remaining significant
environmental features. These recommendations will be implemented through the
conditions of draft approval for the related plans of subdivision.
8.4 Courtice Heights Developments concurs with the proposed resolution of Referral
No. 3 and proposed Amendment No. 10 to the Clarington Official Plan.
Accordingly, they would support the approval of both documents by the Ontario
Muncipal Board.
Respectfully submitted,
-~
Franklin Wu, M.C.I.P., R. P. P,
Director of Planning and Development
WM*DC*FW*km
08 September 1998
Reviewed by,
," ' ~
W.H. Stockwell,
Chief Administrative Officer.
Attachment No. 1 - Amendment No. 10 to the Clarington Official Plan
Attachment No. 2 - Modification No. 171 to the Clarington Official Plan
Attachment No. 3 - Proposed Amendment submitted by WDM Consultants
Attachment No. 4 - Key Map
Attachment No. 5 - Submission from Friends of Farewell
Attachment No. 6 - Submission from Melanie and Rick Daniels
Attachment No. 7 - Submission from Douglas Dearden
Attachment No. 8 - Submission from Mr. & Mrs. C. Goodman
Interested parties to be notified of Council and Committee's decision:
652
WDM Consultants
20 Clematis Road
V\(illowdale, Ontario M2J 4X2
Stan & Libby Racansky
3200 Hancock Road
Courtice, Ontario L1E 2M1
Pam Callus
3452 Courtice Road
Courtice, Ontario L1E 2L6
Linda Gasser
P.O. Box 399
Orono, Ontario LOB 1M0
Kerry Madam
3828 Trulls Road
Courtice, Ontario L1E 2L3
Mark Roper
101 Kingswood Drive
Courtice, Ontario L1E 1G3
Bob Kresul
41 Livings Court i
Courtice, Ontario L1E 2V6
Brian Strong
3151 Courtice Road
Courtice, Ontario L1 E 2H8
Doug Dearden
3163 Courtice Road
Courtice, Ontario L1E 2H8
Mrs T. Givelas
7 Fewster Street
Courtice, Ontario L1 E 2V7
Pat MacDonald
1834 Nash Road
Courtice, Ontario L1E 2M2
Andre Nadler
1828 Nash Road
Courtice, Ontario L1E 2M2
Melanie and Rick Daniels
3142 Hancock Road North
Courtice, Ontario L1E 2M1
Mr. & Mrs. C. Goodman
3056 Hancock Road
Courtice, Ontario L1E 2M2
653
ATTACHMENT NO. 1
AMENDMENT NO. 10
TO THE CLARINGTON OFFICIAL PLAN
PURPOSE: The purpose of this amendment is to adjust the housing and
population targets contained within Table 9-2 and Map E1 and to
remove a Medium Density (M) symbol in order to facilitate the
approval of two draft plans of subdivision.
BASIS: The Amendment is based on applications for draft approval by Claret
Investments Limited and Uvalde Investment Company, Files 18T-
92014 and 18T-94027.
ACTUAL
AMENDMENT: The Clarington Official Plan is amended as follows:
1. by amending Table 9-2 by:
a) adjusting the housing targets for the Hancock
Neighbourhood (N6) as follows:
Low Density - from "750" to "850"
Medium Density - from "175" to "100"
Intensification - from " 50" to "25"
b) adjusting the Total for the Courtice Area as follows:
Low Density - from "8675" to "8775"
Medium Density - from "1700" to "1625"
Intensification - from "2058" to "2033"
so that the appropriate lines of Table 9-2 read as follows.
Table 9-2
Housin Targets b Neighbourhoods
Urban Area Housing Units
Neighbourhoods Residential Areas Central Areas Intensification Total
Low Medium High Medium High
N6 Hancock 850 100 0 0 0 25 975
TOTAL 8775 1625 125 110 250 2033 12918
2. by amending Map A2 to delete the Medium Density symbol at
the northwest corner of the Hancock Neighbourhood as shown
on the attached Exhibit "A"
bJ4
-2-
3. by amending Map E1 to adjust the population targets for the
Hancock Neighbourhood from "2800" to "2900" as
shown on the attached Exhibit "B".
Exhibit "A" and "B" attached hereto form part of this Amendment.
IMPLEMENTATION: The provisions set forth in the Clarington Official Plan, as amended,
regarding the implementation of the plan shall apply in regard to this
amendment.
INTERPRETATION: The provision set forth in the Clarington Official Plan, as amended,
regarding the interpretation of the plan shall apply in regard to this
amendment.
U~J
EXHIBIT "A"
,AMENDMENT No. 10 TO THE MUNICIPALITY OF CLARINGTON OFFICIAL PLAN,
MAP A2, LAND USE, COURTICE URBAN AREA
i
i
~1
s
j
1 ,-~
~ ,,! ~ , a~
SPECIAL
SNDY
AREA 5
DELETE °MEDIUM
DENSITY SYMBOL"
j ~ ~~ M
I ' / M M ~%
/ ~' ,-~
~ ~~ o~
~ ~_~ M ~ l
'NASN ROAD
r! i
~a ~ max, ~~~ ~ ~~
'7,F' ~ ~ ;
~''~ M . ~ F
M
~ ~ i O ,, ~ ~
}~ ~ ! ~; ~
1~~
~ ~~ a p
0
;I ~ ~
~~ ~
~ ~ ~~~ ~~~
~U ~
I OO H
O M
~~ O' ~1~~
'`
~'
i
:
/
i
bJb
EXHIBIT "B"
AMENDMENT No. 10 TO THE MUNICIPALITY OF CLARINGTON OFFICIAL PLAN
MAP Ei, NEIGHBOURHOOD PLANNING UNITS, COURTICE URBAN AREA
R3 REFERRED TO THE
ON(ARIO MUNICIPAL BOARD
~ 4 ~~
W RDEN HIGHLAND CJ 6 'y CHANGE POPULATION
p0) (4100) o FROM "2800" TO "2900"
GL EW COCK "
g NASH ROAD 100) (2900) ~ `_
A 1600 ~ KING STREET R3
~~ ~
CEMRPL /
uNGro 8 ~ o~
2100) EMILY 7 ~
STO AVONDALE
o (6 0) a (3600) ~ o
9 ~ ~ --- URBAN BOUNDARY
PENFOUND J NEIGHBOURHOOD BOUNDARY
(3500) Q I
~ ~' w (1000) POPULATION
F J ~
a ~ L ~ (~) SEE SECTION 17.7
DLGCR STREET
11
BArnEw
(4500)
L o sao aoo aoo eoo m
I =®
°a
0
0
MAP Ei ~~
NEIGHBOURHOOD PLANNING UNITS
COURTICE URBAN AREA _
OFFICIAL PLAN ~ 1
MUNICIPALITY OF CLARINGTON
ocTOeER t, tss~ LAKE ONTAR/O
REFER TO SECTIONS v AND 9
MI5 CONSOIIDAIION IS MONDEO FOR CONVENIENCE ONLY
'. NJO REPRESENTS REWESIEO NOOIFlCAIIONS MVp APPROVNS~
ATTACHMENT NO. 2
MODIFICATION NO. 171
TO THE CLARINGTON OFFICIAL PLAN
PURPOSE: The purpose of this modification is to introduce a new Subsection
14.4.5 within Chapter 14 of the Clarington Official Plan.
BASIS: The modification is based upon the Neighbourhood Design Plan
prepared for the Hancock Neighbourhood and the relevant
environmental reports prepared by Ecoplans Limited and submitted by
Claret Investments Limited and Uvalde Investment Company.
ACTUAL
MODIFICATION: The Clarington Official Plan is hereby modified by introducing a new
Subsection 14.4.5 as follows:
"14.4.5 Notwithstanding Section 14.4.3, a development setback
for the woodlots designated Environmental Protection
Area shall not be required for Plans of Subdivision 18T-
92014 and 18T-94027. Appropriate measures to
protect Environmental Protection Areas on adjacent
lands shall be implemented through the conditions of
draft approval for the subdivision."
IMPLEMENTATION: The provisions set forth in the Clarington Official Plan, as amended,
regarding the implementation of the plan shall apply in regard to this
amendment.
INTERPRETATION: The provision set forth in the Clarington Official Plan, as amended,
regarding the interpretation of the plan shall apply in regard to this
amendment.
b~t~
ATTACHMENT NO. 3
AMENDMENT NO.
TO THE CLARINGTON OFFICIAL PLAN
PURPOSE: To amend the Official Plan of the Municipality of Clarington to facilitate
the approval of two draft plans of subdivision.
BASIS: The Amendment is based on applications for draft approval by
Claret Investments Limited
Uvalde Investment Company
File #18T-92014 and 18T-94027
ACTUAL
AMENDMENT: - to remove the medium density designation in the northwest
comer of the Hancock neighbourhood on Map A2 and replace
with urban residential
- to adjust the Hancock neighbourhood population from 2,800 to
2,900 on Map Ei
- to adjust the housing targets for the Hancock neighbourhood as
shown on table 9-2 from 750 u low density to 875 u, from 175 u
medium density to 100 u, from 50 u intensification to 10 u, and
the total from 975 u to 985 u
- to adjust the total housing targets for the Courtice Urban Area
as shown on table 9-2 from 8,500 u low density to 8,625 u, and
1,650 u medium density to 1,575 u, and from 2,058 u
intensification to 2,018 u, and the total from 12,618 u to 12,628 u
- corresponding changes to the text to accommodate these
adjustments.
IMPLEMENTATION: The provisions set forth in the Clarington Official Plan, as
amended, regarding the implementation of the Plan, shall apply
in regard to this amendment.
INTERPRETATION: The provisions set forth in the Clarington Official Plan, as
amended, regarding the interpretation of the Plan, shall apply in
regard to this amendment.
bJ~
Table 9-2
Housin Ta ets Nei hbourht7ods
Housin Units
Ultlan Area
' Neighbourhoods R«Wennal Areas Centel Arcac [meas(6- ToW
«lbn
I.ow Medium High Medium H
CoUI'tice
Nl Ma1n Ceafral Aru 0 0 0 0 25(1 f00 750
N2 Sub Ccntnl Aru 0 0 0 0 0 350 350
N3 Wordtn 1175 l25 0 0 0 I00 1400
N4 Highland 1225 I00 0 0 0 75 1x00
NS Glrnview 550 425 0 IIO 0 50 1135
8 39 9
9
5
N6 Hancock [:
)758- ~ 0 0 0 -
• [:
j
7
-
N7 Avondale 825 200 0 0 0 275 1300
N8 Em0y $tOWt 1475 275 0 0 0 550 2300
N9 Pentound 1075 75 0 0 0 75 1225
N10 DarOrtgton 450 25 0 0 0 383 858
Nll Bayviav 975 250 50 0 0 SO 1325
N12 Fuewefl Het u•
g ~
1
~
TorAL ~
r• w 1la uo - 7
~
t
e-
Bowmanville
NI Ass[ Main Cenral Atu 0 0 0 550 175 275 1000
N2 Wat Main Central Aru 0 0 0 250 1700 0 1950
N3 Manorial 975 0 250 0 0 350 1576
N4 Central 425 125 75 0 0 75 700
NS Vincent Massey 1025 a00 0 0 0 175 1600
N6 Apple Blossom 1250 275 0 25 0 125 1675
N7 Elgin 1025 50 50 125 75 150 1475
N8 Fenwkk 1325 525 0 - 0 0 100 1950
N9 Y,nauc 1450 125 0 125 75 125 1900
x10 Narthgkn (.7825 x0150 0 100 50 50 [71175
Nll BmothBl 1325 425 0 0 0 75 1825
N12 Darlington Grcca 700 175 0 0 0 125 1000
N13 Westvak 1025 350 275 25 0 TS 1750
xla wavedy Ims 250 so zs o 7s Ia7s
NIS PM DaNn on 550 450 175 0 0 25 1200
TOTAL X712975 (.73300 875 1225 2075 1800 (722750
Newcastle Village
Nl Maln Central Aru 0 0 0 100 50 75 225
N2 Grnlum 1075 100 0 0 0 100 1275
N3 Faslu 1450 200 0 0 0 ITS 1775
N4 Port of NcwcasOc 500 325 0 0 2517 0 1075
N5 North VlOagc 1050 250 0 0 0 50 1350
N6 WOmot 960 0 0 0 0 0 960
TOTAL 5035 875 0 100 300 350 6660
• Poten0al housing units for Farcxr111{elghts neighbourhood aubjecl to ih< provisbru o[ Special Poliwy Aru G (Stabn 16.9)
a a1r On4r:e un.kyd toed
q
f) ~~ ro w. u,r.ro ara.:~r eeed (t4+ed if) 57
V
SFEL41
'
PEC
sN m
DT
ARU s
~
~ R4 R4
l
1 DELETE
* '.''W~.
< i
~
R4 •
R4 „
d R4
...
M ® L M
O
M ~ ~
i R4 s. .. .,.,. ~ R4 M R4 M '~ R4
1
I
i
~ I';
Iv
•
i
i
~~
~~~ ~°.~
®Oanxrnu~E acc>~®c~ w~
OFFICIAL PUN
M UNICIPALItt OF CURIA GTCN
ccTceea r., 1396
uKE or~r~Rio
y®
® DEEE0.RED BT
THE REGION Of DURHw
RA REFERRED i0 THE
ONTNiIO MUNICIPAL BOARD
URBW 60UNOARY
N1LRE
URBW RESIDENTNL
O URflVI RESIDENR4
® uEDIUU DENSTM
M RE9DENML
® INCH IxNSm
N RESIDENR4.
waN cExrtuL utEA
w6-cENrwri AREA
- LOCPL CF]JTPAL ARU
NEIGHBOURHOOD
® CDMMERCUL
HIGHWAY COMMEALNL
PRESTIGE
EMPLOYMENT AREA
ucNr
INDUSTRIFL MEA
GENEPAL
INDUSTRIPL MEA
UIRM
ENNRONMENTAL
PROTECTION AAU
GREEN SPALE
WATERFHCNt GREFNWAT
® CCAIMUNItt PPIiN
• DIS113iCT PPRN
• NEIGN80URHOOD PPRK
Pufiuc
SECONDNtt SCHOOL
SEPARATE
SECONDARY SCHOOL
Pu6uc
i ELEMENTPRT SCHWL
SEPPFATE
ELEMEMAh' SpIWL
sECONDARr
PIpNNINC ME4
~~~°~~ SPELIpL PDl1CY AREA
••••• ~~ • COE A ION DY PREA
a
F
ATTACHMENT NO. 5
, ~ , Friends of the Farewell Clerks Department 1'o Council
3200 Hancock Rd
Courtice, Oa LIE 2M1 _
MUNICIPALITY OF CtARINGTQ
Re: The Amendment to the OtBcial P{an for Hancock Ncighbourlrood Pde No.: COPA 9 -007~yyNNING DEPAflT~~~
The Amendment for Hanrock Ncighhmtrheod should not be approved for these reasons:
I. Since our first Public Meeting we were presented with different numbers of population increases in many
dacumeuts submitted by the proponent; [he highest number was 4 400. A 1900 population was assigned for the whole
neighbourhood and not just far the proponent's land for various reasons. The applicant doesn't take in consideration
two schools with approximately 400 students, one church for 400 people and he doesn't consider at all the existing
number of residents.
According to Table 9-2 in [he O.P., [his neighbourhood's total housing is 975 units, the applicant's number seems
to be slightly different, 985.
The number ofezisling units in 3CII- north ofNash is 60;
the number of caisting writs in 3CI - south of Nash is 177 units.
Together this makes 237 units. This number, two schools, occupying 2.4 ha
each and one church ov t.56 ha area also be considered in deduction from the total number.
2. Same forest was cleared by [he proponent prior to the Official Plan Amendment Only species that are found
in typical urban areas were described in his first environmental study because this nssessntent was done on the
proponent's cleared Land. Only recent studies are popping up with species of Oora and fauna that are rare and
we have known to be present here. Many tributaries here and also in 3B neighbourhood around Horban Pond were
either buried under tons of fill or cut otl; their water now is being dispersed throughout HancOCk woods, onto our
properties, where the resulting wetness tvas cause some trees that cannot withstand [his condition [o rot and fall, thus
making it dangerous focus to walk through. One of the tributaries is now disgracefully conning through a ditch
instead of its original course tlvough the proponent's land. In spite of this degradation the know [hat 3C land still
has over 50% environmentaify sensitive areas.
3. Where is the applicant's demonstration that should be given according to the Provincial Policy Stalemeot that
there should 6e no impact on the ecosystem when sensitive land like groundwater recharge area is being
developed? Ail previous and even the latest study in 1996 predict that the decline of the water table level will
be SOcm. We also know that 3C has an unconfined aquifer where the water is not under pressure aad that the
water [able level is the same as [he water table level outside of our wolls. We feel that [his decline is
significant Studies from 1989, 1990 and even 1996 on decrease of the 6aseflow for Black Creek due to future
urbanisation all predict that there will be no significant change. How do they know when all these studies were
done daring winter time when we know that the frozen ground hinders the groundwater movement, their
monitors always froze and the readings were not obtained.
4. If the applicant is so concerned about spending the money for the planned quality retaining pond and if this is the
only reason for increasing the population, why not just improve the existing storm water detention facrlity south of
Nash and change it into a quality retaining pond. It would cost less.money and existing not well funcioning pond
would be improved and the water quality coming from the outfall which is described in [he proponents studies as
with oily, greyish appearance containing clumps of blue-green algae, being indicative of nutrient enrichment
would be taken care of. This description of the outfall to cold stream creek is one of the cumulative impacts of
the development in the absence of waterbed ptnnning. With this improvement three problems could be addressed
at the same time: a) less money would be spear and a not well functioning pond would be improved
b) the populatioo would not have to be increased
c) and hopefully, [he applicant could withdraw from the time consuming and expensive OMB hearings.
Lbby and Stan Racansky ^C . t' ~-"-~` --' I ~ \ j
r T
cc. Isabel B. Little, Planner ~ 1 z 1 ~ ' , I 'f,
iG~ ~ ~ ` i II 1 ~ - - ~~
1' ~ ~ , ;I ~'~ OI
~ ° ~;
~j !Y 1 ~_ o i :. O
:I- Y~ z_ t I I
((~ i I_
Vr W x CAL O I
p 1 ! t
~ n 3 -- ____ _ - -
ATTACHMENT NO. 6
3142 Hancock Road North
Courtice, ON L1E 2M1
Phone: (905)404-0084; Fax: (905)404-8157
The Municipality of Clarington
40 Temperance Street
Bowmanville, ON L1C 3A6
September 7, 1997
Attention: Planning Department
This is in regard to the recent notice for approval of increased
population density for the development that apparently has been
approved behind our home.
It was our understanding that this development had not been
approved; that further water shed studies needed to be done. It
was also our understanding that we would be notified by mail if
there was any new action brought before the council. This
development will have a profound impact on the ecology of our
neighbourhood, it will among other things: change our entire
community; possibly destroy our well; bring increased traffic to
our street.
We were not informed that there would be a meeting to decide on the
approval of this development. We were also not informed that an
application for increased population density was coming before the
council for approval. The last time we had contact with your
department we were guaranteed that anyone living within the
boundaries expected to be impacted by this development would be
notified by mail of these important meetings.
We have been informed that a resident on Solina Road North has
covered his property with contaminated soil from the GM Battery
Plant. This was apparently done without a permit or consultation
with anyone. As the water apparently flows from northwest to
southeast in this area, the contaminants may have already permeated
the entire water table that the residents of this area rely on. We
could all be consuming water full of heavy metals and hazardous
chemicals. Would you confirm or deny these allegations? If this is
in fact so, what are your intentions to remedy this situation? We
understand that you have been informed of this situation and that
nothing concrete has been done. As this could have profound health
implications for our family and neighbours, it seems to us that any
thinking person in a position of power within the community would
have taken this very seriously and acted with decisiveness and
speed. Rumour is that the decision made-was to issue him a permit
after the fact. Are we being knowingly poisoned? PLEASE RESPOND!
Yours trnuly /
~*~ld ~//
eN~e Daniels. Richard Daniels
664
ATTACHMENT NO. 7
+~ ~
September 8, 1997
Douglas Dearden
3163 Courtice Rd.
Courtice, Ontario
LlE 2H8
To Whom It May Concern,
SEP 9 ~~:,;
MUNICIPALITY OF CIARINGTON
Subject: Official Plan Amendment under Secti n 22 of the Plannin Act
I am writing in response to your proposal to change the land use designation of a portion of the
neighbourhood as stated in the planning file # COPA 97-007.
In May we received a letter from the Central Take Ontario Conservation Authority stating a
concern for the wetland known as the Courtice North Wetland which lies within a block
enclosed by Taunton Rd., Hancock Rd., Nash Rd. and Truil's Rd.. I have attached their letter and
my response to that letter for your perusal. We informed them that we have been experiencing
difficulties with drainage in the last two years due to the subdivision below Nash Rd. which was
built on the flood plain previously used by the creek.
Our present concern is the destruction of these wetlands and the subsequent effect on the
environment of our neighbourhood. We have lived here for almost twenty years and have seen
vast changes in the community. Some have been advantageous while others have appeared to be
only for private gain. I would like to know exactly who will benefit by this tatest project. It will
certainly not be the wildlife or vegetation in these wetlands.
I would like to see the C.L.O.C.A. study made public to Courtice residents and C.L.O.C.A.'s
assessment of medium density housing on the environment and wetlands. Presently we have a
high water table.. Can we expect the water table to drop if sewers are installed and who will
rectify the problems it creates with our wells?
In summation, the redesignation of this land demonstrates a total lack of concern for the
environment and the lifelong citizens of Courtice therefore we are strongly op~gd.lQ..tht ~._._._.. _.___~-
amendment_ ~l$.1. ~ ~ r IAN:
Yours truly, ~ CLFRr~„~~_.---„-.r
Dou Dearden
X905 436-2156
nC1(. E3Y
ORIGINAL 'ib:....___,__..,`
C4FiI~S T0:
I
bbd
/// r
~~
~.
~~~~_~
ATTACHMENT NO. 8
t
,L
~ ~~ ~
Cam. c2, 'f -~f ~,<Z /z~a-~r~t.~ ;~ a s~ ~ %~
~ ~ ~~~x~ a~~~~ `~~~
~~ ~~~~,~~~ Z~~~ c~c`~~ ~ ,G~~~ ~aL~
.~r~-~ .~ ~ ~ ~ 7~u,~. fie.
~(-!~ i"G74 ,gin-d2~ 1
~~ 0 ~-u/Y, co ~u-e~iia~ acne
q ~~ . ~.
r~~~ ' s3 !';~~ ~ ~r
~Y ~~~
f, F
~' ..
SEP a ,,.Nu